What was the weirdest thing that ever happened in your RPG game?

[Maedhros]

That's unfortunate, as it shows, the players you play with, have no concept of what alignment means or represents. They play the game, but they don't wish to be bothered dealing with the limitations.

If I was the DM, they would all be dealing with some severe repercussions, alignment shifts, powers that started to fail to perform properly, the usual routine of becoming "tainted".

That was over ten years ago. You're right; those kind of players are not worth the time. My current crop are excellent - we have been playing regularly for 5+ years.

I've found, generally, that nobody understands AD&D alignments. The worst, most common attitude is the "I'm Chaotic Good, which means that I can use Good magic items but still behave like an assassin because I'm Chaotic."

The alignments are the intersection of two continua, Good-Evil and Law-Chaos.

The Good-Evil continuum describes how much value you place on the sanctity of life.

The Law-Chaos continuum describes how much value you place on authority and discipline. "Chaotic" does not mean "random" - it means that you favor the sanctity of the individual over the authority of organizations. "Chaotic Good" means that you place great value in the sanctity of life and are a free-spirited individualist - pretty much a hippy - NOT that you are a well-meaning but directionless schizophrenic with multiple personality disorder.

 

[Aries]

I would have gotten up and left right at the point that the DM did nothing to a chaotic good elf assasinating a lawful good paladin (I assume he was lawful good as most paladins tend to be).

I suggest that any that wish them better stated, read the Paladium version of alignments. They make a whole lot more sense. They are not black white and grey for one thing.

Not sure how I would term myself with an alignment. I'm good at the core, but, I am also not overly lawful. I think I sit between chaotic good and neutral good.

People do seem though to think chaotic and good are separate. They are actually two halfs of a single term though.

Again, Paladium sums up alignments better. Most people "think" of themselves as "Principled" when in fact they are actually "Selfish". Both don't have to be evil though. And to it's credit, the Paladium approach ditches the whole concept of neutrality as being the crock it actually is.

 

[Maedhros]

I would have gotten up and left right at the point that the DM did nothing to a chaotic good elf assasinating a lawful good paladin (I assume he was lawful good as most paladins tend to be).

I suggest that any that wish them better stated, read the Paladium version of alignments. They make a whole lot more sense. They are not black white and grey for one thing.

Not sure how I would term myself with an alignment. I'm good at the core, but, I am also not overly lawful. I think I sit between chaotic good and neutral good.

People do seem though to think chaotic and good are separate. They are actually two halfs of a single term though.

Again, Paladium sums up alignments better. Most people "think" of themselves as "Principled" when in fact they are actually "Selfish". Both don't have to be evil though. And to it's credit, the Paladium approach ditches the whole concept of neutrality as being the crock it actually is.

Yes, the Palladium alignments make more sense. I prefer to use Disadvantages/Faults (a la GURPs/Hero/FUDGE) in place of alignment. Taking the Fault "Paragon of Virtue" instead of having an alignment of "Lawful Good" (e.g.) allows for more creativity and variety.

 

[Palantir]

First off- On the "No-Kill" Paladin PC:
I doubt if my group's PC's (in game) would have invited him to stay once they discovered his beliefs. I think if a party is experienced (4+ lvls) they wouldn't want to go into battle knowing that the Paladin would rather seem them killed than save their lives by killing the enemy. "Thanks for the offer to join us but no thanks."

I believe my group role-plays very well following their alignments/tendencies. In one case they voted to leave a new pary member dead instead of using the one resurrection potion they had found to raise him just because he was an unknown factor. The quick debate was- was raising the new guy worth it, if an old party member soon died? The fact that the new PC had no in-game history with the group was the deciding point.

On my character sheets there's a space (paragraph sized) that each player must fillout about their PC personality/tendencies so I can RP them if they can't make a game. Greedy/selfish/brave/aloof/spendthrift, etc. etc.

