Forums of the Megaverse®

Wait so we arent supposed to play crazies like that?

Wow that's worse than Lao Tsu. At least the Tao Te Ching has a point.

Okay, so because a modern military doesn't use any giant robots, for instance, veterans don't know about the military?
Hmmm...
Did you know Hannibal's tactics were used during Desert Storm, and he didn't have Apache helicopters nor M-1 tanks?
A lot of things just don't change.

That very tendency is the red flag to which I refer. The above poster has not only indirectly claimed a period of military service necessarily imparts knowledge of world military history, but because all militaries (including historical and fictitious ones) are part of "the military" this knowledge is universally applicable, as if veterans hold some sort of absolute monopoly on the notions of tactics and strategy. It is this form of special pleading that I find a warning sign at the gaming table.

So how were you rubbed the wrong way by someone in law enforcement?

Who's pleading?
I'm stating facts.

Only the vaguest skeleton of his strategy (not tactics) was used.
A *LOT* of things change. And rapidly
The doctrine for how to conduct urban combat has evolved, several times over the last 50 years and will continue to do so.
As the simplest example possible... virtually all current military doctrines will be basically obsolete in Rifts due to the fact that weaponry does NOT scale to size, nor is there precision heavy damage artillery (other than pricy missiles which have ammunition supplies issues as well)
When the arm of decision is often *infantry* instead of armor and artillery to the point that most armor units are basically specialist forces instead of main line combat units? Or that mobility is NOT a trade off between speed/firepower/armor/sensors/stealth? Or that ranges for military weapons are basically knife fights....even the battleships?
Yeah modern tactical/operational/strategic thinking will have to be redone, heavily.
Add in the radical changes in logistics and the decentralized supply lines and its going to be a paradigm shift greater than the current evolution over changing from "mass combat vs major armies in huge field actions" to "anti-insurgency actions and special forces"

SOME things from a military experience will be of use, but honestly? The biggest thing I found that my soldier/players used was the idea of teamwork and the idea of planning ahead, scouting for intelligence, and making a contingency plan first.

Obviously it was cuz some guy pulled him over wearing a Fez

That does happen from time to time.

Vrykolas2k, special pleading is the name for a type of logical fallacy. It has been my personal experience that LEO and veterans at my gaming table have been prone to discussing at length and attempting to apply their work history, to the detriment of the group's enjoyment. It is my claim that these people whom I have encountered feel the perceived utility of specialized knowledge gives them an exception to not engaging in rude behavior. That implied exception is a type of special pleading.

To take a different example, imagine someone that works as a paramedic is playing, and voices a lot of strongly held opinions about the lack of realism with healing magic. While it's possible the player's real-life knowledge can be leveraged to heighten the verisimilitude of a scene where, for example, the healer is unconscious, missing the point with too many complaints will ruin the group's good time.

I mean come on one would expect that in Morocco or other more commonly fez wearing country but it is just too much immersion in themed locales

Special Pleading is
"moving the goal post" when your point has been proven wrong.
or
double standards like "our allies are freedom fighters and the other side is terrorists."

So


Now how is a military person telling you that x type unit would do that tactically special pleading unless the military person in the same situation with the same type of unit is doing something else?

It's still small squad tactics, though; I don't care if it's three guys, a dog-boy and a Vanguard mage, it doesn't change that much.
Arty is arty, doesn't have to be cannons, can be missiles.
Chain of command hasn't changed much in how long? And apparently the CS is written as using pretty close to the US model...
I'm just saying, a veteran will know more about what going on with military situations than someone who's closest call with the military is to set up his Imperial Guard and roll some dice.
We tend to study what militaries of the past did, as well as figure out how things will change in the future. At least that's what everyone I hung out with did when I was in, and afterwards.

When I notice the following, I immediately kick and block:
Picking an RCC/Race with an incredible heel. Something like Crocodilian or anything that turns to stone in daylight. Unless it works with the campaign, or is minor, it's not happening.

Players who fudge their equipment / characters.
I'm a pretty giving DM, but if you plan on sneaking something passed me then you better not get caught. Same applies to character creation, as I allow every official source to be used buffet style. It helps me find some of the more cancerous players and block them after they submit some absolute monstrosity.

So what?(as in please explain not "big deal") Your buffet serves everything but if the customer picks the secret ingredient they're booted?

