Ecclesiastical Differences
I have stood upon the steps of the Temple of the One True Way. It is not a fun place to be.
The example from today’s comic hit one of my groups recently. I’d always played with multiple dice clattering merrily across the table. My buddy preferred to roll once and double the result. He also happened to be the GM in that game. While I’m sure that all you math nerds out there can explain exactly how the probability curve shifts when you choose one method or the other, I will happily explain the slope of my give-a-shit curve in turn. That’s because crits aren’t the point of today’s comic (though if anyone wants to get into an argument down in the comments I’ll happily grab my bucket of popcorn and watch). Instead, I’m interested in the limits of compromise.
There are a lot of different ways to play RPGs. Just take a quick slog through the Handbook of Heroes backlog to get a taste. You’ve got to choose system. You’ve got to make a policy on PVP. Will there be adult themes? Will you use critical fails? Do you generate stats randomly, or do you use some kind of point-buy system? We’ve all got opinions on these questions. If you’ve spent any time on gaming forums, you know that those opinions can get a little on the strong side. At the end of the day though, the only question that really matters is, “Am I having fun?” Speaking for myself, the crits thing irrationally sticks in my craw, but I’m not about to flip the table over the issue.
Question of the day then. Have you ever quit a game because of this stuff? I’m not asking for RPG horror stories with interpersonal drama, but “I can’t game with dudes who track individual XP” or “it’s not worth it if evil characters aren’t allowed.” Has there ever been a matters-of-taste deal breaker for you? What was it? Let’s hear it in the comments!
WANT THAT SWEET SWEET LOOT? Check out the The Handbook of Heroes Patreon. We’ve got a sketch feed full of Laurel’s original concept art. We’ve got early access to comics. There’s physical schwag, personalized art, and a monthly vote to see which class gets featured in the comic next. And perhaps my personal favorite, we’ve been hard at work bringing a monthly NSFW Handbook of Erotic Fantasy comic to the world! So come one come all. Hurry while supplies of hot elf chicks lasts!
Does the sign behind them say, “Has you had your cure wounds and lay on hands today”?
On the topic of the “one right way”, there was a phase of that, back during the early-middle stages of our gaming group, but that passed awhile ago. Now, we don’t have big arguments, as most rules differences are either sorted out by a) the rulebook, b) rule of funny or c) whoever seems like they have the funnest rule. Or the funniest rule
“Have you had your cure light wounds today?” It’s a very conscientious temple.
Real talk though? The rules are more like guidelines anyway. You can create different effects by using different techniques, but it’s almost always a tradeoff. That’s why “whatever is fun for you” is more than a throw-away piece of advice. The phrase “whatever is fun for you” is shorthand for “which of these options aligns most closely with your design preferences?”
In today’s example, rolling a bucket of dice gives you a good, meaty feeling of impact on those crits. It’s a bit more of a pain to count up though. So what Paladin and Cleric really have here is an argument about ease of play vs. the gambler’s thrill of big numbers landing on the table. They’re failing to articulate that, and unwilling to admit that there are any merits to the other way of doing things. Therein lies the communication breakdown.
Ironically “the gambler’s thrill of big numbers” actually results in less of a gamble here – rolling twice as many dice means the result will more likely be in the mid-point of the range and is less likely to be at the extremes.
On topic though, I think my favourite thing about 5e is the very explicit advice that all rules are guidelines, and should be freely changed if it is more fun for the players and the DM.
Gotta love that Rule Zero: https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Rule_Zero
We used to double one lot of dice on a critical, but now we roll twice as many. I claim that it’s because the rules say so, but really, it’s just the raw feeling of POWER when you hold a dozen dice in your hands
POWER you say? Forgive me a cruel chuckle.
I haven’t left a game because of that kind of stuff, but it felt like I should have.
I used to have this GM who really liked introducing homebrew rules to Pathfinder. It started off nicely, with a very reasonable feat tax system. Then as time went on, it became more and more questionable for me, with a crit system that kinda screwed over high crit multiplier weapons (I was using a scythe) and a rule forcing characters to spend ranks in Profession for some goddamn reason. Eventually he’d be putting in entire new systems in the game without asking the players. I did not like that.
