Can you Rudisplork at D&D 2: Sithsnape and the Orcus of Secret House Rules

[Svata]

A coninuation of the Can you cheat at D&D thread, found here.
Rudisplork away!

[Arbane]

So, Jedipotter: Given your bizarre houserules, how does any spellcaster survive apprenticeship. much less make it to level 10 without Death By Orcus/their own spells?

[Kazudo]

I made a word. The word has been accepted into at least two threads. I feel like I've accomplished something.

...That's kinda sad isn't it.

But really, you can't cheat at D&D outside of lying to the DM. No matter what anyone says.

...That is unless the DM is unflexible and decides to change the meaning of the word "Cheating". That's, I think, what we figured out in the last thread.

[Dr.Gara]

As part of the continuation, I would like to return my question on to the table:

You also failed to answer my question, again. My words were, "Can I go on to ask /how/ exactly they stop problem players?" Which you did not answer. You merely pointed out perceived issues with "default D&D", not went into detail about how any of your houserules repair or fix those.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I made a word. The word has been accepted into at least two threads. I feel like I've accomplished something.

You should be proud, I think.

Looks like the title is a nice combination of everything.

[jedipotter]

So, Jedipotter: Given your bizarre houserules, how does any spellcaster survive apprenticeship. much less make it to level 10 without Death By Orcus/their own spells?

I lot don't, that is kinda the point....

Can I go on to ask /how/ exactly they stop problem players?

Problem Players like easy rules that are all good for them, like the default 3X/P rules. Take them away, and the Problem Player does not want to play. That stops them cold. And if they do play, they just want to sit back and be a problem. Take that away from them, and they can't make problems.

What is eating up time anyway?

A great example from another thread: There are four players ready to enter the lair of the lich. Player five, Pete, is "Ok, I would like to officaly stop the game, make the other four players and the DM is around while I serch for spell components.''

[Divide by Zero]

Problem Players like easy rules that are all good for them, like the default 3X/P rules. Take them away, and the Problem Player does not want to play. That stops them cold. And if they do play, they just want to sit back and be a problem. Take that away from them, and they can't make problems.

But the thing you haven't really addressed, at least that I could see, is that some of your rules CREATE more problems by making it possible for their actions to backfire on the entire party.

[Kazudo]

A great example from another thread: There are four players ready to enter the lair of the lich. Player five, Pete, is "Ok, I would like to officaly stop the game, make the other four players and the DM is around while I serch for spell components.''

So at this point the DM decides what's more important. His tenacity at enforcing the spell component system while forbidding the spell component pouch to work as RAW says, or the time taken for this player to have his class features be useful.

[Vhaidara]

I lot don't, that is kinda the point....

Wait, don't you run Forgotten Realms? And you claim mages can't get past level 10? lolwut?

Problem Players like easy rules that are all good for them, like the default 3X/P rules. Take them away, and the Problem Player does not want to play. That stops them cold. And if they do play, they just want to sit back and be a problem. Take that away from them, and they can't make problems.

Except they can be a problem. They just fire at will at enemies with SR, waiting for the spell to refract onto their own team. They summon as they wish, away from themsleves, waiting to get a hostile summon.

A great example from another thread: There are four players ready to enter the lair of the lich. Player five, Pete, is "Ok, I would like to officaly stop the game, make the other four players and the DM is around while I serch for spell components.''

So he gather components off camera. Because the party isn't going to want to go in when their fire support is out of components. After all, that means you might as well just tell that player to not show up to the session, since they can't do anything. Or, you know, they'll use spells without components.

[Urpriest]

Problem Players like easy rules that are all good for them, like the default 3X/P rules. Take them away, and the Problem Player does not want to play. That stops them cold. And if they do play, they just want to sit back and be a problem. Take that away from them, and they can't make problems.

See, most of the problem players I've met prefer more punitive rules, or even assume the rules to be more punitive than they actually are. This is especially true for those problem players who are DMing.

