>the DM hands you a printed list of rules at the first session of "HIS game"
>the rules have nothing to do with the game mechanics
>>46786583
So are we talking rules like "no smoking inside the house" and suchlike, or something inexplicable and stupid that I'm failing to imagine right now.
>>46786583
You gotta give us something to work with if you don't want this thread to die with three posts.
>>46786583
i hope he means like extra mechanics intended to enhance the game
![07028cbe5f69cba30f35d2c734fe5b1b[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/SVK2njE.jpg "07028cbe5f69cba30f35d2c734fe5b1b[1].jpg")
>vague complaint or fetish bait
>>46786583
Such as?
i fail to see the issue here.
im a GM and i have two rule lists, one that is solely for mechanics and home-brews and the other being table/game specific rules.
should the player take issue with any of the rules i address it, such as recently.
these rules are very important to the GM I'm assuming, and if they're reasonable then deal with it. if they aren't reasonable then bring them up to everyone.
Example, one of my table rules is you have to be medium size regardless of what the book says. this is not pointless (to me) i created it only because of past events, your character will always be between 3ft - 7ft tall. event being the 6in tall fairy who whined like a bitch when their character got stepped on by a dragon "but i have like all these hit points what do you mean the 600lb dragon squashed me to complete utter fucking death" or the 11ft (yes he seriously chose to be eleven fucking feet tall) guy who tried to roll stealth to blend in with the crowd and i told him "everyone sees the 11ft tall minotaur ducking his head"
i see this as an important rule, and now I'm reading it maybe its a mechanic related one? i didnt think so.
how about this, table rule, your character can't be a dips hit fucking twat and try to kill the part one session in, force your character to have a reason to team up with the party or you're out.
>>46788530
I can't tell if this is bait or if you're just an idiot.
>>46788539
not bait, whats stupid?
Why is there even a picture of Anakin posing aboard the Tantive IV? He was never on it. At lest not until he was already Vader.
One rule that some would disagree with is no two players with same class. Makes things more interesting.
>>46786583
>The host has rules about the behavior of his guests.
>mfw
You don't have to be in his game man, but as long as you are, what's weird about sticking to his rules? If you have problems with the rules at an establishment, you don't go there, you don't show up and bitch about it.
>What do you mean no shoes, no shirt, no service? Isn't my money good enough?
>>46788530
Dude, lern2english.
Okay, now, "minotaur can't blend in with the crowd" is perfectly reasonable call.
"lol dragon oneshots you" isn't.
Go try stepping on a fly, see how easy that turns out.
Hit points are abstraction, dragon's claw attack does has accuracy so and so and does damage thus and thus.
Forming global rule just from that is dumb.
>>46788555
Trying to get us to believe that you allowed those characters in the first place, for one thing.
>>46788607
it wasn't that the dragon one shotted them, thats what Hit points and Ac is all about, long story short they made a stupid decision and the dragon literally landed on top of them. different from an attack, it wasn't that the claws slashed or anything.
the player frequently used that same logic, and i agreed, they its hard to hit a small object,t hey used it to their advantage frequently and i didnt mind it (until they tried to magical realm) its when they complain about the downsides because "why won't you only use the benefits, why do you have to use downsides" that irritates me, i wouldn't have made it a rule if it had been one player one time, not two players two times
Also I'm gonna go ahead and just let that lern2english thing go, not worth it
>>46788663
I used to be pretty nonchalant about what players brought, i was naive. shoulda seen the pedo bait the fairy brought in right before.
>>46786583
It's not a long list, but I do have a couple of rules that deal with character behavior as well as some rules.
1. There are no intra-party rolls. You solve that shit with roleplay and out of character agreements.
2. If your character dies, they are dead unless the group embarks on a quest (even a small one) to bring them back.
3. When making a new character, it must have a different specialization from the previous one, as well as different personalities. Some people can't roleplay, or make good characters, but I expect everyone to have at least two different ones.
