Sunday
I really, really, really, really, REALLY hate how addictive "Run To You" is. Maybe I ought to go play some PIU today later. Hmm, it's ![[profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
nickjong's birthday - we could drag him to D&B :)
No, so anyway, today there was Carl D&D, which went kind of annoyingly... I had a big rules debate - namely, can you make your players make saving throws when they aren't actually saving against anything? and left at the end screaming at him and walking out. Of course, after 20 minutes of pinball and thinking I realized that I suck and called him to apologize. But, the session really sucked for me. I haven't had much of an attention span lately for D&D... I dunno if it's because the groups are too big or if it's just me.
I did run into bunches of people in the UC though. Saw Roman, and ran into some PGSS people on their way to dinner.. Neil Simonetti is still doing math for them. Geez, he was one of *my* TA's, 9 years ago. Some of my students from 96-98 are various forms of TAs and reslife people, which is also sort of scary. And so on.
After all that I went to Sunday dinner. We grilled! Wheeeeeee! Also Lori's sister is in town now, which was sort of fun. Paul and Mary showed up, and I hadn't seen them since like April. Actually, I hadn't seen Ralph in a while either. It was cool to show off my ring more, and Lori lent me a bunch of wedding books. (It seems to be a theme.) The cats are huge now - not really kittens anymore. Also, turkey burgers are tastier than I thought they'd be. Ralph and Lori's one-year-old wedding cake also wasn't so bad, although I was just really really full at that point. We played a game called Gouda Gouda which involved trying to get your mice to the top of a thingy so you could get some cheese. It was a lot of dice rolling but was surprisingly complicated.
I drove home. I hate street cleaning. Hi.
nickjong's birthday - we could drag him to D&B :)No, so anyway, today there was Carl D&D, which went kind of annoyingly... I had a big rules debate - namely, can you make your players make saving throws when they aren't actually saving against anything? and left at the end screaming at him and walking out. Of course, after 20 minutes of pinball and thinking I realized that I suck and called him to apologize. But, the session really sucked for me. I haven't had much of an attention span lately for D&D... I dunno if it's because the groups are too big or if it's just me.
I did run into bunches of people in the UC though. Saw Roman, and ran into some PGSS people on their way to dinner.. Neil Simonetti is still doing math for them. Geez, he was one of *my* TA's, 9 years ago. Some of my students from 96-98 are various forms of TAs and reslife people, which is also sort of scary. And so on.
After all that I went to Sunday dinner. We grilled! Wheeeeeee! Also Lori's sister is in town now, which was sort of fun. Paul and Mary showed up, and I hadn't seen them since like April. Actually, I hadn't seen Ralph in a while either. It was cool to show off my ring more, and Lori lent me a bunch of wedding books. (It seems to be a theme.) The cats are huge now - not really kittens anymore. Also, turkey burgers are tastier than I thought they'd be. Ralph and Lori's one-year-old wedding cake also wasn't so bad, although I was just really really full at that point. We played a game called Gouda Gouda which involved trying to get your mice to the top of a thingy so you could get some cheese. It was a lot of dice rolling but was surprisingly complicated.
I drove home. I hate street cleaning. Hi.
no subject
no subject
no subject
Sometimes, in my campaign, I have players make rolls for effects that aren't happening, then apply the results when I feel like it. Hmmm, that doesn't make much sense.
Here's an example:
Crusifixio (a human fighter): I go up to the bar and order a drink.
DM/bartender: That's 5 silver. Oh, and make a fortitude save.
Crusifixio: What the FUCK for!!!
DM: Because I said so.
Crusifixio: I'm not drinking this beer.
DM: Quit meta-gaming and roll the dice, fuckhead.
Crusifixio: OK, OK...
Rolls an 8, a pitiful failure.
Crusifixio: Oh, Shit.
DM: OK, nothing happens.
Crusifixio: Wha? Oh, ummm, I look around suspiciously.
2 days later
DM: Crusifixio comes down with the Demon Fever (and the Boogie Woogie Flu!)
Crusifixio: Don't I get a save?
DM: You did - 2 days ago!
See! That was fun. The best part was that if Crusifixio had passed his first save, I could have had him roll a second one when he came down with the disease if I really wanted him to fail! The storytelling is all the DM's job. All the rules are at his discretion, if you have a good DM, he won't fuck you over. It was also fun because I got to call Crusifixio a 'fuckhead,' which provides me with perverse enjoyment.
no subject
I've been playing D&D for 12 years or so now and I have never ever liked DMs who are the DMs just for the sake of killing characters and messing with players.
Anyway, your example is not a valid example. If the Demon Fever really was a result of that drink, then he DID have to make a fortitude save; it wasn't just something random for no apparent reason. And actually, in that case, YOU should have made the saving throw secretly. If the Demon Fever was just random and you were blaming it on a Fortitude save you had him make so you could assign him some randomly bad result later, that's just being an ass. Sure, he shouldn't be like "I don't drink the beer," but if he had to save, his character obviously felt some sort of effect from the stuff.
