Red Flags for DMs?

[Segev]

I hadn't considered the specific spell being used. But siding against an NPC provoking a retaliation seemed legitimate.

The implication from the description is that the barkeep was helpless against these ruffians and doing nothing (effective) to stop them, but retaliates against the PC refusing to get involved and trying to stay out of the thugs' agro radar with fatal force. It strains verisimilitude and comes off as the DM punishing the player for not making the choice the DM wanted him to.

[EldritchWeaver]

I don't get it. Unless you're a Silver Dragon or have magic boots, cloudwalking is a flat-out, completely impossibly thing.
Is this an Epic Level Handbook sorta thing? I'm down with DMs banning special outcomes for triple digit skill checks.

Your opinion has been coined the "gym fallacy". If it can't be done by a person IRL, it can't be done ingame as well. This ignores the fact that magic itself isn't possible IRL. This also ignores the fact that triple digit skill checks are beyond humanly possible anyway. Allowing someone to cloudwalk reflects this. Also allowing cloudwalk isn't going to break the game. It is strictly worse than fly, which you get at 5th level.

[Zanos]

Your opinion has been coined the "gym fallacy". If it can't be done by a person IRL, it can't be done ingame as well. This ignores the fact that magic itself isn't possible IRL. This also ignores the fact that triple digit skill checks are beyond humanly possible anyway. Allowing someone to cloudwalk reflects this. Also allowing cloudwalk isn't going to break the game. It is strictly worse than fly, which you get at 5th level.

I think I would have some issues with someone optimizing a skillcheck to hit 120 at 5th level, even if it's "strictly" worse than fly.

I hadn't considered the specific spell being used. But siding against an NPC provoking a retaliation seemed legitimate.

The specific spell was the issue. An NPC getting beat up by bar thugs shouldn't be a 17th level caster.

If from the start we all agree "this is gonna be an ERP", I'm fine with people detailing stuff like a character's girth and how tight their rear is, because hey, I signed up for this. If we agree on playing Vanilla, PG15 D&D and you try to turn it into 50 shades of Grey without explicit consent, I'm walking out of the game and telling everyone you're a weirdo.

I'm fine with mature themes in the game, just not explicit sexual roleplay. I'd prefer a fade to black on sexual content. Not that I'm a prude, it's just that getting slathered in the blood of my enemies and getting slathered in oil are different nights at my house.

[Barstro]

Your opinion has been coined the "gym fallacy". If it can't be done by a person IRL, it can't be done ingame as well. This ignores the fact that magic itself isn't possible IRL. This also ignores the fact that triple digit skill checks are beyond humanly possible anyway. Allowing someone to cloudwalk reflects this. Also allowing cloudwalk isn't going to break the game. It is strictly worse than fly, which you get at 5th level.

High skills allow someone to do something statistically improbable but mathematically possible (flip a coin to heads 1,000 times in a row, flick a pebble across the room, off two different mugs (one in motion) to hit the weak spot in a pane of reinforced glass and cause it to shatter on top of an orc such that particles of glass blind him while spelling out "pwn'd" on the ground around him). Walking on a cloud is not possible.

Throw in some magic, anywhere, and I'd be more likely to agree with your view of it.

The gym fallacy is the view that because it's not possible IRL it cannot be done in the game, even within the game's rules. Your view, IMO, is that things should be possible in the game so long as there is not a specific rule against it. That is its own kind of fallacy. In regards to your example, we have drastically different views on which one creates a red flag.

[Mehangel]

High skills allow someone to do something statistically improbable but mathematically possible (flip a coin to heads 1,000 times in a row, flick a pebble across the room, off two different mugs (one in motion) to hit the weak spot in a pane of reinforced glass and cause it to shatter on top of an orc such that particles of glass blind him while spelling out "pwn'd" on the ground around him). Walking on a cloud is not possible.

I dont know if I agree with that statement, are you saying that there is no scenario where even on another planet with different gravity's, with an atmosphere made up of more dense or structurally sound clouds where someone wouldn't be able to displace themselves over a wider surface (similar to snowshoes) and walk on clouds? After all, most fantasy games dont take place on earth, but on a fantasy world. Whose to say that walking on clouds is impossible there.

