RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
2) I am also pretty sure that no one here is legitimately claiming that players should be able to force their ideas onto GMs or they'll quit. What the players want is to be able to talk about it and not have it flat out banned without discussion or the possibility of a reflavor to get the mechanics they want. In fact, the only people in this thread who I've seen claim that players want to "force their ideas into a campaign or quit" are the people who are arguing against that idea; aka a strawman.
Conversely, I have seen several people make the claim that this is their table, their game, their rules, and that's that; if you don't like it, feel free to leave.
Strawmanning the other side works both ways. No GM here is saying "you will play a NG elf male archery ranger or GTFO." Some are saying "you have 20 options for base classes instead of 22, and I choose not to use some rules subsystems in this game." We call this, "house rules."
There absolutely must be some give and take between players and GMs. I gave an example of that give and take upthread with the Carrion Crown strix PC. But there is an information asymmetry. The GM has information about the campaign that the PCs do not and probably should not have; this makes the GM uniquely, of all the participants in a game, responsible for ensuring the content of that game is going to be fun for everyone. If the GM is giving you advice about your character, it's probably to help you and the rest of the group have fun, not because he enjoys raining on your parade. Maybe he's advising you that good outsiders wouldn't be a great favored enemy in the upcoming Against the Vampires campaign. Maybe he's trying to help you not be That One Guy who brings Bunnies & Burrows into an extra dark and gritty Shadowrun game, ruining the tone for everybody else. Conversely, if everybody wants Bunnies & Burrows, and you really want to GM Shadowrun, maybe it's somebody else's turn to GM.
Reskinning works sometimes, but it also involves negotiation. Again, there's information asymmetry. Just like the GM bears the primary responsibility for setting and maintaining the tone of the campaign, the GM also bears the primary responsibility for refereeing the rules of the game. Reskinning involves mechanical rules decisions and the GM has to be the final arbiter of the rules.
Well, let's compare:Ki Points - as you level, you have a set amount of points that you can spend in order to perform special actions. You can spend multiple points at once in order to use more powerful abilities. You don't have to use them all at once, and they reset every day.
Rage Rounds - as you level, you have a set amount of rage rounds that you can spend in order to perform special actions. You can use rage rounds consecutively in order to keep your special actions going. You don't have to use all of them in one sitting, and they reset every day.
Your comparison makes no sense to me (assuming that the point of your post was to disagree with me). The second sentence in both doesn't even refer to the same thing and so has no comparative value. The other points seems to say that they're both a control mechanism acting as a class ability limiter; something I already agreed with.
If your point was that there's no functional difference between them then I disagree (I don't know if this was the case or not; you stated no conclusion and I have no idea if you're addressing my one post to one person or if you're lumping my post into a "set camp" of thought, and disagreeing with that).
If it's the former, then I think your comparison is far too simplistic. It's main point, from what I can tell, is that both Ki points and Rage rounds are tracked and therefore the same. That's far too broad a brush, IMO as they generate different effects and the fluff is completely different. There are many things in the game that are tracked, Wizard spells, Paladin smites, Inquisitor judgements, hit points, etc. I just don't see the comparative value here. It's different in 4E where swinging a sword, casting a spell, using a psionic ability, what-have-you are all fundamentally the same. They can generate the same effects, are resolved identically and the fluff distinctions barely exists. That seemed to me to be one of the core points of 4E: to remove those distinctions. But I don't see that in PF. At all. If anything, I see more subsystems in PF than I did in 3.5; adding in gunpowder rules, Words of Power, etc.
If it's the latter, then you're putting words in my mouth from a civil conversation between two people that had already ended in a post that includes no stated point or derived conclusion of its own. I can think of no reason to do this except to inflate a self-perceived intellectual superiority over other posters. I would prefer to assume that this is not the case, however, which brings me back to my initial confusion as to what exactly you were getting at in your post.
:p
<crosses arms and pouts>
"Whaddaya mean, I can't play a glitterboy mech pilot, in Testament?"This is basically what I am writing, right now. :D
It's called the Armiger, and there's a thread about it currently in suggestions/homebrew. It was inspired by this very discussion.
This is what a Wraithstrike thread does. I just checked the homebrew thread. I will actually stop by for a detailed looked at it later. :)
Well I'm curious, because the way I see it the moment Mister Cavern says "YOU WILL PLAY WHAT I WANT OR THE DOOR IS THAT WAY" while dismissing any attempts to discuss the matter and question his decisions, any notions of integrity have left the building long time ago via the chimney.What's this "DM integrity" thing you're talking about?Apparently something that can be ruined by being antagonistic and uncompromising.Actually I present my games to my players and after explaining what isn't allowed, if it is a specific game, then they decide whether they want to play it or not.
I don't force anything one anyone just like I don't expect to force my to change my game for their sake every time they want me to.
So you do exactly what he said you do.
"...after explaining what isn't allowed..." = "You will play what I want..."
"...then they decide whether they want to play or not." = "...the door is that way."
Actually no.
Here is a campaign that I would like to run. It involves ABC and I am not allowing XYZ. Anyone want to play?
No? That's cool, Bobby has a game that he would like to run so let's hear his proposal and decide.
If you can't see the difference then that's your problem.
I may be simplifying your argument, and if so I apologise in advance, but what it sounds like is-->"I want to run ____. If you don't want to play ___ then I just won't GM".
I know you said you offered the chair to someone else, but it is still effectively play what you want to run or you don't GM.
In order to unsimplify your statement I will ask, what happens of none of the other GM's feel like running?* Do you run something with player input or do you just not run.
