Flavorless 3e- Advantage- players

[kamosa]

Players need framework.

First let me say that this is a general comment about GM created special rules and my past experiences. I don't know the specfics of your game and wouldn't want to pass judgement, even if I did.

I know in the past, I always disliked it when the GM deviated from the books greatly because it reduced my ability to understand the game world. Let me explain.

When the rules are written down in the book, I can look them up, read about them in my own time and contemplate how to create and guide a character under those rules. When the GM makes up rules I am often caught off guard by how they affect my character.

Example: I had a GM that wanted to make undead strange and different from the types listed in the players hand book. On the surface this seemed very cool. Smoke wraiths and sewer ghouls are cool, I like the concept. However, because I had no access to these monsters and the GM would never tell me when I was facing undead, my turning power became useless. I couldn't recognize them as undead because they were special.

The ranger that had as an enemie undead wouldn't get the +2 to attack because we didn't know they were undead. Etc.

Afterwards the GM would chastise us for not using our powers and it would piss me off.

Let me reiterate, I liked the idea of cool, strange undead. But in practice it stunk. Changes to the core system can be used as weapons against the players. When this happens, or if the players have had this happen in the past, they can become very ardent against home rules or GM creativity.

After my experience I have warning bells that go off every time a new GM starts off describing her world by saying "It's all different..."

FYI I've been a GM for close to 20 years now and had several long campaigns that lasted years and years. IE, it's not that I don't understand the GM process that causes me to mistrust whole sale changes to the rules.

 

[Felon]

You've got to be kidding. Sure, if you have a good cleric or something in your party, you can heal most mundane wounds, but if you're having problems with this, throw things against them that do a bit of vile damage or something.

Thing is, there's not a lot of those "somethings" out there. He's right to the extent that in D&D the casting of a spell or two is all that it takes to put a PC back on his feet. Characters are not supposed to cope with long-term disabilities. Pay some money, XP, or what have you, and be done with it. In that respect, it is like a video game. Even vile damage is pretty easy for a cleric to deal with. Just be sure to pack a Consecrate wand.

Diseases or curses are not always easy either, especially magical diseases--mummy rot nearly killed 2 characters int he 5-person party I DM for because they were quite a long ways away from any city where they could buy a remove curse spell.

Mummy rot is rare in that it requires a level check. I wouldn't mind seeing more special attacks like that. Without a level check, diseases are jokes (at least for PC's).

Keep in mind that as the DM it is your job to make it challenging for the players. If it's too easy, sorry, but that's you fault.

He is trying to make things more challenging. That's the whole point of his post. His players are resistant to his homebrew rules, and perhaps thatls because D&D conditions players to expect hassle-free quick fixes. And that is not his fault.

Here's a few ideas on how to make it more challenging for them:

Again, you have missed his point. He seems capable of coming up with ideas on his own. It's getting players to view the challenges as challenges instead of screwjobs and attention-span-straining hassles.

 

[Felon]

I didn't think we were still playing the polite game, seeing as the original poster seemed so intent at making this personal that any insight, supposition, advice etc that implied that his campaign wasn't typical or that some of his assumptions might have been off was taken as a direct assault on his group/game.

Saying that he lacks skill as a DM and doesn't understand the rules is indeed a direct insult to him.

Everytime jasamcarl posts, a pretentious fanboy messageboard jockey looses his lunch.

Trying to paint yourself as a persecuted champion of free-thinking? Rather than indulge this fantasy that people react to you the way do because your brilliant, unconventional opinions are so devastating their hollow fanboy rhetoric, take some accountability for the simple fact that your posts tend to be rude and hostile without an ounce of provocation.

 

[jasamcarl]

Saying that he lacks skill as a DM and doesn't understand the rules is indeed a direct insult to him.



Trying to paint yourself as a persecuted champion of free-thinking? Rather than indulge this fantasy that people react to you the way do because your brilliant, unconventional opinions are so devastating their hollow fanboy rhetoric, take some accountability for the simple fact that your posts tend to be rude and hostile without an ounce of provocation.

Hey, all my conclusions were drawn from his posts. Oh, but I'm sorry, we were only suppossed to dis his players who conveniently don't post here. If we have enough info to offer him advise, surely we also have enough to pass judgment on his mindset. Basically being polite amounts to taking his word for it that what he says is a problem is really a problem with a corresponding amount of vindication of himself. Even if I find many of his assumptions and broad generalizations stupid, its my duty to wipe away his tears and assure him that anything I post doesn't apply to him, because he is one of the glorious few who post on this messageboard. Its a curious assumption that deference is due to other posters moreso than those who don't, despite the fact that those who post here can by definition defend themselves..odd that.

I've always found it interesting how much virtue resides in the mainstream of these boards. You know, those who fight valiently against the dreaded powerplaying players. They are in the roundup of the usual suspects who include the vacuous category of Hasbro 'suits' who stalk every fanboy's dream.

I might sound arrogant, but after reading so many stupid topics similar to this, I don't think I will be loosing any Halo points. Atleast I'm venting at real people (not to be confused with adults) as oppossed to some dumb abstraction. I would suggest you try, its far more interesting.

 

[S'mon]

The ranger that had as an enemie undead wouldn't get the +2 to attack because we didn't know they were undead. Etc.

If the ranger didn't know what he was fighting arguably he shouldn't get the Favoured Enemy bonus (does it even apply to undead?) anyway, since it's based on familiarity with the target. Of course maybe the PC ought to have recognised them, in which case the GM should have said what they were.

Likewise with Turning - if a PC doesn't recognise something as undead, naturally they won't try to Turn it. If the PC ought to have recognised them as undead the GM should have descibed them as such.

