Jump to content
Kendal

Best Version of DnD?

Recommended Posts

Hah.

 

I just watched the first episode and was laughing my broccoli off at the overly dramatic mother death scene and by episode's end I was like "Oh. Oh they were being serious... Oh, honey...."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Doug Sundseth said:

 

As long as you prohibit players from playing a high intelligence character if the player has an IQ below 130, a high strength character if the player can't bench 100kg, or a high dexterity character if the player can't juggle four balls, I think you're fine. <_<

 

That was not the expected answer, nor an anticipated one. After some thought, I'm considering that a false equivalency.

 

Do you have any suggestions on how to cut down on the behaviors I'm trying to discourage? My issues are two players. One I classify as a loony, who will go out of his way to make the most awkward, improbable and contrived situations possible. Because of store politics, I probably won't be able to exclude him, and anticipate killing his character a fair amount. (You do NOT get away with mooning snipers when I can just bring you back from the dead afterward.) The second is a yu-gi-oh kid, age 15-18, who I'm worried will pick a Fury for combat optimization and then have her prance around in an armored catsuit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Club said:

 

That was not the expected answer, nor an anticipated one. After some thought, I'm considering that a false equivalency.

 

Do you have any suggestions on how to cut down on the behaviors I'm trying to discourage? My issues are two players. One I classify as a loony, who will go out of his way to make the most awkward, improbable and contrived situations possible. Because of store politics, I probably won't be able to exclude him, and anticipate killing his character a fair amount. (You do NOT get away with mooning snipers when I can just bring you back from the dead afterward.) The second is a yu-gi-oh kid, age 15-18, who I'm worried will pick a Fury for combat optimization and then have her prance around in an armored catsuit.

I would just sit down and have a session zero, where you explain the tone of the game and your concerns.  And let them know that shenanigans will result in being bounced from the game or the game ending.  I find that as long as expectations are announced beforehand, people make the decision to get on board (or decide not to play).  This does in fact rely on you backing up the threat to bounce them.  You mention store politics, so I don't know what's going on there, but at most stores I'm familiar with, there seems to be a lack of GMs available so they are in higher demand then players.  I find that excluding some people from playing certain classes/races, but not others, generates ill-will between the players.  I'm not familiar at all with the system, but for me, the whole point of role-playing games is to allow me to play as something that I am not.  Also, I am very leery of the "if you can prove you are transgender" bit as that smacks of outing a person (intended or not).

 

Again, I don't know the situation at this particular store, but if they give you guff about who you allow in your game, then I'm not sure that I would want to run games there.  If you lay down the expected code of behavior ahead of time, and a player breaks it, then you have every right to bounce them.  On the flip side, you need to make sure that the players want to play your type of game as well.  That is the other side of the game zero discussion.

 

Just my two coppers, and good luck with your game!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cleric in our group is male, but his player is female. 

And I do like the character concept, I understand why she chose to make that cleric a male one. There has been no trolling or immature behavior on her part or in the reaction of the other players.

We're playing DnD, so she could have played a female character without mechanical disadvantages. In your case, that does not seem to be the case, as the all-female bodys seem to be stronger according to your explanation. It would seem a bit odd to me, if only the female players in the store would have access to that.

There are also legit reasons to want to play a character of the opposite sex. In your case, couldn't a "male" person be morphed into a Fury body and have a potentially interesting concept as he struggles to deal with all his sudden female-ness?

As Dilvish has said, just talk to them, voice your concerns and describe the tone of game you want to go for. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Club said:

 

That was not the expected answer, nor an anticipated one. After some thought, I'm considering that a false equivalency.

 

Do you have any suggestions on how to cut down on the behaviors I'm trying to discourage? My issues are two players. One I classify as a loony, who will go out of his way to make the most awkward, improbable and contrived situations possible. Because of store politics, I probably won't be able to exclude him, and anticipate killing his character a fair amount. (You do NOT get away with mooning snipers when I can just bring you back from the dead afterward.) The second is a yu-gi-oh kid, age 15-18, who I'm worried will pick a Fury for combat optimization and then have her prance around in an armored catsuit.