I just found my new no thanks

I laughed at this. My house rules has a list of conditions that characters must meet to join (Must be able to communicate meaningfully with the party, must not be actively dangerous to the other members, must be able to survive in the game world, et multiple cetera)


I'm not as nice as you
I flat out call cheating for what it is and run on a three strikes rule.
Like you I allow virtually every canon source, and many optional ones, for creation... but you have to use them legally. No fudging rolls, or adding extra abilities or 'logical extensions should grant this... so I'll just take it with out asking" (A character that was actually submitted decided, on their own, that because they wrote (a five sentence) back story that made them a major noble, that they could start with a couple million gold worth of starting gear)

I've never had a warning flag before the start of a game. I usually need two or three sessions before something pops up that makes me realize things arent going well.

Often its personal. I see two or more people not getting along, they refuse to back down, the group goes to hell, and we all depart angry. That rarely happens but when it does its the most common type of breakup.

This is why I just kick and ban, because everyone sees the buffet and they just go sprinting to stuff their face.
"Table manners (i.e. setting), naw, who cares about that because I can have whatever I want?"
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ they get what they deserve and I award it to them gladly.

When someone asks leading questions of the GM to try and pigeonhole them into saying something is acceptable.

To me that's more red flags than China.

But if someone from Turkey comes to your U.S. buffet (since a new gamer is a foreigner to your game) it isn't right to throw them out because they don't have psychic powers and know how to act in your buffet. I mean sure they could research on the internet (do you have an analogy to that? I mean sure they could ask you but if your initial response is to drop the books in front of them and say "here you go" then you've basically said pick what you want thereby making it your responsibility to explain the "table manners").

So what you are saying is that very niche special circumstances should be used to evaluate all rules and policies and if there is any possible way that a person might violate a rule with out intending to that the rule is flawed and anyone advocating it is obviously a bad person who is out to get people...

Or put more simply your stance is that no one should have any rules because someone, somewhere might not know how the rule works.
Which is especially hysterical since your hypothetical new person is not going to have the knowledge base needed to mine the system to put together a game breaking combination in the first place. That sort of min-maxing takes a pretty deep understanding of the system to juggle all the moving parts so that they synchronize properly.

Or the much more ubiquitous real world engineers and IT and networks security specialists. Far more common than the police and paramedic examples at least at my tables.

One of my red flags is when someone brings up roma persecution when I use the wordy gypsy. You know I'm talking about nomadic hippies who like drinking and dancing naked in the woods and circus troups and vardo caravan life. There's more than one meaning for the word and you dont get to assign which meaning I'm employing. Its not my fault its the one racial slur that has other definitions than simply being a racial slur. Pedantic vocabulary policing only goes so far with me. Plenty of players of gypsy music openly billed themselves as gypsy bands. Sani Rifati knows the difference. So should you. They gypsies called themselves gypsies for 600 years and didnt consider it a perjorative. When I say it I mean bohemian. I LIKE the nomadic bohemian tropes and do not DISLIKE the romani as an ethnic group. Anyone that gets triggered by misassigning my intentions is a red flag because we are not speaking the same language in the same spirit.

Communication issues are always a red flag.

NO

My stance is that if you don't like players using custom made nightspawn designed to be over powerful or engineered, rather than randomly rolled, Mega Heroes or you can't stand the equipment out of SA2. Then you tell your players that.

Or

If you like being vague you tell them that you have final say on the PC and if you don't like it they'll have to make another.

What you shouldnt do is

Here is the books. Go ahead and make anything you want.
...
...
...
...
You have a damn ATL-7. Get out. Just leave. We don't need or want your kind around here.

1) two out of your three examples are already flawed because they require GM permission to be used Megaheroes? Custom Nightbane? Too bad the book explicitly states that these are optional rules that require the GMs permission to be used at all. So yeah, if someone builds something, using optional rules with out asking... then that person is 100% totally in the wrong and more if those rules are not in play they are flat out cheating. Yes the dreaded "C" word. Because they deliberately chose to attempt to do something that is specifically forbidden by the game rules that is the very definition of the word "cheating".
In any game I run i would instantly give a person one of their three strikes for doing that in a heartbeat and if that was their third strike I would kick/ban them myself.
And before you say "well they didn't know" if you don't know then your responsibility is to ask. There is no "presumption of yes" in this game. If the rule says "This is optional, ask your GM first..." then guess what? YOU HAVE TO ASK THE GM FIRST. Period, dot, end of story.

Moving on to the other "example"

2) You appear to be putting words in the other persons mouth to justify your stance. No one here, certainly not the poster, said that they did not secretly dislike the SA gear and that thus they would ban anyone that failed this hidden test. That is 100% your claim, so you will need to back up your claim that they act like this... burden of proof is on you here to demonstrate that this is what was said. (hint what was said was that they would ban people who picked and chose from the various books to produce in his words 'monstrosities'.)