I voiced my complaints a few times and was met with quite rude and condescending comments from the GM. That should have been enough of a “get out” warning, but it never felt like good enough reason to leave by itself.
But I should have known better – I ended up leaving for another reason, but it all leads back to the same problem. The GM was disrespectful and condescending since pretty much the beginning. I just didn’t see it, or didn’t want to.
tl;dr – Maybe differences in taste aren’t the biggest problem, but how you deal with it can be a deal breaker.
Well remember, this is a comic about compromise as much as taste. It’s possible to put up with design choices that you happen to disagree with. If you keep on having to put up with the other’s guy’s preferences, and if your opinion never seems to matter, then you have a very different problem on your hands. Sounds like departure was the right call for you.
Eh, I’m not really one to let little things like that get in the way of things for me. I’ve had people leave rp servers of mine because of things like that though. Memorably, one person left the server because I narrated their actions during an establishing post.
People get weird about their agency. I happen to appreciate a GM that will do a bit of exposition for the sake of brevity, but there’s a fine line in there. I think it was in an FLGS 5e game when I heard a dude say to the DM, “Don’t tell me what my character is feeling!” Dudes get jealous of their internal monologues. You’ll see it with fear effects especially.
“I would not start crying in terror!”
Heh, yeah. I’ve often had that problem come up, because of playing several Antipaladins, with their super fun Aura of Cowardice. Making a Paladin start panicking never gets old.
I know that Pathfinder rules dictate that on a critical hit you are supposed to roll the damage dice multiple times. But I came to Pathfinder from D&D 3.5 where you roll the damage dice once, and then multiply. I personally prefer the roll once and multiply, but I also recognize that it isn’t RAW.
But no, I have never quit a game over this shit. I rarely quit the game, infact I don’t recall ever actually quitting a game. If I am gming and having problems with half the players, I talk to them and if that doesn’t resolve it, then I draw the campaign to a close. If I am a player having a problem with other players (and am unable to resolve issues with them), I mostly just power through the campaign (and don’t play with them anymore). If I am having an issue with the gm (and am unable to resolve our differences), I power through the campaign, and when it is finally over I make sure he is never my GM again.
How many sessions do your campaigns tend to last?
Well 5 – 25 sessions is the norm for me, although the last campaign lasted roughly 50 sessions. I only game with any particular group once per week.
3.5, and as far as I know 3.0 were ‘roll extra dice’ style crit. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#criticalHits
Yeah… I had to look it up too. I think that some of this stuff gets so ingrained as a house rule that you don’t even think to question it. For example, I had to tell one of my groups that tie doesn’t go to the defender when you meet AC exactly.
Yeah, turns out I was wrong about the 3.0 & 3.5 crit thing, but whatever. Maybe I thought the way I did because of one of those articles that WotC put out on how to make combat rounds quicker by rolling the damage dice with the attack dice at the same time.
Anyways, I always houserule (I know it aint RAW), that I always favor the PCs when dealing with saves, AC, or skill checks.
There is no dishonor in belonging to Paladin’s sect. You weren’t wrong. You play by a house rule that you’ve enjoyed for years. Nothing wrong with that.
In 5E anyway, you’re supposed to roll twice as many. It makes the damage less swingy.
In 4E you rolled as normal, but also added a maximized die. So if you critted on a D10 weapon you rolled a D10 then added 10.
I don’t know aboot lesser editions/knockoffs.
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/05/08/if-youre-like-me-and-forget-how-damage-is-rolled-on-a-critical-hit-in-5e/
You kids today with your authoritative tweets. Back in my day we bitched and moaned on the forums like real gamers! 😛
Hey, there are plenty of corner-cases that don’t have definitive tweets, and JC won’t respond to my questions.
The trick is to use cute cat gifs 🙂
I have my players roll once, then add an assumed max dice value. So instead of critting and rolling 2d6, they roll 1d6+6. Same rules apply to smite and sneak attack and the like.
Makes crits a lot more terrifying, and a lot more interesting. Especially since the same rule applies to the monsters.
Have your players ever disputed the wisdom of this method?
I play in a game where we use that rule. It’s great!
