Extreme Dungeon Mastery?

[PeterGirvan]

Heh...hows this?

Not the article, but maybe even better.

Wow. That's awesome.

Thanks, shadowslayer (and Monte, too!).

While I enjoyed Tracy's charismatic presentation, I find it hard to disagree with Monte's sentiments.

 

[Shadowslayer]

Wow. That's awesome.

Thanks, shadowslayer (and Monte, too!).

While I enjoyed Tracy's charismatic presentation, I find it hard to disagree with Monte's sentiments.

Well, I don't know. The whole "Bored Barbarian" thing is an extreme example used to illustrate a point. Later in the article it does say to take the other players into consideration.

I can see Monte's point, but I'm not sure that Tracy's article actually suggested having your fun at the expense of the other players around the table. He (Tracy) merely states that when the game starts to drag badly, sometimes extreme measures are called for.

I can see both sides of the issue. I've been in way too many games that wasted too much time making decisions via commitee.

 

[Dragonhelm]

Well, I don't know. The whole "Bored Barbarian" thing is an extreme example used to illustrate a point. Later in the article it does say to take the other players into consideration.

I can see Monte's point, but I'm not sure that Tracy's article actually suggested having your fun at the expense of the other players around the table. He (Tracy) merely states that when the game starts to drag badly, sometimes extreme measures are called for.

This is the same sentiment I got from the seminar as well. The seminar does focus on role-playing being a game. Sometimes, a character should do something to keep it lively and fun. Tracy says that if your character hasn't done something in 5 minutes, do something. This is not to say that you should throw your fellows under the bus. Far from it. Rather, it is to keep the pace going, to act within character, and to keep it about being a game.

Tracy also says that some of the tips can be abused, and to use them wisely. He made us swear an oath.

I can see both sides of the issue. I've been in way too many games that wasted too much time making decisions via commitee.

Yeah, I agree. I've also been in those games where someone throws off the group dynamic.

Life's funny in that it poses us with extremes. Often, the truth is in the middle. So if you see Tracy's views as one extreme and Monte's as another, both with their valid points, then logically the truth must lie in the middle. And, of course, it's all subjective.

My advice is to look this book over when it comes out. I can't say you'll agree 100% with it, but maybe you'll come away from it with some ideas on how to improve your game. And, as with any gaming book, you don't have to use the whole thing.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I don't know that Monte's position is extreme, having not seen his original letter. His characterization of it on his board is anything but extreme, whereas Tracy's characterization of it -- making him into a figure of fun for what seems to be a pretty reasonable position -- doesn't exactly cover Tracy in glory. Honestly, the book can be sold without this particular taunt, which seems destined to keep this going years past its expiration date.

 

[theredrobedwizard]

I once had a player use the "name NPCs before the DM does" thing; which annoyed me quite a bit. Considering the fact that I'd already named the NPC they were going to talk with, just hadn't introduced him properly yet.

In another instance, a character (of the not-to-wait-for-anything type) was bored during NPC interaction in a town. He, being a Half-Dragon sorcerer, decided to cast Prestidigitation to turn the farmhand (to whom they were currently speaking, and to whom the sorcerer was adjacent) a nice shade of blue; you know, because he was boring. Well, the farmhand was already on edge from being cornered by adventurers while he was at work, so he took his AoO. Not possessing Improved Unarmed Strike, the other PCs said that the sorcerer should get an AoO as well. Well, sufficed to say, the dragon bit off the Commoner 1's face.

This may have made the rest of their encounters much more difficult, but if the Dragonboy had waited another minute or two, the group would've been on its merry way.

The moral of the story; if you aren't having fun, do something in character that *isn't* disruptive/anti-social/or team-killy.

If you ever have to say "I'm just playing my character, jeez", something is probably amiss.

-TRRW

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I can guess that half-dragon sorcerer's alignment in one try!

 

[Dragonhelm]

I once had a player use the "name NPCs before the DM does" thing; which annoyed me quite a bit. Considering the fact that I'd already named the NPC they were going to talk with, just hadn't introduced him properly yet.

That can be part of the fun!

The players pull this trick, and your NPC says, "Huh, what? My name is Bob, not George."

Now in the case where I named the medic, the DM was actually grateful and was willing to put his name in his sourcebook for his campaign.

The moral of the story; if you aren't having fun, do something in character that *isn't* disruptive/anti-social/or team-killy.

Exactly. In the case of the half-dragon, I would say that playing an evil character was the most disruptive part.

 

[Pbartender]

Well, the farmhand was already on edge from being cornered by adventurers while he was at work, so he took his AoO. Not possessing Improved Unarmed Strike...

[NITPICK]
Not possessing Improved Unarmed Strike, the farmhand should not have gotten an Attack of Opportunity in the first place.
[/NITPICK]

Threatened Squares
You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity.

 

[phindar]

In the case of the half-dragon, I would say that playing an evil character was the most disruptive part.

I'd say the player being an annoying goofball was the most disruptive part. To me, evil characters aren't the problem, its players who think evil characters let them ruin the game for everyone else at the table. Or to put another way, Evil Characters are fine, but Evil Players suck.

 

[Ozmar]

If you ever have to say "I'm just playing my character, jeez", something is probably amiss.

QFT.

"I'm just playing my character" is the last refuge of a scoundrel. And not the kind who uses skill tricks.

-Ozmar the Friendly Player