I have a rogue in the party that constantly doesn't report the full amount of any treasure she finds. (The group agreed to share all treasure when they formed). They "complain" out of game that she has more $$ to spend & treasure than they have but it's the exact way she described & plays her character. They have yet to catch her acquiring the goods: being the most power PC & leader of the group does help her cause.

Paladins- in my world they are the official warrior-guardians of their religion so any alignment/religion can have "paladins" even CE. Of course a religion has to be "supported" to have a deity powerful enough to grant powers to his followers.

 

[Maedhros]

First off- On the "No-Kill" Paladin PC:
I doubt if my group's PC's (in game) would have invited him to stay once they discovered his beliefs. I think if a party is experienced (4+ lvls) they wouldn't want to go into battle knowing that the Paladin would rather seem them killed than save their lives by killing the enemy. "Thanks for the offer to join us but no thanks."

Point of clarification: It's not that he wouldn't fight - he was actually pretty good at it, with double-specialization in quarterstaff - it's that he wouldn't kill. So, saying that Pallafox "would rather seem [sic] them killed than save their lives" is not accurate.

This is why I dislike D&D so much. It's not the mechanics of the game, it's the ingrained habits and mindsets that exist in the players of the game. That a character must kill to have worth is just one of a plethora...

I believe my group role-plays very well following their alignments/tendencies. In one case they voted to leave a new pary member dead instead of using the one resurrection potion they had found to raise him just because he was an unknown factor. The quick debate was- was raising the new guy worth it, if an old party member soon died? The fact that the new PC had no in-game history with the group was the deciding point.

...like the whole notion of a cost/benefit analysis of resurrecting a companion being debated matter-of-factly by a group of said companions associates. Imagine that conversation in the real world:

"Gee, Mary just electrocuted herself trying to unjam the copier. Luckily, I found this magic potion that will bring her back to life!"

"Well, I don't know if we should give it to her...she just started working here last week, and she hasn't even had an annual review yet. How do we know she's going to be a good employee? Probably just a slacker - let her rot!"

Sure, in the D&D world Resurrection potions may be common. Hell, tavern keepers have to sweep up all the discarded +1 weapons littering the floor every night after rush hour! Magic = cheap = mundane, but that's another topic...

On my character sheets there's a space (paragraph sized) that each player must fillout about their PC personality/tendencies so I can RP them if they can't make a game. Greedy/selfish/brave/aloof/spendthrift, etc. etc.

This should be standard in every campaign.

I have a rogue in the party that constantly doesn't report the full amount of any treasure she finds. (The group agreed to share all treasure when they formed). They "complain" out of game that she has more $$ to spend & treasure than they have but it's the exact way she described & plays her character. They have yet to catch her acquiring the goods: being the most power PC & leader of the group does help her cause.

Sigh...obsession with "treasure." How many good (not crappy) fantasy novels have characters that bicker about gold pieces? Not many - they have bigger concerns. Again, that D&D mindset: "Kill things, take their stuff, get more powerful, repeat" - along with the concern that some OTHER character may be getting more powerful than MINE. For shame!

Paladins- in my world they are the official warrior-guardians of their religion so any alignment/religion can have "paladins" even CE. Of course a religion has to be "supported" to have a deity powerful enough to grant powers to his followers.

I have a similar view, that Paladin's are the protectors of the people who worship the god in question. Pallafox was great at this...it's just that he worshipped a Goddess of Life/Healing rather than battle, lightning, whatever...

 

[Aries]

Maedhros has touched on a very big sore point for me in rolegaming.

Guys often prefer to ROLLgame, and only ROLEgame, when they figure the stat in question sucks, and it's time to "ham it up" as a way of avoiding being forced to confront the slighted stat with dice usage, because that stat has nothing to do with combat, thus it was left as one of the lower numbers for being "less favoured".

This genuinely pisses me off though.

Damn it all, if the stat matters it matters. You can't be devoted to stat accuracy one second, and then the next, "oh I would rather roleplay this action out" the next.