No, but they do cry out in dismay and terror when I announce that the fighter is impaled on the purple worm’s tail stinger via crit. (He survived instant death by 2 HP)
While we may fight on rules some, no one has ever left the game because of it in my group
Right on. What were the differences of opinion?
One of the main ones is that the dm buff grappling and restrained a but to make it harder for casters to cast spells while effected by them, which has really annoyed one player. This one is mainly on the dm though because he has often forgotten about his own rule in this case which is a big prt of the players annoyance. Cant really think of any other significant annoyance now, but there were other minor rule fights as well.
That sounds like an older edition > 5e thing to me. Did the GM play older versions too?
We’ve all played pathfinder, and the gm has recently been playing in another groups 2nd edition game, though im pretty sure he started that after the rule problems started.
All three groups I’m in take a third option: crits do max damage on all relevant dice. It is… not that exciting, I’ll admit, and does slightly less than average damage compared to doubled dice (e.g. the average result of rolling 2d6 is 7). However, it has the advantages of being very, very fast, and completely eliminating the chance of low damage rolls on what’s supposed to be a superbly lucky hit.
Like I said elsewhere in the comments, it’s all about those tradeoffs.
Would you run it the same in your game?
I do – one of those games is mine – but I doubt I’d have considered it if I hadn’t already been used to it as a player. I and another DM followed the example of the DM who got our supergroup started, since he was the only one with prior experience and his house rules are generally solid enough to adopt.
Paladin doesn’t have his gem or halo. Did he fall due to his heretical critical rules?
It’s bad form to show off your aasimar heritage in a religious dispute. It gives the impression of “I’m right because of my bloodline,” and is generally considered poor form. In consequence, Paladin has suppressed the outward displays of his semi-divinity, which is a bit like tensing a muscle for an extended period of time. No wonder he’s cranky.
Would Cleric bring up the JC Tweet?
I actually planned an Aasimar Conquest Paladin as the villain for a campaign that never got off the ground. He was of the stance that “Literal manifest lawful goodness flows through my veins, therefore; if I do it, must be right.”
He wanted to bring the world under his heel so they can live under his “Enlightened rule” He also had a hate-boner for the wacky communist Dwarves he was born among for not recognizing his “innate superiority” and also for the more tradionalist Dwarves he moved in with after leaving the commie-Dwarves because they expected him to defer to the nobility despite his holy lineage.
I was actually curious aboot the exact wording so I looked it up. PHB 196:
“CRITICAL HITS:
When you score a critical hit, you get to roll extra dice for the attack’s damage against the target. Roll all of the attack’s damage dice twice and add them together. Then add any relevant modifiers as normal. To speed up play.You can roll all the damage dice alone. For example, if you score a critical hit with a dagger, roll 2d4 for the damage, rather than 1d4, and then add your relevant ability modifier. If the attack involves other damage dice, such as from the rogue’s Sneak Attack feature, you roll those dice twice as well.”
No ambiguity there. Paladin is just working from his faulty memory. Makes sense since Paladin’s spellcasting comes from “The strength of your convictions” as determined by Charisma. (Charisma measures 1. Confidence, 2. Eloquence, 3. Force of Personality, so 1 + 3 = the strength of your convictions.) Pal’s Charisma score means he’s harder to convince since he really believes he’s right.
Paladin belongs to the Order of the House Rule.
So he really is a heretic.
Pathfinder here. We take the roll once and double it approach. Rolling dice takes time and we’re a large group so making sure turns flow in a smooth and efficient manner is important. I’m generally fine with with most things along long as I know in advance so can plan accordingly; I hate having critical fumbles (especially when the GM decided to introduce them halfway through a fight after playing for over a year in sandbox campaign) but if we’re going to have them I’ll ensure my character makes as few attack rolls as possible.
I declined play in a campaign that was core rules only.
What is it about Core Only that’s such a turnoff?
Quite frankly, it’s boring. I’ve been playing D&D in some form for over 20 years now, and I’ve played all of the core classes, most of them to death. I enjoy the newer, unfamiliar mechanics of the non-core classes because they’re things I haven’t seen before. One of the first questions I ask myself when I build a new character is “what haven’t I played yet?”