*It is probably unlikely that this happens in your group, but I am asking a "what if" question.
It just seems like issue is being talked around for this particular case, and any discussion should have mutual understanding of what is being said.
2) I am also pretty sure that no one here is legitimately claiming that players should be able to force their ideas onto GMs or they'll quit. What the players want is to be able to talk about it and not have it flat out banned without discussion or the possibility of a reflavor to get the mechanics they want. In fact, the only people in this thread who I've seen claim that players want to "force their ideas into a campaign or quit" are the people who are arguing against that idea; aka a strawman.
Conversely, I have seen several people make the claim that this is their table, their game, their rules, and that's that; if you don't like it, feel free to leave.
Strawmanning the other side works both ways. No GM here is saying "you will play a NG elf male archery ranger or GTFO." Some are saying "you have 20 options for base classes instead of 22, and I choose not to use some rules subsystems in this game." We call this, "house rules."
Reskinning works sometimes, but it also...
Where is the strawman?
I will also add that I did agree with the bottom half of your post, assuming the GM is doing it for the campaign. The issue is that sometimes that is not the reason, and it is those times that this discussion is also about.
As an example a player wanted to use the Vow of Poverty(3.5) in Skulls and Shackles. I intended to run it as being difficult because you could not get access to magic items, and if he just bypassed that with a feat it would defeat the point of the campaign for the most part.
If I had just said "no and don't question me about it", even if was for a good reason then he probably still would have played, but his view of it as a player is not nearly the same.
-----------------------------------
Statement 2:
Some GM's say "you do as I say or you don't play with me as the GM." The reason/excuse is often that they did all the work so they get all the decision making power. In past discussions I have asked, "What if the players are willing to help?". I normally got a response of "I don't want their help" or "I don't allow their help"..... Someone on the outside looking in would see it as him rejecting the help as another reason/excuse to hold all the power.
I am not saying anyone has to allow player input. I also understand that sometimes you don't want to give away spoilers so some things can't be discussed. I am saying the "I did all the work" line is not always valid.
Just to be clear I am not trying to convert anyone. I am only saying that sometimes listening to the players makes the game better for everyone. In other words the message is not "do as your player demands". The message is that many of us are of the opinion that things are normally better if the GM at least listens to what a player has to say.
Wraithstrike says: If a player demands anything of me or he won't play, well I guess he won't be playing. In other words the idea of a GM doing whatever a player says or being allowed whatever they ask every time is not happening at my table. It seems the opinion was out there that I promote such games. #far from the truth
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2) I am also pretty sure that no one here is legitimately claiming that players should be able to force their ideas onto GMs or they'll quit. What the players want is to be able to talk about it and not have it flat out banned without discussion or the possibility of a reflavor to get the mechanics they want. In fact, the only people in this thread who I've seen claim that players want to "force their ideas into a campaign or quit" are the people who are arguing against that idea; aka a strawman.
Conversely, I have seen several people make the claim that this is their table, their game, their rules, and that's that; if you don't like it, feel free to leave.
Strawmanning the other side works both ways. No GM here is saying "you will play a NG elf male archery ranger or GTFO." Some are saying "you have 20 options for base classes instead of 22, and I choose not to use some rules subsystems in this game." We call this, "house rules."
Reskinning works sometimes, but it also...
Where is the strawman?
I will also add that I did agree with the bottom half of your post, assuming the GM is doing it for the campaign. The issue is that sometimes that is not the reason, and it is those times that this discussion is also about.
As an example a player wanted to use the Vow of Poverty(3.5) in Skulls and Shackles. I intended to run it as being difficult because you could not get access to magic items, and if he just bypassed that with a feat it would defeat the point of the campaign for the most part.
If I had just said "no and don't question me about it", even if was for a good reason then he probably still would have played, but his view of it as a player is not nearly the same.
-----------------------------------
Statement 2:
Some GM's say "you do as I say or you don't play with me as the GM." The reason/excuse is often that they did all the work so they get all the decision making power. In past discussions I have asked,...
Why do you think you are supposed to know why a DM is not allowing something?
Since when does "your" fun take precedence over mine and the rest of the people at the table?And I would be more than happy to leave such a game. I really don't feel like dealing with an antagonistic and uncompromising DM in what is supposed to be a fun game.Sounds to me like the real answer behind this is the fact that some people want to have their cake and eat it too. They want nothing banned and they want the option of just re-skinning their character to go with the class that has the best mechanics.
If you want to play a ninja in my game and I don't allow ninja's then you play a rogue. I don't care if you want the ninja's mechanics, you either abide by my restrictions or you don't play the game.
DM's have just as much right to ban things in their games as a player has of playing a specific class.
It doesn't. If everyone else likes your game and I don't then I leave your game, and the rest of you just keep on having fun without me. I don't HAVE to play Pathfinder at any point in time. It is a choice I make because I believe that it will be fun. If I don't think it will be I leave and go have fun doing something else.
Protection from arrows provides -10 damage from bullets, but a cannon golem would get past that with the sheer volume of damage.
I think Russia went broke building missile systems. They never even completed some of them.
What if, What if, What if.Okay, I'll play your game you rogue. What if that happens?
Although I also have fun thinking of this hypothetical conversation.
** spoiler omitted **
Hey, you started that game. Don't complain about it now.
And if I'd get rid of Alkenstar (or any other country on Golarion)? What's the problem? You can't play a gunslinger without it? Sorry, but where's your flexibility?
[...]
