PDA

View Full Version : Am I being unreasonable?



upidstay
03-07-2008, 07:26 PM
Question for you guys. Getting back into regular playing after a to-long hiatus. Trying to put a campaign together, wanted to just play, but nobody seemed to want to volunteer, so I did. Anyway, a couple of friends are going to play, and one of them has a couple of friends who will play too. I put some restrictions on what could be used for races. I kept them to just what's in the PHB (3.5 rules), but omitted Gnomes. Personally can't stand them, and there is a major campaign setting hook preventing a gnome character. I said no psionics, like I have for 28 years of DMing, and no evil alignments. I am a firm believer in keeping it simple, as I just don;t have a huge amount of time to dedicate to figuring out wierd race and class erratta

One person wanted to play 2 oddball characters, which I said no to. One was a 2 headed character, which a husband and wife PC duo would "share". They'd roll a d12 for control round to round, 1-4 she got it, 5-8 he got it, and 9-12 they shared it. Sounds interesting, but also a royal PITA to DM. The second choice was a Tauren, the bull guys from World of Warcraft. She got very upset with me, saying I was squashing flexibility, that I should simply write a short story. I said no to the Tauren because I really just want the core races, for campaign story line reasons, and also the setting is rebuilding after decades of humanoid and giant-kin wars that left the country side devastated. Doubt if a big minotaur lookin' dude would receive anything short of a hail of arrows when they approached a town. Frankly, I'm ready to tell her to find another campaign, but I know I can be difficult at times, and figured I'd seek the opinions of my fellow DM's. I do have an overall plan for the campaign, and do want to keep it headed in a certain direction, but aside from that it's open.

My question is:

Am I being unreasonable in imposing a few restrictions on my campaign?:confused::confused::confused:

Anaesthesia
03-07-2008, 08:58 PM
You told the group Core Races with exception to Gnomes. That is what they should pick from then. If she has a problem with it and wants to play other races-then tell her DM their own game or find someplace else. Stick to your guns and don't let her sway you one way or the other.

I have would have a problem having a 2-person PC. One person to a PC, please!

For the other character, the Minotaur, I would have explained to her that they would not make sutiable PCs as almost every other person (including other members of the group) would most likely maim, kill her or try to on sight.They are simply (from what I understand from your post) not welcomed anywhere except Minotaur villages, etc. I would be really evil, have a side adventure with her, let her roll up a minotaur then let her face off with a Ranger who's favored enemy happens to be Minotaurs (or be in cahoots with another player to give her Minotaur a really hard time and attempt to fight her).

One DM I knew, if someone was giving him a particularly hard time about something (mostly for "repeat offenders" complaining they didn't like the character they made the week before), he'd tell that person to roll a d100 or a d% and then make up a race and class for them to play. From there they had the choice of rolling up that character with said race and class or be a party pooper and not play at all.

Riftwalker
03-07-2008, 09:06 PM
Not at all. The two-headed thing sounds really gimmicky to me anyway. It's either going to be boring (because they both want to head in the same direction) or annoying (because they don't.)

As for the other person, tell her that playing a tauren would have been udderly ridiculous. The campaign world isn't Azeroth, it's the one you've probably worked on for a while, have some stuff set up, and introducing a minotaur/tauren race into the story adds a lot more work on your part.

Bottom line: you're the DM. It's your game. If they don't like it, they can run their own or find another.

boulet
03-07-2008, 09:35 PM
I've just been listening to the archives of the fear the boot podcast and it's discussed in episode 13 you can find on this page (http://feartheboot.libsyn.com/index.php?post_year=2006&post_month=08). The name they gave it is the freak show syndrome. The problem is not that the players who do that are choosing weird races and features for their PCs. It's more about implicit powergaming, or not wanting to write down a real character and a decent background story, or sometimes just a symbolic way to express they don't care.

Do you feel like those player are testing your authority as GM ? To me they're plain weird to come to you with such lame PC concepts... Unless it's just that they played too many MMORPGs :)

Drohem
03-07-2008, 10:24 PM
Not unreasonable at all. You outlined what was acceptable and what wasn't. The fact that they wanted to choose something outside those guidelines is their own issue.

I would absolutely not allow the two-headed creature.

If you have no real carved-in-stone idea for the campaign, then I might toss around the idea of the Taurens from WoW. Of course, as you have already stated, the character may have to deal with some serious in-game issues due to the negative feelings resulting from the Giant Wars. Just make it clear that the player and character would be facing some serious discrimination, but if the player was willing to deal with and the consequences, then go for it.

I absolutely hate it when this happens: you spend some time and engery to outline in black-and-white what is acceptable and what isn't and then they go and try to get something approved that's not on the list. It's like they didn't listen or just don't care.

Good luck and I hope it goes well. :D

Farcaster
03-07-2008, 10:45 PM
I would just explain to them that it has been a while since you have DM'd and you would like to run a standard campaign -- no special races, etc. You may want to leave the possibility open that once this campaign is finished, you might swing back around and try something different with these other ideas they have.

As far as the Tauren, I don't know much about WoW, however you might want to look at the Minotaur race presented in the Dragonlance campaign setting. I think it is ECL +0 even, so it might be easier to balance in.

cplmac
03-08-2008, 01:37 PM
Let me agree that no you are not being unreasonable. I also am of the school that only one person has control of a PC, so the two headed thing would definately be out. As for the minotaur type, I would just say that in this particular campaign, that is not an option, but in a future one there would be the posibility. Just remember to include that race in the next adventure. If she has the ability to eventually use that type of character, she will most likely not give that much of a fight.

GBVenkman
03-08-2008, 03:48 PM
Just pertend the bull chick is chewie, and it'll go fine.

When you try to analyse every little detail, you end up having a harder time keeping it simple. If you want to keep it simple, let her play it. It doesn't really mess with your job as a DM. If it does, then you're taking things too seriously and shouldn't say you want to keep things simple.

As for the two headed thing, yeah, that's not keeping things simple. That does sound like a pain in the ass. It would be hard to come up with a world where that couple would be thought of as common place.

And I like keeping to core races and classes too. Just think you can let the girl be a turan in her imagination while just having her us the stats of a barbarian and half orc.

8cidx
03-08-2008, 07:18 PM
You should punch her in the mouth... LOL

Just my opinion. They can either play by your restrictions or play thier own game. Whatever.

I have restrictions my players sometimes don't like, but our rule is GM has final say. If you don't like it, deal with it and we'll try something different next go-around.

upidstay
03-08-2008, 08:31 PM
Thanks guys. I knew I was right, but just wanted to hear from my fellow DM's. I always played (almost 30 years) that the DM was effecively god. Not on a power trip or anything, but my rule is that if you can show me the rule, and prove me wrong, fine. Otherwise be quiet. I do seek my players input, but I do not, have never, never will, DM by committee. It doesn't work that way. I very clearly stated in my campaign outline I sent to all players what races would be allowed. I might have allowed a different race if it had at least been a D+D race, not a friggin' World of Warcraft race.

She decided that the campaign was not for them, saving me the trouble of saying it. Hadn't even rolled one die yet, and already had a PITA player. Not a good sign. So, now we are back down to 3 or 4 players, so it looks like we're playing Gestalt for a while. No big deal, Gestalt characters are new to me, and sound very interesting. Players seem happy about it too.

thanks again for the input

GBVenkman
03-08-2008, 08:56 PM
And I thought players were a rare commodity.

Anyhow, there's never been that much of a dichotomy between players and I as a GM, so I guess I can't relate.

nijineko
03-09-2008, 12:47 AM
to be honest, i would object to anything ripped from a videogame on principal. (even if they did publish an rpg book for it.) although, i would point them in the direction of an in-campaign option that is close to what they want. and if they wanted to have a certain style of campaign, then they should have volunteered to dm.

i personally have no trouble with the options. i'm familiar with most of them, anyhow. i like psionics-now that it's fixed-even better than before. and i may put a level cap on a campaign which has the effect of limiting certain races and classes... and prestige too, if i need it.

but in the end, you were the only one who volunteered to dm, so it's your campaign world, your rules, and you're not being unreasonable. =D

i realize i'm postng after the fact, but just tossing in my two cents.