Also, most people playing core-only try to justify it by saying “it’s more balanced than all those stupid splat-book classes” and that is simply, objectively, wrong. In 3.5 the Player’s Handbook classes had the worst balance, with some of the strongest classes (wizard, druid, cleric, etc) coupled with some of the weakest (fighter, monk, rogue, etc). Class balance only improved as the splatbooks came out, with the later books (Tome of Battle, Dungeonscape, Player’s Handbook 2) having some of the best-balanced classes. Pathfinder improved core balance a bit, but enough to really matter. If the DM’s understanding of D&D is that poor, I think it’s best to avoid that dumpster fire of a game.
I think that the appeal (at least for a new GM) is that there’s simply less new information to deal with.
A buddy of mine wanted to run Rise of the Runelords as her first Pathfinder game, and it was surprisingly hard for me to restrict myself to core-only. I kept asking to bring in additional material, and she kept having to say, “Dude, no. I’m just trying to learn this beast!” Perfectly reasonable on her part, but I couldn’t believe how tough that was to accept as a long-time player. Certainly not a deal-breaker for me, but I think complex systems tend to scratch that expressive itch, where the player can draw upon this vast array of options to produce that personalized character they want. I guess that for some people, that really is the primary draw.
I can understand “Core only” for a newbie DM, and also a DM restricting books based upon what they own. But most of the online core-only games I’ve seen have used the “game balance” justification, which is laughable at best.
One idea I’ve been interested in, but never seen, is restricting at the service of campaign theme. Something like “Core Only + Occult Adventures” or “Core Only + Horror Adventures.” Maybe you throw in a few extra titles to add spice, but I bet it could create a new metagame similar to MtG Type II tournaments vs. extended.
bahamut920 covers much of it. I like being able finely craft a character concept that I have in mind rather than crudely cobbling something together. But in truth it was probably more the way the GM went about arranging the core only campaign that (intentionally or not) gave the impression that he was going out of his way to specifically put me off so he could bring in his GF; he also gave the (pretentious imo) reason that he ‘wanted people to focus on role playing characters not the mechanics of the characters’ because those things are mutually exclusive and enjoying the mechanical aspects of the game is wrong fun. In retrospect I think he was trying to rescue a dying relationship by bringing his GF into his hobby. I did go on to join the campaign after any pretence of it being ‘core only’ went out the window; I came in as a witch and some of the other players changed classes.
Well yeah, that’s great and all about your witch, but what happened to bad-wrong-GM and his unhappy girlfriend? I need closure on this anecdote!
After 7/8 years together they finally broke up. He’s now with one of the other players of our Pathfinder group. The ex gf found a new boyfriend with whom she plays in a 5e group.
I haven’t quit a game over such differences of opinion, but sometimes seemingly minor house rules and the like have greatly affected my character build or play style. For example, a DM instituting fumble tables is functionally a soft ban on any class build relying on attack rolls for me. If you institute fumble tables, I’m playing a spellcaster so that I don’t have to deal with that BS.
Fortunately neither of my regular gaming groups are core only, because that is a deal-breaker for me.
I’d like fumble tables a lot more if they didn’t contribute towards caster/martial disparity. I don’t know that I’ve seen a fumble system that addresses that problem in d20 system.
But you can easily make that Equal, at least with the Fumbles. The Spellcaster just rolls a D20 to every Spell he Casts, even if the Spell doesn’t require it. If he Fumbles the Spell fails epically. Whoops i just fumbled my Fireball Spell. BOOM. Just Fumbled his Plane Shift Spell “Uhh Guys, i think i might have just made a Mistake.” Rest of the Party already fighting of a Demon Attack “YA THINK?”
Oh that would me Hilarious. Note to Self: Make a Fumble Table for Casters, for the my next D&D Game.
Well yeah. That is of course the first idea, and it does address (some) of the problem. High level fighters are still rolling many times more dice than casters, but at least now it’s possible to blow yourself up with a fireball. The downside is that you’re now adding an extra step to the game, which is necessarily a trade-off in elegance and ease of play. You picks your poison and you makes your choice. 🙁
In my experience with all kinds of rules and systems and life itself i mast say, any kind of rules system has the same defect, they are rules Systems. You don’t need to be a rules lawyer to twitch the rules to your advantage, and in that way make the system work for you. So if you are smart enought and has the skill, why will you quit the game?