[Nilehus]

So at this point the DM decides what's more important. His tenacity at enforcing the spell component system while forbidding the spell component pouch to work as RAW says, or the time taken for this player to have his class features be useful.

He'll give him spell components, don't you worry.

... Are there any spells that require Orcus as a component?

But no, he's even said before that even if they're all in a town restocking or whatever, he'll still pull that. Yes, wizards aren't allowed to stock up on components while they're in town. Or out in the wilderness. Or in a dungeon, or between sessions, etc etc etc you see where this is going.

[Zaq]

So you add houserules declaring that spells require material components that they don't normally require, and then you add houserules saying that you're not allowed to gather the new weird material components. Is that correct? Am I misrepresenting you in any way?

[Dr.Gara]

I lot don't, that is kinda the point....

Of course they wouldn't, the Overgod hates them for existing.

Problem Players like easy rules that are all good for them, like the default 3X/P rules. Take them away, and the Problem Player does not want to play. That stops them cold. And if they do play, they just want to sit back and be a problem. Take that away from them, and they can't make problems.

"They just want to sit back and be a problem." So, if they are sitting there being a problem, are they not still problem players? And if there are problem players at your table, did your houserules not fail on a very fundamental level by not keeping them away? Your rules actually don't even take the making problems bit away from them, it just makes it easier for them to make issues, with their spells splitting to create Orci all the time.

A great example from another thread: There are four players ready to enter the lair of the lich. Player five, Pete, is "Ok, I would like to officaly stop the game, make the other four players and the DM is around while I serch for spell components.''

Well maybe the DM shouldn't be forcing him to search for spell components so he can do anything. He has two options: He can do nothing the entire lair, and probably end up dead along with the rest of the party, because they lack any and all magical support, or they could go off and force the DM to follow his own rules so he can make sure the entire party doesn't die. How is that a problem? It seems like whoever the DM is in this case is the problem, not the player.

But no one would ever enforce rules like that, would they?

[Alent]

So you add houserules declaring that spells require material components that they don't normally require, and then you add houserules saying that you're not allowed to gather the new weird material components. Is that correct? Am I misrepresenting you in any way?

Don't forget that he also sets arbitrary price points to put material components above the reach of Eschew Components, in addition to arbitrarily deciding components requiring certain kinds of animal aren't obtainable even by trade in various regions.

Yeah, you pretty much have all of his houserules on components right there.

[jedipotter]

But the thing you haven't really addressed, at least that I could see, is that some of your rules CREATE more problems by making it possible for their actions to backfire on the entire party.

That is not creating a problem, that is creating fun. Having things backfire, or not work out 100% is fun and intresting.

Take for example: The Avengers. Hawkeye bombs the helicarrier and the Hulk looses control. This is ''having Dr. Banner'' backfire, that is do something bad and harmful to the group. So the Hulk rips apart lots of the helicarrier and alomst kills the Black Widow, fights Thor and gets attacked by the jet. I know a lot of people liked this.

Now, if it was set in 3.5 D&D there is no way Dr. Banner would lose control and become the Hulk, as D&D does not have this type of ''backfire''.

And I think that is wrong and boring.

[Grod_The_Giant]

How do you think that? Just using material components alone gets rid of most problem spellcaster players. They take one look at the houserule and say ''lame, I'll be a fighter''. And that is just to start......

A great example from another thread: There are four players ready to enter the lair of the lich. Player five, Pete, is "Ok, I would like to officaly stop the game, make the other four players and the DM is around while I serch for spell components.''

Have we... have we circled back around to the argument that spawned Grod's Law? Could I repost my entire tirade and have it still apply?

EDIT:

That is not creating a problem, that is creating fun. Having things backfire, or not work out 100% is fun and intresting.

Take for example: The Avengers. Hawkeye bombs the helicarrier and the Hulk looses control. This is ''having Dr. Banner'' backfire, that is do something bad and harmful to the group. So the Hulk rips apart lots of the helicarrier and alomst kills the Black Widow, fights Thor and gets attacked by the jet. I know a lot of people liked this.

