Okay, the number one bitch I hear from DMs is, "I can't hold a group together." Most of what follows I have learned from painful experience, either from my own mistakes, or from sitting in on other people's disasters as a player.
1. PREPARE, PREPARE, PREPARE. If you're running a published adventure, copy the maps and READ THE FUCKING ADVENTURE while consulting the maps. If you're running your own adventure, put some time into it. The players know when you're winging it. It sucks. Also, STICK TO YOUR PREPARATIONS. If it turns out to be a cakewalk, so be it. If it's too difficult, because you fucked up the balance, give the party a chance to retreat.
2. READ AND KNOW THE RULES. This is especially important for setting up an adventure.
3. BOOK RULES. This is the NUMBER ONE THING that causes players to leave the game. If you must have house rules, write them up and distribute them, so everyone knows what they are. Rules that change moment-to-moment are frustrating as hell to your players, and it destroys the suspension of disbelief that separates D&D from table top war games. Also, see #4.
4. CLASS/RACE ABILITIES ARE NOT TO BE NERF-BATTED. Nothing is worse than dealing with a DM who thinks that a core class is "broken", and modifies it...Or jacks with the rules to make his life easier. The best example of this is the second level rogue ability Evasion. It doesn't matter where the rogue is, or what the situation is. If he makes his reflex save vs that fireball, he takes no Goddamn damage even if there's nowhere for him to hide or take cover. It's a game mechanic, used to balance the various classes. This isn't a Goddamn physics class. He just gets to do it. End of story. Half the fun of the game is leveling up to those cool abilities. Having them then arbitrarily neutered by a lazy DM makes players angry, and they'll eventually quit. DO THE FUCKING LEGWORK TO MAKE A CHALLENGE, DO NOT FORCE A CHALLENGE BY DENYING CLASS ABILITIES THAT THE PLAYERS HAVE EARNED.
5. "THE DM'S WORD IS LAW" IS NOT AN EXCUSE TO BE A SHITBAG. Killing a player arbitrarily or using DM fiat to make up for shortcomings in your preparation is fucking weak.
6. DO NOT START NEW CAMPAIGNS EVERY TWO GODDAMN WEEKS. This one's a killer. The players worked to level up, and they want to use the abilities they've earned. Yes, preparing high level adventures is a solid bitch. If you can't handle it, let someone else run. If you do not provide continuity, your players will leave.
7. IF YOU FUDGE THE DICE, ONLY DO SO FOR THE PLAYER'S BENEFIT. Sometimes a player does everything right, and the dice fuck him anyway. Instead of having that last hit he took kill him, leave him 3 points short of death (negative value of Con is the point of death in pathfinder, -10 in 3.5). On the other hand, if he tried something stupid, let him die.
8. USE A DM SCREEN. You can't see what the universe is about to do, the players shouldn't see what the bad guys are up to.
9. LET THE PLAYERS ROLL THEIR OWN SKILL CHECKS, ETC. If you make all their rolls in secret, they feel like spectators.
10. THE PLAYERS ARE THE HEROES. If you're running NPC THEATER, where their favorite NPCs have to save the party all the damn time, you don't have a game. Win or lose, live or die, the players are the main characters.
Sometimes the players are going to rabidly own your ass. That happens, but it rates a rant of its own, so I won't go into detail here.
Also,
11. DO NOT START THE PARTY AT 20TH LEVEL. Players don't value characters that they haven't brought up from 1st level.
12. READ THE FUCKING RULE BOOK. Did I already say that? Well, it bears repeating.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 10, 2011, 05:31:31 PM
11. DO NOT START THE PARTY AT 20TH LEVEL. Players don't value characters that they haven't brought up from 1st level.
Is starting at level 3 acceptable? I've heard that it's a fairly common practice.
Quote from: Unqualified on February 10, 2011, 05:39:07 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 10, 2011, 05:31:31 PM
11. DO NOT START THE PARTY AT 20TH LEVEL. Players don't value characters that they haven't brought up from 1st level.
Is starting at level 3 acceptable? I've heard that it's a fairly common practice.
I recommend against it. Players bitch and cry about starting at 1st, but when you're bullshitting about campaigns gone by, where is the most nostalgia? It's when Joe Platemail had an AC of 15 and 12 lousy HPs to his name.
Also, abilities stack up pretty fast, and if you haven't grown into them, you won't get the most out of your character.
Also,
13. MAINTAIN CONTINUITY. Skip too many sessions, and the game will fall apart. If a player consistently misses, drop him.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 10, 2011, 05:31:31 PM
Also,
12. READ THE FUCKING RULE BOOK. Did I already say that? Well, it bears repeating.
Nothing stifles play like a a few 5 minute clarificaiton hunts. Same token as not using Deus Ex GM, I think if players can stuff me on a rules point w/o breaking things, eat some crow and give them their victory ... THIS TIME....
Quote from: Richter on February 10, 2011, 05:53:51 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 10, 2011, 05:31:31 PM
Also,
12. READ THE FUCKING RULE BOOK. Did I already say that? Well, it bears repeating.
Nothing stifles play like a a few 5 minute clarificaiton hunts. Same token as not using Deus Ex GM, I think if players can stuff me on a rules point w/o breaking things, eat some crow and give them their victory ... THIS TIME....
This. I'm going to cover that a bit more in "DM ownage", #3 in this series.
May I add: DO NOT FORCE YOUR PLAYERS TO PLAY RACIAL OR CLASS STEREOTYPES.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on February 10, 2011, 06:14:38 PM
May I add: DO NOT FORCE YOUR PLAYERS TO PLAY RACIAL OR CLASS STEREOTYPES.
Yep. It's the player's character, not the DM's. Got a story behind this rule?
The main thing is, people are playing to have fun. Taking the fun away by fiat kind of defeats the whole purpose.
another great post! A few thoughts...
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 10, 2011, 05:26:52 PM
4. CLASS/RACE ABILITIES ARE NOT TO BE NERF-BATTED.
Core stuff, yeah, best to use it as written. But if you let your players select stuff from other sources, you should really have a look at it before you green-light it. The stuff they publish in Dragon magazine, for example, is usually a bit more powerful than the core material (to give people an incentive to subscribe). I recently had to tell the party rogue he had to trade out a feat called "flash of the blade" which basically let him get a sneak attack without having to use any kind of teamwork, flanking, or set-up attacks. He felt it was unfair, but the feat was craaaacked out.
Quote8. USE A DM SCREEN. You can't see what the universe is about to do, the players shouldn't see what the bad guys are up to.
I keep my notes backstage, but I make my die rolls in front of the players. I think that you make the game less dramatic if you fudging die rolls too frequently, and I want my players to know that I'm not saving them from random crits just cause the party might wipe. :evil:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 10, 2011, 05:31:31 PM
11. DO NOT START THE PARTY AT 20TH LEVEL. Players don't value characters that they haven't brought up from 1st level.
1st level games are good for telling stories about peasants and regular people that become small town heroes and eventually one day save the world. But if you want to break away from that, or you want to tell an epic level story without grinding through low levels for months, I don't think it's a problem to start higher. After all, they wrote a ton of content for the game and a lot of people never see the higher level stuff.
The players will get to know their characters after a few sessions regardless of what level you're playing at.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 10, 2011, 05:26:52 PM
5. "THE DM'S WORD IS LAW" IS NOT AN EXCUSE TO BE A SHITBAG. Killing a player arbitrarily or using DM fiat to make up for shortcomings in your preparation is fucking weak.
Christ, yes.
Also, I humbly submit:
-EVERYBODY GETS A TURN. It's fine to spotlight a particular PC for a few sessions, if there's something cool happening. If it's a sneak-and-run situation, the rogue gets to shine, and that's cool. It becomes MUCH less cool, fast, when the rogue is the ONLY one who gets to shine. Ever.
That, by the way, is the only reason I've ever walked away from an active campaign, other than real-life reasons (I have class that night, whatever.)
I played one session, as a monk, with a new DM (our group had invited her to take the pressure off of me so I could just run games every other week).
During said session, my monk was offered a bribe. Said bribe was actually turned down after a brief moment roleplay (Whatshisface considers this for a moment, then turns away or something like that).
Apparently even being *tempted* by a bribe violates some monk vow of poverty I've never heard of. Because all monks are apparently modeled off the real world concept of monk, and can't be a normal person who learned how to kill things with his bare hands.
