Lizardmen: Cold or Warmblooded? Also, how to gain their respect.

78 posts / 0 new
Last post
Ha, thanks! =) I've been a forum lurker for a while, but finally decided to start posting (which I might regret later on).

How does your view on realism differ? How would you have answered the question you posed to me?

Might be fun to start up a Classic Tales thread and get some ideas from the community. I'll let you know!



I'd change them from warm to cold-blooded to blue-blooded and back again if that's what I needed to do to help the PCs have a shot at a cool plan working.

As for realism, it's likely any in-depth commentary on my part will ignite a firestorm that will consume the world. Suffice it to say, "a wizard did it" sums up my views pretty succinctly.

No amount of tips, tricks, or gimmicks will ever be better than simply talking directly to your fellow players to resolve your issues.
DMs: Dungeon Master 101  |  Find Your GM Style  |  Structure First, Story Last  |  No Myth Roleplaying  |  5e Monster Index & Encounter Calculator
Players: Players 101  |  11 Ways to Be a Better Roleplayer  |  You Are Not Your Character  |  Pre-Gen D&D 5e PCs

Content I Created: Adventure Scenarios  |  Actual Play Reports  |  Tools

I'm Recruiting Players for a D&D 5e Game: Interested?  |  Follow me on Twitter: @is3rith

I'd change them from warm to cold-blooded to blue-blooded and back again if that's what I needed to do to help the PCs have a shot at a cool plan working.



And your players would be okay with this? Really, really not trying to start a flame war here. I just don't understand what the point is in trying to come up with cool plans if you know the entire world is mutable and will be altered to make your plan work, no matter what it is.

The example of the fighter is a telling one. What seems to happen is that mundane stuff that everyday people feel they have a good handle on get the "realism" treatment, and other things get a pass. This typically happens to the detriment of fighters, because everyone thinks they have a sense for what a mundane fighter is capable of. Spellcasters then get more of a free pass because their abilities are realistic "as established within the framework of the setting." So, it becomes "realistic" for a wizard to take out a room of enemies, and for a fighter to be limited to one or two at a time. Wizards get to be Gandalf, but fighters don't get to be Hercules.



I think I'm missing something here. The example said it would feel unrealisic for a level 1 fighter to take out a powerful dragon. I'm pretty sure a level 1 wizard couldn't do that either. 
And your players would be okay with this? Really, really not trying to start a flame war here. I just don't understand what the point is in trying to come up with cool plans if you know the entire world is mutable and will be altered to make your plan work, no matter what it is.



Your assumption implies dice aren't somehow involved in this transaction. As in a chance for their plan to work, should that plan rely upon a certain biology. For example, crimsyn's post above with regard to his petrified character.

I think I'm missing something here. The example said it would feel unrealisic for a level 1 fighter to take out a powerful dragon. I'm pretty sure a level 1 wizard couldn't do that either.


I think that's Centauri's comment so I'll leave it to him.

No amount of tips, tricks, or gimmicks will ever be better than simply talking directly to your fellow players to resolve your issues.
DMs: Dungeon Master 101  |  Find Your GM Style  |  Structure First, Story Last  |  No Myth Roleplaying  |  5e Monster Index & Encounter Calculator
Players: Players 101  |  11 Ways to Be a Better Roleplayer  |  You Are Not Your Character  |  Pre-Gen D&D 5e PCs

Content I Created: Adventure Scenarios  |  Actual Play Reports  |  Tools

I'm Recruiting Players for a D&D 5e Game: Interested?  |  Follow me on Twitter: @is3rith

Except that thinking through this potential issue created a cool idea. If he'd just not worried about it since after all it's a fantasy world and anything can happen, he wouldn't have thought it through. Having limits usually fosters creativity; absolute open-ended freedom often stifles it.

It's just as often the other way around.



If it's just as often, then what does it matter the choice?
I'd change them from warm to cold-blooded to blue-blooded and back again if that's what I needed to do to help the PCs have a shot at a cool plan working.

And your players would be okay with this? Really, really not trying to start a flame war here. I just don't understand what the point is in trying to come up with cool plans if you know the entire world is mutable and will be altered to make your plan work, no matter what it is.

That's taking it to an extreme that doesn't really tend to happen. I took iserith's example as humorously extreme, due to his use of the term "blue-blooded."

