With me it is when a Dm actually trys to tell me what I can and can not name my character, I have actually walked out of games for that one...
Yeah, that's pretty major. Any idea why you were told that?
I feel that a DM should never unilaterally decide anything about a player character. A DM should be able to ask questions about and even make suggestions regarding a player character, but the decision needs to rest with the player.
With me it is when a Dm actually trys to tell me what I can and can not name my character, I have actually walked out of games for that one...
What did you want to name your character? Maybe I've spent too much time as a DM, but this one actually seems pretty reasonable to me.
For me, it's playing one of my characters for me. If I create the character, then that's my character, and nobody else gets a say in how they act or what they think or do. That necessarily includes every character in my backstory, with the possible exception of a noted rival or arch-enemy. Please do not play my character's parents, friends, or family members, because you're going to do it wrong.
With me it is when a Dm actually trys to tell me what I can and can not name my character, I have actually walked out of games for that one...
What did you want to name your character? Maybe I've spent too much time as a DM, but this one actually seems pretty reasonable to me.
I can also see situations in which the DM might want to say something about a character's name, particularly if the theme of the game is important and had been previously agreed to. But I still see that as grounds for a conversation, not unilateral and irrevocable actions by anyone involved.
With me it is when a Dm actually trys to tell me what I can and can not name my character, I have actually walked out of games for that one...
What did you want to name your character? Maybe I've spent too much time as a DM, but this one actually seems pretty reasonable to me.
I can also see situations in which the DM might want to say something about a character's name, particularly if the theme of the game is important and had been previously agreed to. But I still see that as grounds for a conversation, not unilateral and irrevocable actions by anyone involved.
I've seen some pretty bad names in my DMing day...
Fighter the Fighter
Spiderman
Spiderman 2
Spiderman 3
Spiderman 4
Spiderman 5
Spiderman 6
Green Goblin
No Name
Couldn't think of a name
Ninja the Ninja
Dude
Mr. Dude
Sword-Man
Pac-Man
Michael Jackson the Bard
Beasty Boyz
Bob Just Bob
My Character
(Insert player's name here)'s Character
Super Super-Man
Lumber Jack
Mario Brothers
And the ever popular... Blank (spelled without any letters... as in " ").
Their characters were as original as their names. Unfortunately none of these characters survived for long enough to explore all aspects of their personalities.
With me it is when a Dm actually trys to tell me what I can and can not name my character, I have actually walked out of games for that one...
Just curious, what was the character's name?
Well, mostly mockery
I can't really think of a name that would matter much as a dm to insist someone change it. If someone wants to choose a dumb name, like one listed ones above, it would be good fodder for mockery, but just a roll of the eyes and continue on.
Well, mostly mockery
It depends on the group ofcourse, and context is key here, but there are plenty of out of line names I can think off:
- Names that include profanity.
- The name of a historic figure who commited heinous acts, especially if the DM's family was victimized by such figure.
- The DM's mother's name, and then roleplaying her in any insulting way (okay that's more about the way the character is played, but it may be too personal still).
- Names that includes an affliction that any of the DM's friends/family suffers from.
@OP
Any deviation from the groundrules that end up gimping your character in any way (without your consent).
Playing favorites with anyone.
Disabling the group and then hogging the limelight for an extended period of time.
With me it is when a Dm actually trys to tell me what I can and can not name my character, I have actually walked out of games for that one...
Depends on the reasons from the DM.
As stated before, Fart VonPenisbreath is going to be reasonably shot down most any DMs.
Alternately, there may be game structures at play. My current campaign requires different name structures from each race, as it plays into details of the world and also sets mood.
Seems like apretty minimal complaint.
Especially when it makes no sense.
Last time this happened it was a dude who insisted that my character participate in chopping off a thief's fingers because ... the local Paladins said since I caught him in the act of stealing from me it was the law that I inflict the sentence on him. My character wouldn't do that, I certainly won't roleplay something sadistic like that, and furthermore, it made no damn sense that a bunch of Paladins would make me do it or else have my own fingers chopped off in his place.
