Gaming the system versus imaginative creativity


Gamer Life General Discussion

1 to 50 of 1,026 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Why is it that when I make a great character concept, or creative rules interpretation, some people say I am bending, distorting, and stretching the rules to get what I want; but when the game developers do the exact same thing to make interesting characters, monsters, and encounters for their adventure modules, no one bats an eye, or even congratulates them on their sheer awesomeness?

Take Angol Ceredir, for example. If I proposed the idea of an intelligent shield guardian amulet capable of controlling its respective golem, a GM or fellow board member might accuse me of trying to "game the system" in order to get a sentient golem, being cheesy, or even a game-breaking munchkin not deserving of a "proper" gaming group (or some similar negative classification).

But when the GM or a game developer does it, it's considered a positive: imaginative story telling, character building, or encounter building and what not.

Where does one draw the line? Why the double standard?


So it seems that the amulet is an intelligent item. Not sure if I've enchanted it in other ways, but if it had some sort of charm or dominate spell, I think your concept would defines rely work by RAW

If you controll it yourself I think you can definitely reflavor it as u controlling it. However when you get two far away from your golem to be able to communicate with it, the above idea wouldn't work so well.


Snow_Tiger wrote:

So it seems that the amulet is an intelligent item. Not sure if I've enchanted it in other ways, but if it had some sort of charm or dominate spell, I think your concept would defines rely work by RAW

If you controll it yourself I think you can definitely reflavor it as u controlling it. However when you get two far away from your golem to be able to communicate with it, the above idea wouldn't work so well.

Sorry about the typos, done on an iPhone...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Best guesses ...

1. People are more likely to criticize an player, who did not write the rules, over a developer/designer, who did design the rules, IMX. "Well, obviously the Dev knows what he's doing." That whole 'authority figure' concept.

2. 99% of criticism leveled against by players against players is simply 'you didn't do this how I would have done it, therefore you are BAD PLAYER', regardless of how they justify it. If the individual table/GM says it's cool, it's cool, no matter what the 'proper' way to do it is.


I'm going to go ahead and say that calling it "imaginative creativity" is gaming the system. This system being the lexicon gamers have built up over the years to describe things like cheese and bending the intention.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cheapy wrote:
I'm going to go ahead and say that calling it "imaginative creativity" is gaming the system. This system being the lexicon gamers have built up over the years to describe things like cheese and bending the intention.

I didn't play back in 1 and 2e I know that when they were designed, it happened to have a lot less rules. However, as the game evolved, there were more RAW options, in one way going people more flexibility, but Also making it harder and harder for people to come up with cool ideas without drawing criticism.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

And thus the double standard was created, Snow Tiger.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

See, to my mind, this brings up the question of where a trope or gimmick or idea belongs. Does it belong to the plot, or does it belong to the mechanic?

For instance, you could write up a low-level adventure where the monster (a ghoul) might be "destroyed" by a party, only to reappear the next night, and reappear every night until they find the amulet or cursed stone, or whatever, to which its existence is tied, and do away with it somehow.

Now, to me, that sounds like a nice little mystery-adventure. But to some players, it's bad/wrong because that's not how ghouls are described in the Bestiary. They have no cursed stones or amulets to which they are tied. There are some posters on these boards who complain about stuff like this, and want us to condemn their GMs for running adventures like these.

Maybe you are running into the same mindset. What does your "bending of the rules" serve? That's what I ask myself. So I am careful to render unto the mechanic what is the mechanic's, and to render unto the story what is the story's.

Problem is, somebody somewhere is going to always take issue with it.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

In my case, it's usually to make an interesting character concept work in the game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Perhaps it's the implication of breaking the gamer's contract?

When a GM/Developer imaginatively creates or manipulates the rules, it's meant to facilitate the story in an interesting way. It isn't, or at least it shouldn't, be about screwing over the players the GM is playing with.

When a player exploits the rules in "an imaginative way", it can render a GM well-considered plans useless, or make other players feel pointless. Which can ruin the fun for everyone who isn't that player.

At least that is my perspective on why "imaginative creativity" is usually better received/appreciated on the GM and not the player side.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MMCJawa wrote:
When a player exploits the rules in "an imaginative way", it can render a GM well-considered plans useless, or make other players feel pointless. Which can ruin the fun for everyone who isn't that player.

I can see that being a problem if the player really and truly trivializes all of the GMs encounters and/or ruins the fun for others.

My example character above, however, would likely be condemned by a GM before ever seeing play, even though it is highly unlikely to clobber encounters or steal limelight away from other players.


