Badmike wrote:I got it in the mail this week but just last night got a chance to page through it. This thing is frikken hilarious!!! It's much more than just the rant. This is truly a PERSONALIZED copy of the PHB...tons and tons of notations, notes written in the margins, stuff crossed out, entire spells blacked out, names changed, spells altered, etc. Some of the notations had my laughing out loud. Under "Halflings" in the character races section, Perelman notes: "They're called Hobbits, assholes". The Weapon type to hit adjustment table" "This table smokes farty eggs". The clerical Conjure Animals spell has "This is the biggest bunch of crap I've ever seen. The author of this spell should be exploded" written in the margin and the entire spell marked out; The Mirror Image spell, under the explanation of number of images formed, he's written "Roll a fucking D4 Asshole". Funny stuff. The most interesting though upon flipping through this is how different the approaches were between groups of players. For myself, we would NEVER have thought of marking up the PHB like this...it was like the bible or something! I didn't think so at the time since we had so many house rules, but for the most part on spell descriptions etc we slavishly followed the rules. My group would have never thought about altering spell descriptions, spell lengths, etc. We would have simply ignored the entire spell and just not used it. Also, got to love these old books...despite the massive amount of use Perelman probably put it through, it's rock solid. Looks like it could make it through another 25 years of gaming no prob....Mike B.
Just don't send it 'M' bag
My turn, my turn . . . bring along women, too.
MShipley88 wrote:Players who charmed monsters expected the monsters to robotically obey any command.Players whose characters were affected by a Charm Person spell would inevitably argue that since they would not obey any order that was "against their nature," they would not have to follow any orders at all. In fact, a simple request like, "Please stop killing me, charmed dude," would not be obeyed since sparing monsters would be "against my nature."They whined and complained so long and so loud:Player: "So, you're telling me that my that my 12th level barbarian can be stopped by a first level spell. That's ridiculous...I don't have a very good save at all!"DM: "Um...if you wanted saving throws you'd have been a cleric or a paladin. Didn't you accept the disadvantages of being a barbarian when you chose to be one? Haven't you been hacking magic users to death all evening? Do they get to argue that your sword is unfair?"I got sick of it so I wrote down a definition of charmed on a D&D book end sheet and forced them to sign it or forever more shut up.
Badmike wrote:Oh Lord. If anything you were much too nice. The next time they tried to charm a Neo Otyugh or something, I'd have it attack them under the premise "It's against the creature's nature not to turn you into Neo Otyugh food" or something of the sort. So I take it neither characters nor monsters use Charm in your campaigns now, due to the rule of Escalating Force? My players and myself reached a detente of sorts on that...in that whatever you can reasonably ask a charmed creature to do, can also be applied to your character. I had to hammer them a few times before they got the idea, but things proceeded smoothly afterwards.Mike B.
MShipley88 wrote:In a campaign series lasting into multiple decades (1978 to now), with a changing cast of players, the same arguments have had to be repeated many times...since even experienced players are quite capable of "forgetting" any rule that does not favor them.(There have been upwards of 60 or so players over the years.)Charm Person now won't do anything except make a creature vaguely friendly to you.I agreed never to use Charm Person again...instead, I have the right to substitute another power or feat of my choice whenever a monster has that particular spell. Usually, that means Suggestion...about which there is little dispute. I try to be as mean as possible in my choice.The ability of otherwise super-intelligent and highly honest people to utilize selective memory is astonishing. Conversely, being a DM is good training for seeing and/or arguing multiple points of view.Mark
sleepyCO wrote:For those who have read Mr. Perelman's book of "rants, raves, and name-calling": Is there anything in Perelman's book that seems to have been a good idea, or has been adapted/used in later rules versions? Or is it all just "hot air"??
Kosh Vorlontay wrote:Bump: Who has it now?
Xaxaxe wrote:I know others have requested it before me, but go ahead and add an eventual stop in Reno for the Infamous PHB. Since it will just be me looking at it, I can have it turned back around within a couple of days.
deimos3428 wrote:You guys are going to be heart-broken when a postal service inevitably loses it. (My money's on Canada Post, if anybody wants to place a side bet...)
Kingofpain89 wrote:Almost forgot about this! Mike brought the book over on New Year's Eve and let me look through it. Some really funny stuff in there. This guy commented on just about every table in the book and the cracks he made about some of the spells are priceless.