Shriners wear a Fez as part of their lodge functions.



I have to disagree. Squad/small unit tactics change all the time, depending on the size and composition of the squad, on what the objective is, on what the terain is, time of day, and myriad other factors. Yes there are some standard templates that are sometimes used as the basis of a plan, but the tactics are not set in stone.

And how often do Shriners pull people over... in their Fez?

1) Are you okay? An LOL because you thought you got me on an example... please stop being childish. You usually don't act that way. The examples aren't invalid. A buffet doesn't have a special section of the food fenced off. If he offers it up buffet style that means all of it. Those were also just examples, so I can change them so lets pick if the GM doesn't like Glitterboys and Crazies but doesn't inform his players of that. And again... not cheating because he offered it up buffet style 'here you go get whatever you want', not regular restaurant style 'well you can't afford these.'

2) I'm not putting any words in anyone's mouth. I was presenting a fictional example and personalizing it. Of course I don't know if he dislikes SA2 or anything else because apparently he never tells anyone and leaves it all a secret when he offers it all up buffet style with no guidelines. I didn't say he doesn't like SA2 I picked it as an example as that is a book that has major contention within the community. Not that it is relevant, as it was in the beginning a fictional example, but your statement of "no one here... ". I'm fairly certain I can do a search using the posters here and probably find at least one that has complaints about SA2 and power creep which equals "secret" dislike of "SA gear" (you specifically forgot the 2). There is no burden of proof as it was a fictional example of a possible situation with an unknown dislike. Again as an example we can change it to... the main book. As in we have no freaking clue as he does not inform the players and then boots them with no chance if they pick something he doesn't like... but they don't know what that is. (hint: we don't know what his definition of "monstrosities" is... because he won't tell anyone)

See your at least fair enough to give three strikes... unless those are three secret strikes. Do you tell the person why it isn't acceptable? Do you tell them it is strike one or two? Do you explain in the beginning what books they can choose from and if optional characters are open or not? (figured telling them would be smart so that on character creation day you don't have 8 players, taking up time, asking if each of the optional characters is okay with you. Just getting it all out of the way in the beginning).

Um yes, yes they are.
A claim that somehow a person breaking the rules is an innocent victim is just farcical. A cheater is in no way, shape or form an innocent victim of hidden malice. They are 100% reaping what they sowed and they are 100% to blame for their own misfortune when they are caught cheating. So by all means we can discus situations where something is fair or not... but claiming that a person who cheats is somehow getting a raw deal for being punished for cheating? Not even a question please don't be absurd.


Again no dice. Sorry, trying to pretend that "Buffet Style gaming" means "Exactly like a buffet with not a single difference and furthermore means that the game rules are changed to make the GM guilty" is absurd.
He allows anyone to play with anything that is book legal. Full stop. That is what "Buffet style" means. It does NOT mean that they can cheat and use things that are NOT book legal. Again full stop.
Thus your example of someone cheating and being called on it is absurd.
And frankly every Buffet I have seen says "Children must be accompanied by an adult" so I guess in your analogy that means "new gamers must be aided by an experienced person"
Seriously, can you stop trying to claim that "buffet style" means "exactly like a buffet food line and is not really just a metaphor with a well understood meaning"


And again your making up something here.
No one has said that he has a secret ban list. YOU are the ONLY one saying this, and then using YOUR CLAIM of a crime that ONLY YOU CLAIM EXISTS as proof that he is guilty of this crime.
That is beyond absurd.
Why not actually argue the facts and not make up strawmen that you can then shoot down because that is all you are doing here. Creating imaginary claims of some strawman that you can then show how being biased against said strawman is wrong. So what? Try actually using what the person you are attacking has done/said and not what you are making up out of whole cloth.



No, you are 100% putting words in his mouth. This is because you are claiming, totally with out evidence, that he routinely engages in the behavior you described. This is YOUR CLAIM, so back it up or retract it. I am calling you out here because you are trying to attack him for an act that he has never stated he has done and that ONLY YOU have claimed he has done.
YOU are the one claiming that he engages in banning people for using one piece of book legal material. YOUR CLAIM BACK IT UP.



And see? Here you are again doing it again. You are claiming that he has secret dislikes and bans based on them.
Why don't you stop making up claims about the poster and actually argue what he said? Because so far all you have said is this "I am claiming that the poster has a secret dislike of certain parts of the canon system and will ban anyone that uses these" Which he has never said AT ALL. Thus continuing to argue that it is bad of him to ban people based on his secret dislike of parts of the canon system is flat out dishonest... because he has never said it.