4. All characters need to have a reason they stick with the group and do all this dangerous shit. It can't just be "money", unless that's a temporary character, there's lots of ways to make money and most of them are less dangerous than what the party goes through.
5. The challenges that you face you can be overcome in multiple ways. This isn't an MMO, you don't need "party balance" to do well.
6. Heroes are just the lucky sods who survive doing stupid things, risks have consequences and you're only as protected as you prepared to be.
7. If it fits in the setting, it can work, even if it's not in the rules.
8. If doesn't fit the setting, but the rules make it work, it doesn't.
9. You are not "adventurers" and you're not "adventuring". You're hobos, mercenaries, vagrants, labourers, whatever. I really hate that term when used in character.
>>46788735
Usually in my group the only one calling ourselves adventurers is the dwarf (played like a minstrel in town, there are no bards in this system), the fucker also made us known as dragon slayers when our biggest kill was a mummy.
Getting sent on tasks bigger than what we could chew ensued, hilarity and excellent adventures ensued.
>>46788735
>9. You are not "adventurers" and you're not "adventuring". You're hobos, mercenaries, vagrants, labourers, whatever. I really hate that term when used in character.
What if I'm playing a greenie who is enamored with adventure tales and I promise to RP him getting disillusioned after getting a good taste of what it's really like?
>>46788735
i think i've found myself
>>46788816
That's fine. It's appropriate.
But it's not a real profession anyone will respect.
Well, except for minstrels, bards, poets and idle nobles.
>>46788561
>no two players with same class.
I guess you'd never be able to play LBB OD&D with more than three players, then.
>>46788561
Have you tried not playing D&D ?
>>46788677
Y-you do know that that's already accounted for in reduced HP for sizes smaller than tiny and there being rules for characters falling on another character right?
You're just a shitty DM if you kill someone on such a binary scale
>>46788851
>implying PCs give a fuck whether anybody respects their profession
>>46788530
Either you're a troll or, just... fantastically retarded.
>>46788953
He sounds like a lonely 12-16 year old making shit up.
The only rules I have when someone is playing at my place is:
You want to smoke? Smoke outside.
Don't be fucking around with your phone - pay attention to what is going on in game.
Personal fucking hygiene. Don't wear fucked up socks for five days and then come to my place all smelly and shit.
>>46788940
Well, think about it for a minute here: unless you're playing exclusively in a big city, odds are people will wonder where this guy, with no holdings and no clear job is getting his money from. This guy and his friends who are clearly accustomed to violence.
Even in the city, the Watch is probably keeping an eye on you.
I mean, clearly this is where it all boils down to setting and style, but being on good terms with the community is pretty important in my games. It's how you get supplies, gossip, help and companionship.
>>46788735
>3. When making a new character, it must have a different specialization from the previous one, as well as different personalities. Some people can't roleplay, or make good characters, but I expect everyone to have at least two different ones.
Oh boy. I wish I could enforce this somehow. Some players can't even have TWO different approaches to characters. But it is those players, or don't GM at all.
>>46786583
I wish more DM's would do this. How else are you supposed to know if you will actually fit in with the group/dm?
>>46788735
>You are not "adventurers" and you're not "adventuring"
Literally fucking retarded.
>>46789053
>Literally fucking retarded.
I think he just stuck either with a system that doesn't encourage you to think outside of the box, or he just started GMing wrong and continues to do so.
>>46789017
>he needs to have a hygiene rule
Fuck, I want to get into TTRPGs but this is really off-putting.
>>46788735
I disagree with most of these as both a player and a gm, but it's your game, and I wish you the best.
>>46789053
>>46789061
>I really hate that term when used in character.
Yeah, the PCs go on adventures, they're adventurers.
But in game, they're *something* other than "man or woman who seeks thrills and money".
Which brings me to the previous sentence in that post:
> You're hobos, mercenaries, vagrants, labourers, whatever.
I like my games to have a bit more grounding than is common in D&D.
>>46789106
>they're *something* other than "man or woman who seeks thrills and money".