The "changes" under discussion here are to things that haven't been established yet, or that the DM has in mind (and maybe has even worked around) but either hasn't established in view of the players, or has but they missed it. So, if they suggest something that hinges on something that hasn't been established, or has been established but is minor enough to have been missed or forgotten, then if the DM "changes" it, the change is not apparent to the players, so there's no impression that the world has changed. And if the fact hasn't been established at all, then they are often grateful to be able to take part in creating the world they're playing in. And things they declare can be used against them later.

I think I'm missing something here. The example said it would feel unrealisic for a level 1 fighter to take out a powerful dragon. I'm pretty sure a level 1 wizard couldn't do that either.

No, first level is generally pretty safe. Traditionally, wizards only really got to be wizards until they'd cast a couple of spells, and at that point they were as mundane as the fighter. I'm just saying that "realism," even "in-game realism" is a trick road to walk, and still keep different classes balanced. But 4th Edition strayed from that road, and gave mundane classes options and restrictions that seemed "unrealistic," and the edition was punished for it.

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

And things they declare can be used against them later.



Oh yes, and this is one of my favorite aspects. "Remember when you said that..." Give players enough rope and they'll eventually hang themselves with it in interesting ways.

No amount of tips, tricks, or gimmicks will ever be better than simply talking directly to your fellow players to resolve your issues.
DMs: Dungeon Master 101  |  Find Your GM Style  |  Structure First, Story Last  |  No Myth Roleplaying  |  5e Monster Index & Encounter Calculator
Players: Players 101  |  11 Ways to Be a Better Roleplayer  |  You Are Not Your Character  |  Pre-Gen D&D 5e PCs

Content I Created: Adventure Scenarios  |  Actual Play Reports  |  Tools

I'm Recruiting Players for a D&D 5e Game: Interested?  |  Follow me on Twitter: @is3rith

The "changes" under discussion here are to things that haven't been established yet, or that the DM has in mind (and maybe has even worked around) but either hasn't established in view of the players, or has but they missed it. So, if they suggest something that hinges on something that hasn't been established, or has been established but is minor enough to have been missed or forgotten, then if the DM "changes" it, the change is not apparent to the players, so there's no impression that the world has changed.



That makes sense to me. Changing them from warm blooded to cool blooded and back again does not sound like this sort of change; it sounds like altering anything, whether previously established or not, at the drop of a hat. But maybe like you said, he didn't mean it literally.

I'm just saying that "realism," even "in-game realism" is a trick road to walk, and still keep different classes balanced. But 4th Edition strayed from that road, and gave mundane classes options and restrictions that seemed "unrealistic," and the edition was punished for it.



Okay, you lost me. Probably because I've only ever played fourth edition. I think you're saying that people who liked third edition think that by making the classes balanced, fourth edition became "unrealistic." I'm clearly not one of those people. What I would mean by "in-game realism" would be internal consistency. Certain things are different from the real world. That's fine, and expected. But other things work a lot like the real world; there has to be some of that or we couldn't relate to our characters well enough to play. If I say that something is unrealistic in a game, I mean that it sounds implausible and doesn't have a good explanation within the established framework for that game. Yes, in a world with magic you can always make up a reason for something, but if you're doing that constantly for stuff that's out of the blue, so that nothing is consistent or dependable, you're creating a situation where the characters can't make informed decisions. I guess if the campaign were set in the Elemental Chaos, that might be realistic. But...yeah, I think I've made my basic point and don't need to write an essay.
Yes, in a world with magic you can always make up a reason for something, but if you're doing that constantly for stuff that's out of the blue, so that nothing is consistent or dependable, you're creating a situation where the characters can't make informed decisions. I guess if the campaign were set in the Elemental Chaos, that might be realistic. But...yeah, I think I've made my basic point and don't need to write an essay.



You've made the basic point that you're practiced at making up the most extreme examples of things to cast a certain approach in a weird light, sure. But of course nobody actually plays that way.

No amount of tips, tricks, or gimmicks will ever be better than simply talking directly to your fellow players to resolve your issues.
DMs: Dungeon Master 101  |  Find Your GM Style  |  Structure First, Story Last  |  No Myth Roleplaying  |  5e Monster Index & Encounter Calculator
Players: Players 101  |  11 Ways to Be a Better Roleplayer  |  You Are Not Your Character  |  Pre-Gen D&D 5e PCs

Content I Created: Adventure Scenarios  |  Actual Play Reports  |  Tools

I'm Recruiting Players for a D&D 5e Game: Interested?  |  Follow me on Twitter: @is3rith

What I would mean by "in-game realism" would be internal consistency. Certain things are different from the real world. That's fine, and expected. But other things work a lot like the real world; there has to be some of that or we couldn't relate to our characters well enough to play. If I say that something is unrealistic in a game, I mean that it sounds implausible and doesn't have a good explanation within the established framework for that game.

