PDA

View Full Version : Unenforcable House Rules You'd Like To Have



FreakyCheeseMan
2013-03-11, 07:38 PM
Just what the title says - House Rules you'd impliment, if they weren't wholey unfeasible. I'll start us off.

1: The Intelligence of Wisdom of a character may not differ from that of the corresponding player by more than eight points.

Madeiner
2013-03-11, 07:42 PM
2: No out of game chatting! Ever! Be serious for the entire game with no OOC for a night.

Sergeantbrother
2013-03-11, 07:46 PM
3. No meta-gaming. Your character doesn't have access to he same information as you. This goes for the GM and NPC's too.

nedz
2013-03-11, 08:16 PM
4. You can't always dump charisma, and if you do then you just couldn't talk your way out of situations.

OverdrivePrime
2013-03-11, 08:38 PM
5. No skeeving out the other players and the GM with overly-sexualized intra-party RP.

6. No skeeving out the players by acting out as a dainty, yet randy, Southern lady who is just overcome with the vapors by the mere presence of the PCs. Particularly when you're a gigantic bearded Scotsman whose wife is in absolute stitches at the rest of the players going green with disgust.

7. No just saying 'I attack' when you're attacking. That's offensively boring, and you know better.

8. Changing the GM's mind about a previous ruling should be limited to logic and a clearly backed up verbal or written argument. Blatantly showing off the goods to momentarily stupefy the GM is unsporting, regardless of your gender.

elliott20
2013-03-11, 09:01 PM
5. No skeeving out the other players and the GM with overly-sexualized intra-party RP.

6. No skeeving out the players by acting out as a dainty, yet randy, Southern lady who is just overcome with the vapors by the mere presence of the PCs. Particularly when you're a gigantic bearded Scotsman whose wife is in absolute stitches at the rest of the players going green with disgust.

7. No just saying 'I attack' when you're attacking. That's offensively boring, and you know better.

8. Changing the GM's mind about a previous ruling should be limited to logic and a clearly backed up verbal or written argument. Blatantly showing off the goods to momentarily stupefy the GM is unsporting, regardless of your gender.

... dude, what kind of games are you playing?

9. play to screw up, the climb back up is part of the fun

Guizonde
2013-03-11, 09:08 PM
if only i could have one, i'd go with fair play.
10. roleplaying an asshat is fine. being an asshat is not.
spoilered for rant.
i call myself a loony. i make sure my character is both entertaining and efficient in his given role. for example: i create a homebrewed troll paladin, he can do three things: survive houses falling on him repeatedly (thus generating a running gag), healing, and hitting things really hard. what he can't do: speak a language because he's that dumb. he did befriend the wizard, but he couldn't speak a language to save his life. was he efficient in his given role? yup, and i roleplayed him accordingly (going so far as hugging the wizard's player and petting him on the head). a great night was had by everyone, despite the fact that i basically tanked 120 guys at the same time, while the casters threw ice cubes at them.

what i won't do.

create a flavorless character based solely on the crunch, using 9 splatbooks and 3 dragon mag articles to have the most min-maxed thing ever, only to have the player go "i rock! i rule! you all suck!", and forgetting the "roleplaying" part in "roleplaying game".
i've got this kind of player in my group, and his lack of sportsmanship is really grating. although pen and paper is a team game, he tries to play it solo (with disastrous results). i've tried to talk about it to him, only for him to call me "jealous". sorry, but i much prefer my dreadlocked dwarven cleric to his generic heavy chested "omg supermodel" sorceress. at least i get to drink with the monk!

Dust
2013-03-11, 09:12 PM
11. It is against The Rules to get sick and be unable to make it to game if you're the GM.

Libertad
2013-03-11, 09:42 PM
12. It is against the rules to think that Kender and Fishmalks are good ideas.

Grod_The_Giant
2013-03-11, 09:48 PM
13. Know how your character works. Yes, that means knowing what all your spells do.

14. Don't try to insert yourself in every scene. Let other characters have a chance to have a normal conversation.

scurv
2013-03-11, 10:02 PM
15 Reap what you Sow and be mature about it when you got it coming
16 The 12 year old should not be the most mature player in the room

OverdrivePrime
2013-03-11, 10:36 PM
... dude, what kind of games are you playing?
Ugh - all of my previous ones were from an AD&D 2nd ed, and a Shadowrun 2nd ed campaign from many years ago. Elliott, you remember Forger, right? From Pimptania? Picture the dude acting like his idea of a sexy southern belle, just desperate to get in your pants. Horrifying!
And yes, whiskey was involved.

He was also the DM when the ludicrously well-endowed belly dancer in our game group decided to play unfair when it came to discussing the rules. This was the same game where I played a skinny halfling rogue who kept getting jammed into the busty player's character's cleavage and carried around, because my move rate was too slow. It was... more than slightly emasculating. I haven't played a halfling since.

17. Thou Shalt Not Bring Cheap Beer to the Game Table

18. Nor Shalt Thou Always Mooch and Never Contribute

Guizonde
2013-03-11, 11:21 PM
18. Nor Shalt Thou Always Mooch and Never Contribute

QFT. that right there busted up one gaming group i was in.

19. if the dm has to call upon rule 0 more than 3 times due to your nitpicking or derailing, you are banned from the table.

elliott20
2013-03-11, 11:23 PM
Ugh - all of my previous ones were from an AD&D 2nd ed, and a Shadowrun 2nd ed campaign from many years ago. Elliott, you remember Forger, right? From Pimptania? Picture the dude acting like his idea of a sexy southern belle, just desperate to get in your pants. Horrifying!
And yes, whiskey was involved.

He was also the DM when the ludicrously well-endowed belly dancer in our game group decided to play unfair when it came to discussing the rules. This was the same game where I played a skinny halfling rogue who kept getting jammed into the busty player's character's cleavage and carried around, because my move rate was too slow. It was... more than slightly emasculating. I haven't played a halfling since.


... there is something both awesome and disturbing about that mental image... (the sexy southern belle part, not the belly dancer part, though that's awesome too)

Logic
2013-03-11, 11:24 PM
20. Thou shalt care about the setting, and at least SOME of the NPCs.

Pyro_Azer
2013-03-11, 11:25 PM
21: Those who attempt to start arguments about alignment shall be smote.

ArcturusV
2013-03-11, 11:44 PM
Just what the title says - House Rules you'd impliment, if they weren't wholey unfeasible. I'll start us off.

1: The Intelligence of Wisdom of a character may not differ from that of the corresponding player by more than eight points.

I wonder why? :smallbiggrin: But nah, I would limit it so it's an upper cap. A guy who, in real life, might have a 9 Int, is going to have a hard time properly playing a wizard with 18 Int anyway.

22: Players should be rewarded for doing something illogical and possibly suicidal if it is in character for them to do so.

The problem being? I see a situation where you want to reward the player because your Lawful Good style soldier jumped on a grenade to save his platoon. Good, heroic. He should be rewarded... but he's DEAD. That character cannot be rewarded, he just blew himself to hell for good reason. And if you give him benefits on his replacement character to go for it, it often doesn't make sense and makes other players envious.

Guizonde
2013-03-11, 11:50 PM
22: Players should be rewarded for doing something illogical and possibly suicidal if it is in character for them to do so.

The problem being? I see a situation where you want to reward the player because your Lawful Good style soldier jumped on a grenade to save his platoon. Good, heroic. He should be rewarded... but he's DEAD. That character cannot be rewarded, he just blew himself to hell for good reason. And if you give him benefits on his replacement character to go for it, it often doesn't make sense and makes other players envious.
i don't see the problem, you can always make him have a parting quip to be truly badass, or anything really to bolster the roleplay. heck, even leave him a 1% chance of survival (like, say, if he shielded the cleric or something).

i'm totally with you on the buffing the reroll. that's no, just no.

navar100
2013-03-11, 11:52 PM
23. Players who feel compelled to say "I'm just roleplaying" or "That's what my character would do" in response to being a donkey cavity to the party shall be flogged, tarred, feathered, and thrown out the door.

24. Yes, really, there's no such thing as a critical fumble. Never existed. Never will again.

25. When the DM is told well in advance a player is unable to play a certain day, the DM shall not schedule the next game on that day anyway.

26. The DM shall not purposely overwhelm the party with bad guys to have an NPC save them.

Vitruviansquid
2013-03-12, 12:16 AM
Too many enforceable house rules here =X

27. Players shall lay down and allow me to railroad them when I want them to be railroaded, and shall take the initiative when I want them to play in a sandbox.

Arbane
2013-03-12, 01:45 AM
i'm totally with you on the buffing the reroll. that's no, just no.

I'd be okay with it. If you want PCs to do things like Heroic Self-Sacrifices, reward them for it. (I remember at least one RPG which had this as an official rule - some Samurai game where life was cheap, I think.)

mjlush
2013-03-12, 02:27 AM
28. Thout shalt not quote Monty Python, Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy or the Goon Show
(It always results in counter quotes and counter counter or pedantic corrections to the quotation)

I've imposed a penalty of quotes longer than 5 words... it didn't work they just did 5 words each.

