Support the GITP forums on Patreon
Help support GITP's forums (and ongoing server maintenance) via Patreon
Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 287
  1. - Top - End - #61
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2017

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by pwykersotz View Post
    I'm okay with people making their characters behave in a multitude of ways, but I do ask that if you remove a bit of RP fluff, you add another equivalent one back in. That city Barbarian who is at home in the walls? I would expect that he's no longer "uncomfortable when hedged in by walls" but is now "uncomfortable in wide open spaces". Your Druid who wears metal armor? I would expect him to have a taboo against a common use of wood or stone. It's the same with the benefits. If your Monk isn't capable of "whirling through foes, knocking their blows aside, and sending them reeling", then come up with something else awesome that you can do.
    Why? You'd still be dictating personal beliefs and aspects of the Player's character. You'd still be saying, "yeah, nice concept but I want you to add this arbitrary fluff to replace the absolutely arbitrary trope we removed from the class you want to play even if it doesn't work with your concept."

    I believe you work with a player. If it doesn't work out, such as the immortal soul eating Paladin from earlier in the thread, then thems the breaks. You ask them to go back to the drawing board. But when the fluff is as innocuous as "Barbarians don't feel comfortable surrounded by walls" there's no reason to place an equal piece of fluff on a player. It's just utilizing power for the sake of having it.

    D&D, at my table, is a cooperative game. We work together to build the best world, story, character development within the parameters of the setting. If you've had a session 0 and have explained the expectations of the campaign, none of these things should be an issue.
    Last edited by Hathorym; 2017-03-13 at 01:30 PM.

  2. - Top - End - #62
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    MonkGirl

    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    NW USA
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast View Post
    I don't know, since a rogue isn't by default a thief (as the original class was.)
    I had asked the OP a three part question and not gotten a response, so I'm going to wait for that before going further.
    Although they *do* all know thieve's cant (I personally moved it to the Criminal background feature and let rogues change it out for another language or tool)

  3. - Top - End - #63
    Titan in the Playground
     
    KorvinStarmast's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Naanomi View Post
    Although they *do* all know thieve's cant (I personally moved it to the Criminal background feature and let rogues change it out for another language or tool)
    Love that idea. A lot.

  4. - Top - End - #64
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    pwykersotz's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Western Washington
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Hathorym View Post
    Why? You'd still be dictating personal beliefs and aspects of the Player's character. You'd still be saying, "yeah, nice concept but I want you to add this arbitrary fluff to replace the absolutely arbitrary trope we removed from the class you want to play even if it doesn't work with your concept."

    I believe you work with a player. If it doesn't work out, such as the immortal soul eating Paladin from earlier in the thread, then thems the breaks. You ask them to go back to the drawing board. But when the fluff is as innocuous as "Barbarians don't feel comfortable surrounded by walls" there's no reason to place an equal piece of fluff on a player. It's just utilizing power for the sake of having it.

    D&D, at my table, is a cooperative game. We work together to build the best world, story, character development within the parameters of the setting. If you've had a session 0 and have explained the expectations of the campaign, none of these things should be an issue.
    1. You assume incorrectly that this is a GM driven rule. It is not. I didn't come up with it, my players did. New players are encouraged to abide by it, or find a way to create in harmony with it.
    2. You assume incorrectly that this is applied with some sort of iron fist. It is not. Note the word "ask in my previous post. It is a guideline to make sure you have developed a well-rounded character, not a snowflake.
    3. Your last line is not mutually exclusive with the rest of your point. I would describe my table the same way.
    Attacking the darkness since 2009.

    List of Unearthed Arcana, Sage Advice, etc.
    Spoiler: Quotes I like
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by icefractal regarding What would a Cat Lord want? View Post
    She wants the renegade Red Dot brought to her court in chains.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dimers regarding a description of Stygia View Post
    Yes, I believe you have won GitP for the day.
    Quote Originally Posted by pwykersotz regarding randomly rolling edgelord backstories View Post
    Huh...Apparently I'm Agony Blood Blood, Half-orc Shadow Sorcerer. I killed a Dragons. I'm Chaotic Good, probably racist.

  5. - Top - End - #65
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    PirateCaptain

    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    This entire thread is Skub.
    In the end, it doesn't matter how you play your game. I could "house-rule" with my table that a Greatsword does 4d12 damage on a hit. Ain't nothing you, or anyone else, can do about it.

    If you want to demand that all Barbarians have panic-attacks when underground or enclosed, then whatever; that's your table, your characters.
    But do not start pulling interpretations out of your butt to tell me how I'm not playing my character right, at an entirely different table.
    Because ultimately, what's it matter to you? Did I ask for a ruling on barbarians' agoraphobia? Is my urban barbarian ruining your play experience?
    "If it's just Dailies done, they'll press on; Fighter cussing monsters, Ranger and Rogue cussing Fighter, and the Cleric cussing everyone. They're only down to about 70% HAIR (hard a** indicative rating) anyway, and probably have yet to run across any sand-paper"

  6. - Top - End - #66
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    pwykersotz's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Western Washington
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainSarathai View Post
    This entire thread is Skub.
    In the end, it doesn't matter how you play your game. I could "house-rule" with my table that a Greatsword does 4d12 damage on a hit. Ain't nothing you, or anyone else, can do about it.

    If you want to demand that all Barbarians have panic-attacks when underground or enclosed, then whatever; that's your table, your characters.
    But do not start pulling interpretations out of your butt to tell me how I'm not playing my character right, at an entirely different table.
    Because ultimately, what's it matter to you? Did I ask for a ruling on barbarians' agoraphobia? Is my urban barbarian ruining your play experience?
    Pfft...that sounds like the sort of claptrap an anti-skub would say.
    Attacking the darkness since 2009.

    List of Unearthed Arcana, Sage Advice, etc.
    Spoiler: Quotes I like
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by icefractal regarding What would a Cat Lord want? View Post
    She wants the renegade Red Dot brought to her court in chains.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dimers regarding a description of Stygia View Post
    Yes, I believe you have won GitP for the day.
    Quote Originally Posted by pwykersotz regarding randomly rolling edgelord backstories View Post
    Huh...Apparently I'm Agony Blood Blood, Half-orc Shadow Sorcerer. I killed a Dragons. I'm Chaotic Good, probably racist.

  7. - Top - End - #67
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    San Jose, California
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Chaosmancer View Post
    Can I play a Barbarian with the Noble (knight) background? Yes, nothing in the rules prevents this. Even if you include fluff=rules, the backgrounds in the PHB do not say "Only fighters can take the soldier background and only thieves can take the criminal background" so there is no rule against mixing and matching and you are encouraged to do so.
    Your class is what you're doing as an adventurer. Your background is what you were doing before you became an adventurer. The rules specifically allow any combination of class/background, and it's up to the player, possibly in cooperation with the DM, to come up with the fluff of how he got from this to that.

    A reformed criminal that became a paladin? An acolyte who had a crisis of faith and sold his soul to the devil? A former career soldier who decided to use his army savings to enroll into Wizards' School? A nobleman's disowned son who now robs tombs for a living? Whatever works, man.

  8. - Top - End - #68
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2014

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    As usual for people who wrongly believe roleplaying is collective storytelling, you've got it exactly back to front. If you are there to collectively storytell, you would all be sitting there while the group took turns writing or telling a story, and your characters would never interact with the adventure or world they live in.

    As soon as they start interacting with the adventure or world they live in, as soon as the players start making in-character decisions, there is no longer a story. Stories cannot be interacted with, no decisions on the part of the characters in them can be made. They can only be written or told.

    Whether or not you'd all get bored and go home is entirely on what kind of people you are.
    Collective storytelling doesn't require you to do it bonfire style. Roleplaying isn't collective storytelling or doesn't have to be. Mostly because you want to define story and roleplaying as one thing, when that's not the case.

  9. - Top - End - #69
    Banned
     
    WolfInSheepsClothing

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Someone asked earlier in this thread about if someone's PoV is normally as the player or gm & if flipping that screen changes things. I'm normally the GM going wayyyyy back. As the gm I'm usually more willing to allow players to color outside the lines & work with them to come up with something that fits what they are going for. As a player, I might make a case, and probably will, but I'm usually more strict on myself than most gm's I've played with expect.


    I think part of the problem is human nature's dislike of being wrong & some people having more issue with it than others. Maybe they ate crow once or lost control & decided they would avoid that by not explaining themselves to the extent the other party is asking for because subconsciously it's obvious deep down that the conscience robot is screaming danger will robinson & waving a flag of doubt.

    Take for example, lets say I want to run a campaign where metallurgy is poorly developed/rare & tell the rogue "sorry guy, rapiers need advanced metalurgy, but it looks like all of your other base proficiency stuff are fine with the basic late bronze/very early iron age level of advancement I'm going for." When the rogue understandably says "uhh... so what else is effected?" & I come back with a list that is made up of "chainmail, studded leather & rapiers", the rogue is extremely justified in saying "uhh... so this effects me pretty heavily since base bard doesn't get rapier & valor bards get full martial+medium proficiency.. aren't you kind of unfairly singling me out?" > "no not at all, the valor bard can't sneak attack".

    after an absurd reply like that, a truly patient rogue might ask "um... ok... so how rare is rare, what does that mean for me exactly if I want one?". The rogue is probably already viewing the whole thing with some significant amount of skepticism & is quickly going to ask the obvious & seemingly very reasonable question "does the heavy armor class who wants a set of plate/greataxe/longsword/etc need to make a skill roll too, or just me if I want a rapier/studded leather?... if he does, are the targets the same, or is my class proficiency just extra special unlucky?... cause I'm having difficulty seeing how you can maintain that you are treating rogues fairly, but refusing to answer any of those questions & some of those seem to be mutually exclusive based on your positions".