Right, and so what's easy to have happen is that non-magical things or beings are simply not enabled to do amazing things, because being cool and balanced is not itself enough of an established framework. But magic, which by definition allows impossible-seeming things to happen, gets a pretty blank check. This has been a problem in past editions, and is very hard to rein in, but some people prefer it, over having to imagine ways in which rapidly firing a crossbow, or not getting able to repeatedly perform a powerful sword attack, fit an "established framework."

Yes, in a world with magic you can always make up a reason for something, but if you're doing that constantly for stuff that's out of the blue, so that nothing is consistent or dependable, you're creating a situation where the characters can't make informed decisions. I guess if the campaign were set in the Elemental Chaos, that might be realistic. But...yeah, I think I've made my basic point and don't need to write an essay.

I'll concede that there's potential for that in a game in which a DM can make up or allow anything. Most people find a level of "consistency" they're comfortable with, enabling a shorthand they can use to convey certain threats or certain ease to their players.

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

You've made the basic point that you're practiced at making up the most extreme examples of things to cast a certain approach in a weird light, sure. But of course nobody actually plays that way.



The first two RPG's I ever played in were exactly like that. Absolutely everything was determined in the heat of the moment, with previously established lore being referenced only long enough to handwave a reason why it didn't apply. These games were fun, once you learned how to roll with the chaos, but when I tried D&D a few years later I really appreciated having some structure.
The first two RPG's I ever played in were exactly like that. Absolutely everything was determined in the heat of the moment, with previously established lore being referenced only long enough to handwave a reason why it didn't apply. These games were fun, once you learned how to roll with the chaos, but when I tried D&D a few years later I really appreciated having some structure.



Which RPGs were those?

No amount of tips, tricks, or gimmicks will ever be better than simply talking directly to your fellow players to resolve your issues.
DMs: Dungeon Master 101  |  Find Your GM Style  |  Structure First, Story Last  |  No Myth Roleplaying  |  5e Monster Index & Encounter Calculator
Players: Players 101  |  11 Ways to Be a Better Roleplayer  |  You Are Not Your Character  |  Pre-Gen D&D 5e PCs

Content I Created: Adventure Scenarios  |  Actual Play Reports  |  Tools

I'm Recruiting Players for a D&D 5e Game: Interested?  |  Follow me on Twitter: @is3rith

Which RPGs were those?



No system, no dice. Totally freestyle storytelling, with a DM, theatre of the mind except when things got too complicated and we started drawing pictures.
Which RPGs were those?

No system, no dice. Totally freestyle storytelling, with a DM, theatre of the mind except when things got too complicated and we started drawing pictures.

I recently became aware that these are a thing. I don't think I'd enjoy them that much.

At the same time, all I'm insterested in doing is making sure that if I do have to block a player idea that it's for an overwhelmingly good reason. I frankly can't really ever be sure, so I will go pretty far to accommodate players, especially if I know them personally. I've had so much more fun playing games, even boardgames, since I became less of a stickler.

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

Yes, in a world with magic you can always make up a reason for something, but if you're doing that constantly for stuff that's out of the blue, so that nothing is consistent or dependable, you're creating a situation where the characters can't make informed decisions. I guess if the campaign were set in the Elemental Chaos, that might be realistic. But...yeah, I think I've made my basic point and don't need to write an essay.



You've made the basic point that you're practiced at making up the most extreme examples of things to cast a certain approach in a weird light, sure. But of course nobody actually plays that way.



He could say the same thing.


And again, what is so bad about the DM setting some parameters in the players world?  This player's sandbox is one way to play, but it is not the only way to play.
And again, what is so bad about the DM setting some parameters in the players world?  This player's sandbox is one way to play, but it is not the only way to play.

Often nothing. But when adherence to those parameters comes at the expense of player involvement and player creativity, there can be problems.

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

And again, what is so bad about the DM setting some parameters in the players world?  This player's sandbox is one way to play, but it is not the only way to play.