Sorry buddy, your uber PC that can cleave 3 opponents in a round, is dumber than the villiage idiot when he's required to actually put 5 words in a coherent string.
So, NO! you CAN'T roleplay out buying the groups gear. He's as dumb as a brick of jello, and couldn't add 2+2 to save his life, he has no idea what the signs say, laughs like a gibbering moron at inappropriate moments, picks his nose brazenly without realising he's gross, and in general is impossible to take seriously.
You are way to over qualitified intellectually, to properly roleplay your warrior out shopping, roll the dice, and we'll see what happens when you send bozo to pick up his buddy's repaired armour.

I have also found, that most guys should some days roleplay naked from the waist down. No that's not a gay comment either. It would just make it easier for the guy with the biggest sword to prove it. "Get a load out of my +5 avenger .

I can assure you, after rolegaming WITH females at the table, I WON'T rolegame in a group WITHOUT females at the table.
Guys alone, are just to damn atypical
And that gets old sometime around age 25 (for me 20 years ago).

Alignment is just a manifestation of this problem.
Rolegames are 9 times out of 10 designed around combat as a means to an end.
Actually resolving an action without combat, is actually the exception to the rule.
Most experience award designs are barely able to cope with females and brains hehe.
But considering rolegaming grew out of table top wargaming oh well.

A "good" DM though, will reward excellent ROLEplaying, and enforce a game's design always, no exceptions.
What this means, is if the PC is a killing machine, but otherwise useless at anything else, then the player will need to accept that, and not try to duck out by replacing the PC's inadequacies, with the player's own intellect and personality.
Because that's a scam.

If every last modifier and perk and advantage counts in combat, then it also counts fully when trying to interact in a social setting.

 

[Maedhros]

Maedhros has touched on a very big sore point for me in rolegaming.

Guys often prefer to ROLLgame, and only ROLEgame, when they figure the stat in question sucks, and it's time to "ham it up" as a way of avoiding being forced to confront the slighted stat with dice usage, because that stat has nothing to do with combat, thus it was left as one of the lower numbers for being "less favoured".

If they have any "stats that suck" at all - most are ubermenschen with no flaws. I suppose this is the natural result of adversarial GM styles - if the world is out to kill you, it's necessary to be as tough as possible. I like character creation systems that assign stats from a pool of points, as opposes to randomly rolling stats. Not that I really mind the "random" thing, it's just that most supposedly random stat generation systems aren't (e.g. roll 6d6 for each stat, taking the top score for each). By assigning points, everyone gets to start on equal footing (avoiding "power jealousy" problems).

This genuinely pisses me off though.

Damn it all, if the stat matters it matters. You can't be devoted to stat accuracy one second, and then the next, "oh I would rather roleplay this action out" the next.

Sorry buddy, your uber PC that can cleave 3 opponents in a round, is dumber than the villiage idiot when he's required to actually put 5 words in a coherent string.
So, NO! you CAN'T roleplay out buying the groups gear. He's as dumb as a brick of jello, and couldn't add 2+2 to save his life, he has no idea what the signs say, laughs like a gibbering moron at inappropriate moments, picks his nose brazenly without realising he's gross, and in general is impossible to take seriously.
You are way to over qualitified intellectually, to properly roleplay your warrior out shopping, roll the dice, and we'll see what happens when you send bozo to pick up his buddy's repaired armour.

All of this assumes that there is more to the game world than periods of ultraviolence separated by stretches of maintenance activity....

I have also found, that most guys should some days roleplay naked from the waist down. No that's not a gay comment either. It would just make it easier for the guy with the biggest sword to prove it. "Get a load out of my +5 avenger .

I can assure you, after rolegaming WITH females at the table, I WON'T rolegame in a group WITHOUT females at the table.
Guys alone, are just to damn atypical
And that gets old sometime around age 25 (for me 20 years ago).