    From there, The rogue spends ten pages trying to get the gm to explain anything & points out how a particularly awful style of gm'ing is being displayed, not because he was told no; but by the refusal to explain anything while people ignore all that & focus on why the gm can say no. The rogue is upset that he's being given the impression that he's never going to find a [url=http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21781650&postcount=341"rare" or "exotic"[/url] magic rapier/set of studded while focusing on things he or she wanted to & the gm is upset because the rogue could make it their life's mission to quest for the level of stuff the rest of the party gets while questing for stuff the character wants to care about. Finally the rogue problem is a particular gm & suggests people find another... By the end of that second set of ten pages, the thought of eating crow after so much arguing in favor of contradictory points, the gm runs away & declares that the player was just "acting hostile" & walks away from the whole discussion with the problem player as the rogue did with the problem gm refusing to explain themselves. Player/rogue & gm are pretty set in this example, but they could take either role in other cases.. mainly because most tables are filled with humans.
    • If the rogue needs to spend downtime & roll to find base rapier/studded leather, does the fighter(or whatever) who wants a set of plate?... if yes, is the difficulty going to be the same, or is the rogue correct in that he or she is being unfairly singled out by this particular bit of fluff in my hypothetical campaign? If the fighter does not and/or will generally have an easier target regardless of whatever story reasons I come up with... the rogue is correct.
    • If the fighter (or whatever) will generally need a similarly difficult skill check, I'm wrong because my original list of rare/uncommon/exotic stuff was limited only to "chainmail, studded leather & rapiers" & caused the misunderstanding by a simple lack of clarity on my own part. I'm also wrong because it's not "chainmail, studded leather & rapiers" it's "everything" and the whole point of telling the rogue why he was going to have a hard time with rapiers was irrelevant... Unfortunately, it's too late to admit either of these things because I & someone's obvious second/third account brigade has now spent 20 pages arguing with the rouge.... oops, that rogue is just a hostile problem player.

  10. - Top - End - #70
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Feb 2017

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Tetrasodium View Post
    Take for example, lets say I want to run a campaign where metallurgy is poorly developed/rare & tell the rogue "sorry guy, rapiers need advanced metalurgy, but it looks like all of your other base proficiency stuff are fine with the basic late bronze/very early iron age level of advancement I'm going for." When the rogue understandably says "uhh... so what else is effected?" & I come back with a list that is made up of "chainmail, studded leather & rapiers", the rogue is extremely justified in saying "uhh... so this effects me pretty heavily since base bard doesn't get rapier & valor bards get full martial+medium proficiency.. aren't you kind of unfairly singling me out?" [/LIST]
    That exemple would rely on the DM somehow forgetting all the other armors that require more advanced metallurgy than chain mail.

    Even then, a DM deciding that their campaign world has some features that put one or another player option at disadvantage is not singling the player out or being unfair.

    In some settings, people will throw stones when they see a Tiefling approach a town. Is it unfair for the player who want to have a Tiefling character? In Ravenloft, Clerics are cut out from their deities and get their powers granted by the evil entities controlling the place. Is Ravenloft unfair for the player who want to play a Cleric?

    Also, I don't want to be mean, but it really sounds like you're trying to change this debate to "talking about what happened in another thread".

  11. - Top - End - #71
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    MonkGirl

    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    NW USA
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Unoriginal View Post
    In some settings, people will throw stones when they see a Tiefling approach a town. Is it unfair for the player who want to have a Tiefling character? In Ravenloft, Clerics are cut out from their deities and get their powers granted by the evil entities controlling the place. Is Ravenloft unfair for the player who want to play a Cleric?
    There is definitely an important distinction between 'singling out a player' and 'a player happening to suffer because of the setting'... heck even the published adventures do so to a degree (Curse of Strahd having harder times for Paladins and Clerics as part of the traditional Ravenloft setting, and the people of Mulmaster hating Arcane Spellcasters (with associated mechanics!) in the Dragon Queen modules.

  12. - Top - End - #72
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    San Jose, California
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Tetrasodium View Post
    Take for example, lets say I want to run a campaign where metallurgy is poorly developed/rare & tell the rogue "sorry guy, rapiers need advanced metalurgy
    The DM can just shift the goalposts on what exactly constitutes "poorly developed".

    I once ran a campaign in such a "metallurgy is poorly developed" world.

    - The PCs had access to some shoddily made Plate Armor which only provided AC 18 (if they had access to well-made plate armor, it could have had AC as high as 22, but no one had access to any, because poorly developed metallurgy...)
    - The PCs had access to some shoddily made Longswords which only dealt 1d8 damage (if they had access to properly made longswords, they would have done like 1d12 damage, but no one had access to any, because ... you get it)
    Last edited by Ruslan; 2017-03-13 at 05:48 PM.

  13. - Top - End - #73
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    MonkGirl

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Earth
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    I think where I draw the line on fluff is between "this is how the setting reacts to the PC" and "this is how the PC reacts to the setting". DM comes up the former, player comes up with the latter. Collaboration isn't out of the question, but that's basically how it goes. Tieflings can shrug off their shunning or have it affect them deeply, and same for barbarians and walls.

    When it starts running up against mechanics, then you can start discussing whether it's appropriate for the characters to take up developing great strides in metallurgy.
    Last edited by The Vanishing Hitchhiker; 2017-03-13 at 05:58 PM.

  14. - Top - End - #74
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    BlueKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    On the original subject, I have a particular line in the sand that I'm fond of. I will begin with a disclaimer: this is only true assuming your campaign follows the standard descriptions of everything. If your DM is the type to experiment with fun ideas such as simian elves, ask them about the differences in their world and understand those when making your character.

    In any case, my way of doing things is thus: with each race and class there is a particular point on their pages ("[insert race here] traits" for races and "Class features" for classes). Beyond those points these rules are fairly rigid (e.g. druids wouldn't be able to wear metal armour because that's after the aformentioned section, though DM fiat is a wonderful thing and if I were a DM I'd definitely allow individual druids to wear metal armour if they could provide a character-specific justification).

    Anything before that, however, is strictly fluff and doesn't have rules governing it: everything there just comes down to basic logic. If you're an experienced player (or just understand fantasy settings, as D&D is one of our current baselines for the generic fantasy world) you can ignore that section entirely if you already have a general idea of it: any idiot can tell you how dwarves work in a general sense, but a newcomer may not know what a tiefling is, so you can safely ignore the former and pay attention to the latter. If, as my disclaimer mentions, you have a creative DM who likes altering stuff, that fluff section might not even be relevant.

    TL;DR: rules are only rigid from the point that they start discussing skills and features and such. Anything before that is plenty malleable so long as you understand the core principles of the thing you're looking at.
    Currently daydreaming about: big giant swords.

  15. - Top - End - #75
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    MonkGirl

    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    NW USA
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by mr-mercer View Post
    TL;DR: rules are only rigid from the point that they start discussing skills and features and such. Anything before that is plenty malleable so long as you understand the core principles of the thing you're looking at.
    I completely agree *with the caveat* that some settings might be more restrictive than that for whatever reasons, for example stating all Clerics and Paladins follow one of the 'four Gods detailed here' or somesuch... so long as those setting expectations are clear and consistently applied everything is still good

  16. - Top - End - #76
    Banned
     
    WolfInSheepsClothing

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    amused Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Unoriginal View Post
    That exemple would rely on the DM somehow forgetting all the other armors that require more advanced metallurgy than chain mail.

    Even then, a DM deciding that their campaign world has some features that put one or another player option at disadvantage is not singling the player out or being unfair.

    In some settings, people will throw stones when they see a Tiefling approach a town. Is it unfair for the player who want to have a Tiefling character? In Ravenloft, Clerics are cut out from their deities and get their powers granted by the evil entities controlling the place. Is Ravenloft unfair for the player who want to play a Cleric?

    Also, I don't want to be mean, but it really sounds like you're trying to change this debate to "talking about what happened in another thread".
    Yes, the gm is forgetting it, & the rogue would no doubt bring that up only to be have it dismissed because plate would just be heavier or something. It's a significantly bad false equivalency to suggest that "joe they throw stones at your tiefling" and "steve, sorry your rogue probably can't get rapiers or studded leather & almost certainly won't find those exotic things in magical format unless you go questing explicitly or them."
    As to your last statement about changing the debate, there are two problems there... First, I came in on page 3 & there had already been quite a few posts about both the problems discussed in the other thread and their likely reasons... Almost more involving something friom that thread (including multiple points in the first post & the whole barbarian!city thing). than not.

    Second, you can blame Naanomi for that.

    Spoiler
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by Tetrasodium
    You mentioned that a druid might need to do some side adventuring [with the party's help?], or maybe make a skill roll, to get nonmetal base medium armo; but you also seem to have argued that it's wrong to say the druid is getting any special unlucky treatment making Chaosmancer'spost. even though he wasn't quoting you in the post, it very clearly is addressing things you said in #567 (adventuring staple/skill roll/etc).

    Does the valor bard wanting a set of breastplate/halfplate armor need to go adventuring/make a skill roll & use downtime, or does he just wait for a set to randomly show up knowing he doesn't need to go out of his or her way for base gear?

    If the bard needs to do that adventure/skill roll& downtime, are the target difficulties & downtime needs going to be the same as the druid wanting the same base breastplate/halfplate.. or is the druid almost always going to have higher requirements because very few campaigns take place in & around a significantly important to the plot druid grove?

    if both the bard & druid lack the relevant skill or do poorly on their roll, can they both turn to a more relevantly skilledparty member and say "hey so & so, can you try to find someone to make me a breastplate/halfplate?" across the table, or is only one of them able to do that?

    If the bard & druid are both even in all of those hurdles towards getting base gear with nether being singled out for an unfair disadvantage, doesn't that make the original claim of nonmetal medium armor being rare/exotic in your campaign wrong by adding the nonmetal distinction to "armor in my campaign is rare"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Naanomi
    If you want to have this discussion on a public thread, I would gladly do so. However, I make it a habit, in general, to not use the personal message systems in forum environments; particularly not to people who have been acting even the least bit hostile in more public viewable settings. I will not respond to further personal messages, but feel free to post and I can follow up if you wish.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tetrasodium
    Quote Originally Posted by Naanomi
    If you want to have this discussion on a public thread, I would gladly do so. However, I make it a habit, in general, to not use the personal message systems in forum environments; particularly not to people who have been acting even the least bit hostile in more public viewable settings. I will not respond to further personal messages, but feel free to post and I can follow up if you wish.
    I sent you the pm because you ignored chaosmancer's post, & I myself made not [/url=http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21794661&postcount=571]one[/url], but two attempts to do just that. After that reply, the plate of crow is in your court; but lets just be civil & go on the assumption that you didn't see Chaosmancer's or either of my posts when you were replying to others in the mean time.