 

First, I strongly recommend @Dilvish the Deliverer's suggestion of a Session 0. It sounds like you have serious out-of-game/expectations problems that need to be addressed in advance, very specifically including the penalties for violation of expectations.

 

Second, if you have a serious problem with characters that you can't handle any other way, just disallow them for everyone. (I don't typically allow paladins in F20 games, because they're almost always more trouble than they're worth.)

 

Third, I actually think that what you're considering doing is rather worse than what I was suggesting. You're conditioning in-game advantages on immutable characteristics of your players. Consider (assume you were running a game in which the following exist):

  • Kitsune may only be played by players with a verifiable Japanese heritage.
  • Fighters may only be played by players who are verifiably male.
  • Drow may only be played by players who are of direct black or aboriginal ancestry.

I consider what you've suggested to be directly ethically equivalent. And just in case there is any question, I think all of those are offensive.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, BlazingTornado said:

Hah.

 

I just watched the first episode and was laughing my broccoli off at the overly dramatic mother death scene and by episode's end I was like "Oh. Oh they were being serious... Oh, honey...."

 

I've come to expect most anime these days to be overly dramatic. It's part of the reason why I stopped watching a lot of it, actually. Well, that and the fact that it seems like fanservice has come to dominate the scene because that's what the otaku in Japan want, and since they're the ones that reliably purchase these things it's what gets made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The manga is always better.  ::P: 

 

I haven't watched anime in years (uhm, Record of Lodoss War came from RPGs so that keeps us on topic...), but even 15 years ago I remember complaints about the amount of fan service in some series.  We joking referred to Divergence Eve as "Boobs in Space" when it first aired. :rolleyes:

 

I rather like the main AoT manga but I haven't tried any of the related series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was planning to run a session zero anyway; but yeah, I take your point about disallowing classes. I guess this universe has sane male furies.  And that's why I ran it by (mostly) sane censors here

 

Still thinking about keeping the TG limit in place though; not asking anyone to out themselves, just giving them the option, and keeping it PG-13, which is fairly important in an open-area store with parents coming through.

 

The store actually has a lot of GMs. Just, you know, none running stuff when I'm off work.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keeping sex stuff out is, yeah, it's a public store. That's pretty obvious. Prohibiting people from playing characters of a gender other than their own is weird, though. Particularly when there are mechanical options that hinge on it. I'm not sure what you mean by "transgender characters", like, people can't run a character who is trans? If they can't be trusted to not be immature about it, sure, that's reasonable enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Club said:

I was planning to run a session zero anyway; but yeah, I take your point about disallowing classes. I guess this universe has sane male furies.  And that's why I ran it by (mostly) sane censors here

 

Still thinking about keeping the TG limit in place though; not asking anyone to out themselves, just giving them the option, and keeping it PG-13, which is fairly important in an open-area store with parents coming through.

 

The store actually has a lot of GMs. Just, you know, none running stuff when I'm off work.

I understand your concern about keeping things PG and making sure you don't have any players making other players (or NPCs--Non-Player Customers) uncomfortable. But you should be able to make clear what behavior is unacceptable in a Session Zero (and you should be able to get that clarified with the shop before you start DMing). If the expected behavior is clear from the get go, you shpuldn't need to break interesting and flavorful game mechanics (only female Furies) or penalize certain players (male players can't play furies, TG players get a special advantage because they have more character options, if they choose to declare themselves TG) in order to "force" certain behavior. And make clear that you will boot people from the game if they behave in an egregiously  family  unfriendly fashion (defined by your agreement with the store management and clearly laid out during session zero).

 

If you give people clear rules, they will likely follow them. If they don't, they know you can boot them. If the store is unwilling to come to an agreement with you about what constitutes bootable behavior, or if they don't want to be responsible for you booting players, then I personally wouldn't want to game or DM there, because an unwillingness to confront poor behavior is essentially an encouragement of poor behavior.

 

Essentially, you are running a game system that is not inherently squicky. If you make clear that your game will not turn squicky, the onus is on the players to help with that stated goal; it is not your responsibility to remove all potential squick from the ruleset.