Ashtagon
2013-03-12, 02:56 AM
28. Thout shalt not quote Monty Python, Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy or the Goon Show
(It always results in counter quotes and counter counter or pedantic corrections to the quotation)

I've imposed a penalty of quotes longer than 5 words... it didn't work they just did 5 words each.

Or Gilbert & Sullivan.

Sergeantbrother
2013-03-12, 04:27 AM
22: Players should be rewarded for doing something illogical and possibly suicidal if it is in character for them to do so.

The problem being? I see a situation where you want to reward the player because your Lawful Good style soldier jumped on a grenade to save his platoon. Good, heroic. He should be rewarded... but he's DEAD. That character cannot be rewarded, he just blew himself to hell for good reason. And if you give him benefits on his replacement character to go for it, it often doesn't make sense and makes other players envious.

If a player is willing to sacrifice his character for some higher purpose in keeping with the nature of the character, then at the very least that sacrifice should work exceptionally well. He saves the rest of the party from certain death, he manages to take the big villain down with him, the glory of his sacrifice lives on in generations to come, etc.

Jon_Dahl
2013-03-12, 04:36 AM
29. One must create a character that fits the setting well (enough) and doesn't stand out like a sore thumb.

nedz
2013-03-12, 05:23 AM
30. Just because your Bard has a high climb skill doesn't mean you can sing Cliff Richards songs all through the session.

GnomeFighter
2013-03-12, 05:25 AM
31. If your not PCs are not in the same place you can't talk to one another. And saying "It's OOC" does not mean you can give advice on behalf of your PC. All advice given must be instantly forgotten and not be "entierly my own plan that just happens to follow what another player just said but was told they could not have said as they were 20 miles away".

AntiTrust
2013-03-12, 05:53 AM
22: Players should be rewarded for doing something illogical and possibly suicidal if it is in character for them to do so.


As long as the reward doesn't turn it logical, or negate the chance of suicide and thus making it the prudent course of action.

Studoku
2013-03-12, 06:15 AM
Or Gilbert & Sullivan.
I'd love to see a player quote Gilbert & Sullivan, especially if they claim to be the very model of a something.

Mastikator
2013-03-12, 06:21 AM
32. All players must define their character's personality traits and behaviorism and not deviate from them overtly.

33. Players must try to roleplay their character's mental scores.

34. The DM must voice act all NPCs. Exaggeration is preferable.

kardar233
2013-03-12, 06:22 AM
I'd love to see a player quote Gilbert & Sullivan, especially if they claim to be the very model of a something.

I've quoted G&S in game, actually. I was playing a Bard, for whom I'd lobbied to be able to use Inspire Competence for Move Silently...

So I could sing "With Catlike Tread (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdJg6Duzzf4)" as we approached the villain's castle.

tommhans
2013-03-12, 07:17 AM
23. Players who feel compelled to say "I'm just roleplaying" or "That's what my character would do" in response to being a donkey cavity to the party shall be flogged, tarred, feathered, and thrown out the door.

24. Yes, really, there's no such thing as a critical fumble. Never existed. Never will again.

25. When the DM is told well in advance a player is unable to play a certain day, the DM shall not schedule the next game on that day anyway.

26. The DM shall not purposely overwhelm the party with bad guys to have an NPC save them.

i so disagree with that critical fumble, it is the most fun part with dnd in my eyes, the chance to either do something awesome with a critical, or the change to fail miserably, making the dm smile and think of the worst thing that could ever happen to you :)

There was a lot of rules here in this thread, hehe ^^ i'd personally say:

35.Thou shalt not laugh of the DM if he does something dumb,as this never results in any good.

36. The cake is a lie.

37. If someone dies, you have to write a poem about that epic hero who died to save millions of people, even if his death was stupid and quite possibly very funny.

38. There will be snacks!

Lord Torath
2013-03-12, 08:21 AM
39. DMPCs (PCs run by the DM so he has an awesome character to run that can always be just that much cooler than the PCs) shall be banned!

Frozen_Feet
2013-03-12, 09:24 AM
The premise of this thread is faulty. There are no unenforceable houserules, only forceable rules that are ethical and forceable rules that are not. :smalltongue:

Lorsa
2013-03-12, 09:37 AM
Too many enforceable house rules here =X

27. Players shall lay down and allow me to railroad them when I want them to be railroaded, and shall take the initiative when I want them to play in a sandbox.

So it's sort of a railroaded sandbox?

Ajadea
2013-03-12, 09:49 AM
40: A character who has found a trap must not deliberately trigger the trap if he is surrounded solely by allies. This goes double if one or more allied characters are at low HP.

Synovia
2013-03-12, 09:52 AM
{{scrubbed}}

Amphetryon
2013-03-12, 10:00 AM
41. If you're summoning a creature, you have to know which creature, which source book and page it's from, and how you're using its abilities, else you cannot summon it.

42. You're not allowed to suddenly make your Character behave recklessly, or otherwise troll the DM into killing said Character, just because you've come up with a different concept between sessions.

The Bandicoot
2013-03-12, 10:30 AM
{{scrubbed}}

Saidoro
2013-03-12, 11:50 AM
34. The DM must voice act all NPCs. Exaggeration is preferable.
As much as I'd love to that would probably cause the entire group to start laughing at how bad I was every time I opened my mouth.:smallfrown:


43. Players can't put anything on their character sheet unless they can accurately explain how it works or what it does.

Quorothorn
2013-03-12, 11:52 AM
I've quoted G&S in game, actually. I was playing a Bard, for whom I'd lobbied to be able to use Inspire Competence for Move Silently...

So I could sing "With Catlike Tread (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdJg6Duzzf4)" as we approached the villain's castle.

This is the only way I think anyone could ever get away with using that ability in that manner (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0217.html).

I approve.

navar100
2013-03-12, 11:55 AM
i so disagree with that critical fumble, it is the most fun part with dnd in my eyes, the chance to either do something awesome with a critical, or the change to fail miserably, making the dm smile and think of the worst thing that could ever happen to you :)


So with spellcasters purposely choosing spells never needing to roll to hit every spellcaster is the epitome of perfection right from 1st level while every warrior injures themselves or party member in tom foolery perpetuity even at level 20, increasing their incompetence as they gain levels because they get more attacks and more chances to roll that Natural 1.

Joe the Rat
2013-03-12, 12:03 PM
44. If your entire character concept is about being wacky, fun and amusing, it has to be fun and amusing for everyone else.
(Technically this is a subset of "no donkey headwear")



17. Thou Shalt Not Bring Cheap Beer to the Game Table I think I found my new Rule 0.

ArcturusV
2013-03-12, 12:42 PM
{{scrubbed}}

That or he was referencing the game he's DMing that I'm in on the site. My character rolled a 4 for Int, and it's keeping me from doing things I know I should be doing for the good of the game. Even then I'm kind of stretching the standards of a 4 int because I'm not having my character drooling and going "Huh... duh...." and such a lot like others would do with 4 int. Though I do play him as a simpleton.

GoddessSune
2013-03-12, 02:09 PM
The premise of this thread is faulty. There are no unenforceable houserules,

Is it weird that most of the rules in this thread are houserules I do enforce?


1: The Intelligence of Wisdom of a character may not differ from that of the corresponding player by more than eight points.

In my game that number is zero.


2: No out of game chatting! Ever! Be serious for the entire game with no OOC for a night.

This is not so hard....

SilverLeaf167
2013-03-12, 02:26 PM
Is it weird that most of the rules in this thread are houserules I do enforce?



In my game that number is zero.



This is not so hard....
Yes, it sort of is weird. :smallconfused:
Are you honestly saying you wouldn't let someone play a Wizard on the basis that "they seem a little dumb to you", or do you just exaggerate your player's real-life ability scores a lot? Would you force a smart person playing a Barbarian to put their highest score into Intelligence? Either way, you probably end up throwing around a lot of thinly veiled insults this way...

True, a lot of the rules here are relatively reasonable, but I think I would still be hard pressed to find over 20 rules here that I could/would enforce in a game. Including that chatting one: it's really hard for people to stay completely in-character for many hours in a row, especially in a rules-heavy system like D&D where people basically have to break character every now and then for the game to work effectively, and the action is probably interrupted by some rule-checking every now and then.

nedz
2013-03-12, 02:30 PM
The Intelligence of Wisdom of a character may not differ from that of the corresponding player by more than eight points.In my game that number is zero.


So, how do you calibrate the Intelligence and Wisdom of your players ?

Mono Vertigo
2013-03-12, 04:06 PM
So, how do you calibrate the Intelligence and Wisdom of your players ?
I believe that's the unenforceable part.

therakishrogue
2013-03-12, 04:25 PM
45. All diplomacy and intimidate checks have to be roleplayed, and no arguing about how it should have worked better! A natural 20 will get a bandit camp you butchered your way into to let you leave peacefully . It won't get them to cut you in on their operation and never betray you.

dps
2013-03-12, 05:30 PM
So, how do you calibrate the Intelligence and Wisdom of your players ?