Why?
>>46789106
Your "grounding" isn't. History is full of adventurers and treasure hunters.
>>46789106
That is cool and all, but you do realize that players can actually decide for themselves, are they doing it for thrills or money or to see the world or to get that sweet sweet pussy?
I mean, you can railroad all you want and hold their hand every step of the journey, but some people use different approach to their games.
>>46789106
Explorers, treasure hunters, ronin, lots of different words, they all have slightly different connotations, they all adventure.
>>46788735
God fucking damnit, triggered.
1. If your players do not metagame, a roll is a roll. I deceived my fellow party members more than once and it always made sense in character.
2. When is dead not dead exactly?
3. Why would you force someone to play something they don't want? Maybe they wanted to play one kind of character because that's what they feel like playing.
4. "Money" is a good reason as any other, considering that some characters need a fuckload of money for some reason (Ransom? Bills? Retirement?). If you think "money = bad background" you probably need to read more.
5. I absolutely agree with this one though.
6. Same as 5
7 and 8. What do you mean? If it's something like "The rules allow me to turn an hostile enemy is someone who would give his life for me with a Diplomacy check" then it's not a "setting" matter, it's simply common sense.
9. GOD. FUCKING. DAMNIT.
Seriously, if you're trolling 10/10 you got me.
>>46789035
This.
Played Shadowrun with two new guys (friend's friends, we've all been there). At the third session I said no more premade archetype characters, so everyone was generating their new runners.
One guy made a "better" copy of the archetype and even refused to take another street name.
>>46789205
If the player liked the name, archetype and persona, why is that a problem?
Was he playing it poorly and ruining fun for others? Was he being a dick in general? Was he having fun?
The issue boils down to YOU, not the game, the player or the setting. You are being a pedantic twat.
>>46788555
For the fairy thing:
HP are an abstraction for med size creatures, too. If a human gets stepped on by a gargantuan huge dragon "logically" they would be killed. But that's real world logic that has very little place in a magical world, and even less in a game. You roll the fucking damage and if it kills them it does and if it doesn't it doesn't.
The minotaur thing:
You should have given him a serious penalty to stealth, but still let him roll. High level PCs are pretty much pure magic and can pull off miraculous things that would be impossible for anyone else.
>>46789273
I am not.
He is one of "those" players on multiple levels.
>arrives with just his character sheet, no paper, no pen, no dice
>asks "so how do I attack" every combat round
>asks if he can do stupid gamebreaking shit all the time
>yells game-irellevant shit inbetween dialogues
>clearly uninterested in roleplaying
>only interest is to be desperately funny
It would all be fine if he actually liked the bodyguard archetype and played it good, but he just keeps using that stupid character because he doesn't want to read magic/matrix/rigger/bodytech rules. He just keeps saying "Wait, i might have an item for that!", loking through his stash of handcuffs, drugs, scuba gear and so on (which he has on him all the fucking time), just to say "So what do RFID tags do again?"
But maybe I am the one over-exaggerating.
New and inexperienced players are one thing, but uninterested and desperate tryhards are another.
>>46789280
I don't know all the details, but there's contexts where the minotaur thing would be a good call. I'm assuming he's talking about DnD since a minotaur was involved, but unless that minotaur was a shadowdancer or some sort of specialist sneaky fuck normally you need to have cover to hide. Unless there's other large creatures I don't think it's unreasonable to say he couldn't really "blend into the crowd"
>>46789195
C'mon, no. 1 is utterly lacking in controversy. It's all about accommodating everyone. Also the litmus test. If someone can't handle talking to humans and explaining why something might go a certain way, then reaching an agreement, I don't want that person at my game, they're clearly stupid.
2. Dead is dead, unless the setting has magic to bring them back. But if, say, a level 5 group wants to resurrect a player, they gotta work for it. This lends actual weight to character death, especially at higher levels. They can, after all, fail to bring that character back.
