Secret House Rules

[AMFV]

That's fair. The direction I'm going in is as follows.

Would you agree that a DM is at least partially responsible for players who argue during games about house rules, if those DMs do not at least give enough information to self-select away from those campaigns?

For example, say hypothetical player Thomas doesn't like a lot of house rules. He knows this, respects that some DMs have a lot of them, so he asks about them before joining any games. Hypothetical DM Jerry doesn't want to give away his house rules, so he avoids answering in some manner or another. After the game starts, the secret house rules begin to appear. Thomas becomes upset, and begins arguing with Jerry, disrupting the game.

How do you evaluate this situation? How should Thomas and Jerry have behaved differently?

There isn't enough detail to say. Furthermore I've stated that the DM should not be completely dishonest, so that would be (in my opinion) wrong. But there is no requirement for complete transparency. If Thomas doesn't ask, and there are houserules, then Thomas is at fault. If Thomas didn't read the "I have houserules, but I'll be squirrely as to what they are" as a sign of trouble then he's at fault.

To be honest nobody is really at fault here though, Thomas can leave the game, realizing that it isn't his style of game. And Jerry can bash his teeth in with a large mallet or cause him injury in some overly complicated scheme.

The point is that, there are games you're going to like and games you aren't, and there isn't always a magic question to ask to figure out which are which. There are indicators, for example if you don't like houserules and somebody has them, and even more if somebody has them but doesn't want to go into them. It is equally a player's responsibility to communicate the sort of game they want as it is a DM's responsibility to communicate the sort of game they're offering.

[jaydubs]

There isn't enough detail to say. Furthermore I've stated that the DM should not be completely dishonest, so that would be (in my opinion) wrong. But there is no requirement for complete transparency. If Thomas doesn't ask, and there are houserules, then Thomas is at fault. If Thomas didn't read the "I have houserules, but I'll be squirrely as to what they are" as a sign of trouble then he's at fault.

To be honest nobody is really at fault here though, Thomas can leave the game, realizing that it isn't his style of game. And Jerry can bash his teeth in with a large mallet or cause him injury in some overly complicated scheme.

I can agree with that.

The point is that, there are games you're going to like and games you aren't, and there isn't always a magic question to ask to figure out which are which. There are indicators, for example if you don't like houserules and somebody has them, and even more if somebody has them but doesn't want to go into them. It is equally a player's responsibility to communicate the sort of game they want as it is a DM's responsibility to communicate the sort of game they're offering.

True. Though I'm tempted to either look up or come up with a list of questions to ensure everyone is trying to play the same kind of game. But that's beyond the scope of this thread.

[AMFV]

I can agree with that.



True. Though I'm tempted to either look up or come up with a list of questions to ensure everyone is trying to play the same kind of game. But that's beyond the scope of this thread.

There is the Same Page list which I'm too lazy to find. But the fundamental problem with it is that different things matter differently to different people. Secret houserules may be something I don't like but I'll tolerate, or it may be something I'll leave a game over. It depends.

[Lord Raziere]

No one approach is wrong or bad, they're just different styles, all of which are valid and can be lots of fun.

Please stop defending the unreasonable control freak DM. I'm honestly baffled as to why you think this. Apparently one be's unreasonable and stubborn enough, long enough on these forums and one starts getting defended for it despite all the offensive and insulting things she has said. How long are we going to continue this "oh poor DM JP" narrative where we ignore everything she has said, and construct an alternate version in our minds that is "just arguing for a different playstyle" or something. I am still not buying this bull.

[VoxRationis]

Certain aspects of the game world would make sense for players to know. Certain aspects do not. This extends to both mechanical and non-mechanical things. I myself consider the idea of having secret house rules somewhat unsavory—I'd hate to learn after taking Improved Disarm that the disarm mechanics were dramatically different in this campaign—but I could see certain niche cases in which it would make sense that a rule the DM institutes wouldn't be known from the start.

[Sartharina]

Please stop defending the unreasonable control freak DM. I'm honestly baffled as to why you think this. Apparently one be's unreasonable and stubborn enough, long enough on these forums and one starts getting defended for it despite all the offensive and insulting things she has said. How long are we going to continue this "oh poor DM JP" narrative where we ignore everything she has said, and construct an alternate version in our minds that is "just arguing for a different playstyle" or something. I am still not buying this bull.