[EldritchWeaver]

I think I would have some issues with someone optimizing a skillcheck to hit 120 at 5th level, even if it's "strictly" worse than fly.

I never stated a specific level for when you achieve +120 bonus. While 5th level is indeed too low for such a number, for a 20th level character it isn't out of the question (at least in 3.0) and in regards the actual effect acceptable for a martial.

High skills allow someone to do something statistically improbable but mathematically possible (flip a coin to heads 1,000 times in a row, flick a pebble across the room, off two different mugs (one in motion) to hit the weak spot in a pane of reinforced glass and cause it to shatter on top of an orc such that particles of glass blind him while spelling out "pwn'd" on the ground around him). Walking on a cloud is not possible.

Throw in some magic, anywhere, and I'd be more likely to agree with your view of it.

The gym fallacy is the view that because it's not possible IRL it cannot be done in the game, even within the game's rules. Your view, IMO, is that things should be possible in the game so long as there is not a specific rule against it. That is its own kind of fallacy. In regards to your example, we have drastically different views on which one creates a red flag.

Actually, the ELH has this rule regarding cloudwalk, so this isn't something I'd allow just because of rule of cool or similar. In addition, there is the game rule, which states the even extraordinary abilities can break physics. So I'd be justified even in the absence of ELH to allow something like that specifically. Though in my games I'd prefer an explicit ruling for things like that (Spheres of Might should provide those hopefully).

[Barstro]

I dont know if I agree with that statement, are you saying that there is no scenario where even on another planet with different gravity's.

Thank you, I should have been more specific.

In the main game of DnD, Material Realm, etc., such a feat is impossible. Change gravity (or have a magic item make the actor lighter), change the density of the cloud, change the density of the air, add a severe updraft with billowy clothing... sure. Once it is even remotely possible, I think a skill check is warranted.

The original proposition was that someone could walk on clouds without any additional information that the base rules and physics (which are just the culmination of the written rules) had been altered in any form.

[Barstro]

In addition, there is the game rule, which states the even extraordinary abilities can break physics. So I'd be justified even in the absence of ELH to allow something like that specifically..

An EX Ability is an actual written thing, though. Having flight can be due to SP, SU, or EX. I'm unaware of anything that says "Skill Check" allows one to break physics.

Again, this is a matter of taste. You and I would probably not enjoy the same table.

[Gildedragon]

Thank you, I should have been more specific.

In the main game of DnD, Material Realm, etc., such a feat is impossible. Change gravity (or have a magic item make the actor lighter), change the density of the cloud, change the density of the air, add a severe updraft with billowy clothing... sure. Once it is even remotely possible, I think a skill check is warranted.

The original proposition was that someone could walk on clouds without any additional information that the base rules and physics (which are just the culmination of the written rules) had been altered in any form.

Except the rules specifically say one CAN with a 120 balance check.

[Barstro]

Except the rules specifically say one CAN with a 120 balance check.

Stupid laws.

I retract all prior conclusions based on "impossibility", but leave them up for the thread's continuity.

[Segev]

The gym fallacy is the view that because it's not possible IRL it cannot be done in the game, even within the game's rules. Your view, IMO, is that things should be possible in the game so long as there is not a specific rule against it. That is its own kind of fallacy. In regards to your example, we have drastically different views on which one creates a red flag.

Except the rules specifically say one CAN with a 120 balance check.

Exactly, Gildedragon. This isn't "the rules don't say I can't." This is, "The rules say I can." Explicitly, even. It isn't some corner-case consequence of a strict RAW reading of obscure rules that probably weren't meant to work that way. It is expressly what that rule is saying: with a DC 120 Balance check, you can balance on a cloud.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Throw in some magic, anywhere, and I'd be more likely to agree with your view of it.

Let's be honest, you're probably not hitting an epic-level skill DC without magic being involved somewhere, or at least potentially reality-breaking (Ex) abilities and/or literally superhumanly high ability scores, so... okay?

[Shark Uppercut]

Your opinion has been coined the "gym fallacy". If it can't be done by a person IRL, it can't be done ingame as well. This ignores the fact that magic itself isn't possible IRL. This also ignores the fact that triple digit skill checks are beyond humanly possible anyway. Allowing someone to cloudwalk reflects this. Also allowing cloudwalk isn't going to break the game. It is strictly worse than fly, which you get at 5th level.