GBVenkman
03-09-2008, 03:13 PM
to be honest, i would object to anything ripped from a videogame on principal. (even if they did publish an rpg book for it.) although, i would point them in the direction of an in-campaign option that is close to what they want. and if they wanted to have a certain style of campaign, then they should have volunteered to dm.

i personally have no trouble with the options. i'm familiar with most of them, anyhow. i like psionics-now that it's fixed-even better than before. and i may put a level cap on a campaign which has the effect of limiting certain races and classes... and prestige too, if i need it.

but in the end, you were the only one who volunteered to dm, so it's your campaign world, your rules, and you're not being unreasonable. =D

i realize i'm postng after the fact, but just tossing in my two cents.

I agree with that; it's strange how few people want to GM. I too am GMing out of defult, and it can get annoying when players want everything their way without stepping up to the plate. Good point with the 'if you wanted it tailored to your every whim, you should've stepped up and GMed'

8cidx
03-10-2008, 08:21 AM
The "step up and GM" rule is pretty much what my group has going. If you don't like a restricition, DM your own damned game....

Saying that, I still end up GMing about 90% of the time. The group I play with is full of GREAT players who realize that when I set a restriction, even if it sounds dumb or unreasonable, I am doing to enhance the story in some way.

Now days when I restrict something they start to get excited because they've figured out that it probably has something to do with a plot twist later.

tesral
03-10-2008, 08:51 AM
Just to reiterate, no, you are not being unreasonable. It's what a friend of mine calls the "purple shirt problem". If you tell the Volleyball team to show up for the game, and wear anything they want but purple. Two will be in purple shirts. Some will object to any restriction because it is a restriction. You are not unreasonable.

In fact be wary of the purple shirt types. They can be, not have to be, but can be passive aggressive types. So look to the purple shirt as your possible problem players.

I have a world with vast racial types, some times I restrict what you can be because of the area and not everything is everywhere. I haven't heard complaints from my group.

Tony Misfeldt
03-26-2008, 07:47 PM
While your problem has sorted itself out, I want to put my two cents in as well. It may be useful in dealing with future problems.

First of all, no, you're not being unreasonable. You told your players right up front that there would be certain restrictions on character race and alignment. If your player is adamant on playing a Chaotic Evil minotaur, you have every right to tell her "No, and if you don't like it you're free to find yourself a different gaming group".
Of course, if you wanted to try and keep the group together there are a couple of other tactics you could try next time. For example, if you've explained to the player that her minotaur would be a poor choice for a PC because it would have a very short life expectancy, and she still insists on playing one, have her first "random encounter" be with some NPC adventurers. They fight, she dies, then she's rolling up a brand new character while everyone else is playing the adventure. If she keeps creating these crazy monster PCs, keep killing them off. Eventually she'll clue in that she'll live longer and have more fun if she creates an elf or a human.
Another tactic might be to compromise by allowing her to play something that at least looks human. For example you could offer her the opportunity to play a verbeeg, but on the condition that you get to choose the character's physical deformity, and then make the giant a 7' tall midget. She gets the satisfaction of playing a giant and you don't have to make any major changes to your campaign. And a giant born with dwarfism would certainly make for an interesting character back story.
As for the couple who each wanted to play a different head of an ettin, I'd actually thought of allowing players to try this in my campaigns. It might be a good source of comic relief, like having the three headed knight from Monty Python's Holy Grail as a PC. However, as you stated in you original post, such a character would likely die in it's first encounter with anything other than a few peasants. Thus you were perfectly within your rights as DM to veto such a suggestion. Though if this couple were particularly stubborn, the "You come across a band of adventurers. They see you and shout 'ETTIN! KILL IT!' Roll initiative" tactic should make them see the error of their ways.

tesral
03-26-2008, 11:42 PM
I have "died stupid" rules. There are also "died heroic" rules to be fair. If a Player keeps getting PCs killed stupidly, they get less and less goodies with each character. XP penalties, no magic items (at higher levels) and so forth. For characters that die heroic deaths I have XP bonuses, stat bonuses and such. No fixed in the book rule, but something I keep in mind when I encounter the "well they died I'll just create another" player. Consequences can follow you passed the grave.

Frobozz
03-26-2008, 11:57 PM
No, you're not unreasonable. You're being a good game judge. Heck, you lay out your campaign restrictions up front, that's better than 90% of gamemasters out there!

One comment I wanted to make, and this is a good trick... I had a character that was two players in one... it was a kensai-monk. Here's how it worked:

My last campaign, I was DM, but I had a player who volunteered to DM occasional stretches. Well, it would have been hell swapping characters, so we made Chen Wu and Ikaro Kamadachi.

They had the same physical stats, and slightly different mental stats. Ikaro was a Kensai, and Chen was a monk with a few weapon liberties to the class (dropped some of the special monk abilities for ability to use swords; keeping more to a traditional chinese style fighting monk). The character was a split-personality character. When I GMed, he was Chen, an arrogant bastard of a fighting monk. When he GMed, he was Ikaro, honerable kensai and swordsmaster. Neither wore armor so there wasn't anything bulky to lug around.

The underlying story was the two were mortal enemies, and somehow got cursed to inhabit the same body and "live with each other for all time". Each one claimed to have killed the other, though details of the event were foggy, but they kept the other's sword as proof.

At the end of the campaign, they were finally separated and after a brief skirmish, decided to go their separate ways.

It was a marvelous solution to an interesting problem. :D

nijineko
03-27-2008, 05:26 AM
now there's a classy solution. i could reasonably see a "two-player character", if only because it was being played by one person at a time.

Kilrex
03-27-2008, 10:29 PM
I have "died stupid" rules. There are also "died heroic" rules to be fair.

That is a great idea and I hereby announce, "YOINK!"

tesral
03-28-2008, 08:54 AM
That is a great idea and I hereby announce, "YOINK!"

Same thing we do every night Pinky, try and take over the Game World.

Tony Misfeldt
03-31-2008, 06:03 PM
I have "died stupid" rules. There are also "died heroic" rules to be fair. If a Player keeps getting PCs killed stupidly, they get less and less goodies with each character. XP penalties, no magic items (at higher levels) and so forth. For characters that die heroic deaths I have XP bonuses, stat bonuses and such. No fixed in the book rule, but something I keep in mind when I encounter the "well they died I'll just create another" player. Consequences can follow you passed the grave.

So is someone who's character dies because they chose to play a race that is hated by much of the NPCs in the campaign setting (drow, orcs, minotaurs, trolls, giants, etc) someone who dies stupidly or heroicly? Not that I'm defending the players that wanted to play ettins and minotaurs after being specifically told by their DM that only races from the Players Handbook were allowed, I'm just curious as to your take on that situation.

tesral
03-31-2008, 08:59 PM
So is someone who's character dies because they chose to play a race that is hated by much of the NPCs in the campaign setting (drow, orcs, minotaurs, trolls, giants, etc) someone who dies stupidly or heroicly? Not that I'm defending the players that wanted to play ettins and minotaurs after being specifically told by their DM that only races from the Players Handbook were allowed, I'm just curious as to your take on that situation.

If I tell you that playing a purple Dinosaur will get said character killed so fast the soul will spin twice before it hits Hell, then yes, holding your breath until I let you play one will at least be entertaining when you pass out, and I hand out the paint markers.

If I say no Purple Dinos, I mean no. Not no until you moan and whine and then yes. I've raised kids, I can handle a two-year old, physical or mental.

So in that case your example is strained.

The numb brain who pulls the sword out that was stuck in the Vampire holding her down after the party leader warns them not to. Died Stupid. The Ranger who stayed behind to give the rest a chance to escape? Died Heroic. It isn't hard to figure out.

cplmac
04-01-2008, 09:40 AM
If I tell you that playing a purple Dinosaur will get said character killed so fast the soul will spin twice before it hits Hell, then yes, holding your breath until I let you play one will at least be entertaining when you pass out, and I hand out the paint markers.