    Bold underline emphases mine, no other changes aside from a close italics to close url tag correction. Since it's been quite some time & they are still unwilling to explain or eat that plate of crow & ignored it in the last couple posts here, I think the answer is obvious that it's more about the plate of crow after arguing in favor of mutually invalidating positions than the public thread.



    I don't care about what people think about metal armor on the fourth class listed in the phb 's "chapter 3 classes" section & avoided mentioning it, I care about how people can hold mutually invalidating viewpoints like my rogue & "sorry rapiers/studded leather will be rare, fighters can't sneak attack so nothing to discuss". I'm wanting to know because I've seen people take mutually invalidating positions on other things from time to time & it always amazes me... I think the most obnoxious example was a ranger who wanted to know ", I'm thinking of favored enemy giant, how common will giants be?" & was around level 4-5 before the increasingly shrill gm finally admitted "It's very heavily inspired by ravenloft, you will continue to see mostly undead but might see giants at some point if they are in one of the modules I run & I'm not going to change them for you. so stop asking for information about the future that I'm not going to give, sorry you picked the wrong FE originally" just before the ranger walked off & a significant chunk of the group was looking for a new gm a few days later.... Needless to say we all had a lot of fun at my table while I agreed to start gm'ing for them.

  17. - Top - End - #77
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    MonkGirl

    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    NW USA
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Ok… I waited to post on this because I didn’t want to derail an active thread; plus I was considering just blocking the user and letting it go. However, I did agree that I would pursue it in a public space so I will do so.

    I have two things to address:
    First, a bit about my campaign and playstyle that addresses some of the concerns. I fully admit that these are all assumptions, and that not everyone runs their table this way (nor, perhaps, should they); but only that they are the assumptions that I generally make, and that they have worked reasonably for many years for me as a GM and, by and large, for the players that I have run through many adventures

    1) I tend to a rather strict basic interpretation of the rules, and then apply exceptions later. Sometimes this means that I am more ‘strict’ in the reading of a rule that can be interpreted multiple ways than I could possibly be. I do this for a variety of reasons.

    >a. I sometimes ‘co-GM’ or have people taking characters from one table to another; and while we do good communication between GMs to make sure everyone is on the same page, I tend to stick with the most literal or strict interpretation of the rules as a default position to best support consistency between tables

    >>i. In fact, this is generally why I take this stance on forums and the like: one can never know the expectations and exceptions made at every table, so taking a ‘strict’ stance but then noting when exceptions may appear

    >b. It is very common for me to have new players, in fact new roleplayers, at my table (one of my groups is run at the school I teach at as a student group); and just playing ‘by the rules’ rather than making broad and open interpretations is often, in my experience, a better entry way into the hobby than a list of houserules and loose gameplay style that might be more acceptable at a more experienced table

    >c.In my capacity for running games at school, it is very common for me to be using roleplaying as a way of teaching social skills to students with Autism Spectrum Disorders; and individuals on the spectrum are often very ‘fairness’ and ‘rule’ focused, so it is easier to have an ‘objective’ standard to refer to in order to hedge off disputes of this nature

    >d. While I am very appreciative that the developers are so accessible to the community in this edition of DnD, I don’t consider anything they say in UA, twitter, etc articles to be ‘official’ content until it is integrated into a formal Errata. This is doubly true when they are explicitly making statements about how you *could* modify things rather than statements on the existing rules

    2) I don’t consider anyone at the table to be ‘owed’ anything in regards to their character. We are telling a story, one they are a part of, but ultimately there are limitations of the setting and circumstances of gameplay that may happen favor one player over another because of their actions, as well as setting factors around race and class choices (though not with specifically ‘targeting’ a player, but just organically as a factor of the story). A *player*, to a degree, is owed ‘fun’, but I have found in practical experience that a player’s fun at the table often has little to do with mechanical specificity of this nature, and players generally receive limit setting without complaint (excepting, perhaps, those who are ‘disagreeable’ players in general, of which I have played with a few over the years). It is generally my opinion that as a ‘team game’ that it doesn’t do much good for the game to try and ‘compare’ characters to one another using some sort of ‘fairness’ criteria; but instead focus on the group as a whole and the fun of the players (rather than the ‘fairness’ of the characters themselves).

    >a. Sometimes this includes fairly organic and natural limitations, it is not unfair to a drow player if a large part of an adventure happens to occur outside during the day for example

    >b. This may include social limitations: warlocks are distrusted in parts of the game, as are tieflings; so your tiefling warlock isn’t being ‘unfairly targeted’ when the townsfolk don’t want anything to do with him. Likewise, magic users are not being punished when they have to keep their magic secret because they are in a town where magic is outlawed

    >c. This includes, for what it is worth, access to equipment. A polearm master is not ‘due’ a magic polearm, a wizard isn’t punished if there are few scrolls or spellbooks in the loot pile, and Padded Leather +1 isn’t an insult to every light armor wearer even if it mechanically serves little purpose . To hearken back to the origin of all of this, providing access to magical non-metal armor isn’t necessary to be ‘fair’ to the druid player in any meaningful way

    >>i. The system is very flexible around the mechanical bonuses it expects; while it doesn’t break anything to give a druid access to AC 19 (half-plate and a shield), it likewise doesn’t ‘gimp’ them to have them at AC 13+dex (leather and a shield) like many arcane casters. Likewise, the difference between a D6 short-sword and a D8 rapier is negligible enough that lack of easy access to a rapier isn’t going to destroy any classes’ balance

    >d. Because I have historically played with ‘powergamers’ more than once, I am particularly wary of approving rules that are blatant increases in the power level of a character who would function just fine without that gain; for example I would likely reflexively ‘shoot down’ a ‘barbarian’ whose battle rage was about ‘combat focus’ and not anger if they appeared to really want to be able to maintain concentration spells during the rage
    ii. In fact, I would argue that 5e (as compared especially to 3.X and 4e) explicitly state that magic and exceptional equipment is *additional* and shouldn’t be considered a requirement or expectation of any kind, and definitively not part of balance ‘fairness’ considerations

    3) Setting verisimilitude is very important to me. I have been playing largely in the same homebrew setting since before ADnD, it has been built (and destroyed) by the actions of PCs over many years. While some of my preference is just enjoyment of the worldbuilding (GMs get to find fun where they can just like players do), but I also think it benefits players to adventure in a world that has real *history* to it… I know what the neighboring countries are and their attitudes to where your PCs are from, players two editions ago signed the treaty that brought peace to them; and the next village over was actually the birthplace of the legendary hero who killed the demon who actually started that war (his ever-poisonous magic sword is buried with him there, unbeknownst to many). While I doubly apply it to ‘my’ setting (though many GMs have run games there over the years); I take a similar stance to Ravenloft, or Forgotten Realms, or Planescape: I don’t like to run ‘adventure worlds’ where the only things that matter are the town’s inn, the dungeon, and the monster-filled wilderness between them.

    >a. I also do not make that assumption that exceptions may exist, but not that players necessarily have the right to *be* that exception. For example, there was once an Elven cleric of the human-only God in the campaign’s history, it doesn’t mean that I have to agree that a player Elf can become a cleric of that God. Similarly, if I agree that there is a small druid sect that wears metal armor somewhere in the world *doesn’t* necessarily imply that I would allow a player to start as a member of that sect. I might, but I have the right not to make such exceptions, especially as they regard rules but also for setting reasons.

    >b. This means that sometimes there will be setting factors that influence gameplay decisions. For example, while there is discussion of Druids, Rangers, and even Clerics getting their magic from a variety of sources; in Forgotten Realms it is clear that virtually everyone has a ‘patron God’, and *every* ‘divine spellcaster’ gets their power from that Deity; so while in a normal game a druid powered by ‘nature spirits’ or a cleric of a ‘philosophy’ is fine, in FR (or at least, FR ‘as written’) that isn’t an option. Again, this isn’t punishing players or forcing them to play certain ways, per se, it is just a reality of the shared setting everyone is accessing.

    >c. Most directly in response to the underlying concerns: this may mean limited access to certain equipment a character may want. Darksun has very little metal, so any equipment using metal components is very rare at best. Thus a cleric of the Forge Domain (or, to a lesser degree, any PC with the ‘blacksmithing’ skill) won’t have access to some aspects of their abilities. If you are adventuring in the jungles of Maztica, thieves’ tools are not likely to be sold at the tribal village you are re-provisioning in. A small Proficiency in an exotic weapon, such as an ‘asian’ themed weapon in a western setting, or a high-tech weapon in a traditional fantasy setting, means your chosen equipment may be difficult to find (though not impossible, afterall…. Pistols are unknown outside of Lantan on Faerun, but they do exist).

    >>i. Things that are often difficult to find in a ‘traditional European fantasy setting’ but not impossible (and to varying degrees) that may require additional effort, resources, or skill involvement to acquire: poison, weapons or armor made out of exotic materials, unusual weapons or armor, technologically sophisticated equipment, exotic animals to train.