Sometimes offball ideas come across as the player having a "break the game" agenda. That happens a lot when you're young and GMing for the first time, so as you get older, those red flags appear. A good example of this is a friend of mine that wanted to play a four armed character that could dualwield greatswords so he could get the 2x Strength and Power Attack (Two Handed Fighter Archetype) and do a mad amount of damamge.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I can understand a GM saying no to a "monster feat from the Bestiary" but if that wasn't the case, then what's the big deal?

The character invested a feat and a large portion of his wealth and time to get that "cohort." It's not like he up and got it for free. What's more, a meat shield construct is not going to make designing encounters any more difficult than any other high level character.

Anyways, this thread was never meant to be about me specifically, or even the singular example above. It's supposed to be a discussion on perceptions, and the problems that often arise from them.

And there IS a double standard. Just because you think I have dubious history on these forums does NOT change that.

(And I'm not saying that every player out there is innocent of trying to game the system, just that people tend to judge out of hand quite harshly.)

EDIT: Also, this is meant to be an honest discussion. My "apparent" posting history is off-topic here. Please take those kinds of observations/criticisms elsewhere.


Ravingdork wrote:

I can understand a GM saying no to a "monster feat from the Bestiary" but if that wasn't the case, then what's the big deal?

The character invested a feat and a large portion of his wealth and time to get that "cohort." It's not like he up and got it for free. What's more, a meat shield construct is not going to make designing encounters any more difficult than any other high level character.

Anyways, this thread was never meant to be about me specifically, or even the singular example above. It's supposed to be a discussion on perceptions, and the problems that often arise from them.

And there IS a double standard. Just because you think I have dubious history on these forums does NOT change that.

(And I'm not saying that every player out there is innocent of trying to game the system, just that people tend to judge out of hand quite harshly.)

EDIT: Also, this is meant to be an honest discussion. My "apparent" posting history is off-topic here. Please take those kinds of observations/criticisms elsewhere.

Well, this is more than just a monster feat. This is a monster feat (Craft Construct) plus an actual monster this person is asking for.


Honestly, DM's who are against "Monster" feats simple because of the label (because that is really the only reason to be against them) must not realize that in 3.5/PF everything is a monster, including Humans, Elves, Aasimar, Gnomes, Orcs...

Really as V says "We're all in the monster manual somewhere" so I find it quite odd people would say my monster cannot take monster feats. (Especially since the monster feat section itself says I can take them if I qualify...)


Anzyr wrote:

Honestly, DM's who are against "Monster" feats simple because of the label (because that is really the only reason to be against them) must not realize that in 3.5/PF everything is a monster, including Humans, Elves, Aasimar, Gnomes, Orcs...

Really as V says "We're all in the monster manual somewhere" so I find it quite odd people would say my monster cannot take monster feats. (Especially since the monster feat section itself says I can take them if I qualify...)

It comes from the belief that the Bestiary is GM ONLY! Which is silly.


Anzyr wrote:

Honestly, DM's who are against "Monster" feats simple because of the label (because that is really the only reason to be against them) must not realize that in 3.5/PF everything is a monster, including Humans, Elves, Aasimar, Gnomes, Orcs...

Really as V says "We're all in the monster manual somewhere" so I find it quite odd people would say my monster cannot take monster feats. (Especially since the monster feat section itself says I can take them if I qualify...)

I'm not really against it. But I can understand a GM's apprehension for allowing some of the feats.


Odraude wrote:
Anzyr wrote:

Honestly, DM's who are against "Monster" feats simple because of the label (because that is really the only reason to be against them) must not realize that in 3.5/PF everything is a monster, including Humans, Elves, Aasimar, Gnomes, Orcs...

Really as V says "We're all in the monster manual somewhere" so I find it quite odd people would say my monster cannot take monster feats. (Especially since the monster feat section itself says I can take them if I qualify...)

I'm not really against it. But I can understand a GM's apprehension for allowing some of the feats.

Alot of them are suboptimal or allow for the building of rather gimmicky characters. I feel bad for the druid however who could benefit rather intensely from it for wildshaping builds.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scavion wrote:
Odraude wrote:
Anzyr wrote:

Honestly, DM's who are against "Monster" feats simple because of the label (because that is really the only reason to be against them) must not realize that in 3.5/PF everything is a monster, including Humans, Elves, Aasimar, Gnomes, Orcs...

Really as V says "We're all in the monster manual somewhere" so I find it quite odd people would say my monster cannot take monster feats. (Especially since the monster feat section itself says I can take them if I qualify...)

I'm not really against it. But I can understand a GM's apprehension for allowing some of the feats.
Alot of them are suboptimal or allow for the building of rather gimmicky characters. I feel bad for the druid however who could benefit rather intensely from it for wildshaping builds.

I wouldn't since a wildshape build is pretty awesome without the bestiary feats...

