From the way I understood it the GM demanded that he have the books, and the players would not buy them so that put the GM in a position to buy them himself. I don't think the players were like "you will buy the books so you I can play my class". I am sure they could not care one way or the other if he had the book or not as long as he let them use the class or other options.I agree with you, but don't forget the part where he demanded the players buy the full books for the DM if they wanted to use it. I've never met any DM that ever told the players to buy them all the books. Usually it's "photocopy it" or "print it". Hell, I had one guy write the rules for playing a wilder in freaking crayon! Which was quite amusing for me to read. But I've never had a DM demand that the players buy the hard copies of books to use something.Truthfully I've never had players that DEMANDED that they had to use books I didn't have to tell the truth.Eh ,I dunno:
"I did tell these players that if they were willing to buy me the books, I'd allow them to use rules from those books. But until I had the books in my possession, I could not allow use of those books in the game. (Okay, it was kind of a jerk thing to ask, but insisting that I let players use rules I'm not familiar with is also kind of a jerk thing to ask, in my opinion)"
Sounds like he wanted the players to actually buy the books for him. That is more than a bit extreme and the OP is in the wrong to make those type of demands.
In the end they went to someone else to get the game they wanted, just as he told them to do. I am not sure he was very diplomatic about his demands, but that is only how it comes off to me.
We said the same thing unless you quoted me to just to bounce off my post.
As others have pointed out, forcing people to buy you books is pretty much the same thing as holding their builds ransom. Point is, don't do it.
Instead use PFS rules for it if you don't want to use SRDs: The must either A) Have a physical copy of the book, or B) have the pages they are referencing printed out and available. Either way they do not have to prove ownership of said pages or books.
When I read the B clause I figured that I might actually give PFS another look. It means that if someone has the book I need, or a PDF that I need that I can barrow or print out pages from their stuff to use.
Whenever I'm pounding my keyboard in frustration at a post, Rynjin, Zhayne or another member of forum's rationally-thinking-human-being-justice-league show up to diffuse the lack of common sense.
Also, you have an ipad, but no smart phone? I feel like you could access the SRD if you tried even a little bit.
Whenever I'm pounding my keyboard in frustration at a post, Rynjin, Zhayne or another member of forum's rationally-thinking-human-being-justice-league show up to diffuse the lack of common sense.
Also, you have an ipad, but no smart phone? I feel like you could access the SRD if you tried even a little bit.
We suggested the solution of printing out the relevant pages and bring it to the game but he has not replied to that yet. It would solve the problem of no internet access while gaming, and not wanting to use the tablet at the table. It is too late now, but I still wanted to know if he would have agreed to it.
I don't think either are off basis just at what we've heard.
Theres nothing wrong with a gm wanting core only.
theres nothing wrong with players not playing a game they wanted (i.e. more content)
After all they asked you for a favor to gm, and you gave them the options your comfy with GMing with. It didn't synch up so it was a no go.As for the whole "you have access online to everything" thing. That isn't true of everyone. I know peopel who still have dial up and people who still have no net at all. There isn't anything wrong with wanting hard copies especially for anything not on paizo's main site (as the rest are edited by people)
asking them to buy it for you is a bit weird. wanting them to bring their own copies isn't too bad (either via their own books, printing it off from the main paizo site (as there is nothing wrong with not wanting to use 2nd or 3rd party sources)).
So I really say no harm no foul on anyone's side. I can't say whether them asking you to play or not is a foul. I guess it depends on how the actual convo went, and how many people the new gm was willing to gm for .
On varous topics about ipad usage, smart phone etc... People tend ot overestimate the world's access to tech in general. not everyone has that kind of thing. A desk top isn't movable the other option was for him to copy and paste the whole paizo main site to his IPAD which is really darn annoying and not a clean proccess.
I don't have a smart phone, and only internet access at home, and limited per month. About a year and a half ago I had no internet at my house at all. My GM just owned most of the main core stuff luckily. and net at their place.
So stuff related to "it's all online" isn't valid in all situations.The players might have net at their house, but there is a lot of fine detail homework for GMs that wouldn't really be doable using other's net.
If the GM did not have internet access that would be different. We are discussing the current situation, not general cases. He has an ipad and he has internet access. He also has said why he does not or cant use either one. I get that, but there is no reason why he cant use the online resource to learn the material, and have the players bring a hard copy. If he is playing with them anyway I would just assume they would bring the books, so handing it across the table is not too difficult. The idea of printing off copies of the pages was also put forth.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If he was their friend I would understand, but from what I hear he was asked to fun via a 3rd party as a favor, and we don't know how that conversation...Ok, calling them spoiled was a bit too strong, but you can't say they were mature about it. He was asked to run the game, he gave conditions for his game, they decline, but instead of just moving with a different GM, they "fail" to invite the OP to the new game because he didn't give them everything they wanted.