I should have been more explicit.
As a DM, I don't use any material from the ELH. I looked at the cloudwalking thing through the prism of "this is impossible in CORE ONLY".
I consider it badly written, and it doesn't make level 30's feel significantly more epic than a level 17 primary caster or initiator.
Other DMs using ELH isn't explicitly a red flag, it's just annoying. Same as a "I Ban Tome of Battle" GM playing as a character in a game next to a guy with a Warblade.
It's just personal preference. I hate Epic, I don't hate cloudwalking.

Sorry for making a sweeping statement.

EDIT because Showerthought:

DM: "I don't see how anyone could balance on clouds...even with a 120 balance"
Rogue: "Ok, I guess I cast fly"
DM: "That works."

If you can't already fly, how did you reach the cloud?

[ComaVision]

hey I understand when a new game comes out take the very best example of when dnd first came out someone had to DM but you know who im talking about.. joe that played 3 times and now has running his own campaign when he doesn't even remember how to level himself up

I've only played one campaign to completion. I'm currently running my third and fourth campaigns. I don't think you need to play D&D as a player to understand the rules well, and I've seen people that have played for years and don't know the basics very well.

Let's be honest, you're probably not hitting an epic-level skill DC without magic being involved somewhere, or at least potentially reality-breaking (Ex) abilities and/or literally superhumanly high ability scores, so... okay?

Agreed, and if any player puts that kind of build resources into being able to hit 120 DC balance checks, you bet I'm going to let them balance on clouds. It's a major DM red flag when the DM doesn't let your character be good at the role he's built for.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

If the DM ever refers to themselves as "God"... you're gonna have a bad time.

There are only two gods in this world. A god of order, that's me, and a god of chaos, that's the dice. And you'd better make sure one of those two likes you.

[icefractal]

To be fair, most of the ELH is of negative benefit to include in a non-Epic game, so I can't fault people too much for ditching the entire thing. I mean, you get:
+ Epic skills other than Diplomacy and Perform. Some cool stuff for skill monkeys.
- Epic Diplomacy and Perform. Not a good thing.
- Stupid cheese for Dragonwrought Kobold, like becoming Colossal with DR/Epic at 4th level. No thanks.
- "Function call to Monster Manual" spells like Simulacrum, Shapechange, Gate, Ice Assassin, etc. become even more powerful by referencing Epic monsters. Double no thanks.
? A handful of spells and feats. Nothing that amazing, and Genesis breaks things with extreme time ratios unless houseruled. Just convert the Psionic version to a spell if you want that, it's better written anyway.

[The_Jette]

There are only two gods in this world. A god of order, that's me, and a god of chaos, that's the dice. And you'd better make sure one of those two likes you.

The point of a DM is to facilitate the experience for the players, by managing scenarios and being the arbiter for the rules. You are not the god of order, nor is the dice god of anything. You're the narrator. You push the story along, and ensure that everyone is having fun. DM's who call themselves God (or god) are, ime without exception, trying to live out a power fantasy.

[martixy]

Regarding the discussion on the previous page:
My issue when dealing with sexuality is that everyone seems to exclusively picture the extremes. It's either "fade to black" or full on sexual RP.
There seems to be a certain difficulty in escaping this mindset, even here, judging from the past responses in this thread.

In an actual mature group this is very rarely the case.

I suppose due to the cultural immaturity in dealing with that topic, it is a red flag(that is to say, you're safer assuming things are gonna go badly more often than not). I just wish this wasn't the case.

[bekeleven]

Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical, though they may break the laws of physics.

Physics ain't got nothing on PCs.

[Zanos]

Regarding the discussion on the previous page:
My issue when dealing with sexuality is that everyone seems to exclusively picture the extremes. It's either "fade to black" or full on sexual RP.
There seems to be a certain difficulty in escaping this mindset, even here, judging from the past responses in this thread.

In an actual mature group this is very rarely the case.

I suppose due to the cultural immaturity in dealing with that topic, it is a red flag(that is to say, you're safer assuming things are gonna go badly more often than not). I just wish this wasn't the case.