For me, the problem comes in when a GM wants to make a rules change but you disagree with its wisdom.
My point stand anyway, a little creativity and the problem is gone. Even if the GM insist in his rules changes, a fine player can find a way to get away with his intentions and make the GM mad about that.
Funny Idea: A character who multiclasses into Cleric, Paladin, and Warlock, each one serving a different god. The potential is there… As for the question of crits, typically the groups I’m in add additional dice.
There’s a fun Pathfinder build called the “Oradin” I always wanted to try:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?257365-PF-Oradin-Mini-Guide-Or-How-to-be-a-Healbot-minus-the-bot
The mechanics are interesting, but the appeal to me was always the concept of a multi-god character. Having deities fighting over whether a character ought to be a peace-and-love healer or a smite-the-wicked holy avenger sounds hilarious to me.
What does the door say?
I think it says something along the lines of “Have you had your Lay on Hands Today?”
Speaking of hands, why are the tips of Pal’s fingers discolored?
“Have you had your cure light wounds today?” It’s a very conscientious temple.
Well I’ve never quit a game over rulings, but I’ve certainly avoided signing up for games in the first place because of them.
Like “Core Only” or “roll straight down” or other such things I don’t want to play.
It can go the other way too, like when a GM just approves any and all homebrew or third party material without a care to even check if the material isn’t so imbalanced one end of the scales has punctured the ceiling.
Oh now you’ve gotta dish! What bad homebrew was it that took a dump on your gaming table?
On the one hand, I’d love to be able to give you a specific example.
On the other hand I’m quite thankful to not remember all the horrible examples of homebrew stuff I’ve seen. I’m sure if you’ve browsed around homebrew sections of forums or gaming sites you’re familiar with brand of homebrew that I like to describe as “Maker failed to balance this because maker probably has never heard the word.” Not talking about the kind of thing that’s just not super great. But those things where one look at them leaves you shocked with the absurdity. And the terrible grammar often as not as well.
I might know what you’re talking about:
https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Threat_(3.5e_Class)
Since you practically invited the math nerds, I’ll answer your call. Sorry, math tutor, just can’t resist. Slightly simplified, but should be accurate.
Rolling once, then doubling preserves a linear distribution, that is every number is equally likely to occur (except of course all possible results are even numbers, but on a d6 x2 the 2 , 6, 12 all have the same probability of 1/6 = 16.67%). This becomes slightly more difficult if you’ve got a weapon with 2d6 as damage, but even then the damage profile remains the same, just all figures doubled.
Rolling two dice results in a binomial distribution, where the middle results are more likely than the outliers. An example, with 2d6: Since there is only one way for two dice to add up to two or twelve (two 1’s and two 6’s respectively, each with a probability of 1/6 * 1/6 = 1/36 = 2.78%) but more ways for them to add up to seven (1+6, 2+5, 3+4, 4+3, 5+2, 6+1, a combined probability of 6/36 = 1/6 = 16.67%), the chance for one of the six combinations for seven ocurring is six times the chance for the one combination of two ocurring. Again, if your normal weapon already does 2d6 damage, 4d6 concentrates that further towards an average of 14 damage.
So to sum it up: Rolling and then doubling has the more extreme results happening more often than rolling twice, so you’re both more likely to have that one devastating max damage crit and more likely to have the critical disappointment. Rolling twice gives a bit more reliable damage, doubling gives the greater variation, both have the same average damage.
Now I’m interested in your give-a-shit-curve. Is it a broken rational function? Something of the form 0/x where x = the length of my rambling? (Hint: it’s at zero the entire time)
To answer your question, I haven’t really had all that much play experience, but IIRC we rolled twice, and that’s certainly my preference. I feel like crits should reliably do more damage. It was bad enough that my GM had critical fumbles (which, while not the reason I’m not with the group anymore, certainly contributed to my lack of enthusiasm to return to it) that for some godforsaken reason I was on the receiving end of for three times in two sessions, I’d also rolled low damage often enough that if my crits didn’t at least deal moderate damage somewhat reliably I’d probably have found some PnP equivalent of throwing one’s controller against the wall after a frustrating loss in some FPS.