I just told the DM that no, I'm not going to roleplay that because it's sadistic, my character isn't doing that because it's sadistic, and I'm going to go outside and have a smoke while you all have fun pretending to torture people. Tell me when you're ready to act like adults and I'll rejoin the game.
He backed down and nothing happened to my character, which is good because I would have left the game if he followed through. Turns out I left shortly after that anyway, but that's because it was a PF game and I was playing a Fighter at 9th level, so there really wasn't any more reason for the character I wanted to play to be there anymore when there's at least one Wizard in the party.
When a DM puts me in a situation, as a player, where I have to be a party to roleplaying something evil or else my character will be punished.
I'm okay with this sort of thing if it has a purpose or is vital to the story. If you have to make a decision on say, supporting the lesser of two evils (a dictatorial leader vs. a devil), or commit an act you would find heinous to save someone you love or something you love (have to murder a man in cold blood or else an evil cult will kill your wife), etc, then I'm okay with it because you have a meaningful choice to make that really reflects on your character.
The situation you described is, of course, none of these things and is sadism for its own sake, and yes I agree with you there 100% that's a load of garbage. But if you want to see how something like this can really be done quite well, and make you feel TERRIBLE for doing said evil acts play Spec Ops: The Line, I really can't reccomend it enough.
Personally I've done a few things like this in the past, not with such obvious bias towards violence though. I've had characters make deals with devils in order to acomplish some goal or another that was vital, or else very important to their character.
My personal favorite catch-22 pick the lesser of two evils was when my sister was playing and Avenger of Sehanine. Her character hated lycanthropes and champioined love, as a good avenger of Sehanine should. So her and the party went to a small village where the village was being attacked every month on the full moon, and people began to suspect werewolves. So the town's duke asking the players for help sends them on their way to exterminate the werewolves, which no one seems to have a problem with, I mean they're werewolves. They get there and the werewolves, instead of fighting, surrender and explain the situation. The leader of the pack, as it turns out, a female werewolf, was organizing the raids trying to break into the castle's dungeon to free her beloved who was being held prisoner by the duke for some petty crime or another. My sister's character had a tough choice to make at that point, kill the werewolves in accordance with her god's wishes (werewolves being an abomination), or let the werewolves live for the sake of love. In the end she decided her commitment to love was more important than killing the werewolves, especially given the situation, and agreed to help them, but she still wasn't exactly thrilled with letting a pack of werewolves loose.
When a DM puts me in a situation, as a player, where I have to be a party to roleplaying something evil or else my character will be punished.
I'm in the total opposite situation to you. I have a neutral character and the DM gets mad at me if I don't make decisions as if I had good alignment. If he wanted everyone in the party to have a good alignment he should have said so. Now he not only punishes my character every time I make a neutral decision, but also punishes the entire party just to make me look bad. So, this results in out-of-game bullying where players are complaining at me for making "bad" decisions - even though it's exactly what my character would do!!!! It's not my fault he wants to be a douche canoe and punish everyone.
Also, because he feels that there is no difference between neutral and evil, he's now convinced that I'm an evil person IRL. The whole situation is moronic. It's supposed to be a freaking game. I can understand a paladin feeling that a neutral character is indistinguishable from evil, but the DM....?
But also note "It's what my character would do" has been used over the years to justify some truly dickish behavior. When I hear a fellow player utter those words, it's usually a last ditch effort to justify something lame or disruptive to the game.
Your DM shouldn't be "punishing" you for decisions you make, even if you do use the alignment system. Other players shouldn't be bullying you because of your alignment either.
But also note "It's what my character would do" has been used over the years to justify some truly dickish behavior. When I hear a fellow player utter those words, it's usually a last ditch effort to justify something lame or disruptive to the game.
I could totally understand him punishing me if I was a neutral character going on a rampage of pure evil, but I don't think there is ever a situation where all the other players should be punished too just so they will gang-up on me.
My character isn't slaying NPCs in their sleep, isn't plotting against the other characters, and isn't putting anyone in danger. It's little things like using Charm Person on someone who is a threat to our party. The DM thinks that Charm Person is a purely evil spell that shouldn't be used by neutral characters because it means taking away a person's freedom, and I disagree. So, when I use Charm Person I get punished for it - even if the DM admits that it was a completely justifiable use of the spell. Now, if I used Cause Fear I would understand...