Nope, you have a burden of proof here. Because you are making an affirmative claim that he engages in this kind of behavior. That is a flat out statement that he is malicious and thus you had best be able to back it up or withdraw it.
And again your making the wildly unsupported claim hat he does NOT provide any of this information. And frankly... a presumption of malice is a pretty poor place to start a critique because it means that you have a HUGE burden of proof to overcome the fact that your basically libeling the person.
What we know is what he has said, that's it, all the other claims you are making about how he is doing bad things? 100% fabrication on your part. And fabrications have no place in a rational debate, especially when the fabrication is then used to justify why another person is bad.
You seem to think that he is some sort of evil GM who gets their kicks by setting people up to fail... I think that they are a GM who is chill and will let players make anything they want, as long as its rules legal... but that they have zero tolerance for munckins and will ban them on as soon as they pull out the lollipop and not wait for them to do the entire song and dance routine, complete with presentation of certificate, first.

Also "no one here" was about this conversation. Again stop trying to take a couple words out of context and then trying to pretend that they mean something totally different than what was said. I did not say "no one here on the forums has ever said they dislike SA2" I said "No one here, certainly not the poster, said that they did not secretly dislike the SA gear and that thus they would ban anyone that failed this hidden test" When you have the entire line and not just cherry picking out a couple words it is blatantly obvious that I was flat out saying what I said... that no one here was claiming that because of a secret desire to not allow SA material, that anyone who chooses that for their character will be kicked out of the game and banned for failing a secret test. Your attempt to try and twist this simple line into some sort of boondoggle is, frankly, insulting. I expect better of you than this sort of shenanigan to be honest.

Also... novel thought here? Maybe you could ASK THE POSTER, what they mean by "monstrosities" rather than assigning malice to them and claiming that you know what it is and that it is the most malicious possible meaning? Just a thought..

I say to every new person "here are my house rules" and give them a copy. it is up to them to read those rules and ask questions if they do not understand them. I make the assumption that my players can read English and unless I am running a game for kids that they are responsible enough to be proactive for themselves.

I will also tell a person "Thats strike one" "Thats strike two" and "Strike threee, please leave your no longer welcome at this table"
When the do something cheating I will tell them "Sorry, trying to sneak an extra spell on your character sheet is cheating, strike one" or "I am sorry, but you were told quite explicitly that this game is only using the rules and game books from the Palladium Fantasy line, your attempt to sneak in a skill from After The Bomb is cheating, strike two" I also feel no obligation in the slightest to allow cheaters to 'fix' their mistake... in fact it is listed quite openly in my house rules that on top of getting a strike the offending resource will be confiscated with no refunds. Thus if you pick as your mecha pilots suit of power armor a Hawkeye Glitterboy in a game where the house rules list says "only equipment commercially available in North America is allowed" then you not only loose the Hawkeye... you do not get to pick another suit and will start the game with out ANY power armor at all. If people have a problem with that then they can go find a GM that will let them cheat. There is no "right" to play games, and the GM has a right to have fun too... and as cheating makes things unfun for everyone else... If you want to set the rules for the GM to follow that's fine... you can pay that GM. But unless your paying the GM then your agreeing to follow the rules that GM sets up. You don't like those rules you can find another GM.

And again it was a poor choice for an example but by the guys own vagueness even they'd be allowed in. That being said if the dude saw Glitterboys or any other non-"optional" class/race as making a monstrosity he would boot the player without warning he doesn't claim a three strike system like you and that is the problem I have with it if you are keeping your boot policy secret and not informing your players that a) you don't want any munchkin shenanigans and b) what you consider munchkin senanigry the you are bad. I never claimed a cheater was a victim I claimed, originally and long before I chose the examples) that the victim is any player who chooses a class, race or equipment that this guy doesn't like simply gets booted.


Now your putting words in his mouth. How do you know he only allows anyone to play with anything that is book legal "Full stop." Mind showing me that definition... oh wait you can't it doesn't exist, it is a referrence to the dining style where all the food is placed in the open for informal self service. You know what they call a buffet with rules? A cafeteria. And yet again I said change the example because the poster said monstrosity, which you do not get to define and can only make assumptions about until he informs us otherwise. Change that to dragon hatchling or any other non-optional class and if he finds it to be a "monstrosity" he just kicks the player. So even if they aren't cheating but he doesn't like it, no warning. Sure and normally they are. Do you put players that have never played a PB game down with a book and just tell them to make a character?


a)I never claimed it was a crime. It sucks, but it isn't a crime.
b)If he is of the opinion that x, y and z (non-optional) races are too powerful (or "monstrosities") and classes t,s, and o make the character too powerful and items a, b and c make anyone too powerful and refuses to allow those to be used in his game to the point that if anyone picks them they get booted... then regardless of it being written down or not he has a ban list. If said list is never revealed the regardless of it being written down or not it is secret.



