What do you expect from D&D?

[Threadnaught]

Invoke Magic and Initiate of Mystra would like a couple of words. The best way is to kill them, and you can use Speak with Dead on their corpse as need be.

Isn't killing them, y'know. A bit much for crimes like trespassing, theft and being disliked by someone who has enough money to convince the guards to keep them out of the way?


I wouldn't expect any DM to wantonly kill characters for extremely petty crimes, just because they're magic users. I would expect them to treat magic users a little differently to others, but the only time I'd expect a magic user to be put to the sword for something petty, is if the justice system in question was either corrupt, Evil or Lawful Stupid.

[Anlashok]

Isn't killing them, y'know. A bit much for crimes like trespassing, theft and being disliked by someone who has enough money to convince the guards to keep them out of the way?


I wouldn't expect any DM to wantonly kill characters for extremely petty crimes, just because they're magic users. I would expect them to treat magic users a little differently to others, but the only time I'd expect a magic user to be put to the sword for something petty, is if the justice system in question was either corrupt, Evil or Lawful Stupid.

That's what resurrection is for.

[jedipotter]

1: I expect to play D&D 3.5e.
2: Any changes to the rules to be brought up beforehand, if at all possible.

But just rule changes right? The DM can have secret custom stuff, as that is allowed by the rules. And the DM is free to use anything in the rules, without telling you ahead of time.

So how do you stand on setting and/or plot stuff. If the DM wants to make a ''broken gate to the plane of fire'' and wants it to have an effect like ''all fire spells within 50 feet are maximized'' do they have to ask the players if they can have this in the bad guys castle? Or does the DM have to only ask if it is a negative effect?

3: To know what sources are allowed for character building.
4: To know what power level the DM is confidant they can handle.
5: To know the power level the group wants to play.
6: To know the tone of the game.

7: To be able to control my character without being punished for using basic abilities.

Sounds, ok...but could be a problem. After all if spellcasting is a ''basic ability'' then that would mean the DM can't use counterspells, dispels, or anti-magic right? You would feel ''punished'' like a melting special snowflake would feel punished if they took a trip to Florida and it was hot that day , if the archwizard had something like an anti-magic field and you had a spellcaster.

[Flickerdart]

Sounds, ok...but could be a problem. After all if spellcasting is a ''basic ability'' then that would mean the DM can't use counterspells, dispels, or anti-magic right? You would feel ''punished'' like a melting special snowflake would feel punished if they took a trip to Florida and it was hot that day , if the archwizard had something like an anti-magic field and you had a spellcaster.

This is the single most toxic reply I've ever seen. In a thread ostensibly made for people to share their opinions, you're now attacking people that dare put forward one that you don't like, with a holier-than-thou, insulting attitude.

Did you make this thread for a discussion, or so you could have a podium to stand on and complain?

[Anlashok]

So how do you stand on setting and/or plot stuff. If the DM wants to make a ''broken gate to the plane of fire'' and wants it to have an effect like ''all fire spells within 50 feet are maximized'' do they have to ask the players if they can have this in the bad guys castle? Or does the DM have to only ask if it is a negative effect?

Naw. Stuff like that is workable. The big trouble comes when a DM changes the way a character's stuff works without the character knowing. Say you have a DM who thinks fireball is too good and nerfs it, but never tells his player who builds a fire sorcerer, only to find out at level 6 that his signature spell is suddenly really terrible.

[Svata]

Jedipotter, if you're trying to make things mysterious, the mystery shouldn't be what is happening, but rather why is this thing happening. And the players should be able to figure it out, eventually.

[eggynack]

Your going back to the spiting hairs.....you you say ''secret setting rules'' everyone says ''ok, cool'', but when you say ''secret house rules'' everyone freaks out.

I didn't say secret setting rules at all. I said secrets not attached to the rules at all. Secrets like, "Who killed this guy?" or, "What's up with this set of mysterious tablets?"

If it happens by chance...it's by chance and fine. And a ''by chance'' anti-undead character player won't go all out like the cheating optimizer will to get that one more plus or whatever.

Leaving aside the ridiculous loaded language, he could easily be going all out. He's an anti-undead character, built from the ground up to be awesome at that stuff.

Well, I would never say ''i'm doing an Undead Game. I hate that. So your saying I should ask the players to be more random, mysterious and have more fun?