Quote
-EVERYBODY GETS A TURN. It's fine to spotlight a particular PC for a few sessions, if there's something cool happening. If it's a sneak-and-run situation, the rogue gets to shine, and that's cool. It becomes MUCH less cool, fast, when the rogue is the ONLY one who gets to shine. Ever.
Incidentally, this sucks even when you're the rogue. I've been there too.
It was the paladin in that particular campaign.
Four words.
Holy sword. Level FOUR.
I think the only reason I kept going back as long as I did was to see if the DM actually WOULD get down on his knees and blow the paladin's player at the gaming table.
Quote from: Cramulus on February 10, 2011, 06:32:16 PM
another great post! A few thoughts...
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 10, 2011, 05:26:52 PM
4. CLASS/RACE ABILITIES ARE NOT TO BE NERF-BATTED.
Core stuff, yeah, best to use it as written. But if you let your players select stuff from other sources, you should really have a look at it before you green-light it.
My rule is Paizo-official rules only. No third party stuff, no 3.5 stuff. That keeps things nice and balanced.
Quote from: Cramulus on February 10, 2011, 06:32:16 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 10, 2011, 05:31:31 PM
11. DO NOT START THE PARTY AT 20TH LEVEL. Players don't value characters that they haven't brought up from 1st level.
1st level games are good for telling stories about peasants and regular people that become small town heroes and eventually one day save the world. But if you want to break away from that, or you want to tell an epic level story without grinding through low levels for months, I don't think it's a problem to start higher. After all, they wrote a ton of content for the game and a lot of people never see the higher level stuff.
The players will get to know their characters after a few sessions regardless of what level you're playing at.
My next rant is about high level adventures. 9 times out of 10, shake & bake high level stuff is just a low level adventure with "mountain giants" dropped in place of "orcs".
Starting at Epic level...Why bother? They make superhero games already.
Also, take an average player and hand him a 20th level monk. He won't get jack shit out of his class abilities, because most of them were never used for a while as his best schtick.
Quote from: Luna on February 10, 2011, 06:46:16 PM
It was the paladin in that particular campaign.
Four words.
Holy sword. Level FOUR.
I think the only reason I kept going back as long as I did was to see if the DM actually WOULD get down on his knees and blow the paladin's player at the gaming table.
WTF? :lulz:
Quote from: Requia ☣ on February 10, 2011, 06:43:38 PM
Apparently even being *tempted* by a bribe violates some monk vow of poverty I've never heard of.
Oh, hey, you can't win. Fun.
Also, as a DM, I do not allow evil characters (with only one or two exceptions in 30+ years).
If they're played properly, nobody has any fun.
Quote from: Luna on February 10, 2011, 06:36:08 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 10, 2011, 05:26:52 PM
5. "THE DM'S WORD IS LAW" IS NOT AN EXCUSE TO BE A SHITBAG. Killing a player arbitrarily or using DM fiat to make up for shortcomings in your preparation is fucking weak.
Christ, yes.
Also, I humbly submit:
-EVERYBODY GETS A TURN. It's fine to spotlight a particular PC for a few sessions, if there's something cool happening. If it's a sneak-and-run situation, the rogue gets to shine, and that's cool. It becomes MUCH less cool, fast, when the rogue is the ONLY one who gets to shine. Ever.
That, by the way, is the only reason I've ever walked away from an active campaign, other than real-life reasons (I have class that night, whatever.)
I think I covered that in the 1st thread, but I could have worded it better.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 10, 2011, 06:47:36 PM
Quote from: Luna on February 10, 2011, 06:46:16 PM
It was the paladin in that particular campaign.
Four words.
Holy sword. Level FOUR.
I think the only reason I kept going back as long as I did was to see if the DM actually WOULD get down on his knees and blow the paladin's player at the gaming table.
WTF? :lulz:
Pretty much my reaction, too. Funny how the ONLY magic armor that was dropped was plate (which only the paladin could wear)... Stuff like that.
it's symptomatic of DMs who think that their game has a "main character". It's whack - if you're hanging out with your friends, one of you probably isn't the designated "leader", why should you have one in D&D? This isn't a goddamn movie!
FLESH it OUT. Set the scene, paint a picture for people. Give them some exhibition, some detail when asked, and some secrets to find eyond that if they look hard enough, or the right way. Make NPC's different. Describe fights. (I described several PC/NPC missed hits and critical failures with "Spleen is slippery". I was flattered as all HELL when this amde it into facebook posts.) GM's reading straight (verbatim) from the prepared adventure books, describing fights in terms of points of damage only jsut seems dry and awful. Your world, give it some life.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 10, 2011, 06:52:48 PM
Quote from: Luna on February 10, 2011, 06:36:08 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 10, 2011, 05:26:52 PM
5. "THE DM'S WORD IS LAW" IS NOT AN EXCUSE TO BE A SHITBAG. Killing a player arbitrarily or using DM fiat to make up for shortcomings in your preparation is fucking weak.
Christ, yes.
Also, I humbly submit:
-EVERYBODY GETS A TURN. It's fine to spotlight a particular PC for a few sessions, if there's something cool happening. If it's a sneak-and-run situation, the rogue gets to shine, and that's cool. It becomes MUCH less cool, fast, when the rogue is the ONLY one who gets to shine. Ever.
That, by the way, is the only reason I've ever walked away from an active campaign, other than real-life reasons (I have class that night, whatever.)
I think I covered that in the 1st thread, but I could have worded it better.
Players can have trouble sharing the spotlight amongst themselves... It's easy to let the quiet player sit and do his or her thing in the background. But when a GM starts saying and showing that a particular character is the center of the game, it's gonna go to shit fast. (Had to take a GM to task for that one, many MANY years ago. His girlfriend joined the game, you see...)
Quote from: Luna on February 10, 2011, 07:02:55 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 10, 2011, 06:52:48 PM
Quote from: Luna on February 10, 2011, 06:36:08 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 10, 2011, 05:26:52 PM
5. "THE DM'S WORD IS LAW" IS NOT AN EXCUSE TO BE A SHITBAG. Killing a player arbitrarily or using DM fiat to make up for shortcomings in your preparation is fucking weak.
Christ, yes.
Also, I humbly submit:
-EVERYBODY GETS A TURN. It's fine to spotlight a particular PC for a few sessions, if there's something cool happening. If it's a sneak-and-run situation, the rogue gets to shine, and that's cool. It becomes MUCH less cool, fast, when the rogue is the ONLY one who gets to shine. Ever.
That, by the way, is the only reason I've ever walked away from an active campaign, other than real-life reasons (I have class that night, whatever.)
I think I covered that in the 1st thread, but I could have worded it better.
Players can have trouble sharing the spotlight amongst themselves... It's easy to let the quiet player sit and do his or her thing in the background. But when a GM starts saying and showing that a particular character is the center of the game, it's gonna go to shit fast. (Had to take a GM to task for that one, many MANY years ago. His girlfriend joined the game, you see...)
I dropped out of a campaign once, because the DM had a favorite.
The other thing that will make me drop is when you come in to a new group and all the other players start playing dominance games with your character. I fucking hate that shit, to the point where I just grab my shit, thank the host, and leave.
Quote from: Richter on February 10, 2011, 06:57:27 PM
FLESH it OUT. Set the scene, paint a picture for people. Give them some exhibition, some detail when asked, and some secrets to find eyond that if they look hard enough, or the right way. Make NPC's different. Describe fights. (I described several PC/NPC missed hits and critical failures with "Spleen is slippery". I was flattered as all HELL when this amde it into facebook posts.) GM's reading straight (verbatim) from the prepared adventure books, describing fights in terms of points of damage only jsut seems dry and awful. Your world, give it some life.
Heh. The best part was that somebody actually posted a WTF about it. :lol:
Yes, this. Make it real.
NPC's you give a crap about is good, too. Punch-out "Bob the Tavern Keeper" is boring. You know who he is, he's in half the books out there. Pudgy, grumpy guy, spends all his time wiping down counters. How about Nilfin, a halfling, retired adventurer rogue. He lost his leg to a trap, many years back, and retired on his profits to run an inn. He's got a soft spot for adventurers, and NO patience for idiots. (He's infamous for winging change back for actual damage when irritated.) Spends his time in a cushy chair near the cashbox, yelling at the waitresses.
