[QUOTE=lokij]
Which one, Beholders? Lurking Stranglers? Mimics? Gibbering Mouthers? Gibbering Orbs?
hangs his head in shame
[/QUOTE]
Don’t feel bad - my first guess was the Otyugh. I don’t even think they have eyes. :smack: Shows how long it’s been since I’ve played.
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
A couple years ago I was privileged to play at a convention with a guy who got some sort of RPGA Judge of the Year award before they stopped giving that out. This guy’s games are legendary–and for good reason. We all had an absolute blast. (His one published adventure, Of Sound Mind, is also my favorite module to run).
When I played, I watched him carefully for things I could take home with me. And the main lesson I learned from him can be summed up in one word:
Yes.
When a player tries something out, it’s the DM’s job to try to find a way to make it at least partially successful–or give it a chance of success. The more your DM says, “You can’t do that,” the less fun you’re going to have.
[/QUOTE]
I’m going to have to print this post out and show it to my GM. He’s really good at running adventures, but he’s also a teacher and football coach, and he tends to get stuck thinking of the GM as a referee keeping the players in line. There was one time, during a long-running campaign, where a wizard offered to sell us new magic weapons, as the ones we had were no longer powerful enough for our level. Everyone else in the party planned to sell their old weapons to get a better price, effectively meaning that they only had to pay the difference in cost between their old weapons and their new ones. My character’s sword was an heirloom of his royal family, of which he was the last surviving member. I didn’t want to get rid of it, so I asked if, instead of selling it and buying a new one, I could just have the enchantments already on it strengthened. The GM said no, but I could have an all new sword that did everything my old one did, plus whatever extra powers I could afford to have the wizard add to it. For exactly the same price I would have paid for improving my old sword. In terms of the game system, it would make absolutely no difference: I’d have a sword with exactly the same bonuses, for exactly the same amount of gold. It just couldn’t be the sword that was tied into my entire character’s background. An entirely arbitrary refusal, based simply on the fact that I wanted to roleplay how I got the sword differently than the way he’d envisioned it. And he wasn’t doing it to be a dick, he’s just got the mindset that the GM is there to limit the players, not enable them.
As for the OP, your friend is a loser. Don’t listen to what he says. All that matters is that the people at the table with you had a good time.
In the eighties, when I played D&D, there was a girl who played with us once. The adventurers were out somewhere, going from A to B, when she suddenly says: “I found a chest with gold!” And she’s very happy about it too.
The DM was a bit startled, said: “No, you didn’t.”
She’s happy as ever: “Yes I did!” And however the DM tried to convince her that she did not, she wouldn’t buy it, and she was totally honest and sincere.
Now, she was’nt cut out to play D&D, I tell you…
No, this girl is someone who is not cut out for role-playing.
To those who guessed: it is a gibbering mouther.
[QUOTE=KidScruffy]
Don’t feel bad - my first guess was the Otyugh. I don’t even think they have eyes. :smack: Shows how long it’s been since I’ve played.
[/QUOTE]
OTTOMH Otyughs have two eyes on the end of a long single tendril.
Back To The OP
There are bad dwarves. Wizards have all kinds of weird friends. Being undead doesn’t affect your ability to detect a bluff (unless we’re dealing with uninteligent undead.) Even if you do break with the description for a thing, it only matters if it’s something that the characters (not the players) would know.
I think a DM does need to limit players in some way. Munchkins must be restrained. One player shouldn’t take over the campaign and monopolize the DM. Characters do not have player knowledge. But players should be encouraged to find resourceful ways to things.
A friend was playing a cleric who had taken an extreme vow of poverty. The rest of the group was killed by a band of mercenaries. They were trying to figure out who the cleric was, and if he had anything of value. He held out his begging bowl and said “Alms for a poor leper?”. The mercenaries left.
[QUOTE=Ethilrist]
You use a game system or a campaign setting for two reasons: to give you a set of guidelines for stuff you don’t know how it works (like disarming traps, casting spells, balancing your checkbook…),
[/QUOTE]
If only D&D could teach me to balance the damn checkbook. Sigh.
I smite thee, checkbook register!
Damn. Rolled a 1.
