The Gaming Den

Caelic responds to Frank! :tonguesmile:

http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.p ... r]Tleilaxu Ghola and Book back up Frank!

Drama!

Wow. That second thread is trash.

I have a highly fleshed out and expansive homebrew setting as well. So while I understand the existence of certain concerns, I wholeheartedly reject the notion of them leading towards or being an excuse for the behavior and mindset detailed in that thread.

I usually ask players to come up with a couple of concepts and bring them to me, and we'll work on placing it into the world. So that they have a connection to the setting, and are well integrated into the plot of the particular game. I honestly want them to be able to play something that they'll enjoy, and to have a level of immersion that both benefits them, the game, and the setting itself.

I do require my players to trust me and work with me. But I work with them and I don't act like a giant douchebag to people whose trust I've asked for. In the end, pretty much the only things that get hit with the banhammer are those that would be genuinely disruptive to the game or detract from folk's enjoyment. That being said, on the WotC boards I've seen even my own methodology said to be wrong, interfering with the player's absolute right to have control over all aspects of his character. Thankfully, I don't care about them. Seriously. Fvck those guys.

Anyways, the short of it is: the primary escape you see in these sort of threads are parading a lot of hard work or detailed campaign settings as a justification. And that's a load of junk. These things do not, in fact, mandate that you act like a dick. The next time someone brings that up, go ahead and try and find out the real reason they treat players that way. Ask them, "Didn't mommy and daddy give you enough love when you were a child?"

I don't really get the point. Isn't it the job of the DM to outline a campaign setting and say what will & what won't be allowed?

I mean, it's usually good to get player input on all counts:
DM: 'hey guys, I just wrote up this incredibly detailed campaign set in th American southwest at around 700 AD. The only allowed character class is Expert, and the name of the first adventure is "keeping the Apache Navajo out of our fields."'
PCs: 'Er, we were kinda hoping for a dungeon crawl...'

And there's plenty of room for flexibility:
DM: Ok, we'll go the route of Frank and do central Mexico.
PC: I want to be an elf druid.
DM: Well, you'll have the stats of an elf but you'll actually be a jaguar child (enjoy your cleft pallet).
PC: Cool!

But when it really comes down to it, the DM should be able to say 'ÑO!'

Catharz at [unixtime wrote:1173548747[/unixtime]]I don't really get the point. Isn't it the job of the DM to outline a campaign setting and say what will & what won't be allowed?

I mean, it's usually good to get player input on all counts:
DM: 'hey guys, I just wrote up this incredibly detailed campaign set in th American southwest at around 700 AD. The only allowed character class is Expert, and the name of the first adventure is "keeping the Apache Navajo out of our fields."'
PCs: 'Er, we were kinda hoping for a dungeon crawl...'

And there's plenty of room for flexibility:
DM: Ok, we'll go the route of Frank and do central Mexico.
PC: I want to be an elf druid.
DM: Well, you'll have the stats of an elf but you'll actually be a jaguar child (enjoy your cleft pallet).
PC: Cool!

But when it really comes down to it, the DM should be able to say 'ÑO!'

C'mon, D&D is not a petty tyrannical kingdom where the DM structures only by his decree. It's a collaborative enterprise by usually 4-to-7 people who create a stroytelling world together to ensure everybody gets at least a little bit of what they want.

Granted the DM is the final arbiter of how all this pile of sources, concepts, and ideas gets eventually mashed together. So he can shape, mold, and determine the impact/prevalency of how all these components manifest into the game's final presented product.

Object placement (whether a race, a culture, or geographical area) is extremely easy for a savvy DM. And *compromise* is the most valuable tool for a collaborative storytelling group to be able to flesh out a fantastic campaign world that appeals to the longterm desires of all the people involved.

Catharz at [unixtime wrote:1173548747[/unixtime]]I don't really get the point. Isn't it the job of the DM to outline a campaign setting and say what will & what won't be allowed?