But I allow bestiary feats. What raises my flag is if someone decides to get a monster from the bestiary as a cohort without talking with me first. Especially if it's a golem, which is very different from just grabbing a magic item. When someone assumes that they can just grab a cohort, via Leadership or some other way, and feel they are entitled to it without at least talking with me first, is when my red flags would fly and I'd have an issue with it.

And even then, I'd probably allow the golem if they talked it out with me first.


Right. I don't believe it should be possible to get a cohort from the bestiary without DM permission first. Excluding the mount options already available.


RD, in my opinion the rules present a firm framework in which to play the game. This means that they should be followed unless there is an obvious exploit being used. A good example of this is the "Leadership" feat in general. In many cases there is no real issue with it; "This reformed pirate is now my bodyguard" and now you have a fighter/partner that helps out in quests. "This invisible at will flying Pixie Cleric is here to keep us healed without ever giving the GM a fair chance at challenging us" is a bit... over the top. In all cases the table you play at should influence how the rules are interpreted. Is it fun and non-disruptive? Do it. See if you can find a way to have that reformed pirate be a lizard man! (or whatever) Does it break other players' *fun*? Don't do it. Don't allow it. If Bob is upset 'cause he can't have XYZ, he'll have to deal because Jane, Joe, Jeri and Jake feel sidelined/shadowed because of a 'loose' interpretation. :)

Now, the double standard: If the Devs put it in, it is most likely fair game to all. ie, "Oh, I can use an Oversized One Handed weapon and out damage a normal sized great weapon!" It is put down in black and white (or full color ;) ) and any one can use it. This is where the rules should be firm (not unforgiving): everyone at the table should know what to expect. It can be called metagaming if you like, but then again we all know what happens to a person if they jump off of a 40' building. Is that meta-life? No, it's just an understanding of the reality we deal with. Much like a bigger bastard sword does more damage than a smaller one.

GNOME


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think it's the double standard you think it is. I think it's a different philosophy of playing the game where the DM's and the players' roles aren't symmetric.

If you came up with it as a cool enemy for your PCs to fight, I'd give you the same kudos as I'd give a designer. If you said "here's a character I want to play and there's no reason I can't according to the rules as written" then I wouldn't be measuring it against the same standard (since making an NPC is different from making a PC, in my view).

In my case at least, it's nothing to do with designers vs fans. It's that cool things for monsters don't necessarily translate into cool things for PCs. Obviously, the more simulationist you are, the more my style will grate. Nonetheless, I think that's the true source of the incongruity.

So my answer is that I draw the line where the DM screen is.


Ravingdork wrote:
Why is it that when I make a great character concept, or creative rules interpretation, some people say I am bending, distorting, and stretching the rules to get what I want; but when the game developers do the exact same thing to make interesting characters, monsters, and encounters for their adventure modules, no one bats an eye, or even congratulates them on their sheer awesomeness?

Because they're the devs. If they make a new rule or break a new rule thats what they're supposed to do. If you're making a new rule or breaking rules making your characters then something has gone wrong... usually a level of pedanticism bordering on willful ignorance.


In my opinion a lot of younger or newer players I've met and gamed with feel uncomfortable with things that arn't covered by the rules.
They have this strange need for everything to be in one of the rule books and if it's not snap official rule then it's wrong in some way


There is supposed to be a double standard between what it's OK for players to do and what it's OK for GMs to do. It is the job of the GM to create unexpected difficulties for the players. It is not the job of the players to create unexpected difficulties for the GM. (Well, OK, players do this all the time by doing something that wasn't anticipated, but being GM is a tough enough job without players coming up with possible-legal-but-not-RAI concepts that need to be analysed extremely carefully to see if they're going to break the game or not.)

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Odraude wrote:

As per usual, you are only looking at this from your point of view, not the GM's

Golems are tough. Very tough. You're essentially asking for a cohort that is immune to almost all spells (minus a select few), DR, fast healing (if it's a Shield Guardian),...<lists golem traits>

What am I missing here?

What exactly has this character done that isn't explicitly allowed?

Wizard PCs are explictly allowed to travel around via astral projection. If you've got a problem with PCs travelling around via astral projection, then shouldn't you be taking it up with the game's writers?

Crafting golems is explicitly explained and allowed. If you've got a problem with PCs owning golems, then shouldn't you be taking it up with the game's writers?

If PCs aren't supposed to be able to craft golems, their creation should be locked away behind a Story Ritual, that makes it impractical for anyone who hasn't invested large sums into recruiting an army of cultist henchthings and a Secret Super Villain Base.

The same goes for Planar Allies, Planar Binding, Gate or any other means of gaining the services of a creature with abilities that should still be out of reach of PCs of that level.