I'm saying that, if you would never do that now, maybe you should start. I'm saying that hiding the goal of your game from your players is a bad idea. If you want a game built on hiding from undead as a bunch of weak commoners, then you should tell players that, and if you want to build a game angled towards randomness, mystery, and fun, then you should tell your players that also. Just, whatever thing needs to be transparent, make that thing transparent, because transparency is a really useful thing.

And not doing the lame ''Undead Game'' works best of all.

That's not really a solution to any kind of general problem.

Guess I will never agree with the boring gamers, but then that is why my game is different. It is not fun, for me and some other people, to do the same thing all the time. And playing D&D by the RAW rules is boring after a while. And that is just one problem. So I add more.

I don't see how it's possible that there aren't enough rules in the game already. Seriously, there's a ridiculous number of the things spread across innumerable source books. If you can't find something interesting there, then you're not even trying. I could probably put together a vast quantity of stuff, perfectly rules legal, that would leave your players with little understanding of the base mechanics of the characters in question, particularly because there are so many ways to get from point A to point B.

Also, incidentally, you should probably be having this discussion over in the place where this discussion is, instead of in this thread over here.

Edit:

Sounds, ok...but could be a problem. After all if spellcasting is a ''basic ability'' then that would mean the DM can't use counterspells, dispels, or anti-magic right? You would feel ''punished'' like a melting special snowflake would feel punished if they took a trip to Florida and it was hot that day , if the archwizard had something like an anti-magic field and you had a spellcaster.

D&D is a game of offense and defense, play and counterplay. Spellcasting is the player's basic ability, and counterspelling is the opponent's basic ability. Just like it's not screwing with the melee character's beatstickery to have a monster with DR or high AC, it's not screwing with the caster's castery to use the various rules legal methods of shutting those things down. However, while you get to pick the counterplay, it's critical that the player picks the play. If you control both sides of the engagement, then why even have players there at all?

[Flickerdart]

I don't see how it's possible that there aren't enough rules in the game already. Seriously, there's a ridiculous number of the things spread across innumerable source books. If you can't find something interesting there, then you're not even trying. I could probably put together a vast quantity of stuff, perfectly rules legal, that would leave your players with little understanding of the base mechanics of the characters in question, particularly because there are so many ways to get from point A to point B.

The thing is that jedipotter is actually not even remotely familiar with the game, and because he can't stand the players having a better understanding of it, he has to Calvinball it up just to stay "competitive." Because it takes effort to play fair, and maturity to talk things out, but it's really easy to say "no, your spell fails, because Orcus."

[Necroticplague]

Guilty until proven innocent, are we?

A; for the longest time in history, thats how it was, actually.

B; Resurrection exists. So do divinations. Its entirely possible to ascertain guilt long before you go for an arrest.

[atemu1234]

The thing is that jedipotter is actually not even remotely familiar with the game, and because he can't stand the players having a better understanding of it, he has to Calvinball it up just to stay "competitive." Because it takes effort to play fair, and maturity to talk things out, but it's really easy to say "no, your spell fails, because Orcus."

Bravo!

Jedipotter is trying to make a false equivalence between hiding story bits from them for drama's sake and hiding rules from them because if they knew how deep that rabbit hole goes, they'd never let him DM.

[Jeff the Green]

A; for the longest time in history, thats how it was, actually.

Still is, de facto or de iure, in many parts of the world.

[Namfuak]

I think I mainly want a DM who isn't going to go out of his way to make my character weaker mid-game, and would just tell me OOC if he wants me to change or reroll. I can deal with most houserules (except fumbles ), so long as anything that directly affects my character is stated, and anything that comes up in game is reasonably explained. If a DM homebrewed a monster, for example, I wouldn't expect him to tell us the statblock as soon as we see it, but I would expect that we can make knowledge/spot/spellcraft checks to try to figure out what the monster is doing. I would also hope that the DM is willing to listen to us about what we think about the rules.

Probably the most important thing to me, and giving the benefit of the doubt it seems to also be the most important to jedipotter, is that the DM should want the whole group to have fun. I would sort of hope that the whole group wants the whole group to have fun, now that I'm thinking about it.

[atemu1234]

A; for the longest time in history, thats how it was, actually.

B; Resurrection exists. So do divinations. Its entirely possible to ascertain guilt long before you go for an arrest.

Resurrection costs 5,000 gp minimum. If you were going to do that every time you imprison a mid-level caster, something which must be at least fairly common, you'd wind up with way too many costs to be economically viable.

Divinations, maybe. But not all crimes are equal, especially not in a LG society. Maybe in a LE society you'd see this kind of murder.