Assuming that they're all capable of speech, they all get an INT of 3. Probably their WIS should be about that, too. :smallbiggrin:

mjlush
2013-03-12, 05:38 PM
Or Gilbert & Sullivan.

What never?

nedz
2013-03-12, 05:50 PM
45. All diplomacy and intimidate checks have to be roleplayed, and no arguing about how it should have worked better! A natural 20 will get a bandit camp you butchered your way into to let you leave peacefully . It won't get them to cut you in on their operation and never betray you.

But, this is how I do play this; I make the roll then I role-play the result hilarious with a diplomacy of -3.

JoshuaZ
2013-03-12, 06:07 PM
40: A character who has found a trap must not deliberately trigger the trap if he is surrounded solely by allies. This goes double if one or more allied characters are at low HP.

Is this really an issue? :smalleek:

Moriwen
2013-03-12, 07:44 PM
46. No saying the same thing more than 6 times in the same session. This includes "is there any dust here," "Legolas, no!" and "care for some squid?"

47. Come up with a backstory where your character is not an orphan, an Aragorn rip-off, or a fairy. No amnesia.

48. Please do not take anything apparently impossible as a personal challenge.

49. Someone else learn how to DM, please, I'm tired of doing it all the time.

Guizonde
2013-03-12, 07:48 PM
Is this really an issue? :smalleek:

it was the first session that the cheesy sorc player joined our dnd table, on a pretense that he had acid resistance/5, he told us to get behind him before springing the sucker. took a rule zero and a lot of metagaming on the dm's part to convince him otherwise. (oh, and that guy is responsible for rule 50)
regarding rule 34 (concerning voice acting, get your mind out the gutter), i pull it off quite well! that, and screaming/growling/making funny noises for a decade in a metal/punk band gave me a huge vocal range. just by the tone i employ, my players could tell where in riddle port the thief came from, and even his race! (turned out useful for the paladin, who spotted by the accent that the cleric was bluffing them).

50. regarding roleplaying: do not automatically roleplay women as "easy" without fearing the consequences. you want to play a female paladin? try and do the above, you'll fall faster than the laws physics allow. it's degrading, and makes a lot of players unconfortable. you're not 12. you're playing a very intellectually demanding game with friends, they don't care about your fetishes, unless FATAL is involved.

51. anyone mentionning willingly playing FATAL will get beaned with a rafter. repeatedly. then tarred, feathered, lit on fire, thrown from the third floor onto a pile of legos and assorted d4s, before being laughed at. twice.

GoddessSune
2013-03-12, 09:49 PM
Yes, it sort of is weird. :smallconfused:
Are you honestly saying you wouldn't let someone play a Wizard on the basis that "they seem a little dumb to you", or do you just exaggerate your player's real-life ability scores a lot? Would you force a smart person playing a Barbarian to put their highest score into Intelligence? Either way, you probably end up throwing around a lot of thinly veiled insults this way...

No? But the character is stuck with the players mental scores. I never really got the ''oh your character is so smart that they figured everything out'' type of thing.

I have always seen mental ability scores as vague. So, even if you have an 18 INT, you might still forget things all the time. Or you might be lazy or unmotivated. Or whatever.

SilverLeaf167
2013-03-13, 12:21 AM
No? But the character is stuck with the players mental scores. I never really got the ''oh your character is so smart that they figured everything out'' type of thing.

I have always seen mental ability scores as vague. So, even if you have an 18 INT, you might still forget things all the time. Or you might be lazy or unmotivated. Or whatever.

How you RP their ability scores is a whole different matter. You're sort of contradicting yourself here: you say they have to use their "actual" scores, which you then truthfully mention tp be very vague. Also, I think playing a Wizard with 10 Int is definitely worse than not playing a Wizard at all, so yeah, you might as well ban classes based on your perception of the players. At this point, I just don't know what you're trying to say.

Arbane
2013-03-13, 02:17 AM
50.[/B] regarding roleplaying: do not automatically roleplay women as "easy" without fearing the consequences. you want to play a female paladin? try and do the above, you'll fall faster than the laws physics allow. it's degrading, and makes a lot of players unconfortable. you're not 12. you're playing a very intellectually demanding game with friends, they don't care about your fetishes, unless FATAL is involved.


High Charisma, vows of chastity are not mandatory, and immunity to disease.

Just sayin'....

ArcturusV
2013-03-13, 02:42 AM
Well unless you were playing an older edition. 2nd edition paladins were required to run with a much stricter code, including Chastity and Poverty (Well... not "Poverty" but limitations like only having 10 magic items at most and having to Tithe your earnings beyond that and a Castle Fund).

Sergeantbrother
2013-03-13, 03:47 AM
Well unless you were playing an older edition. 2nd edition paladins were required to run with a much stricter code, including Chastity and Poverty (Well... not "Poverty" but limitations like only having 10 magic items at most and having to Tithe your earnings beyond that and a Castle Fund).

They did have a vow of poverty of sorts, but I don't recall any mention of chastity ever being a paladin requirement in 2nd Edition.

The_Snark
2013-03-13, 04:35 AM
What never?

Hardly ever!

ArcturusV
2013-03-13, 05:16 AM
It was in the Paladin's Handbook, which was a neat, and almost mandatory (In my view) upgrade for playing Paladins back in 2nd edition. Well, actually all the "Handbook" stuff was pretty damned neat, least the ones I had like the Barbarian's Handbook, etc. Anyway, not that Paladins were terribly bad as is... but if someone put in a tier system for 2nd edition it'd be like jumping up Paladins a solid tier by using it from 4 to 3. Kits were badass, special equipment, lots of added rules and proficiencies.

One thing I do recall was the Ethos chapter which was talking about Paladin beliefs and codes. Some of them were kinda weird, but in a way they all kind of made sense.

Like a Paladin was required to maintain proper "knightly" or "Noble" bearing. This means that a Paladin would rather wear normal chainmail rather than +3 Leather Armor even though their effect on AC was exactly the same, and the +3 Leather was obviously more resistant to damage, because chainmail was closer to the ideal image of a Knight that a Paladin was expected to present, and Leather was "Peasant Garb" and such.

Part of it also touched on the ideal of Chastity and purity. Paladins saw no problem with Love in and of itself, it was often a great motivator of Good, but physicality to the love was often the downfall of Man and created weaknesses in the soul where none existed before. Talked about the ideal of the unobtainable courtly love being their one allowance to the pursuit of romance, etc.

mjlush
2013-03-13, 01:27 PM
Hardly ever!

Made my day :smile:

Guizonde
2013-03-13, 02:16 PM
to clarify my post regarding rule 50, i did play some one-shot scenarios where 20 year old guys were playing women as "wanting the D, only the D, and for the D", so to speak. unfortunately, there were experienced roleplayers around the table, and some newbie girls... it forever ruined the idea of roleplay for the girls, and shamed the experienced players. i mean, seriously? sure it's roleplay, and you can fluff spells anyway you want regarding disease etc... but when you're playing a paladin, you're kinda meant to be a paragon of virtue, so unless you worship calistria, being a nymphomaniacal sexual predator is not ok for paladins(not saying chastity, at all). it also made a lot of people uncomfortable (as the guy rp'ing the pally was... a stereotypically sexually frustrated male...). i've no problem with people rp'ing hedonists if it's in the backstory or whatever, but that was clearly a breach of suspension of disbelief, "different morals" my rear-end (as if elven paladins would jump in bed with dwarves!).

i wish it was a singular incident, but more often than not, from what i've seen of guys rp'ing girls, they tend to not portrait their characters as living-breathing-women, but as fetish fuel. that's where i find it wrong. i was musing on the double standard. no need to start a flame war or derail the thread either, please.

navar100
2013-03-13, 07:59 PM
Made my day :smile:

Must have felt lucky then.

Darius Kane
2013-03-14, 07:43 AM
No? But the character is stuck with the players mental scores. I never really got the ''oh your character is so smart that they figured everything out'' type of thing.

I have always seen mental ability scores as vague. So, even if you have an 18 INT, you might still forget things all the time. Or you might be lazy or unmotivated. Or whatever.
Do your players also have to go to the gym lifting weights if they want to play strong warriors?

valadil
2013-03-14, 08:12 AM
52 (I think). Electronics at the table only serve the game and may never distract from it. I'm looking at you, sorcerer who starts looking up rules but ends up playing Angry Birds.

geeky_monkey
2013-03-14, 08:19 AM
Do your players also have to go to the gym lifting weights if they want to play strong warriors?

It's not really the same thing, is it? You don't need to be physically strong to imagine what you could do with bigger muscles. Imagining being smarter/dumber is a lot harder.

There's nothing that derails a D&D game faster than a half-orc barbarian with an INT of 5 solving a complex riddle (because their player can) or a wizard who's supposed to have INT 24 played by a player who has to be reminded of their spell list and what they can do every single encounter and counts on their fingers when working out if they've hit or not.