"You didn't give me what I want so I want play with you anymore" is the reaction of 1st graders, not adults.
Not to mention there could be other factors involved, like the group getting filled up/new GM wants a smaller party.
|
sort of a +1
We said the same thing unless you quoted me to just to bounce off my post.From the way I understood it the GM demanded that he have the books, and the players would not buy them so that put the GM in a position to buy them himself. I don't think the players were like "you will buy the books so you I can play my class". I am sure they could not care one way or the other if he had the book or not as long as he let them use the class or other options.I agree with you, but don't forget the part where he demanded the players buy the full books for the DM if they wanted to use it. I've never met any DM that ever told the players to buy them all the books. Usually it's "photocopy it" or "print it". Hell, I had one guy write the rules for playing a wilder in freaking crayon! Which was quite amusing for me to read. But I've never had a DM demand that the players buy the hard copies of books to use something.Truthfully I've never had players that DEMANDED that they had to use books I didn't have to tell the truth.Eh ,I dunno:
"I did tell these players that if they were willing to buy me the books, I'd allow them to use rules from those books. But until I had the books in my possession, I could not allow use of those books in the game. (Okay, it was kind of a jerk thing to ask, but insisting that I let players use rules I'm not familiar with is also kind of a jerk thing to ask, in my opinion)"
Sounds like he wanted the players to actually buy the books for him. That is more than a bit extreme and the OP is in the wrong to make those type of demands.
In the end they went to someone else to get the game they wanted, just as he told them to do. I am not sure he was very diplomatic about his demands, but that is only how it comes off to me.
|
I was recently asked to run a Pathfinder game. I acquiesced, but since I only have access to the Core Rulebook, I decided that I was only going to allow races, classes, feats, gear, spells and such, from that book. I also had two players who were supposedly "new" to Pathfinder, so I felt keeping the rules limited to the Core Rulebook was a good idea.
My players have rioted. They want to play using weird races. Weird classes. Weird stuff from books I do not have. Using rules I do not have access to.
Well, I put my foot down. I said either they can play with the Core Rulebook only, or they could find themselves another GM. And sure enough, they found themselves another GM.
Now, as I've said on this forum, I'm poor. I'm sorry, but I just cannot afford $60 game books for a game I only play once in a blue moon. I have enough problems budgeting for books for games I run regularly, like Shadowrun and now 5th Edition D&D. I know the PDFs are cheaper, but I have to go to other peoples' houses and apartments to run, and I can't take my computer with me when I go. So I can't rely on the SRD either.
I did tell these players that if they were willing to buy me the books, I'd allow them to use rules from those books. But until I had the books in my possession, I could not allow use of those books in the game. (Okay, it was kind of a jerk thing to ask, but insisting that I let players use rules I'm not familiar with is also kind of a jerk thing to ask, in my opinion.)
Was I right? Is it ethical to only allow the players to use rules the GM has access to? Or should I just decline all further requests to run Pathfinder because I can't buy the hardcopy books?
John Andre In my opinion you are well within your rights as the GM to limit the game to the core rule book. I'm sure as it has been said up thread, as the GM you get to set the parameters of the game. You are going to be doing the bulk of the work to run a game so you get to set the parameters. I guess it would be easy for me to say, if your players don't like it they can find another game. Hopefully letting them know that the core rule book is the only book you have, and the only book you feel comfortable playing with will be enough to mollify your players . I admit I haven't read the thread thoroughly and I hope I'm not repeating something you have heard repeated time and again. Best of luck with your players. Again I think you have done the right thing, and as the GM you are within your rights to set the parameters of the game
I don't see the need to have all the books at hand. I'm the usual GM for my group, but while I do have lots of PF books, I certainly don't bring anything other than the CRB and maybe a couple Bestiaries to the place where we play.
If someone shows up with a class, feat or spell I'm not familiar with, I ask where they found it and trust them to use it correctly, then look it up later when I get home.
On a similar note, even without the bizarre idea of demanding people to buy you books, "My Way or The Highway" is usually a very jerkish move, and the simple fact that you gave them that sort of ultimatum is already a good indication that "The Highway" is a better deal. I certainly wouldn't like to play with someone who wants to have absolute control.
Remember: the GM may have the last word on disputes, but his fun is no more important than that of anyone else. He's not doing anyone a favor when the chooses to GM, he's doing it in order to have fun with his friends.