But my god at least admit it!
It would be pretty silly to ban guns in Golarion, but keep Alkenstar as it is, wouldn't it? It's a matter of consistence.
As for the rest: Let's assume that I ban guns because I don't like them. You can't play a gunslinger. What now? Will you insist on playing a one?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why do you think you are supposed to know why a DM is not allowing something?
Because it is common courtesy to explain why are you banning something, up to the point where it won't give up some information about the campaign or the setting that you don't want the players to know about beforehand.
GM is not a king. Neither are the players.
I have walked away from several games where GMs were acting like bratty kids, banning things out of spite and making arbitrary house rules. I have also had players walk away from my games. One actually called me a fascist because i found her concept of a vegan, lesbian, elven druid not fitting my knight in shining armor war campaign, and politely asked her to change her concept, because they had three weeks to prepare for the game and a very detailed player's guide i mailed to them all.
Have an happy time doing that until either A) this thread is closed and/or B) almost everyone is suspended.
What if, What if, What if.Okay, I'll play your game you rogue. What if that happens?
Although I also have fun thinking of this hypothetical conversation.
** spoiler omitted **
Hey, you started that game. Don't complain about it now.
And if I'd get rid of Alkenstar (or any other country on Golarion)? What's the problem? You can't play a gunslinger without it? Sorry, but where's your flexibility?
[...]
But my god at least admit it!It would be pretty silly to ban guns in Golarion, but keep Alkenstar as it is, wouldn't it? It's a matter of consistence.
As for the rest: Let's assume that I ban guns because I don't like them. You can't play a gunslinger. What now? Will you insist on playing a one?
I play elsewhere. Problem solved.
What mechanic of the ninja's doesn't fit in a standard as possible, wizard/fighter/cleric/rogue world?ki.
Seriously, how many completely different kinds of magic does one setting need? We have at least arcane, divine, rage, ki, music, and alchemy. Witches use arcane magic with divine fluff. Summoners seem wonky as well, getting arcane casting through their eidolon link or something. Oh, and then there are wordcasters. That makes by my count 13 distinct kinds of magic. 15 if druidic casting is different from god oriented clerical casting, which it may be in any setting that requires gods for clerics but not druids.
There's something to be said for setting coherence and the magic user/fighting man/cleric/thief world can get by with just two kinds of magic. The black mage/fighter/white mage/thief world can get by with just one.
Kinda true, just the disparities between Sorcerer/Wizard spells damage and Cleric/Oracle healing spells, and the disparities between Arcane and Divine spells in general.
Black Mage would still have to be split into: Black Mage, Green Mage, Time Mage, etc...
Why do you think you are supposed to know why a DM is not allowing something?
I did have a comment saying something along the lines of making exceptions for the case of spoilers. Your one sentence answer makes it sound like I am saying the GM always has to explains things, and that is misleading.
I also never said it was an obligation. I was merely saying why it might be a good idea to discuss things with players sometimes. I thought my statement of I am not trying to convert anyone would have made that clear.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... 2) I am also pretty sure that no one here is legitimately claiming that players should be able to force their ideas onto GMs or they'll quit ...hmm... Some of it kinda reads that way. But that may be due to the tempers flying and exaggeration on both sides. And I have had players do exactly that.
Fair enough. I've been in the thread long enough that maybe I don't see it (or perhaps I've just forgotten). A fresh look into the thread can reveal things that those who have been a part since the beginning do not see.
... What the players want is to be able to talk about it and not have it flat out banned without discussion or the possibility of a reflavor to get the mechanics they want…The way some of it is being stated, both sides sound rather one way. I have to say that as a GM, I have in the past (prior editions) put a huge amount of time and effort into creating a world that makes sense to me and that I can enjoy. It is very disheartening to have players agree to play then have the players complain that I did not change everything to cater to them.
I’m not saying that is what you are proposing, but it illustrates the point. I think both sides are basing their arguments on extreme examples that rarely happen. Note I said rarely not never. I’ve seen both.
GM’s that arbitrarily change rules for no reason with no warning. I’m not allowing you to animate anymore because it is too overpowered. You will have to rely on the other necromancy spells.
Players that complain because their pirate didn’t get to shine in the dwarven undermountain campaign. And he only got to play the pirate because he threw a fit about it being banned in the setup.
As a GM and a player, I've seen both. I've probably been both in my many years of gaming. I've been playing since 1990, which is probably as long as many people here. In fact, I just got out of a 13 year gaming group, which at the end (probably the last few years) the GM became very tyrannical. Rules changed at the GM's whim, what we could do we no longer can; new rules pop up on the fly, only to be changed weeks or months later - we were always accused of abusing the rules to make our characters more powerful, always accused of min-maxing or powergaming or being munchkins. And no one else was allowed to GM. At one point, I did all the math to show that no, we were not powergaming, this is just a standard following of the most common rules. After showing that, I was told by the GM that she "doesn't do math" and that my work and argument doesn't matter; we were still powergaming and now that ability is no longer allowed in the game. And this was three years into a campaign that probably had a few more years to go before it ended. Don't like it? "Ok. Fine. You win. The bad guys are defeated. Everyone is happy and celebrates and goes home. Adventure over. Are you happy now?" And I've heard that same threat from the GM multiple times over the years. The last campaign we were in, the GM even insisted on writing all of our character backgrounds for us. She didn't want us to come up with our own backgrounds. Why didn't I leave the game? These were my friends. I've been friends with them since the late 90s, and some of them since high school. Can you just leave your friends like that? Well, I did finally leave the game and in the aftermath I lost those friends. It hurt. I became the bad guy in their eyes. And not only was I out of one hobby, I was out of several hobbies because we all shared multiple hobbies together. And just like the other people that left our table over the last few years, I'm sure my name is being slandered every Saturday night by those who remain (this was actually the blow up that caused me to be "banned from the house," in the GM's own words - right after I decided to leave the table. I told one of those who left what was being said behind his back, while those same people pretended to be his friend when they saw him during the week. I had recently learned that much of the slander was not true, and the increasing viciousness of it became too much for me those last couple of weeks. It's one thing to say, "I'm glad he left because I didn't like xyz," and an entirely different thing to start telling people that he's committing child and spousal abuse).