Hopefully you hand out the paint markers before immersing one of their hands in a bowl of water.:D

tesral
04-02-2008, 12:19 PM
Hopefully you hand out the paint markers before immersing one of their hands in a bowl of water.:D

Tisk, tisk, then I have to clean the rug. We'll stick to paint markers. It's amazing how some people are improved with "Dork" written in paint on their forehead.

mrken
04-02-2008, 12:40 PM
It's amazing how some people are improved with "Dork" written in paint on their forehead.

Tesral, that is too funny.

Since I didn't see the original post until after the issue solved itself I refrained from posting, but, since we are still giving our take, I would like to add my few sence.

There have been times players have asked me if they can play some munchkin pleasing demon dragon from the third plane of hell. Tell'em. "You know better than to try to run that by me." then laugh when they say, "Can I?"

Moritz
04-09-2008, 08:41 AM
Not unreasonable at all. It's your game, keep it like you want it. If the players whine, you get new ones.

Oh, and see my house rules for examples of how I keep it simple and enforce my house rules:

http://www.penandpapergames.com/userpages/showentry.php?e=7&catid=member&entryuserid=321

Valdar
04-09-2008, 03:21 PM
Ultimately, it comes down to how badly did you want to DM. Would it be worth running your awesome game if you were the only one taking it seriously? How about if there were a couple playing that was using a two-headed character as an outlet for their suppressed marital bickering? What about a character that would be griping at every turn about how your game differed from World of Warcraft? (And no, it wouldn't have stopped with you saying yes to playing a Tauren.)

Not worth it? Well, then I'd say you made the right call...

Moritz
04-10-2008, 07:28 AM
Oh, forgot to mention. There is a Savage Species book out there that gives a template for a Minotaur PC (Tauren like). But the Savage Species aspect can sometimes ruin a game. I've used it in two games: One Evil PC game that lasted 3 adventures, and another normal D&D campaign that lasted 2 adventures. Just not worth it.

Give a whiny player an inch, they try to run you over with a steam shovel.

My favorite line in these situations, "What part of /NO/ don't you get?"

upidstay
04-11-2008, 05:17 AM
I ran a LARP a number of years ago, and you wouldn't believe what people would ask for. One kid, and I swear this is true, said his character's mother had been gang raped by all of the gods (there was no formal pantheon set up) and therefore had special powers. I had a good chuckle over that one.

GBVenkman
04-11-2008, 11:26 AM
I ran a LARP a number of years ago, and you wouldn't believe what people would ask for. One kid, and I swear this is true, said his character's mother had been gang raped by all of the gods (there was no formal pantheon set up) and therefore had special powers. I had a good chuckle over that one.


man that kid's got issues.

Kilrex
04-11-2008, 12:13 PM
I ran a LARP a number of years ago, and you wouldn't believe what people would ask for. One kid, and I swear this is true, said his character's mother had been gang raped by all of the gods (there was no formal pantheon set up) and therefore had special powers. I had a good chuckle over that one.

Wonder Sperm activate?

Digital Arcanist
04-11-2008, 02:52 PM
Have you given us an update to the problem Upidstay? I think everyone agrees that the proper response to the problem is, "There's the door and don't let it hit ya where the good Lord split ya!"

Anaesthesia
04-11-2008, 02:55 PM
I ran a LARP a number of years ago, and you wouldn't believe what people would ask for. One kid, and I swear this is true, said his character's mother had been gang raped by all of the gods (there was no formal pantheon set up) and therefore had special powers. I had a good chuckle over that one.

That's just wrong!!! :der:

tesral
04-12-2008, 01:13 AM
man that kid's got issues.

Munchkins never consider the inconvenience to pop up targets.

upidstay
04-13-2008, 07:06 PM
She decided that she wasn't a good fit for the group. Saved me the trouble. Found other players, on our third adventure. All is going smoothly, everybody playing along with the rules I laid out.

Tony Misfeldt
04-15-2008, 01:51 PM
The numb brain who pulls the sword out that was stuck in the Vampire holding her down after the party leader warns them not to. Died Stupid. The Ranger who stayed behind to give the rest a chance to escape? Died Heroic. It isn't hard to figure out.

But what of the Drizzt Do'Urden fan's renegade drow who becomes a demihuman pin cushion at the gates of the first town he approaches? Does he die heroic or stupid?

tesral
04-16-2008, 08:35 AM
But what of the Drizzt Do'Urden fan's renegade drow who becomes a demihuman pin cushion at the gates of the first town he approaches? Does he die heroic or stupid?

I handle the whole Drow thing with one move of logic and biology. Drizzle Clone wouldn't even make the gates. Underground, cave creatures for generations. They are not black, they are clear. The first time Drizzle Clone sees the sun he is in agony and in the process of dying, and Fanboy would be warned of that fate. Ergo: Died Stupid. Sizzle like a blind lizard on a rock. Fatal sunburn.

Tony Misfeldt
04-17-2008, 07:40 PM
I handle the whole Drow thing with one move of logic and biology. Drizzle Clone wouldn't even make the gates. Underground, cave creatures for generations. They are not black, they are clear. The first time Drizzle Clone sees the sun he is in agony and in the process of dying, and Fanboy would be warned of that fate. Ergo: Died Stupid. Sizzle like a blind lizard on a rock. Fatal sunburn.

I guess that answers that. Why didn't you just say so in the first place though?

tesral
04-17-2008, 08:06 PM
I guess that answers that. Why didn't you just say so in the first place though?

I did.

Valdar
04-18-2008, 12:28 PM
I handle the whole Drow thing with one move of logic and biology. Drizzle Clone wouldn't even make the gates. Underground, cave creatures for generations. They are not black, they are clear. The first time Drizzle Clone sees the sun he is in agony and in the process of dying, and Fanboy would be warned of that fate. Ergo: Died Stupid. Sizzle like a blind lizard on a rock. Fatal sunburn.

Is this a houserule, or is it from a rulebook? From what I remember, core Drow in D&D have a -1 to hit in sunlight, nothing more. In GURPS, we always gave them the Albinism disad, but never something so drastic as a Vampire's reaction to sunlight...

Tony Misfeldt
04-20-2008, 02:45 PM
Is this a houserule, or is it from a rulebook? From what I remember, core Drow in D&D have a -1 to hit in sunlight, nothing more. In GURPS, we always gave them the Albinism disad, but never something so drastic as a Vampire's reaction to sunlight...

Sounds like a house rule to me. No offense to Tesral, but he seems to have a very brutal gaming style. In my games, if I say "No" to a certain class race, alignment, etc, I don't punish players for wanting those types of characters. I simply explain to them my reasons for not allowing such a character. I do however keep the subject open for communication if the player happens to have an idea for a compromise. If he wants to play a race of giant for example, and I say "No, giants are hated here. You'd be killed at the first town you come to." and he says "What if I'm a verbeeg and my deformity is that I'm a midget? To other giants I look like a midget verbeeg, but to humans I look like a really tall human." Then I might allow it. Or in my example of a drow PC, he may suggest making his character an albino. Then to all surface dwellers, his character would look like a surface elf (perhaps a silver elf) with white hair. But he's in fact a drow with all the advantages and disadvantages listed in the books. I certainly wouldn't insult the player by calling his character "Drizzle".


I did.
Actually all you said was that my question makes no sense because when you tell players "No purple dinosaurs" you mean "No purple dinosaurs" and not "NO, unless you whine and moan and complain until I say yes". You then went on to describe two very obvious examples of dying stupid and dying heroic.

The Wandering Bard
04-20-2008, 03:26 PM
its not unreasonalbe to put restrictions on your game...Heck your the Dm you can do what ever you want. I set out my restictions in my game before every one makes there characters and then deal with the one who wish to contest my rules. Normally if they can provide me with enough reasons why I should let them play that character and they can deal with the consqences of said action the may allow the character...I have on many occasions had to deny characters before.

tesral
04-21-2008, 04:33 PM
Is this a houserule, or is it from a rulebook? From what I remember, core Drow in D&D have a -1 to hit in sunlight, nothing more. In GURPS, we always gave them the Albinism disad, but never something so drastic as a Vampire's reaction to sunlight...