Female players are a luxury indeed. Women are much less prone to the need to act out "vicarious power fantasies" than are men. For some reason, many male players have an undying need to dominate the group, and must prove themselves more powerful than the other PCs over and over again. Of course, when you have a whole party of these type of powergamers, a feedback loop is established that makes the behavior even worse.

Women are great at defusing this kind of nonsense.

Alignment is just a manifestation of this problem.
Rolegames are 9 times out of 10 designed around combat as a means to an end.

No, in 9/10 cases combat IS the end

Actually resolving an action without combat, is actually the exception to the rule.

Combat in my world usually indicates that someone has screwed up. In rare cases fights are unavoidable.

Most experience award designs are barely able to cope with females and brains hehe.
But considering rolegaming grew out of table top wargaming oh well.

There was a paradigm shift through the 80s/90s away from the powergaming mentality into more roleplay-oriented gaming (LARP being the extreme). However, since hack/slash is easier, it will always have a larger core constituency than the more nuanced forms.

A "good" DM though, will reward excellent ROLEplaying, and enforce a game's design always, no exceptions.
What this means, is if the PC is a killing machine, but otherwise useless at anything else, then the player will need to accept that, and not try to duck out by replacing the PC's inadequacies, with the player's own intellect and personality.
Because that's a scam.

Well, this can be solved by having only three stats: Strength, Constitution, Dexterity [sarcasm mode OFF]

If every last modifier and perk and advantage counts in combat, then it also counts fully when trying to interact in a social setting.

The game should be about more than combat. If you want to play nothing but combat, then play something like "Gladiator".

 

[Dr Zaius]

You really can't blame D&D for having so many combat-oriented players as the system itself clearly has roots in that type of soil. The emphasis on deep roleplaying didn't happen until much later.

So it's fair to say that D&D didn't "corrupt" roleplaying with a combat-centric style of play, rather, it's generally credited for putting the genre on the map in the first place.

 

[Maedhros]

You really can't blame D&D for having so many combat-oriented players as the system itself clearly has roots in that type of soil. The emphasis on deep roleplaying didn't happen until much later.

So it's fair to say that D&D didn't "corrupt" roleplaying with a combat-centric style of play, rather, it's generally credited for putting the genre on the map in the first place.

You are correct, of course. My criticism of D&D is meant to be constructive (although maybe it doesn't come across that way). In many ways, D&D actually has a lot of meaty detail that is lacking in other games and which can be used to great effect. A perfect example is the spell lists - evocation vs. conjuration vs. transmutation, details on what components are needed and how they are to be used, etc. Not to mention the huge number of spells available. It is my experience, however, that most of this detail is never used:

* Only a small minority of the spells are ever actually used. First Level MU spells especially - Knock, Magic Missile, Sleep and a few others.
* All magic users are usually allowed to assume that they always have all the material components they need to cast their spells.
* The entire spellbook is usually assumed to be available to a character as s/he advances in level.

One can draw similar examples from other aspects of the system. Lots of interesting roleplay/adventure opportunities are lost by glossing over these details. So you need a protective pentagram to protect you from the spirit guarding the entrance to the lost temple, but the material component to the spell is a crushed 500gp gem? How are you going to get the gem? Maybe the local Vizier has one in his vaults. How do you get it, and afterward how do you escape the Vizier's wrath? Instead of just casting the pentagram, defeating the spirit, and entering the lost temple, now there is a whole "B" plot brewing with a whole pile of possibilities....

I think the reason that D&D is often singled out as a "bad example" is because that system seems to perpetuate stereotypical roleplaying habits - things like "marching orders," parties behaving like commando teams, min-maxing of stats, unreal accumulation of magic items, single-minded focus on character advancement, etc. If you look at the actions of a typical party, they are those of sociopaths - because that kind of behavior is rewarded by the system.