Look at it this way:

It's the DM's job to make sure that the party members mesh well and fit the game and story.
One way that the DM can accomplish this is [by murdering any player who tries to play something he thinks doesn't mesh (or just doesn't like), as well as their families, just for good measure].

Therefore, it's fine for the DM to [murder players] since it gets his "job" done. And if you are impinging upon his right to [murder players and their families], you are making the game less viable to play and fun.

bitnine at [unixtime wrote:1173557706[/unixtime]]

Catharz at [unixtime wrote:1173548747[/unixtime]]I don't really get the point. Isn't it the job of the DM to outline a campaign setting and say what will & what won't be allowed?

Look at it this way:

It's the DM's job to make sure that the party members mesh well and fit the game and story.
One way that the DM can accomplish this is by murdering any player who tries to play something he thinks doesn't mesh (or just doesn't like), as well as their families, just for good measure.

Therefore, it's fine for the DM to murder players since it gets his "job" done. And if you are impinging upon his right to murder players and their families, you are making the game less viable to play and fun.

If you think that telling a player that he can't play an elf is equivalent to going Confucian on him and his family, you've got some serious problems which need to be addressed outside of gaming.

Catharz at [unixtime wrote:1173558637[/unixtime]]If you think that telling a player that he can't play an elf is equivalent to going Confucian on him and his family, you've got some serious problems which need to be addressed outside of gaming.

I don't suppose you might be familiar with the concept of looking at formal aspects of statements? In case you aren't, the "formal" bit doesn't mean that I'm wearing a suit and tie at the moment, but instead is based in the word "form" and, in this case, the idea that you could replace a section of that statement with [X]. I've added little brackets in case you find them helpful.

Wait, I'm sorry, I might of instead meant "HURR YES IS JUST THE SAME!"

You're wearing a suit and tie in your avatar, and that's good enough for me

Catharz at [unixtime wrote:1173548747[/unixtime]]I don't really get the point. Isn't it the job of the DM to outline a campaign setting and murder players?

Catharz at [unixtime wrote:1173560744[/unixtime]]You're wearing a suit and tie in your avatar, and that's good enough for me

Bah, foiled by my own avatar! I should have seen that coming.

http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.p ... ][br]Funny, eh?

This is the best thing I've ever seen.

The advice in that one is actually pretty good for use in an actual game. The only problem is "wants to use" since waiting for a problem is stupid. Assuming of course that the OP didn't intend this to be used to design things. In that case it would be terrible advice.

It is good advice for running a game.

However, its *bad* advice for looking at game balance. Game balance is any specific game independent, and a statement about what is possible. His position would be like arguing that you hack Street Fighter II (or whatever) if one character was clearly overpowering when played by your group of friends to nerf that character, or another character should be improved because you all suck with that character. In reality, all the characters might be equally good, and those ad hoc changes you make would totally screw that up.

Similarly, if the game you're playing is *not* balanced (D+D), then you've got a loaded gun waiting to go off unless you fix it. Of course, most people wouldn't know balance if it hit them in the face (WotC boards, I'm looking at you). Therefore, establishing an objective measure of balance (eg, Playing the Same Game thread) is a good way to ensure that balance can be measurable and thus reasonably objective.

Ok, now I have a new nomination: the entire fucking Races board. Savage Species is held as a bible, level adjustments are charged for getting fucking Lay on Hands, Succubi as playable 12th level characters... I can't even laugh at that shit.

Some guy there has a "feature point" system for evaluating LA that charges *less* for ability boosts than for +1 Natural Armor or Speak with Burrowing Mammals 1/day, and everyone there treats it like the New Testament.

From the aforementioned Races board, about how the Succubus is a valuable member of a 12th level party.

Some Troll wrote:Consider the roles she can fulfill in the level 12 party.