[QUOTE=FilmGeek]
If only D&D could teach me to balance the damn checkbook. Sigh.
I smite thee, checkbook register!
Damn. Rolled a 1.
[/QUOTE]
You approach a bounced check fee of accountability. Roll Initiative… :smack:
[QUOTE=Miller]
No, this girl is someone who is not cut out for role-playing.
[/QUOTE]
Strangely enough, I played in a game with a character just like this, and it was a blast.
That is, the character was just like the girl in the purple shirt. It was a one-shot con game called “Underoo Avengers,” and the characters were all childhood stereotypes–the brainiac nerd (guess who got to play him!), the sports-jock (a British import who specialized in cricket), the bully, and the girl who loved unicorns. Everyone had commensurate powers, and among her powers were to create a Princess Bubble that protected her from anything icky, and to summon a herd of purple unicorns that stampeded the bad guys.
It was a fantastic con game.
Daniel
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
When I played, I watched him carefully for things I could take home with me. And the main lesson I learned from him can be summed up in one word:
Yes.
[/QUOTE]
And adding some varity to the NPCs. Like a halfling armed with a half-brick in a sock that had a Lesser Death Rune embroidered on it.
And figuring out how to deal with the fallout when someones favourite character becomes addicted to Black Lotus during a long boat voyage and, after his ‘friends’ decide to sell him all their stashes in exchange for his possessions, a (very) long series of willpower and effects rolls leaves his alter ego butt-naked, unarmed, broke, and with half-a-dozen insanities including an irrational terror of wheels. At the start of a 36-hour gaming session. That was a very fun weekend
All D&D plots should be enjoyable. Sensible is an option. The group I used to game with devised a pack of special “Plot cards” to liven things up.
On one occasion a party of characters were infiltrating a large castle in order to duke it out with some arch-nasty. They cleverly disguised themselves as castle underlings and hid all their armour, weapons and magic items in a laundry hamper. Cunning stuff. Thus enabled, they bypassed all the lesser guards and so on until they finally burst into the tyrant’s chamber and bid him prepare to meet his fate, and whipped off the lid of the laundry hamper…
Plot card bearing the word Setback hits the table
…to find that it contains… laundry. (And then we have a flashback to an earlier off-camera moment where there was a momentary traffic blockage as they went through the castle laundry, and they realize how the accidental substitution happened.)
Approximately ten minutes later, the scene continued. 
[QUOTE=Gangster Octopus]
We should invent a role playing game that is basically going to the office every day. Like you get personal ratings for things like Computer Efficiency, Meeting Deadlines, Accuracy, Orderliness, EXCEL Proficiency, PowerPoint Proficiency, Butt Kissing. Your battles are with Audits, IT, Vendors, etc.
[/QUOTE]
Look for John Morressey’s short story “Executives and Elevators.” 
[QUOTE=FrantzJ]
You see, my stories were all about the fun ideas that I had in my head. One story had the characters go into a spiraling tower with a wizard at the top that was way too powerful for the characters to combat. The only way to kill him was to use your bluff skill to convince the bodak to go upstairs and look at him, without letting him look at you.
[/QUOTE]
You want to really piss other DMs off?
Play the same scenario.
Remove the Bodak.
That’s the way it would go in my campaign - you can’t beat the wizard? You make friends, you boot it out of there before joining combat, you boot it out of there AFTER joining combat and pray like a mofo, or you start rolling up new characters.
My players love it.
A lot of other DMs hate it.
[QUOTE=Bobotheoptimist]
Don’t you mean “smuffed”?
[/QUOTE]
Stugged, I think.
[QUOTE=fluiddruid]
I have one player in my campaign whose character harbors major grudges because of being enslaved. He hates authority and will torture and destroy to do what he thinks is right and good. Yet, he is kind to children and the poor, and will stop to help anyone in need. What alignment is he?
[/QUOTE]
Chaotic Neutral.
As to the OP and the need for realism in the game, I’m reminded of the “Calvin and Hobbes” cartoon.
Calvin: Maybe Batman could just write a letter to the editor, or something.
Hobbes: Quick! To the Batfax!