Where do I claim routinely? But that <--- is a strawman of your making. I'm claiming only what his post says he does, with his post AS EVIDENCE. The only evidence any of us who don't know the guy has. So here lets analyze...


When I notice= when ever he sees it, may infer multiple prior incidences.
The Following= oh a list
I immediately kick and block= oh ban

Hmm, looks like a statement that when ever he has seen these things on this list he has banned them.

Picking an RCC/Race with an incredible heel. Something like Crocodilian now heel may be slang where this persons from for something I'm not familiar with but I think so therefore I am putting this word in his mouth, that he means heal. What is defined as incredible? We DON'T know besides Crocodilian.
or anything that turns to stone in daylight. Unless it works with the campaign, or is minor, it's not happening. so if it doesn't work with his campaign it is out?
Players who fudge their equipment / characters. fudge usually mean skew not outright cheat
I'm a pretty giving DM, but if you plan on sneaking something passed me then you better not get caught.
sneaking also doesn't infer outright cheating, saying it definitely does would be putting words in his mouth as much as saying it doesn't
Same applies to character creation, as I allow every official source to be used buffet style. Engineered Nightspawn and Mega Heroes are official source their being optional doesn't remove that and "every" would infer he allows them.
It helps me find some of the more cancerous players and block them after they submit some absolute monstrosity.block = ban

I'd more say I have taken words out of his mouth, in that I say he doesn't tell his players. He may have just omitted that fact that he does as it doesn't infer either way.


"Here you are again doing it again."... really? Went over it, it's there in whatever color you have selected for your browser. Unrevealed = secret, kick = ban. Nice strawman... again.
Ban= When I notice the following, I immediately kick and block:
Undefined (secret) Opinion (like/dislike)= Picking an RCC/Race with an incredible heel. Something like Crocodilian or anything that turns to stone in daylight.
If a book isn't selected for a campaign and they don't know what it is, guess what? = Unless it works with the campaign, or is minor, it's not happening.

Again the only thing I may have done was infer that he doesn't tell his players. For all we know he does... but as this is written we have no freaking clue either way and... no I take that back his second post

This infers he does not tell them "I just kick and ban"


Nope, you have a burden of proof here. Because you are making an affirmative claim that he engages in this kind of behavior. That is a flat out statement that he is malicious and thus you had best be able to back it up or withdraw it.[/quote]This isn't a court of law I'm not burdened by anything. It is not defamatory. It is just one translation of his post supported by his response.

TRUE!!! I do but when asked he responded that he just bans and kicks which didn't include a response to informing the players.

Wow I was expecting just a one and two then get out no explanation on strike three. For all we know this guy does three strikes too, but we DON'T KNOW

Since the system freaks out and crashes when I try to edit a huge post I will simply start over here with the basics that are being said over and over in different ways

1) the stance that he has a secret list that he bans on is a presumption of malice because it requires that the list be totally secret and that he is doing it for malicious reasons. That fails to hold up because the claim that it is a secret list is part of the claim, and thus this entire argument is circular

2) The cheating issue. Yes, taking things that you are not allowed to take, not following the rules, and engaging in behavior you know would nto be allowed but trying it anyway and hoping you do not get caught are cheating.

3) The 'burden of proof' is not a legal/court issue. It is the issue that the person making a claim, in this case that he engages in a specific malicious behavior, has to support that claim, not that other people have to prove the claim false. Simply accusing someone of a malicious behavior does not 'prove' the behavior takes place nor is the accusation itself useable to defend the accusation nor can you rebut claims of innocent by simply asserting that you have already declared them guilty. It holds up for a claim of "this person is a malicious GM who is out to get their players because I said so" just as much as it holds up for "This person is a terrorist, prove me wrong"


4) Simply because the poster has not provided clarification on their stances does not give anyone license to claim that they know what the stance is and that they can therefore put words into that persons mouth on what they mean.

TL/DR
What we have here is a GM that says that they kick out cheaters, trolls, and those who submit "monstrosities". That's all. I can see no malice what so ever in the first two, the only issue at all would be the definition of 'monstrosity' and how much feedback is provided on that. That is literally ALL that can be held against this person... that there is a possibility that they may have their 'monstrosity' threshold 'to low' and that they give no guidance about this.
There is NOTHING in his posts about if he does or does not give feed back or if the players have enough information to make informed choices... ergo any claim that he does not do either is simply that... an unsupported claim.