Because JP has made it clear that she has no lack of players, and a lot of them genuinely enjoy his(Her?) campaigns. There's something amusing about control - it's sometimes very fun to give it up.

[Brookshw]

Please stop defending the unreasonable control freak DM.

Frankly, no. That's a completely dismissive response.

I'm honestly baffled as to why you think this. Apparently one be's unreasonable and stubborn enough, long enough on these forums and one starts getting defended for it despite all the offensive and insulting things she has said. How long are we going to continue this "oh poor DM JP" narrative where we ignore everything she has said, and construct an alternate version in our minds that is "just arguing for a different playstyle" or something. I am still not buying this bull.

Why I think what? That I look past what I expect are poor communication skills and ask myself what such a game might look like then find myself thinking, that's not bad, I played such games for years in older editions? The first actual complaint we heard from one of his players was they wanted to know the mis-summon chance and they weren't told. That's fine as far as I'm concerned, not something to be up in arms about. Would you get upset if a dm introduced some mysterious metal in a game that didn't have any rules you were aware of?

[Arbane]

Not so sure. In Ravenloft magic works differently, and the book suggests to player with an outlander character (a character native to another plane) to avoid reading how magic works in the setting.

Yeah, but that only lasts for their first character.

I tell the players when I want them to make a saving throw or an ability check. Which one (and at what target number, if applicable) is up to me to decide. Anything in the books are merely suggestions for the most common situations.

I hope you're playing something rules-light , and not making them go through the painstaking process of making, say, a D&D3.5 character.

Because JP has made it clear that she has no lack of players, and a lot of them genuinely enjoy his(Her?) campaigns. There's something amusing about control - it's sometimes very fun to give it up.

The phrase 'BSDMing' comes to mind for some reason.

[Lord Raziere]

Because JP has made it clear that she has no lack of players, and a lot of them genuinely enjoy his(Her?) campaigns. There's something amusing about control - it's sometimes very fun to give it up.

and she withholds information from her players. even if what she says is true, how much of it presented without bias? we have no idea as to what all these supposed players think they are getting into, no idea what is expected of them vs. what is expected for not to expect. I cannot trust her, nor can I trust what she says. all this information is from JP only and is inherently biased and suspect. since we cannot figure out if any of her claims is really true...I'm just going to take what she says with a grain of salt. an even if its true, I don't put any stock in the fallacy concerning popularity or the majority.

[jaydubs]

Please stop defending the unreasonable control freak DM. I'm honestly baffled as to why you think this. Apparently one be's unreasonable and stubborn enough, long enough on these forums and one starts getting defended for it despite all the offensive and insulting things she has said. How long are we going to continue this "oh poor DM JP" narrative where we ignore everything she has said, and construct an alternate version in our minds that is "just arguing for a different playstyle" or something. I am still not buying this bull.

I think the argument is that the style of GMing (extremely controlling, with lots of fiat and loose rules on the side of the GM, and lots of player nerfs) is not necessarily bad in and of itself, since it used to be common back in the day (apparently, I didn't play tabletops back in the day).

While I would personally never want to play in such a game (barring treating it as something like Paranoia), I would never play in a super-optimized cheese game either. But there are people who enjoy both, and I shouldn't try to label either as badwrongfun.

What's disturbing about jedipotter is her reasons for GMing (and perhaps interacting with the world in general) in this way, and her treatment of players who don't enjoy that style of DMing. Things like never trusting anyone, asserting that compromise is wrong in all relationships, that logic doesn't work in the real world, general intractability, and how she attempts to "teach players a lesson" rather than just removing players who are a bad fit, etc. The list goes on, I won't go into it.

But the point is we can attribute those issues to something other than playstyle. To give a similar example, if a player (or DM) shows up with a seriously overpowered character (DMPC), and starts derailing the campaign and picking on other characters, we don't condemn optimization for it. We blame the immaturity of the player, and kick him/her.