So, no, I haven’t quit a group, but I’ve only ever really had one where I wasn’t the DM, so my sample size is severely skewed.
Mr. Powers? If you would?
https://genuinely.co/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/oh-no-ive-gone-cross-eyed.jpg
For serious though, this is one of those instances where it’s easier to intuit the curve than actually play with the numbers. I’m in the reliable damage camp myself.
Interestingly, the one time I did bother to get out my trusty back-of-the-envelope it was in service of your crit fail example. I don’t suppose you were a monk?
https://www.handbookofheroes.com/archives/comic/fearsome-foe
No, I was a level one fighter charging in head first and coming out feet first. Our monk had no such problems at the time, but I left before we got into a range where botched extra attacks became a problem. Our DM just thought it was hilarious, and since it wasn’t problematic yet I didn’t bother trying to use maths to slap sense into him, but I prepared some other characters who weren’t as threatened by the BBB, just in case the slapping failed.
Also, why is the term even “back of the envelope”? I mean, I’ve done quick estimates on the back of actual envelopes, but your numbers there look like you’d need an amazingly large envelope just to calculate one of them, leave alone the entire calculation. Unless of course you’re one of the few savants who are somehow able to compute figures where the count of digits itself already has two digits in their heads.
They said it would be a waste of build points back at character gen, but look at me mathing it up now!
Having said above that I prefer rolling twice as many dice because it’s more reliable clearly caused some minor God of fate to laugh at me.
The only crit rolled in our pathfinder game last night was by our party rogue. We double the number of dice, so the attack was 2 x d6 for the weapon plus 2 x d6 for the sneak attack, and he rolled 4 1’s! A 1 in 1,296 roll to truly ruin a crit. At least we double the modifier too…
I’m pretty sure that the RPG gods read this comic. And insofar as that’s the case, they are good and noble fate-controlling beings who are also quite handsome and I would like to crit more often please.
I have seen it work many different ways, but I think the most expedient and rewarding (as a player, I mean) is the simple “max damage on every relevant damage die” that one of the DMs I play with uses. I have done some insane damage on my Hengeyokai Primeval Warshaper in one game (some absurd value like 250 or something like it. I was a very strong boy that time around).
On the other hand, as a person that insists on rolling some characters completely (rolling for race (height and weight), attributes, and if I’m feeling really daring, class), I really appreciate a DM that has us roll all the damage die and leave it up to chance what happens.
As for the question at hand, I think I’ve never really left a game because of issues with the other players, but I have been kicked out of a group (and subtly, which is the worst way) because one person could not handle a character being racist towards Chromatic Dragons (that person also hated the “this race as a whole leans towards or is straight up a certain alignment” mechanic in PF and D&D). It was slightly reasonable though: my character kinda became flanderized that game due to a slip-of-the-tongue that gave the table pause before breaking into a laughter of the “that’s terrible, but amazingly in character for you” (the racial slur in question was calling a Chromatic Dragon a “colored dragon”).
Some people really aren’t ready for characters of certain kinds at the table. I think it’s best to discuss this at Session Zero, because if you’re trying to run a realistic game, there will be sin and intolerance as well as virtue and acceptance. Expecting less of one side can be a dealbreaker for some people.
(I think I’ve told this story before, now that I think about it.)
You have indeed:
https://www.handbookofheroes.com/archives/comic/fantasy-racism
Seems more relevant to yesterday’s comic that today’s though. Anywho, I thought that group simply split rather than booted you?
There was a weird split/boot action going on. The new players split into a “mercenary training” group, and the other group was the “experienced mercenaries” group. The dragon-rider joined the former, and I was eventually pushed out of the latter.
Anyway, I figured it was tangentially relevant: I don’t leave because I just try to find ways to be cool with the others, but I have been “that guy” that prompted some pushing out. I guess I’m reaching in that regard.
Good Gods, there is nothing i hate as much as Arguing about Rules. Especially if it grinds the Game to a freaking halt. I. Can. Not. Stand. That.