Oh, a suggestion for this thread:
DISCOURAGE PCS FROM INFIGHTING.
Dominance games will lead to in game arguments, and then pc vs. pc fights, and then nobody has fun. :(
Quote from: Sister Fracture on February 10, 2011, 07:14:13 PM
Oh, a suggestion for this thread:
DISCOURAGE PCS FROM INFIGHTING.
Dominance games will lead to in game arguments, and then pc vs. pc fights, and then nobody has fun. :(
If the players argue, their characters are arguing. Wandering monster check, etc.
If the characters actually come to blows, that's a fucking
dinner bell.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 10, 2011, 07:16:06 PM
Quote from: Sister Fracture on February 10, 2011, 07:14:13 PM
Oh, a suggestion for this thread:
DISCOURAGE PCS FROM INFIGHTING.
Dominance games will lead to in game arguments, and then pc vs. pc fights, and then nobody has fun. :(
If the players argue, their characters are arguing. Wandering monster check, etc.
If the characters actually come to blows, that's a fucking dinner bell.
I wouldn'ta stabbed Jake, but he tried to fuck with me and be the boss of me. :oops:
What's your stance on debating which course to take, strategizing, etc., in the dungeon?
Quote from: Sister Fracture on February 10, 2011, 07:18:34 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 10, 2011, 07:16:06 PM
Quote from: Sister Fracture on February 10, 2011, 07:14:13 PM
Oh, a suggestion for this thread:
DISCOURAGE PCS FROM INFIGHTING.
Dominance games will lead to in game arguments, and then pc vs. pc fights, and then nobody has fun. :(
If the players argue, their characters are arguing. Wandering monster check, etc.
If the characters actually come to blows, that's a fucking dinner bell.
I wouldn'ta stabbed Jake, but he tried to fuck with me and be the boss of me. :oops:
What's your stance on debating which course to take, strategizing, etc., in the dungeon?
That's PC conversation. Make it quick, and I won't make that wandering monster check. Get loud, and you're gonna get company.
Quote from: Sister Fracture on February 10, 2011, 07:18:34 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 10, 2011, 07:16:06 PM
Quote from: Sister Fracture on February 10, 2011, 07:14:13 PM
Oh, a suggestion for this thread:
DISCOURAGE PCS FROM INFIGHTING.
Dominance games will lead to in game arguments, and then pc vs. pc fights, and then nobody has fun. :(
If the players argue, their characters are arguing. Wandering monster check, etc.
If the characters actually come to blows, that's a fucking dinner bell.
I wouldn'ta stabbed Jake, but he tried to fuck with me and be the boss of me. :oops:
What's your stance on debating which course to take, strategizing, etc., in the dungeon?
If you're talking, your characters are talking. Same goes for combat.
Sometimes, an invisible/stealthy bastard is listening in. :)
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 10, 2011, 07:20:10 PM
Quote from: Sister Fracture on February 10, 2011, 07:18:34 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 10, 2011, 07:16:06 PM
Quote from: Sister Fracture on February 10, 2011, 07:14:13 PM
Oh, a suggestion for this thread:
DISCOURAGE PCS FROM INFIGHTING.
Dominance games will lead to in game arguments, and then pc vs. pc fights, and then nobody has fun. :(
If the players argue, their characters are arguing. Wandering monster check, etc.
If the characters actually come to blows, that's a fucking dinner bell.
I wouldn'ta stabbed Jake, but he tried to fuck with me and be the boss of me. :oops:
What's your stance on debating which course to take, strategizing, etc., in the dungeon?
If you're talking, your characters are talking. Same goes for combat.
Sometimes, an invisible/stealthy bastard is listening in. :)
Indeed.
Do you know, I sometimes get ideas from you just listening to your strategies and such? :)
Quote from: Sister Fracture on February 10, 2011, 07:21:32 PM
Do you know, I sometimes get ideas from you just listening to your strategies and such? :)
I'm getting a bit inspired, myself. All I've got is my 4th Edition books (the rest is subject to the my books/his books argument that we're going to be having), so I may sit down and start setting something up for 4E.
Quote from: Luna on February 10, 2011, 07:23:39 PM
Quote from: Sister Fracture on February 10, 2011, 07:21:32 PM
Do you know, I sometimes get ideas from you just listening to your strategies and such? :)
I'm getting a bit inspired, myself. All I've got is my 4th Edition books (the rest is subject to the my books/his books argument that we're going to be having), so I may sit down and start setting something up for 4E.
4E is an abomination unto the eyes of Gygax. :gheyforum:
Pathfinder is far superior, IMO, as it rewards DMs and players who put a little effort into their game, and isn't WoW on table-top.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 10, 2011, 07:38:26 PM
Quote from: Luna on February 10, 2011, 07:23:39 PM
Quote from: Sister Fracture on February 10, 2011, 07:21:32 PM
Do you know, I sometimes get ideas from you just listening to your strategies and such? :)
I'm getting a bit inspired, myself. All I've got is my 4th Edition books (the rest is subject to the my books/his books argument that we're going to be having), so I may sit down and start setting something up for 4E.
4E is an abomination unto the eyes of Gygax. :gheyforum:
Pathfinder is far superior, IMO, as it rewards DMs and players who put a little effort into their game, and isn't WoW on table-top.
Ah, 4E's survivable. And, sadly, it's the only system I have possession of. Unless I can bum the books, I won't be running Pathfinder anytime soon. (I am setting up a new apartment, and hemorrhaging cash at a distressing rate. Once things stabilize, I'll be fine, but January was brutal.)
blah blah blah my game is better than your game :deadhorse:
Quote from: Cramulus on February 10, 2011, 08:00:30 PM
blah blah blah my game is better than your game :deadhorse:
Nah, I'm liking Pathfinder just fine (though I've only played a couple sessions so far). It's just that 4th is all I've got at the moment.
Quote from: Cramulus on February 10, 2011, 08:00:30 PM
blah blah blah my game is better than your game :deadhorse:
I'd have thought the :gheyforum: icon and reference to Gygax as a deific figure might have been an indication that I was joking.
ah hopefully the "man jerking off a horse" emote signifies that I wasn't really offended. :p I just get a little sick of repeatedly being told I'm running a tabletop version of WoW (not by you, just 3.5 fanboys in general). Normally I'd reciprocate with some over-the-top trash talk but I really do like 3.5 and I haven't played pathfinder yet.
Quote from: Cramulus on February 10, 2011, 08:12:21 PM
ah hopefully the "man jerking off a horse" emote signifies that I wasn't really offended. :p I just get a little sick of repeatedly being told I'm running a tabletop version of WoW (not by you, just 3.5 fanboys in general). Normally I'd reciprocate with some over-the-top trash talk but I really do like 3.5 and I haven't played pathfinder yet.
Pathfinder is 3.5 cleaned up for munchkins. Not just player munchkins, but DM munchkins. It lends itself STRONGLY to customized monsters, and even managed to take the suck and fail out of bards.
Quote from: Luna on February 10, 2011, 08:02:53 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on February 10, 2011, 08:00:30 PM
blah blah blah my game is better than your game :deadhorse:
Nah, I'm liking Pathfinder just fine (though I've only played a couple sessions so far). It's just that 4th is all I've got at the moment.
The PDFs dropped to 10$. (Paizo.com) I don't generally recommend that unless there's at least two core books in the group (hard to pass a computer around the table), but if you're already playing this'll get you the stuff you need to make characters and encounters and so forth during prep time.
There's a few SRDs out there if your group is *really* stingy and don't want to buy PDFs, but the formatting is horrible and you miss some of the best stuff as a DM (the beasties in Bestiary 2 are awesome).
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 10, 2011, 08:14:40 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on February 10, 2011, 08:12:21 PM
ah hopefully the "man jerking off a horse" emote signifies that I wasn't really offended. :p I just get a little sick of repeatedly being told I'm running a tabletop version of WoW (not by you, just 3.5 fanboys in general). Normally I'd reciprocate with some over-the-top trash talk but I really do like 3.5 and I haven't played pathfinder yet.
Pathfinder is 3.5 cleaned up for munchkins. Not just player munchkins, but DM munchkins. It lends itself STRONGLY to customized monsters, and even managed to take the suck and fail out of bards.
