In reply to PsychoJester (msg # 5):

You're right, the #1 rule of any game is to have fun. But the thing you're forgetting is that not everyone has fun the way you have fun. For some people, the 15 chapter novel and the 100 psych questions ARE how they have fun. And even more accurately, they have fun playing the kind of game that requires a novel and a psych test, and they have fun playing with the kinds of players who also have fun with novels and psych tests.

But so long as a DM is up-front about what they want in an application, and you willingly fill one out, you can't really blame the DM for having a long application. If it's too much for you, don't apply.

And as for having a solid character concept, this is both a subjective thing, and a case where what you're seeing isn't what the GM is looking at. You've got a concept you really like and that you think will really work. But the GM has their own opinions on what's awesome and what's not, and has a whole game to look at and make decisions for.

So sometimes your character isn't as solid as you think it is, and sometimes other concepts just work better for reasons you might not know.


Although I can understand your frustration.

In reply to truemane (msg # 22):

And sometimes even the GM might think a character concept is great, but just doesn't work in his/her campaign.  I have a Spec Ops game, and have seen some otherwise awesome concepts, but ones that just wouldn't work in my campaign for more than one mission.

So even a negative response may not be a reflection on you, but might be a reflection on the way the game itself is set up.

In reply to pfarland (msg # 23):

Exactly. Also, another factor that comes up in my games all the time is party composition. Sometimes I have to reject a great concept because something else just fits the mix better.
This message was last edited by the user at 18:26, Sat 04 Oct 2014.

I don't do that so much.  I tend to let people play the mission specialty they want and just design missions to the group's overall specialties.  Mind you I never really use any preprinted missions, I do them all myself, so I have a lot more leeway there.  Plus it's a modern day type game so that gives me even more leeway.

So:

1: Do not do rtj's when sleepy.

2: Look for something that interests you.

3: Do not force character creation.

4: Do not talk things personal if rejected.
   I submit rtjs with the expectation of not getting in. That way acceptance is a pleasant surprised.

5: Proofread.

6: Have fun(the most important rule)

Pray to the dice gods.

No, pray to the time/algorithm gods (rngs are usually seeded with the current time).

I always write RTJs when Sleepy

**rimshot**

Well played.

1) Do not overload your charries abilities right off the bat
 - Sorry your newly discovered your a mutant strongman may not be able to lift that 100 ton train.  If you are in a school setting ..take it that you have to learn and grow.

2) When submitting an RTJ read what the GM wants and does not want.
 - If a GM says no 'psychics' or 'teleporters', then do not create one in hopes the GM will accept it.

3) When submitting an RTJ pick a power that is not too bizarre.
 - If your base of operations is in a desert don't make your character a merman or such.  If your a tech base talent...rather doubt you would have learned it from hermit monks who do not have electricity or indoor plumbing.  Trust me...the fact your charrie can figure out NASA level quadratic equations with reguards to how it applies to aliens species is of little use if your attacked by a junkyard dog (you will get bit).  My suggestion would be K.I.S.S. it, you'll be better off.

Awww, why does everyone hate the cool and interesting ideas? :)

It is not that we hate them(well me at least I love "cool and interesting" ideas), just make sure they are ok with the gm first. Though I have only seen 2 gms willing to take telekinetics, and one of em was very wary about it.

Yeah, but it is very rare to find a GM that has any clue that the rules aren't actually rules but rather just guidelines. Or even following the rules without going munchkin can be troubling to find acceptance for unusual ideas (of which I have often, hence my hatred of classes).

For example, it took me years to find a GM that would allow me to play an awakened tiger, despite using only rules in the core three books.

Any creature, whether a giant, bugbear or awakened tiger, with racial HD is a massive pain to worry about.

Why would that be? I haven't seen any reason to think so.

Because, at least in DnD 3.5, every HD is worth a level, technically. But a racial HD is not worth nearly as much as a level in a class. So there's all these rules about how at higher levels you can buy off those racial HD. And if you don't use those rules (which I don't), then at higher levels, that monster is actually going to suck compared to his companions. Which, even if the player is fine with that, makes my job harder in trying to provide encounters that challenges everyone in the party about equally.

Or yes, you can kind of return to a 3.0 way of handling monster HD, and figure out what that awakened tiger is really worth. But even then, there's an issue that at first they're good, maybe on the powerful side, over time they lose out, and being down however many levels by 15th level is more of a loss than the gains you get indicate, even though it was fine when you first started playing.

First, never played a game that lasted even 5 levels.

Second, I can easily take a weak character and defeat higher level characters. I use creativity, tactics, environment, etc to a much higher degree then most.