Darius Kane
2013-03-14, 08:44 AM
It's not really the same thing, is it?
It is. You roleplay/pretend you are stronger and you roleplay/pretend you are smarter.

geeky_monkey
2013-03-14, 08:59 AM
It is. You roleplay/pretend you are stronger and you roleplay/pretend you are smarter.

It's much, much harder to do successfully. Especially is you are roleplaying someone much smarter than yourself.

If you are a player with an INT of 12 your character with INT 20 will be able to see solutions to a problem you cannot even comprehend.

Roleplaying someone who is faster or stronger than you is far easier than roleplaying a character who is a super-genius and can solve puzzles that you'd struggle to understand even when given the solution.

I'd love there to be a way to make players only play characters as smart as them, unfortunately there's no standardised test to work out what someone's int is.

The wizard example I used in my previous post is a real life example. They were supposed to be an Einstein level genius but couldn't add up their skill rolls without using their fingers and regularly missed sessions as they'd forgotten what day of the week it was. If this was an enforceable rule they'd have to make INT their dump stat for every character.

Lorsa
2013-03-14, 09:12 AM
If you only played characters as smart as yourself it would soon get rather boring. If you are going that way then social skills / abilities are just as important to consider. The only true thing that doesn't matter in that case is physical abilities (unless you force your players to show what they are doing, which would be fair in this case). This is why you give clues / ideas to characters that are intelligent and help / give advice to the guy playing a very-smooth social character how to behave and act in certain situations. Assuming or expecting that all mental and social traits exhibited by the character also need to be exhibited by the player will just get boring. After a while though, the act of roleplaying a social / intelligent character (with some help) can actually lead to the player becoming more social / intelligent. You learn by doing, even if doing is in a roleplaying scenario (which is why roleplaying is used for teaching).

Darius Kane
2013-03-14, 09:33 AM
It's much, much harder to do successfully. Especially is you are roleplaying someone much smarter than yourself.
That's when the rules come in and help.

SilverLeaf167
2013-03-14, 11:38 AM
Not only would it be unnecessarily insulting to the person, and go against the very basic ideas of roleplaying, forcing people to play a character with the same mental stats as their real-life selves (at least we agree that those are impossible to really find out) would quickly become very boring, and some characters couldn't be played by anyone, at all. By that logic, basically anything with a mental stat of 19 or higher could never be built and played. No, not even by the DM, because he has to roleplay too.

Do you really want to tell a person, perhaps even a close friend, that they can't even be allowed to pretend to do anything other than hit things because you think they're too dumb? Or would you ban a shy player from ever trying to improve his improvisation and speaking skills by playing a bard?

If you really consider it such a huge issue... try to think of ability scores as abstractions. For example, a high Intelligence score might give a character a lot skill points, or spells per day, but if you think that the player absolutely can't roleplay an intelligent character, then why force him to do so? Make the stats just that: stats. Let roleplaying dictate the characters.

The highest Intelligence score (14) of the PC party in my current campaign is held by the Halfling Rogue, who just happens to be played by a zany 11-year old. We've agreed that his character is basically similar to a child savant who also happens to have ADHD. Can't concentrate on anything for five minutes and does a lot of silly things, but the rest of the party still acknowledges his actual talents and points them out to NPCs every now and then. Wizards seem to find it really frustrating every now and then. :smalltongue:

Jay R
2013-03-14, 11:56 AM
My unenforceable rules:

1. Smart people often do dumb things. Wise people often do foolish things. Your character's actions are as stupid, or as clever, as the actions you choose, totally unaffected by the numbers on the character sheet.

2. Each player is responsible for tracking initiative. When it's your action, either announce an action or wait until the end of the round.

3. Update your character sheet before the game.

4. If you don't know how the spell (feat, skill, item, etc.) works, or have the book opened by the time you act, then it doesn't work.

5. No book or optional rule will be introduced during the game. If you found a wonderful spell in The Compleat Book of Munchkins, you must show it to the DM and get approval before the session. (No, not when you get there to play -- a day or more in advance, to give the DM time to research it.)

6. The game we are talking about is the one we're playing, not the one you played five years ago.

7. Your knowledge of swords (anatomy, physics, whatever) does not nullify the rules.*

* "Yes, of course you're right. The rule is unrealistic, and physically impossible. This isn't the way real magic wands cast spells to defeat gryphons. Are you listening to yourself?"

valadil
2013-03-14, 03:56 PM
There's nothing that derails a D&D game faster than a half-orc barbarian with an INT of 5 solving a complex riddle (because their player can) or a wizard who's supposed to have INT 24 played by a player who has to be reminded of their spell list and what they can do every single encounter and counts on their fingers when working out if they've hit or not.

In my opinion it's the responsibility of the players to cast themselves as characters they can express. I'm not satisfied as a roleplayer if I fail to express my character. I have trouble playing religious characters, so I tend to avoid them.

One of my friends in high school actually did have a decent intelligence, but his wizards were dumb as rocks. He just couldn't roleplay smart peoeple and was always frustrated by them. He had a much better time when he played barbarians. Actually he was better at the dumb brute thing than the rest of us.

Yes, roleplaying is about escaping and being someone you're not. But if a destination is inaccessible to me, I'm not going to escape to it no matter how hard I try.

Slipperychicken
2013-03-14, 04:59 PM
4. You can't always dump charisma, and if you do then you just couldn't talk your way out of situations.

Corollary: DMs can't decide to ignore the social skill rules, resolving it with the player's IRL social skills whenever one of them gets a really high skill modifier.

Same goes for Knowledge skills and Spellcraft. If you aren't going to follow the rules ("I don't care that you rolled a 40! You just don't know!!"), scrap them. If you do not, you surrender your right to complain and call the players munchkins when they dump Charisma, stop putting points into their now-worthless social and knowledge skills, and gain insights exclusively through metagaming.




you want to play a female paladin? try and do the above, you'll fall faster than the laws physics allow.

Although I agree wholeheartedly with the general point, Paladins aren't chaste. The Code says nothing about it, and almost no sexual acts are Evil. So Paladins can have all the wacky, deviant sexual exploits they want, as long as they abide by the Code and don't commit evil acts (which arguably makes them highly desirable lovers, since they can never lie, cheat, or betray).

nyarlathotep
2013-03-14, 05:22 PM
High Charisma, vows of chastity are not mandatory, and immunity to disease.

Just sayin'....

If there is an emotional connection between two people and the culture is geared toward exclusive relationships (assumption based on the DM having a problem with it) having sex with multiple partners is a betrayal of trust and thus evil.

If no emotional connection is made then it is a purely pleasurable activity and only as important or notable as drinking, and besides a "I pick up the best looking guy cruisin' around the bar", no more really needs to be said on the matter unless your drunk dwarf player narrates every spirit and belch he imbibes.

More to the point however if is a male player you consistently plays "slutty" female characters then it is fetishization at best and blatant degradation of women at worst. Maybe okay in an explicitly erotic roleplaying game, but if its more than a side note personality detail in a normal rpg it's probably about as offensive as larping by wearing blackface.

Slipperychicken
2013-03-14, 05:38 PM
If there is an emotional connection between two people and the culture is geared toward exclusive relationships (assumption based on the DM having a problem with it) having sex with multiple partners is a betrayal of trust and thus evil.


It also falls under "not acting with honor" and probably lying too.

You have to wonder how someone could imagine such a scumbag to be Paladin material. But if the Paladin is honest about his feelings and intentions from the get-go (as per his Code), there shouldn't be an issue.

HedgehogRanger
2013-03-14, 07:04 PM
On the subject of the sex life of Paladins, here's athread with some discussion over that very topic: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n53e&page=1?Would-you-like-to-help-me-build-a-sexy

NihhusHuotAliro
2013-03-14, 07:37 PM
Any player that does not know the difference between a cobbler and a cordwainer will be given Patricia Worthholpe's old out-of-print masterpiece "From the goat to the kings: Shoemaking in the Middle Ages".

Because shoes are important; as anyone who walks with a pebble in his/her/its/??? shoes can attest. You cannot simply take the boots of speed that fit the Gnome Thief and give them to the half-orc fighter without getting them refitted.

Look, logistics matters. If you guys will let me get away with having three arms so I can have more weapons equipped and thus violating logic THAT way, I'll let you get away with ignoring the basic rules of the shoemaker's craft and let you violate logic THAT way. Deal?

Second; if I have a grindstone and a wrought iron mace; I can make sparks and use that for a light source in caves for as long as I can keep the grindstone turning and avoid being set on fire by the sparks. In return, I'll let you guys get away with never ever using the sense of smell in your roleplaying.

Main rule: Have fun.

Acanous
2013-03-14, 09:11 PM
So, how do you calibrate the Intelligence and Wisdom of your players ?

IQ/10=INT. Round up, like it says to in the rules. So most players will have a 11-13. I've got a 15. Tests are proveable if done by your educational institution. Will probably be a lot harder as gamers age out of college...