Often nothing. But when adherence to those parameters comes at the expense of player involvement and player creativity, there can be problems.



Agreed that it is a tightrope to be walked, but able to be done.  

  And luckily, this tightrope is just a game of D&D and so it's only a foot off of the ground.  If you (by you, I mean whoever is reading) fall off, it's no big deal to jump back up, learn the give-and-take that your particular players want, and resume play.


Perhaps many of the DMs on this board are in agreement more than they know that the players should be helping to form the world they play in.  A lot of the disagreements may only be by degree.  (Or style of game...some players are more passive than others/power gamers/watchers) 
And again, what is so bad about the DM setting some parameters in the players world?  This player's sandbox is one way to play, but it is not the only way to play.

Often nothing. But when adherence to those parameters comes at the expense of player involvement and player creativity, there can be problems.

Agreed that it is a tightrope to be walked, but able to be done.  

  And luckily, this tightrope is just a game of D&D and so it's only a foot off of the ground.  If you (by you, I mean whoever is reading) fall off, it's no big deal to jump back up, learn the give-and-take that your particular players want, and resume play.

I agree, except that I don't think there's a tightrope. I'm not sure what's in the balance in your analogy. I don't feel like there's much lost by erring on the side of the players' ideas. I feel like the bigger risk is in the DM deciding details.

Perhaps many of the DMs on this board are in agreement more than they know that the players should be helping to form the world they play in.  A lot of the disagreements may only be by degree.  (Or style of game...some players are more passive than others/power gamers/watchers)

We probably do agree more than we know, and would probably be surprised at how much we enjoyed at least some aspects of how each other runs the game. I continue to feel that erring on the side of the players is not as popular a view or considered as lofty a goal as scripting a story up-front, Tolkien style, so I tend to rather vocally promote a polarized view. I'm actually much softer on it in reality than I am in the abstract.

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

As regards winning the respect of the lizards, maybe their warm stones have been cooling off recently, and if the PCs can charge them back up somehow, the lizardmen will be grateful.

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

What I would mean by "in-game realism" would be internal consistency. Certain things are different from the real world. That's fine, and expected. But other things work a lot like the real world; there has to be some of that or we couldn't relate to our characters well enough to play. If I say that something is unrealistic in a game, I mean that it sounds implausible and doesn't have a good explanation within the established framework for that game.

Right, and so what's easy to have happen is that non-magical things or beings are simply not enabled to do amazing things, because being cool and balanced is not itself enough of an established framework. But magic, which by definition allows impossible-seeming things to happen, gets a pretty blank check. This has been a problem in past editions, and is very hard to rein in, but some people prefer it, over having to imagine ways in which rapidly firing a crossbow, or not getting able to repeatedly perform a powerful sword attack, fit an "established framework."

Yes, in a world with magic you can always make up a reason for something, but if you're doing that constantly for stuff that's out of the blue, so that nothing is consistent or dependable, you're creating a situation where the characters can't make informed decisions. I guess if the campaign were set in the Elemental Chaos, that might be realistic. But...yeah, I think I've made my basic point and don't need to write an essay.

I'll concede that there's potential for that in a game in which a DM can make up or allow anything. Most people find a level of "consistency" they're comfortable with, enabling a shorthand they can use to convey certain threats or certain ease to their players.



No, no magic doesn't. Yes, it can make impossible things happen. But even magic has "realistic" limits woven into the framework of the fiction or game rules to balance it. And in high magic settings, magic is so common, that it is practically as mundane as a fighter with a sword. To break those limits in the fiction and the game are just as bad as breaking the limits the fighter faces with his sword. Magic doesn't get a free pass when it's inherent to the world you play in.
My username should actually read: Lunar Savage (damn you WotC!) *Tips top hat, adjusts monocle, and walks away with cane* and yes, that IS Mr. Peanut laying unconscious on the curb. http://asylumjournals.tumblr.com/
And again, what is so bad about the DM setting some parameters in the players world?  This player's sandbox is one way to play, but it is not the only way to play.

Often nothing. But when adherence to those parameters comes at the expense of player involvement and player creativity, there can be problems.

Agreed that it is a tightrope to be walked, but able to be done.  

  And luckily, this tightrope is just a game of D&D and so it's only a foot off of the ground.  If you (by you, I mean whoever is reading) fall off, it's no big deal to jump back up, learn the give-and-take that your particular players want, and resume play.