You'd never see every warlock who picks a guy's pocket being put down every time. Even if he is guilty, he doesn't automatically get a death sentence. What are you going to do if you can't imprison him in an AM cell? Keeping someone unconscious isn't rehabilitation (which is kind of the point, really) and it's not like AMF is impossible to be used in a city. It takes, what, an 11th level caster? I can see at least one of those existing in a town, and even higher level casters can cast it more times per day. Better yet, tenured wizards probably don't get paid by the spell.

Granted, I recognize the issues with this. But AMF cells are kind of common in D&D, enough so for them to exist in OoTS. I homebrewed a material that dampens magical power for cells to be made out of, and allowed for better locks.

[gartius]

If it happens by chance...it's by chance and fine. And a ''by chance'' anti-undead character player won't go all out like the cheating optimizer will to get that one more plus or whatever.

and you nerf classes like the rogue or the ranger who rely on the dm letting them know of these sort of issues in order to make informed decisions as they level up.

example: a combat focused rogue comes in not being warned that its an undead campaign, you see that the player is struggling to be able to contribute meaningfully as a result of this-you've basically made a character useless. Congrats...

example 2: a ranger has made choices for favoured enemy its a an undead campaign where the choices for favoured enemy havent appeared at all. Congrats you've not done your job as a dm in informing them of this or giving them situations where their abilities would actually be useful.

Well, I would never say ''i'm doing an Undead Game. I hate that. So your saying I should ask the players to be more random, mysterious and have more fun?

Please read any of paizo adventure path character guides - they provide you with all information going into a campaign i expect, this includes any specific setting information, any relevant feats/character choices that are relevant, as well as roleplaying hints to allow the players to create a character that fits the setting well.

other than that
I expect that RAW for the most part is in effect, however RAI is expected if there are any exploits etc that breaks the game.
Are we using any of the errata?
Any changes to the rules to be brought up beforehand, if at all possible. If any changes occur during game then it needs to have a valid reason to back it up which makes sense
What are the sources allowed for character building?
What's the power level of the group
That the DM not hijack my character based on any action that they disagree with.

[Flickerdart]

and you nerf classes like the rogue or the ranger who rely on the dm letting them know of these sort of issues in order to make informed decisions as they level up.

example: a combat focused rogue comes in not being warned that its an undead campaign, you see that the player is struggling to be able to contribute meaningfully as a result of this-you've basically made a character useless. Congrats...

example 2: a ranger has made choices for favoured enemy its a an undead campaign where the choices for favoured enemy havent appeared at all. Congrats you've not done your job as a dm in informing them of this or giving them situations where their abilities would actually be useful.

Don't you understand? Not being able to contribute is fun! Only cheating optimizers expect to be able to defeat their enemies or succeed in anything.

Sorry, did you think I meant fun for players? No, it's fun for tyrant GMs.

[Threadnaught]

That's what resurrection is for.

Seems expensive, why not cuff, gag, blindfold and throw into an anti magic area?

But just rule changes right? The DM can have secret custom stuff, as that is allowed by the rules. And the DM is free to use anything in the rules, without telling you ahead of time.

For building characters, it would feel awkward the DM denying the use of certain subsystems then going ahead and using them as NPCs, but yeah. I did this exact same thing, players are Homebrew Classes only, while NPCs are allowed official WotC Classes if I want to use them.
They knew about it ahead of time.

I regularly take stuff from both the approved Homebrew list and the stuff I'd never approve of for player use for encounters. Because I like it and am constantly finding places in the game world where stuff just, belongs.

So how do you stand on setting and/or plot stuff. If the DM wants to make a ''broken gate to the plane of fire'' and wants it to have an effect like ''all fire spells within 50 feet are maximized'' do they have to ask the players if they can have this in the bad guys castle? Or does the DM have to only ask if it is a negative effect?

The DM controls everything in the world except the PC's actions when they're not being Dominated. The DM most certainly doesn't require the players' permission when building a world, however, if there's something (well known by NPCs) about the world that would change how the players play the game, then they really should be informed as early as possible.

Sounds, ok...but could be a problem. After all if spellcasting is a ''basic ability'' then that would mean the DM can't use counterspells, dispels, or anti-magic right? You would feel ''punished'' like a melting special snowflake would feel punished if they took a trip to Florida and it was hot that day , if the archwizard had something like an anti-magic field and you had a spellcaster.

I fail to see the problem here.
With Counterspells, Dispels and Antimagic being used against PC Casters I mean.