It's just things like that.
I could totally understand him punishing me if I was a neutral character going on a rampage of pure evil,
Nope, shouldn't punish you for that either. Though if you wanted to be punished because you thought it might be interesting, then it's justified.
but I don't think there is ever a situation where all the other players should be punished too just so they will gang-up on me.
Right. This is deserving of an out-of-game conversation to correct the issue.
My character isn't slaying NPCs in their sleep, isn't plotting against the other characters, and isn't putting anyone in danger. It's little things like using Charm Person on someone who is a threat to our party. The DM thinks that Charm Person is a purely evil spell that shouldn't be used by neutral characters because it means taking away a person's freedom, and I disagree. So, when I use Charm Person I get punished for it - even if the DM admits that it was a completely justifiable use of the spell. Now, if I used Cause Fear I would understand...
It's just things like that.
My guess is that you're doing more than just that to provoke such a strong response from the DM and fellow players. But again, that's just a guess.
In any case, alignment systems really seem to bring out the armchair philosophers eager to use the mechanic to justify "logical repercussions" as a form of in-game behavior modification.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />My guess is that you're doing more than just that to provoke such a strong response from the DM and fellow players. But again, that's just a guess.
Nope. That's why it's so frustrating to me. I'm not new to D&D by any means, and I've played plenty of neutral characters over the years. I'm not going to deliberately provoke a DM because there's no point to it. I've never been in a situation like this before.
The response from the other players is related to the DM's punishment, not my character's actions. They don't see anything wrong with what my character is doing until the punishment comes down, and then the comments start. He punishes them on purpose so they will have this exact reaction. They should really be getting mad at him, and not me.
I've always thought of alignment as a guideline for characters, but he seems to have completely different definitions for alignment than anyone I've ever met, and he won't let anyone deviate from his definition. I've never heard of anyone defining Charm Person as a purely evil spell before.
Nope. That's why it's so frustrating to me. I'm not new to D&D by any means, and I've played plenty of neutral characters over the years. I'm not going to deliberately provoke a DM because there's no point to it. I've never been in a situation like this before.
The response from the other players is related to the DM's punishment, not my character's actions. They don't see anything wrong with what my character is doing until the punishment comes down, and then the comments start. He punishes them on purpose so they will have this exact reaction. They should really be getting mad at him, and not me.
I've always thought of alignment as a guideline for characters, but he seems to have completely different definitions for alignment than anyone I've ever met, and he won't let anyone deviate from his definition. I've never heard of anyone defining Charm Person as a purely evil spell before.
Before this turns into a thread on alignment, I'd like to direct everyone to the countless and unproductive threads on alignment that litter these forums. Go there and learn from the mistake of starting alignment threads.
In any case, if you have any interest in fixing the situation, then you should have a direct conversation outside the context of the game to resolve it. If it cannot be resolved, then I'd suggest finding another DM. There is a mismatch of expectations going on here.
In any case, if you have any interest in fixing the situation, then you should have a direct conversation outside the context of the game to resolve it. If it cannot be resolved, then I'd suggest finding another DM. There is a mismatch of expectations going on here.
I was just posting about it in here in response to the OP's question as an example of a DM way overstepping his bounds. I wasn't necessarily looking for a solution because I've already made the decision to leave.
I am an adult, I only game with adults and I won't play with someone who behaves like a child. I once stood up and walked out of a room because a DM wanted my girlfriends character to be "dating" one of his NPC's (god character). I also walked out on a DM who constantly blocked us and wanted to run a game out of a booklet thing. He shouted in a rasty voice that we would be joined by our faithful party leader, his paladin from first edition (these were second edition days). In the middle of the game, I asked the player next to me to pass the drink and the DM says "You just said that in game, and everyone is looking at you like you're stupid."
I mean, really? After a few sessions of his "Call" rule (you say it, and someone says call, and your character just said it) and him telling you monty python jokes to walk you into "your character just said toilet plunger! hahahahaha!" and I was done letting others DM for me.