In the case in dispute, the DM decided to make us do saves in order for us to think we were bitten by werewolves, because one of the moronic players had decided we were attacking werewolves. They weren't werewolves. But, thanks to a knowledge check, the DM decided that we did suddenly know how to treat werewolf bites, and also ruled that we could find wolfsbane in the area. Then he proceeded to let three players get strength drained by the wolfsbane, which they WOULDN'T HAVE TAKEN if he hadn't faked us out into thinking they were werewolves. Now, keep in mind, if he was going to look up cures for werewolf bites and tell them to us, he might have ALSO decided to tell the druid who found the stuff that it's toxic and poisonous.
Keep in mind, MY character wasn't even affected by this at all, since she was never bitten by the wolves or took the wolfsbane plant. I'm half annoyed at the DM for purposefully faking us out and having people's strength drained that way (heck, one of the characters could have died right there) and half annoyed at the player who decided that they were obviously werewolves and got us all paranoid over it. It isn't any fun to play a game like that, and my theory on D&D has always been that one should be playing it to have fun, and if it's not fun, don't play.
no subject
DM: OK, everyone make listen checks.
Fighter: Uh-Oh! Last time we had to make listen checks like this was when that invisible mage fireballed us all.
Priest: I cast invisibility purge.
That's meta-gaming big time, and it's the end result of only having players make checks when they're needed to.
no subject
However, what is the point of having them walk into a room and make a spurious Will saving throw? Does it do you ANY good if there was nothing there to save against, except to make them paranoid, since the idea is that players KNOW they are making a save? There is a big difference between "There is nothing there" and "There is nothing that has done anything to me".
no subject
No, it doesn't do the DM any good, but it does make the players paranoid, which is generally good. Paranoid players tend to care a bit more about saving their skin, rather than suicidally charging towards the gates of hell (because they think they can win.) The difference isn't between 'there is nothing there' and 'there is nothing there that has done anything to me.' The difference is between 'There isn't anything there that I can perceive' and 'I can't perceive that anything has been done to me'
That's not so big a difference. Save are really just checks in which the ranks are determined automatically by your class and level. My previous example is still valid even in the case of saving throws, just change it around a little.
DM: OK, fighter, you enter the room, make a will save.
Fighter: I got an 18. Uh, what happens.
DM: You don't notice anything out of the ordinary
Fighter: Better not come in guys, there's some kind of trap or something.
See, still valid.
OK, here's a question that's been bouncing around my group a lot lately. The party rogue traditionally disarms any traps and unlocks any chests. He also likes to 'skim' some of the cash off the top of the chest when the rest of the party isn't looking. The rest of the players know he's doing it and are complaining, but really, their characters have no idea of what's going on. How far should I let this go before the rest of the party starts watching his every move? How do I handle this once someone catches him at it? Let me know what you think.
no subject
Ummm, if the players' characters don't know about it, *they can't act like they know about it*. I had an issue like that when I was DM as well, and have as a player as well, and only ONE person (incidentally the same person who I am having a problem with in this campaign) really took personal offense at it. He also generally uses a lot of OOC knowledge in the game, though.
The thing is, if the party cares so much, tell THEM to start unlocking chests and disarming traps. I got really pissed off once because my rogue was disarming and unlocking things and taking tons of nasty shit in the face from time to time as a result, but often wouldn't actually get anything out of the chests and stuff. (This was why I had her swipe two scrolls and not tell the party about it.) Is this rogue some alignment other than lawful and (preferably) some alignment other than good? If so, they're acting perfectly in character, I'd think.
Also, believe it or not, you don't have to make your players completely paranoid to make them cautious. Actually, making your players paranoid makes them WORSE -- then you have your party going up and attacking EVERYTHING they see, since obviously everything you describe is a trap you've set up.
But at any rate, your example in this case is also not a valid example of why spurious saves are okay. Your example is just yet again complaining about a meta-gaming munchkin. Here, I've got an example for you.
We've determined that if a spellcaster is invisible and casts a spell, it is an attack spell if it causes people to make saving throws (or obviously if it causes damage - yes, I know there are damage spells with no saving throw), and therefore negates Invisibility. (Therefore, casting... oh, I dunno, Polymorph Other on someone will make you visible. Sure, it is not a "damaging" spell per se, but it is a spell someone would resist with adverse affects if they do not. Therefore it is an attack spell.)
Okay, so suppose you have a player character in a room and they know that there is an invisible foe in the room - they chased them into this room and then the foe went invisible. This is what you're going to get if you have them make a spurious will save:
DM: You hear the guy casting. Make a will save.
Fighter: I roll a ____. Where is the asshole? I go attack him on my turn.
DM: Huh? You don't see anything.