I have consistently played with munchkins and never even tried to munchkin characters, even had complaints about my characters weakness, and not once did I drag the party down. Usually, I was the one getting the munchkins out of trouble.

Thus I believe your argument is invalid, a theoretical issue rather then a practical one.

Munchkins tend to judge characters by the numbers rather then the character's actual success in play, which is a mistake.

If your character was more effective than the munchins' characters, that's a burden for the GM  to devise situations challenging enough for you all. I sure wouldn't want to be the GM of munchkins.

It's not theoretical. It's one I've seen, in practice. And yes, -you- may be able to do that. But most can't; and any prospective GM has to deal with what he knows - and unless he knows you, either personally or having GMed or played with you before online, he doesn't know you. He does know, however, that generally speaking, creatures with racial HD suck compared to creatures which can put everything in class levels.



Been the GM of munchkins. I don't actually think much of these 'munchkins' if their 'weak' character was more effective than their munchkin ones.
This message was last edited by the user at 13:21, Fri 10 Oct 2014.

What makes you think it oh so must be incredibly challenging?

I don't play this to play a minitures combat game, I play this as a roleplayer. I don't want grinds and endless combat. I want story. The encounters should therefore be plot points, not xp farms. Thus, no need for a lot of effort to make things awesomely challanging.

Granted that isn't everyone, but really, you shouldn't be making such assumptions about what the player needs or wants.

Besides, the difference between a good GM and a bad GM is the ability to adapt and adjust to the players, not just balancing them with the story, NPCs, and encounters, but also with each other. The ability to be a storyteller, to adapt the story to players choices makes a good GM great, but a bad GM just becomes slightly less bad.

Perhaps this dialogue should be takes elsewhere and that we return to the original.

Agreed, thank you. I think we can wrap this up as

"make sure the players and GM are on the same page about what they want out of the game."

That sounds like a good bit of advice.

In reply to Taurarius (msg # 43):

A good summary.  I would only add this by way of clarification...

As a GM, be aware that your 'common sense' idea could COMPLETELY elude your players...(A friend of mine ran a MSH game...X-Men oriented...he was so immersively versed in the Marvel Universe that he was incredibly frustrated that we--the players--couldn't figure out ways to beat villains that he thought were pretty standard.  Problem is, he'd been reading Marvel since he was old enough to read...most of the rest of us had only read about a year or two worth of X-Men comics, and that was only because he said he wanted to run an X-Men game and we all wanted at least SOME background knowledge...)  Also, be aware that the direction you want to take the game may not be the same direction the players intend to go with it.  At some point, either the game needs to go in those players' direction (or they'll get bored and leave), or the GM needs to assert that the game will be run his way (and run the risk of players 'jumping ship').  (I'm in a game right now with a very 'pulp fiction', early 20th Century sci-fi feel, even though it's set a few centuries in the future.  Several players keep trying to turn this run-and-gun, 'the heroes are always in apparent danger but never seem to get seriously hurt' game into a gritty, tactical, simulation game, right down to a guy suggesting armaments and using Palladium stats to describe the damage effects, and another guy citing options from a GURPS sourcebook.  And it's caused a lot of frustration on both sides...but the GM has yet to make a definitive, 'No, I'm not ever going to let this game go that way' statement (even though those of us who've been playing longer recognize the stance from the tone of his equivocation), and the players in question somehow figure that, maybe, even though the GM has said fifteen times already, "No, you can't build something like that with the resources available to your character," maybe if they ask ONE MORE TIME, he'll cave in and they can make the UBER-KILLER GUN that would hypothetically totally shift the balance of power in the game and win the war in five easy steps...

From the player's side, be aware that even though you may be comfortable and competent playing a specific character concept, that concept may not fit in with what the GM has in mind (like the Robotech game I'm in where the characters are all supposed to be front-line combat troops and Earth has only just barely developed robotechnology...but we had a whole series of people want to join the game as VERY experienced Veritech pilots that had an extensive background in robotech R&D.  In a different game, that concept works great...in this game?  If you're THAT good at design and engineering, they're going to have you BUILDING the planes, not flying them.)  If you want to suggest something exotic and unlikely, go ahead...but know that doing so increases the chances that a GM is going to say, "Nah...that really doesn't fit."  Not every GM is looking to build a menagerie of eccentric characters, no matter how cool the players of those characters could make them.  If you suggest something exotic, and the GM says no, don't take it personally.  You want to play a different game than the GM does, and it's best for both of you to get that clear from the start.  There are plenty of GMs who DO like really exotic character ideas...

Another good thing to remember is read some of the public threads. I recently informed a gm that if I had read some of the threads I would have submitted a different character to her game.