When I started DM'ing myself, I paid careful attention to issues surrounding the interactions of DM and Player to determine what the proper ways to "experience the best game possible for everyone" are. I learned that some people are best left to play with themselves. I began working hard to create a different type of open ended game with relaxed rules.
The lesson I learned from all the bad DM's I have been under (and even one who used Charm, Command and Thrall effects for mid-battle **** scenes) is that whatever one person does effects the game for every player. Every player should try to use their "turn" (including the DM) to advance the game, and keep it fun. I have learned the best tool for a DM is asking your players honest questions. "Do I suck at running good battles with Dragons? Did you like how I used the Beholders? What was the least fun part of the game for you and what could I have done differently to avoid that?" When your players know they can honestly criticize you, and you will be receptive to their opinions, everyone is much happier. I wind up using content they want, and avoiding elements of the game they don't like, and we all win.
With me it is when a Dm actually trys to tell me what I can and can not name my character, I have actually walked out of games for that one...
That depends on the name. I can see how in a serious game a silly name, or a name stolen from a tv show or movie wouldnt be appropriate.
i would probably cull the monk in an orange jumpsuit named Son Goku from my group as a DM, lol
What really sucks is when there is only one group playing the game you want to play, in your area. So, if you end up with (what you consider to be) a bad GM, and you walk away from the game ... well, I guess there's other stuff to do besides play D&D....
... like DM D&D.
If you've played enough D&D to recognize bad DMing when you see it, you just might have what it takes to start up your own group and DM it the way it should be done.
Yeah, it takes a little time and effort, but I find it rewarding. And that's another thing I love about 4e ... cuts down on the amount of prep time and makes it easier to DM.
Personally, I think everyone who plays D&D should be a DM too from time to time, even if they prefer to play a PC more often.
There's another thing that could be considered a DM overstepping his authority ... a DM who refuses to let anyone else take a turn at DMing once in a while. It doesn't have to be the same campaign, but a DM who refuses to let anyone else have fun DMing is overstepping his bounds, IMO.
This is what I did, and I did not even have that much experience playing when I did it either. It was a few years ago when I got back into DnD, having played in a couple campaigns in High School and that was it. I had gotten a new job and one of the guys there used to be a DM but had not had the oppurtunity to play in a while, his brother played too and also DMed. We started a campaign with the 3 of us and my gf. The guy I worked with DMed the first few games, then after a month or so, he and his brother switched places and I was all like wtf?!?!?!?
So after 6 sessions or so, I had this idea for a mini-campaign and I asked if I could try my hand at DMing a few sessions. They said sure, why not? With a little help on the prep work from my co-worker, and some in-game advice from the both of them, I successfully ran a little 3 session campaign that all involved enjoyed. Then they moved.
I had been looking for a game to play in for a while, experienced a couple crappy DMs at my FLGSs and then decided to turn to online. I realized quickly that finding a game at the times I was available to play was going to be difficult. Most of the games I was seeing advertised were too early or too late for me. The ones I did see, I had little interest in. What did I do? I started my own. Now I get to have fun, on my schedule, with a group of like-minded individuals, since I am kinda picky about players. There are tons of people out there looking for games, but few willing to DM, so if you decide to DM, you have a large pool of people to get players from, there are bound to be some that are looking for the same type of game you are.
When it comes to multiple DM's in one campaign you really need an established agreement with the DM's to keep them on one page.
My world is big enough for multiple DM's, but sometimes a whole new can of problems can open (too many chiefs, not enough indians).
This is a big trust issue, do I trust you to run a campaign out of my world, or even to DM a session of my campaign? I am not a trusting person, and trust is always earned not given. I am far more open to someone running one-shots which have less implications for the bigger picture. I also desire to someday publish, and having another DM takes "ownership" of "my world" away from me, and shares it with someone else, who could potentially try to sue me claiming a small portion of creative rights.
If I knew players wanted to DM as much as play, I would just start a whole new world where my plans wouldn't be impacted and I would waste no time designing any element in it. I would just let the other DM take the full helm, and I would simply be a cooperative member of the group.