See, what we have here, are potential Challenges, and as a DM you're supposed to Challenge your players. Making things hard because the obstacle is well constructed is offering up a difficult, but fair challenge.

It ceases to be a Challenge and becomes a Problem, if when a Caster uses a Spell on the enemy Caster, instead the DM states "No, your god doesn't let you attack someone of the same alignment, you attack other PC of different alignment instead." because this is taking away player agency and punishing them for using their abilities.

[jedipotter]

Naw. Stuff like that is workable. The big trouble comes when a DM changes the way a character's stuff works without the character knowing. Say you have a DM who thinks fireball is too good and nerfs it, but never tells his player who builds a fire sorcerer, only to find out at level 6 that his signature spell is suddenly really terrible.

So your talking about Jerk DM's. The ones that in the middle of the game make fireballs damage 1d2, just to personalty attack the player of a fire sorcerer character.

Jedipotter, if you're trying to make things mysterious, the mystery shouldn't be what is happening, but rather why is this thing happening. And the players should be able to figure it out, eventually.

How is what and why so different? And players try to discover the secret rules all the time, it's part of the fun.


[QUOTE=eggynack;18030495]I didn't say secret setting rules at all. I said secrets not attached to the rules at all. Secrets like, "Who killed this guy?" or, "What's up with this set of mysterious tablets?"

Leaving aside the ridiculous loaded language, he could easily be going all out. He's an anti-undead character, built from the ground up to be awesome at that stuff.

Most players won't go all out unless they have the safe go ahead from the DM. And even if this happened in my game...I could just switch from undead to anything else with no problem. Mine would never be an ''offical told the players it would be all undead'' type game.

and if you want to build a game angled towards randomness, mystery, and fun, then you should tell your players that also. Just, whatever thing needs to be transparent, make that thing transparent, because transparency is a really useful thing.

Ok, it's not like I don't say that. So....

I don't see how it's possible that there aren't enough rules in the game already. Seriously, there's a ridiculous number of the things spread across innumerable source books.

Sure, there are just not many with enough flavor.

If you control both sides of the engagement, then why even have players there at all?

Only the hyper controlling player with lots of deep personal problems would say my house rules ''control a character''. It's not like ''sometimes your summoning spells will miss summon'' equals ''your character is now under my control and you will do this''.

[Threadnaught]

Only the hyper controlling player with lots of deep personal problems would say my house rules ''control a character''. It's not like ''sometimes your summoning spells will miss summon'' equals ''your character is now under my control and you will do this''.

"Your god decides to change your Spell into something else because I don't like how you're playing." - jedipotter

I'm paraphrasing you because I can't be bothered to read through your older posts.

[gartius]

So your talking about Jerk DM's. The ones that in the middle of the game make fireballs damage 1d2, just to personalty attack the player of a fire sorcerer character.

How is what and why so different? And players try to discover the secret rules all the time, it's part of the fun.

You've heard it here first! Changing a spell from its actual description is being a Jerk DM.

Now where have i heard a story of a dm who changed a healing spell to its inflict equivalent? or has made summoning create orcus?

[The Insanity]

Did you make this thread for a discussion, or so you could have a podium to stand on and complain?

Is this a retorical question?

[eggynack]

Most players won't go all out unless they have the safe go ahead from the DM. And even if this happened in my game...I could just switch from undead to anything else with no problem. Mine would never be an ''offical told the players it would be all undead'' type game.

If your players would never go all out without your explicit go ahead, what's the risk in telling your players that there's an undead game afoot? Also, seriously, the stated premise was secretly Ravenloft game with a rogue. I don't really see the issue with having that be the premise.

Ok, it's not like I don't say that. So....

So, as long as that's all you need to tell folks, you're fine. However, I suspect that there's lots of hidden stuff that goes unsaid, as you've said as much.

Sure, there are just not many with enough flavor.

Flavor and mechanics are really separate things. If you don't like the flavor of stuff, then you can trivially adjust that without ever touching the base rules of the game.

Only the hyper controlling player with lots of deep personal problems would say my house rules ''control a character''. It's not like ''sometimes your summoning spells will miss summon'' equals ''your character is now under my control and you will do this''.

Given that one of your past examples was a cleric casting silence, and then his god making it shout instead to wake folks up (or the opposite. I don't recall which, exactly.), I think you're wrong on this one. Also, it's not, "Sometimes summoning spells will summon the wrong thing," but rather, "Sometimes summoning spells will summon something that's entirely based on my whim."