If these are meant to be NPC-only Story Abilities, to explain the presence of high CR antagonists in the adventure location, then list them as NPC-only Story Abilities, and take them out of the player resource books.
If they are only there, so the adventure writers can write "Ten thousand years ago, the Cult of ughWEUFGBAWOWQPQPJ summoned their noxious lord to the Prime, and he has been there since, blahblahblah" then why does it even need to be a spell in the Core rules?
Wave the Fiat Stick, and say that's what happened.
Make it a Story Ritual that has to be overcome by Quests 1, 2, 3, 4.
Stop printing Binding and Calling as spells, as if they were meant to be thrown about as 1/day tactics like putting on your Mage Armor in the morning.

"Are we ready to go? Got my mage armor, energy resistances, cancelled the milk, message, status, turned off the gas, death ward, put the cat out, telport scrolls, yep, we're good to go...Oh, hang on, I forgot to drag a celestial lord of the heavens away from his millennia-long plans, to cater to my petty needs like a ten-copper snot-nosed street urchin. <CAST!> There, that's better."

Get these travesties out of the game.
I'm sick of seeing official adventures, where the GM's hands are tied by the BBEG having to complete some convoluted ritual, that is a triviality for PCs of lower level than he is.

"The ritual to bring Tharizdun to this world will be complete, in ten cycles of the second moon, but only if Grand High Dark Dreamer has a wombat familiar who is the eighth wombat son of an eighth wombat son, brought to the temple, with a birthmark of a seven-armed squid on his armpit..."

"What a farce. Why don't they just cast gate? It's a standard action."

In other words, don't blame RD. Blame several generations of game designers, giving game breaking abilities to PCs, while not carrying the consequences to their logical conclusion, but tying themselves up in gamist reasons why NPCs never use those same abilities in response.
Responses, which would result in the death of every PC before they became able to challenge those same NPCs.


Sorry if I repeat something already said. In my opinion the line lie in the same place of the line between masters and players. A pc need to follow the rules, DM usually can bend them. Why bend a rule? The only reason I admit for it is to create a memorably villain. Let's think of ravenloft setting: dr Viktor Mordenheim is bounded to his golem, Adam. You can't kill one without kill the other. How flavor. Now, let's say this is an option available to pcs as well. When you encounter Viktor, you kill him, and when you see you can't, you just say "Oh, it's a double bound with the golem" instead of "what the hell is going here? Why you don't die?"
In other words, bending the rules must work with the sense of wonder. You can bend them to heighten the sense of wonder. That said, I'd probably allow some creative request as DM, but as a player I don't rip off my clothes off a DM prefer to don't allow these options. As real life example, my DM allow only official material, limited to the very core, and he used for a quest the psionic rules. And we wondered how they work as character. Still, it's not an option available to players. We have fun with this way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wombats will f++* your s!&~ up!!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Craft Construct??? That is what this is about? You mean every single golem etc was made by drow then? Seriously, get over it. It has always been a question since the first days of D&D as to how PCs can do the stuff NPCs can. Besides, I have a hard time seeing that getting to make golems that will pretty quickly become completely obsolete and cost massive amounts of cash would be all that overpowered as an option.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Why is it that when I make a great character concept, or creative rules interpretation, some people say I am bending, distorting, and stretching the rules to get what I want; but when the game developers do the exact same thing to make interesting characters, monsters, and encounters for their adventure modules, no one bats an eye, or even congratulates them on their sheer awesomeness?

Because when a player makes an awesome character concept it is primarily for personal gratification, whereas a DM or games designer does so in order to provide a challenging foe or interesting ally to the party - in short, you are pleasing yourself and only yourself and by breaking the rules risk alienating players that play within them, while they are trying to make the game better for everyone.

Ravingdork wrote:

Take Angol Ceredir, for example. If I proposed the idea of an intelligent shield guardian amulet capable of controlling its respective golem, a GM or fellow board member might accuse me of trying to "game the system" in order to get a sentient golem, being cheesy, or even a game-breaking munchkin not deserving of a "proper" gaming group (or some similar negative classification).

But when the GM or a game developer does it, it's considered a positive: imaginative story telling, character building, or encounter building and what not.

When a player comes up with a "out of left field" design, he's challenging the DM to place that design in his world and into the adventure. He's challenging the other players to accept that character concept and not get ticked off that he broke the rules they couldn't.