Sith_Happens
2013-03-14, 09:22 PM
IQ/10=INT. Round up, like it says to in the rules. So most players will have a 11-13. I've got a 15. Tests are proveable if done by your educational institution. Will probably be a lot harder as gamers age out of college...

Not quite, the curves are similar enough in the middle but diverge widely near the ends.

Logic
2013-03-14, 09:25 PM
Corollary: DMs can't decide to ignore the social skill rules, resolving it with the player's IRL social skills whenever one of them gets a really high skill modifier.

Same goes for Knowledge skills and Spellcraft. If you aren't going to follow the rules ("I don't care that you rolled a 40! You just don't know!!"), scrap them. If you do not, you surrender your right to complain and call the players munchkins when they dump Charisma, stop putting points into their now-worthless social and knowledge skills, and gain insights exclusively through metagaming.
Somewhat related note:
Our DM got tired of die rolls determining his social interactions, puzzles and clues that he thought he had come to a perfect solution.
So he banned charisma. Charisma was not a stat at all, and you simply role-played your social interaction. He later came to the same conclusion concerning Intelligence and Wisdom, and the players collectively stopped participating in his games for a while.

Sith_Happens
2013-03-15, 12:45 AM
Somewhat related note:
Our DM got tired of die rolls determining his social interactions, puzzles and clues that he thought he had come to a perfect solution.
So he banned charisma. Charisma was not a stat at all, and you simply role-played your social interaction. He later came to the same conclusion concerning Intelligence and Wisdom, and the players collectively stopped participating in his games for a while.

So which stats did casters use?:smallconfused:

Frozen_Feet
2013-03-15, 04:49 AM
The 3d6 bell curve is very similar to the IQ bell curve - in fact, you can map the first to the second and get fairly realistic estimate. The way people keep missing this boggles my mind.

See here (http://www.google.fi/imgres?um=1&hl=fi&client=firefox-a&sa=N&rls=org.mozilla:fi:official&biw=1280&bih=897&tbm=isch&tbnid=1HilA5ACAt7ipM:&imgrefurl=http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php%3Fp%3D7374969&docid=C4DCU7wrzi661M&imgurl=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v216/FaxCelestis/bellCurve3d6.png&w=571&h=338&ei=c-5CUemCKcmdtQblnICAAQ&zoom=1&ved=0CE4QhBwwAA&ved=1t:3588,r:0,s:0,i:78&iact=rc&dur=350&page=1&tbnh=173&tbnw=292&start=0&ndsp=18&tx=175&ty=100) and here. (http://geniusblog.davidshenk.com/images/bellcurve_2.gif)

nedz
2013-03-15, 05:07 AM
The 3d6 bell curve is very similar to the IQ bell curve - in fact, you can map the first to the second and get fairly realistic estimate. The way people keep missing this boggles my mind.

See here (http://www.google.fi/imgres?um=1&hl=fi&client=firefox-a&sa=N&rls=org.mozilla:fi:official&biw=1280&bih=897&tbm=isch&tbnid=1HilA5ACAt7ipM:&imgrefurl=http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php%3Fp%3D7374969&docid=C4DCU7wrzi661M&imgurl=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v216/FaxCelestis/bellCurve3d6.png&w=571&h=338&ei=c-5CUemCKcmdtQblnICAAQ&zoom=1&ved=0CE4QhBwwAA&ved=1t:3588,r:0,s:0,i:78&iact=rc&dur=350&page=1&tbnh=173&tbnw=292&start=0&ndsp=18&tx=175&ty=100) and here. (http://geniusblog.davidshenk.com/images/bellcurve_2.gif)

Except that the tails on the real curve are asymptotic, but otherwise it's close.

Frozen_Feet
2013-03-15, 05:19 AM
For the record, I made a Paladin who was also a Sacred Prostitute.

Of all the female PCs made for that game, she was the homeliest and the only one dressed properly, despite being the only literal whore. Make of that what you will. :smalltongue:

ArcturusV
2013-03-15, 05:27 AM
Kinda figures. Just like mine who was a disciple of the Goddess of Seduction. And was also the one guy in the campaign who was interested in women and treated them as actual people instead of objects.

Studoku
2013-03-15, 05:30 AM
For the record, I made a Paladin who was also a Sacred Prostitute.

That's actually a thing? BoEF I assume?

ArcturusV
2013-03-15, 05:36 AM
Yep. BoEF has a lot of decent to great PrCs, actually. Some that, if allowed, any character that qualifies would take. Like Metaphysical Spellshaper.

Frozen_Feet
2013-03-15, 06:02 AM
That's actually a thing? BoEF I assume?

Yes. And save for the art, BoEF is a good book, damn it! :smalltongue:

Also, I just checked to remind myself, but my character also had a husband and two kids. I recall my reasoning for including them was "wait, immunity to diseases I have covered, but immunity to pregnancy? Even with protection, the statistic are against her not having several at age of 26!" One was confirmed to be her husband's, the other I don't remember.

The lesson here, I think, is that when you take what appears to be young male nerd fantasy object and then inject a healthy dose of realism, things turn out different than you'd expect.

Oh well, at least justifying having Nymph's Kiss feat was easy. :smalltongue:

Lorsa
2013-03-15, 06:13 AM
Yes. And save for the art, BoEF is a good book, damn it! :smalltongue:

I agree!

But isn't there plenty of magic to help avoid pregnancy with 100% accuracy? Fairly low-level spells too.

Frozen_Feet
2013-03-15, 06:20 AM
Yes, but they would not have been available to my character for all of her life.

EDIT: Block the Seed is 1st level spell. My character wouldn't have gotten it herself before level 2, earliest. Starting age for Bards is between 16 and 21. Character had her first kid at 17.

10 GP / day is not really an affordable rate for level 1 character. 2 GP for birth shield concoction is much more manageable. However, statistics. 1% per month with protection adds up.

Slipperychicken
2013-03-15, 08:34 AM
10 GP / day is not really an affordable rate for level 1 character. 2 GP for birth shield concoction is much more manageable. However, statistics. 1% per month with protection adds up.

Ehh, there's probably something in BoEF for abortion too, so no biggie.


Actually, if there is cheap&easy magic abortion, between that and Remove Disease, there's little reason to need protection at all.

Gamer_Wife
2013-03-15, 08:50 AM
52. No changing the subject via rules lawyer-ing over the morality of Paladins when newbies (like me) are reading the thread of which UN-enforcable rules you would have in your sessions! :smallannoyed:

Jay R
2013-03-15, 10:30 AM
The 3d6 bell curve is very similar to the IQ bell curve - in fact, you can map the first to the second and get fairly realistic estimate. The way people keep missing this boggles my mind.

We're not "missing" it; we're recognizing the limitations in it.

Yes, they are vaguely similar in appearance, but 3d6 generates three quadratics, not a normal curve. The Central Limit Theorem proves that you need many more dice before it approximates a Normal curve.


See here (http://www.google.fi/imgres?um=1&hl=fi&client=firefox-a&sa=N&rls=org.mozilla:fi:official&biw=1280&bih=897&tbm=isch&tbnid=1HilA5ACAt7ipM:&imgrefurl=http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php%3Fp%3D7374969&docid=C4DCU7wrzi661M&imgurl=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v216/FaxCelestis/bellCurve3d6.png&w=571&h=338&ei=c-5CUemCKcmdtQblnICAAQ&zoom=1&ved=0CE4QhBwwAA&ved=1t:3588,r:0,s:0,i:78&iact=rc&dur=350&page=1&tbnh=173&tbnw=292&start=0&ndsp=18&tx=175&ty=100) and here. (http://geniusblog.davidshenk.com/images/bellcurve_2.gif)

Even so, if you used the information in these graphs, translating a mean of 10.5 to a mean of 100, and a standard deviation of 2.958 to one of 15, you get a scale of INT 3 = (approximately) IQ 62 to INT 18 = 138

INT IQ
3 62
4 67
5 72
6 77
7 82
8 87
9 92
10 97
11 103
12 108
13 113
14 118
15 123
16 128
17 133
18 138

More accurately, each INT represents a range. Based on the percentages,
INT 3 includes IQ 0 - 60.
INT 4 includes IQ 61 - 68.
INT 5 includes IQ 69 - 74.
INT 6 includes IQ 75 - 80.
INT 7 includes IQ 81 - .85
INT 8 includes IQ 86 - .90
INT 9 includes IQ 91 - 95.
INT 10 includes IQ 96 - 100.
INT 11 includes IQ 100 - 104.
INT 12 includes IQ 105 - 109.
INT 13 includes IQ 110 - 114.
INT 14 includes IQ 115 - 119.
INT 15 includes IQ 120 - 125.
INT 16 includes IQ 126 - 131.
INT 17 includes IQ 132 - 139.
INT 18 includes IQ 140+.

A quick look will show that these two results are similar, but not in agreement. They would be in agreement if the INT die roll generated a Normal curve.