It's a house rule. The whole "dark elf thing (ripped from Tolkien of course) was misappropriated to start with. The "dark elves" where not "dark" in color, but considered "dark" because they did not join the others. Appearance had nothing to do with it.

In this case Albinism plus a bit, not quite a Vampire reaction. Their skin is SPF-50. They are going to sunburn early and sunburn often. They will suffer the effect of severe burning. It is possible for a Drow to work on the surface if they dress "Darkman" style with full coverage and dark goggles. Sunburn can kill you if you get enough of it. For someone living melanin free getting that fatal dose is much easier.



Sounds like a house rule to me. No offense to Tesral, but he seems to have a very brutal gaming style. In my games, if I say "No" to a certain class race, alignment, etc, I don't punish players for wanting those types of characters.

I'm brutal? Try talking back to Ma Nature. "Well, gravity might be a good idea, but I'm to cool for that." Drow isn't exactly a forbidden species, if it was forbidden I would just say no. It has problems and I list the problems, and if you insist on playing one don't gripe about the problems you need to deal with. I will not lighten the load.


It is unlikely that a Drow would be a pincushion at the gates. You wouldn't know what they where for the clothing. You might get the local priests detecting for undead on you all the time. People are going to give you the eye for your dress, it is highly unconventional. People will take you as shifty and untrustworthy as you will not bare your face. If people do see you it isn't "DROW! KILL IT!" It is more "What the Hell is that?"

Contact with the Drow has not been bad, it largely hasn't been. Most people that saw a Drow barefaced are likely to be repulsed for their appearance. Translucent skin, red eyes. You can see the muscles work under their skin. Drow consider it a mark of beauty, not so on the surface.

Tony Misfeldt
04-21-2008, 05:18 PM
I'm brutal? Try talking back to Ma Nature. "Well, gravity might be a good idea, but I'm to cool for that." Drow isn't exactly a forbidden species, if it was forbidden I would just say no. It has problems and I list the problems, and if you insist on playing one don't gripe about the problems you need to deal with. I will not lighten the load.


It is unlikely that a Drow would be a pincushion at the gates. You wouldn't know what they where for the clothing. You might get the local priests detecting for undead on you all the time. People are going to give you the eye for your dress, it is highly unconventional. People will take you as shifty and untrustworthy as you will not bare your face. If people do see you it isn't "DROW! KILL IT!" It is more "What the Hell is that?"

Contact with the Drow has not been bad, it largely hasn't been. Most people that saw a Drow barefaced are likely to be repulsed for their appearance. Translucent skin, red eyes. You can see the muscles work under their skin. Drow consider it a mark of beauty, not so on the surface.

Maybe brutal is too strong a word. "Harsh" might be more accurate. Anyway, now that you've explained your houserule for drow it makes a certain amount of sense. My example of the drow pincushion was using the standard description of drow from The Monstrous Mannual. You were using your own homebrew version of drow.

Incidentally, I usually don't play monstrous PCs. I normally stick to the basic races listed in the Players Handbook. If I have a cool idea for a monstrous PC using The Complete Book Of Humanoids or Savage Species or whatever, I'll run it by the DM. If he says no, he says no. I'm cool with that. I might, however, ask if there's a compromise that might be made. But I won't push my character idea too hard. If he says "No. No compromises. Races from the Players Handbook only" then that's the final word.

Dimthar
04-29-2008, 06:12 AM
What's wrong with just saying "No".

- May I play a Drow?
- No.
- May I play a Troll?
- No.
- May I play a Harry Potter's Universe Mage
- No

Instead I've been reading.

- May play a Drow?
- You will get Skin Cancer
- May I play a Troll?
- Your Home address is the City's Dungeon
- May I play a Harry Potter's Universe Mage?
- You are blind, glasses have not been invented.

Should be as simple as:

Es mi cancha, es mi bola y fue "Penalty".

.

tesral
04-29-2008, 11:29 AM
What's wrong with just saying "No".

.

Nothing, if appropriate. The latter two I would say no. The former gets the above answer unless I have stated that this cycle has no Elves, and I have done that.

I approve of no, but I also approve of the Rule of Yes. It is usually better to say yes than no.

Valdar
04-30-2008, 03:40 AM
What's wrong with just saying "No".
.
Because you don't want the response to be "Bye".

It's a give and take.

Tony Misfeldt
05-01-2008, 10:04 PM
Because you don't want the response to be "Bye".

It's a give and take.

I agree. That's why I leave things open to discussion.

If I say no to a drow PC, for instance, the player might convince me to say yes if his character is an albino. If he wants to play your typical black skinned drow, then the answer is "No, because your character will end up gettin killed within the first few minutes of game time." If the player points out that Drizzt Do'Urden didn't get killed within the first few minutes he was on the surface, I'd point out that Drizzt was an 18th level fighter with grand mastery in the scimitar by the time he got to the surface. "You're only 1st level. BIG difference."

A hill giant PC? No. A midget hill giant PC? Maybe. You gotta give them a few crumbs if you don't want them to leave. Two players who want to play the two heads of an ettin? Might be good for some comic relief. And what if those two players are conjoined twins with essentially two heads and one body? Are you going to force each head to play a different character?

So again I say, you were right in saying "No" to those players. However, it's always a good idea to at least be willing to negotiate.

gdmcbride
05-02-2008, 02:08 AM
My preferred answer to 'Can I play a drow' would be...

'What is it about the drow that makes you want to play them?'

The player explains and I respond:

'Well, I don't think a drow is a good match but you can play another class that meets all those criteria...'

Perhaps the player's explanation will be so cool and compelling that your answer will be: 'I was going to ban drow, but damn that seems really cool. Okay, you are in!'

Gary

upidstay
05-02-2008, 05:29 AM
Frankly I don't care if the answer to my saying "No" is "Bye". If someone is willing to walk away from the table because I put a few restrictions out, then good riddance. I have found over the years that people who argue over character generation tend to argue over everything else too. I have no patience for whiners at my table. I have one rule that stands above all else, The Golden Rule:

THE DM IS ALWAYS RIGHT. If you can show me the official rule in a book, and I have not already instituted a House Rule countering it, then you are right and I will change my ruling. Otherwise shut up and lets move on. Don't like it? Too bad.

tesral
05-02-2008, 07:45 AM
Two players who want to play the two heads of an ettin? Might be good for some comic relief. And what if those two players are conjoined twins with essentially two heads and one body? Are you going to force each head to play a different character?
I might just say yes to that to see if the players can pull it off. It would be cool if they can. Say a magician fighter. One a magician, one a fighter.

"I need the hands for spells!"
"No, I gotta have me sword!"
"Put that armor down, it will cause spell failure."
"What, you wants to get all cutsed up?"
"Who said we were getting that close?"
"Right, me gonna throw sword."

It might make a better convention one off. I can see were the joke would get old.



Frankly I don't care if the answer to my saying "No" is "Bye". If someone is willing to walk away from the table because I put a few restrictions out, then good riddance. I have found over the years that people who argue over character generation tend to argue over everything else too. I have no patience for whiners at my table. I have one rule that stands above all else, The Golden Rule: THE DM IS ALWAYS RIGHT.

And you can hard ass yourself into a lonely game of one. It's a give and take. And you know, the DM isn't always right. I blow rulings now and again, contradict my own rules. It is better to admit you blew it and correct the error if that is the case. You get more respect from the players. Whining is one thing, discussion is another. Remember the rule of Yes. "Unless there is a dramatic or story reason to say No, say Yes."

The point of the game is not to demonstrate your god like powers of coolness, it is to have fun.

upidstay
05-03-2008, 05:59 AM
I never change a ruling if it's based on a rule. If it's something I pulled out of the air, and we discuss it and prove to me I'm wrong, then fine, I'll change. But I keep a book with my House Rules in it, and frequently refer to the core books.

I DM the way I deal with my kids: Fair, firm, and consistent. Consistency is the key. If it's a rule, then it's a rule. Otherwise you end up with chaos.

I'm not a power mad nut. The DM is in charge of the game. He/she has final say on everything, effectively is God, as far as the players are concerned. This is the way I've played since 1979, most of it as a DM, and it has yet to fail me.