GMs shouldn't decide stuff without asking their players what they want. If every player want to use 20 books, and only you want to use CRB-only, then it's pretty obvious that you guys don't want to play the same game, so why do it?
I GM far more often than I play these days, and my usual policy is "Always say 'yes', unless you really, really need to say 'no'". It works. I trust my players to be honest and they trust me to do the same. When I ban/change something, they know I'm not doing it just because I think my personal taste is more important than theirs, so even when they disagree, they are willing to hear my reasons and probably make a concession, even when they don't like it.
If I threw ultimatums every time someone disagreed with me and forced them to abide to my decision or leave the game, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be nearly as accepting of any restrictions I choose to enforce, and would probably find them a different GM. I would do the same.
So, no offense to the OP, but I'd have gone with "the highway" too.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd be happy to buy a book if it meant I could use a cool new ability or class, but there is absolutely no way it is going to end up being the GM's book. That's pretty unreasonable to say the least. It's my book, which I'll happily let him look at or borrow.
...
Was I right? Is it ethical to only allow the players to use rules the GM has access to? Or should I just decline all further requests to run Pathfinder because I can't buy the hardcopy books?
I think only running a CRB game is perfectly reasonable if that is the only book you have access to and understand well.
However, your description sounds like both you and they got kind jerkish about how the conversations progressed. I can't really know that. It might have just been and attempt at tongue-in-cheek hyperbole that didn't come across to me in written form. You can decide if you could have been more polite or if they were too rude to deal with.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Can you run a game?"
"Sure, Core only"
"We want more than Core"
"My way which requires the expenditure of funds on their part because I don't have access to various material and/or mobile internet in 2014 or the highway"
"K bye."
"How dare they leave? Why didn't they invite me to the other game?"
[speculation]"Ultimatums make for poor relationship building."[/speculation]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like the ultimatum that they won't play unless they have access to more than core? Like that ultimatum?
Yes, just like that ultimatum.
The one they never gave him, at least by the OPs account of the matter.
If someone shows up with a class, feat or spell I'm not familiar with, I ask where they found it and trust them to use it correctly, then look it up later when I get home.
I tend to take an alternate path with the way I run (either PFS or homegame). I think that if a player wants to play with a rules element from a book that I don't own, they should definitely bring me at the minimum photocopies of that rule item and have them at the table. I say this because with hardcopies/photocopies, if you lose power to your laptop or what have you, you can still play your character. Most of the time this is not an issue (as I own PDFs of almost all the pathfinder books) but I don't think it's unreasonable to require someone to be able to hand me a reference for a non-core option that they want to use. I've seen way to many interpretative arguments spring up at a table where the referenced material is unavailable that could have easily been avoided had the reference material been on hand.
I will, however, when GMing a new home game, make this clearly known to the group of players: if you want to use something non-core, be able to hand me something that I can read with the rule on it.
What you did was within your rights as the GM. I, on the other hand, encourage the use of other sourcebooks, even 3PP as long as I'm familiar enough with it. It's my players who balk at using non core races and classes.
|
Actually, there may be another agenda going here. None of the players really could be bothered to run a game, so thay asked the OP. Funnily enough they then found a reason to leave that game and very quickly "found" another DM. It could simply be they had, ahead of time, unexpectedly gained a choice of two DMs and actually preferred the second DM anyway. Not a reflection on the OP, possibly a bit of dishonesty on the part of the other players, and possibly explains their willingness to simply dump the OP's game and go off with the other DM. I don't know, but they found another DM with surprising speed.
I also get what you say about relative poverty. This game can be expensive - though it doesn't have to be with just the core rules. You can get a perfectly decent game with core rules - for a while, that's all there was - so refusing to play with just core rules seems silly. (It's when DM's (and players) want to do stuff outside the core rules that I get uncomfortable, simply from a balance perspective.) Even getting to thebgame can be expensive - fares, petrol and so on are not free. A player of mine has effectively had to drop out for that reason.
Whatever, I'm basically with LazarX above. No one comes out of this smelling of roses from an interpersonal perspective. It's all a bit unfortunate, best forgotten and put behind one.
I was recently asked to run a Pathfinder game. I acquiesced, but since I only have access to the Core Rulebook, I decided that I was only going to allow races, classes, feats, gear, spells and such, from that book. I also had two players who were supposedly "new" to Pathfinder, so I felt keeping the rules limited to the Core Rulebook was a good idea.
My players have rioted. They want to play using weird races. Weird classes. Weird stuff from books I do not have. Using rules I do not have access to.
Well, I put my foot down. I said either they can play with the Core Rulebook only, or they could find themselves another GM. And sure enough, they found themselves another GM.