Besides, how many games these days use a single roll of 3d6 to generate INT?

Lorsa
2013-03-15, 10:39 AM
52. No changing the subject via rules lawyer-ing over the morality of Paladins when newbies (like me) are reading the thread of which UN-enforcable rules you would have in your sessions! :smallannoyed:

That's probably a rule we actually should enforce. :)

Amaril
2013-03-15, 12:41 PM
Although I agree wholeheartedly with the general point, Paladins aren't chaste. The Code says nothing about it, and almost no sexual acts are Evil. So Paladins can have all the wacky, deviant sexual exploits they want, as long as they abide by the Code and don't commit evil acts (which arguably makes them highly desirable lovers, since they can never lie, cheat, or betray).

Usually when I write paladins into my settings without making them chaste, I make them among the most sought-after partners in the world, for this exact reason. I mean, who wouldn't want to marry someone with high charisma who lives to uphold good and righteousness and will never, ever cheat on you?

Sith_Happens
2013-03-15, 12:57 PM
1% per month with protection adds up.

That's why you take two of the 99%-success options and stack them. Duh.:smalltongue:

Frozen_Feet
2013-03-15, 01:14 PM
Ehh, there's probably something in BoEF for abortion too, so no biggie.

Paladin for Goddess of childbirth. :smalltongue: (Also death and stars, but hey.)


Actually, if there is cheap&easy magic abortion, between that and Remove Disease, there's little reason to need protection at all.

Triple dose of birth shield, equating to cost of 6 GP per pregnancy. Not unaffordable, but costly. Also not good for your health.

Magic, including Remove Disease, is not cheap enough for a level 1 NPC to constantly buy, even assuming such service is available. One pop of Remove Disease costs, at a minimum, 150 gold pieces. A +13 modifier (+4 stat, +4 skill, +3 feat, +2 masterwork item) in a Profession skill nets you, at most, 16,5 gold pieces per week.


We're not "missing" it; we're recognizing the limitations in it.

You don't really need to do any better for character creation. Most systems using such range have modifiers to create other scores which can be used to model the remaining outliers. D&D 3.x.'s minimum Int is not 3, it is 1, and there is no real maximum.


Besides, how many games these days use a single roll of 3d6 to generate INT?

Thousands of D&D retroclones. :smalltongue: It is mostly important when discussing D&D NPCs, because they are still heavily affected by the system's past.

Also, Praedor. Or at least it was one option.

Themrys
2013-03-15, 02:58 PM
Although I agree wholeheartedly with the general point, Paladins aren't chaste. The Code says nothing about it, and almost no sexual acts are Evil. So Paladins can have all the wacky, deviant sexual exploits they want, as long as they abide by the Code and don't commit evil acts (which arguably makes them highly desirable lovers, since they can never lie, cheat, or betray).

On the other hand, mistreating yourself for no reason should count as "Evil". And female characters whose actions are decided by sexually frustrated male players are not likely to have a healthy sexuality. (E.g. women who happen to like sex won't have sex with every man they encounter, while a nymphomaniac played by a frustrated young man might do exactly that.)

I don't know the D&D rules for becoming a Paladin, but I guess there is some minimal amount of mental stability required.

Regarding pregnancies ...

53. Male players and DMs alike are not allowed to even mention pregnancy, let alone discuss the likelihood of a female character becoming pregnant. Especially not if the female character in question is played by a woman.

Slipperychicken
2013-03-15, 03:51 PM
Thousands of D&D retroclones. :smalltongue: It is mostly important when discussing D&D NPCs, because they are still heavily affected by the system's past.


You falsely attributed Jay R's quote to me (I know, it's hard splitting up quotes). His actual post is #96, 4th page (this one).


On the other hand, mistreating yourself for no reason should count as "Evil".

I see a loophole here...

http://i.imgur.com/YKwBH.gif

Velaryon
2013-03-15, 06:03 PM
52 (I think). Electronics at the table only serve the game and may never distract from it. I'm looking at you, sorcerer who starts looking up rules but ends up playing Angry Birds.

I was going to post a rule that simply says "no cell phones at the table," which used to be enforceable once upon a time but not anymore. But I like yours better, because it also covers players who load up games on their laptops while we're playing.

54. Players shall not forget the names of places their characters have spent a fair amount of time, or NPCs they have interacted with on a significant basis.

Frozen_Feet
2013-03-15, 06:07 PM
You falsely attributed Jay R's quote to me (I know, it's hard splitting up quotes). His actual post is #96, 4th page (this one).

Oh, didn't notice that. I must've accidentally screwed up the quotes while paring them down.

Logic
2013-03-15, 06:35 PM
So which stats did casters use?:smallconfused:

Oh, the best stat of them all! DM Fiat. :smallannoyed: You see why we abandoned his game now, right?

Fortuna
2013-03-16, 05:59 AM
53. Male players and DMs alike are not allowed to even mention pregnancy, let alone discuss the likelihood of a female character becoming pregnant. Especially not if the female character in question is played by a woman.

...really?

Well, there goes my plan to play a dynastic empire-building game. I guess I'll stick to battering down dungeon doors.

Jack of Spades
2013-03-16, 06:58 AM
53. Male players and DMs alike are not allowed to even mention pregnancy, let alone discuss the likelihood of a female character becoming pregnant. Especially not if the female character in question is played by a woman.

Well that's boring! When my character gets close to retiring as evil overlord he may want to secure his line...

To throw my two cents into the f(IQ)=Int thing, there's also the fact that most IQ tests just aren't very good and really only test for a very specific kind of intelligence. Also, while Int scores are meant to be absolutes, IQ scores change periodically, with a score of 100 arbitrarily being assigned to whatever the average is among white men.

Also, if you attempt to get everyone's IQ scores out of them, you'll find quickly that 80% of people think they're above average.

Frozen_Feet
2013-03-16, 11:04 AM
53. Male players and DMs alike are not allowed to even mention pregnancy, let alone discuss the likelihood of a female character becoming pregnant. Especially not if the female character in question is played by a woman.

My female friends think talking about what contraception to use is a perfectly good coffee-break discussions, why can't I return the favor? :smalltongue: Plus, this rule is not unenforceable.



To throw my two cents into the f(IQ)=Int thing, there's also the fact that most IQ tests just aren't very good and really only test for a very specific kind of intelligence. Also, while Int scores are meant to be absolutes, IQ scores change periodically, with a score of 100 arbitrarily being assigned to whatever the average is among white men.

You sure you want to open that can of wyrms? :smalltongue:


Also, if you attempt to get everyone's IQ scores out of them, you'll find quickly that 80% of people think they're above average.
That's why you put them to a test and don't just take their word for it. :smallwink:

Ashtagon
2013-03-16, 11:54 AM
That's actually a thing? BoEF I assume?

I'm not sure about BoEF (it probably is there though). But I know it definitely exists in Green Ronin's Testament setting.

Temple prostitutes were a real thing in the ancient middle east.

Themrys
2013-03-16, 12:29 PM
My female friends think talking about what contraception to use is a perfectly good coffee-break discussions, why can't I return the favor? :smalltongue: Plus, this rule is not unenforceable.


Your objection to it is an example of why it is unenforcable.

Why not talk about it in roleplaying games? Because people talking about problems that are not, and actually can never be their own, often produces a lot of nonsense.

For example the opinion that without contraception, sexually active women have to have children.
While relatively unproblematic if you only do it with your own character, it quickly grows into a problem as soon as a male player insists that the characters of other players "have to" become pregnant.

Guizonde
2013-03-16, 01:58 PM
I was going to post a rule that simply says "no cell phones at the table," which used to be enforceable once upon a time but not anymore. But I like yours better, because it also covers players who load up games on their laptops while we're playing.


regarding the cell phone thing, that's what all of my group do. for me and another player, it's actually a little ritual when we sit down and grab our sheet to grandly show off turning off our cell phones, throwing them far away, and grabbing our dice. we are now in the game.
the only exception to this is if there's a latecomer, in which case one of us will keep the cell turned on to check on where the player is. it's turned off too later.

regarding computers, easy: we only have the e-books on them. no internet or whatever, just the books, dice, pdfs, and us at the table.

rule 55: no lollygagging. seriously, your initiative will be penalized.

Toofey
2013-03-16, 02:41 PM
Blah Blah Blah *(shortened for convenience)

Chastity was only required of Voteries. It wasn't a requirement for the class, and it doesn't make sense with some kits (like the Paladin's handbook version of the Cavilier which was more about being a noble than being a tough as nails mounted fighter)

Frozen_Feet
2013-03-16, 04:08 PM
While relatively unproblematic if you only do it with your own character, it quickly grows into a problem as soon as a male player insists that the characters of other players "have to" become pregnant.

Realistically, if they haven't had at least one kid by three years of sexual activity, and haven't been using contraception, either they and/or their partners are infertile or there is some other phenomenom preventing pregnancy. (I spend the better part of last night counting probabilities of these sorts of things. I'm not kidding.)