Now, if it was set in 3.5 D&D there is no way Dr. Banner would lose control and become the Hulk, as D&D does not have this type of ''backfire''.

And I think that is wrong and boring.

Well, sure. That's part of the appeal of playing the Hulk. But that doesn't mean that the guy playing Thor should randomly Hulk out and destroy the helicarrier. Heck, even games built around that sort of thing (for example, Fate) tend to have controls and player choice built into deciding when you Hulk out.

[Kazudo]

He'll give him spell components, don't you worry.

... Are there any spells that require Orcus as a component?

But no, he's even said before that even if they're all in a town restocking or whatever, he'll still pull that. Yes, wizards aren't allowed to stock up on components while they're in town. Or out in the wilderness. Or in a dungeon, or between sessions, etc etc etc you see where this is going.

There was a situation about hawk feathers that was done that way. The end result was that catching and plucking a hawk was not sufficient to get X uses of hawk feathers. It was cheating.



...Orcus isn't as much a spell component as a divine understanding of the magic system here.

EDIT:

That is not creating a problem, that is creating fun.

Your fun sounds like something Friend Computer would deem mandatory.

[Flickerdart]

That is not creating a problem, that is creating fun. Having things backfire, or not work out 100% is fun and intresting.

Take for example: The Avengers. Hawkeye bombs the helicarrier and the Hulk looses control. This is ''having Dr. Banner'' backfire, that is do something bad and harmful to the group. So the Hulk rips apart lots of the helicarrier and alomst kills the Black Widow, fights Thor and gets attacked by the jet. I know a lot of people liked this.

Now, if it was set in 3.5 D&D there is no way Dr. Banner would lose control and become the Hulk, as D&D does not have this type of ''backfire''.

And I think that is wrong and boring.

But you've said before that problem players are the ones that attack the group. So...you want problem players?

[Divide by Zero]

That is not creating a problem, that is creating fun. Having things backfire, or not work out 100% is fun and intresting.

Take for example: The Avengers. Hawkeye bombs the helicarrier and the Hulk looses control. This is ''having Dr. Banner'' backfire, that is do something bad and harmful to the group. So the Hulk rips apart lots of the helicarrier and alomst kills the Black Widow, fights Thor and gets attacked by the jet. I know a lot of people liked this.

Now, if it was set in 3.5 D&D there is no way Dr. Banner would lose control and become the Hulk, as D&D does not have this type of ''backfire''.

And I think that is wrong and boring.

And what if some of the players don't like PvP? This still sounds like something that benefits the "problem" players more.

Also, Frenzied Berserker is a thing.

[TypoNinja]

Problem Players like easy rules that are all good for them, like the default 3X/P rules. Take them away, and the Problem Player does not want to play. That stops them cold. And if they do play, they just want to sit back and be a problem. Take that away from them, and they can't make problems.
''

Correlation is not causation.

I suspect rather than your terrible house rules "Fixing" things that you've simply driven away anybody with a level of system mastery sufficient to realize how horribly you've mangled their game.

[torrasque666]

That is not creating a problem, that is creating fun. Having things backfire, or not work out 100% is fun and intresting.

Take for example: The Avengers. Hawkeye bombs the helicarrier and the Hulk looses control. This is ''having Dr. Banner'' backfire, that is do something bad and harmful to the group. So the Hulk rips apart lots of the helicarrier and alomst kills the Black Widow, fights Thor and gets attacked by the jet. I know a lot of people liked this.

Now, if it was set in 3.5 D&D there is no way Dr. Banner would lose control and become the Hulk, as D&D does not have this type of ''backfire''.

And I think that is wrong and boring.

Actually, there is the Frenzied Berseker. Pretty much its entire concept is "attack er'ebody around you, regardless of friend or foe." Basically, Hulk frenzied without enough enemies around, and due to his massive CON mod, it lasted damn near forever.

[Nilehus]

Correlation is not causation.