[Zrak]

Please stop defending the unreasonable control freak DM. I'm honestly baffled as to why you think this. Apparently one be's unreasonable and stubborn enough, long enough on these forums and one starts getting defended for it despite all the offensive and insulting things she has said. How long are we going to continue this "oh poor DM JP" narrative where we ignore everything she has said, and construct an alternate version in our minds that is "just arguing for a different playstyle" or something. I am still not buying this bull.

Just because you don't like something doesn't mean nobody else can like it. In asking others to dismiss someone else's opinion because you do not share it, you are being at the very least as unreasonable and stubborn as she is, if not more so. Like I said earlier, I had a perfectly reasonable, productive discussion with jedipotter in the past. If you can't, perhaps the fault is as much or more yours than hers.

[Elderand]

Because JP has made it clear that she has no lack of players, and a lot of them genuinely enjoy his(Her?) campaigns. There's something amusing about control - it's sometimes very fun to give it up.

Allegedly has players.

[Lord Raziere]

Frankly, no. That's a completely dismissive response.
Why I think what? That I look past what I expect are poor communication skills and ask myself what such a game might look like then find myself thinking, that's not bad, I played such games for years in older editions? The first actual complaint we heard from one of his players was they wanted to know the mis-summon chance and they weren't told. That's fine as far as I'm concerned, not something to be up in arms about. Would you get upset if a dm introduced some mysterious metal in a game that didn't have any rules you were aware of?

frankly, get used to it.

why I think what? that I look past a veneer of "oh I'm just an old school DM" that is only spouted by supporters of JP and not by JP herself, and seeing a control freak I wouldn't play with even if you paid me a billion dollars? and see a game, where no actual roleplaying takes place, but a thin card-board cut out character whom no one put any energy into making an actual character, only to die soon because.......no reason apparently, because that is all that I see: no actual roleplaying, just numbers made from random tables, trying to survive and dying because you made one mistake. nintendo hard isn't fun its stressful and repetitive. what roleplaying can take place between your characters dying? nothing substantial that I see, nothing worth it. none of my actions actually mattering. my character concept, the character I want to play out- that is what is important regardless of the mechanics. it is why I hold both old-schoolers and optimizers in contempt- the old schooler would not allow my character to live. the optimizer would destroy it in concept by trying to maximize it beyond the concept I intend. both would destroy the character I wish to play. a character should have no more ability than what I think it should, even if its possible to be more "optimal" than that, while the rolls would not allow me to choose. secret house rules? I cannot trust that. Ever. Any potential houserule could apply and therefore alter my character concept and therefore ruin it.

It depends on whether that metal is introduced to screw me over or as a part of the plot.

[Jacob.Tyr]

Allegedly has players.

With the number of "HELP! MY GM IS AWFUL" threads I've seen on here, it doesn't surprise me that people would play in what I personally think have to be objectively terrible conditions. JP might just be the only DM that some of these people know, and from other JP posts it seems like quite a few bail. Between not telling people what rules are in play, actively creating rules to nerf characters without even letting them know what they are, constant talk about punishing "trouble players", admitting to never compromise on anything (to the point where JP's stance on relationships is they should be built on a foundation of never compromising), outright dismissal of logic as ever valid... Seriously, not telling your players what monster X/Y/Z can do is one thing, homebrewed settings are another, but they are not these things. Not knowing an enemies AC isn't the same as not knowing that if you roll two fives in a row on any check a xenomorph bursts out of your chest (hyperbole -I hope- , but JP has refused to post any of these secret rules on even the forums in case players want some semblance of agency).

That said, I'm the type of player who spends a lot of time thinking about character options. Not knowing how my character will actually play negates a lot of the value in choices I might make. I don't tend too far on the min/max side of things, but I do like to be able to validly weigh my options. If every other build has a non-trivial chance of imploding, but I'm not allowed to know those chances or that they even exist then I can't do that. Just slap some crap onto a character sheet and hope it doesn't self-implode, because player agency even regarding your character creation is lost at that point. Better also hope you didn't pick up any "trouble player" options, like being a caster, because then the rules will change to punish you.

Tomb of Horrors is fun because it encourages thinking outside the box, JP has stated in the past that outside-the-box combos and solutions are cheating. Try it and you'll be punished for being a bad player.

[LimSindull]

I wouldn't play with even if you paid me a billion dollars?