Fighter: He must have cast an attack spell on me, or I wouldn't have had to save.
DM: Shrug. You don't feel or see anything.
Fighter: Dammit. Improved invisibility, huh? I am going into blind-fighting mode and swinging my sword around every inch of this room until I find him.
Now, in "reality", several things could have happened. One is that the foe teleported or dimension doored out. Alternately, they could be wearing Boots of Elvenkind and silently moved past the guy and out of the room after casting something like Mage Armor or Shield on himself. But, what was the will save for? It was the DM being an asshole. That's really about it. It's not like the player felt themselves shaking off a magic effect or anything, which is what they assume when you make them save.
Now, of course you'd look silly if it had gone more like:
DM: You hear the guy casting. Make a will save.
Fighter: I roll a ____. Where is the asshole? I go attack him on my turn.
DM: Huh? You don't see anything.
Wizard: I make a spellcraft check. *Rolls something insanely high* What was it?
DM: *sighs* Dimension Door.
Fighter and Wizard, in unison: Then what the heck was the will save for, you asshole?
Surely you can see how in the long run this is not a proper way to do things.
no subject
Anyway, I agree with you on the rogue and taking treasure off the top thing. In fact, the Rogue in Question is Chaotic Neutral, and thus I consider it perfectly in character. The problem is the other party members. The conversation goes like this:
Shopkeeper: What can I get you?
Rogue: I'll get that +3 dagger
Cleric (innocently): Where'd you get the money for that?
Rogue: I picked it up a few adventures back.
Cleric: NO YOU DIDN'T YOU LYING BASTARD. SEE, PAUL, I have it right here. His share of party income matched up with his expenditures for the last eight sessions. Now I've got you! You thief!
Rogue: That's not fair!
Cleric: Can I help it if my character is naturally suspicious?
DM: You really bought a solid gold tiki idol?
As far as the situation where the fighter and wizard simultaneously say 'Then what the heck was the will save for, you asshole?' Well, I've been in that situation a number of times before and the correct response to that question is a raised eyebrow, a sinister smug grin, and a shrug of the shoulders. It works. Do it often enough and it keeps the players on their toes and they begin to expect it. I'm starting to have the opposite problem with my players - they don't persue some subtle clues because they figure it's just another red herring.
Issues
On the other hand, I cannot repent the tweaking of Dan, who almost always deserves it. He was very disappointed to learn that monsters in this world do occaisionally have Sonic resistance, since he was counting on the Monster Manual to glean general monster characteristics. :)
As a related issue, you cannot detect incubating diseases with anything less than a spectacular (25-30+) heal check, because there are no symptoms worth noting--they get lost in the general noise. Lycanthropy in particular cannot be detected at all because there are no symptoms except under certain conditions (full moon, stress of combat, etc). I probably should have explained this better, or indeed at all. :-/
Aside from that, it is not and cannot be the case that every time the player makes a save the character knows about it or feels something. The prime example is diseases: A person who doesn't know he has a major disease sneezes (covering his mouth) in the back room of a store, then comes out and shakes hands with the characters. They all make fortitude saves right then to avoid catching the disease, but the characters feel absolutely nothing until a few days later when the disease stops incubating, or if they passed, they feel nothing at all ever. The players using the logic "oops, we just had to make fort saves but nothing obvious happened--better go see the healers and get checked out" is not to be desired. This is why I was surprised when you said "If we hadn't had to make those fort saves, we wouldn't have..." even after I said you felt nothing.
Bleh. I think the solution to this is just to ask you all for save modifiers at the beginning of the session, and then roll a lot of d20s constantly.
Re: Issues
And my character is too stupid to do anything but go along with the shit he suggests, which is the really frustrating part. I don't think I like playing a dumb character in a campaign with a munchkin. I've played dumb characters many times before, and they can be a lot of fun, but not in certain circumstances. Janthina and Elif, for example, were the perfect pair of dumb elven chick fighters, and were a LOT of fun to play. Even Michiko, the dumb bard/rogue/prostitute, was really amusing. But, I guess my last few characters have had ints of 14+, which has been nice, since I don't have to come up with stuff and then go "but my character is too stupid to figure this out".
Re: Issues
This is true--Dan's character is still healthy. Must plan more carefully in the future, although probably nothing like this will happen again.
On the other hand, in the future if Dan's character makes any assertions at all ("They're Hylfigs! We can only hurt them with granite weapons!", "The mage surely won't notice us sneaking in, I'll cast this Invisibility spell!") are you going to believe him?
Feel free to air random suggestions, especially if you think you can pass them off under Wis. Stifling yourself sucks. Perhaps more opportunities to smite evil and less time chasing after elusive NPCs is also in order.
With some few exceptions like shadows, I'm sure (as in, I just looked it up (DMG 72)) that Con loss is the only one that kills you. If your Str falls to 0 you're still alive, you just can't move.