I agree, except that I don't think there's a tightrope. I'm not sure what's in the balance in your analogy. I don't feel like there's much lost by erring on the side of the players' ideas. I feel like the bigger risk is in the DM deciding details.

Perhaps many of the DMs on this board are in agreement more than they know that the players should be helping to form the world they play in.  A lot of the disagreements may only be by degree.  (Or style of game...some players are more passive than others/power gamers/watchers)

We probably do agree more than we know, and would probably be surprised at how much we enjoyed at least some aspects of how each other runs the game. I continue to feel that erring on the side of the players is not as popular a view or considered as lofty a goal as scripting a story up-front, Tolkien style, so I tend to rather vocally promote a polarized view. I'm actually much softer on it in reality than I am in the abstract.



Ahh... walking a low tightrope analogy as such; the DM trying to balance over player expectations.  He may falter along the way to the goal but the stakes are low and easy to overcome.  The DMs journey along with the players will require some give and take on both fronts. But if they hit a snag, he can adjust (no harm,no foul) get back up (hopefully with the player's help ) and continue with the game.   

And I too am not as dogmatic as I seem on DM fiat.  I love a mixture of input and to whatever degree the game demands and the players expect, I try to adjust.
I recently became aware that these are a thing. I don't think I'd enjoy them that much.



Since they were my introduction to roleplaying, and the context in which I got to know some of my best friends in college, I remember them fondly. But I also remember that the most important skill was manipulating the GM. He tended to be fairly flexible in letting you do stuff you wanted to do, mostly using a "yes, but" approach. However, you could get him to forget the "but" part or give you things without realizing the consequences if you played it right. One useful technique was to create a situation so complex that he was struggling to keep track, then make a what sounded like an innocuous suggestion that would make things simpler. I became de facto ruler of a planet in this way.

But even magic has "realistic" limits woven into the framework of the fiction or game rules to balance it.



At least it should. 
I recently became aware that these are a thing. I don't think I'd enjoy them that much.



Since they were my introduction to roleplaying, and the context in which I got to know some of my best friends in college, I remember them fondly. But I also remember that the most important skill was manipulating the GM. He tended to be fairly flexible in letting you do stuff you wanted to do, mostly using a "yes, but" approach. However, you could get him to forget the "but" part or give you things without realizing the consequences if you played it right. One useful technique was to create a situation so complex that he was struggling to keep track, then make a what sounded like an innocuous suggestion that would make things simpler. I became de facto ruler of a planet in this way.

But even magic has "realistic" limits woven into the framework of the fiction or game rules to balance it.



At least it should. 



That's my thinking anyway. Hell, even if I deemed a world where magic could do literally anything like turning a fireball into a dragon, I would still deem the wizard incapable of doing so based on his skill level and the amount of energy required to make something like that happen. Just because it can happen with magic, would not necessarily mean that the caster can make it possible (for this specific world example).

I think not placing rules or limits on magic based on the idea of "it's magic, it can do anything" is a really bad approach to fantasy. Even Tolkien (who's works are often used as an example), had a mechanical approach to magic that had it's own limits and it couldn't be applied as a "solves all" to every situation. 
My username should actually read: Lunar Savage (damn you WotC!) *Tips top hat, adjusts monocle, and walks away with cane* and yes, that IS Mr. Peanut laying unconscious on the curb. http://asylumjournals.tumblr.com/
I wonder if you guys fundamentally misunderstand the point of the "A wizard did it" approach. It simply means you're playing in a fantasy world... if you're not happy with a particular explanation for something, make up something else. There are practically limitless explanations for anything, but only one reason something can't work in a fantasy world - because you say it can't.

No amount of tips, tricks, or gimmicks will ever be better than simply talking directly to your fellow players to resolve your issues.
DMs: Dungeon Master 101  |  Find Your GM Style  |  Structure First, Story Last  |  No Myth Roleplaying  |  5e Monster Index & Encounter Calculator
Players: Players 101  |  11 Ways to Be a Better Roleplayer  |  You Are Not Your Character  |  Pre-Gen D&D 5e PCs

Content I Created: Adventure Scenarios  |  Actual Play Reports  |  Tools

I'm Recruiting Players for a D&D 5e Game: Interested?  |  Follow me on Twitter: @is3rith

I wonder if you guys fundamentally misunderstand the point of the "A wizard did it" approach. It simply means you're playing in a fantasy world... if you're not happy with a particular explanation for something, make up something else. There are practically limitless explanations for anything, but only one reason something can't work in a fantasy world - because you say it can't.