So yeah, I want to be able to negotiate with my GM when I play. And when I run games, I like to negotiate with my players to determine what they want to play and balance it with what I want to run.
Fortunately, I've gained some new friends and I'm at a new table with some really good people. Life got better, but it still hurts. Oh, and to note, my old friends weren't like that when I met them, all that only started happening the last few years. And like I said above, sometimes when you're in the middle of it, you can't see what's right in front of your face.
Sorry for going into this little story of my gaming background. It's not intended as an attack against you or anyone else (and to make sure we're on the same page here, I agree with what you said above). I'm just hoping that my own story will shed some light on why some of us - at least me - want to be able to talk things out with GMs and players rather than having one person dictate how things shall be. I want that, because a person can not always choose to walk away from the table without some harsh consequences.
I may be simplifying your argument, and if so I apologise in advance, but what it sounds like is-->"I want to run ____. If you don't want to play ___ then I just won't GM".
I know you said you offered the chair to someone else, but it is still effectively play what you want to run or you don't GM.
In order to unsimplify your statement I will ask, what happens of none of the other GM's feel like running?* Do you run something with player input or do you just not run.
*It is probably unlikely that this happens in your group, but I am asking a "what if" question.
It just seems like issue is being talked around for this particular...
No reply from SS. I just I was not simplifying anything. So yeah SS just refuses to GM in this case. That is not really a bad thing since he as the GM should have fun also, but the dishonesty he shows by trying to insinuate that is not the case is telling.
PS:Yeah I had to bold it, lest someone take more of my posts out of context.
2) I am also pretty sure that no one here is legitimately claiming that players should be able to force their ideas onto GMs or they'll quit. What the players want is to be able to talk about it and not have it flat out banned without discussion or the possibility of a reflavor to get the mechanics they want. In fact, the only people in this thread who I've seen claim that players want to "force their ideas into a campaign or quit" are the people who are arguing against that idea; aka a strawman.
Conversely, I have seen several people make the claim that this is their table, their game, their rules, and that's that; if you don't like it, feel free to leave.
Strawmanning the other side works both ways. No GM here is saying "you will play a NG elf male archery ranger or GTFO." Some are saying "you have 20 options for base classes instead of 22, and I choose not to use some rules subsystems in this game." We call this, "house rules."
There absolutely must be some give and take between players and GMs. I gave an example of that give and take upthread with the Carrion Crown strix PC. But there is an information asymmetry. The GM has information about the campaign that the PCs do not and probably should not have; this makes the GM uniquely, of all the participants in a game, responsible for ensuring the content of that game is going to be fun for everyone. If the GM is giving you advice about your character, it's probably to help you and the rest of the group have fun, not because he enjoys raining on your parade. Maybe he's advising you that good outsiders wouldn't be a great favored enemy in the upcoming Against the Vampires campaign. Maybe he's trying to help you not be That One Guy who brings Bunnies & Burrows into an extra dark and gritty Shadowrun game, ruining the tone for everybody else. Conversely, if everybody wants Bunnies & Burrows, and you really want to GM Shadowrun, maybe it's somebody else's turn to GM.
Reskinning works sometimes, but it also...
I get what you're saying, and I actually agree with almost all of it. the only difference is that I don't think the GM should be the final arbiter of the rules, I think it should be a consensus among the group. The GM is just another player who plays a different role than the rest. I also don't think my opinion is "the right" opinion; it's just a different way of playing.
I'm not trying to argue on here to show who is right and who is wrong (unless it's a rules question), but merely giving my opinion and try to create some back and forth discussion so that hopefully some people will like what we post and take away from it what they will to improve their own game (and meanwhile, I do the same with what other people post; to those of you whose ideas I've taken for my table, thank you!).
Why ban a class for flavor ?
It depends on your setting. If it's more Asian, banning the rogue and cavalier for the ninja and samurai sounds legit. If guns aren't found in your setting, banning the gunslinger sounds legit... unless you find an archetype that uses crossbows instead of guns.
Personally, I never banned classes nor races, or at least I limit myself to 1st-party books without going overboard with 3rd-party books.
The only thing I'm banning are evil alignments. I just don't want players backstabbing other players, which I've witnessed before.
Your comparison makes no sense to me (assuming that the point of your post was to disagree with me). The second sentence in both doesn't even refer to the same thing and so has no comparative value. The other points seems to say that they're both a control mechanism acting as a class ability limiter; something I already agreed with.
Well, let's compare:Ki Points - as you level, you have a set amount of points that you can spend in order to perform special actions. You can spend multiple points at once in order to use more powerful abilities. You don't have to use them all at once, and they reset every day.
Rage Rounds - as you level, you have a set amount of rage rounds that you can spend in order to perform special actions. You can use rage rounds consecutively in order to keep your special actions going. You don't have to use all of them in one sitting, and they reset every day.