And an unsupported claim of malicious behavior is not a 'discussion' it is a character attack/libel.

I see no character attack here. If I'm reading this correctly, and there is A LOT to read, Zer0 Kay was responding to Sohisohi seemingly moving the goalpost, so to speak, when he/she wrote:



The way I read that, if a player were to submit a character that doesn't meet Sohisohi's approval, the player is immediately bounced....Goodbye! HUH? Well, is there any conversation that goes along with that as to WHY that was? Can the player tone it down or change an aspect of the character to make it right? Immediate booting is far too harsh. I wouldn't want to sit at a table with a GM that rules with an iron fist such as that. Sohisohi says he or she allows official sources to be used buffet style, so that indicates flexibility. That's good... I'm down with that. But, what exactly constitutes an absolute monstrosity? Is there a discussion that's ever had that goes something like, "Hey, I know I'm letting you pick from ABC, but you're wanting XYZ. That won't be good for the campaign..."? That's the sensible thing to do. Sohisihi makes it sound like he or she merely says all kinds of choices are available, but when they're selected and they don't meet his or her approval, the player submitting the character is immediately banned without discussion. I'm hoping that isn't the case, otherwise those would be horrible circumstances to play under.

I'm gearing up for a game in a couple weeks that I'm GMing and I've had to make some tweaks with my players' characters. Were they trying to cheat? Of course not. It's just that some of the choices they wanted wouldn't have worked in the HU one-shot they'll be playing. NO BIG DEAL! I'm not going to slam the door in a player's face without explanation because their creation didn't adhere to my rules that I never explained. That's what Zer0 Kay is talking about. There needs to be established rules, but if those rules are going to be bent because a player would like to play a certain character, then that should be discussed and agreed upon with the GM. Those conversations need to be had and are beneficial. They help the GM tailor the game to the characters. Communication = Good time for all. Immediate kick and block without explanation = Authoritarian GM who nobody wants to play with.

Then there's the question of fudging equipment... What does that mean? If a player wants to use something that isn't in a Palladium book that was last updated many years ago, does it mean that player is cheating? Example: One of my players and I had a conversation yesterday about some of the equipment his character was going to use in the upcoming game. The character doesn't like firearms, so he's equipped with an expandable straight baton, the kind that police started carrying in the late 1990's. That item isn't in any of the Palladium books because it's too new. Do I think that player is trying to sneak something past me? Of course not. Now, if Sohisohi is talking about a player who submits a character sheet without rope on it and when the character needs to climb down a 20' pit and then all the sudden magically has rope written on the sheet, then ya, that's cheating.

From what I see, Zer0 Kay is questioning Sohisohi's seemingly "boot players for perceived cheating of rules that were never fully explained first and ask questions later" style. I think Zer0 Kay is spot-on with questioning that. I'll give Sohisohi the benefit of the doubt, though. Hopefully, he or she isn't that quick to boot a player for violating never-explained rules and his or her post just fails to fully articulate that. Who knows? Maybe he or she IS that quick to pull the trigger on a player for what is perceived as a violation for rules that may have not been fully explained. We may never know without clarification.

This... but it's too big for a sig.

You forgot, per his posts (Emphasis mine)



Fudge isn't defined well, but I've never known anyone to use "fudge" for "cheat". Mess up, make a mistake, bend rules, but not cheat.

I think I figured out what he means by heel. Races that have a detrimental condition, Crocodilian was kind of an odd choice as an example... mostly because I am not (so that is on me) super familiar with the race which I believe is far more obscure than the non-Pneuma-Biform aquatic mammals, and more obvious as I've seen Crocodiles remain out of water for a lot longer than 8 hours while most people have seen emergency rescue of Dolphins where they immediately start pouring water over their bodies to keep them wet.

In combination with his second post in the series (again emphasis mine)...



So anyone who picks characters that have a "heel" get kicked and banned. Not told to try something else "just kick and ban". Maybe kicking and banning those people is a favor to them because instead of doing that I'd let them make it and then face the consequences. "Okay so these guys are going into the city... and their tank isn't one made to hold water... so what are you doing, fish boy?" and then hope to be surprised with something like "I'm not a fish, I'm a mammal and the mage and I have made a deal where he will use metamorphosis: superior on me."
So in total per his posts a person that picks a character with a heel will be kicked and banned and he rewards it to them gladly.

That is per his posts.