I started this post, been following it since. So far been an interesting discussion. Let's keep it going.

Valdar
05-03-2008, 12:56 PM
I guess the discussion is about what you mean by "a few restrictions". It sounds like most people agree that the menagerie party you described in the OP is players asking for too much, but the question about drow is divided. In my experience, here are some game situations I've run into:

--The most munchkin party I have ever run for (it was a game with co-workers at a workplace, so harder to be a hardass for work-politics reasons): I said the game was going to be point-buy, and core books only unless the player had an in-character reason for dipping into the splat books. The players wanted free access to any official D&D material, and said they wanted their stats to be determined by die rolls not made in my presence. I walked away from that one without even trying to negotiate.

--I presented a DM with three different character concepts (let's see, an originally evil fighter that was alignment-switched and is now a 1st level Paladin, an older elf wizard who for some reason didn't feel the calling to go board the white ships when his time had come, and my default braggart teenage human fighter- all three were 1st level characters requiring no house rules or splatbooks), and the DM responded that none of the three would be appropriate with his campaign (that he was still fleshing out). Result: I played a featureless Elf wizard, and the game turned out to be very dry.

--When running GURPS Space, a player arrived late and wouldn't budge on his decision to play a vampire. Result: Rather than make a scene, I just fudged all the rolls for the character making him ineffective. In retrospect, I should have just said no.

So, what other actual examples have you all seen of this, and how did they play out?

Tony Misfeldt
05-03-2008, 02:39 PM
I might just say yes to that to see if the players can pull it off. It would be cool if they can. Say a magician fighter. One a magician, one a fighter.

"I need the hands for spells!"
"No, I gotta have me sword!"
"Put that armor down, it will cause spell failure."
"What, you wants to get all cutsed up?"
"Who said we were getting that close?"
"Right, me gonna throw sword."

It might make a better convention one off. I can see were the joke would get old.


You could also add some Smothers Brothers style sibling rivalry. "MOM ALWAYS LIKED YOU BEST!"

Tony Misfeldt
05-03-2008, 02:45 PM
I guess the discussion is about what you mean by "a few restrictions". It sounds like most people agree that the menagerie party you described in the OP is players asking for too much, but the question about drow is divided. In my experience, here are some game situations I've run into:

--The most munchkin party I have ever run for (it was a game with co-workers at a workplace, so harder to be a hardass for work-politics reasons): I said the game was going to be point-buy, and core books only unless the player had an in-character reason for dipping into the splat books. The players wanted free access to any official D&D material, and said they wanted their stats to be determined by die rolls not made in my presence. I walked away from that one without even trying to negotiate.

--I presented a DM with three different character concepts (let's see, an originally evil fighter that was alignment-switched and is now a 1st level Paladin, an older elf wizard who for some reason didn't feel the calling to go board the white ships when his time had come, and my default braggart teenage human fighter- all three were 1st level characters requiring no house rules or splatbooks), and the DM responded that none of the three would be appropriate with his campaign (that he was still fleshing out). Result: I played a featureless Elf wizard, and the game turned out to be very dry.

--When running GURPS Space, a player arrived late and wouldn't budge on his decision to play a vampire. Result: Rather than make a scene, I just fudged all the rolls for the character making him ineffective. In retrospect, I should have just said no.

So, what other actual examples have you all seen of this, and how did they play out?

I had one munchkin player in my last D&D group named Paul. He had a stack of pregenerated characters that he wanted to use. He made them up "Just in case the character I'm using now dies". Many of them I vetoed because they were evil (this was an all good PC party). Others he had gone through the magic items list of his DMG and just picked out a bunch of magic itemes he hadn't even earned (he made the characters higher than 1st level, but still...). And he had one character that could turn into a stone golem at will. I vetoed that one as well.

ARMarcoux
05-03-2008, 04:58 PM
Your rules are your rules as the DM/GM. Not to sound too stiff about it but, if they really feel like they can't abide by your rules for the game then they really should either find a new group or DM a game themself. Usually when I offer this my Players give in, simply because they don't feel like putting in the work (and when one of them steps up maybe I will be more leniant).

If they still want to push the point, then let them. Tell this person you will allow a one-time abortion of the rules. Then you kill them. Of course as the DM/GM you warned them that the people in the lands are out to kill other races anyway so you can't be at fault (though they probably still will). Good luck with either option.

tesral
05-03-2008, 11:32 PM
You could also add some Smothers Brothers style sibling rivalry. "MOM ALWAYS LIKED YOU BEST!"

Fun could be had with it.

Valdar
05-04-2008, 10:25 AM
I had one munchkin player in my last D&D group named Paul. He had a stack of pregenerated characters that he wanted to use. He made them up "Just in case the character I'm using now dies". Many of them I vetoed because they were evil (this was an all good PC party). Others he had gone through the magic items list of his DMG and just picked out a bunch of magic itemes he hadn't even earned (he made the characters higher than 1st level, but still...). And he had one character that could turn into a stone golem at will. I vetoed that one as well.

Curious- What was his reaction to you vetoing all his character "concepts"? Not that I'm debating your decision, but I could see someone like that pulling the "You're stifling my creativity!" card...

Kilrex
05-04-2008, 11:06 AM
I had one munchkin player in my last D&D group named Paul. He had a stack of pregenerated characters that he wanted to use. He made them up "Just in case the character I'm using now dies". Many of them I vetoed because they were evil (this was an all good PC party). Others he had gone through the magic items list of his DMG and just picked out a bunch of magic itemes he hadn't even earned (he made the characters higher than 1st level, but still...). And he had one character that could turn into a stone golem at will. I vetoed that one as well.

I usually have a spare char or two on hand. Everything is filled out except the stats and magical equipment. I put basic PHB items and equipment on them, fill out the skills for lvl as if I have no INT bonus, and if a spellcaster list the spells I would normally have ready again not counting ability bonuses. If a player is familiar enough with the rulles, it should only take 5-10 minutes to add abilities and buy crap if DM gives you an amount.

Dimthar
05-05-2008, 12:25 PM
I guess during Character Creation it also has to do a lot with how well did you described your world and the current status of politics and all that. PCs need guidelines.

I mean there is a lot of difference between:
1) We are playing in the Forgotten Realms and
2) We are playing in Cormyr and the Characters must be from Cormyr/Dales/Sembia and Half of the party must be human. The Clerics/Paladins should be from the Triad or Helm and Chaotic evil characters (Hey! a LE Cleric of Helm!) are not allowed. We are in the last month of the war to free Cormyr from the goblin/orc army of the Red Dragon that ends killing King AzounIV. You are a mercenary "Recon Team" working for the Purple Dragons.

The second option still leaves a lot of room for the characters to choose. If a Player wants to deviate, at least he knows where the campaign is going (for the few first levels) and should be creative to justify his choice.

Webhead
05-05-2008, 01:20 PM
I have one rule that stands above all else, The Golden Rule: THE DM IS ALWAYS RIGHT.

Here is my Golden Rule about GMing: "Players- Trust the GM. He is trying to make the game fun. GM- Make all decisions in the name of keeping the game fun for, and maintaining the trust of, your players."

I very much dislike arguement at my game table, be they player-to-player or player-to-GM. That said, the only real way to deal with this meaningfully is have your players realize your role as arbitrator and trust that you will use your authority fairly and for the betterment of the game. It is a mutual respect that needs to occur. The GM needs to respect the player enough to treat them fairly, and the players need to respect the GM enough to accept his judgement.


He/she has final say on everything, effectively is God, as far as the players are concerned.

As S. John Ross wrote: "The GM is not God. God is one of his little NPCs." :)

Tony Misfeldt
05-05-2008, 02:54 PM
Curious- What was his reaction to you vetoing all his character "concepts"? Not that I'm debating your decision, but I could see someone like that pulling the "You're stifling my creativity!" card...
He accepted my decision as DM. I allowed one of his non-evil characters, but I stripped him of all weapons, equipment, and treasure and had him encounter the party naked and half dead after being robbed (and no, they didn't find the brigands who robbed him). You should have seen the things this character had on him though. Iron Bands Of Belarro, a Shortsword Of Sharpness +1, a Vorpal Longsword +3, a Drow Hand Crossbow Of Accuracy +2, a Cloak Of Elven Kind, Boots Of Elven Kind, Elven Chainmail (I guess I could count myself lucky it wasn't +5), a Ring Of Sustenance, and a Ring Of Regeneration. All on a never before played 5th level elven fighter. I have a half elven fighter/thief from 2nd ed that I worked up to 5th/5th and she doesn't even have a Dagger +1.