    >>ii. This is, as mentioned above, perhaps doubly true for enchanted equipment. My home campaign is probably broadly in the ‘low magic’ end of campaign settings, so enchanted gear is fairly rare to begin with; let alone an already exotic equipment

    >>iii. I think it is important that I in no way see this as *punishing* anyways, making it hard to find a pterodon isn’t *punishing* you for playing a Halfling beastmaster. You can disagree with that stance, but it works well for me and isn’t inherently *wrong* by game expectations or functional play

    >>iv. My games tend to be at least somewhat ‘sandbox’ style, so side adventures to achieve an individual player’s goals (such as seeking specific equipment) is generally well received by both players and characters

    4) In general, I am very happy the game has moved away from ‘roleplaying rules’ as a whole. ‘Your character wouldn’t do that’ isn’t a phrase I ever want to say as a GM; and in the current system the only time I could imagine doing so is if a player is refusing to ‘go along’ with mind-control magic or forced alignment change or the like. However, I have no problem, as it works in the setting, with there being repercussions for character choices, including possibly mechanical ones. In some settings, a druid wearing metal armor may interfere with spell casting, a paladin blatantly breaking their established Oaths may lose abilities, Clerics may be abandoned by the Gods they disrespect. There may also be social fallout as well… if your druid organization is really a global shared community (they do share a secret language after all), turning your back on their teachings might bring their wrath down upon you; particularly if you insist on continuing to use ‘their’ magic while you do so; and a low level druid making themselves an enemy of such an organization may find themselves in dire straights.

    >a. However, it is always something I would give a warning about before I ‘confirmed’ that was the action you wanted to take; so it would never be something I’d ‘spring’ on the player; and if they wanted to have a conversation about it later I would be amenable to it for potential revision or clarification

    5) In regards to the Ranger and racial enemy selection: Terrain and enemy choices were among the chief complaints of the Ranger class as a whole for just that reason. This is especially true if you run a more ‘sandbox’ type game where what the players are doing and what they fight is somewhat dependent on player decisions. I can, as a GM, be planning a goblin-war campaign in the mountains, but when the players open a portal to hell and demons pour over the world, and they decide (like good heroes) to fix that mess… then now you are fighting fiends in the city… it does mean a ranger loses access to some of their abilities.
    There isn’t an easy ‘fix’ for this, and I do agree that in most cases GMs should try to work with players (though it isn’t always possible… ‘we are doing a murder mystery campaign’… ‘what racial enemy should I take’… ‘maybe… doppelganger?’ is probably not a productive conversation); and does happen to all players to a degree… your long-range archery specialist suffers when the party gets enslaved and taken to the underdark, your social-skill focused bard suffers when fighting the golem uprising, etc. I do try to be open with my players about campaign expectations, but as stated in some campaign styles it can be difficult to know for sure how things will proceed.

    -------------------------------

    Secondly, I am a special education teacher; specifically focusing on the intersection of problem behavior and autism spectrum disorder. As such, I am often called upon the task of remediating social skills deficits; and in the modern world that often includes aspects of online communication, the system of emails, texting, and forums that is pervasive in our world today yet carry their own ‘hidden curriculum’ social skills expectations. Given that, I would feel remiss if I didn’t address a few things here:

    1) Hostile or aggressive phrasing has an enhanced effect in all-text discussions. The reason is that with only text and minimal context clues to drive meaning, we have little else to go off of to interpret attitude or meaning. Therefore, phrases like ‘you can blame Naanomi for that’, ‘make them eat crow’, metaphors about spraying players with urine, repeated use of phrases like ‘cartmanesque’ to characterize someone’s position or style, making statements that imply that someone is unable to read or comprehend the text they are quoting, continually stating that someone needs to ‘find a new GM’ if the playstyle is one you are arguing against, and so on; is generally considered rude and not generally acceptable even during heated discussions, let alone when first entering a conversation

    >a. Even if you disagree with someone’s argument, repeatedly pointing out what you perceive as logical errors in a discussion (as opposed to a formal debate) is often (but not always) considered rude.

    2) There is an expectation of privacy in ‘personal messages’ and the like; directly sharing the text of a private message, email, or personal text message is often considered an invasion of privacy or, at the very least, rude. For example, posting the full text of the response where I said I felt uncomfortable with you privately messaging me to continue a discussion is probably *not* something I would recommend posting in a more public space

    3) It is also in most cases considered somewhat rude to ‘follow people’ to continue one conversation from one thread to another in a forum format. While it will always be the case in a sustained community that people get to know each other and have opinions about one another (this is a positive, it is what makes a group like a forum group a legitimate ‘community’ instead of people just spouting opinions), each thread is generally considered a ‘separate’ conversation, and tracking people through threads to continue a conversation (unless the thread was explicitly made to do just that) is considered poor social graces, and sometimes borders on harassment.

    4) In any discussion, one needs to know that people will have different opinions than yours, but that doesn’t make their opinion invalid. In most cases, there isn’t a ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ way to, lets say, interpret a rule or to have fun playing a game; and while one can defend one’s opinion, spending energy attempting to ‘prove the other person wrong’ over matters of opinion or interpretation generally come across as socially hostile. This can be challenging, as many people are naturally drawn to the idea of ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ in a ‘debate’, when more reasonable discourse generally does not follow the debate pattern.

    >a. Likewise it is considered bad discussion form to restate people’s opinions as if they are making statements of fact; for example stating that someone saying they wouldn’t make an exception in the case quoted means they categorically are in the ‘would never’ make exceptions ‘camp’; or stating that someone who says ‘rare’ actually means ‘completely unavailable’, or that ‘"a few days of downtime and maybe a skill roll" as a bar worthy of being called "less common"’. In fact, as much as possible, you should allow other people to frame their arguments and terminology rather than redefining terms for them (though requesting clarification for a confusing term is generally acceptable, so long as it is not done repeatedly).

    >b. However, in situations where there may be a ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answer (even if it can’t be determined definitively) it important to maintain a position that you would admit you are at least potentially wrong. When several people, presumably with good intentions, disagree with your position one must accept that there is at least a chance you are mistaken; to do otherwise isn’t ‘conversation’

    >c. Furthermore, ‘declaring victory’ in an ongoing discussion, especially one about opinions, is generally considered inappropriate social behavior

    5) Likewise, one has to be careful of the appearance of bragging or the like when there are not non-verbal cues to act off of. For example, statements like ‘when I took over as GM everyone had fun of course’ can be a statement attempting to say ‘my way works too’. In fact, the ‘of course’ assumption type statements in general come across more harshly in written tone than they do in verbal conversations (and even there are somewhat tricky statements to use without offending); particularly when discussing matters of opinion.

    6) In a conversation with multiple participants, one cannot assume that someone will respond specifically to you, nor become upset if they do not. Calling attention to a post and requesting a response if someone fails to is generally socially acceptable, if not done frequently, but it is generally assumed that if someone doesn’t reply it is for a reason and not because they ‘missed it’. Reasons may include that they feel they have adequately addressed that point already, or that the conversation has largely moved past that specific point of discussion.

    >a. In a similar way, one cannot demand that the larger conversation follow the topic threads that you want it to. While it is acceptable to attempt to draw attention to a dropped topic of conversation, doing so repeatedly or declaring the current topic ‘irrelevant side conversations’ or the like is generally not appreciated by other conversation participants.

    7) Although it can be challenging to track multiple people in a conversation, do make an effort to keep people separate; even if they are agreeing with each other on many issues. For example, using ‘skill rolls to create turtle shell armor that requires constant maintenance’ as a counterargument to someone who didn’t take or agree with that position (even though they did agree with other statements the ‘turtle armor’ user) makes one come across as uninterested in genuine discourse, but rather is more interested in expressing their own viewpoints without being challenged.

    8) Implying that individuals are posting under multiple accounts or similarly explicitly breaking forum rules or protocol without significant evidence to believe so is considered an especially egregious breach in online etiquette. If you have concerns about people engaging in such practices, just report the posts and let administration sort it out rather than attempting to use it as an argument point.

    9) While I understand there can be limits in place… use of a phone to type, limited English proficiency, lexonigraphical disabilities, making cursory attempts at correct punctuation, grammar, and spelling are always useful in maintaining a positive ‘decorum’ of a conversation with others online; although it is important to note that different forum groups or other online communities may have adopted different conventions than 'proper' English in this regard.
    Last edited by Naanomi; 2017-03-14 at 04:15 PM.

  18. - Top - End - #78
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Naanomi View Post
    Ok… I waited to post on this because I didn’t want to derail an active thread
    This post seems pretty on topic to me.

    4) In general, I am very happy the game has moved away from ‘roleplaying rules’ as a whole. ‘Your character wouldn’t do that’ isn’t a phrase I ever want to say as a GM; and in the current system the only time I could imagine doing so is if a player is refusing to ‘go along’ with mind-control magic or forced alignment change or the like. However, I have no problem, as it works in the setting, with there being repercussions for character choices, including possibly mechanical ones.
    I used the term 'roleplaying rules' for lack of a better one.

    I think the honour system is the way to go and I am glad that is what they have done. There doesn't need to be mechanical repercussions for 'druids don't wear metal armour' because they won't.

    The thing is, all groups have roleplaying rules to a varying degree. The most broad ones are also social rules. Don't be a jerk, be respectful, don't be offensive, etc.

    Then there are game/setting specific ones. Most of these are also broad. If you are playing a fantasy game you should probably make a fantasy character. You should also make a character who is going to participate in the goal of the game, whatever that may be.

    I don't think most people think of those as roleplaying rules, or as things we do in general, but they are and we do them. They're just not usually contentious but they are all restrictions on characters.

    Then we get to specific rules. I think it is important for the group to be on the same page with these. I rarely need to actually step in but it does happen from time to time as we gain new players. For a real example we had a player joining our group not too long ago. She created a cleric but when it came time to choose her deity she said that her character didn't believe in any gods. I said that wasn't going to fly, explained the reasons and offered alternative classes. She wanted to stick with Cleric so we went ahead with the session with plans to address it later. Well, she was frustrated throughout the session for various reasons and didn't come back so we didn't need that follow up.

    That's a clear example of someone not following a roleplaying rule at our table. I'm not saying everyone needs to abide by that rule, just that it's okay and I think, beneficial to have roleplaying rules in general. It's also not inherently creative to go against them. Part of the fun for our group is being creative within the rules.

  19. - Top - End - #79
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Feb 2017

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by ad_hoc View Post
    She created a cleric but when it came time to choose her deity she said that her character didn't believe in any gods. I said that wasn't going to fly, explained the reasons and offered alternative classes.
    Your setting doesn't allow being Cleric of a concept or ideal?