I still don't believe this. I mean I've read the new bard, and it
looks good. But I still suspect this is a trick and they really fail when actually played.
Nope. We had a bard in some campaign I played, and it was pretty good.
#4 (nerfing core class abilities) and ESPECIALLY #6 (starting up new campaigns all the goddamn time) have been major hangups to our gaming sessions.
With just one single DM, I can think of at least six roleplaying campaigns (D&D or otherwise) that have been started and never finished with this guy.
And you were one lucky bastard if you even got a reflex save at all against the Fireball, much less got to use Evasion. "The entire area is filled with fire, it doesn't make any sense that you can mitigate that damage if you're out in the open." BITCH THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GETTING BURNED IN THE FACE AND GETTING BURNED ON YOUR BACKSIDE. ALSO FUCK YOU, WAY TO MAKE AREA OF EFFECT SPELLS EVEN MORE STUPIDLY POWERFUL.
As you might imagine, there's been a sort of unofficial falling out with this guy and we haven't played any of his campaigns in months. Plus he apparently started being a douche whenever his new girlfriend played.
sounds like you could use a round-robin style game. Switch DMs after every adventure. Make sure it takes place in a setting wacky enough to include everybody's ideas.
:/ That'll happen. Sucks, but perhaps not too much in your case, since he doesn't sound like that great a DM.
The only on the spot ruling I've had and stuck with about AOE spells is that Fireball, when it goes off above water, does not affect creatures completely submerged, and it does NOT do concussion damage (because it would say so in the spell description, and it only says "fire" damage.)
Quote from: Cramulus on February 10, 2011, 09:44:21 PM
sounds like you could use a round-robin style game. Switch DMs after every adventure. Make sure it takes place in a setting wacky enough to include everybody's ideas.
We've given this some consideration... with the idea of bringing in the abandoned characters from some of our games that got put on permanent backburner status. :lol:
One of the very few bits I did salvage of my 2nd Ed stuff was the two boxed sets of Ruins of Undermountain.
I'm considering updating it, seeing who else in the groups likes to DM, an running it as a round robin. (I figure swap off every "X" number of sessions, levels, whatever, I'm flexible.) Everybody has a character, if you're DMing, your character is still active (to keep levels even), gets an even share of cash treasure, but no dibs on magic items while you're running the game. Placing items only useful to your character is punishable by flogging.
This is something that could run for frippin' ever.
Quote from: Cainad on February 10, 2011, 09:40:39 PM
And you were one lucky bastard if you even got a reflex save at all against the Fireball, much less got to use Evasion. "The entire area is filled with fire, it doesn't make any sense that you can mitigate that damage if you're out in the open."
I bet the monsters got saving throws. :lulz:
Quote from: Cainad on February 10, 2011, 09:40:39 PMAnd you were one lucky bastard if you even got a reflex save at all against the Fireball, much less got to use Evasion. "The entire area is filled with fire, it doesn't make any sense that you can mitigate that damage if you're out in the open."
Isn't that why rogues always travel with a fighter? Gives you something to hide behind no matter where you are.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 10, 2011, 10:00:32 PM
Quote from: Cainad on February 10, 2011, 09:40:39 PM
And you were one lucky bastard if you even got a reflex save at all against the Fireball, much less got to use Evasion. "The entire area is filled with fire, it doesn't make any sense that you can mitigate that damage if you're out in the open."
I bet the monsters got saving throws. :lulz:
Sometimes. Other (read: most) times the monster was a bullshit Far Realm monstrosity with a zillion hit points and damage reduction anyway, so he didn't need to give it the saving throw. He wasn't a player-killer DM, but the boss monsters tended to be rather uncreative.
That was another thing that quickly became bullshit. The Far Realm is called "Far" for a goddamn reason. It ain't the Realm That's Three Doors Down The Street On The Left, so why the fucknut are we running into Lovecraftian freaks every other adventure at like 6th level? Oh, because your imagination appears to no longer consider anything that isn't an aberration to be a cool enough encounter anymore, that's right. :argh!:
Meh. I've been tearing this guy a new asshole all afternoon now. I should be fair and point out that we did play with him semi-regularly for a year and a half, and usually enjoyed ourselves well enough.
Quote from: Cainad on February 10, 2011, 10:27:22 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 10, 2011, 10:00:32 PM
Quote from: Cainad on February 10, 2011, 09:40:39 PM
And you were one lucky bastard if you even got a reflex save at all against the Fireball, much less got to use Evasion. "The entire area is filled with fire, it doesn't make any sense that you can mitigate that damage if you're out in the open."
I bet the monsters got saving throws. :lulz:
Sometimes. Other (read: most) times the monster was a bullshit Far Realm monstrosity with a zillion hit points and damage reduction anyway, so he didn't need to give it the saving throw. He wasn't a player-killer DM, but the boss monsters tended to be rather uncreative.
That was another thing that quickly became bullshit. The Far Realm is called "Far" for a goddamn reason. It ain't the Realm That's Three Doors Down The Street On The Left, so why the fucknut are we running into Lovecraftian freaks every other adventure at like 6th level? Oh, because your imagination appears to no longer consider anything that isn't an aberration to be a cool enough encounter anymore, that's right. :argh!:
Meh. I've been tearing this guy a new asshole all afternoon now. I should be fair and point out that we did play with him semi-regularly for a year and a half, and usually enjoyed ourselves well enough.
*bump*
This.
The idea of using EXOTIC, RARE-ASS monsters ALL THE TIME is about as imaginative as the low-functioning geek who says "I WANNA PLAY A DROW, BECAUSE THAT'S CAPS-LOCK FOR COOL!". Beats coming up with an original idea for a standard character, right? Same thing with the Far Realms bullshit...Why put any thought into the campaign, when you can make it "interesting" with YET ANOTHER uber-tough, uber-rare monster. Yawn.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 10, 2011, 05:26:52 PM
4. CLASS/RACE ABILITIES ARE NOT TO BE NERF-BATTED. Nothing is worse than dealing with a DM who thinks that a core class is "broken", and modifies it...Or jacks with the rules to make his life easier. The best example of this is the second level rogue ability Evasion. It doesn't matter where the rogue is, or what the situation is. If he makes his reflex save vs that fireball, he takes no Goddamn damage even if there's nowhere for him to hide or take cover. It's a game mechanic, used to balance the various classes. This isn't a Goddamn physics class. He just gets to do it. End of story. Half the fun of the game is leveling up to those cool abilities. Having them then arbitrarily neutered by a lazy DM makes players angry, and they'll eventually quit. DO THE FUCKING LEGWORK TO MAKE A CHALLENGE, DO NOT FORCE A CHALLENGE BY DENYING CLASS ABILITIES THAT THE PLAYERS HAVE EARNED.
Why is always evasion and reflex saves that get fucking nerfed? Further reminder why I don't want to join back up with my last group. Fucking dm was nerfing my wife's rogue with that manner of bullshit. "But you get a fort save against the damage instead" Because my paladin doesn't give a shit about damage anyways, and rogues have such a high fucking fort bonus right.
Or being argued with about how horses and other large creatures work in combat in PF. Rules state they take up a 10'X10' square, if you're bitching about how horses should be able to stack up 5' from each other and other such shit because you fucking used to raise horses, sod the fuck off. I don't fucking bring down the hammer of how you actually fight a man in armor one on one with a sword and other such bullshit because I'm playing a GAME with RULES. If I don't like the rules of this GAME I play a different GAME, or I change the rules in a way that everyone at the table agrees with and make our rules known from the beginning to new players.
Or having a fucking holy avenger EXPLODE because it's a "relic" when it isn't RAW, so it can do a retributive strike, when the only relic that RAW can do that is a specific staff.
Quote from: six to the quixotic on May 30, 2013, 07:10:25 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 10, 2011, 05:26:52 PM
4. CLASS/RACE ABILITIES ARE NOT TO BE NERF-BATTED. Nothing is worse than dealing with a DM who thinks that a core class is "broken", and modifies it...Or jacks with the rules to make his life easier. The best example of this is the second level rogue ability Evasion. It doesn't matter where the rogue is, or what the situation is. If he makes his reflex save vs that fireball, he takes no Goddamn damage even if there's nowhere for him to hide or take cover. It's a game mechanic, used to balance the various classes. This isn't a Goddamn physics class. He just gets to do it. End of story. Half the fun of the game is leveling up to those cool abilities. Having them then arbitrarily neutered by a lazy DM makes players angry, and they'll eventually quit. DO THE FUCKING LEGWORK TO MAKE A CHALLENGE, DO NOT FORCE A CHALLENGE BY DENYING CLASS ABILITIES THAT THE PLAYERS HAVE EARNED.