Shadow Dweller
05-06-2008, 07:28 AM
Dear lord! Did he ever take a look at the starting wealth tables?! 5th level is what, like 9kGP? I'm not at home and don't know off hand, but it's something close. Is he just used to having Santa for a DM?

Webhead
05-06-2008, 12:56 PM
Dear lord! Did he ever take a look at the starting wealth tables?! 5th level is what, like 9kGP? I'm not at home and don't know off hand, but it's something close. Is he just used to having Santa for a DM?

This is one of my biggest sources of disdain for my experience playing in Forgotten Realms. Every Forgotten Realms campaign that I've ever played in was lorded over by a DM who piled magic items on both PCs and NPCs. In one instance, by the time we had reached 6th level (where the game abruptly dissolved), my character alone was sporting a full character sheet's worth of magic items...some of which were trecherously close to Artifact-level power. Seriously...I had acquired 5 pieces of a 6-piece set of magic armor that was supposed to be unique (meaning there was only 1 copy of this set in existence).

I know this may not be a problem of Forgotten Realms itself...simply everyone who I've ever known that has run it. :rolleyes:

cplmac
05-06-2008, 01:17 PM
He accepted my decision as DM. I allowed one of his non-evil characters, but I stripped him of all weapons, equipment, and treasure and had him encounter the party naked and half dead after being robbed (and no, they didn't find the brigands who robbed him). You should have seen the things this character had on him though. Iron Bands Of Belarro, a Shortsword Of Sharpness +1, a Vorpal Longsword +3, a Drow Hand Crossbow Of Accuracy +2, a Cloak Of Elven Kind, Boots Of Elven Kind, Elven Chainmail (I guess I could count myself lucky it wasn't +5), a Ring Of Sustenance, and a Ring Of Regeneration. All on a never before played 5th level elven fighter. I have a half elven fighter/thief from 2nd ed that I worked up to 5th/5th and she doesn't even have a Dagger +1.


How could you even come up with a "believable" background to justify having all that stuff anyhow?

Kilrex
05-06-2008, 03:12 PM
I know this may not be a problem of Forgotten Realms itself...simply everyone who I've ever known that has run it. :rolleyes:

Play in one of my games, I make it possible to get low cost stuff (8k and below) pretty easily. The more expensive stuff is hard to find and I usually make the players create a commission for them. Very rarely do the players get very expensive or rare items.

Shadow Dweller
05-06-2008, 03:44 PM
I've had both ends of the spectrum. My current DM doesn't like to throw almost ANY high power items our way. We may get a lot of +2 Greatswords and leather armor...but that's about the extent of it. We did manage to find a Lesser Cloak of Displacement once...

My old DM we would be gifted items at random intervals like no ones buisness. We effectively at lvl 8 got told there was a 2 year gap between session(3 weeks around Halloween) and in that time we were given a 75KGP allowance that HAD to be spent before the next session. our mage used it to buy a Robe of the Archmagi...at lvl 8...

Not that any of us were complaining really at the time, but it did get a bit anoying. When my character died 3 levels later(After being tortured by a 7k year old dracolitch) I re-rolled a Ranger and got to blow through 125k GP to outfit my character on par with the group. That is when I saw it was getting a bit overbearing.

Webhead
05-06-2008, 05:04 PM
I have 2 basic issues with the way I typically see magic items handled in most D&D campaigns:

1) They tend to be very formulaic and players often encounter multiple “copies” of the exact same items. How many times do you have to see a “+1 longsword” as part of a loot spread before the players lose interest in it? If the players are groaning, “Oh…look…another ”, then magic items have become interchangeable and thus what made them feel “special” and “magical” is lost.

2) Many DMs tend to take magic items only for face value. A [I]+1 longsword is a +1 longsword is a +1 longsword. They feel like they’ve come from a magic item factory and pretty soon “magic” items become the baseline by which the PCs judge gear. In this way, “magic” becomes the mundane…the average. Instead, DMs should customize magic items to make them unique. Instead of a +1 longsword, what if it were “Thunderspike; the lost sword of the ancient No’grad barbarians, whose obscure runes throb with subtle power” (aka, +1 longsword that grants a +2 bonus on checks and saves against cold weather conditions and triggers a morale check for all evil-aligned creatures within 10 feet the first time it is drawn in combat).

Magic items should feel…magical. They should not be sold (with the possible exception of potions, scrolls and minor trinkets) by street vendors, or even in “magic item shops”. Wizard academies...maybe...if the wizards are feeling generous or perhaps greedy. Discovering magic items should be cause for celebration and players should marvel at the miraculous and mysterious powers that they demonstrate.

My 2 cents. Don’t spend it all in one place.

spotlight
05-06-2008, 05:29 PM
Now that's really the way to handle magic items. I like that, making all items with their own uniqueness.

I did try running a champigne once where most magic items had to be discovered (or produced) by the players. The players became very suspicious of the DM's intent, convincing themselves that ALL items had a curse of some sort attached. Unable to convince them otherwise, .... well, the fun soon disappeared along with the party.

It just go to show what I see preached on these posts very often.
Balence makes the game, well, balenced!

Which reminds me of a little magic sword I allowed one player to create ...

Anaesthesia
05-06-2008, 07:48 PM
I know this may not be a problem of Forgotten Realms itself...simply everyone who I've ever known that has run it. :rolleyes:

My first FR Game I played in, the party was dirt poor and the DM rarely if ever made use of magic items. I believe we found a few random weapons, but we sold them off. I've often wondered why the DMs I had (who ran FR) never sent the party in an area where parts of the Weave were damaged (etc) :confused:

Tony Misfeldt
05-07-2008, 03:59 PM
Dear lord! Did he ever take a look at the starting wealth tables?! 5th level is what, like 9kGP? I'm not at home and don't know off hand, but it's something close. Is he just used to having Santa for a DM?
We were playing 2nd ed at the time, this was a few years before 3rd came out, so there were no GP Values listed on magic items. I think he thought he could just get away with it.

Shadow Dweller
05-07-2008, 04:02 PM
We were playing 2nd ed at the time, this was a few years before 3rd came out, so there were no GP Values listed on magic items. I think he though he could just get away with it.
Ah. 2E was before my time(only started last year), but still...anyone with ANY sense of self preservation for their campaign would have said, as you did, no. :-P

Tony Misfeldt
05-07-2008, 06:12 PM
This is one of my biggest sources of disdain for my experience playing in Forgotten Realms. Every Forgotten Realms campaign that I've ever played in was lorded over by a DM who piled magic items on both PCs and NPCs. In one instance, by the time we had reached 6th level (where the game abruptly dissolved), my character alone was sporting a full character sheet's worth of magic items...some of which were trecherously close to Artifact-level power. Seriously...I had acquired 5 pieces of a 6-piece set of magic armor that was supposed to be unique (meaning there was only 1 copy of this set in existence).

I know this may not be a problem of Forgotten Realms itself...simply everyone who I've ever known that has run it. :rolleyes:

As you've said, the problem isn't with the Forgotten Realms setting itself (there aren't any more magic items there than there are in any other D&D world) but with the people who were DMing those campaigns. I for one tend to hand out quite a few magic items during my adventures. Not all at once mind you, and I make the players earn every one, but after a while they do add up. At this point they tend to lose them all. Sometimes they're shipwrecked and all their magical gear is washed away. Sometimes they're robbed in the middle of the night without even realizing it until it's too late (gotta love those quicklings). Sometimes something happens that drains their items of all power (enchantment eaters, Mordenkainen's Magical Disjuncture, etc). Sometimes the character is discintigrated along with everything he had on him. Or he could have been petrified and then smashed into gravel, thus destroying any magic items on his person. Of course those last two just gives someone like Paul to make up another one of his heavily loaded "Just In Case" characters. Who, of course, will have to meet up with some larcenous, randy, redneck trees who decide to make him squeel like a pig before taking off with his magical goodies.


