Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sylrae" data-source="post: 4351155" data-attributes="member: 48520">I dont like the 'restrict what the players are allowed to do' method of DMing. I avoid playing in games with those types of DMs even though I usually work with thr group anyways, just because the restriction drives me nuts.The Book of Vile darkness sees alot of use by my players usually, so that should tell you something. and we don't have a book of exalted deeds out of the lot of us.Killing innocent people to get to the bad guy is fair game, holding his family hostage for drawing him out is fine too. I've had players come up with some twisted <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />. Sure, they get the authorities after them, but that's because of my realism, not because of my intolerance to extremes in game. the only thing I don't do is sex scenes. they get someone in the sack, it jumps to afterwards. I just dont care to detail that in game. any gore or other twisted stuff players come up with, or any disloyalty between them, is something I don't stop. I make sure the players know in advance that I allow that stuff to happen and that if it happens they cant be pissy out of game or ill have them leave. they watch the other players closely in the game from the start, usually.so thats the long version, of "yes it's necessary in the game". I encourage them to work together, but by no means enforce it, and if they decide to not work together then i just take the plot in a different direction.and PVP isn't about bickering and fighting. If they attack someone for out of game reasons, then I don't tolerate it either. if they get throw a fit about pvp then I don't tolerate that either. if they cant accept that the players act independently, then they can leave. of course, there's nothing preventing the player's new character from being some member of law enforcement, or making a character somehow connected to the killer of their old player who is already their enemy.I agree that game balance is about more than combat, my issue isn't about them being better at one aspect, but about them being better in most to all aspects. You shouldnt be a better fighter than the fighter and a better mage than a mage. thats just twisted.I've played those other games too, white wolf makes some of my favorite systems for example, but there are more D&D players than white wolf playrs, and I don't know why, but I'd rather play white wolf than dm it.I think maybe Derro's solutions could be good ways to tweak it. break the cleric into two classes. one with unreliable casting (that's usually how it works in the D&D novels anyways, so it makes sense), and one with adjusted stats/casting.I'd like to clarify that I don't just run games where the players fight eachother all the time, but I'm not restricted enough to say it won't ever happen. If there is a good in-game reason for one character to attack another, then I allow it. if it's petty out of game squabbling, then heavy misfortune prevents it. (player trips over a basilisk or something, or some monumental catastrophe like those in final destination happens to them - usually not resulting in their death, but it has happened occasionally.)</blockquote>

Verification