[geekintheground]

Only the hyper controlling player with lots of deep personal problems would say my house rules ''control a character''. It's not like ''sometimes your summoning spells will miss summon'' equals ''your character is now under my control and you will do this''.

limiting options IS controlling a player. nerfing options is limiting them. its like throwing up walls around a character, you ARE controlling them and telling them where theyll go.

as for the original question, even though i've answered: i also expect semi-regular gaming unless something comes up... actually thats less of an expectation more of a wish. i enjoy structure.

[Elderand]

Also, it's not, "Sometimes summoning spells will summon the wrong thing," but rather, "Sometimes summoning spells will summon something that's entirely based on my whim."

Actually I believe it was "on my whim summoning spells will summon something based on my whim (which will often prove deadly to the summoner because summoning is cheating)"

[Svata]

Here's an example I remember. Corellon changing a clerc's Cure spell to an Inflict spell because ot was used on a drow. That seems pretty controlling to me.

[geekintheground]

Here's an example I remember. Corellon changing a clerc's Cure spell to an Inflict spell because ot was used on a drow. That seems pretty controlling to me.

Given that one of your past examples was a cleric casting silence, and then his god making it shout instead to wake folks up (or the opposite. I don't recall which, exactly.), I think you're wrong on this one. Also, it's not, "Sometimes summoning spells will summon the wrong thing," but rather, "Sometimes summoning spells will summon something that's entirely based on my whim."

di-did these ACTUALLY happen?!

[jedipotter]

Naw. Stuff like that is workable. The big trouble comes when a DM changes the way a character's stuff works without the character knowing. Say you have a DM who thinks fireball is too good and nerfs it, but never tells his player who builds a fire sorcerer, only to find out at level 6 that his signature spell is suddenly really terrible.

So your talking about Jerk DM's. The ones that in the middle of the game make fireballs damage 1d2, just to personalty attack the player of a fire sorcerer character.

Jedipotter, if you're trying to make things mysterious, the mystery shouldn't be what is happening, but rather why is this thing happening. And the players should be able to figure it out, eventually.

How is what and why so different? And players try to discover the secret rules all the time, it's part of the fun.


[QUOTE=eggynack;18030495]I didn't say secret setting rules at all. I said secrets not attached to the rules at all. Secrets like, "Who killed this guy?" or, "What's up with this set of mysterious tablets?"

Leaving aside the ridiculous loaded language, he could easily be going all out. He's an anti-undead character, built from the ground up to be awesome at that stuff.

Most players won't go all out unless they have the safe go ahead from the DM. And even if this happened in my game...I could just switch from undead to anything else with no problem. Mine would never be an ''offical told the players it would be all undead'' type game.

and if you want to build a game angled towards randomness, mystery, and fun, then you should tell your players that also. Just, whatever thing needs to be transparent, make that thing transparent, because transparency is a really useful thing.

Ok, it's not like I don't say that. So....

I don't see how it's possible that there aren't enough rules in the game already. Seriously, there's a ridiculous number of the things spread across innumerable source books.

Sure, there are just not many with enough flavor.

If you control both sides of the engagement, then why even have players there at all?

Only the hyper controlling player with lots of deep personal problems would say my house rules ''control a character''. It's not like ''sometimes your summoning spells will miss summon'' equals ''your character is now under my control and you will do this''.

[eggynack]

Actually I believe it was "on my whim summoning spells will summon something based on my whim (which will often prove deadly to the summoner because summoning is cheating)"

I believe I recall something about a percentile roll for failure of some variety.

di-did these ACTUALLY happen?!

I think they did, though I honestly don't have a citation in front of me.

[Elderand]

I believe I recall something about a percentile roll for failure of some variety.

I seem to remember that the percentage roll was other people saying that if there was one then at least the caster would be able to make a meaningful decision about the risk, instead of being completely at the mercy of jedipotter.

[Necroticplague]

Actually I believe it was "on my whim summoning spells will summon something based on my whim (which will often prove deadly to the summoner because summoning is cheating)"

Actually, the chance of summoning based on his whim is a fixed chance, of 1% per spell level. Much as I don't like the rule, I like misrepresenting something less.

[Elderand]

Actually, the chance of summoning based on his whim is a fixed chance, of 1% per spell level. Much as I don't like the rule, I like misrepresenting something less.

Was it ? I misrembered then. A mistake but not misrepresentation since that has a malicious intent behind it.