These are all issues to sort out at session zero, however, right? "Do you want to play in the world I have already designed or should we make a new world?"
These are all issues to sort out at session zero, however, right? "Do you want to play in the world I have already designed or should we make a new world?"
Can't they play in the world independently of you?
These are all issues to sort out at session zero, however, right? "Do you want to play in the world I have already designed or should we make a new world?"
Can't they play in the world independently of you?
It took me a while to reflect on that one. Years ago, I used to do that with my old group. "The Game" was actually an ongoing, 24 hour rotation. We had a party house and everyone who came in was playing, newbs would be given a pregen character and thrown right in the mix. At all times, literally, all times of day and night, every day and night, including Thanksgiving, Mothers Day and Christmas, "The Game" was being played by a group at our apartment no matter who was there. It was pretty fun, hectic and we had a wild time.
I have to answer you on a few different levels.
1. They wouldn't have a map, and I wouldn't provide it. They wouldn't need one if they knew their region well enough, I suppose.
(I am still in the copyright process, after which I will upload it and give out copies to anyone who needs a world).
2. I would be uncomfortable with them using their main characters, however if they used different characters, I would weave them into the worlds plots; I would also encourage the "other DM" to use a different region of the world, and I would tell them everything about it.
3. I would have to think hard about whether or not to "canonize" any of the actions of this second group, or declare it an alternate universe. I wouldn't want my copyright tainted with other people making claims to creative rights. I would tell them for that game to "do what they wanted" and it wouldn't impact the "real game" in any way.
I often "start" characters at the same point in the timeline, and "move it forward". If the game "breaks" (the future as written cannot occur) then it becomes an alternate universe. In my game there are Planeswalkers and Chronomancers who travel between "overlaps" and alternate realities. The moment the "change occurs" a "split" happens in the quantum creating a new reality.
What an awkward time to ask me this particular question (and a great question at that!), when I am still sorting out copyright, trademarks and everything else I will need. Once those things are "officially mine", I would be a lot more "open" to handing out my DMG (which contains over 60 classes, revisions to allow over 60 races, different rules to simplify complex systems, the timeline of history, redefinitions of all skills and new spell lists; this took a while, and I only have my "master copy" right now).
That all said, I would find a way for that to happen that didn't open that can of worms. I would give the DM my dungeon tile sets if he/she wanted to use them (i normally play off-grid), and any information they needed to run a game from the part of the world most appealing to them. I suppose that would be a compliment, right? If the players liked the world enough to want to play in it whether or not I am around?
That was easily the hardest question you have asked me, Centauri. I know my answer might not be satisfactory, especially among those who feel that "nobody should own it" but it might jive better with those who have their own ambitions of publishing their ideas. I wish I could just give a "Yes, and..." but it just isn't that simple I fear.
I didn't realize there were issues of intellectual property. I was thinking in terms of already published works, I guess. Nothing my group does or changes about Eberron makes any difference to Keith Baker or anyone else, and doesn't give me any particular claim.
Over the last 6 years, I have "re-written" nearly every element of the game, playtesting changes and making more changes while "evolving" my world. I look at my old world maps for the world and compare them to the current one, let alone the digital one I am almost done with.
If not for the copyright issue, however, I would create as many ways as possible for it to happen. I normally start players at the 3/4 point in the timeline, making the initial series of events predetermined in the story. I like the alternate universes model because Planeswalker characters can visit those alternate realms and "pull" people wherever they need.
It also allows me to "let go" and know that if they players insist on killing the emperor for the crown of command, it won't "hurt the future of the story" because in that moment, the "new universe" begins and anything which happens is no longer part of the original cannon.
I used to get fussy; I would run the first section of the game like a module and I would force the continuity of the story before a "break free" point. These days, I make the "break free" point happen whenever the players break the story; I even tell them beforehand. It might matter because I have a whole new array of options when I do that. Things I would have "never done" can now be done, without "self blocking for the story". In this case, many DM's use "for the story" as a cop-out answer.
I think the biggest lesson I learned from this is to try to be more trusting of my players. Hopefully my reluctance doesn't cause me to overstep my authority as a DM. However, now I am always asking myself internally how to avoid anything which oversteps my boundaries or to say "Suprise! Yes, and..." to things that players know I would almost never say yes to.