COME ON!! You could be spending a million dollars a day for a thousand days, and you wouldn't play? I would do a lot more for a lot less.

Although there is certainly room for abuse when using hidden rules, if the DM can make it fun for everyone then there is a good session. It doesn't matter what rules are used at all, or no rules, if everyone is having a good time. As for player death, it can be cool, or it can suck. Once again, this is according how the DM allows it to happen.

[Zrak]

Really, a billion dollars? That's a lot of money. It's pretty unreasonable to be so unwilling to try something you don't like that you aren't willing to be paid hundreds of millions of dollars an hour to do it. Even if you don't want the money for yourself, there are any number of worthy causes to which you could donate it. If someone offered you a chance to make a huge difference in the world, the ability to save thousands or even millions of lives, you're basically saying you wouldn't take it if it meant having to play D&D with a DM you didn't like. Yet, you are accusing the other party of being unreasonable.

Also, it's sort of ridiculous to lambaste jedipotter for being closed-minded and insulting in one breath and describe your "contempt" for the way other people like to play the game in the next. Actually, re-reading the post, your wording isn't even that you hold the way they play the game in contempt, but you hold them in contempt for playing that way.

[Lord Raziere]

COME ON!! You could be spending a million dollars a day for a thousand days, and you wouldn't play? I would do a lot more for a lot less.

Although there is certainly room for abuse when using hidden rules, if the DM can make it fun for everyone then there is a good session. It doesn't matter what rules are used at all, or no rules, if everyone is having a good time. As for player death, it can be cool, or it can suck. Once again, this is according how the DM allows it to happen.

Well yeah. happiness and playing a character I want to play, the way I want to play it, are far more important than money.

Really, a billion dollars? That's a lot of money. It's pretty unreasonable to be so unwilling to try something you don't like that you aren't willing to be paid hundreds of millions of dollars an hour to do it. Even if you don't want the money for yourself, there are any number of worthy causes to which you could donate it. If someone offered you a chance to make a huge difference in the world, the ability to save thousands or even millions of lives, you're basically saying you wouldn't take it if it meant having to play D&D with a DM you didn't like. Yet, you are accusing the other party of being unreasonable.

Also, it's sort of ridiculous to lambaste jedipotter for being closed-minded and insulting in one breath and describe your "contempt" for the way other people like to play the game in the next.

well that is a different framing of it. money is neutral. it does not have moral value. it depends on how you use it. on the other hand, if your framing it as a purely selfless thing, I'd probably do it, but I would not be happy with it, I would make sure of that.

what? I do not like either style, for reasons I just stated. they can play it however they like as much they like, doesn't mean I like those styles or that I have to. I accept that they each have their own unique styles and what not and so forth, and I respect them for enjoying what they enjoy, which they have a right to. doesn't mean I like them.

JP on the other hand, has been insulting to a wide group of people for no reason, and hasn't bee listening to change her viewpoint on any of this at all. and that cannot stand.

[Mr Beer]

frankly, get used to it.

why I think what? that I look past a veneer of "oh I'm just an old school DM" that is only spouted by supporters of JP and not by JP herself, and seeing a control freak I wouldn't play with even if you paid me a billion dollars? and see a game, where no actual roleplaying takes place, but a thin card-board cut out character whom no one put any energy into making an actual character, only to die soon because.......no reason apparently, because that is all that I see: no actual roleplaying, just numbers made from random tables, trying to survive and dying because you made one mistake. nintendo hard isn't fun its stressful and repetitive. what roleplaying can take place between your characters dying? nothing substantial that I see, nothing worth it. none of my actions actually mattering. my character concept, the character I want to play out- that is what is important regardless of the mechanics. it is why I hold both old-schoolers and optimizers in contempt- the old schooler would not allow my character to live. the optimizer would destroy it in concept by trying to maximize it beyond the concept I intend. both would destroy the character I wish to play. a character should have no more ability than what I think it should, even if its possible to be more "optimal" than that, while the rolls would not allow me to choose. secret house rules? I cannot trust that. Ever. Any potential houserule could apply and therefore alter my character concept and therefore ruin it.

It depends on whether that metal is introduced to screw me over or as a part of the plot.