Take your concept of an intelligent item:
1) it can only control one kind of creature (golems), what happens if you start the adventure with no golems to control? Is it the DM's job to provide you with a golem that you can control? So he has to insert a creature, or you have to sit out the session. The DM either has to make special dispensation for you, or else you have to suffer.
2)Then there is the issue of damage, because your character basically is never in fear of death. After all, who targets items? If the DM does so, you can accuse him of doing things that the NPCs would not do, but if he doesn't you effectively have awarded yourself an immortal character. How do the other players feel about that?
3) What happens if you get picked up by a sentient golem you can't control? Whoops, your character just became a passenger in someone else's story, and they don;t want to travel with the party. Should the DM use fiat to ensure this doesn't happen, just for you?
4) What's your character's motivation for being in a party of adventurers? Does the DM also have to come up with a separate series of plot-hooks to engage the interest of a sentient item?

You can see that what you are actually asking for is not just a character, but for a whole redesigned adventure, just for you, that could tick off the other players who are NOT getting "special snowflake" status.

Ravingdork wrote:
Where does one draw the line? Why the double standard?

There is no double-standard except in your imagination. The designers/DM create something that means less work for them, and more fun for everyone. You create a character that demands excessive work from the DM, and can potentially make the game less fun for the other players. More fun/less work = yes, less fun/more work = no.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:


Anyways, this thread was never meant to be about me specifically, or even the singular example above. It's supposed to be a discussion on perceptions, and the problems that often arise from them.

Not about you?

Lest we forget this quote from your OP.

Ravingdork wrote:


Why is it that when I make a great character concept, or creative rules interpretation, some people say I am bending, distorting, and stretching the rules to get what I want; but when the game developers do the exact same thing to make interesting characters, monsters, and encounters for their adventure modules, no one bats an eye, or even congratulates them on their sheer awesomeness?

History matters. When I see a three time convicted felon who has a history of breaking into networks and stealing sensitive material, carrying a "Blue Box", I might be forgiven for making a prejudicial judgement that he's not exactly a harmless hacker.

You created your own history on these forums RD. It's no fault but your own if it haunts you.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Snorter wrote:
Wizard PCs are explictly allowed to travel around via astral projection. If you've got a problem with PCs travelling around via astral projection, then shouldn't you be taking it up with the game's writers?.

Only to other planes. In fact, that's what the spell does.. it projects your soul into the astral plane. You can't use your astral form to form a second body on the Prime.

Plus I do have my own house rule. You can only astral project from your native plane.


Kthulhu wrote:
RD, if you came on the forums and posed one of your builds that stretched the limits infrequently, you probably would see less criticism for it. However, you do it so much that it's essentially what you are known for. Which kills the "that's pretty cool" factor...it instead becomes "what technically legal but absolutely ridiculous nonsense has RD come up with today?"

This pretty much sums up my view, except I'd like to add that I absolutely LOVE to see what technically legal but absolutely ridiculous nonsense RD has come up with.

I may be a DM, but there's still a munchkin's soul in there that love to see silly thing that are just about disallowed but can be attained via 13 loopholes and some duct tape.

I wouldn't want to DM over RD, but g@&!&$n do I enjoy hir munchkin threads.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Odraude wrote:
Scavion wrote:
Odraude wrote:
Anzyr wrote:

Honestly, DM's who are against "Monster" feats simple because of the label (because that is really the only reason to be against them) must not realize that in 3.5/PF everything is a monster, including Humans, Elves, Aasimar, Gnomes, Orcs...

Really as V says "We're all in the monster manual somewhere" so I find it quite odd people would say my monster cannot take monster feats. (Especially since the monster feat section itself says I can take them if I qualify...)

I'm not really against it. But I can understand a GM's apprehension for allowing some of the feats.
Alot of them are suboptimal or allow for the building of rather gimmicky characters. I feel bad for the druid however who could benefit rather intensely from it for wildshaping builds.

I wouldn't since a wildshape build is pretty awesome without the bestiary feats...

But I allow bestiary feats. What raises my flag is if someone decides to get a monster from the bestiary as a cohort without talking with me first. Especially if it's a golem, which is very different from just grabbing a magic item. When someone assumes that they can just grab a cohort, via Leadership or some other way, and feel they are entitled to it without at least talking with me first, is when my red flags would fly and I'd have an issue with it.

And even then, I'd probably allow the golem if they talked it out with me first.

Who said anything about hiding it from the GM? I know I didn't. How could the GM have dismissed it out of hand if it was not first presented to him?

magnuskn wrote:
Typical RD. Making "I" statements in the OP and when people then talk about why the problem may be with him, claiming that this thread isn't about him.

Yes, that wasn't the greatest way of presenting the problem, was it? Gotta' work on that.

I was speaking generally, kind of like how a public speaker might refer to himself, but really mean the every man.

Example: "Why do I have to pay taxes? Why do I have to be beholden to a government that will ship my sons to war? We don't. There is a solution. We can..."