You're also assuming we enjoy that meta approach.

I like building a world with rules and sticking to those rules. To break the rules/consistency of the world I create, even if I haven't stated these rules to the players to make them set in stone, is wrong. 
My username should actually read: Lunar Savage (damn you WotC!) *Tips top hat, adjusts monocle, and walks away with cane* and yes, that IS Mr. Peanut laying unconscious on the curb. http://asylumjournals.tumblr.com/
I wonder if you guys fundamentally misunderstand the point of the "A wizard did it" approach. It simply means you're playing in a fantasy world... if you're not happy with a particular explanation for something, make up something else. There are practically limitless explanations for anything, but only one reason something can't work in a fantasy world - because you say it can't.

Where "you" can also include the players.

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

Where "you" can also include the players.



True. And Lunar, even in a "world" with "rules," given that it's fantasy, anyone with an imagination can figure out how to circumvent those rules in a way that's consistent with your other rules. So it's really not worth having them in my opinion unless you like or need to be in the position of enforcing them for whatever reason.

No amount of tips, tricks, or gimmicks will ever be better than simply talking directly to your fellow players to resolve your issues.
DMs: Dungeon Master 101  |  Find Your GM Style  |  Structure First, Story Last  |  No Myth Roleplaying  |  5e Monster Index & Encounter Calculator
Players: Players 101  |  11 Ways to Be a Better Roleplayer  |  You Are Not Your Character  |  Pre-Gen D&D 5e PCs

Content I Created: Adventure Scenarios  |  Actual Play Reports  |  Tools

I'm Recruiting Players for a D&D 5e Game: Interested?  |  Follow me on Twitter: @is3rith

I don't see much need to worry about either issue myself. If the player comes up with something cool, I'll let em try it. But even with this mind set you have to know when to say no when someone's trying to push it too far.

Going with a system is fine, as long as everyone's having fun. Going with the flow is fine, as long as everyone's having fun. As long as we're all having fun, seems a silly thing to worry about to me...
I wonder if you guys fundamentally misunderstand the point of the "A wizard did it" approach. It simply means you're playing in a fantasy world... if you're not happy with a particular explanation for something, make up something else. There are practically limitless explanations for anything, but only one reason something can't work in a fantasy world - because you say it can't.



You're also assuming we enjoy that meta approach.

I like building a world with rules and sticking to those rules. To break the rules/consistency of the world I create, even if I haven't stated these rules to the players to make them set in stone, is wrong. 

But there is no meta approach here. Take for example the example the OP has for why his cold-blooded lizardfolk survive in an eternally dark cold dismal swamp: there are heat generating meteor fragments. That is effectively "a wizard did it" explenation that is absolutely internally and rule consistent. What we are saying is that in a Fantasy setting of your own imagination there is always an explenation of why something would work unless you don't want it to be so.

The whole idea that DMs like Iserith nilly-willy accept anything is a bit odd. The players should strife to come with a good explenation on why something works within the constraints of the story/setting, but doing so is hardly ever problematic.  Besides, in a shared campaign like this players really don't abuse their power to change the world without any consideration to the rules and world consistency ;)
    I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
    
    You can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizards.com/conduct
    
    Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
    
    If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Going with a system is fine, as long as everyone's having fun. Going with the flow is fine, as long as everyone's having fun. As long as we're all having fun, seems a silly thing to worry about to me...

The only people I'm actually interested in advising are the people who come here looking for help. They are not having fun, or at least not as much as they think they should be having. If the "system" they're using might be part of why they're not having fun (as I'm finding has been the case for me) then I'll offer alternatives, or things to tweak about their own system, that might increase their fun.

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

I'd change them from warm to cold-blooded to blue-blooded and back again if that's what I needed to do to help the PCs have a shot at a cool plan working.

For me, this is as much of an extreme (and just as undesirable) as the DM who has fashioned a storyline so inflexible that it is better for the players to simply ask the DM what he wants them to do.