I'm baffled as to why this is annoying you so much. I really don't see the problem with people running RPGs in a way that I personally don't go for, as long as I am not expected to participate against my will.

BTW it's impressive that you can't be bought at any price but there's a lot of things I would do for a billion dollars and playing a game with a GM who has secret house rules is a long way from the worst I'd do.

[Jormengand]

Allegedly has players.

If by "Allegedly" you mean "In at least two games on this very forum" I suppose you'd be right.

[Engine]

Yeah, but that only lasts for their first character.

The same is true with every secret rule: when it comes out, it's not a secret anymore. Not the point, anyway: I'm saying that even in a serious game secret rules could have a part.

[Zrak]

well that is a different framing of it. money is neutral. it does not have moral value. it depends on how you use it. on the other hand, if your framing it as a purely selfless thing, I'd probably do it, but I would not be happy with it, I would make sure of that.

It's the exact same framing. Your framing made no stipulations on how that billion dollars could be spent, so it could be spent on others exactly as you framed it. Even assuming the money could not be spent on others, which is not how you framed the scenario, it's still quite hypocritical to accost someone else for their stubbornness when you are unwilling to even try to play a game you don't think you will enjoy. I mean, you say you would play if the money went to charitable causes, but even then you would "make sure" you didn't enjoy it. You're not only unwilling to even try things her way for a billion dollars, but proudly state your unwillingness to enjoy the game if you were to try. You are, meanwhile, accusing someone else of being "unreasonable" and "stubborn."

what? I do not like either style, for reasons I just stated. they can play it however they like as much they like, doesn't mean I like those styles or that I have to. I accept that they each have their own unique styles and what not and so forth, and I respect them for enjoying what they enjoy, which they have a right to. doesn't mean I like them.

One wouldn't really get that impression from the post to which I responded, in which you said, you said "I hold both old-schoolers and optimizers in contempt." Indeed, one would get nearly the opposite impression, since that makes it sound less like you respect them for enjoying what they enjoy and more like you, well, hold them in contempt.

JP on the other hand, has been insulting to a wide group of people for no reason, and hasn't bee listening to change her viewpoint on any of this at all. and that cannot stand.

So what you're saying is that you are unwilling to change any of your viewpoints or listen to differing viewpoints about the person you called unreasonable (who belongs to the group of people you hold in contempt) because she has been insulting and unwilling to change her viewpoint, which "cannot stand."
Oh. I see.

[Kaun]

What i don't understand is... If the GM is the only one that knows the details of the rule and i some cases the only one that knows the rule even exists, why bother having the rule at all.

Your basically just doing what you want anyway, why bother creating a house rule for it?

[Lord Raziere]

It's the exact same framing. Your framing made no stipulations on how that billion dollars could be spent, so it could be spent on others exactly as you framed it. Even assuming the money could not be spent on others, which is not how you framed the scenario, it's still quite hypocritical to accost someone else for their stubbornness when you are unwilling to even try to play a game you don't think you will enjoy. I mean, you say you would play if the money went to charitable causes, but even then you would "make sure" you didn't enjoy it. You're not only unwilling to even try things her way for a billion dollars, but proudly state your unwillingness to enjoy the game if you were to try. You are, meanwhile, accusing someone else of being "unreasonable" and "stubborn."


One wouldn't really get that impression from the post to which I responded, in which you said, you said "I hold both old-schoolers and optimizers in contempt." Indeed, one would get nearly the opposite impression, since that makes it sound less like you respect them for enjoying what they enjoy and more like you, well, hold them in contempt.


So what you're saying is that you are unwilling to change any of your viewpoints or listen to differing viewpoints about the person you called unreasonable (who belongs to the group of people you hold in contempt) because she has been insulting and unwilling to change her viewpoint, which "cannot stand."
Oh. I see.