Too phrase it in an appropriate way: having Middle-Earth as a campaign setting is something a lot of people would love, but if you're interest also lies in telling the "true" story, it would seem easier to just write it rather than worrying about alternate realities and such (unless you want to).
Please excuse the simple question, but if you are concerned with having the one "true" story for your campaign setting, wouldn't it be better suited as a series of novels? I'm not trying to tell you how to do things or claiming to have a lot of knowledge about the topic, but campaign settings seem like the type of thing where you give details on culture, geography, nature, and important events/people and then let things run wild.
Too phrase it in an appropriate way: having Middle-Earth as a campaign setting is something a lot of people would love, but if you're interest also lies in telling the "true" story, it would seem easier to just write it rather than worrying about alternate realities and such (unless you want to).
My "ideas" are to work toward a set of novels, a campaign setting and a sourcebook containing all of my works. The timeline starts 12,000 years ago, and ends "2 years from now", allowing the "start" to be handled in a modular way. As such, if anything that "must be" is changed by player action, they are now in an alternate universe.
The "game" occurs after the "end" of the prior age. Only 5 elements are meant to be indestructable (because they will be destroyed in the storyline), and if the players destroy them, Alternate Universe is applied. The goal is that players will all start out in the same world, however their actions can have very serious ramifications for the world.
So, the players aren't "expected" to follow a cannon or to be on a railroad. Instead, the cannon serves as 'a gear of the world' which allows prior events to create stories, and events in motion to respond to player actions. Example.
In my previous game, the players went against the cannon and killed the Council of Wyrms. This was "world breaking". However. I knew that from the first time around that if the Council of Wyrms didn't come to fruition, the north region of the world would have unfolded differently. Instead of worrying about it, I smiled. The first 2 years are designed to get the players out of the "world as is" and into "their copy" of the world as quickly as possible. When they killed the council of wyrms, a few problems arose which the players began finding other solutions for, and working on. It didn't hurt anything, and they knew they were breaking cannon - and just wanted to test me.
They were happy to watch how differently things "could have" (and did) happen. I agree with you! I agree, I agree. I just need to word myself more carefully, because I am aware that I could be portrayed as a railroader (and I am not).
Edit: What is neat about doing it this way, is I have a record of prior campaigns where alternate universes were used. So, if a player wants to play again, they can start out as normal, or jump into "their world's timeline" as-is.
Other players through playing advance their game enough that their "alternate universe" develops its own timeline of events, and all of their characters are created in that alternate universe.
In the north planes, without the Council of Wyrms to unify the dragons under one banner, rival dragon clans began duking it out. Lizardmen, Kobolds, Goblins, and Gargoyles were drawn into this conflict.
The Empire to the south in the "real world" didn't advance North because of the Council of Wyrms. This time, their reason was the region North was so unstable that it wouldn't have been a suitable addition to the Empire. In the "real world", the empire was divided between 3 factions; the church, the royal dynasty and the merchants. I notified the players "This NPC is actually the Great Grandfather of the man who will become Emperor." They began to help him. If they decided to kill him, it would never matter. The future isn't predetermined in this alternate universe, and giving them this information lets them "change" the world.
The players in this game went East. In this period of history, these lands were plagued by tainted shadows and "how it was solved" was forgotten in the world. The players decided they wanted to solve it; One of the players recognized an NPC from the prior game. The prior game was in the "modular" world, where this NPC was an old man. In this game, he was a child struggling to find his way in life. They gave him his way, and in the modular world, in the next game I played, he "recognized" that player's character as a member of that dynasty.
So, what are the "indestructable elements"? They are things the players agree not to destroy, to be blunt. Players have their own ways to signal "Never, will I harm this". These are the things that I "Protect". I don't give them "Plot Armor" but the PC's kind of do (by declaring their intention). These elements can be destroyed by a plot, or by the world however. Players are good about letting me know what they want.