Transplanting a player from the D&D tradition into another game can be jarring for both player and GM. I had a D&D-playing friend join my campaign with a bard-like player. He kept trying to do things like "Okay - as the pirates attack, I'll play my mandolin and give all my friends +1 to hit." Sorry, but in the middle of an ambush by bloodthirsty pirates, nobody is going to be impressed by some dandy noodling on his lute. He would get very upset that I was restricting the effectiveness of his character. From my perspective, he was attempting to do something that is enshrined in D&D lore but in no way "realistic" for the actual situation at hand. My friend left my game in disgust, because my gameworld didn't work the way he wanted it to. Fair enough, I guess, but I think it was his ingrained habits that were the source of his dissatisfaction.

 

[Whizbang1963]

* Only a small minority of the spells are ever actually used. First Level MU spells especially - Knock, Magic Missile, Sleep and a few others.
* All magic users are usually allowed to assume that they always have all the material components they need to cast their spells.
* The entire spellbook is usually assumed to be available to a character as s/he advances in level.


I think that is just bad DMing in this case...It gives the character's something to do on their off gaming time. I make them give me a plan or explain how they have acquired the components, where they went to learn the spells and so on...I used to have a chart of costs and time required for a magic user to go and learn/acquire new spells and components.

definitely can't be automatic and can't be an all-knowing deal or it eliminates anything but hack and slash from the game...roleplaying can be as much about trying to get an audience with Elminster in Waterdeep to learn new spells as it is for killing hunnerds of orcs...

 

[Palantir]

A GM has 3 options in his world-
1. Mold / adjust his players to fit his style of world & "play."
2. Mold / adjust his world to fit the style of play of the players.
3. Only get players that fit his exact style of play (which could take forever to find).

Thats a fairly broad statement with many variances of course but it gets to the point.

If a GM only runs dungeon crawls (hack/slash) then the players who don't like that will leave.
If a GM who wants more RP'ing then the players who want only hack/slash will leave.

One of the problems with todays players is that they have been brought up on the instant gratification of computer games. Diablo/II is a perfect example-nothing but a killing spree with fast advancment & rewards. Fun sure, but it does not translate well over to a D&D type of gaming experience. Thus you get the "hack/slash, whens my next leave & +20 sword appearing and why am I not 50th lvl yet" mentality.

It takes time to get "create" a good younger player.

 

[Palantir]

Interesting stuff here:

it's that he wouldn't kill. So, saying that Pallafox "would rather seem [sic] them killed than save their lives" is not accurate.

Umm- you said it I didn't, which means he'd be thinking- "Gee I hope I can beat that troll sensless before he runs Mary through the heart with his sword from behind." I don't think to many "party" members would like to hear, "Mary was killed because I didn't subdue him, maybe I'll have better luck next time before you die Fred..."

When a party has already killed a thousand EVIL creatures no real "adventuring" party is going to allow member into their fold who won't kill to save their lives as they head deeper into the evil caverns and against more powerful opponents.

Translated to WW2: "gee Sgt I tried to beat that guy into submission before he shot Pvt Fred to death..." "No problem we know you tried, maybe next time you can shoot him." That would a real experience & no, the squad wouldn't let him hang around for another such attempt.

...like the whole notion of a cost/benefit analysis of resurrecting a companion being debated matter-of-factly by a group of said companions associates. Imagine that conversation in the real world...
"Gee, Mary just electrocuted herself trying to unjam the copier. Luckily, I found this magic potion that will bring her back to life!" ...she just started working here last week, ...Probably just a slacker - let her rot!"

Just a bad example all around for this discussion.

A better military (adventuring) description would be: "don't get to know or be close to the new guy, he'll probably be dead soon anyway."

Lets see: adventuring group together for yrs- new guy just joined & least trained etc - deep in evils lair & dies quickly- mission not accomplished - we have only 1 resurrect, need to succeed or die, do we raise a guy whose the weakest link or maybe we should save it for one of us." (If it was the non-killing guy no contest! :laugh: )

Now that sounds like a real RP situation not a "standard:" well he died raise him, we have hundreds of rez potions anyway- or we'll cart his body around till we get back to town, put him in a sack." It was a very good RP debate based on how each player saw his character's ethic's & how they fit into a "group."