I have 2 basic issues with the way I typically see magic items handled in most D&D campaigns:

1) They tend to be very formulaic and players often encounter multiple “copies” of the exact same items. How many times do you have to see a “+1 longsword” as part of a loot spread before the players lose interest in it? If the players are groaning, “Oh…look…another ”, then magic items have become interchangeable and thus what made them feel “special” and “magical” is lost.

2) Many DMs tend to take magic items only for face value. A [I]+1 longsword is a +1 longsword is a +1 longsword. They feel like they’ve come from a magic item factory and pretty soon “magic” items become the baseline by which the PCs judge gear. In this way, “magic” becomes the mundane…the average. Instead, DMs should customize magic items to make them unique. Instead of a +1 longsword, what if it were “Thunderspike; the lost sword of the ancient No’grad barbarians, whose obscure runes throb with subtle power” (aka, +1 longsword that grants a +2 bonus on checks and saves against cold weather conditions and triggers a morale check for all evil-aligned creatures within 10 feet the first time it is drawn in combat).

Magic items should feel…magical. They should not be sold (with the possible exception of potions, scrolls and minor trinkets) by street vendors, or even in “magic item shops”. Wizard academies...maybe...if the wizards are feeling generous or perhaps greedy. Discovering magic items should be cause for celebration and players should marvel at the miraculous and mysterious powers that they demonstrate.

My 2 cents. Don’t spend it all in one place.

I like the idea of customizing magic items. I usually customize only sentient weapons, but making them all customized is a neat idea. I may use that. It's a little more work, but still...

As for not allowing magic items to be sold by street vendors or magic item shops, I couldn't agree more. I never actually create "Magic Item Shops" in any of the towns/cities I create or use. I might allow it if it's from a published work (for example, I think there's a magic items shop in one of The Dale Lands in the Forgotten Realms, and maybe one in Skullport), but searching every city, town, and village for magic items for sale is pointless because you won't find them. Paul would do this to try and replace all the goodies I took from his character in my games. I had schysters fleece his characters more times than I can count.

"You're looking to buy a magical sword? You're in luck, sir! I have a lovely one right here! A Short Sword Of Backstabbing! A bargain at only 10000 GP! You only have 5000 GP on you? Sold! But I'm losing on the deal."

The first time he tries to use it, the blade bends in half. It was a lightweight piece of aluminum junk, part of a costume from a masquerade ball with a few minor cantrips cast upon it so that it will radiate magical. You'd think he'd learn after the first time...

tesral
05-08-2008, 12:13 AM
The first time he tries to use it, the blade bends in half. It was a lightweight piece of aluminum junk, part of a costume from a masquerade ball with a few minor cantrips cast upon it so that it will radiate magical. You'd think he'd learn after the first time...

Hmmm, I would have found some dwarves and sold the ruined sword for the necessary fortune to have a good magical sword.

Did you realize that before the late 19th century and the electrical smelting process Aluminum was the world's most expensive metal? More valuable than platinum? The Washington monument is capped in a 8 inch pyramid of pure Aluminum.

Valdar
05-08-2008, 10:43 AM
Did you realize that before the late 19th century and the electrical smelting process Aluminum was the world's most expensive metal? More valuable than platinum? The Washington monument is capped in a 8 inch pyramid of pure Aluminum.

He probably meant tin then.

Tony Misfeldt
05-14-2008, 04:44 PM
He probably meant tin then.

Yeah, tin. I grew up near an aluminum mining operation, and pop/beer cans are so fragile that when I think cheep metal I tend to think aluminum.

tesral
05-14-2008, 08:56 PM
Yeah, tin. I grew up near an aluminum mining operation, and pop/beer cans are so fragile that when I think cheep metal I tend to think aluminum.

As actually would nearly anyone of the modern age. Verisimilitude is the main reason to avoid that.

cplmac
05-15-2008, 07:59 PM
Yeah, tin. I grew up near an aluminum mining operation, and pop/beer cans are so fragile that when I think cheep metal I tend to think aluminum.


Funny enough, my father can remember when not very many people were able to crush a pop/beer can.

tesral
05-16-2008, 02:43 AM
Funny enough, my father can remember when not very many people were able to crush a pop/beer can.

They were made of steel and it took a tool to open one.

Malruhn
05-16-2008, 08:40 PM
Yeah, a tool with a "church key"... :laugh: Sorry...


The History Channel just had "Modern Marvels" all about metals today... and they made a huge case about aluminum. It was pretty cool - and I felt so superior when I already knew that it was the late 1800's before it was able to be even close to commercially produced... and it was all due to this thread.

Thanks, gang!!

cplmac
05-16-2008, 08:40 PM
Dad was one of those who could crush the old steel cans. Came from working in a steel mill. He would have to go in with a jackhammer and clean the inside of the furnaces out after they cooled. To clean the top, he had to hold the jackhammer over his head.

Obviously, my two brothers and I made sure we didn't get dad mad at us too often as kids.

:focus:

I can also remember as a kid when asking Mom why I had to do something she would answer, "Because I said so." If the DM set a limitation, there should be no discussion neccessary.

upidstay
05-18-2008, 08:48 AM
One thing about aluminum:

There are different grades of it. Alot of your modern vehicle armor (the stuff that isn't composite) is made of aluminum. The metal was in such short supply because of this during WWII. It will stop a .50 cal bullet or a 20mm shell. The aluminum WE see is the flimsy, cheap stuff. But there are forms of it that are incredibly tough. Biggest problem is that it vaporizes under high heat.

Malruhn
05-18-2008, 02:03 PM
The aluminum siding on an Armored Personnel Carrier will stop MOST .30 caliber rounds - but won't do anything to a .50 cal round shot at anything outside of a heavy oblique (>60 degrees).

Old tanks (T54-55, T62, Shermans and similar WWII tanks), COULD withstand .50 cal - as long as you didn't hit them in a road-wheel or drive sprocket. There were also many reports of tracer rounds hitting the turret ring (where the turret meets the main body) and fusing the entire assembly together, so you have a tank that can only shoot straight ahead.

Sorry, it's a pet topic of mine, as I used to destroy armored vehicles as a job in the Army... and it was a job requirement to know this stuff.

boulet
05-19-2008, 07:46 AM
Sorry, it's a pet topic of mine, as I used to destroy armored vehicles as a job in the Army... and it was a job requirement to know this stuff.
Don't apologize, I find the info interesting. I didn't know about aluminum in military tanks ofr instance. But maybe there could be a separate thread about metal toughness and shielding ? I think many GMs would find it useful, especially for modern and military settings, or game systems with a simulationist ambition.

cplmac
05-19-2008, 10:15 AM
Don't apologize, I find the info interesting. I didn't know about aluminum in military tanks ofr instance. But maybe there could be a separate thread about metal toughness and shielding ? I think many GMs would find it useful, especially for modern and military settings, or game systems with a simulationist ambition.


The same can be said for any subject. I learned alot from tesral on the peculairities of archery on another thread. It gave me alot more possibilities for dealing with problems with bows and arrows.

Malruhn
05-19-2008, 09:37 PM
Well, in that case...

Modern armored personnel carriers use an aluminum alloy with high amounts of magnesium... great for reducing weight and making the armor a little more strong.

Problem is, if a significant heat source is introduced, the alloy can start burning as only magnesium can... with a bright white flame that looks like a huge sparkler - resulting in the total destruction of the vehicle. Pretty spectacular in the night-time.

Pretty crappy if you are riding inside of it.

tesral
05-20-2008, 12:00 AM
Well, in that case...

Modern armored personnel carriers use an aluminum alloy with high amounts of magnesium... great for reducing weight and making the armor a little more strong.

Problem is, if a significant heat source is introduced, the alloy can start burning as only magnesium can... with a bright white flame that looks like a huge sparkler - resulting in the total destruction of the vehicle. Pretty spectacular in the night-time.