 

To be clear about where I come from in this: I managed a store for several years where I held game nights each week. I grew my player community to over 100 individuals that I would see over the course of a month, with a couple dozen that came in at least once a week. I routinely booted people from my store for racist, sexist, etc. behavior and often saw those same people come back and remain on good behavior. NPCs enjoyed these crowded nights because they were excited to see activity in the store. Within a year after I left, the new management's "losing a single customer is terrible" policy meant that behavior was no longer policed and game night was down to about ten really odious players, zero NPCs and a dearth of sales. A lot of my old PCs stayed in touch with me and lamented the way the store went. It is now under new management again, and slowly rebuilding, but it was very sad for a while.

 

The point being, if it's a good game system, play it. Don't try to passively change behavior by changing the game. Actively encourage the behavior you want to see by running an inclusive game with clear expectations.

 

/soapbox

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the main problem with Club's situation is, that they already feel a bit hesitant about some players, but don't feel like it's in their power as DM to exclude them. 

Everything else seems to be tucked on to kinda cover up the problem (that being two players who may not fit the group).

The thing is, even if they're not allowed to play females, people that would have played a sexy sedructress in a catwoman costume don't suddenly become perfect PG12 players.

On 18.12.2017 at 11:34 AM, Club said:

One I classify as a loony, who will go out of his way to make the most awkward, improbable and contrived situations possible.

This just doesn't sound like the best starting point for having fun together, and neither does the bit about the teen player. 

 

I get that the game is supposed to be in a game store where the DM might not wield as much power as at home, but starting a game where the DM already has serious resentements against two of the players is something I wouldn't burden myself with.

Atleast try and get the support from the owners to kick a player out for grossly inappropriate behavior, maybe talking to the potential "problem players" might help to nip this in the bud.

Banning people from playing characters that aren't within their own gender still is a bit weird to me, since it also punishes people who want to play out a legitimate character concept. Or don't want to be the one female character in an all-male party.

 

I do feel for you though, this sounds like a big broccoli mess.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lets just say that Eclipse Phase is a game where body dismorphia is the norm, not an exception.

 

Uplifted (Sapient) pig with psionic powers in a robotic octopus body. Completely viable at chargen, if expensive in points. Not being in the body you were born with is normal.

Edited by Club

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The kids learned that they need to cheat harder and faster against their fellow pirates.

 

The high point was when they and another ship exchanged chainshot.

 

And the chainshot isn't even considered cheating.... (They are not targeting the ship or the crew, so it's all good....)

 

Sam was gleeful, and Dain went full on Ahab. (He does better at playing a dwarf than anyone has a right to....)

 

Ian, meanwhile , is doing his best as captain - but the other kids don't always listen. ::P: 

 

The rifle gunslinger managed to cut one of the lines with a bullet, while the pistol gunslinger has a loaded pair of ducksfeet. (Four barrelled pistols - crappy, crappy range and accuracy - but really handy in a boarding action.)

 

duckfoot2.jpg

 

But the person that is really earning his keep is the bard. That +1 from his singing has them currently in the lead - it is that close.

 

The Auld Grump - when as many as thirty dice are being rolled in a single round... that +1 adds up really fast.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Club said:

lets just say that Eclipse Phase is a game where body dismorphia is the norm, not an exception.

 

Uplifted (Sapient) pig with psionic powers in a robotic octopus body. Completely viable at chargen, if expensive in points. Not being in the body you were born with is normal.

Well, I heard enough about certain Japanese films to know that the octopus thing is gonna go well ...

 

Seriously though, I read a bit about Eclipse Phase and that game sounds interesting. But definetly like something I wouldn't want to play with immature players. It's not just the potential for inappropriateness, but also because of the those gritty themes talked about in their synopsis. Really seems to be something all people at the table should be taking quite serious and be comfortable roleplaying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nunae said:

Well, I heard enough about certain Japanese films to know that the octopus thing is gonna go well ...

 

Seriously though, I read a bit about Eclipse Phase and that game sounds interesting. But definetly like something I wouldn't want to play with immature players. It's not just the potential for inappropriateness, but also because of the those gritty themes talked about in their synopsis. Really seems to be something all people at the table should be taking quite serious and be comfortable roleplaying.

Here - have an Orangina ad... complete with octopus....

 

The Auld Grump

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×