Really? I think it does. That's why I worded it that way.
If your point was that there's no functional difference between them then I disagree (I don't know if this was the case or not; you stated no conclusion and I have no idea if you're addressing my one post to one person or if you're lumping my post into a "set camp" of thought, and disagreeing with that).
Well, there's obviously a functional difference between them, otherwise the descriptions would be identical. But in my opinion, they are fairly similar.
If it's the former, then I think your comparison is far too simplistic.
Quite possibly.
It's main point, from what I can tell, is that both Ki points and Rage rounds are tracked and therefore the same. That's far too broad a brush, IMO as they generate different effects and the fluff is completely different.
Well, the fluff is quite different, but the mechanic behind the fluff is similar. There are differences, such as with Ki points, you can spend multiple points in one round, whereas with rage rounds, you spend rounds consecutively.
There are many things in the game that are tracked, Wizard spells, Paladin smites, Inquisitor judgements, hit points, etc.
I really don't see HP as being similar, and I'm not familiar enough with Paladin smites or Inquisitor judgments to judge how the mechanics work. Wizard spells I see as completely different, because you can't add up spell slots to get an even higher spell cast, nor can you spend spell slots to continue the effect.
I just don't see the comparative value here.
You know, this is a really good point. I don't think I even see the value of the comparison. Now you got me thinking, "Why did I even post that?"
It's different in 4E where swinging a sword, casting a spell, using a psionic ability, what-have-you are all fundamentally the same. They can generate the same effects, are resolved identically and the fluff distinctions barely exists. That seemed to me to be one of the core points of 4E: to remove those distinctions. But I don't see that in PF. At all. If anything, I see more subsystems in PF than I did in 3.5; adding in gunpowder rules, Words of Power, etc.
I think I've played 4E all of twice, so I have no idea. :(
If it's the latter, then you're putting words in my mouth from a civil conversation between two people that had already ended in a post that includes no stated point or derived conclusion of its own. I can think of no reason to do this except to inflate a self-perceived intellectual superiority over other posters. I would prefer to assume that this is not the case, however, which brings me back to my initial confusion as to what exactly you were getting at in your post.
I am really sorry if I came off this way. It was not my intention at all. I saw the post, and I merely wanted to show a way in which they could be seen as similar.
Why ban a class for flavor ?
It depends on your setting. If it's more Asian, banning the rogue and cavalier for the ninja and samurai sounds legit. If guns aren't found in your setting, banning the gunslinger sounds legit... unless you find an archetype that uses crossbows instead of guns.
Personally, I never banned classes nor races, or at least I limit myself to 1st-party books without going overboard with 3rd-party books.
The only thing I'm banning are evil alignments. I just don't want players backstabbing other players, which I've witnessed before.
They had rogues, they were usually really low-level street scum, but they were still rogues. They basically imported cavaliers, you saw the Last Samurai right? Tom Cruise was a Cavalier. Why couldn't a player be the guy who INVENTS the guns and he's out testing his toys?
Have we had anybody say BADWRONGFUN yet?
Because some players want unlimited ability to build whatever PC they want in whatever game. And some GMs prefer to set a tone for their campaign that involves some restrictions on player choice. Neither one is badwrongfun. Play how you want with who you want. Bandying around pejoratives like "entitled player" or "tyrannical GM" is not really conducive to grown up discussion.
Katanas, though... katanas are badwrongfun.
Katanas are just bastard swords, and any attempt to change them and make them better just causes this in me:
http://www.conventionofassassins.org/blog/postingImages/haddockLaughing.jpg
Aware of the changes, find them hilarious. Now if you wanted to make them better but give them a trade-off, like fragility, then I'd sit up and listen.
2) I am also pretty sure that no one here is legitimately claiming that players should be able to force their ideas onto GMs or they'll quit. What the players want is to be able to talk about it and not have it flat out banned without discussion or the possibility of a reflavor to get the mechanics they want. In fact, the only people in this thread who I've seen claim that players want to "force their ideas into a campaign or quit" are the people who are arguing against that idea; aka a strawman.
Conversely, I have seen several people make the claim that this is their table, their game, their rules, and that's that; if you don't like it, feel free to leave.
Strawmanning the other side works both ways. No GM here is saying "you will play a NG elf male archery ranger or GTFO." Some are saying "you have 20 options for base classes instead of 22, and I choose not to use some rules subsystems in this game." We call this, "house rules."
There absolutely must be some give and take between players and GMs. I gave an example of that give and take upthread with the Carrion Crown strix PC. But there is an information asymmetry. The GM has information about the campaign that the PCs do not and probably should not have; this makes the GM uniquely, of all the participants in a game, responsible for ensuring the content of that game is going to be fun for everyone. If the GM is giving you advice about your character, it's probably to help you and the rest of the group have fun, not because he enjoys raining on your parade. Maybe he's advising you that good outsiders wouldn't be a great favored enemy in the upcoming Against the Vampires campaign. Maybe he's trying to help you not be That One Guy who brings Bunnies & Burrows into an extra dark and gritty Shadowrun game, ruining the tone for everybody else. Conversely, if everybody wants Bunnies & Burrows, and you really want to GM Shadowrun, maybe it's somebody else's turn to GM.
Reskinning works sometimes, but it also...
Charlie, why are you so reasonable? Did you find a katana of reasonableness?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Katanas are just bastard swords....
Showing my age here, but I remember a time when that was all they were. LOL
What if, What if, What if.Okay, I'll play your game you rogue. What if that happens?