I referred to myself only to make it clear that I identify with a particular group; it was never meant to make this thread all about me. In hindsight, I could have phrased it much better to avoid confusion, perhaps like this:

Why is it that when a player makes a great character concept, or creative rules interpretation, some people say they are bending, distorting, and stretching the rules to get what they want; but when the game developers or GMs do the exact same thing to make interesting characters, monsters, and encounters for their adventure modules and campaigns, no one bats an eye, or even congratulates them on their sheer awesomeness?

Dabbler wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Why is it that when I make a great character concept, or creative rules interpretation, some people say I am bending, distorting, and stretching the rules to get what I want; but when the game developers do the exact same thing to make interesting characters, monsters, and encounters for their adventure modules, no one bats an eye, or even congratulates them on their sheer awesomeness?
Because when a player makes an awesome character concept it is primarily for personal gratification, whereas a DM or games designer does so in order to provide a challenging foe or interesting ally to the party - in short, you are pleasing yourself and only yourself and by breaking the rules risk alienating players that play within them, while they are trying to make the game better for everyone.

I think that is a VASTLY misleading oversimplification and generally negative assumption. There is no evidence anywhere showing that players create character concepts "just for their own gratification." I can't speak for everyone else (since that may well be the way you think), but I rarely think that way when I make a character. I'm thinking less about how much fun I will have with a given character concept and more about how much fun my group and I will have with the concept--how much it enhances and enables the game for all of us.

Reading this thread makes me realize that players in general (and me in particular) suffer from extremely negative preconceptions. Just because a player presents an interesting, mechanically unusual character concept to his GM, suddenly it's an automatic red flag for the GM. Why? If the player tried to sneak it by the GM that would definitely be a cause for concern, but why is everyone's first instinct one of distrust? Too many PEOPLE dismiss great ideas out of hand due to these negative distrusting preconceptions.

Doesn't this game require trust to work? How does this general attitude not degrade the game?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Snorter wrote:
Odraude wrote:

As per usual, you are only looking at this from your point of view, not the GM's

Golems are tough. Very tough. You're essentially asking for a cohort that is immune to almost all spells (minus a select few), DR, fast healing (if it's a Shield Guardian),...<lists golem traits>

What am I missing here?

What exactly has this character done that isn't explicitly allowed?

Wizard PCs are explictly allowed to travel around via astral projection. If you've got a problem with PCs travelling around via astral projection, then shouldn't you be taking it up with the game's writers?

Crafting golems is explicitly explained and allowed. If you've got a problem with PCs owning golems, then shouldn't you be taking it up with the game's writers?

If PCs aren't supposed to be able to craft golems, their creation should be locked away behind a Story Ritual, that makes it impractical for anyone who hasn't invested large sums into recruiting an army of cultist henchthings and a Secret Super Villain Base.

The same goes for Planar Allies, Planar Binding, Gate or any other means of gaining the services of a creature with abilities that should still be out of reach of PCs of that level.

If these are meant to be NPC-only Story Abilities, to explain the presence of high CR antagonists in the adventure location, then list them as NPC-only Story Abilities, and take them out of the player resource books.
If they are only there, so the adventure writers can write "Ten thousand years ago, the Cult of ughWEUFGBAWOWQPQPJ summoned their noxious lord to the Prime, and he has been there since, blahblahblah" then why does it even need to be a spell in the Core rules?
Wave the Fiat Stick, and say that's what happened.
Make it a Story Ritual that has to be overcome by Quests 1, 2, 3, 4.
Stop printing Binding and Calling as spells, as if they were meant to be thrown about as 1/day tactics like putting on your Mage Armor in the morning.

"Are we ready to go? Got my mage armor, energy resistances,...

Well, the first thing you are missing is the fact that I actually said I'd be okay with the player grabbing a golem, just not RD. However, something like grabbing a cohort, whether it's Craft Construct, Animate Undead, Leadership, Planar Ally, or whatever, needs to be adjudicated with the GM. And cohorts do change the flow of battle and the way the GM runs said battles. For me, I don't really care. I'd look at the cohort, allow it, maybe come to a compromise if the creature is too powerful. But I'd allow creative PCs like this. However, it IS extra work for the GM, and some GMs don't have the time to adjucate battles around the PCs AND their Planetar cohort, or their entire army of 252 undead. And I don't blame them, nor should anyone else. GMing is a time consuming, but fun hobby that's rewarding if your players have fun.

That said, if someone came to the table and grabbed these cohorts with the attitude that "It's in the rules, therefore I can take it and you can't stop me, or you'd be a bad GM!", or if it's the kind of person that is known for twisting the rules in their favor, then I am less likely to allow it. I respect my player's creativity and fun, but if they can't show me the same respect, then we are probably not going to get along.