3. If the quirky wizard dies, there won't, conveniently, be another quirky wizard just around the corner.
I don't think it's unreasonable to demand diversity in characters. Again, if a character is so beloved that they simply can't be left dead, they can always spend a few sessions trying to bring them back.
4. This was a question of motivation, not background. Irrelevant, but hey, let's be pedantic. And in those scenarios, the motivation would be "Ransom", "Blackmail", etc. Maybe I should've been clearer. Money, in these cases, is merely a tool or means to an end. We're talking about that end.
7. "We want to play an Awakened Scarecrow, a Tin Golem and a man cursed to be a cowardly human-lion hybrid" would work in a high magic game, even if those things aren't in the rules. We'd make it work.
8. Peasant Rail Gun, Custom Race with OP powers, inventing semi-automatic magi-guns, etc.
9. I hate that word. Fuck it, I'm as entitled to my autism as anyone else. Be Ronin, or Explorers or Treasure Hunters, like some other dude said. But not "adventurers".
>>46789369
>I'm as entitled to my autism as anyone else.
And your players are entitled to not share it and call themselves whatever fits their characters best.
>>46786583
>No alcohol at the table.
You want to get pissed do so after the game.
>No smoking in the house.
I don't want to smell it and it sets off my Grandmother's asthma.
>No drugs anywhere near my house.
No, I don't care what you think about marijuana curing cancer and how it's a conspiracy by Big Pharma. No fucking drugs.
I don't see an issue here OP.
>>46789195
Not that guy, but:
1. Not wanting real inter-party conflict is a valid choice, just as allowing or even encouraging it is. If he has some douchy player who think it's fun to pick on other, it may also the only logical choice.
2. a) in a world where casters who know resurect are common. b) when the player try to whine the GM into giving them just one more chance. If he wants a game where the players have to treat the possibility of dying seriously and charging in half cocked is a bad idea, it's a valid choice to make resurrections harder in his world.
3. Probably a reaction to the rule above with a situation like "Oh, Jim my orc barbarian just died, well here's Jeb his identical twin brother with identical stats and build. Alas poor Jim yadda yadda, moving on"
4. If you make up a reason for the character to need a lot of money fast and is willing to risk his life for it, you have given him more reason that "just money." Yes, this is extremely basic character building that you did without even thinking about it, and yes some player really are that lazy and unimaginative that they won't.
8. Probably also things like the peasant railgun, or choping a ladder in two to make a profit. So yeah, common sense. Something that can be remarkably rare amongst munchkins, especially when ignoring it would let them profit or do something "cool."
9. *shrug* Honestly just amounts to stylistic choice. One can instead call themselves a wandering knight, or a mercenary, or a travelling researcher or whatever equivalent fits their character concept, it still means a guy that travels and fights monsters and loots dungeons. Getting that upset about one word is a bit autie of him, but it's not that big of a deal.
>>46789369
Just kind of bored so I'm going to pick at this
1. There's situations where players rolling against each other are fine. For social rolls that's almost never the case though (which I'm assuming it what you mean anyway, I'm just clarifying). If two players want to see who climbs the fastest with a roll then I don't think there's a problem
2. Games that have easy resurrection tend to also have easy death, but low level DnD for example tends to have a lot of ways to go wrong anyway. I don't think they shouldn't have to earn it but...
3. If you want to make character death more permanent it seems like the obvious choice of a player would be to just remake their character (particularly at low levels where death is easy and the rest of the party isn't as attached to anyone). I'd take a motivated character that is questionable in originality over a less motivated but new character any day. If you don't have to choose then great, but I think it's bad to make it harder for people to be invested in a game,
4. That's a fair point for some settings, but there are settings where that's just dumb. Rogue Trader is a really easy example
7. "Okay"
8. I wouldn't call those things that work RAW, but if that's the kind of thing you're talking about that's fine. If you see an argument like that you never know if it's someone bitching about "monks being OP" or pun-pun so I'd probably waste your time asking to clarify that in detail if I were playing a game and someone gave me that list
9. I don't really see a problem with it, but I think it takes a special kind of person to call themselves an "adventurer" in the first place. It's like calling yourself a hero. It would probably mostly get a "sure, buddy" sort of response
>>46789106
Did you know that the word Viking meant 'to go' mostly in the context of nautical travel and also for an adventure.