Well of course, its not what I like, therefore why try it? Its not what I desire, therefore it won't get me what I want, therefore its not something that should be pursued.

and I clarified my position, what is the problem?

she has exhibited no sign of retracting or correcting her ridiculous statements over how many threads? even bad communicators can learn to correct their statements if that is not what they meant. she has not done so, instead repeating the same things over and over again. and I should know: I've had more than my fair share of incidents of being a bad communicator and none were this bad. I think that if she meant differently, she would've corrected herself by now. but oh wait. remember? JP doesn't believe that she makes mistakes.

y'know what that means? none of the statements she has made are mistakes in her eyes. not only are they ridiculous things offensive to optimizers because they don't specify "at my table" or anything like that, she won't correct them, because she believes those statements are not mistakes of bad communication, because she thinks mistakes happen to other people. your assuming that none of these statements are what she means. but since she, by own her admission doesn't think she makes mistakes,, she thinks all the statements she has made are completely and honestly what she is communicating, and therefore she does mean it, since not only she hasn't corrected them, she never will.

if your thinking that she will eventually come around and retract her statements- no. won't happen. because that would require to admit she can make mistakes at all. so no. I'm not going be trustful of her, because I can admit I can make mistakes and correct myself- not stating my respect for styles even though I dislike them, that was a mistake, and now it is corrected. and therefore I am different.

Your defending someone who will never correct her insulting views. I find that illogical.

Edit: that and at least I'm not one of those "R" people-you know who I'm talking about- who would join her game just to wreck it, I'm better than that.

[jedipotter]

I tell the players when I want them to make a saving throw or an ability check. Which one (and at what target number, if applicable) is up to me to decide. Anything in the books are merely suggestions for the most common situations.

I agree here.

A big problem with the "Hey, the world doesn't work as I assumed!" is that you had those assumptions in the first place. When getting into a Jedipotter game, forget what you know - it's likely to be wrong. Secret house rules are a way to re-capture the 'spark' of a new game, if everyone goes in knowing that they should check their assumptions at the door.

Very much so. I like my game different

It's a different style of gaming. In AD&D, a healthy dose of paranoia is expected and will keep your characters alive. The relationship between the DM and the players is more antagonistic, it's in some respects similar to Paranoia although it isn't a farce.

I like that healthy dose of paranoia in 3X, Pathfinder and any other game short of like Toon.

Because JP has made it clear that she has no lack of players, and a lot of them genuinely enjoy his(Her?) campaigns. There's something amusing about control - it's sometimes very fun to give it up.

Most people enjoy my games. Not everyone, but you can't make everyone happy all the time. I'd say that most players have the most fun when they give up control. When they stop obsessing over the mechanics and rule points and just play the game.

For example, say hypothetical player Thomas doesn't like a lot of house rules. He knows this, respects that some DMs have a lot of them, so he asks about them before joining any games. Hypothetical DM Jerry doesn't want to give away his house rules, so he avoids answering in some manner or another. After the game starts, the secret house rules begin to appear. Thomas becomes upset, and begins arguing with Jerry, disrupting the game.

How do you evaluate this situation? How should Thomas and Jerry have behaved differently?

There are lots of Tommys out there. Tommy is told up front there are houserules, and secret ones. He does not have to like it or agree. But an important known house rule is :The DM has the only and final say during the game. If you have a problem, don't disrupt the game. You may bring it up after the game.

My whole play style is based around the idea: I want to play a fast paced game where I and some players have a great time. So, one of my houserules is ''no questions during the game'', for example. And I don't allow players to hold up or disrupt the game. The classic is the ''stop the game! I demand to know what is going on!'' when some event happens. I don't let players do that.

why I think what? that I look past a veneer of "oh I'm just an old school DM" that is only spouted by supporters of JP and not by JP herself,

Um...Old School, Old School, Old School. I am so at Bayside High.....

and see a game, where no actual roleplaying takes place, but a thin card-board cut out character whom no one put any energy into making an actual character, only to die soon because.......no reason apparently, because that is all that I see: no actual roleplaying, just numbers made from random tables, trying to survive and dying because you made one mistake.

My game is all about role playing. For example, as characters can't just ''remember'' learning everything in the universe....they must role play to learn things. The same way they can't just ''kill their way through an adventure'' and know the DM will keep the characters alive. They need to role-play and pick their fights.

[Zrak]

I would say that being paid a billion dollars a good reason to try it. I have had jobs I didn't really enjoy that paid a lot less. To put your position into perspective, what I mean by "a lot less" is less than than one six-millionth of the hourly rate you would be earning to play D&D with jedipotter for eight hours. I would therefore contend that financial security for the rest of your life is probably worth spending a few hours playing D&D, even at a table you don't really expect to like, for a few hours.