I would like to be in an Iserith-DMed game at some point, because I suspect (hope) that his methods in practice are not as "whatever you want" as he seems to be presenting in the many threads.
Here are the PHB essentia, in my opinion:
  • Three Basic Rules (p 11)
  • Power Types and Usage (p 54)
  • Skills (p178-179)
  • Feats (p 192)
  • Rest and Recovery (p 263)
  • All of Chapter 9 [Combat] (p 264-295)
A player needs to read the sections for building his or her character -- race, class, powers, feats, equipment, etc. But those are PC-specific. The above list is for everyone, regardless of the race or class or build or concept they are playing.
Who's to say that all lizardmen are warm or cold blooded?  Could vary by location pretty easily.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
For me, this is as much of an extreme (and just as undesirable) as the DM who has fashioned a storyline so inflexible that it is better for the players to simply ask the DM what he wants them to do.



Humorously extreme, some might say.

I suspect (hope) that his methods in practice are not as "whatever you want" as he seems to be presenting in the many threads.



It's "whatever we all need it to be."

No amount of tips, tricks, or gimmicks will ever be better than simply talking directly to your fellow players to resolve your issues.
DMs: Dungeon Master 101  |  Find Your GM Style  |  Structure First, Story Last  |  No Myth Roleplaying  |  5e Monster Index & Encounter Calculator
Players: Players 101  |  11 Ways to Be a Better Roleplayer  |  You Are Not Your Character  |  Pre-Gen D&D 5e PCs

Content I Created: Adventure Scenarios  |  Actual Play Reports  |  Tools

I'm Recruiting Players for a D&D 5e Game: Interested?  |  Follow me on Twitter: @is3rith

Going with a system is fine, as long as everyone's having fun. Going with the flow is fine, as long as everyone's having fun. As long as we're all having fun, seems a silly thing to worry about to me...

The only people I'm actually interested in advising are the people who come here looking for help. They are not having fun, or at least not as much as they think they should be having. If the "system" they're using might be part of why they're not having fun (as I'm finding has been the case for me) then I'll offer alternatives, or things to tweak about their own system, that might increase their fun.



Comment was more meant to dull the useless arguing down.

Didn't work so well -_-

Course it's all been removed since...
In my world lizard-men work like my giants in that they are "soulless" so they are not part of the standard wheel of life cycle in the universe...so gods do not invest in them. Instead lizard-men worship dragons and the element they embody. This gives them no direct benefit other than spirituality in their lives...however, there is a fairly consistent division between cold-blooded lizard men that are overwhelmingly evil and their warm-blooded counter-parts that are generally non-evil.

So, basically, my warm-blooded lizard men are less overtly "reptilian"...they are less at the mercy of the elements and so have had a better outlook on existence which in turn has made them more open to interaction with other races. The cold-blooded lizard men are the opposite...still possessed of a very "reptilian" brain...aggressive, simple fight/flight oriented and vicious.

This also means that their environments tend to be different...warm-blooded lizard men have no problem living in colder climates helping survive there alongside humans and other races where trading and such becomes very important. They take life at a slower pace. On the flip-side, the cold-blooded lizard men tend to inhabit the jungles and deserts of my world and are as wicked as evil, intelligent raptors with a tribal culture.

So...basically...when in doubt...do both!

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

I like building a world with rules and sticking to those rules. To break the rules/consistency of the world I create, even if I haven't stated these rules to the players to make them set in stone, is wrong. 

I'm having a hard time getting my head around this perspective. Since this comment is 4 days old, starting a new thread.
Who's to say that all lizardmen are warm or cold blooded?  Could vary by location pretty easily.



It is fantasy, after all.
"The real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development." -Albert Einstein Resident Left Hand of Stalin and Banana Stand Grandstander Half of the Ambiguously Gay Duo House of Trolls, looking for a partner Wondering what happened to the Star Wars forums?
Show
Star Wars Minis has a home here http://www.bloomilk.com/ and Star Wars Saga Edition RPG has a home here http://thesagacontinues.createaforum.com/index.php
Show
141722973 wrote:
And it wasn't ****. It was subjectively concensual sex.
57036828 wrote:
Marketing and design are two different things. For instance the snuggy was designed for people in wheel chairs and marketed to people that are too incompetent to operate a blanket.
75239035 wrote:
I personally don't want him decapitated.
141722973 wrote:
And do not call me a Yank. I am a Québecois, basically your better.
And the greatest post moderation of all time...
58115148 wrote:
I gave that (Content Removed) a to-scale Lego replica. (Content Removed) love to-scale Lego replicas. (ORC_Cerberus: Edited - Vulgarity is against the Code of Conduct)
Sign In to post comments