Although I also have fun thinking of this hypothetical conversation.
** spoiler omitted **
Hey, you started that game. Don't complain about it now.
And if I'd get rid of Alkenstar (or any other country on Golarion)? What's the problem? You can't play a gunslinger without it? Sorry, but where's your flexibility?
[...]
But my god at least admit it!It would be pretty silly to ban guns in Golarion, but keep Alkenstar as it is, wouldn't it? It's a matter of consistence.
As for the rest: Let's assume that I ban guns because I don't like them. You can't play a gunslinger. What now? Will you insist on playing a one?
Well the way I did it, so the setting was not changed too much (you got your gun-toting steampunk in my fantasy, eww) was that Alkenstar had got up to matchlock tech. No one else was really interested in it, there were no members of the gunslinger class because the tech wasn't up to six shooters and repeaters yet. Alkenstar fighters would often have a firearm, but it takes forever to load a matchlock, so they rely on other weapons. It becomes a region specific tool, not a class. Bam, no gunslingers (and the dm could sleep better at night).
Katanas are just bastard swords....Showing my age here, but I remember a time when that was all they were. LOL
Old guy high five!
... 2) I am also pretty sure that no one here is legitimately claiming that players should be able to force their ideas onto GMs or they'll quit ...hmm... Some of it kinda reads that way. But that may be due to the tempers flying and exaggeration on both sides. And I have had players do exactly that.Fair enough. I've been in the thread long enough that maybe I don't see it (or perhaps I've just forgotten). A fresh look into the thread can reveal things that those who have been a part since the beginning do not see.
As a GM and a player, I've seen both. I've probably been both in my many years of gaming. I've been playing since 1990, which is probably as long as many people here. In fact, I just got out of a 13 year gaming group, which at the...... What the players want is to be able to talk about it and not have it flat out banned without discussion or the possibility of a reflavor to get the mechanics they want…The way some of it is being stated, both sides sound rather one way. I have to say that as a GM, I have in the past (prior editions) put a huge amount of time and effort into creating a world that makes sense to me and that I can enjoy. It is very disheartening to have players agree to play then have the players complain that I did not change everything to cater to them.
I’m not saying that is what you are proposing, but it illustrates the point. I think both sides are basing their arguments on extreme examples that rarely happen. Note I said rarely not never. I’ve seen both.
GM’s that arbitrarily change rules for no reason with no warning. I’m not allowing you to animate anymore because it is too overpowered. You will have to rely on the other necromancy spells.
Players that complain because their pirate didn’t get to shine in the dwarven undermountain campaign. And he only got to play the pirate because he threw a fit about it being banned in the setup.
I don't think you were the bad guy. If it is bad, it is high-time to move on.
They had rogues, they were usually really low-level street scum, but they were still rogues. They basically imported cavaliers, you saw the Last Samurai right? Tom Cruise was a Cavalier. Why couldn't a player be the guy who INVENTS the guns and he's out testing his toys?Why ban a class for flavor ?
It depends on your setting. If it's more Asian, banning the rogue and cavalier for the ninja and samurai sounds legit. If guns aren't found in your setting, banning the gunslinger sounds legit... unless you find an archetype that uses crossbows instead of guns.
Personally, I never banned classes nor races, or at least I limit myself to 1st-party books without going overboard with 3rd-party books.
The only thing I'm banning are evil alignments. I just don't want players backstabbing other players, which I've witnessed before.
*sigh* If you want to call Yakuza or Tong "low level street scum" you might be accurate. But I'd have my funeral expences paid if I was you.
Since Samurai are Cavalier variants, and if you were playing a "closed" Asian setting why bother? Unless you want to develop Archtypes for Mongol horsed nomads etc. based on the original Cavalier. Or just use Cavaliers for them. Sub. mounted archery for lance... anyway there is one thing that I wonder about. Why do some people think every PC has to be a perfect little unique snowflake from the get go? Why not start within the settings constraints and develop the unique bit as you go? It makes more sense, to me, for characters to go off the rails / beyond the norms after they get into adventuring as opposed to before. Probably about play style... I still don't expect / plan for characters to live at first level. By 5th - 6th I can see making some plans... but that's just that old school mortality experience bleeding through into my PF expectations...
Probably because some want to be perfect little unique snowflakes from the get go.
Heavily unique and allowed to be so from the beginning, as opposed to developing your uniqueness over time and experience. You could see it as a clash of perspectives, child hero versus heroes are made.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Every campaign a DM makes is shaped both by what the DM chooses to include, and what not to include. Some elements are "strong flavour", such as Golarion goblins, tinker gnomes, kender, vistani, spelljammer ships and whatnot. Include these in a campaign, and the campaign is shaped by them.
If you are trying to build a specific mood, tension, conflict or theme in your campaign, this is a vital decision. Say that you want to make a horror campaign. Include tinker gnomes and kender, and you can pack it up right there. If you could find some way to change these races to better fit your campaign, sure, it MIGHT work. Otherwise, not bloody likely. And you know what? Theme, tension and mood are things that make or break a campaign to most players.
Of course, when you have your campaign, it has to survive first contact with the players. This hit me pretty harshly once. I had designed a setting where the elves were divided into light elves and dark elves, but that centuries of warfare had driven both to near extinction. When I suggested this campaign, one of the players wanted to play a sun elf. Not a light elf, absolutely not a dark elf, but a sun elf. The point would be that these sun elves have a happy society with a country of their own, with lots of elves, that worship the sun. I tried talking with him about it, that it was an important issue for the campaign, that I would let him play a sun-worshiping light elf, but no go. He wanted the whole package. He was the first I suggested this to, so eventually it did not happen.