Fade to black isn't really an extreme, the other end of the spectrum is that table not even acknowledging that sex is a thing which occurs, which I have seen happen before.

[Segev]

Fade to black isn't really an extreme, the other end of the spectrum is that table not even acknowledging that sex is a thing which occurs, which I have seen happen before.

"Daddy kissed Mommy, and the Angel told the Stork, and the Stork put a diamond under a cabbage in the cabbage patch, and the diamond turned into a baby!"

[Ellora]

Similarly enough, I would prefer Drow characters to be Evil, even if they aren't actively behaving as such due to necessity to conform to the surface morals.

.. never. Eilistraee is now 5th edition AL legal. hehehehehehe :) .

[Ellora]

Fade to black isn't really an extreme, the other end of the spectrum is that table not even acknowledging that sex is a thing which occurs, which I have seen happen before.

Get the sex over with ! I want the blood !

[Honest Tiefling]

I suppose due to the cultural immaturity in dealing with that topic, it is a red flag(that is to say, you're safer assuming things are gonna go badly more often than not). I just wish this wasn't the case.

I get why people don't like it. If you need a refresher, go to the thread titled 'Creepiest gamers you've ever played with' in the main roleplaying forums. I do understand the reaction and why it's a bad thing.

I just feel a little sad that a book that actually tried to address homosexuality in a mature fashion for the time gets lumped in with F.A.T.A.L. Poor BOEF, you might be slightly weird but you don't deserve THAT.

[bekeleven]

I get why people don't like it. If you need a refresher, go to the thread titled 'Creepiest gamers you've ever played with' in the main roleplaying forums. I do understand the reaction and why it's a bad thing.

I just feel a little sad that a book that actually tried to address homosexuality in a mature fashion for the time gets lumped in with F.A.T.A.L. Poor BOEF, you might be slightly weird but you don't deserve THAT.

Isn't that the book that has prostitute prestige classes?

Kinda funny that we don't get prestige classes for any other mundane jobs, innit?

[Segev]

Isn't that the book that has prostitute prestige classes?

Kinda funny that we don't get prestige classes for any other mundane jobs, innit?

The existence of such a PrC is a bit weird. What about that profession requires you to be higher than level 1?

It seems like it'd be a Commoner with a properly-chosen Profession skill, at most. Expert, if really dedicated to developing relevant ... expertise. (Oddly, the hesitation there is not innuendo laden so much as it is a mental tripping over what the right word to use is, and not being sure that is the right one.)

[Zanos]

I just feel a little sad that a book that actually tried to address homosexuality in a mature fashion for the time gets lumped in with F.A.T.A.L. Poor BOEF, you might be slightly weird but you don't deserve THAT.

To clarify, I think the BoEF is a goofy book that's funny to joke about but I wouldn't actually include the rules from it in my games. It's a fun but not serious read.

FATAL is fun to read as well, but for an entirely different reason. It's an electronic portal into the mind of the criminally insane and disgustingly deviant.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

The point of a DM is to facilitate the experience for the players, by managing scenarios and being the arbiter for the rules. You are not the god of order, nor is the dice god of anything. You're the narrator. You push the story along, and ensure that everyone is having fun. DM's who call themselves God (or god) are, ime without exception, trying to live out a power fantasy.

I am god, and I will rain down lightning and frogs on anyone who steals my fire! Forever will they slave away pushing rocks uphill!

[The_Jette]

I am god, and I will rain down lightning and frogs on anyone who steals my fire! Forever will they slave away pushing rocks uphill!

:) That actually made me laugh.

[martixy]

To clarify, I think the BoEF is a goofy book that's funny to joke about but I wouldn't actually include the rules from it in my games. It's a fun but not serious read.

FATAL is fun to read as well, but for an entirely different reason. It's an electronic portal into the mind of the criminally insane and disgustingly deviant.

It's a goofy, but not a creepy book. Which is more than can be said about any other book that tried to cover that topic(that I know of). FATAL is beyond creepy.

Also, while I haven't gone through the whole creepy-gamers thread, the first few pages did remind me that even the irreproachable nerds of GitP are still only human.

Edit: Oh, I forgot. The book of Neurotic fantasy is also incredibly fun to read.