  20. - Top - End - #80
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    RedMage125's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    I'm on a boat!
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Unoriginal View Post
    Your setting doesn't allow being Cleric of a concept or ideal?
    As much as I violently disagree with everything that ad_hoc espoused in his OP, I have to say that saying "there are no clerics without deities in the campaign world I am running" is totally fine, because that's a rule of the setting, and not dictating that a player MUST feel/think/act a specific way.

    As this is in a 5e forum, I would question how an atheist cleric's Divine Intervention class feature (11th level) would work.
    Red Mage avatar by Aedilred.

    Where do you fit in? (link fixed)

    RedMage Prestige Class!

    Best advice I've ever heard one DM give another:
    "Remember that it is both a game and a story. If the two conflict, err on the side of cool, your players will thank you for it."

    Second Eternal Foe of the Draconic Lord, battling him across the multiverse in whatever shapes and forms he may take.

  21. - Top - End - #81
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Feb 2017

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by RedMage125 View Post
    As much as I violently disagree with everything that ad_hoc espoused in his OP, I have to say that saying "there are no clerics without deities in the campaign world I am running" is totally fine, because that's a rule of the setting, and not dictating that a player MUST feel/think/act a specific way.

    As this is in a 5e forum, I would question how an atheist cleric's Divine Intervention class feature (11th level) would work.
    I'm not saying it's not fine, just asking about it.

  22. - Top - End - #82
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Honest Tiefling's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2011

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    I think the idea that clerics need a god is a fine setting restriction, because it ties into the cosmology of the world and how gods and magic acts. I think most people can agree that in a typical set up, the DM determines these things.

    Going as far as to declare all priests medium armor wearing defenders of good and right who use only warhammers and MUST be a healer who is sent on a quest by their god personally is...A bit much, however. The cleric fluff isn't as restrictive as some, but I would assume at least SOME leeway in how to build a cleric in a campaign unless there's a very good reason for every single cleric to be the same.

    One is setting, and quite broad. Another is very particular to the character themselves, as well as having very strange implications about the setting. Why is every cleric the same? Are the gods possibly morons for not knowing about mixed unit tactics or other skills? Is there some force causing clerics from one side of the world to the other to be the same?
    Last edited by Honest Tiefling; 2017-03-14 at 08:10 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oko and Qailee View Post
    Man, I like this tiefling.
    For all of your completely and utterly honest needs. Zaydos made, Tiefling approved.

  23. - Top - End - #83
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    MonkGirl

    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    NW USA
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by ad_hoc View Post
    I think the honour system is the way to go and I am glad that is what they have done. There doesn't need to be mechanical repercussions for 'druids don't wear metal armour' because they won't.
    Well and that is really the crux of it isn't it? What do you do when the player insists their Druid puts on the armor? Or they demand they can leave the guy who has them charmed in the burning building? Or insists on playing their newly turned vampire as the same nice guy he's always been?

    You really only have three choices:
    -take control, say 'no you don't do that' (perhaps ultimatel not playing with that player anymore if the problem is intolerable for whatever reason)
    -let it happen and move on
    -let it happen but apply mechanical or plot repercussions

    I don't think any is the 'right' choice in all situations; but it needs to be a consideration on what to do when people can't just play nice on their own

  24. - Top - End - #84
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    pwykersotz's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Western Washington
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by RedMage125 View Post
    As much as I violently disagree...
    I sure hope you mean vehemently.
    Attacking the darkness since 2009.

    List of Unearthed Arcana, Sage Advice, etc.
    Spoiler: Quotes I like
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by icefractal regarding What would a Cat Lord want? View Post
    She wants the renegade Red Dot brought to her court in chains.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dimers regarding a description of Stygia View Post
    Yes, I believe you have won GitP for the day.
    Quote Originally Posted by pwykersotz regarding randomly rolling edgelord backstories View Post
    Huh...Apparently I'm Agony Blood Blood, Half-orc Shadow Sorcerer. I killed a Dragons. I'm Chaotic Good, probably racist.

  25. - Top - End - #85
    Banned
     
    WolfInSheepsClothing

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Naanomi View Post
    Ok… I waited to post on this because I didn’t want to derail an active thread; plus I was considering just blocking the user and letting it go. However, I did agree that I would pursue it in a public space so I will do so.
    Spoiler: lonnnnnnnnnng post about mostly irrelevant outrage over 'etiquette', irrelevant professional duties, and frustration over getting what was asked for in a way that makes or further topic avoidance difficult while doing exactly that
    Show

    I have two things to address:
    First, a bit about my campaign and playstyle that addresses some of the concerns. I fully admit that these are all assumptions, and that not everyone runs their table this way (nor, perhaps, should they); but only that they are the assumptions that I generally make, and that they have worked reasonably for many years for me as a GM and, by and large, for the players that I have run through many adventures

    1) I tend to a rather strict basic interpretation of the rules, and then apply exceptions later. Sometimes this means that I am more ‘strict’ in the reading of a rule that can be interpreted multiple ways than I could possibly be. I do this for a variety of reasons.

    >a. I sometimes ‘co-GM’ or have people taking characters from one table to another; and while we do good communication between GMs to make sure everyone is on the same page, I tend to stick with the most literal or strict interpretation of the rules as a default position to best support consistency between tables

    >>i. In fact, this is generally why I take this stance on forums and the like: one can never know the expectations and exceptions made at every table, so taking a ‘strict’ stance but then noting when exceptions may appear

    >b. It is very common for me to have new players, in fact new roleplayers, at my table (one of my groups is run at the school I teach at as a student group); and just playing ‘by the rules’ rather than making broad and open interpretations is often, in my experience, a better entry way into the hobby than a list of houserules and loose gameplay style that might be more acceptable at a more experienced table

    >c.In my capacity for running games at school, it is very common for me to be using roleplaying as a way of teaching social skills to students with Autism Spectrum Disorders; and individuals on the spectrum are often very ‘fairness’ and ‘rule’ focused, so it is easier to have an ‘objective’ standard to refer to in order to hedge off disputes of this nature

    >d. While I am very appreciative that the developers are so accessible to the community in this edition of DnD, I don’t consider anything they say in UA, twitter, etc articles to be ‘official’ content until it is integrated into a formal Errata. This is doubly true when they are explicitly making statements about how you *could* modify things rather than statements on the existing rules

    2) I don’t consider anyone at the table to be ‘owed’ anything in regards to their character. We are telling a story, one they are a part of, but ultimately there are limitations of the setting and circumstances of gameplay that may happen favor one player over another because of their actions, as well as setting factors around race and class choices (though not with specifically ‘targeting’ a player, but just organically as a factor of the story). A *player*, to a degree, is owed ‘fun’, but I have found in practical experience that a player’s fun at the table often has little to do with mechanical specificity of this nature, and players generally receive limit setting without complaint (excepting, perhaps, those who are ‘disagreeable’ players in general, of which I have played with a few over the years). It is generally my opinion that as a ‘team game’ that it doesn’t do much good for the game to try and ‘compare’ characters to one another using some sort of ‘fairness’ criteria; but instead focus on the group as a whole and the fun of the players (rather than the ‘fairness’ of the characters themselves).

    >a. Sometimes this includes fairly organic and natural limitations, it is not unfair to a drow player if a large part of an adventure happens to occur outside during the day for example

    >b. This may include social limitations: warlocks are distrusted in parts of the game, as are tieflings; so your tiefling warlock isn’t being ‘unfairly targeted’ when the townsfolk don’t want anything to do with him. Likewise, magic users are not being punished when they have to keep their magic secret because they are in a town where magic is outlawed

    >c. This includes, for what it is worth, access to equipment. A polearm master is not ‘due’ a magic polearm, a wizard isn’t punished if there are few scrolls or spellbooks in the loot pile, and Padded Leather +1 isn’t an insult to every light armor wearer even if it mechanically serves little purpose . To hearken back to the origin of all of this, providing access to magical non-metal armor isn’t necessary to be ‘fair’ to the druid player in any meaningful way

    >>i. The system is very flexible around the mechanical bonuses it expects; while it doesn’t break anything to give a druid access to AC 19 (half-plate and a shield), it likewise doesn’t ‘gimp’ them to have them at AC 13+dex (leather and a shield) like many arcane casters. Likewise, the difference between a D6 short-sword and a D8 rapier is negligible enough that lack of easy access to a rapier isn’t going to destroy any classes’ balance

    >d. Because I have historically played with ‘powergamers’ more than once, I am particularly wary of approving rules that are blatant increases in the power level of a character who would function just fine without that gain; for example I would likely reflexively ‘shoot down’ a ‘barbarian’ whose battle rage was about ‘combat focus’ and not anger if they appeared to really want to be able to maintain concentration spells during the rage
    ii. In fact, I would argue that 5e (as compared especially to 3.X and 4e) explicitly state that magic and exceptional equipment is *additional* and shouldn’t be considered a requirement or expectation of any kind, and definitively not part of balance ‘fairness’ considerations

    3) Setting verisimilitude is very important to me. I have been playing largely in the same homebrew setting since before ADnD, it has been built (and destroyed) by the actions of PCs over many years. While some of my preference is just enjoyment of the worldbuilding (GMs get to find fun where they can just like players do), but I also think it benefits players to adventure in a world that has real *history* to it… I know what the neighboring countries are and their attitudes to where your PCs are from, players two editions ago signed the treaty that brought peace to them; and the next village over was actually the birthplace of the legendary hero who killed the demon who actually started that war (his ever-poisonous magic sword is buried with him there, unbeknownst to many). While I doubly apply it to ‘my’ setting (though many GMs have run games there over the years); I take a similar stance to Ravenloft, or Forgotten Realms, or Planescape: I don’t like to run ‘adventure worlds’ where the only things that matter are the town’s inn, the dungeon, and the monster-filled wilderness between them.

    >a. I also do not make that assumption that exceptions may exist, but not that players necessarily have the right to *be* that exception. For example, there was once an Elven cleric of the human-only God in the campaign’s history, it doesn’t mean that I have to agree that a player Elf can become a cleric of that God. Similarly, if I agree that there is a small druid sect that wears metal armor somewhere in the world *doesn’t* necessarily imply that I would allow a player to start as a member of that sect. I might, but I have the right not to make such exceptions, especially as they regard rules but also for setting reasons.