So when the Norse went a viking, they were literally saying they were having a nautical adventure.
>more grounding than is common in D&D.
History said adventuring was good enough.
>>46789517
I get the latter two because it forces other people to inhale your shit but no alcohol? I don't even drink myself but that seems silly, what's the reason?
>>46786583
Onokon Skiiwolker?
>>46789605
Two of my friends are well on their way to being alcoholics, downing spirits like softdrink and becoming obnoxious, loud drunks.
I, and other friends, hold enough parties for them to get pissed at. I won't stand for it when I'm hosting games as well.
>The list of rules is literally just "DON'T BE A DICK" blown up to fit almost all the space of a single piece of A3
>>46788735
You and your group must lack all kinds of social skills if you need to set up such a long list of inane shit. Why not, I dunno, talk with your player?
Or, let me guess: You don't have a regular group of friends to play with and people switch a lot? Because I see no reason for these kinds of lists if you play with friends.
>>46790074
What's this from?
>>46790074
"Goddammit Jeremy look at the rule poster on the wall and stop being a fucking cunt!"
"It doesn't' say anything about being a cunt lol!"
>>46788929
Not him, but there are rules in 5e for characters falling on another character? Where?
I've just been houseruling based on what makes sense:
>if you took fall damage, then the person you fell on takes that same amount of damage, assuming same size
>knocks both people prone from any height.
I haven't had a size difference issue yet, but I'd probably increase or decrease the damage based on a modifier.
>>46789605
It depends heavily of group how alcohol works out in games. There are people who literally go crazy when they drink alcohol, but luckily such people tend to be rare in this hobby because it's a trait that's very unusual for geeks/nerds and in my experience they tend to be assholes when sober too. There are also some people who can't drink in moderation and can ruin game because they get too drunk to play.
I usually drink (in moderation) when gaming as does my group, but I've had to ban alcohol on table in past one time because there were some guys like I mentioned earlier involved. Then again they were too much of "that guys" even when sober, so we kinda kicked them out and can drink happily again.
>>46790191
I know Russell Howard is fond of the phrase in some of his comedy work, but that's about all I can think of. He advocated replacing the ten commandments with it.
>>46786583
Yeah, I really think standing written rules only makes sense in public games with strangers.
With people you actually know, the code of conduct is generally unwritten.
My rules are:
No alcohol
Shirts and pants must be on at all times
No rape
Oh and dice on the ground is a reroll on the table.
I added those after my last that guy.
>>46788735
"Adventurer" is often used as term to refer to mercenaries.
>>46793006
>Shirts and pants must be on at all times
>No rape
Seriously? Your "that guy" sounds quite extreme, but you shouldn't really other players by banning their alcohol just because there was one "that guy" involved in your group at some point.
Unless you mean that you didn't kick the bastard out...?
>>46793006
>no rape
Then what are we supposed to use our elven party members for??
>>46793605
Given that "no rape" is accompanied with rules like "shirts and pants must be on at all times" as well as "no alcohol", I don't think it was referring to in-game rape, but rather something else.
>>46793651
>>46793006
Tell story please??
>>46788677
Wow, thanks for being such a bigger person.
>>46789280
>playing a NG Minotaur brawler in Pathfinder the one game of it we played
>used the monster stuff so I was large class creature
>didn't have a great dex or stealth
>manage to sneak into a castle with the party wizard
>who had no stealth oriented spells and an equally not that great dex
>>46788530
I'm glad you will never touch my game.
>>46788530
>so I just instagibbed them because size
Rocks fall, you die.
>>46793781
Just get a blanket and you'll be blending in in no time.