Say, jedipotter? If someone offered you a billion dollars to run one session without any houserules, would you?

[jedipotter]

Say, jedipotter? If someone offered you a billion dollars to run one session without any houserules, would you?

Yes. Of course. There is very little I would not do for a billion dollars........

[Jacob.Tyr]

Truth be told, I'd play at just about any table once in exchange for a beer and a slice of pizza. Unless they're running WOD, then it has to be a craft beer.

[Lord Raziere]

Well I admit this: it was a mistake to use the "billion dollars" aphorism. What a cute attempt at making her look more reasonable than me.

love how you both ignored my actual points, oh and how jedipotter has been ignoring most of the points levied against her, yet picked THAT certain one to respond to. sorry, but what one is willing to do for a million dollars or whatever has no bearing on the discussion.

I wouldn't join her games, because I am not an "R" person if you know what I mean. Those people? they wanted to join specifically to wreck her game. I may not like jedipotter, I do not trust her, but I am not going to join her games, specifically because I am not a jerk who goes around ruining peoples games just because I don't like them. life is too short. I wouldn't enjoy her games, I wouldn't see anything worth doing in them, and I'm pretty sure that if I did, it wouldn't be long before I snapped and just tried to wreck it anyways, which is why I won't because I don't want to be that kind of person.

so no, I'm not joining. I'm not joining her game for anything, because I know who I am, what I like, and how I am around people whom I DON'T like. I don't like people I can't trust, and I can't trust jedipotter, furthermore I can't play with someone who won't admit mistakes, who won't be flexible, and insulted a large group of people. I don't associate with jerks like that. me joining, mark my words, would solve nothing.

and I'm STILL not buying the "oh poor DM JP is bad at communicating" narrative.

[jedipotter]

love how you both ignored my actual points, oh and how jedipotter has been ignoring most of the points levied against her, yet picked THAT certain one to respond to. sorry, but what one is willing to do for a million dollars or whatever has no bearing on the discussion.

Sorry, way out in the low, low,low internet country. What point did I miss?

so no, I'm not joining. I'm not joining her game for anything, because I know who I am, what I like, and how I am around people whom I DON'T like. I don't like people I can't trust, and I can't trust jedipotter, furthermore I can't play with someone who won't admit mistakes, who won't be flexible, and insulted a large group of people. I don't associate with jerks like that. me joining, mark my words, would solve nothing.

and I'm STILL not buying the "oh poor DM JP is bad at communicating" narrative.

Should I ever make one of them 'mistakes' I'd admit it....but it has not happened yet. I'm flexible. The what narrative?


If I had a billion dollars
If I had a billion dollars
Well, I'd buy me a green dress
But not a real green dress, that's cruel

[Jacob.Tyr]

My game is all about role playing. For example, as characters can't just ''remember'' learning everything in the universe....they must role play to learn things. The same way they can't just ''kill their way through an adventure'' and know the DM will keep the characters alive. They need to role-play and pick their fights.

The only issue is, when roleplaying in a any setting, playing a high-int character that has spent most of their life studying and then having that character not actually know anything about the world. It is as absurd as not being able to know your neighbors name because you can't use Knowledge (Local) without training, despite being married to the guys daughter. I don't read setting books, so even in well established settings if I'm not allowed to use skills or get knowledge OOC from the DM, my characters wind up being completely ignorant of the world they live in.

If all you play are fish-out-of-water campaigns, then sure this makes complete sense. But if I'm roleplaying as someone from the frickin town we're in, it is pretty immersion-breaking to not be able to remember things about the town. If I spent a bunch of character resources making my character a walking rolodex of the things one can encounter in the world, it means my character should be able to know what things are when he/she encounters them. This is tantamount to not allowing a rogue to disable a trap because the player hasn't studied the schematics and doesn't know how to do it IRL.

Note: Knowledge-Cheese shenanigans are an exception. i.e. No, you don't have +50 to all knowledge checks at level 1. In fact, you need to go make a new character without abusing horribly broken RAW loopholes.