Now, as I've said on this forum, I'm poor. I'm sorry, but I just cannot afford $60 game books for a game I only play once in a blue moon. I have enough problems budgeting for books for games I run regularly, like Shadowrun and now 5th Edition D&D. I know the PDFs are cheaper, but I have to go to other peoples' houses and apartments to run, and I can't take my computer with me when I go. So I can't rely on the SRD either.
I did tell these players that if they were willing to buy me the books, I'd allow them to use rules from those books. But until I had the books in my possession, I could not allow use of those books in the game. (Okay, it was kind of a jerk thing to ask, but insisting that I let players use rules I'm not familiar with is also kind of a jerk thing to ask, in my opinion.)
Was I right? Is it ethical to only allow the players to use rules the GM has access to? Or should I just decline all further requests to run Pathfinder because I can't buy the hardcopy books?
If the players have the books containing the extra options they want to play with, what's wrong with just looking over their books? This is how my group did things for years. No one DM was expected to own everything. So long as the player has a copy on hand, what would be wrong with that?
Funnily enough they then found a reason to leave that game and very quickly "found" another DM.
It's really not hard to find a game if you put even an ounce of effort in. If things weren't going well, they probably started looking for other potential avenues.
You don't actually have to buy the books: all the main rulebooks are on paizo's PRD, which is linked on the paizosite under the 'pathfinder roleplaying game', and the contents of other books are on both the 'archives of nethys' and 'pathfinde srd'. Just google those two, and you can look up everything.
If you want the books themselves, they can be bought as cheap pdf's.
It can all be found on d20pfsrd, as well.
This thread should be titled "the funny faces of the paizo forums." I mean just scroll through and look at em!
I like the funny faces.
|
|
It can all be found on d20pfsrd, as well.You don't actually have to buy the books: all the main rulebooks are on paizo's PRD, which is linked on the paizosite under the 'pathfinder roleplaying game', and the contents of other books are on both the 'archives of nethys' and 'pathfinde srd'. Just google those two, and you can look up everything.
If you want the books themselves, they can be bought as cheap pdf's.
The dude stated that he cannot bring his PC with him and that his iPad is a piece of crap. Several times.
The dude stated that he cannot bring his PC with him and that his iPad is a piece of crap. Several times.It can all be found on d20pfsrd, as well.You don't actually have to buy the books: all the main rulebooks are on paizo's PRD, which is linked on the paizosite under the 'pathfinder roleplaying game', and the contents of other books are on both the 'archives of nethys' and 'pathfinde srd'. Just google those two, and you can look up everything.
If you want the books themselves, they can be bought as cheap pdf's.
And someone else said they have the exact same iPad and it works fine.
Even then, it's still an iPad. I've only recently begun bringing a cheap Craigslist laptop to gaming. I use to lug around every book I might use that evening, or make tons of photocopies.
So, no. No sympathies from me.
1. At home, you can reference the PFSRD on your computer.
2. At the table, if the player references an ability you don't remember, ask them to show it to you.
Seems pretty simple to me.
The dude stated that he cannot bring his PC with him and that his iPad is a piece of crap. Several times.It can all be found on d20pfsrd, as well.You don't actually have to buy the books: all the main rulebooks are on paizo's PRD, which is linked on the paizosite under the 'pathfinder roleplaying game', and the contents of other books are on both the 'archives of nethys' and 'pathfinde srd'. Just google those two, and you can look up everything.
If you want the books themselves, they can be bought as cheap pdf's.
You don't have to take it with you. Print off what you need.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As others have pointed out, forcing people to buy you books is pretty much the same thing as holding their builds ransom. Point is, don't do it.
Instead use PFS rules for it if you don't want to use SRDs: The must either A) Have a physical copy of the book, or B) have the pages they are referencing printed out and available. Either way they do not have to prove ownership of said pages or books.When I read the B clause I figured that I might actually give PFS another look. It means that if someone has the book I need, or a PDF that I need that I can barrow or print out pages from their stuff to use.
My impression here is that many posters are skimming and not reading. For example, the OP stated:
- He isn't able to conveniently access the internet when they play, because they play at someone else's house
- His device which can access PDFs does not do so well...at all
- He isn't able to afford the books aside from Core
- It's his first time DMing PF and he needs time to learn the rules, too
- The player who had initiated the request was afterwards so embarrassed by his friends' demanding behavior that he left their second group
Somehow demanding he be able to access the resources otherwise, or produce funds that he doesn't have, doesn't solve our issue.