Oh, oh lets play this with number 3

So if the FBI or CIA find the following: (EVERYONE THIS IS NOT A THREAT THIS IS JUST ALTERATION OF TEXT TO MAKE A POINT)


You, Eli, still think the CIA and FBI wouldn't pull the "this person is a terrorist prove me wrong" bit? Hell yeah they would and they'd expect him, in an interview/interrogation, to either provide proof that he is not or slip with details that he is. Only in courts is one innocent until proven guilty, on the streets (and everywhere else in life) people are whatever observers think they are, until they can prove otherwise. It isn't the burden of the observer to prove anything... until he is someplace that requires the norm to be turned (e.g. 1 a police officer doesn't pull someone over for speeding because the officer believes he allegedly was speeding but when he goes in to court the Judge is supposed to assume he was not and require proof from the officer. 2 a person who gets cut off in traffic isn't required to prove that the person who cut him off is a butthead. 3 a person who is shown a bookshelf of palladium books and is told to make a character with no further details and is summarily kicked from the group after showing his character to the GM doesn't need to prove the GM is malicious. 4 a person who reads a post about a person who kicks players for making characters without any stipulations stated doesn't need to prove the GM is malicious.)

Do I think he is malicious... I have no freaking clue, the way the posts are written I guess he could be and I want to find out if he is or isn't and wish he would just say something like "no I tell them what the setting is and let them know what is in or out and it is only when they break that, knowing full well that they are intentionally doing something wrong, that I ban them." In which case I say "heck ya, thanks for clarifying and Eli's three strikes would be too good for them."

When ever they hold their parades.

Daang, ya got me. lol

I got a couple.

Last one first.

GM: OK, roll up for Pathfinder, Stone/early Bronze age characters. no clerics. Any spellcaster can learn any spell, with no regard to divine/arcane, except evocation or necromancy,. (first session in, all divination magic required a save or permanent madness... even detect magic), you start with no spells, even if a caster. When you get spells the previous rules will apply. Racial abilities are eliminated on a case-by-case basis, I won't tell you which ones until after starting play. This is a skills focused game, so no skill boosting feats. No spells can be cast without a focus/fetish, just like wizards. You do not start play with one. No familiars, they are all demons. All summoning spells are permanent effects, and require you to have a sacrifice, still living, to put the demon into. Summon monsters/mounts/etc do not work unless you do as above, and no summons come with any control. Speak with animals is still a racial for all gnomes, and sometimes they may speak to you, but remember, that's a divine spell. MADNESS SAVE! Class abilities are up for review, even after generation, and subject to nerf. Sorcerer bloodline abilities are void, you are just a wizard. Wizard class abilities do not apply. heal spells cost you health to cast equal to healing done, and if you cure a disease or poison you get it, no save. Fighters get two extra feats, because "in this game casters are OP, so fighters get more." but the party can only have one fighter, the GM's girlfriend called dibs. No alignments. As an extension, no paladins or monks because they have alignment restrictions. Barbarians are ok, because stone age...

There was more, but I noped out after the first session. I only stayed for the first because the GM is my stepdaughter's father, and it was a "family bonding" thing to keep us all close. I think it may have also been revenge for marrying his ex.

GM: it's RIFTS, but with Mecha from robotech, but they look like gundams and all the people have special powers, like my NPC has his notebook that kills people. Don't tell the other players, but in the first session we're going through a rift into a magic setting, but we are all going to be changed into ponies. Your 'Borg will even change to be a pony, and get magic, and I am only telling you this because you need to rebuild him as a four legged creature. Use cyber-horsemen...

Nope. I am 43 damned years old. Miss me with the magic of friendship, please.

GMs who don't research anything won't find me staying in their group for long.

So long as they research one thing then, they are good?
I research lots of things for my personal interests, or for work, or for a game. The results of that research may not make it into the game, or the game result may differ from the real world result.

Intentionally obtuse people tend not to last long in the games I run, either.

That was an amusing read, forgot all about even making those posts

So you were good with everything before the ponies?

@ Curbludgeon
By your statement why should you listen to Doctors, they don't know everything about Medicine.

You keep ignoring that this was their JOBS. They trained constantly for the being a Soldier. When I was in we trained in not just US equipment, Strategies and Tactics, but those of other Countries. We were also encouraged to study history both Military and Political so that we could understand not just what we were doing, but why were doing it.

No actually your not.
Play a crazy that is crazy but in some sort of constructive way.
The Fishmalk guy is the one that is trying to upstage the entire group with his antics and disrupting everything by showing how insane they are.
Those types are bad PCs. They are disruptive and worse are deliberately designed to go after the other players (not their characters) that is an unacceptable trait in a game and I too would kick out such a player if they continued.