Why is always evasion and reflex saves that get fucking nerfed? Further reminder why I don't want to join back up with my last group. Fucking dm was nerfing my wife's rogue with that manner of bullshit. "But you get a fort save against the damage instead" Because my paladin doesn't give a shit about damage anyways, and rogues have such a high fucking fort bonus right.
Or being argued with about how horses and other large creatures work in combat in PF. Rules state they take up a 10'X10' square, if you're bitching about how horses should be able to stack up 5' from each other and other such shit because you fucking used to raise horses, sod the fuck off. I don't fucking bring down the hammer of how you actually fight a man in armor one on one with a sword and other such bullshit because I'm playing a GAME with RULES. If I don't like the rules of this GAME I play a different GAME, or I change the rules in a way that everyone at the table agrees with and make our rules known from the beginning to new players.
Or having a fucking holy avenger EXPLODE because it's a "relic" when it isn't RAW, so it can do a retributive strike, when the only relic that RAW can do that is a specific staff.
Why learn the rules and learn to work WITH the rules when you have UNLIMITED POWAH?
Sure, all the good players bail, but that's because THEY SUCK.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 30, 2013, 07:08:40 PM
Quote from: Cainad on February 10, 2011, 10:27:22 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 10, 2011, 10:00:32 PM
Quote from: Cainad on February 10, 2011, 09:40:39 PM
And you were one lucky bastard if you even got a reflex save at all against the Fireball, much less got to use Evasion. "The entire area is filled with fire, it doesn't make any sense that you can mitigate that damage if you're out in the open."
I bet the monsters got saving throws. :lulz:
Sometimes. Other (read: most) times the monster was a bullshit Far Realm monstrosity with a zillion hit points and damage reduction anyway, so he didn't need to give it the saving throw. He wasn't a player-killer DM, but the boss monsters tended to be rather uncreative.
That was another thing that quickly became bullshit. The Far Realm is called "Far" for a goddamn reason. It ain't the Realm That's Three Doors Down The Street On The Left, so why the fucknut are we running into Lovecraftian freaks every other adventure at like 6th level? Oh, because your imagination appears to no longer consider anything that isn't an aberration to be a cool enough encounter anymore, that's right. :argh!:
Meh. I've been tearing this guy a new asshole all afternoon now. I should be fair and point out that we did play with him semi-regularly for a year and a half, and usually enjoyed ourselves well enough.
*bump*
This.
The idea of using EXOTIC, RARE-ASS monsters ALL THE TIME is about as imaginative as the low-functioning geek who says "I WANNA PLAY A DROW, BECAUSE THAT'S CAPS-LOCK FOR COOL!". Beats coming up with an original idea for a standard character, right? Same thing with the Far Realms bullshit...Why put any thought into the campaign, when you can make it "interesting" with YET ANOTHER uber-tough, uber-rare monster. Yawn.
Man EXOTIC TEMPLATED MONSTROSITIES OF PLAYER DEVOURING are WAAAAAAY cooler when they are like important end bosses with scads of (mostly) normal humanoid minions.
I still remember the looks on the last party I gmed for when they ran into the boss for their first dungeon crawl. That was reward enough, even if they handily smash the crap out of it.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 30, 2013, 07:08:40 PM
Quote from: Cainad on February 10, 2011, 10:27:22 PM
Sometimes. Other (read: most) times the monster was a bullshit Far Realm monstrosity with a zillion hit points and damage reduction anyway, so he didn't need to give it the saving throw. He wasn't a player-killer DM, but the boss monsters tended to be rather uncreative.
That was another thing that quickly became bullshit. The Far Realm is called "Far" for a goddamn reason. It ain't the Realm That's Three Doors Down The Street On The Left, so why the fucknut are we running into Lovecraftian freaks every other adventure at like 6th level? Oh, because your imagination appears to no longer consider anything that isn't an aberration to be a cool enough encounter anymore, that's right. :argh!:
Meh. I've been tearing this guy a new asshole all afternoon now. I should be fair and point out that we did play with him semi-regularly for a year and a half, and usually enjoyed ourselves well enough.
*bump*
This.
The idea of using EXOTIC, RARE-ASS monsters ALL THE TIME is about as imaginative as the low-functioning geek who says "I WANNA PLAY A DROW, BECAUSE THAT'S CAPS-LOCK FOR COOL!". Beats coming up with an original idea for a standard character, right? Same thing with the Far Realms bullshit...Why put any thought into the campaign, when you can make it "interesting" with YET ANOTHER uber-tough, uber-rare monster. Yawn.
Did I ever mention that this DM once ran a session for total newbie players through a Far Realm jaunt? Because that happened.
When his imagination was on-point and not up his own ass, this guy produced some really interesting stuff. In fact, the most awesome thing he ever GM'd was a rules-light, homebrew horror-themed campaign that wasn't D&D. Those were two of the best Halloweens I spent at college.
When he
was running D&D and decided to do things "his way" is when things got stupid.
Quote from: six to the quixotic on May 30, 2013, 07:13:03 PM
Man EXOTIC TEMPLATED MONSTROSITIES OF PLAYER DEVOURING are WAAAAAAY cooler when they are like important end bosses with scads of (mostly) normal humanoid minions.
I still remember the looks on the last party I gmed for when they ran into the boss for their first dungeon crawl. That was reward enough, even if they handily smash the crap out of it.
I love templating and leveling up monsters. Keeps the players on their toes. But I typically use NORMAL monsters.
Orc with barbarian levels, fiendish template. <--- Good grunts if there's some backstory
that the players know or at least have hints of.
NORMAL, 1st level warrior kobold in 9th level setting <--- scares the shit out of players, dies horribly.
Quote from: Cainad on May 30, 2013, 08:20:15 PM
Did I ever mention that this DM once ran a session for total newbie players through a Far Realm jaunt? Because that happened.
I can't make it next week. I, um, have to have my other appendix taken out.
\
:cluephone:
Oh, you too? All the other players have the same problem. How weird.
\
:nigel:
:lulz: Pretty much exactly what happened.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 30, 2013, 09:24:10 PM
Quote from: six to the quixotic on May 30, 2013, 07:13:03 PM
Man EXOTIC TEMPLATED MONSTROSITIES OF PLAYER DEVOURING are WAAAAAAY cooler when they are like important end bosses with scads of (mostly) normal humanoid minions.
I still remember the looks on the last party I gmed for when they ran into the boss for their first dungeon crawl. That was reward enough, even if they handily smash the crap out of it.
I love templating and leveling up monsters. Keeps the players on their toes. But I typically use NORMAL monsters.
Orc with barbarian levels, fiendish template. <--- Good grunts if there's some backstory that the players know or at least have hints of.
NORMAL, 1st level warrior kobold in 9th level setting <--- scares the shit out of players, dies horribly.
I like using big bugs with templates.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 30, 2013, 07:11:57 PM
Quote from: six to the quixotic on May 30, 2013, 07:10:25 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 10, 2011, 05:26:52 PM
4. CLASS/RACE ABILITIES ARE NOT TO BE NERF-BATTED. Nothing is worse than dealing with a DM who thinks that a core class is "broken", and modifies it...Or jacks with the rules to make his life easier. The best example of this is the second level rogue ability Evasion. It doesn't matter where the rogue is, or what the situation is. If he makes his reflex save vs that fireball, he takes no Goddamn damage even if there's nowhere for him to hide or take cover. It's a game mechanic, used to balance the various classes. This isn't a Goddamn physics class. He just gets to do it. End of story. Half the fun of the game is leveling up to those cool abilities. Having them then arbitrarily neutered by a lazy DM makes players angry, and they'll eventually quit. DO THE FUCKING LEGWORK TO MAKE A CHALLENGE, DO NOT FORCE A CHALLENGE BY DENYING CLASS ABILITIES THAT THE PLAYERS HAVE EARNED.