Ravingdork wrote:
...

Well, your first post is a misleading oversimplification and generally negative assumption about GMs. But again.... Ravingdork's Transmute Molehill to Mountain spell is in affect!

And once again, you are only looking at this argument through the players' eyes and not the GM.

It's not hiding the concept, it's the entitlement attitude that "It's in the book and I want it, therefore I am taking this ability no matter what the GM says." Whenever my group levels up a character, we always run by the changes to the GM so they know ahead of time what to encounter. It's common courtesy and nine times out of ten, things are okayed and we move on. If I take Leadership, or use Animate Undead, or Planar Ally, or whatever other spell/feat to get essentially a new cohort, I always run it by the GM because I trust the GM's judgement. We can usually work together to reach a compromise if he isn't completely comfortable with my idea for a cohort. Because ultimately, that's the best relationship to have with your GM; a collaborative one built on trust, compromise, and understanding each others comfort zones in gaming.

And that's the problem with you. You never even try and look at this through the GM's eyes. You get so blinded by the concept and how much fun you and your players will have, it never occurs to you that maybe the concept is out of the GM's comfort zone. You should work with your GM to either convince them or compromise with them for the betterment of the game. If you won't even trust the GM to mull over and approve a concept you have, then why should the GM trust you and allow everything and anything you make?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Why the double standard?

The double standard exists because Players and DMs are not created equal.

Get over it.

A players job is to come up with a character (can be hard sometimes I know), show up on game day and be entertained.

A DMs job is to have a cohesive world, an engaging narrative, dynamic combats and interesting NPCs to interact with all while adjudicating everything.

Good DMs do exponentially more work than good players (bad players too for that matter).

If a DM crafts an NPC/Encounter that wiggles it's way outside the rules it creates no additional work for the players. Their world is simply a little larger and more mysterious now.

If a player crafts a character that is outside the intended scope of the rules making it difficult to adjudicate/adjust for then they've just piled a brand new heap of work onto the DM.

That's just plain rude. A DMs time is valuable and he doesn't want to waste it having to account for an off the wall rules bending character.

And he shouldn't have to.

So he says "No".

- Torger


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:


But when the GM or a game developer does it, it's considered a positive: imaginative story telling, character building, or encounter building and what not.

Where does one draw the line? Why the double standard?

The reason there are different standards (double standard being a slanted and prejudicial spin) is because the DM and players play different roles in the game. If a GM's unusual option is over (or under) powered, that unexpected power differential affects a handful of encounters at the most and usually only one. But if it is in the player's hand, it affects all encounters that involve that character.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Those are good points. When it comes to oddball characters, the onus is on the GM to make them fit and change the setting and encounters to reflect that. A GM that isn't comfortable with that, or simply doesn't allow it, isn't being lazy or stomping on the fun (usually). Sometimes, they just don't have the time. My current GM has a newborn child, a wife, and a hectic job on his hands. So, I understand completely if he just can't spare the time to look at my diabolist that can summon devils to fight for me.

Me? I have no kids and a job that allows me to be at a computer all day surfing the internet. I have the time to kill :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If your GM can't make an intelligent construct, a catfolk, and an awakened megaraptor work in a setting that has magic and other planes of existence... I think they need to do some imagination training. It's really pretty easy, I know I have at least five explanations for the intelligent magic item in the op, though I suppose I can't speak for inexperienced GMs. But even if your new to GMing, if you have enough imagination to see knight fighting dragons, I can't imagine its a big step to golem fighting one.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It has nothing to do with imagination, and more to do with the rules and how it changes the game. Catfolk, awakened megaraptors, and intelligent constructs might be imaginative, but they are very different from each other mechanically.

Catfolk are built to be a player race, so that is easier for a GM to throw in. The mechanics were built so it fits in with other players with ease.

An awakened animal requires more adjudication. You have to work on upgrading the hit dice and figuring out what cohort level it would be, as well as figuring out the power level. A barbarian awakened tiger, for example, is a killing machine that can be hard to deal with as a GM. Even then, though, you could probably sit down and figure it out.

But when it comes to a golem, it becomes much more game-changing mechanics-wise. You now have something here that is immune to almost all magic, and it would be a bit of a jerk move if suddenly every caster just so happened to have the few spells that could affect them. Add in the immunities they have and the DR, and now the GM has to try and make encounters around the golem without making it look like the enemies are directly countering a player's build. For someone like me, who has more time to do these things, I could handle it, though even then, it'd take some thinking. But for someone with an erratic job and a baby, there's little time do figure out how to fit a golem as a PC option. Or something like a Planetar or a Marilith or whatnot with Planar Ally.