    >b. This means that sometimes there will be setting factors that influence gameplay decisions. For example, while there is discussion of Druids, Rangers, and even Clerics getting their magic from a variety of sources; in Forgotten Realms it is clear that virtually everyone has a ‘patron God’, and *every* ‘divine spellcaster’ gets their power from that Deity; so while in a normal game a druid powered by ‘nature spirits’ or a cleric of a ‘philosophy’ is fine, in FR (or at least, FR ‘as written’) that isn’t an option. Again, this isn’t punishing players or forcing them to play certain ways, per se, it is just a reality of the shared setting everyone is accessing.

    >c. Most directly in response to the underlying concerns: this may mean limited access to certain equipment a character may want. Darksun has very little metal, so any equipment using metal components is very rare at best. Thus a cleric of the Forge Domain (or, to a lesser degree, any PC with the ‘blacksmithing’ skill) won’t have access to some aspects of their abilities. If you are adventuring in the jungles of Maztica, thieves’ tools are not likely to be sold at the tribal village you are re-provisioning in. A small Proficiency in an exotic weapon, such as an ‘asian’ themed weapon in a western setting, or a high-tech weapon in a traditional fantasy setting, means your chosen equipment may be difficult to find (though not impossible, afterall…. Pistols are unknown outside of Lantan on Faerun, but they do exist).

    >>i. Things that are often difficult to find in a ‘traditional European fantasy setting’ but not impossible (and to varying degrees) that may require additional effort, resources, or skill involvement to acquire: poison, weapons or armor made out of exotic materials, unusual weapons or armor, technologically sophisticated equipment, exotic animals to train.

    >>ii. This is, as mentioned above, perhaps doubly true for enchanted equipment. My home campaign is probably broadly in the ‘low magic’ end of campaign settings, so enchanted gear is fairly rare to begin with; let alone an already exotic equipment

    >>iii. I think it is important that I in no way see this as *punishing* anyways, making it hard to find a pterodon isn’t *punishing* you for playing a Halfling beastmaster. You can disagree with that stance, but it works well for me and isn’t inherently *wrong* by game expectations or functional play

    >>iv. My games tend to be at least somewhat ‘sandbox’ style, so side adventures to achieve an individual player’s goals (such as seeking specific equipment) is generally well received by both players and characters

    4) In general, I am very happy the game has moved away from ‘roleplaying rules’ as a whole. ‘Your character wouldn’t do that’ isn’t a phrase I ever want to say as a GM; and in the current system the only time I could imagine doing so is if a player is refusing to ‘go along’ with mind-control magic or forced alignment change or the like. However, I have no problem, as it works in the setting, with there being repercussions for character choices, including possibly mechanical ones. In some settings, a druid wearing metal armor may interfere with spell casting, a paladin blatantly breaking their established Oaths may lose abilities, Clerics may be abandoned by the Gods they disrespect. There may also be social fallout as well… if your druid organization is really a global shared community (they do share a secret language after all), turning your back on their teachings might bring their wrath down upon you; particularly if you insist on continuing to use ‘their’ magic while you do so; and a low level druid making themselves an enemy of such an organization may find themselves in dire straights.

    >a. However, it is always something I would give a warning about before I ‘confirmed’ that was the action you wanted to take; so it would never be something I’d ‘spring’ on the player; and if they wanted to have a conversation about it later I would be amenable to it for potential revision or clarification

    5) In regards to the Ranger and racial enemy selection: Terrain and enemy choices were among the chief complaints of the Ranger class as a whole for just that reason. This is especially true if you run a more ‘sandbox’ type game where what the players are doing and what they fight is somewhat dependent on player decisions. I can, as a GM, be planning a goblin-war campaign in the mountains, but when the players open a portal to hell and demons pour over the world, and they decide (like good heroes) to fix that mess… then now you are fighting fiends in the city… it does mean a ranger loses access to some of their abilities.
    There isn’t an easy ‘fix’ for this, and I do agree that in most cases GMs should try to work with players (though it isn’t always possible… ‘we are doing a murder mystery campaign’… ‘what racial enemy should I take’… ‘maybe… doppelganger?’ is probably not a productive conversation); and does happen to all players to a degree… your long-range archery specialist suffers when the party gets enslaved and taken to the underdark, your social-skill focused bard suffers when fighting the golem uprising, etc. I do try to be open with my players about campaign expectations, but as stated in some campaign styles it can be difficult to know for sure how things will proceed.

    -------------------------------

    Secondly, I am a special education teacher; specifically focusing on the intersection of problem behavior and autism spectrum disorder. As such, I am often called upon the task of remediating social skills deficits; and in the modern world that often includes aspects of online communication, the system of emails, texting, and forums that is pervasive in our world today yet carry their own ‘hidden curriculum’ social skills expectations. Given that, I would feel remiss if I didn’t address a few things here:

    1) Hostile or aggressive phrasing has an enhanced effect in all-text discussions. The reason is that with only text and minimal context clues to drive meaning, we have little else to go off of to interpret attitude or meaning. Therefore, phrases like ‘you can blame Naanomi for that’, ‘make them eat crow’, metaphors about spraying players with urine, repeated use of phrases like ‘cartmanesque’ to characterize someone’s position or style, making statements that imply that someone is unable to read or comprehend the text they are quoting, continually stating that someone needs to ‘find a new GM’ if the playstyle is one you are arguing against, and so on; is generally considered rude and not generally acceptable even during heated discussions, let alone when first entering a conversation

    >a. Even if you disagree with someone’s argument, repeatedly pointing out what you perceive as logical errors in a discussion (as opposed to a formal debate) is often (but not always) considered rude.

    2) There is an expectation of privacy in ‘personal messages’ and the like; directly sharing the text of a private message, email, or personal text message is often considered an invasion of privacy or, at the very least, rude. For example, posting the full text of the response where I said I felt uncomfortable with you privately messaging me to continue a discussion is probably *not* something I would recommend posting in a more public space

    3) It is also in most cases considered somewhat rude to ‘follow people’ to continue one conversation from one thread to another in a forum format. While it will always be the case in a sustained community that people get to know each other and have opinions about one another (this is a positive, it is what makes a group like a forum group a legitimate ‘community’ instead of people just spouting opinions), each thread is generally considered a ‘separate’ conversation, and tracking people through threads to continue a conversation (unless the thread was explicitly made to do just that) is considered poor social graces, and sometimes borders on harassment.

    4) In any discussion, one needs to know that people will have different opinions than yours, but that doesn’t make their opinion invalid. In most cases, there isn’t a ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ way to, lets say, interpret a rule or to have fun playing a game; and while one can defend one’s opinion, spending energy attempting to ‘prove the other person wrong’ over matters of opinion or interpretation generally come across as socially hostile. This can be challenging, as many people are naturally drawn to the idea of ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ in a ‘debate’, when more reasonable discourse generally does not follow the debate pattern.

    >a. Likewise it is considered bad discussion form to restate people’s opinions as if they are making statements of fact; for example stating that someone saying they wouldn’t make an exception in the case quoted means they categorically are in the ‘would never’ make exceptions ‘camp’; or stating that someone who says ‘rare’ actually means ‘completely unavailable’, or that ‘"a few days of downtime and maybe a skill roll" as a bar worthy of being called "less common"’. In fact, as much as possible, you should allow other people to frame their arguments and terminology rather than redefining terms for them (though requesting clarification for a confusing term is generally acceptable, so long as it is not done repeatedly).

    >b. However, in situations where there may be a ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answer (even if it can’t be determined definitively) it important to maintain a position that you would admit you are at least potentially wrong. When several people, presumably with good intentions, disagree with your position one must accept that there is at least a chance you are mistaken; to do otherwise isn’t ‘conversation’

    >c. Furthermore, ‘declaring victory’ in an ongoing discussion, especially one about opinions, is generally considered inappropriate social behavior

    5) Likewise, one has to be careful of the appearance of bragging or the like when there are not non-verbal cues to act off of. For example, statements like ‘when I took over as GM everyone had fun of course’ can be a statement attempting to say ‘my way works too’. In fact, the ‘of course’ assumption type statements in general come across more harshly in written tone than they do in verbal conversations (and even there are somewhat tricky statements to use without offending); particularly when discussing matters of opinion.

    6) In a conversation with multiple participants, one cannot assume that someone will respond specifically to you, nor become upset if they do not. Calling attention to a post and requesting a response if someone fails to is generally socially acceptable, if not done frequently, but it is generally assumed that if someone doesn’t reply it is for a reason and not because they ‘missed it’. Reasons may include that they feel they have adequately addressed that point already, or that the conversation has largely moved past that specific point of discussion.

    >a. In a similar way, one cannot demand that the larger conversation follow the topic threads that you want it to. While it is acceptable to attempt to draw attention to a dropped topic of conversation, doing so repeatedly or declaring the current topic ‘irrelevant side conversations’ or the like is generally not appreciated by other conversation participants.

    7) Although it can be challenging to track multiple people in a conversation, do make an effort to keep people separate; even if they are agreeing with each other on many issues. For example, using ‘skill rolls to create turtle shell armor that requires constant maintenance’ as a counterargument to someone who didn’t take or agree with that position (even though they did agree with other statements the ‘turtle armor’ user) makes one come across as uninterested in genuine discourse, but rather is more interested in expressing their own viewpoints without being challenged.

    8) Implying that individuals are posting under multiple accounts or similarly explicitly breaking forum rules or protocol without significant evidence to believe so is considered an especially egregious breach in online etiquette. If you have concerns about people engaging in such practices, just report the posts and let administration sort it out rather than attempting to use it as an argument point.

    9) While I understand there can be limits in place… use of a phone to type, limited English proficiency, lexonigraphical disabilities, making cursory attempts at correct punctuation, grammar, and spelling are always useful in maintaining a positive ‘decorum’ of a conversation with others online; although it is important to note that different forum groups or other online communities may have adopted different conventions than 'proper' English in this regard.