What happens now is: I get an idea for a campaign. I ask my intended players if they want to play that, INCLUDING limitations. If I get a yes, I work more at it, otherwise I don't, at least not for that group. They are mature enough to accept the absence of races and classes now. I see the relevant part as providing enough options. If I make a psionic campaign, is it terrible that someone can't play a cleric, when they are allowed to play a divine mind? Seriously, so many people have said "If a player wants to play something specific, just refluff!". I say: "DMs aren't the only ones who can be expected to refluff." You want to play a cleric? Call your divine mind a cleric, then.
... If I make a psionic campaign, is it terrible that someone can't play a cleric, when they are allowed to play a divine mind? Seriously, so many people have said "If a player wants to play something specific, just refluff!". I say: "DMs aren't the only ones who can be expected to refluff." You want to play a cleric? Call your divine mind a cleric, then...
+47
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... Why do some people think every PC has to be a perfect little unique snowflake from the get go? Why not start within the settings constraints and develop the unique bit as you go? It makes more sense, to me, for characters to go off the rails / beyond the norms after they get into adventuring as opposed to before. ...
In our group it is one of 3 things.
1) For Jimmy-Joe-Bob, by about 5th level of the current campaign he has decided what he will play in the next campaign. Even though he has no idea what the next campaign will be about, who will be the GM, what level it will start or end at, etc... His decision is made. He will be furious if you try to tell him it won't work. { He was the one that insisted he could make the pirate work in the dwarven undermountain campaign. }2) Danny-Boy always wants the contrary/rare/unexpected hero. Gnomes are being hunted? Gods have abandend the world? Poison is dishonorable? Storms/winds/fog make archery nearly impossible? He HAS to be the last/first gnomish cleric archer that relies on poisoned arrows in the world!!!
3)Mr Smythe just got the new Drow accessory. He must play a noble drow, with all the drow feats, the drow arch types, the drow prestige classes, and the drow gear. Doesn't matter that we all agreed that there weren't going to be any drow in this campaign. He got a new book. He MUST make immediate use of it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... Why do some people think every PC has to be a perfect little unique snowflake from the get go? Why not start within the settings constraints and develop the unique bit as you go? It makes more sense, to me, for characters to go off the rails / beyond the norms after they get into adventuring as opposed to before. ...In our group it is one of 3 things.
1) For Jimmy-Joe-Bob, by about 5th level of the current campaign he has decided what he will play in the next campaign. Even though he has no idea what the next campaign will be about, who will be the GM, what level it will start or end at, etc... His decision is made. He will be furious if you try to tell him it won't work. { He was the one that insisted he could make the pirate work in the dwarven undermountain campaign. }2) Danny-Boy always wants the contrary/rare/unexpected hero. Gnomes are being hunted? Gods have abandend the world? Poison is dishonorable? Storms/winds/fog make archery nearly impossible? He HAS to be the last/first gnomish cleric archer that relies on poisoned arrows in the world!!!
3)Mr Smythe just got the new Drow accessory. He must play a noble drow, with all the drow feats, the drow arch types, the drow prestige classes, and the drow gear. Doesn't matter that we all agreed that there weren't going to be any drow in this campaign. He got a new book. He MUST make immediate use of it.
You seem rather condescending towards the people in your group.
I do hope you don't see yourself being flawless in comparison to those three.
|
|
... Why do some people think every PC has to be a perfect little unique snowflake from the get go? Why not start within the settings constraints and develop the unique bit as you go? It makes more sense, to me, for characters to go off the rails / beyond the norms after they get into adventuring as opposed to before. ...In our group it is one of 3 things.
1) For Jimmy-Joe-Bob, by about 5th level of the current campaign he has decided what he will play in the next campaign. Even though he has no idea what the next campaign will be about, who will be the GM, what level it will start or end at, etc... His decision is made. He will be furious if you try to tell him it won't work. { He was the one that insisted he could make the pirate work in the dwarven undermountain campaign. }2) Danny-Boy always wants the contrary/rare/unexpected hero. Gnomes are being hunted? Gods have abandend the world? Poison is dishonorable? Storms/winds/fog make archery nearly impossible? He HAS to be the last/first gnomish cleric archer that relies on poisoned arrows in the world!!!
3)Mr Smythe just got the new Drow accessory. He must play a noble drow, with all the drow feats, the drow arch types, the drow prestige classes, and the drow gear. Doesn't matter that we all agreed that there weren't going to be any drow in this campaign. He got a new book. He MUST make immediate use of it.
I have played with people like that before...then i grew up and found people that actually wanted to play normal characters.
|
|
... You seem rather condescending towards the people in your group ...
Not condescending, just frustrated.
1) Almost a year later and I'm still getting complaints about the pirate not working out.2) Actually makes pretty good characters and plays them well. But he is always frustrated that RP type things are tougher for his persucuted race/class/dishonorable choices. Blames me for the frustration.
3) In order to reduce the complaints on all sides we ALL agreed we would use a purchased series of modules as written. Almost every session I get asked why there aren't any drow enemies, allies, loot, magic,... So now I get to write in some drow stuff even though no one else wants it in the campaign.
... I do hope you don't see yourself being flawless in comparison to those three.
Lordy no! I have my own personal set of foibles and personality defects. Though I have to admit I do have tendency toward number 2.
I wonder what the DM has to say about those three.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I play elsewhere. Problem solved.