The printout suggestion isn't a bad one, and would be useful if a similar situation comes up. Unfortunately for just this instance...and please correct me if I'm wrong, the OP meant "they aren't leaders" to be: they aren't the sort of personalities who step forward on their own, or in more common parlance, "they don't tend to take initiative." In a case like this, you may need to initiate the, "If you'll let me borrow your books" conversation.
Having to initiate that conversation in itself, though, shows perhaps not only a lack of forward thinking on the players' part, but also in general politeness. If someone's in need, then offer to help out. It's part of what a gaming group is--you help eachother.
The one player who had initially made the request was also so embarrassed by the other players' behavior that he left that group...all of which suggests that yes, the players had acted in an entitled manner.
Perhaps they're just young and more socially awkward than most?
Was I right? Is it ethical to only allow the players to use rules the GM has access to? Or should I just decline all further requests to run Pathfinder because I can't buy the hardcopy books?
When I started with my group 4 years ago I inherited them from another GM who was stepping down from GM'ing. We started new characters from first level and emailed them a house rule document that might have been 3 pages in total (not densely packed pages either). I also told them for starters Core Rulebook only.
I explained to them that I didnt know them and didnt know their playstyles or what kind of players they were so for now lets stick with core. I had no problem with letting stuff in on an individual basis but if anything got abused it was going to go. They were relying on me to be a good DM operating in good faith and I relied on them to be good players operating in good faith.
As more and more options became available because my group are really and honestly a good group of players by any standard, I had no problem opening stuff up for them to use if they asked. The only exception to this at the beginning was opening up to "weird" races. But eventually I even relented because one player is playing an android fighter/monk and another is playing a ratfolk druid (the PC just died and was reincarnated as an elf so...).
If they had been completely different type of players I would have probably excused myself as DM and found another group. I have players who optimize their characters but not to the point of abuse but to effectiveness. They all share the spotlight relatively equally and overall they are a fair if not wacky bunch. I'm lucky to have them. And I mean LUCKY.
I guess my point is this: If you're going to run a game for people it helps if those people aren't jerks. It also helps if you're not a jerk. Once you you have that non-jerk element? Compromise is your friend. If you have to explain the WHY of a restriction with the hope of it either going away or being eased, then do that. If a situation with your group isn't really tenable then excuse yourself and move on. And I mean move on with the intent of finding a group more to your liking and not going on a message board to voice your displeasure with the group in question.
You gave them an ultimatum. Your way or the highway. They chose the highway. Neither one of you tried to compromise as far as I could tell (and telling them to buy you the boks wasn't a compromise...) That's why you're here and they're there instead of all of you being at a table having fun playing a game that you like. TOGETHER.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the players have the books containing the extra options they want to play with, what's wrong with just looking over their books? This is how my group did things for years. No one DM was expected to own everything. So long as the player has a copy on hand, what would be wrong with that?
Sometimes that isn't as convenient or the analysis not as thorough as being able to review the new material in detail and at leisure. Depending on the nature of the option to be added, I might take a while to really dig into it. If it was just a feat or new piece of equipment, reading over the text once or twice would probably suffice. But if the player wanted me to add a new class like the summoner, I'd want more time with the materials and that requires more than just skimming it over at the gaming table the night we play. In such a case, I would require photocopies of the pages at the very least, and perhaps a loan of the book for a week or so.
Sometimes that isn't as convenient or the analysis not as thorough as being able to review the new material in detail and at leisure. Depending on the nature of the option to be added, I might take a while to really dig into it. If it was just a feat or new piece of equipment, reading over the text once or twice would probably suffice. But if the player wanted me to add a new class like the summoner, I'd want more time with the materials and that requires more than just skimming it over at the gaming table the night we play. In such a case, I would require photocopies of the pages at the very least, and perhaps a loan of the book for a week or so.
If the players have the books containing the extra options they want to play with, what's wrong with just looking over their books? This is how my group did things for years. No one DM was expected to own everything. So long as the player has a copy on hand, what would be wrong with that?
Okay, I see what you mean. The few(can count on one hand) times this has happened to us, the DM simply borrows the book for the week between sessions, looks it over, and has an answer by the next session.
If it takes long than between sessions(typically 1 week) to figure out whether an option from a book is playable, then I'm sorry, but the DM has apparently bigger issues than optional rules.
If a player wants to play something that doesn't jive with the setting(such as driving a Sherman tank in Greyhawk), then that I can understand completely. But if it's something that theoretically exists, it doesn't need a college thesis statement and an outsourced investigative team. Just my opinion.
|
Cheese is subjective.
At one point I owned most of the Pazio material, I sold most of it and keep to the Core. The power creep with all of this extra material can be overwhelming even for an experienced GM. I think you did the right thing, let them run their cheese game with the other guy.
Subjective is subjective.