Why is always evasion and reflex saves that get fucking nerfed? Further reminder why I don't want to join back up with my last group. Fucking dm was nerfing my wife's rogue with that manner of bullshit. "But you get a fort save against the damage instead" Because my paladin doesn't give a shit about damage anyways, and rogues have such a high fucking fort bonus right.
Or being argued with about how horses and other large creatures work in combat in PF. Rules state they take up a 10'X10' square, if you're bitching about how horses should be able to stack up 5' from each other and other such shit because you fucking used to raise horses, sod the fuck off. I don't fucking bring down the hammer of how you actually fight a man in armor one on one with a sword and other such bullshit because I'm playing a GAME with RULES. If I don't like the rules of this GAME I play a different GAME, or I change the rules in a way that everyone at the table agrees with and make our rules known from the beginning to new players.
Or having a fucking holy avenger EXPLODE because it's a "relic" when it isn't RAW, so it can do a retributive strike, when the only relic that RAW can do that is a specific staff.
Why learn the rules and learn to work WITH the rules when you have UNLIMITED POWAH?
Sure, all the good players bail, but that's because THEY SUCK.
excerpt from an email from my last group's DM.
QuoteI hope this is what you asked for. I am not sure what you mean by playing RAW. No Pathfinder game you play will ever be RAW. The Pathfinder Game is designed with too many optional rules, and leaves many things as DM Judgement Calls or situational modifiers. If a player doesn't like or understand the judgement call, they just ask for clarification or a change to the interpretation of the rules. The goal is to have fun, if either of you are not having fun just let me know and we can work together to make the game fun for everyone. That is why the current house rules are in effect.
well gee that just sounds great that you think the are too many rules to run PF RAW maybe you should run something else.
Quote
PS. If you think I forgot something let me know. I have been DM'ed Basic D&D, 2e, 3e, 3.5e, 4e, and Pathfinder, not too mention Gurps, Rifts, and a half dozen other systems. Sometimes I suffer from addition amnesia, which is why I encourage you to look up rules in the book or PFSRD if you have a question.
because I so want to play in a game where I should be constantly bogging the game down because he can't remember which game we are playing?
Quote from: six to the quixotic on May 31, 2013, 12:02:38 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 30, 2013, 07:11:57 PM
Quote from: six to the quixotic on May 30, 2013, 07:10:25 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 10, 2011, 05:26:52 PM
4. CLASS/RACE ABILITIES ARE NOT TO BE NERF-BATTED. Nothing is worse than dealing with a DM who thinks that a core class is "broken", and modifies it...Or jacks with the rules to make his life easier. The best example of this is the second level rogue ability Evasion. It doesn't matter where the rogue is, or what the situation is. If he makes his reflex save vs that fireball, he takes no Goddamn damage even if there's nowhere for him to hide or take cover. It's a game mechanic, used to balance the various classes. This isn't a Goddamn physics class. He just gets to do it. End of story. Half the fun of the game is leveling up to those cool abilities. Having them then arbitrarily neutered by a lazy DM makes players angry, and they'll eventually quit. DO THE FUCKING LEGWORK TO MAKE A CHALLENGE, DO NOT FORCE A CHALLENGE BY DENYING CLASS ABILITIES THAT THE PLAYERS HAVE EARNED.
Why is always evasion and reflex saves that get fucking nerfed? Further reminder why I don't want to join back up with my last group. Fucking dm was nerfing my wife's rogue with that manner of bullshit. "But you get a fort save against the damage instead" Because my paladin doesn't give a shit about damage anyways, and rogues have such a high fucking fort bonus right.
Or being argued with about how horses and other large creatures work in combat in PF. Rules state they take up a 10'X10' square, if you're bitching about how horses should be able to stack up 5' from each other and other such shit because you fucking used to raise horses, sod the fuck off. I don't fucking bring down the hammer of how you actually fight a man in armor one on one with a sword and other such bullshit because I'm playing a GAME with RULES. If I don't like the rules of this GAME I play a different GAME, or I change the rules in a way that everyone at the table agrees with and make our rules known from the beginning to new players.
Or having a fucking holy avenger EXPLODE because it's a "relic" when it isn't RAW, so it can do a retributive strike, when the only relic that RAW can do that is a specific staff.
Why learn the rules and learn to work WITH the rules when you have UNLIMITED POWAH?
Sure, all the good players bail, but that's because THEY SUCK.
excerpt from an email from my last group's DM.
QuoteI hope this is what you asked for. I am not sure what you mean by playing RAW. No Pathfinder game you play will ever be RAW. The Pathfinder Game is designed with too many optional rules, and leaves many things as DM Judgement Calls or situational modifiers. If a player doesn't like or understand the judgement call, they just ask for clarification or a change to the interpretation of the rules. The goal is to have fun, if either of you are not having fun just let me know and we can work together to make the game fun for everyone. That is why the current house rules are in effect.
well gee that just sounds great that you think the are too many rules to run PF RAW maybe you should run something else.
Quote
PS. If you think I forgot something let me know. I have been DM'ed Basic D&D, 2e, 3e, 3.5e, 4e, and Pathfinder, not too mention Gurps, Rifts, and a half dozen other systems. Sometimes I suffer from addition amnesia, which is why I encourage you to look up rules in the book or PFSRD if you have a question.
because I so want to play in a game where I should be constantly bogging the game down because he can't remember which game we are playing?
I've been DMing since 1977, and I still look shit up. He has a point there. Now USE that shit. Rules him to DEATH.
I want to play in a Dok game now :(
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on May 31, 2013, 02:25:14 AM
I want to play in a Dok game now :(
Thing is, it isn't brain surgery. Everyone is there to have FUN, to escape for a while into a place where you can solve your problems by smashing them flat or burninating them, whatever.
When it becomes "come worship my campaign, miserable peons" or "Let me make this as miserable as the real world", why bother?
So you leave your ego at the door (to a degree, you don't want to not give a shit about what you deliver), and you sit down, and you arrange some FUN for your players. Every group is different, so that DOESN'T mean "give them everything they want", but it DOES mean "give them the sort of adventure they want". My groups tend to want heroic combat, Indiana Jones Ginormous rolling boulder traps, etc. Other groups like intrigue, I understand.
But the point is, no matter what the group is after, it's the DM's job to provide that for 3-6 hours a week, and also to have fun doing it.
To be honest, I don't undedrstand what RAW means in the context of a roleolaying game, either.
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on May 31, 2013, 02:40:08 AM
To be honest, I don't undedrstand what RAW means in the context of a roleolaying game, either.
you know. The rules that are printed in the book in plain English.
I guess I follow? :? :?
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on May 31, 2013, 02:47:01 AM
I guess I follow? :? :?
I think it's a derogatory term for "book rules", employed by lesser geeks and minor nerds.
There is book. If there MUST be house rules (and there really has to be), they need to be WRITTEN DOWN. If the DM can't be bothered with that, he can't be trusted to put any effort into game prep.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 31, 2013, 02:49:25 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on May 31, 2013, 02:47:01 AM
I guess I follow? :? :?
I think it's a derogatory term for "book rules", employed by lesser geeks and minor nerds.
There is book. If there MUST be house rules (and there really has to be), they need to be WRITTEN DOWN. If the DM can't be bothered with that, he can't be trusted to put any effort into game prep.
I;m not ready to call derogatory, since Coyote seems to be speaking in favor of them, but I can't really think of what the acronym might stand for other than Robert Anton Wilson, which doesn't make sense.
And meh. I don't think there SHOULD be house rules, or HAS TO be house rules, but they can be nice sometimes.
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on May 31, 2013, 02:54:40 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 31, 2013, 02:49:25 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on May 31, 2013, 02:47:01 AM
I guess I follow? :? :?
I think it's a derogatory term for "book rules", employed by lesser geeks and minor nerds.
There is book. If there MUST be house rules (and there really has to be), they need to be WRITTEN DOWN. If the DM can't be bothered with that, he can't be trusted to put any effort into game prep.
I;m not ready to call derogatory, since Coyote seems to be speaking in favor of them, but I can't really think of what the acronym might stand for other than Robert Anton Wilson, which doesn't make sense.
And meh. I don't think there SHOULD be house rules, or HAS TO be house rules, but they can be nice sometimes.