On the other hand, I've never seen anyone insist on this in an actual game. Acceptable breaks from reality and all that jazz. On yet another hand, it's been 8 years since I last played a female character without accounting for these kinds of things. (Fun fact: there are real-life species of yams that actually have the same effect as birthshield concotion from BoEF. This really surprised me when I found this out.)

On yet yet another hand (that's what, my fourth hand now?), I could argue there are many roleplayers who know as little about martial arts as they do about childbirth. But I don't see anyone wanting to ban these people from playing martial artists. :smalltongue:

Also, I stand by my claim: it is not an unenforceable rule. Nothing prevents putting up a big disclaimer saying "talking about sex, or anything relating to it, gets you kicked out", and then following suit.

dps
2013-03-16, 06:25 PM
Your objection to it is an example of why it is unenforcable.

Why not talk about it in roleplaying games? Because people talking about problems that are not, and actually can never be their own, often produces a lot of nonsense.

For example the opinion that without contraception, sexually active women have to have children.
While relatively unproblematic if you only do it with your own character, it quickly grows into a problem as soon as a male player insists that the characters of other players "have to" become pregnant.

You know what's nonsense? The idea that birth control is solely the responsibiltiy of females. It's lead to a lot of unwanted pregnancies.

If talking about the issue in the context of an RPG leads young, sexually active males to the realization that they need to take some responsibility in the area IRL, so much the better.

Coidzor
2013-03-16, 06:48 PM
Realistically, if they haven't had at least one kid by three years of sexual activity, and haven't been using contraception, either they and/or their partners are infertile or there is some other phenomenom preventing pregnancy. (I spend the better part of last night counting probabilities of these sorts of things. I'm not kidding.)

Were you accounting for the rhythm method?


On the other hand, I've never seen anyone insist on this in an actual game. Acceptable breaks from reality and all that jazz. On yet another hand, it's been 8 years since I last played a female character without accounting for these kinds of things. (Fun fact: there are real-life species of yams that actually have the same effect as birthshield concotion from BoEF. This really surprised me when I found this out.)

I've only heard of it from those horror stories about power-tripping DMs with sexual hangups and a lust for in-game rape of PCs that one doesn't really want to believe, I must admit.

That's pretty interesting about the yams. Wild yams?


On the other hand, mistreating yourself for no reason should count as "Evil".

I see what you did there. :smallamused:


I don't know the D&D rules for becoming a Paladin, but I guess there is some minimal amount of mental stability required.

It'd be nice if that were so, but we have to get the constant supply of fallen paladins and blackguards from somewhere.


53. Male [P]layers and DMs alike are not allowed to even mention[think about] pregnancy [rules covering pregnancy.], let alone discuss the likelihood of a female character becoming pregnant. Especially not if the female character in question is played by a woman.

Fixed that for you.


Oh, the best stat of them all! DM Fiat. :smallannoyed: You see why we abandoned his game now, right?

Frankly I'm confused why you didn't stuff him into a sack and put him in the corner for a time out. :smalltongue:

Lorsa
2013-03-16, 06:50 PM
Well, there's plenty of contraception around but despite that I would never force someone to become pregnant. Unless by some strange magic in which case it's not gender-dependant. Is it okay though to force a male character to become a father by having his sexual partners becoming pregnant?

ArcturusV
2013-03-16, 06:53 PM
Not only do I see it as okay? It's good sequel fodder.

You retire your character. You want to roll up a new one in the same setting, running a new campaign. Instead of being some completely random schmuck you can be some heir to the great hero, legitimate or otherwise. Far more interesting to me.

Frozen_Feet
2013-03-16, 07:19 PM
Were you accounting for the rhythm method?

Rhytm method is a form of contraception. As I said, that calculation was based on total absense of any.

But to give comparison point, even with typical (=non-perfect) use of condom, by year three the woman's chance of pregnancy is ~42% is she has, on average, sex every month (=36 times, total). This calculation assumes 1,5% chance of pregnancy per intercourse. Based on wikipedia, the practical estimated worth of rhythm method varies from 1,2% chance to 2,9% chance, resulting to 35% to 65% chance for pregnancy, if frequency of intercourses remains constant.

Without protection, the chance is 95%

You want a more spefic answer, you must tell me how active our hypothetical female specimen is. :smalltongue:

illyrus
2013-03-16, 09:40 PM
56. While some variation is fine, all PCs will maintain roughly the same power level.*

*Not for D&D games

dps
2013-03-16, 11:40 PM
Well, there's plenty of contraception around but despite that I would never force someone to become pregnant. Unless by some strange magic in which case it's not gender-dependant. Is it okay though to force a male character to become a father by having his sexual partners becoming pregnant?

If he doesn't use protection, absolutely.

Gnome Alone
2013-03-17, 12:46 AM
Not only do I see it as okay? It's good sequel fodder.
In our 3.5 game my character has slept with every comely elf lass he can... really hoping that the DM tells me I have like seven half-elf kids in the epilogue.

FreakyCheeseMan
2013-03-17, 12:54 AM
In the custom world I'm designing, Kobolds reproduce aesexually through eggs, and in such high numbers that they have basically no parental instinct. I'm kind of tempted to give kobolds an ability that lets them basically create children to serve as minions and toadies.

ArcturusV
2013-03-17, 01:02 AM
Happened to me in the last Anima: Beyond Fantasy game I played. Due to how I finished the game one of the players REALLY demanded a sequel. Because my character basically got everything he ever wanted while also making sure I ruined everything forever for his character (because his character was Evil pretending to be good and basically went out of his way to piss off my, much smarter, character).

So we got a sequel campaign going, and since that player had a problem with MY bloodline and old character the question of... "Just how many heirs to Reman Valarius are there?" came up.

Which resulted in a couple between Reman and the character I ended up married to. But also some one offs. In the end it was figured I probably had kids with:

Palnette (Wife), Rinoa Cho (Longtime ally and cuddle buddy there), Odessia (Succubus Queen), Elizeila (Archangel of a Nature and Beauty Goddess), Leifon (Sandwalker, basically Jedi Knight of the Desert), Vixela (Major succubus spirit I was a Paladin of), Ren (A forest faerie), Lady Ibiki (The Seer of the Crow Clan)...

And all those heirs to run with. Also proving that Humans are slutty as hell considering all the cross species stuff and what not. Also because I was a Paladin following the "Goddess of Seduction".

Gnome Alone
2013-03-17, 01:23 AM
Wow, so his new character basically made it his lifelong ambition to snuff out every child born from the various weird things you slept with?

ArcturusV
2013-03-17, 01:28 AM
Actually he wanted to play his old character, now middle aged. While I played one of my Heirs trying to counter him and his fell ambitions.

Also his character would have NEVER been able to snuff out Reman. Reman was basically the hard counter build to what his character was and did. And at the end of the campaign I was basically Emperor of the Known World, worshiped as a hero and beloved by just about everyone for my efforts in advancing the world, uniting it in peace, and destroying the Scourge who almost Apocalypsed the World with both Demons and Dragons (His character).

My new character might fail.

Gnome Alone
2013-03-17, 02:18 AM
So his character went from youth to middle-age, while Reman... I'm guessing died of Mysterious Circumstances in the boudoir of the Ogre Queen. Tragic, really.

ArcturusV
2013-03-17, 02:21 AM
Actually he's "Somewhere" taking care of "Something" with his wife. It was never really mentioned what. Just the DM said that it was something so critical it took his attention and required the presence of himself and his wife.

So one of my sons is running the empire.

But yeah. Fun stuff. Which would never come to be if you just blanket statement said No Sexuality, Pregnancy, etc.

Sith_Happens
2013-03-17, 02:49 PM
Well, there's plenty of contraception around but despite that I would never force someone to become pregnant. Unless by some strange magic in which case it's not gender-dependant. Is it okay though to force a male character to become a father by having his sexual partners becoming pregnant?


If he doesn't use protection, absolutely.

It's especially funny in a game where the PCs don't stay in one place very long. Eventually they find themselves back in that one town they spent three days in a year ago, and... SURPRISE!:smallbiggrin: I'm a bad person.

Jack of Spades
2013-03-17, 11:52 PM
Is it okay though to force a male character to become a father by having his sexual partners becoming pregnant?

You'd be a fool not to! Illegitimate children make amazing plot points. You can do just about anything with them, and the way the character reacts to them will always be meaningful in some way.

Especially given that sex in RPG characters is almost always the result of either plot points or someone playing a character who actively seeks it out at every town.

Frozen_Feet
2013-03-18, 04:49 AM
If this (http://andersson.elfwood.com/art/a/n/andersson/family_gathering_colored.jpg) is not the end result of a womanizing male PC, either the GM is doing something wrong or the character has demonstrated responsibility entirely outside the realm what's normally observed in roleplaying characters.

Lorsa
2013-03-18, 06:50 AM
56. All players should be mature and deal with OOC conflict in a constructive fashion. No yelling, running out the room or not listening / caring about the other person's views. I really wish I could enforce that rule...