I suspect rather than your terrible house rules "Fixing" things that you've simply driven away anybody with a level of system mastery sufficient to realize how horribly you've mangled their game.

System mastery is just cheater code for cheating.

Personally, I thought it meant knowing how to play D&D without having to check a book every 2 rounds, but apparently not.

[Gildedragon]

Yeah Hulking out is a whole class feature in D&D 3.5: Rage
and if one wanted random: there is the Frenzied Berserker class, the incontrollable rage flaw...

[Kazudo]

Yeah Hulking out is a whole class feature in D&D 3.5: Rage
and if one wanted random: there is the Frenzied Berserker class, the incontrollable rage flaw...

You mean Raging Orcus. There's at least a percentage chance that attempting to rudisplork to give yourself rage will end up in you losing your mind (wild shape does it, why not rage?) and you hand your character sheet to the DM and become Orcus.

[eggynack]

A great example from another thread: There are four players ready to enter the lair of the lich. Player five, Pete, is "Ok, I would like to officaly stop the game, make the other four players and the DM is around while I serch for spell components.''

But... it's your fault that he's doing that. You are making him do the thing you hate. You are the problem player.

To be fair, Pickford didn't start that thread. He didn't even chime in until page three... So maybe this would be a tie for first, it first outright give the fact Jedi initiated this thread himself?

I disagree. Pickford never really started any of the Pickford threads. In point of fact, no thread that Pickford ever created went over 60 posts. His usual mode of existence involved doing what was done in that thread, which was crazy hijacking in the direction of pointless arguments that extended forever. I don't see much reason to begrudge anyone for their particular method of creating massive threads.

[Flickerdart]

But... it's your fault that he's doing that. You are making him do the thing you hate. You are the problem player.

That's just another layer of jedipotter's byzantine despotism. He makes you do stuff he hates so that when you do the stuff he can go "aha, a problem player!" and get rid of you.

[A_Moon]

God, I am so fed up of optimized cheating forumers who want to just get a thread every time they click "new thread".
"I make a new thr-""ORCUS 2 ELECTRIC BOOGALOO!"

... Are there any spells that require Orcus as a component?

Ah, I see how to break the system now. There is one spell that would require a piece of Orcus...

"I summon Orcus!"
"No! You summon Bwaaaahh???"

And then the universe implodes.

Also, I'd still like to see Jedi's full list of house-rules and his fixes for every single unbalanced spell.

[jaydubs]

Your fun sounds like something Friend Computer would deem mandatory.

Friend Computer is always right.
Not obeying Friend Computer is treason.
Friend Computer says "Trust Friend Computer"
Friend Computer says "Be happy" (Not being happy is treason)
Friend Computer says that Secret Societies are treasonous, they want to overthrow Friend Computer.
Friend Computer says that mutants are treasonous, as they have powers that can hurt Friend Computer.
Treason is punishable by summary execution.

..........

The DM is always right.
Not agreeing with the DM makes you a dirty cheater.
The DM decides when you succeed or fail (trying to increase your chances of succeeding above 50% is cheating).
The DM says that optimizers are cheaters, they want to promote the boring concept of player agency.
The DM says that people using the unchanged ruleset are cheaters, since it lets players use abilities without a high probability of it horribly backfiring.
The DM says that compromise is wrong.
The DM says that logic has no place in the real world.
Not agreeing with any of the above makes you a problem player.
Problem players are banished to other games, which are boring because they don't include arbitrary causes of failure for every action.

[Arbane]

I lot don't, that is kinda the point....


A great example from another thread: There are four players ready to enter the lair of the lich. Player five, Pete, is "Ok, I would like to officaly stop the game, make the other four players and the DM is around while I serch for spell components.''

Hoooold on. How did this alleged 'lich' manage to level up high enough to achieve undeadness without suffering an Orcus-related mishap first? I call shenanigans.

Your fun sounds like something Friend Computer would deem mandatory.

....Where's the 'like' button on this page?

[Vaz]

As i've not read the thread, or care to, what are jedipotters houserules?