My bad. Didn't know you didn't know that acronym. Rules As Written. There is also Rules As Intended (RAI) which means the devs usually fucked something up in the rules and acknowledge it but haven't gotten around to unfucking something.
I keep forgetting that RAW is some crazy guy that discordians speak about using his initials. :lulz:
OH! Oh. Yes, okay, dude's a moran. :lol:
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on May 31, 2013, 02:54:40 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 31, 2013, 02:49:25 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on May 31, 2013, 02:47:01 AM
I guess I follow? :? :?
I think it's a derogatory term for "book rules", employed by lesser geeks and minor nerds.
There is book. If there MUST be house rules (and there really has to be), they need to be WRITTEN DOWN. If the DM can't be bothered with that, he can't be trusted to put any effort into game prep.
I;m not ready to call derogatory, since Coyote seems to be speaking in favor of them, but I can't really think of what the acronym might stand for other than Robert Anton Wilson, which doesn't make sense.
And meh. I don't think there SHOULD be house rules, or HAS TO be house rules, but they can be nice sometimes.
In my opinion, house rules are fine, but if you are running a game that you feel you have to houserule all kinds of things mean you should probably find another game to play that is more in line with what you want, or make your own. I'm fine with all of that. My issue is the whole "Not Written Down" and "Finding Out In Play In a Bad Way" like holy avengers that explode when sundered, or not being allowed to leave a weapon at 1 hp with the broken condition as it states in the rules. It's dishonest.
It is, and didn't you say it was an actual relic? RELICS SHOULD NOT BE SUNDERABLE. E/O/S.
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on May 31, 2013, 03:10:23 AM
It is, and didn't you say it was an actual relic? RELICS SHOULD NOT BE SUNDERABLE. E/O/S.
HE said ALL holy avengers are minor RELICS.....
:facepalm:
Quote from: six to the quixotic on May 31, 2013, 03:17:10 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on May 31, 2013, 03:10:23 AM
It is, and didn't you say it was an actual relic? RELICS SHOULD NOT BE SUNDERABLE. E/O/S.
HE said ALL holy avengers are minor RELICS.....
I can buy that, as a house rule. But the problem is, you can't sunder something with a higher plus than the weapon you're using, and the HA is +5. So there's some serious bullshit going on there.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 31, 2013, 03:50:05 AM
Quote from: six to the quixotic on May 31, 2013, 03:17:10 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on May 31, 2013, 03:10:23 AM
It is, and didn't you say it was an actual relic? RELICS SHOULD NOT BE SUNDERABLE. E/O/S.
HE said ALL holy avengers are minor RELICS.....
I can buy that, as a house rule. But the problem is, you can't sunder something with a higher plus than the weapon you're using, and the HA is +5. So there's some serious bullshit going on there.
+5, or +5 and then abilities piled on? I call shenaniganry on this, too.
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on May 31, 2013, 03:51:40 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 31, 2013, 03:50:05 AM
Quote from: six to the quixotic on May 31, 2013, 03:17:10 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on May 31, 2013, 03:10:23 AM
It is, and didn't you say it was an actual relic? RELICS SHOULD NOT BE SUNDERABLE. E/O/S.
HE said ALL holy avengers are minor RELICS.....
I can buy that, as a house rule. But the problem is, you can't sunder something with a higher plus than the weapon you're using, and the HA is +5. So there's some serious bullshit going on there.
+5, or +5 and then abilities piled on? I call shenaniganry on this, too.
Only the enhancement bonus counts for that purpose, but how many +5 weapons are floating around?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 31, 2013, 03:50:05 AM
Quote from: six to the quixotic on May 31, 2013, 03:17:10 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on May 31, 2013, 03:10:23 AM
It is, and didn't you say it was an actual relic? RELICS SHOULD NOT BE SUNDERABLE. E/O/S.
HE said ALL holy avengers are minor RELICS.....
I can buy that, as a house rule. But the problem is, you can't sunder something with a higher plus than the weapon you're using, and the HA is +5. So there's some serious bullshit going on there.
QuoteSunder
You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack. If you do not have the Improved Sunder feat, or a similar ability, attempting to sunder an item provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.
If your attack is successful, you deal damage to the item normally. Damage that exceeds the object's Hardness is subtracted from its hit points. If an object has equal to or less than half its total hit points remaining, it gains the broken condition (see Conditions). If the damage you deal would reduce the object to less than 0 hit points, you can choose to destroy it. If you do not choose to destroy it, the object is left with only 1 hit point and the broken condition.
And
QuoteSmashing an Object
Smashing a weapon or shield with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon is accomplished with the sunder combat maneuver (see Combat). Smashing an object is like sundering a weapon or shield, except that your combat maneuver check is opposed by the object's AC. Generally, you can smash an object only with a bludgeoning or slashing weapon.
Armor Class: Objects are easier to hit than creatures because they don't usually move, but many are tough enough to shrug off some damage from each blow. An object's Armor Class is equal to 10 + its size modifier (see Table: Size and Armor Class of Objects) + its Dexterity modifier. An inanimate object has not only a Dexterity of 0 (–5 penalty to AC), but also an additional –2 penalty to its AC. Furthermore, if you take a full-round action to line up a shot, you get an automatic hit with a melee weapon and a +5 bonus on attack rolls with a ranged weapon.
Hardness: Each object has hardness—a number that represents how well it resists damage. When an object is damaged, subtract its hardness from the damage. Only damage in excess of its hardness is deducted from the object's hit points (see Table: Common Armor, Weapon, and Shield Hardness and Hit Points, Table: Substance Hardness and Hit Points, and Table: Object Hardness and Hit Points).
Hit Points: An object's hit point total depends on what it is made of and how big it is (see Table: Common Armor, Weapon, and Shield Hardness and Hit Points, Table: Substance Hardness and Hit Points, and Table: Object Hardness and Hit Points). Objects that take damage equal to or greater than half their total hit points gain the broken condition (see Conditions). When an object's hit points reach 0, it's ruined.
And
QuoteMagic Armor, Shields, and Weapons: Each +1 of enhancement bonus adds 2 to the hardness of armor, a weapon, or a shield, and +10 to the item's hit points.
QuoteThis +2 cold iron longsword becomes a +5 holy cold iron longsword in the hands of a paladin.
When wielded by a paladin, this sacred weapon provides spell resistance of 5 + the paladin's class level to the wielder and anyone adjacent to her. It also enables the paladin to use greater dispel magic (once per round as a standard action) at the class level of the paladin. Only the area dispel is possible, not the targeted dispel or counterspell versions of greater dispel magic.
QuoteCold iron has 30 hit points per inch of thickness and hardness 10.
QuoteWeapons fashioned from adamantine have a natural ability to bypass hardness when sundering weapons or attacking objects, ignoring hardness less than 20
So my understanding of the rules is a holy avenger would have a hardness of 20 (cold iron 10 plus the +5 enhancement bons X 2 =20) and would have 60 hit points (base of 10 plus 5 x 10).
I was using at +2 adamantine greatsword which would ignore all of the hardness of the holy avenger thus dealing all rolled damage to the weapon on a successful sunder attempt which would be 2d6+8 average damage of 15 and I would (using my paladin's CMD as an idea how hard it would be to sunder a similarly leveled paladin) sunder on a 7 or higher on the attack roll with the first attempt and 12 or higher on the second attempt per round if I were to full attack with sunders which is allowable because a sunder is an attack not a standard action. I was also large and buffed with bull's strength so um....yea I think I hit the holy avenger 3 times before it went BOOM. No warning that 1) it was a holy avenger or that I was facing an MCd paladin 2) that holy avengers would explode and no option to NOT destroy the weapon despite the rules stating other wise.
Quote from: six to the quixotic on May 31, 2013, 04:14:54 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 31, 2013, 03:50:05 AM
Quote from: six to the quixotic on May 31, 2013, 03:17:10 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on May 31, 2013, 03:10:23 AM
It is, and didn't you say it was an actual relic? RELICS SHOULD NOT BE SUNDERABLE. E/O/S.
HE said ALL holy avengers are minor RELICS.....
I can buy that, as a house rule. But the problem is, you can't sunder something with a higher plus than the weapon you're using, and the HA is +5. So there's some serious bullshit going on there.