[QUOTE=FrantzJ]
… But I got verbally castrated by my hardcore DnD friend for this one. Oh my God, why would a wizard have a Bodak as a friend!? And there’s no way you can bluff a bodak! I mean, they’re undead! Jesus! And why were the Dwarves smuffling precious metals - dwarves are upright and honorable!
I decided that I wasn’t cut out to be a real DnD player.
[/QUOTE]
Sure, you’re cut out to be a real DnD player (of genius). You just need a plan and a little help.
Ask your hardcore DnD friend to please GM a game for you, so that you can see how you should be doing things by the book.
Choose Pun Pun the Kobold to play as your character.
At the first time hardcore DnD friend objects, take the moral victory as you point out that Pun Pun is how you’re supposed to play DnD. By the book.
Then tell him to lighten up, and go get a beer or something. Because, dayum.
Your friend should have a look at the precurser D&D materials. the OLD ones with critters like “Kill Kittens” and “Zoomers.” The very heart of the game is and always has been “fun” not pedantic adherence to roolz. How realistic can you be when you’re looking for the legendary vines of the canteloupes of flame strike?
[QUOTE=RealityChuck]
Look for John Morressey’s short story “Executives and Elevators.”
[/QUOTE]
Thanks a lot. As a huge fan of John Morressey (damn shame about his death) I now have to go try and track down a copy of the January 1984 F&SF. I hope you’re happy.
Seriously, I realize more and more how much of his stuff I’ve never read. I guess I’ll spend some time online looking for all this old stuff.
Back on topic, I’ve never really played much D&D except for CRPGs. That said, some of my favorite modules made for NWN were the ones that gave a twist to what could be done with the ruleset.
[QUOTE=asterion]
CRPGs. That said, some of my favorite modules made for NWN were the ones that gave a twist to what could be done with the ruleset.
[/QUOTE]
I have yet to find a CRPG which allows for the following.
Player(playing a giant prayin mantis)- I distract the guard
DM-How?
Player-[waves arms and makes bizzare loud noises]
DM-The guard is distracted.
[QUOTE=FrantzJ]
Well, apparently the idea is that there is this DnD universe that I’m supposed to pay respect to. Apparently, having a wizard with a bodak as a pet would be like having Yoda live on Hoth, or something. It wouldn’t “make sense”.
'Cause, you know, having monsters that are amoeba-like blobs comprising of just mouths and eyes, which run around looking for other mouths and eyes to eat, really makes sense.
Admit it, you know what monster I just described.
[/QUOTE]
If you’re referring to gibbering mouthers, then they’re blood drinkers. There are a few other abberations that eat eyes, but none that eat mouths and eyes (unless you’re referring to a Defacer, which has more than eyes and mouths).
As for the pedantic player:
It is in fact unrealistic for a wizard to have a pet bodak, because neither bodaks nor wizards exist in reality. Given that, no claims about their relative realism can be made. It sounds as if this player is terminally unable to cope with the concept of creatures that don’t follow his preconcieved notions of them.
As mentioned, Pun-Pun is an excellent cure for this type of ‘thinker’.
Also, as a DM myself, I can say that by deliberately not limiting the players, you can get much more interesting campaigns. As has been said, it is always your responsibility to, when a player tries to do something, figure out how it can be done.
A side-effect of this is to give up entirely on plotting adventures in advance. I just make a list of the notable NPCs acting in a current time frame, and what their goals are.
It makes things very interesting when, for instance, the werewolf the party was hired to kill is given his own bounty as a down-payment on a mercenary contract to join the party and unleash lycanthropic hell on a nearby tribe of orcs.
You can also get some wonderfully amusing PC actions when the players know that they can do anything, and you can do anything to them. One BBEG expected a break-in by the heroes at one of his facilities, so he made sure to put an extensive collection of forged evidence claiming that the current PC quest-giver was responsible for all of the war and unpleasantness in recent campaign history, and to be very careful about the evidence because if the quest-giver knew it existed, he’d give up on his current subtle plans and go back to the wanton slaughter, which the BBEG was piously trying to avoid. All a load of bull, but the BBEG was demonstrating that BAB and Str modifier do not an effective villain make.
You can guess how the party reacted when they discovered this ‘plot twist’.