In my Groups we actually have the House Rule that Stuff like this will be discussed after the Game is over. During the Game the DM just adhoc temporary overrules in a way he deems fair. After the feel free to discuss it at length. If you two STILL can’t compromise. Both of you throw a D20 Higher Wins. Done!
Do you tolerate any rules disputes? I mean, if the GM obviously missed a trick and you’ve got the relevant rule right in front of you, do you do a quick “um actually” and move on, or do you do EVERYTHING after the session?
Seems like a decent way to handle it to me. We had a similar situation in a game the other day, we (the players) thought that standing up from prone provokes an attack of opportunity, the DM thought it didn’t. He gave the player who questioned it 20 seconds to look up the rule or he’d roll for a quick decision. In the end we rolled for it and didn’t get our AoO. Had we looked it up we would have got the opposite result, but I think he made the right call to keep the combat moving instead of pausing to browse the rulebook.
Well i often DM myself. If you know a Rule exactly, and you hand me the Book with the right Page open. Alright, no Problem, i make Errors that happens. But i can’t stand anything that Stops the flow of the Game. To me that endless arguing just destroys that feeling of Immersion. I want Roleplay Not Roll Play!
To be honest i am a bit Allergic to that since i had a Munchkin in my Group who would argue about the tiniest Minutae for hours! Gaaaaaah! I am really happy i don’t have to play with that guy anymore.
If it happens outside Combat it isn’t much of a Problem, i just Focus on the other Players, while the player in Question cracks a Book open.
Since we put that House Rule in the Games have been flowing much more smoothly, i can only recommand it.
I’ll admit this one is a funny story. But I once opted out of a campaign when the DM said “no half-elves or half-orc”. Which normally would be fine with me, othing wrong with vanilla humans, j had a build I wanted to try and I was going to be human. But what was a deal breaker was when he said that “he doesn’t believe it should br possible for races to mix” which just came off as really really uncomfortable to me. I didn’t know the guy to figure out if he was joking or had some crazy beliefs, so I made my excuses and left.
I mean, I guess if he’s coming from a “literal different species” kind of worldbuilding place, that could make some sense. Without the necessary context though… Yeesh. Might have dodged a bullet on that one.
Tangentially related, but if I were to remake the lore, I would make Gnomes be a crossbreed of Elves and Dwarves that achieved a sustainable breeding population and became known as a distinct race since there’s so much overlap with what Gnomes are (owing to the fact that in most myths gnomes/dwarves/elves are the same thing) and writers have always struggled to give them a unique identity.
We take a third option!
If we roll a crit, we look at the normal damage profile, take the maximum, then roll as normal.
So:
If I attack with an ignited flametongue longsword, I normally would roll 1d8 + 2d6 + mod.
If I crit, I instead take 8 + 12 + mod, then roll the 1d8 and 2d6 as normal.
This way a crit: guarantees at least half the possible damage,
allows you to shoot for the moon with your damage,
and avoids the pitfalls of rolling twice as many ones or just rolling normal ones and doubling them.
I played with a GM who rolled once and doubled the result on crits. They also didn’t allow flanking, sleeping in armour gave penalties as per the variant rules and cursed items couldn’t be detected.
Last, but not at all least, they introduced a fumble table as well as a catastrophic result table for when someone got KOd before the game. As if the poor martial classes were not gimped enough, having to watch the casters dominate every situation outside of combat.
So I bowed out.
Never walked away from a game because of rule dispute. Walked away for another reason, like everyone being a dick, or GM giving boring adventures.
We do argue rules often in our group, but the most heated holywars are happening not about tabletop RPGs, but about tabletop games like Mafia.
Mafia? MAFIA!? The one true social deduction game is Werewolf. Get out of my table and never come back! 😛
First, I’m going to praise you for naming this game. Then, hit you right between the eyes. Because it’s a good game, but not the only one. Spyfall, Deception, Secret Hitler… There are a lot of good deduction games. Naming only one to be superior is a sin.
Not on PnPRPGs, but it happened once on boardgames, where i told him to stop playing that time because it was giving me migraines, as was not possible to reason with him and what he wanted to do was physically impossible to do so even he couldn’t do it like he said, which would bring lots of issues and discussions later.