Sigh...obsession with "treasure." How many good (not crappy) fantasy novels have characters that bicker about gold pieces? Not many - they have bigger concerns... For shame!

How many fantasy "novels" ever have a person buy anything, or covers anything but the short action "bigger concern" part of the characters story lives? Did they have a childhood, were they not struggling to get $$ (treasure) and food? And the more the better? What about after the "action" were they not struggling to get $$ and food to survive? (Only in the Star Trek universe was $$ or "things" not a big concern)

Most RP world action IS about the "bigger concern" part of a PC's lives. But after that or in between I guess they don't need $$ or food they just sit around & all is well... I don't know too many players who think a great 6 hr afternoon of RP'ing is being told "well done" & no there's no treasure, nor will there be any in my campaign. You guys just have to be happy with what you've done and a pat on the back. So you'll have to beg for food & lodging because treasure is so yesterday, that or next week I'll run a 9hr McDonald's adventure where you all WORK there 8-5 for 2 copper pieces each.

I'm assuming seriously that a big day in players lives in some campaigns is trying not to starve but enjoying adventurous begging for handouts. (Went out & saved the town from a Red Dragon, THANKS! But no, you can't have any of the millions of gold pieces or "treasure" you recovered for yourselves that wouldn't be good roleplaying. Don't ask me how you can afford a new horse or "better" armor, maybe go get a job sweeping the floor at the Inn.)

It does all come back to- what type of game are your players looking for & wanting to play in?

 

[Maedhros]

Interesting stuff here:
Umm- you said it I didn't, which means he'd be thinking- "Gee I hope I can beat that troll sensless before he runs Mary through the heart with his sword from behind." I don't think to many "party" members would like to hear, "Mary was killed because I didn't subdue him, maybe I'll have better luck next time before you die Fred..."

When a party has already killed a thousand EVIL creatures no real "adventuring" party is going to allow member into their fold who won't kill to save their lives as they head deeper into the evil caverns and against more powerful opponents.

Translated to WW2: "gee Sgt I tried to beat that guy into submission before he shot Pvt Fred to death..." "No problem we know you tried, maybe next time you can shoot him." That would a real experience & no, the squad wouldn't let him hang around for another such attempt.

Like I said: characters behaving like a squad of commandos. D&D really reinforces the idea that a party of characters is some kind of free-lance strike team. And in the D&D world, that sort of fits - but it's out of place anywhere else and finds precious few parallels in fantasy literature (remember: my model for adventures is to recreate the pacing/flavor of a good fantasy novel). In the case of Pallafox being killed, it was a metagame decision by the player (not the character) to kill Pallafox, because he represented a less-than-efficient cog in the kill things/take treasure/get powerful machine...

Lets see: adventuring group together for yrs- new guy just joined & least trained etc - deep in evils lair & dies quickly- mission not accomplished - we have only 1 resurrect, need to succeed or die, do we raise a guy whose the weakest link or maybe we should save it for one of us." (If it was the non-killing guy no contest! :laugh: )

The problem here is that Resurrection is being treated as a commodity. If you saw someone struck dead - even a stranger on the street - and you had in your possession the means to bring him back to life, you would. Except in the D&D world, because healing and resurrection are just (admittedly sometimes high-priced) commodities to be used as the owners see fit.

Now that sounds like a real RP situation not a "standard:" well he died raise him, we have hundreds of rez potions anyway- or we'll cart his body around till we get back to town, put him in a sack." It was a very good RP debate based on how each player saw his character's ethic's & how they fit into a "group."

It's actually sort of an artificial roleplaying situation - people arguing over application of a resurrection spell, when such a thing should be extraordinarily rare (if not impossible) and wondrous. Again, only in the D&D universe does this happen.