>>46793865
I actually carried around a giant wool blanket to use as my bedroll. Most Inns made me sleep in the stables.
>>46788530
Poor players that play with such a retarded GM.
>>46793605
ITS
NOT
RAPE
IF
ITS
AN
ELF
If a player's character dies, they're forced to reroll as a new class and as a new personality/backstory/etc. It stops players from not caring about death by saying 'oh whatever i'll just reroll as another barb/rogue/etc' and challenges them to come up with new ways to roleplay.
>>46789358
Just increase the difficulty for them Minotaur to successfully blend in. Maybe he's not the only Minotaur in town and a group of them happens to pass by, which he can blend into because people don't really recognise his species on an individual basis.
>>46794057
Aw yiss Scott Pilgrim.
The only rule I can think of that I have to vigorously enforce even with actual friends is: fucking announce what you are rolling for BEFORE rolling.
I can't fucking stand some people.
"The wraith turns its sights on you, your turn! What do you do?!"
>*rolls*
>*inspects roll*
>*silently looks over their character sheet*
>*looks up a spell*
>"I attack with a 23"
"Bull fucking shit you do. Roll for it asshole."
>>46788530
>>46786710
The worst possible. Coasters.
>>46794057
In my experience this isn't necessary. Players have several different characters in mind and cannot decide what they're gonna play until 5 seconds before the game starts. Still they get sad when "they die", even if they have plenty of options for the replacement.
But every table is a different universe I guess.
I have one, and one rule only.
>if you want to do something that does not have a rule, I will make a rule to fit the situation. Do not argue with about this ruling in session, but it can be discussed afterwards.
I know I am not infallible or God, I van make mistakes. What I can do is stop you from wasting 15 minutes of session time trying to argue with me while I try and keep things moving.
>>46789369
>people still think the peasant railgun is actually possible RAW or RAI
it takes a special kind of blend between rules and an physics to even pull off
by RAW, the object will effectively be teleported from one end of the line to the other, and then either dropped (therefore falling straight downwards and landing in the tile where the peasant is standing) or be thrown via whatever stats the peasant has and nothing more
it won't reach lightspeed, it won't shatter the planet and it can't kill a castle
RAI it doesn't work, period. if you play strictly by normal physics it doesn't work either, because by normal physics a line of commoners cannot possibly move an object across the country in under 6 seconds under their own power.
it's only if you blend realistic physics and RAW in a way that doesn't even make sense that you get the object travelling at relativistic speeds, which takes an insane amount of autism
it only works on paper under specific circumstances, you don't need to bother fucking about cooking up rules just to prevent it.
...
wait why do you need specific rules to say 'we can homebrew stuff' and 'as a dm i can veto stuff' anyway
>>46794417
I've referred to the "trinity" of the game in disputes: The DM, the players, and the rules. Two out of three agreeing passes the motion.
If the DM and the rules agree, players are out of luck. No weaseling.
If the players and the rules agree, the DM must abide, or make their case for a change. What's the point of playing a game if you're not following the rules?
If the players and the DM agree, rules can be changed, and let's have an open dialog about it.
>>46795876
So if your book has a stupid rule that makes no sense and is obviously a mistake that shouldn't exist and your player insists on using you will let them?
>>46795999
I just don't play with rules-exploitative mongrels.
The idea is more that the DM can't screw you over if you can prove the character can do that.
>>46788735
>the setting has magic monsters and dungeons filled with loot
>there are no professional adventurers
M8 are you retarded?
>>46788530
Sounds to me like you did fine anon. The minotaur call is completely reasonable assuming the character wasn't a high level sneaky beaky class, and that there weren't alot of other minotaurs around at the time. Assuming you don't run HP as meat points then I don't see any problem with the fairy either. Seems like the other anons are overreacting.
>>46795876
I very much like this idea
>>46790175
I have a similar list which I made because if a friend of mine wants to bring one of their friends to the game (whom I don't know prior) I like being able to immediately say to them up front what the expectations are and make sure that I don't leave out anything too important.