QuoteSunder
You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack. If you do not have the Improved Sunder feat, or a similar ability, attempting to sunder an item provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.
If your attack is successful, you deal damage to the item normally. Damage that exceeds the object's Hardness is subtracted from its hit points. If an object has equal to or less than half its total hit points remaining, it gains the broken condition (see Conditions). If the damage you deal would reduce the object to less than 0 hit points, you can choose to destroy it. If you do not choose to destroy it, the object is left with only 1 hit point and the broken condition.
And
QuoteSmashing an Object
Smashing a weapon or shield with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon is accomplished with the sunder combat maneuver (see Combat). Smashing an object is like sundering a weapon or shield, except that your combat maneuver check is opposed by the object's AC. Generally, you can smash an object only with a bludgeoning or slashing weapon.
Armor Class: Objects are easier to hit than creatures because they don't usually move, but many are tough enough to shrug off some damage from each blow. An object's Armor Class is equal to 10 + its size modifier (see Table: Size and Armor Class of Objects) + its Dexterity modifier. An inanimate object has not only a Dexterity of 0 (–5 penalty to AC), but also an additional –2 penalty to its AC. Furthermore, if you take a full-round action to line up a shot, you get an automatic hit with a melee weapon and a +5 bonus on attack rolls with a ranged weapon.
Hardness: Each object has hardness—a number that represents how well it resists damage. When an object is damaged, subtract its hardness from the damage. Only damage in excess of its hardness is deducted from the object's hit points (see Table: Common Armor, Weapon, and Shield Hardness and Hit Points, Table: Substance Hardness and Hit Points, and Table: Object Hardness and Hit Points).
Hit Points: An object's hit point total depends on what it is made of and how big it is (see Table: Common Armor, Weapon, and Shield Hardness and Hit Points, Table: Substance Hardness and Hit Points, and Table: Object Hardness and Hit Points). Objects that take damage equal to or greater than half their total hit points gain the broken condition (see Conditions). When an object's hit points reach 0, it's ruined.
And
QuoteMagic Armor, Shields, and Weapons: Each +1 of enhancement bonus adds 2 to the hardness of armor, a weapon, or a shield, and +10 to the item's hit points.
QuoteThis +2 cold iron longsword becomes a +5 holy cold iron longsword in the hands of a paladin.
When wielded by a paladin, this sacred weapon provides spell resistance of 5 + the paladin's class level to the wielder and anyone adjacent to her. It also enables the paladin to use greater dispel magic (once per round as a standard action) at the class level of the paladin. Only the area dispel is possible, not the targeted dispel or counterspell versions of greater dispel magic.
QuoteCold iron has 30 hit points per inch of thickness and hardness 10.
QuoteWeapons fashioned from adamantine have a natural ability to bypass hardness when sundering weapons or attacking objects, ignoring hardness less than 20
So my understanding of the rules is a holy avenger would have a hardness of 20 (cold iron 10 plus the +5 enhancement bons X 2 =20) and would have 60 hit points (base of 10 plus 5 x 10).
I was using at +2 adamantine greatsword which would ignore all of the hardness of the holy avenger thus dealing all rolled damage to the weapon on a successful sunder attempt which would be 2d6+8 average damage of 15 and I would (using my paladin's CMD as an idea how hard it would be to sunder a similarly leveled paladin) sunder on a 7 or higher on the attack roll with the first attempt and 12 or higher on the second attempt per round if I were to full attack with sunders which is allowable because a sunder is an attack not a standard action. I was also large and buffed with bull's strength so um....yea I think I hit the holy avenger 3 times before it went BOOM. No warning that 1) it was a holy avenger or that I was facing an MCd paladin 2) that holy avengers would explode and no option to NOT destroy the weapon despite the rules stating other wise.
The rules have overtaken me.
Rule was redacted in ed 5 of the CRB. Any weapon can sunder any weapon.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 31, 2013, 03:56:47 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on May 31, 2013, 03:51:40 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 31, 2013, 03:50:05 AM
Quote from: six to the quixotic on May 31, 2013, 03:17:10 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on May 31, 2013, 03:10:23 AM
It is, and didn't you say it was an actual relic? RELICS SHOULD NOT BE SUNDERABLE. E/O/S.
HE said ALL holy avengers are minor RELICS.....
I can buy that, as a house rule. But the problem is, you can't sunder something with a higher plus than the weapon you're using, and the HA is +5. So there's some serious bullshit going on there.
+5, or +5 and then abilities piled on? I call shenaniganry on this, too.
Only the enhancement bonus counts for that purpose, but how many +5 weapons are floating around?
True, but I thought the bonus cost counted towards it. Not for purposes of bonuses, but like as a level indicator.
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on May 31, 2013, 05:06:12 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 31, 2013, 03:56:47 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on May 31, 2013, 03:51:40 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 31, 2013, 03:50:05 AM
Quote from: six to the quixotic on May 31, 2013, 03:17:10 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on May 31, 2013, 03:10:23 AM
It is, and didn't you say it was an actual relic? RELICS SHOULD NOT BE SUNDERABLE. E/O/S.
HE said ALL holy avengers are minor RELICS.....
I can buy that, as a house rule. But the problem is, you can't sunder something with a higher plus than the weapon you're using, and the HA is +5. So there's some serious bullshit going on there.
+5, or +5 and then abilities piled on? I call shenaniganry on this, too.
Only the enhancement bonus counts for that purpose, but how many +5 weapons are floating around?
True, but I thought the bonus cost counted towards it. Not for purposes of bonuses, but like as a level indicator.
Total bonuses count for the gold piece cost of the magical item and for some class abilities/spells that can add pluses to weapons.
I didn't know there were class things that boosted... Wait. Magus, and paladin. Derp.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 31, 2013, 02:31:48 AM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on May 31, 2013, 02:25:14 AM
I want to play in a Dok game now :(
Thing is, it isn't brain surgery. Everyone is there to have FUN, to escape for a while into a place where you can solve your problems by smashing them flat or burninating them, whatever.
When it becomes "come worship my campaign, miserable peons" or "Let me make this as miserable as the real world", why bother?
So you leave your ego at the door (to a degree, you don't want to not give a shit about what you deliver), and you sit down, and you arrange some FUN for your players. Every group is different, so that DOESN'T mean "give them everything they want", but it DOES mean "give them the sort of adventure they want". My groups tend to want heroic combat, Indiana Jones Ginormous rolling boulder traps, etc. Other groups like intrigue, I understand.
But the point is, no matter what the group is after, it's the DM's job to provide that for 3-6 hours a week, and also to have fun doing it.
Oooooh lordy THIS. It's something I worry about doing myself as a DM, mostly the former mistake, because I get very caught up in imaginary settings, but I haven't really inflicted that pain on any players because I've DM'd so few sessions.
I always try to think about what a rule, especially a combat rule, will actually result in the real-life players DOING. As in, are they engaged in using their game skills and real-life thinking to overcome a challenge, or are they grinding away with yet another "realistic" simulationist rule thrown on top? The answer will vary somewhat depending on the player preferences, but it shouldn't be too hard to figure out.
I also recently came to an epiphany about "story-focused" campaigns. Most of the time they are horsecock, because they focus on the story that the DM is babbling their players, resulting in NPC Theater and bored player (unless the DM is a phenomenal storyteller, which is possible but rare, I think).
What "story-focused" should mean is a focus on the story the PLAYERS will be able to tell after the game is done. What's the story that THEY will be able to tell in the first-person active voice?
Quote from: Cainad on May 31, 2013, 02:55:55 PM
I also recently came to an epiphany about "story-focused" campaigns. Most of the time they are horsecock, because they focus on the story that the DM is babbling their players, resulting in NPC Theater and bored player (unless the DM is a phenomenal storyteller, which is possible but rare, I think).
What "story-focused" should mean is a focus on the story the PLAYERS will be able to tell after the game is done. What's the story that THEY will be able to tell in the first-person active voice?
I disagree emphatically with this, but maybe I just have a phenomenal story-focused DM. He makes up plot points and some things are completely unavoidable (like some dude showing up with an army), but the players have major effects on how the story plays out, and consequences stay in effect even if a PC dies.
Pretty cool, I think.
But then, this is for a game which is story-centric, and combat means
SOMEBODY IS DYING (good thing there are NPCs and luck!)