    Spoiler: "on PM etiquette"
    Show
    first off, you can't really complain about a pm chain being made public when it effectively amounts to "umm I'm genuinely curious how you can claim both x & Y as someone asked here & I asked here & here" when you reply to it saying to ask publicly & don't reply to either of them when the obvious reply along the lines of "I did before I sent the pm not once.. but twice..." & you continue to ignore the question when it's actually asked publicly a day or so later. It's not like five minute passed between the first two public times & the pm chain with another 5 minutes for the third public questioning followed by an immediate dump of the chain, you were originally asked on the 10th by chaosmancer, I asked publically on the 11th, the PM's were on the 12th, then finally this post doing exactly what you requested was followed by two posts from you over the course of hours. You lost any hope of high ground by dodging it too hard.... Having the pm chain out in the open only prevents you from voicing frustration about having the questions posed, you lost that chance days ago & I suspect that is why we had that particular outburst of discontent.


    As to the rest of your post, I can't help but notice while you were talking about teaching special education, co-dming, & what not, you ignored every one of the questions posed. Not just danced around them, but continued to flatly ignore them entirely.

    So, lets try again, I'll even use bullet points to make it easy All mentions of the rapier/studded leather wanting rogue are in the hypothetical poor metallurgy makes them rare example setting .....
    • If the rogue needs to make a skill check & burn downtime in order to get studded leather/rapier, does the fighter who wants plate/greatsword need to as well? If not, how is this not the definition of treating the rogue unfairly?
    • If the fighter needs to make them too, are the numbers substantially similar, or is the rogue just going to be unlucky because like the nonmetal medium armor, rapiers & studded leather are made in far away places? if the answer is no the numbers will be higher for the rogue, again how can you claim this is an impartial ruling?
    • If the rogue wanting studded leather/rapier or druid wanting nonmetal medium armor lacks the skill needed to do the skill check, can their more dkilled party member make the check instead?... if not, can the greatsword/plate wanting fighter get someone more skilled to make it? If the rogue/druid is & fighter yes... this is absolutely 100% the opposite of impartial with no ifs ands or buts.
    • If the rogue wants to focus his extra curricular roleplaying sidequest stuff on things other than questing for a magic rapier/magic studded leather; but other players like the plate & greatsword wielding fighter can focus on whatever story plots they want to & just wait for a set of magic plate/greatsword to drop... how can you claim outrage when the rogue says that "rapiers *& studded leather are rare" effectively to be the same as "none"
    • If the answer to the last question is that the rapier/studded leather wanting rogue & nonmetal medium armor wanting druid questing to save the kingdom & whatnot instead of equip themselves had prospects just as realistic as the fighter doing the same... does that not utterly invalidate the claim that "it is rare"? I can see no way that you could maintain it is rare=true as well as you have the same expectations of finding magic variants as the other folks magic variants of their stuff; because if it it flatly invalidates the entire topic on account of the gm going from the initial claims of rare & exotic to something they are now saying are not when cornered.
    • If the rapier/studded leather wanting rogue/nonmetal medium armor wanting druid has a much lower chance, but any class with light armor or full martial (instead of just the rogue's rapier) proficiency and any class with medium armor proficiency can also make a claim to why they should get the magic studded leather/magic rapier/magic nonmetal medium armor... does this not reinforce the rogue/druid's "ok rare = none" statement of equivalency.
    • If the rogue wanting magic studded/magic rapier & druid wanting magic nonmetal medium both need to explicitly go out on a adventures dragging the group along with the specific intent of getting those two the sort of magic weapons & armor that every other class got adventuring for stuff their player & character thought was interesting... and those to are not willing to drag the party around like that specifically to equip those two, does that not explicitly confirm their "so none/it does not exist" statement,, why hide behind the feel good hair splitting of "it's rare" instead of just being open & saying "you almost certainly won't find it without convincing the group to go out on an adventure specifically to equip you with a magic rapier/studded leather/nonmetal medium armor while every other class has reasonable chances of finding magic greatswords/bows/xbows/metal halfplate/plate/etc in treasure hoards of high enough quality... just not rapier/studded/nonmetal medium armors"
    • If the answer to the last question is that the rogue/druid above are just as likely to get that magic stuff they want as the fighter/barbarian/paladin/valor bard/etc... why even make the "rare" distinction that such a claim invalidates.


    Your campaign is irrelevant , because you also argued "Non-metal armor would be *exotic* in most settings." and "Metal armor is the norm for a reason, if for nothing else than for classical aesthetics... anything else is exotic enough to incur rarity and extra cost"on page 12 in an attempt to dismiss the very idea that a gm favoring the fighter over the rogue or valor bard over the druid in the above example was not abandoning the position of an impartial judge. You can't claim your campaign now after so much arguing for "most settings" as I linked & bolded. It was not until page 18 where you mentioned your campaign being "pretty low magic" making your campaign an irrelevant avoidance of the question about many of the positions you argued blatantly invalidating a significant number of each other by either plain or strict reading.

    There are just too many positions that you have argued strenuously for that seem to utterly invalidate too many other positions you've argued for.

  26. - Top - End - #86
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Unoriginal View Post
    Your setting doesn't allow being Cleric of a concept or ideal?
    Yes, that's right. Even if that were not the case, this isn't just a case of not worshipping/getting their power from a Deity, the character didn't believe they existed at all. This would be fine in Ravenloft, but not a setting where deities actively engage in the world (maybe a rare character exception, but certainly not a Cleric).

    Quote Originally Posted by RedMage125 View Post
    As much as I violently disagree with everything that ad_hoc espoused in his OP, I have to say that saying "there are no clerics without deities in the campaign world I am running" is totally fine, because that's a rule of the setting, and not dictating that a player MUST feel/think/act a specific way.

    As this is in a 5e forum, I would question how an atheist cleric's Divine Intervention class feature (11th level) would work.
    You disagree (violently even) with players needing to obey social rules through their characters? I find it hard to believe that you can have that stance and have a group at the same time.

    Also, no clerics without deities is part of dictating what a character must feel/think/act.

    Quote Originally Posted by Naanomi View Post
    Well and that is really the crux of it isn't it? What do you do when the player insists their Druid puts on the armor? Or they demand they can leave the guy who has them charmed in the burning building? Or insists on playing their newly turned vampire as the same nice guy he's always been?

    You really only have three choices:
    -take control, say 'no you don't do that' (perhaps ultimatel not playing with that player anymore if the problem is intolerable for whatever reason)
    -let it happen and move on
    -let it happen but apply mechanical or plot repercussions
    There is a 4th choice: Deal with it out of the game. That is why I think the way 5e approaches the problem is the correct one. No in game rules are going to work. Loopholes can be found. They also can't be exhaustive.

    This is close to your 1st choice but slightly different. Dictating what happens in game will likely just create more conflict and won't actually resolve what is going on. It is best to either talk about it after the session, or if it is disruptive enough, put the session on pause and deal with it at the moment. It's possible that the player's goals aren't compatible with the rest of the group, and then yes, not playing with that person anymore would be the way to go.

    What would you do if you were playing improv games and 1 person decided to just do their own thing without having their character be constrained by the game's rules? Say you were playing the 2 sentences game and 1 player just decided they were going to make up their own sentences because they wanted to be more creative. Maybe you keep playing, esp. if you have an audience. Do you play with that person again? Probably not. Nothing you can do in game will fix the actual problem because it's not an in game problem.
    Last edited by ad_hoc; 2017-03-14 at 09:56 PM.

  27. - Top - End - #87
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    MonkGirl

    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    NW USA
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Tetrasodium View Post
    So, lets try again, I'll even use bullet points to make it easy All mentions of the rapier/studded leather wanting rogue are in the hypothetical poor metallurgy makes them rare example setting
    Organizing your thoughts in a way that makes clear what you would like addressed certainly helps.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tetrasodium View Post
    [*]If the rogue needs to make a skill check & burn downtime in order to get studded leather/rapier, does the fighter who wants plate/greatsword need to as well? If not, how is this not the definition of treating the rogue unfairly?
    Firstly, I am hard pressed to think of a situation where that would be the case. But, if for whatever reason it were the case, it would be 'fair' because I didn't set the campaign setting components with the thought of 'how can I screw over Bob, the rogue!'; I instead thought 'in the constraints of the campaign, in this time and place in the setting, it *would* be harder to get studded leather, so I am going to go with it in the name of verisimilitude'. Also note, that I explicitly said that I don't have a big aim in my games to make things 'fair' between different classes; and that a few points of AC and one die of damage increase isn't particularly compelling mechanically in any case. Both of these assumptions were explicitly stated in the first part of my post.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tetrasodium View Post
    [*] If the fighter needs to make them too, are the numbers substantially similar, or is the rogue just going to be unlucky because like the nonmetal medium armor, rapiers & studded leather are made in far away places? if the answer is no the numbers will be higher for the rogue, again how can you claim this is an impartial ruling?
    You seem to have an significantly different definition of what an 'impartial ruling' is and the importance it plays in a successful game. I see my role as GM to adjudicate rules questions, provide a setting, and make that setting react to the players. I do so in an impartial manner by *not* catering to the players specifically... any players... I don't go out of my way to make a poisonmaker in a place one wouldn't belong just because the assassin wants to use poison, I don't make a magic emporium selling enchanted weapons just because the melee characters feel like they are getting to the point where they 'need' it to overcome damage resistance. I *do* provide opportunities for characters to seek out that stuff; sometimes through skill rolls, but generally through adventuring or role-play; though I only feel the need to make it 'easy' as the setting would logically dictate. If half the party is drow, I don't work to make half the encounters in dark places; instead I just run the encounters how I was going to anyways regardless of the makeup of the party (with a few exceptions perhaps, because I am speaking in generalities... in all things there can be exceptions).