>>46788735
>You are not "adventurers" and you're not "adventuring
ad·ven·ture
an unusual and exciting, typically hazardous, experience or activity.
just stop. they are adventurers you hipster fuck
>>46796133
Not every game is ran the same way. I've been in several games before where monsters were exceedingly rare and dungeons filled with loot were even more rare.
>>46788735
>You are not "adventurers"
Well, why the fuck not?
There are monsters to kill and people who want them dead right? In a fantastic setting that's as much of a profession as a baker. Do you hate fun, Anon? Are you a retarded fag?
>>46796594
To be fair, those sound more like they would be labeled "monster slayers" rather than the rather general "adventurer" title. There's probably still room for the latter to exist elsewhere, though.
So, this is only "mechanics" thread I could find and I had a question.
So let's say, there's a door, someone tries to hear sounds coming from the other side and fails perception. Do you stop the rest of the party from making the same roll, essentially giving the party advantage on perception?
I'm pretty new to rpg in general and wanted to ask this stuff before I start playing with some friends in a few days.
>>46795876
This is fine, as long as "the players" is contingent on unanimity
>>46794354
What kind of sub-human has issues using coasters?
>>46796594
But anon, that makes you a hunter, a monster hunter if you want, not an "adventurer".
>>46796738
depends on the system
some systems like warbirds have the player with the best 'perception' value do the check, others like gurps let everyone do the check and it's usually compared to the score the target has rolled (so if the target rolls exceptionally well, ie the margin of success is 10, it's going to be hard for anybody else to beat that, whereas if the target did really poorly on their roll, ie a MoS of only 1 to 3, then it'll be easy to detect by simply beating your perception score)
i don't recall any of the ways d20 systems do it
personally i'd have the entire party roll anyway - the more people you have, the more chance you have of detecting things.
>>46794426
>wait why do you need specific rules to say 'we can homebrew stuff' and 'as a dm i can veto stuff' anyway
Different anon, but it's one of my rules as well that I make sure to tell to all of my players early on. I do this so that if I ever needor wantto add/remove something then it gives me a little more foundation on which do so by having already made it clear that this was a possibility. Essentially I'm trying to preempt powergamers and such by saying upfront I'll just veto it anyways.
>>46789605
I have that rule myself because I'm an alcoholic and I don't need to be tempted.
I had this pic as my phone background while I was in rehab.
>>46796915
Damnit, the spoiler was supposed to only conceal "or want".
>>46796539
Sure, but basic truths of adventurers and adventuring applies to pretty damn many different kind of games. Dungeon might be bad guy's basement or secret bunker. Adventurers might be called explorers, pirates, bounty hunters or mercenaries. Monsters might not exist, but in that case there's likely faceless mooks and their bosses filling basically same role.
Again not saying that adventurer stereotype applies to every kind of game (because it doesn't, horror would be one common example that usually tries to avert it), but it goes long way and there's really nothing wrong with it.
>>46796968
Keep up the fight anon. Hope you're holding up well enough.
Here, have some cute stuff
>>46796968
The ensemble on that isn't long enough to even leave the bottle
>>46789369
What if I came to this game and wanted to play a quirky wizard but he's killed in the first few sessions?
I don't want to play Dave the Barbarian or Guy the Rogue, I want to play a wizard god damnit. Don't make me re-roll a whole new archtype because of a bad call or flubbed roles.
>>46797011
Jesus i can't believe you guys are all this dense, clearly he just doesn't want people showing up with a one line backstory like "i want all the gold!" But instead more like "i want all the gold so i can afford my dream of ..."
>>46797247
then why say it in such a roundabout and autistic way
I see that there are a lot of rules that if your first character dies, the second character has to be very, very different. I get desiring the player to have a character with a different personality and backstory, but wouldn't you want the same role they fill in the party if they go? If you lose your magician, your group would want to find another magician to fill the void. Right?
>>46797394
Because he's autistic and thinks in a roundabout way.