Scouting: She flies at 50', can be ethereal all the day, she can change her shape, she has hide, move silently, disguise, spot and listen as racial skills. She has +8 racial to spot and listen and +4 wisdom. A ranger with 18 wisdom won't be that good! Only druids could regularly beat her skill rolls. And she never sleeps. A perfect sentinel. She has 99 skill points even with average intelligence.

Party face: She has 34 charisma, bluff and diplomacy as class skills. She can spam suggestions and charm monsters all day and night. She can read minds at will.

Tank: Stupid idea? She has +9 natural armor, that is 9 points of AC above her humanoid teammates, only some specialized builds can get so much protection, and she has DR10/monstersdonthaveit. She is immune or resistant to many threats her humanoid teammates find dangerous. Her only problem are the low hit points.

Spellcaster: 14,400 spells/day. Sure, some monsters are immune to mind affecting spells, but if you check the lists of monsters by CR you will find those are only about 20/25% of them. The other spellcasters in the party can leave the bulk of the enchantment and mind magic to the Sucubbus and concentrate in other stuff. A clever party can easily develop a strategy based in just capturing enemies alive and let the Succubus hit them with 100+ Suggestions until they believe anything the party wants. The suggestions last 12 hours, but she never need to stop talking, and she always knows when someone makes the save (plus Detect Thoughts at will). Charm Monster lasts a long time

Guess what? Not only she is an amazing asset to the party, she is also quite versatile.

Ugh don't these people realise that if a CR 7 creature makes a perfectly viable level 12 character, that would mean a level 7 fighter would make a perfectly viable level 12 character?

Also 14,400 SPELLS PER DAY

where's the link to that thread

I apologize for exposing you to this.

I just found the thread before you posted the link.

I think the math is a little off on some of these things they are coming up with.

You think the MATH might be off.

I think all the chumps saying "Oh LA isn't broken, its just the implementation..." are what might be off.

How does someone who has actually ever built a character look at LA and its attendant system and see anything that is good for game play, you know IF ONLY the numbers were skewed a few points here and there?

PhoneLobster at [unixtime wrote:1174360307[/unixtime]]You think the MATH might be off.

I think all the chumps saying "Oh LA isn't broken, its just the implementation..." are what might be off.

How does someone who has actually ever built a character look at LA and its attendant system and see anything that is good for game play, you know IF ONLY the numbers were skewed a few points here and there?

Okay their math if fvcking retarded, there I said it. They saying that here energy drain is so uber but since it's grapple sucks she would most likely never get it to connect.

Guest (Unregistered) at [unixtime wrote:1173715012[/unixtime]]Of course, most people wouldn't know balance if it hit them in the face (WotC boards, I'm looking at you).

Oh, tell me about it. I'm still bitter over a pair of DMs who said that ToB was overpowered because the fact that maneuvers can be used all day makes them better than spells.

Let me repeat that.

Maneuvers are better than spells.

Fucking retarded monkeys, man.

First off, Cielingcat, apology accepted. It wasn't ment for mortal eyes.

Secondly, i considered posting there, but i quit. There was nothing else that could be said regarding LA and their craptasticness. Repeating the wisdom would fall on dumb ears.

Currently, I'm trying to educate people on a croatian fantasy board. They still belive that monks are Teh R0x0r and that monster PC are okay.
Just over a week ago, there was a DnD tournament. The party was level 8.The PCs were: human necro(me), human rogue/shadowdancer, dwarf cleric. The "sort of PCs"(SOPC further on) were: minotaur fighter, centaur ranger and some sort of drowish barbarian.
The PC part of the group single-handedly defeated all of the challenges. The SOPC part tagged along and did nothing. Nobody thought that anything was amiss, because "Man, i get to be a minotaur, keeeeewl!"
There was an encounter with a vrock. The PC part beat the crap out of it. The SOPC just stood arround wawing their appendages. And still, people were happy.

I guess people like shitty abilities and crap quality as long as they get to be monsters.


Edit: mistyped original posters name.

Which one of you is Kresalak?