It would be pretty silly to ban guns in Golarion, but keep Alkenstar as it is, wouldn't it? It's a matter of consistence.As for the rest: Let's assume that I ban guns because I don't like them. You can't play a gunslinger. What now? Will you insist on playing a one?
Really? You leave because you can't play that one particular class, despite there being plenty of others around? Doesn't that strike you as a bit childish?
That sounds to me what Jorin described: the "Special Snowflake Syndrome".
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really? You leave because you can't play that one particular class, despite there being plenty of others around? Doesn't that strike you as a bit childish?
No, childish would be playing in the group but pouting and sulking and complaining the whole time.
If you tell me you're going to McDonald's, it's not childish to tell you I'm going to Taco Bell instead.
Really? You leave because you can't play that one particular class, despite there being plenty of others around? Doesn't that strike you as a bit childish?No, childish would be playing in the group but pouting and sulking and complaining the whole time.
No, that would be infantile behavior.
If you tell me you're going to McDonald's, it's not childish to tell you I'm going to Taco Bell instead.
Sorry, that's a false equivalency. Pathfinder/Golarion offers enough "delicious treats" to suit anyone's tastes. If someone leaves a game because there is only the one class he likes about it, he's been playing the wrong system the whole time. I could understand that, and may even allow him in if I'd offer a different system to play. (Or join him in such a game.)
But if he leaves a campaign because he doesn't get his way, then it's childish behavior. As the great philosopher Mick Jagger once wrote: "You can't always get what you want."
There are a lot of options for players in Pathfinder, plus quite a few more from 3rd party publishers (which might be allowed in the campaign). If you're dead set on playing something I don't allow, and can't find anything else, that's your problem, not mine.
In that case it's good riddance if he leaves. He shouldn't bother to come back, too. (I suspect he will at some point, because with that kind of behavior, he won't play long in other games.)
One char wanted to play a four-armed Sahuaghin. I didn't have so much of a trouble with this, but he didn't want to pay the ECL tax so that his Sahuaghin noble would be balanced with the rest of the party.
That time, I didn't even ban the race.
Agreed Fabius, your name also reminds me of a favourite papal general in medieval 2, Villainus Notarious.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But if he leaves a campaign because he doesn't get his way, then it's childish behavior. As the great philosopher Mick Jagger once wrote: "You can't always get what you want."
Yes, if 'not getting his way' is the reason. If it is instead 'I don't want to play in that game' because he wants to play a gunslinger, it's not childish.
|
|
I wonder what the DM has to say about those three.
I am one of the GM's so this has been what I say about them. =)
(One of them is the other GM. Interestingly enough he is less tolerant of his own behavior when he is GM.)
It is NOT a deal breaker for me. We still game together. We are still decent friends. We still have fun. But sometimes it is very frustrating.
NOTE: I changed terms to prevent embarassment. It wasn't really a pirate in an dwarven undermountain campaign, a gnome/cleric/poison/archer, nor a noble drow. I've already gotten 3 messages from people that mistakenly thought they were in my group. {snicker}
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Charlie, why are you so reasonable? Did you find a katana of reasonableness?
20+ yrs. experience, a deliberate study of successful (and not so successful!) GMs and their techniques, www.roleplayingtips.com, and most importantly, having a great group of players.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where is the strawman?
I'm not going to quote it because I don't want the thread to start bending back in that direction, but it was the one about "you will play what I want or get shown the door."
Some GM's say "you do as I say or you don't play with me as the GM." The reason/excuse is often that they did all the work so they get all the decision making power. In past discussions I have asked, "What if the players are willing to help?". I normally got a response of "I don't want their help" or "I don't allow their help"..... Someone on the outside looking in would see it as him rejecting the help as another reason/excuse to hold all the power.
I am not saying anyone has to allow player input. I also understand that sometimes you don't want to give away spoilers so some things can't be discussed. I am saying the "I did all the work" line is not always valid.
Just to be clear I am not trying to convert anyone. I am only saying that sometimes listening to the players makes the game better for everyone. In other words the message is not "do as your player demands". The message is that many of us are of the opinion that things are normally better if the GM at least listens to what a player has to say.
Wraithstrike says: If a player demands anything of me or he won't play, well I guess he won't be playing. In other words the idea of a GM doing whatever a player says or being allowed whatever they ask every time is not happening at my table. It seems the opinion was out there that I promote such games. #far from the truth
I think we are in agreement. I am very open to player input, but if a player were to come at me with demands or ultimatums, that would not be well-received.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
long story about a bad GM
Changing rules on the fly is bad form. If you're going to have restrictions, you need to explain them up front to the players, preferably in a house rules document that everybody can reference at any time.
If some mechanical feature is a problem, I've found the best way to handle it is to talk to the entire group, lay out your case as to why it's become a problem, and get as much consensus/buy-in before you make the change. If it's something on somebody's character sheet that you're changing, give them the opportunity to switch out the changed mechanic for something else--if it's a class feature, you probably ought to be willing to grant them a rebuild as a result, and you should offer to help with it because that's pretty inconvenient.
If the problem isn't mechanical, but player behavior, then it's better to take that player aside and say, "this xyz that you are doing is hurting the game for some of us. I'd appreciate it if you'd dial that back a couple notches." Do not do it in front of the group.
Make no mistake, game mastering is an exercise in leadership: you have responsibility and authority; you can only exercise that based on the trust your players have in you. You gain that trust by consistency, system mastery, willingness to listen, and demonstrated ability to provide a fun experience for the group.