 

[Umbran]

Besides, I could, and will, argue that i'm helping the lad.

Sorry, but "The ends justify the means" does not hold water in this context.

You aren't helping him, because as soon as you insult a person, your credibility and ability to teach drops precipitously. As soon as you make your audience annoyed at you, the amount of attention they pay to your content decreases, and the amount of attention paid to your tone increases. They cease treating you as a source of wisdom, and start treating you as an adversary - a person to be beaten or avoided, not a person to learn from.

In addition, rhetorically, personal attack is a sign of weakness in your position. It suggests that your reasoning is not strong enough to take on your opponent's position, so you must resort to impugning his character as a hope that this will imply a weakness in his logic, by extension. Unfortunately for you, your opponent's position stands on it's own merits, no matter the character of the person.

 

[Endur]

I wouldn't even have told the players about this. I would have let them discover it the hard way.

Taint: The Taint is an infection that slowly darkens the soul. The Taint occurs from prolonged exposure to negative energy and can be felt as an oily sensation along with minor nausea. Those who work with negative energy slowly become corrupted with only the strongest staving off undeath. Undead are the ultimate result of constant exposure to negative energy. Those killed by Undead have a chance to rise as undead if the taint was strong enough. Those using negative energy must make a Fortitude save DC 10 + ½ HD+ Cha. Modifier every week.
Effect: A tainted individual will grow to hate life and all those who cherish it. The people no longer care to groom themselves and slowly loose the ability to distinguish between right and wrong. Each time a person fails a Taint save, they loose one point of Constitution. If they die from con loss, then they must make a Will save DC 10 + ½ HD+ Cha. Modifier. Failure means that rise an unintelligent undead.

 

[Umbran]

If the ranger didn't know what he was fighting arguably he shouldn't get the Favoured Enemy bonus (does it even apply to undead?) anyway, since it's based on familiarity with the target. Of course maybe the PC ought to have recognised them, in which case the GM should have said what they were.

In 3.5e, the bonus should apply, yes.

Also, the bonus applies to Spot checks. Spot is described as being the skill used to see through disguises. The Ranger, then, should probably have at least gotten a Spot check to see if he or she recognizedthe thing as undead. Or perhaps a Survival check. Or a Knowledge check. Something - the character has made a study of fighting undead, and that should logically extend to recognizing them.

 

[jasamcarl]

Sorry, but "The ends justify the means" does not hold water in this context.

You aren't helping him, because as soon as you insult a person, your credibility and ability to teach drops precipitously. As soon as you make your audience annoyed at you, the amount of attention they pay to your content decreases, and the amount of attention paid to your tone increases. They cease treating you as a source of wisdom, and start treating you as an adversary - a person to be beaten or avoided, not a person to learn from.

In addition, rhetorically, personal attack is a sign of weakness in your position. It suggests that your reasoning is not strong enough to take on your opponent's position, so you must resort to impugning his character as a hope that this will imply a weakness in his logic, by extension. Unfortunately for you, your opponent's position stands on it's own merits, no matter the character of the person.

Nice bit of hypocricy there. You go from saying a focus on personality obscures valid discussion (which I would note doesn't apply in this case. what he took as an insult I considered a sincere observation; . Different types of players and dms are discussed on the these boards all the time without any type of direct firsthand experience. I certainly had more to go on here. You are confusing rhetoric with substance;the truth can hurt and offend), but then go on to say, or atleast imply that, because of my strongly worded statements and my argumentative tone, you conclude that his arguments have more merit and/or relevance, when he doesn't address half my points (and none of them to my satisfaction) and then cries uncle. I could just as easily say that he has is loosing because he feels the need to play victim. You are picking favorites with personalities and playing objective. When I was still having an exchange with the original poster, I was addressing the original topic right up until he abandoned it in favor of calling me a pr*ck.

Be consistent, bud.

 

[Umbran]

Nice bit of hypocricy there.

Nope. No hypocracy. And I'm being quite consistent. I simply haven't yet managed to get my message across.

You are confusing rhetoric with substance;the truth can hurt and offend)

There's this thing called "tact". You can speak "truth" and generally not offend, if you use it. It is especially good for use in online situations, because frequently "truth" is based on incomplete information - you generally must make a large number of inferences and assumptions before you can say much about the character of people in these situations. Baldly speaking the "truth" is apt to be met with derision because of that. Tactfully speaking what you believe may be true is more likely to be given leeway.

I myself have, on occasion, chosen to be blunt in the name of clarity of presentation. However, there's a line betwen blunt and insulting - it really does pay to not cross it. If you insult (intentionally or not, "truthful" or not), people tend to stop listening to you. If your actual goal is to teach, you want them to listen.

The current bent of the thread stands as a bit of evidence for this. Your tone has caused people to not consider what you say, but how you say it. That, in and of itself, should serve to show you that your current tone (no matter how much you like it) is not terribly functional as a mode of discourse.

but then go on to say, or atleast imply that, because of my strongly worded statements and my argumentative tone, you conclude that his arguments have more merit and/or relevance

I do no such thing. I don't address how strong your relative positions seem to me. I note that if you took the same position without the insulting tone, your position would seem stronger to the audience.

I say, "Your oponent's position stands on it's own merits". Perhaps it would have been more clear to write "stands or falls on it's own merits". I mean that an attack on things other than the position's own merits don't actually address the subject. If you are presented with a house that you want to dismantle, you deal witht the physical structure of the house - insulting the man who built the house doesn't bring the house down.

All that, and a return to the original point - you've been around here enough to know the rules. Long enough to know that they apply to you no matter what the other guy does. I'd prefer this thread not get closed because you choose to not follow them, because there were some good things here before you started calling people babies and hypocrites.