So you see, it's not a matter of lacking the imagination. It's lackign the time to figure out the rules and how the game would change by adding such a cohort.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Why does the GM need to change encounters to account for the golem (or any other asset for that matter) at all? Unless the enemy knew in advance that the golem/other asset was going to be part of the equation, why would the encounter be any different?


Odraude: Those rules do not "change" the game, they are in fact part of the game with rules written down and everything. They may change your notion of the game, but that is more an issue with your notions than with the game. Lots of abilities grant DR and immunities, so its not like that issue is unique to any one class/race/template and many things can summon/animate/lead allies into fights (Paladins/Druids/Summoners/Casters with Summon Spells/Many Outsiders... etc). Knowing how to handle those is GMing 101 since many such options are included for many such characters. I believe that the GM should have an understanding of the rules of the system he's running and if your GM does than nothing I've suggested is a time or rules issue any more so than a party of human/elf/dwarf. So if your GM knows the rules, then its not a rules issue or a time issue, so it must be a creativity issue and if its not any of those, then I must ask... what is those GMs issue?


Because now you have a creature with blanket immunities to several things (most notably all magic that affects SR and isn't specifically stated under its statblock), so the GM has to try and continue to challenge the group without specifically targeting the golem. I mean, how many minions are going to have adamantine or +4 bludgeoning weapons to bypass the DR? And how many casters are going to prepare move earth or earthquake every single encounter? Those should be rare, and probably saved for bosses, because it isn't right to specifically always target a character's build.

But if the GM doesn't try and change the encounters a bit to challenge the players, suddenly, encounters become babytown frolics, as you now have a creature immune to death effects, disease, mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects), necromancy effects, paralysis, poison, sleep, stun, and any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects, or is harmless), nonlethal damage, ability damage, ability drain, fatigue, exhaustion, and energy drain. And in addition, immune to magic that is stopped by SR (which there are a lot). So now you have a pretty awesome frontliner that can pretty much smack the s$~@ out of monsters and casters and chances are, the GM probably isn't enjoying themselves. Mind you, the GM isn't trying to kill you. They just want to tell a story and challenge the players. It's important for everyone at the game to have fun, including the GM.


How many minions are going to be able to penetrate the Invulnerable Rager's DR? How many casters are going to break through the monk's Spell Resistance (All of them that are competent), but same goes to casting SR: No spells at a golem. And really there's more SR: No spells then lolmoveearth and lolearthquake, try a nice Geyser/Snowball/Summon. Golems are perfectly susceptible to that most common of threats... damage. That isn't going to change just because a PC is running one now. And while destruction of the amulet's golem might not be the end of the PC, it does introduce an excellent sidequest opportunity and takes the PC out of the fight as effectively as killing a more conventional PC (Who must similarly seek a Raise Dead effect).

Really, I don't see how this impacts the GM at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
Those rules do not "change" the game, they are in fact part of the game with rules written down and everything. They may change your notion of the game, but that is more an issue with your notions than with the game. Lots of abilities grant DR and immunities, so its not like that issue is unique to any one class/race/template and many things can summon/animate/lead allies into fights (Paladins/Druids/Summoners/Casters with Summon Spells/Many Outsiders... etc). Knowing how to handle those is GMing 101 since many such options are included for many such characters. I believe that the GM should have an understanding of the rules of the system he's running and if your GM does than nothing I've suggested is a time or rules issue any more so than a party of human/elf/dwarf.

While those rules are a part of the game, the golem has a great deal of those immunities. As a monster, it's not as much as an issue because you only have to deal with it rarely as a player. Maybe once or twice, but it's uncommon at worst. But as a player option, suddenly the GM has to plan for all of those blanket immunities for every single fight that they have to set up from here on out. And that can suddenly shackle a GM options on what to use to challenge his party. All of the other class features lightly use said immunities, so it's not as hard for a GM to handle. A golem brings on the immunities wholesale so now a GM has to constantly figure out how to challenge a party that has a cohort with all of those defensive abilities. Understanding the rules is one thing. Having to change the game because of one cohort is another. And trust me, having a golem cohort is a game changer. Is it broken? I wouldn't say so. But if you tried to run a game without taking the golem into account, you're going to find that your encounters are going to be easily ended. Trust me, I have allowed this concept before, and it was fun. But I also had to change things around to provide an adequate challenge without directly targeting their build.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I am skeptical in the above circumstances that Odraude outlines that even the other players would have fun. Suddenly you have one player who has the ability to win every combat encounter without needing help. If not countered, you have players potentially getting bored with the combat or feeling useless

1 to 50 of 1,026 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Gaming the system versus imaginative creativity All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.