How many fantasy "novels" ever have a person buy anything, or covers anything but the short action "bigger concern" part of the characters story lives? Did they have a childhood, were they not struggling to get $$ (treasure) and food? And the more the better? What about after the "action" were they not struggling to get $$ and food to survive? (Only in the Star Trek universe was $$ or "things" not a big concern)

Much of the characters' mundane lives are not detailed in a novel...because it's mundane. Same for an RPG; much of the mundanity can be skipped if it isn't important to the story.

Most RP world action IS about the "bigger concern" part of a PC's lives. But after that or in between I guess they don't need $$ or food they just sit around & all is well... I don't know too many players who think a great 6 hr afternoon of RP'ing is being told "well done" & no there's no treasure, nor will there be any in my campaign. You guys just have to be happy with what you've done and a pat on the back. So you'll have to beg for food & lodging because treasure is so yesterday, that or next week I'll run a 9hr McDonald's adventure where you all WORK there 8-5 for 2 copper pieces each.

Apparently, you play with people who have only one motivation - treasure (and advancement, one would also presume). In general, my players care nothing for money. Their characters have objectives and they gauge their success by how they have advanced their plans (e.g. removing a curse, setting up a trading business, proving one's worth to his family, completing his mission, etc.). Money will come their way, and if they every get really low on it then discomfort will result, but its not their primary concern in most cases. The rewards for defeating an opponent come in different forms.

Did Frodo and Sam care about money? Did Aragorn? What about Rand Al'thor? Egwene? Any of them rooting about for gold pieces?

I'm assuming seriously that a big day in players lives in some campaigns is trying not to starve but enjoying adventurous begging for handouts. (Went out & saved the town from a Red Dragon, THANKS! But no, you can't have any of the millions of gold pieces or "treasure" you recovered for yourselves that wouldn't be good roleplaying. Don't ask me how you can afford a new horse or "better" armor, maybe go get a job sweeping the floor at the Inn.)

This is a bit disingenuous. You and I must have very different ideas of what constitutes "roleplaying". You're making a straw-man argument above.

It does all come back to- what type of game are your players looking for & wanting to play in?

Indeed.

 

[String]

I personally would do away with the alignment system in D&D completely, except that it's needed for some quite useful spells. When I (rarely in these days) DM, I keep tabs on players actions and the next time they are subject to an alignment based spell I'll decide what their alignment REALLY is.

Ofcourse Paladins and Clerics acting against their faith will feel reprecussions much sooner.

 

[Mowers]

I'll tell you a strange story, really strange.

Back in 1990 we were playing an AD&D game with about 6 friends and one guy started to get really annoying. It ended up with a fight on the deck of the a ship between the various characters. It resulted in this particular character being tied up whilst we decided what to do with this guy, it had got very heated and everyone needed a break but someone decided to kill him, needless to say all hell broke loose and to calm it down I suggested we take a break and roll to see if our magic weapons had special abilities. (I had just found it in the DMs hand book).

One by one we rolled for our characters, you needed 99 on a 100 for the weapon to have some sort of special ability. The guy whoes character was tied up rolled 00, ok so his +1 dagger had special abilities, roll again 00, so its got amazing abilities, roll again 00, it was a weapon that was infact a God or something. So needless to say this weapon is better than all our characters combined.

The arguement about the executing the character to the mast began again at this point, people threatened to walk out, and then he did. Anyway, just as we were about to bin the character sheet some one pointed out that the godlike weapon might object, sure enough we rolled for it and it managed to control all other characters via mind control and told them to release the guy tied up and to give him everything we owned and he flew away (there was nothing this weapon couldnt do)

He never played again and our gaming group pretty much came to end shortly after but that was one weird afternoon.

 

[Aries]

People are all unique, sometimes it's not as obvious though.

But generally speaking, some combinations just don't work. It's the same thing that can make you instantly fall in love with a person. Sometimes it takes only mere moments.

I've also known people that are great in all ways, but don't ask them to join for a night's rolegaming.

I've rolegamed with some people that were positively awful as DM's but make fine players. Occasionally some people are ok, but just don't expect them to play certain types of games.