Each region is very different. One region is primitive, and full of dire/legendary animal tribes with humanoid servants and dinosaurs. Another has 3 spaceships with access and political control over a space station. Another is a Romanesque type of Empire, another is ridden with goblins, kobolds, gargoyles, dragons and lizardmen. Another land is home to the Fey, Shadows and Celestials. Each region, when the game begins, has a lot of things "in motion" just waiting for PC's to engage it. Factions, NPC's and Plot Elements "earn their stripes". If players enjoy something, they will see more of it in the future. If something isn't interesting to them or they don't like it, they don't see it again unless there is a good reason (that they agree to accept).
The "X" that "Changes the World" is a beautiful thing, and I am always surprised with the world "this team" winds up with, compared to the world other teams wound up with, just by the most minute things, like the factions they helped or worked against or the regions they invested wealth in.
I'll have to check out your setting when you get it published.
When someone stands up and punches the DM in the face, the DM has gone too far.
Close, but I don't think you actually need Assault to occur. I think if you reach the point of causing abject rage -- not in-character, but out of character; not entitled or rules-lawyer nerdrage but honest, deep anger -- you've overstepped whether or not you get a bloody nose.
Close, but I don't think you actually need Assault to occur.
Technically speaking, assault is "I'm going to punch you in the face!"
The act of actually punching you in the face is battery.
What you say is true (though the assault part is actually from the perspective of the assaultee - he must be in fear of his physical safety), though it would be difficult to punch someone in the face (battering them) without first assaulting them, even for the second between drawing your arm back and letting your fist fly.
Anyway, I am pretty easy-going DM. I can't imagine doing the stuff some of you are talking about, especially with the one with the mid-battle **** scenes. Certainly not my kind of game, though I tend to avoid sex in my games.
Though I have gotten myself in trouble because I HATE running easy battles. Not every battle needs to be a grinder, and I certainly expect (and want) the PCs to win every battle, but I want the battles to be challenging. And if I run a combat that negates one PC's ability set (like a purely ranged battle and one PC is a melee-based character), you can bet that I will be sure that PC has a chance to shine in the next battle.
My line as a DM is I want to avoid telling a PC what to do. Hell, I will pretty much allow a PC to do anything they want, though they understand that each decision made has consequences, both good and bad. If I feel like a decision is disasterously bad, I will often ask the player if they are sure and discuss it with them OOC, just so we are on the same page.
My favorite example came up recently. One of my PCs had made a deal with a devil, agreeing to hand over her soul once she died for some necessary information (there were other ways to acquire the information, but she was impatient). During the battle with the BBEG, while he was near-death but still putting up quite the fight, she died. The devil came to collect her soul, and another PC in desperation shouts out "I'll let you have my soul if you kill our enemy (the BBEG)!"
I was taken aback (it was just supposed to be a cool little scene to showcase the character's death), but I took a moment and respond with "if you grant me your soul immediately, I will do as you ask."
The player considered, agreed to the bargain and sacrificed her PC to take out the BBEG. The players all seemed pleased, considering it a great way to close out the first part of the campaign. Need two new characters, but they were both looking to change characters anyway.
With me it is when a Dm actually trys to tell me what I can and can not name my character, I have actually walked out of games for that one...
What did you want to name your character? Maybe I've spent too much time as a DM, but this one actually seems pretty reasonable to me.
I can also see situations in which the DM might want to say something about a character's name, particularly if the theme of the game is important and had been previously agreed to. But I still see that as grounds for a conversation, not unilateral and irrevocable actions by anyone involved.
I've seen some pretty bad names in my DMing day...
Fighter the Fighter
Spiderman
Spiderman 2
Spiderman 3
Spiderman 4
Spiderman 5
Spiderman 6
Green Goblin
No Name
Couldn't think of a name
Ninja the Ninja
Dude
Mr. Dude
Sword-Man
Pac-Man
Michael Jackson the Bard
Beasty Boyz
Bob Just Bob
My Character
(Insert player's name here)'s Character
Super Super-Man
Lumber Jack
Mario Brothers
And the ever popular... Blank (spelled without any letters... as in " ").
Their characters were as original as their names. Unfortunately none of these characters survived for long enough to explore all aspects of their personalities.
Or did they?