You keep ignoring his points
1) your presuming that your knowledge of past material will make you an expert on future material. Unless you yourself are a strategic and tactical genius I find that highly unlikely as you will not be able to have sources, tests and other material to work with.
2) your presuming that your personal situation is the same situation that everyone in the military was in. I am going to assume from your statements that you were an Officer or a rather senior NCO. Since most junior enlisted and NCOs do NOT get encouraged to study history and politics and strategy and tactics and the rest.... which means that now YOU are generalizing that certain kinds of Officer training (not even all officers get that) should be the criteria for which all military people should be held... its not, most people DO NOT HAVE THAT
3) it also ignores his problem that he runs into (and I see this a lot myself honestly) in that a huge number of military people feel that they are the sole experts on the military. That civilians have no place telling them anything about military matters and that they are entitled to critique others on their military stuff. That may be fine if they ask for it... in a game it is dead wrong and I would kick them out in a heart beat too. Not everyone is interested in running the most accurate military simulation possible based on the best theorized tactical doctrines, where in every adventure is nothing but brutal, no quarter military fighting and the players demand that the opponents have all their forces in the proper organizations and such so that they can use all the tricks they learning in the military to get all the intelligence... that isn't gaming that is the players vs the GM, and the GM is right to be sick of it

1) Studying the past makes the present more capable. Practicing in the present makes any soldier more capable than a civilian GM who is a history buff and never participated in military action. Basically making that soldier at your table the history that tactics in the future would be based off of.
2) I'm only saying this from a USAF standpoint but, as soon as we're out of Basic we are encouraged to study past and present and read articles on future expectations there is a CMSgt Reading list that we are told to read if we want to get ahead. It isn't required but highly recommended (and my brothers in arms will get that joke).
3) Your right the GM is the boss and all players shouldn't be taking it so seriously. That said military members ARE the experts on the military. Are you telling me you are not the expert in your life and in your career field and that you will except a person who has never experienced either to input their outside opinion as fact? Civilians have NO place telling us anything about military matters. Civilians may note history but they have no clue what went through the minds of the commanders, so often freaking history show "experts" state so and so MUST have been thinking x when he... The "experts" have no dang clue. We are as entitled to critique on issues of military "stuff" as a doctor is on doctor stuff, an engineer on engineer stuff and so on and so forth and not expect people un-educated in the career field to be capricious.

The worst is when a civilian refuses to listen to anything and then when a DOD tries to perform something like taking a room with a unit or traveling in an armored echelon and then the civilian has someone sneak up without super tech, magic or some other power and gets the jump on the guys; but it isn't the civis fault because he didn't know that the last guy was watching their back because no one said anything but didn't want to know earlier what the DOD was specifically talking about with formations because he didn't need any of his military jargon.

Game? No Thanks... when a person outside of a career field thinks that they're an expert, especially the GM. "I need a hemostat... STAT", "Well that would be better coded in PASCAL." (NO PROFESSIONAL CODES IN PASCAL AND DOCTORS DON'T USE STAT). Now if they claim that they have no clue and try using lines like that or simply never claimed to be experts... I could care less if they used it. I also wouldn't care if a GM who has no clue about tactics was doing something silly as long as a DOD trying to interject isn't shot down and thrown out the first time they try to correct the GM. "I understand you were in the military and likely know tactics better than I, but I am the one running the game. If you want to run a military game be my guest, but you chose to play." If the DOD keeps interjecting then they are no better than a rules lawyer or a munchkin and should be asked to leave.

Okay so the Fishmalk is a crazy munchkin and again munchkin = kicked... or educated first and then kicked.

With all due respect Zero (I do indeed respect anyone willing to serve but that is besides the point) you'd be surprised how many military people I have encountered who act like experts that actually knew less about their equipment, history, and operational/tactical doctrines than I do as a "mere" civilian, who has acquired nothing more than a large number of reference books on the subjects. So you'll forgive me if I will not take a former military person as an "expert" because I am a "civie" unlike say a doctor or lawyer who has a shyte ton of evidence of being an expert beyond merely BEING a Doctor or Lawyer.

I am not ignoring his point. I disagree with it. He is saying that I can't take my experience in Combined Arms and Infantry tactics and adapt them to Fantsy/SciFi equipment because it hasn't been made yet.

Yes I made it to senior NCO rank, and have no problem with civilian opinions on military matters. I also remember that it is the GM who makes the ultimate decisions. I will make my case of I think he is wrong but will abide by his decisions. That is why I watched a GM let a player hit two npcs with one weapon for one action. One on the back swing and one with the attack stroke. What was more fun was after the game we let player try to prove his point with shinai in the back yard. I have also been playing in the same core group off and on for the last 39 years (more on for the last 18)