DigoDragon
2013-03-18, 06:54 AM
34. The DM must voice act all NPCs. Exaggeration is preferable.

I almost follow this to the letter. I've been told it is one of the better details of the games I run. It can get exhausting however.


57. Learn some improv skills and be creative in your adventuring.

TuggyNE
2013-03-18, 07:17 PM
56. All players should be mature and deal with OOC conflict in a constructive fashion. No yelling, running out the room or not listening / caring about the other person's views. I really wish I could enforce that rule...

This might just be the best entry on the list. It would be wonderful beyond belief, but it's utterly unenforceable.

Moriwen
2013-03-18, 08:59 PM
58. Character names must be four syllables or less, pronounceable, not taken directly from the Lord of the Rings, and without the letter "y" substituting for random vowels. They may contain apostrophes only if these have an actual phonetic meaning (e.g., tongue click).

magwaaf
2013-03-18, 09:14 PM
11. It is against The Rules to get sick and be unable to make it to game if you're the GM.



my dm shows up sick or not everytime

huttj509
2013-03-18, 10:29 PM
58. Character names must be four syllables or less, pronounceable, not taken directly from the Lord of the Rings, and without the letter "y" substituting for random vowels. They may contain apostrophes only if these have an actual phonetic meaning (e.g., tongue click).

What about linguistic meaning, like d'Artagnan? You don't pronounce the ', but it's proper to be there.

FreakyCheeseMan
2013-03-18, 10:31 PM
I still remember the look my DM gave me when he asked me to spell my character's name, and I told him it was written in Arabic.

...well it was. :smallbiggrin:

The New Bruceski
2013-03-18, 10:44 PM
58. Character names must be four syllables or less, pronounceable, not taken directly from the Lord of the Rings, and without the letter "y" substituting for random vowels. They may contain apostrophes only if these have an actual phonetic meaning (e.g., tongue click).

My real life family would not be able to play. Martyn, Mervyn, Bryce, Gladys, Myles, it's a bit of a family tradition.

Gnome Alone
2013-03-18, 11:00 PM
. Martyn, Mervyn, Bryce, Gladys, Myles

I think Bryce and Gladys are the standard spellings. Myles I kinda like though.

I think my mom used to buy Mervyn's pants from him for me, if I understood correctly.

Slipperychicken
2013-03-18, 11:10 PM
I still remember the look my DM gave me when he asked me to spell my character's name, and I told him it was written in Arabic.

...well it was. :smallbiggrin:

58-b. If another person at the table fails to exclusively use languages which I can speak, I may quote a certain lines of Pulp Fiction with impunity, including "English, mothaf***a, do you speak it?!".

59-c. If it is to be quoted at all, that line will only be quoted in English. Because some smartass will inevitably translate it into Arabic and use it back at me.

Logic
2013-03-18, 11:12 PM
Frankly I'm confused why you didn't stuff him into a sack and put him in the corner for a time out. :smalltongue:
NON-RELATED GAMER DRAMA

LONG STORY SHORT
DM has a temper tantrum during a paintball match (where I was his primary antagonist.) DM has temper tantrum, does some very unsafe things in attempt to hurt me, hurts others in the process, proceeds to lambast me in a mass-email while also violating my trust by revealing some things that I said in confidence. Group stops playing with DM for a while, DM says sorry to everyone but me, group kicks me out and takes in DM. Logic is abandoned to a life without gaming for a while. Group suggests that perhaps taking sides was a bad idea (about two years later.)

59. If you are a sore loser, or a sore winner, you are hereby banned.

Lorsa
2013-03-19, 06:58 AM
60. Players should not force the GM to enforce random houserules they found on the internet, especially if said houserules are from this thread.

Mono Vertigo
2013-03-19, 07:27 AM
61. I could let your character have powers over fate if your concept of it matched mine perfectly.

But few people see fate the way I do, I suspect, and those who do would find themselves left with very weak, narrow and overall unfun abilities, so I just have a blanket ban on characters with powers over fate altogether.
The good news is that it emphasizes free will. Especially the players'. :smallbiggrin:

Moriwen
2013-03-19, 07:49 AM
What about linguistic meaning, like d'Artagnan? You don't pronounce the ', but it's proper to be there.

That's OK, of course. In fact, if one of my players gave me a name with an actual linguistic background and derivation, I would be so overcome with joy I'd probably have a heart attack.


My real life family would not be able to play. Martyn, Mervyn, Bryce, Gladys, Myles, it's a bit of a family tradition.

Except for Martyn, I think those names are actually more common with the "y," no? I have no objection to "y" as such, just as a cheap "let's make this name sound fantasy-ish" tool.

Lorsa
2013-03-19, 08:07 AM
Sort of like these:

Sarytywyren? Ylyryssa? Lynytyawydor? :)

EDIT: Please don't make me try to pronounce them... I have no idea how they would sound.

Jay R
2013-03-19, 09:47 AM
Sort of like these:

Sarytywyren? Ylyryssa? Lynytyawydor? :)

EDIT: Please don't make me try to pronounce them... I have no idea how they would sound.

If they are NPCs, then:
"Sarytywyren" is pronounced "that guy from that city",
"Ylyryssa" is pronounced "the cleric chick", and
"Lynytyawydor" is pronounced "that guy in the forest, you remember, he had that magic thing".

Ashtagon
2013-03-19, 09:59 AM
58-d No names in Welsh, or any other language suffering from a vowel shortage.

FreakyCheeseMan
2013-03-19, 09:59 AM
Mine wasn't all *that* hard... Jerruk, with the "J" sound from "Beijing" or "Taj Mahal" and a rolled r.

...mostly because I never did learn how to pronounce that thrice-damned Arabic character that's like a K but not really.

ArcturusV
2013-03-19, 04:50 PM
See, I'd ban Gothic Names as well as that's often a problem. Can't count the number of oWoD games I was in with players who wanted names like:

Raeven Blackmane Bloodrose.

Or similar things that were almost impossible for me to take seriously as they tried to be both far too gothic and poetic, and failed hard. :smallsigh:

Malrone
2013-03-19, 07:04 PM
62. When doing a post-by-post to wrap up plot outside of the session, all involved will respond timely enough to finish the scene before the next mission begins.

That way, time distortion is avoided. Can't tell you how often we've had to smudge details because of unfinished events in the past


On pregnancy, there is a Paladin of Freedom in the current game. He takes the fact that he isn't obligated to act honourable very seriously. In fact, I'm certain he has a fetish for evil creatures. Was to have a child with a Drow (now both deceased), is going to be raising a son with a Tiefling, and frequently can be found with Eriynes in/around his bedroom.

Figgin of Chaos
2013-03-20, 04:45 AM
On pregnancy, there is a Paladin of Freedom in the current game. He takes the fact that he isn't obligated to act honourable very seriously. In fact, I'm certain he has a fetish for evil creatures. Was to have a child with a Drow (now both deceased), is going to be raising a son with a Tiefling, and frequently can be found with Eriynes in/around his bedroom.

I don't think that's how Paladins of Freedom work. But maybe it should be.

Hyena
2013-03-20, 05:08 AM
63. The players should at least try to memorize npc's names. At least plot-centric.
64. DM should do that too.

Slipperychicken
2013-03-20, 11:33 AM
63. The players should at least try to memorize npc's names. At least plot-centric.
64. DM should do that too.

64b. If the DM fails to do this, he surrenders his right to complain about the players not roleplaying or remembering NPC names.

65. The DM shall use at least one special terrain feature in each encounter to keep things interesting.

Ajadea
2013-03-20, 12:46 PM
Is this really an issue? :smalleek:
Yep! And our paladin nearly kicked the bucket because of it (again).

Rule 66: Your character must have a backstory at least one coherent paragraph long, explaining why they're in a tavern/other starting location.
Rule 66a: If no family members exist in the backstory (adoptive family is okay, parental abandonment is okay, orphans accepted on case-by-case basis), the DM may take the liberty of creating one for you.
Rule 66b: The DM should remember that families and close friends serve more plot purposes than getting kidnapped/killed.

Slipperychicken
2013-03-20, 12:56 PM
Rule 66b: The DM should remember that families and close friends serve more plot purposes than getting kidnapped/killed.

Of course! They serve to get the PCs kidnapped/killed while looking for them! And unwittingly revealing the PCs secrets :smallbiggrin:

OverdrivePrime
2013-03-20, 01:47 PM
62. When doing a post-by-post to wrap up plot outside of the session, all involved will respond timely enough to finish the scene before the next mission begins.

That way, time distortion is avoided. Can't tell you how often we've had to smudge details because of unfinished events in the past

^This. Oh dear god, this.
I love my players dearly, but all but one of them tend to be pretty flaky over email. You've got two weeks to tell me what you're doing in your downtime! Just throw me a bone here, people!
And one or two of them have the audacity to get all upset when the guy who spent a lot of time sending me ideas over email has influenced the tone some background information of the next adventure. Dude! You sent me six links waffles and a cat video. It's not like you're some stranger to the Internet.