    Quote Originally Posted by Tetrasodium View Post
    [*]If the rogue wanting studded leather/rapier or druid wanting nonmetal medium armor lacks the skill needed to do the skill check, can their more dkilled party member make the check instead?... if not, can the greatsword/plate wanting fighter get someone more skilled to make it? If the rogue/druid is & fighter yes... this is absolutely 100% the opposite of impartial with no ifs ands or buts.
    Sure, people have the correct skills I would hope that the party would support eachother. Just like I hope someone with the 'criminal' background might go about getting thieve's tools for people when through criminal contacts when they are not available in the general market. DnD isn't a competition between players, or a competition between players and the GM; my hope is that in general they would all work together with all of their resources to overcome obstacles.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tetrasodium View Post
    [*]If the rogue wants to focus his extra curricular roleplaying sidequest stuff on things other than questing for a magic rapier/magic studded leather; but other players like the plate & greatsword wielding fighter can focus on whatever story plots they want to & just wait for a set of magic plate/greatsword to drop... how can you claim outrage when the rogue says that "rapiers *& studded leather are rare" effectively to be the same as "none"
    Again, because I am just arbitrating the setting; it is their choice what to do in it. If an extra AC and a slight increase in average damage is how the rogue player wants to spend their downtime, then go for it. In any case, no player should just expect magic plate and greatsword to 'drop', this isn't Diablo, random skeletons and barrels are not hurling out magic items; and expecting magic equipment of any specific type to appear is fairly clearly outside of the design principles of 5e (as compared to 3e and 4e where the magic item treadmill was a vital part of play)

    Quote Originally Posted by Tetrasodium View Post
    [*]If the answer to the last question is that the rapier/studded leather wanting rogue & nonmetal medium armor wanting druid questing to save the kingdom & whatnot instead of equip themselves had prospects just as realistic as the fighter doing the same... does that not utterly invalidate the claim that "it is rare"? I can see no way that you could maintain it is rare=true as well as you have the same expectations of finding magic variants as the other folks magic variants of their stuff; because if it it flatly invalidates the entire topic on account of the gm going from the initial claims of rare & exotic to something they are now saying are not when cornered.
    Most of my conversation has been about mundane equipment access, not magical (though there is a factor in that as well). I wouldn't expect any of my players to explicitly hope for a specific type of magic item to appear for them, that just isn't the game I run. It is sometimes a factor... that hand-crossbow master you built may not see a magic hand-crossbow as often as they see a magic longbow (which is true in more traditional 'randomly generated magic items' as well); and the decision to switch over what type of weapon you are using if new exciting gear becomes available is a *good thing*, a good source of tactical turmoil; at least from my perspective.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tetrasodium View Post
    [*]If the rapier/studded leather wanting rogue/nonmetal medium armor wanting druid has a much lower chance, but any class with light armor or full martial (instead of just the rogue's rapier) proficiency and any class with medium armor proficiency can also make a claim to why they should get the magic studded leather/magic rapier/magic nonmetal medium armor... does this not reinforce the rogue/druid's "ok rare = none" statement of equivalency.
    I'm having trouble decoding what you are asking here but... again one of my stated positions is that I don't think any class is 'owed' any equipment, nor is it a requirement to have fun. A druid operates just fine with an AC of 14; and at the very least the last discussion we had on this issue should demonstrate that there are at least several people out there who don't feel that druids 'need' exotic non-medium armor access in the first place, so any argument starting with 'well how do they get that armor they need?' is starting with a false premise.

    The druid perhaps should be happy if his party members get something strong because it is a team game and the party benefits from it... but no one at the table should be expecting to cater to individual builds or class choices in that way. You may be able to make statistical claims like 'I am more likely to find a magical dagger than I am to find a magical whip'; but you shouldn't ever be in a position to expect (or demand) that either make an appearance at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tetrasodium View Post
    [*]If the rogue wanting magic studded/magic rapier & druid wanting magic nonmetal medium both need to explicitly go out on a adventures dragging the group along with the specific intent of getting those two the sort of magic weapons & armor that every other class got adventuring for stuff their player & character thought was interesting... and those to are not willing to drag the party around like that specifically to equip those two, does that not explicitly confirm their "so none/it does not exist" statement,, why hide behind the feel good hair splitting of "it's rare" instead of just being open & saying "you almost certainly won't find it without convincing the group to go out on an adventure specifically to equip you with a magic rapier/studded leather/nonmetal medium armor while every other class has reasonable chances of finding magic greatswords/bows/xbows/metal halfplate/plate/etc in treasure hoards of high enough quality... just not rapier/studded/nonmetal medium armors"
    I'll skip this one because it is just rehashing what was above, at least from an answer standpoint.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tetrasodium View Post
    [*]If the answer to the last question is that the rogue/druid above are just as likely to get that magic stuff they want as the fighter/barbarian/paladin/valor bard/etc... why even make the "rare" distinction that such a claim invalidates.
    No one is just as likely to get any specific piece of magic equipment at all, it isn't a system expectation, this isn't 2e where you need +X weapons by level Y to be competitive, and if you don't the GM is denying you something basic to function in the game. Frankly I'd be very confused at the mindset of a player who cannot enjoy a game because their rogue has a short-sword instead of a rapier; or hasn't been handed an enchanted set of turtle-shell half-plate by level 9 or some such.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tetrasodium View Post
    Your campaign is irrelevant
    I disagree, at the very least my years of campaigning under this model act as a case-study that it is possible to run a game with some measure of success under the assumptions you seem to disagree with so much. I cut out some of the text here from your statement, it was almost line-for-line a repetition of what was stated above.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tetrasodium View Post
    There are just too many positions that you have argued strenuously for that seem to utterly invalidate too many other positions you've argued for.
    I don't feel as if I have reversed myself, so much as I have clarified positions (and not even that in some of the cases you seem to want to quote, as they were responses to different lines of conversation). For almost any statement regarding a game taking place in a fantasy setting, my real answer is going to be 'it depends'; black and white answers are not the norm, but nuanced answers didn't appear to be necessary at the time of some of those posts so I added clarifying information later.

    In any case, hopefully you feel you have made me 'eat enough crow' or whatever your ultimate goal was here? You did a much better job on your grammar, structure of readability, and maintaining a polite tone of 'written voice' here than in previous posts; so congratulations on that measure. It makes meaningful discussion so much easier.

    Quote Originally Posted by ad_hoc View Post
    There is a 4th choice: Deal with it out of the game. That is why I think the way 5e approaches the problem is the correct one. No in game rules are going to work.
    Ultimately, perhaps, but in the moment you need a response as well unless every time it comes up you just say 'OK guys, game ends here until we can have a conversation about this'
    Last edited by Naanomi; 2017-03-14 at 10:33 PM.

  28. - Top - End - #88
    Banned
     
    WolfInSheepsClothing

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by ad_hoc View Post
    Yes, that's right. Even if that were not the case, this isn't just a case of not worshipping/getting their power from a Deity, the character didn't believe they existed at all. This would be fine in Ravenloft, but not a setting where deities actively engage in the world (maybe a rare character exception, but certainly not a Cleric).



    You disagree (violently even) with players needing to obey social rules through their characters? I find it hard to believe that you can have that stance and have a group at the same time.

    Also, no clerics without deities is part of dictating what a character must feel/think/act.



    There is a 4th choice: Deal with it out of the game. That is why I think the way 5e approaches the problem is the correct one. No in game rules are going to work. Loopholes can be found. They also can't be exhaustive.

    This is close to your 1st choice but slightly different. Dictating what happens in game will likely just create more conflict and won't actually resolve what is going on. It is best to either talk about it after the session, or if it is disruptive enough, put the session on pause and deal with it at the moment. It's possible that the player's goals aren't compatible with the rest of the group, and then yes, not playing with that person anymore would be the way to go.

    What would you do if you were playing improv games and 1 person decided to just do their own thing without having their character be constrained by the game's rules? Say you were playing the 2 sentences game and 1 player just decided they were going to make up their own sentences because they wanted to be more creative. Maybe you keep playing, esp. if you have an audience. Do you play with that person again? Probably not. Nothing you can do in game will fix the actual problem because it's not an in game problem.

    The Silver flameis the dominant religion (or one of them) in much of eberron but is entirely about the concept/ideal of purity & lacks a deity. I believe sovereign host is the other & it's basically just an amalgam of all the goodish deities smushed under one roof. Dark Six is the soverign host;s little e evil counterpart & bizarrely engaged in so much benevolent just help everyone including stuff like supporting war widows& orphans of any faith that they are even acceptable for politician types to worship openly as some of the books actually said (faiths of eberron?). It was actually the pelor type silver flame folks that almost succeeded at full blown & complete genocide of the shifter race. Blood of Vol are almost kinda sorta a big E Evil faith created after too many people were trying to end wars & save lives/the world, but you have to look at Lady Vol's history to really get it. Undying Court is another nondeity having major faith. It's pretty easy to have a cleric/paladin with faith in a concept or something that fits great into just about any given setting just by saying it's small, new, secretive, from far away, or some combination of the four.

  29. - Top - End - #89
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Tetrasodium View Post
    The Silver flameis the dominant religion (or one of them) in much of eberron but is entirely about the concept/ideal of purity & lacks a deity. I believe sovereign host is the other & it's basically just an amalgam of all the goodish deities smushed under one roof. Dark Six is the soverign host;s little e evil counterpart & bizarrely engaged in so much benevolent just help everyone including stuff like supporting war widows& orphans of any faith that they are even acceptable for politician types to worship openly as some of the books actually said (faiths of eberron?). It was actually the pelor type silver flame folks that almost succeeded at full blown & complete genocide of the shifter race. Blood of Vol are almost kinda sorta a big E Evil faith created after too many people were trying to end wars & save lives/the world, but you have to look at Lady Vol's history to really get it. Undying Court is another nondeity having major faith. It's pretty easy to have a cleric/paladin with faith in a concept or something that fits great into just about any given setting just by saying it's small, new, secretive, from far away, or some combination of the four.
    I have no idea what this has to do with my post (or this thread).

  30. - Top - End - #90
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    MonkGirl

    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    NW USA
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Roleplaying Rules

    Clerics without deities is a highly setting dependent question. In Eberron and Darksun it is in some ways the default (as much as Darksun has 'clerics' anyways); whereas in Forgotten Realms it is a definitive 'no' (and nearly everyone... divine caster or not... has a patron deity anyways)

Posting Permissions

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