My worst environment to date, has been modern to futuristic scifi. Some people just can't handle modern technology, regardless of their opinions to the contrary.

My own personal beef ... munchies.
If you bring munchies to the table, with intent to share, expect people then to accept and eat them.
If no one asked you to bring munchies, then don't get upset if no one else ever does, and just eats your offered munchies.
Because no one should be obligated to match you in munchies.

Smoking, is a subsection of the above beef. I don't give a **** if you DO smoke, for 4 hours you don't. Not at the table, and not every 15 minutes at the door. If you can't not smoke for 4 hours, seek help, or find something else to do.

Another subsection of the original beef, Drugs. Bringing drugs into my home is an automatic get the f**k out of my home, don't return either.

My worst experience running a game, is when a friend brought along a doper loser waste of skin drug user. He was told that individual was not welcome in my company again.

Sound rough? So what if it does.

Because I impose those limits though, I have had many years of no aggro rolegaming.

 

[Mordrig]

On the other hand, the weird folks tend to gravitate toward truly twisted adventures, characters of evil alignment, or characters that just display a variety of unethical or disreputable behaviors.

My friends and I are wargamers, so I don't totally disagree with the statement of the wargamers being in for the enjoyment of the game, but some of my best characters have been "Evil", from my rolemaster nightblade to my D&D LE Cavalier who had genocidal tendencies. Evil is not too bad as long as you have a good justification for the character to be evil and play the character according to their beliefs. As I have argued before Good and Evil are perspectives. To the English of 1800 Napoleon was Evil, but he is Good when compared to Hitler.
Mordrig (the nightblade) didn't see himself as evil, nor did he consider his god evil, his religion was not the one that hunted down other religions and slaughtered them, his was the hunted. In that game world 20 years before there had been a purge and his religion was chosen to die, it almost worked, but instead drove them all underground and made them stronger. Sure they did some things that were not nice, but genocide, and religious persecution were not among them. Mordrig is still plotting and scheming against those who keep him down and killed his parents. He is Evil, but can be successfully played if the GM is able to handle the challenge.
Deth (the cavalier), well he was insane. Had a totally irrational hatred of Gnomes and killed them as fast as he could find them. As his power grew so did his ability to find and kill them. His intelligent evil sword didn't help, and as he grew stronger (read higher levels) he attracted more evil things and found more evil items to use in his insane war on Gnomes. Eventually he was hunted down and killed by another group of "Good" PC.s.

 

[bpickering]

...Of course, when you have a whole party of these type of powergamers, a feedback loop is established that makes the behavior even worse.

Women are great at defusing this kind of nonsense.

Gotta be careful with that thinking. Mio, the Beastmaster in our RM campaign, was definitely a PowerGamer, not quite to the level of being a true Munchkin, but sometimes got close.

Didn't help that she was the Ref's sig. other/eventually spouse.

It takes all kinds, and not all of them are men.

BTW, was just looking around for some beer & pretzels stuff, and came (again) across the following! Definitive Power-Gaming!
The Munchkin's Guide to Power Gaming

Brian Pickering

 

[Psycho]

I was going to LA Tech and my friend from HS showed up a year later so we started playing Twilight 2000 again. My friend was in some frat and met this dude that was just out of basic training.

Dude wants to play and everything is ok for an hour or so. The characters are in a house clearing it of bad guys. New dude is by himself in one part of the house trying to off a straggler. Straggler's AK jams and this is what the new dude says (word for word, I will never forget it as long as I live-remember we have only known this guy for a few hours):

"OK I'm gonna pull out my f**kin knife, run in the f**kin room, scream my f**kin head off, stab the guy in his head 1000 f**kin times, and drink his f**kin blood!"

The language isn't a problem because we cuss like sailors but Holy Freakin Crap! Any comments? I have another story about him once I hear comments on this one.

 

[Mordrig]

Ummmm, I think I would have packed it in at that point, perhaps he needs help?