Pretty crappy if you are riding inside of it.

Whoever thought that magnisium made good armor needs to be slapped.

boulet
05-20-2008, 08:23 AM
No he should be asked to chew on a depleted uranium bullet :)

cplmac
05-20-2008, 09:10 AM
So would a tracer round be able to start one burning? Also, what size of a tracer round (ie. 50 cal. or larger)?

tesral
05-20-2008, 11:31 AM
So would a tracer round be able to start one burning? Also, what size of a tracer round (ie. 50 cal. or larger)?

The danger is RPGs, the rocket propelled grenade kind of RPG. They use shaped charges that do burn, and burn hot enough to go through steel armor. The world is lousy with the things. If armor shows up, any armor the RPG is reached for.

Some <sarcasm=on> bright boy </sarcasm> "reasoned" that an APC was too little armor to aim an RPG at so they didn't build them to withstand RPGs. So the Bradly Infantry Fighting Vehicle is an Infantry cooking vehicle.

Even better idea, let's put the bastich in a Bradly and let him eat an RPG-7 for lunch.

Valdar
05-20-2008, 11:49 AM
...I used to destroy armored vehicles as a job in the Army...

Ok, now you're just bragging...

Malruhn
05-22-2008, 01:16 AM
Well, does it matter that I was good at it? ;)

Good news on the home-front! The Bradley is made of a slightly different alloy than the old M-113 family of vehicles. They don't burn so easily.

Regarding the number of tracers to ignite one; you would have to roll one helluva DC to get one to ignite with one or two tracers - of any size. However, with a single belt of 50 M-2, .50 caliber tracers, I've personally seen several (don't recall - either three or four) ignite from the phosphorus in the tracer rounds.

Regarding the armor involved in armored vehicles, even the vaunted M-1 Abrams can be taken easily. A TOW or Hellfire PRACTICE round (note, I did say, "practice"!!) can be used. A TOW has better than a 98% CREW kill rate. In the 1968 Israeli war, the US gave them 25 live rounds, and 250 practice TOW rounds. When all was done, there were between 30 and 40 (numbers were varied depending on sources) of vehicles that were either destroyed or unusable. There were over 200 Egyptian tanks that had big scorch spots on them - where the Israeli's only had to pull out the dead crewmen and then drive the tanks back to their lines to use as they wished.

All with practice rounds.

You don't have to destroy a tank to stop it. While an RPG may not destroy a tank today, it can take out a track, road-wheel, or make the driver see their maker.

This is something that I have never seen in an RPG or strategy game.

Webhead
05-22-2008, 08:57 AM
You don't have to destroy a tank to stop it. While an RPG may not destroy a tank today, it can take out a track, road-wheel, or make the driver see their maker.

This is something that I have never seen in an RPG or strategy game.

There are some games which simulate this to one degree or another. They are probably in the minority, but I have seen it on occasion. The ability to target specific parts of a vehicle to disable them or even passenger-sustained damage from attacks on the vehicle. Just because the tank can take X amount of punishment, doesn't mean the passengers will fare so well. :)

spotlight
05-22-2008, 05:56 PM
And all this crap from a simple question of the value of aluminum!

Well, years ago, I made a simple statement to my first mystical gaming group. Q: "What is Mythrial?" A: "Majically manipulated Aluminum."

For gaming purposes, it made all the sense. 'Nouf Said?:laugh:

cplmac
05-22-2008, 09:14 PM
I used to destroy armored vehicles as a job in the Army


Ok, now you're just bragging...


No, bragging would be stating that from my training in the Marines, I can hit a person in the face at 500 yards away, using open sights, and it don't matter what type of rifle it is.

Had a Lcpl while with the 2nd Marine Division that could aim a .50 cal. so well that he could hit any target by the second round 95% of the time, even if it was moving.



Well, does it matter that I was good at it? ;)



We were expected to be good at our jobs in the military. Doesn't matter which of the 5 services you were in.

Malruhn
05-22-2008, 10:12 PM
SonofaCRAP! He said, "FIVE"!!!! Thankyouthankyouthankyou!!

You don't know how tiresome it is to argue that point nearly every day.

agoraderek
05-22-2008, 10:16 PM
SonofaCRAP! He said, "FIVE"!!!! Thankyouthankyouthankyou!!

You don't know hot tiresome it is to argue that point nearly every day.

coast guard, huh? well, y'all do a great job, even if you were moved from DOD to DHS ;)

Tony Misfeldt
05-26-2008, 03:56 PM
Well, in that case...

Modern armored personnel carriers use an aluminum alloy with high amounts of magnesium... great for reducing weight and making the armor a little more strong.

Problem is, if a significant heat source is introduced, the alloy can start burning as only magnesium can... with a bright white flame that looks like a huge sparkler - resulting in the total destruction of the vehicle. Pretty spectacular in the night-time.

Pretty crappy if you are riding inside of it.

Interesting... A knight wearing armor of this sort getting hit by a wizard's Fireball. Oh the possibilities.

djk15000
05-26-2008, 05:27 PM
the 2 headed thing sounds like not very much fun even to play, a pain in the @ss for you and just generally not all that great.

i prolly would have let her play a tauren, with the exact same lang. class options and stat adjustments as a half orc... basically letting her play a half orc that looked minotaurish...

cplmac
05-27-2008, 09:24 AM
coast guard, huh? well, y'all do a great job, even if you were moved from DOD to DHS ;)


Personally, I feel that we should be saying that there were actually a total of 6. The Merchant Marines of WWII should be their own group, instead of being considered as part of the Coast Guard. They were on ships that went overseas and alot of times had no way to fire back when fired upon. They were the only group that took more casualties than the US Marines in WWII. It is sad that it took the government as long as it did to actually acknowledge their military status.

cplmac
05-27-2008, 09:34 AM
Interesting... A knight wearing armor of this sort getting hit by a wizard's Fireball. Oh the possibilities.


Actually everyone that doesn't shield their eyes would probably be at least momentarily blinded by how bright the light given off would be.

agoraderek
05-27-2008, 07:41 PM
Personally, I feel that we should be saying that there were actually a total of 6. The Merchant Marines of WWII should be their own group, instead of being considered as part of the Coast Guard. They were on ships that went overseas and alot of times had no way to fire back when fired upon. They were the only group that took more casualties than the US Marines in WWII. It is sad that it took the government as long as it did to actually acknowledge their military status.

i fully agree, if it werent for the brave souls of the merchant marines during WW2, we'd likely have lost that war by 43...

Tony Misfeldt
05-27-2008, 10:50 PM
Actually everyone that doesn't shield their eyes would probably be at least momentarily blinded by how bright the light given off would be.
Ah, but the knight running around looking like a road flare? that could be fun to do (as the DM). You'd have to give the armor some sort of benefit though... +1 or +2 to the armor class or something... to make people want to wear such armor.

Malruhn
06-02-2008, 10:44 PM
coast guard, huh? well, y'all do a great job, even if you were moved from DOD to DHS ;)
I think you have a bit of a time-slip on your hands. We haven't been part of DOD since WWII. Started off in 1789 in a fledgling Department of Treasury, then switched to Dept of Transportation in 1927 - then to Dept of Homeland Security in 2003... with a quick stop in DOD for WWI and WWII.

And while I admire the Merchant Marine fleet, they weren't armed so they can't be part of the Armed Forces of the US... much akin to the Public Health Service, the sixth Uniformed Service of the US.
_______________________

Now, back to the topic at hand...

I would give manganese armor a bonus (penalty to the penalty) on weight - as it would be lighter than regular armor, and a +3 EX bonus to Intimidate/Diplomacy checks, as the whitish armor would be phreaking COOL looking.

And Save at a DC 15 REFL check to keep from going blind when the guy goes up in a HUGE white flame or be blinded for several minutes (perhaps permanently) and takes probably 5-500 damage from flame/heat. Ewwwww.

Shall we discuss Lithium chain-mail? The stuff fairly explodes when it touches water... It sucks when you sweat... or bleed... or start oozing from previous burns... (insert evil laugh here!).