The Fluff Veto: GMs Controlling the PC "Why"


Gamer Life General Discussion

1 to 50 of 200 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

A GM directly controlling what a character may or may not do is wrong, I think we can all agree: "No, you can't take that side-strret", "No, you cannot visit the witch first and the dungeon second", etc. Many also feel that "excessive restrictions" on character options also makes a bad GM, i.e. "You cannot play a dwarf wizard because I decided dwarves can't be wizards", and the countless myriad of variations.

My question, though, is: Is it acceptable for a GM to veto a decision based on the in-character reasons the player has come up with?

-Is it unfair to restrict player options if the story does not warrant them? (i.e. does Story trump Rules?)
I-s PC backstory sacred and purely the domain of the player? Does the GM have a right to decide what may or may not be in the PCs backstory?
-Should the fluff not matter as long as the rules are followed?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The only case I would do something like this is player vs player. I have fun if my players are having fun.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

All of these are situational


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Big Lemon wrote:

- Is PC backstory sacred and purely the domain of the player? Does the GM have a right to decide what may or may not be in the PCs backstory?

For us - the GM absolutely has the right (though generally only in the "may not be in the backstory" direction). If the player creates a backstory for the PC in which they know, personally and friendly, every noble in the land... mehhhh. No.

Both the player and GM must agree.

I'm not sure about those other items - I'd probably need examples. (They seem a bit vague and undefined for me to say anything about them.)


12 people marked this as a favorite.

DM Controlling PCs - No
DM Determining World Details - Yes
DM Restricting Player Options - Yes
DM Restricting/Providing Input on Player Backstory - Depends, see above

Fluff - Fluff is basically the entire game. Without Fluff this is a Tactical Board Game. If you don't want fluff play PFS. Otherwise the DM is the arbiter of the rules - that is actually one of the rules; it's in the book. In the book, it states the DM is the judge and jury when it comes to rules decisions. However, the DM should apprise their group of all major rules changes BEFORE the game begins - and definitely before characters are created and finalized.

The DM is not a mouse and keyboard with buttons for you to press so that your video game plays out the way you want it. The DM is the storyteller, rules-arbiter, world-builder, and plays all of the world's characters. You play a single character that you create - respecting the DM's rules choices - which exists in the DM's world. That is the reality of this game. If you don't like that, play a board game or a video game.

P.S. Another rule of the game is 'fun'. All of that - the rules and whatever - is the backdrop which is essentially a contract between Player and DM to respect each other, and make the game fun. However, in order for that to happen, the rules must be respected so everyone is on a level playing field, so a simulation is created in which we can all exist and understand the imaginary world, and we can get down to just telling stories.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

annnnnnd here
we
go


Arturus Caeldhon wrote:
Fluff - Fluff is basically the entire game. Without Fluff this is a Tactical Board Game.

...And at the same time, without the rules this is magical story time and barely qualifies as a game at all. I generally agree with the rest of your post but this line of thinking tends to be problematic.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

5 people marked this as a favorite.

It all depends on degree. I'm personally not a big fan of "No" as a GM but sometimes it's the only recourse. There's a big difference between "No, you can't take that side street"(bad) and "No, you can't walk to the Moon."(better) Although I would tend to phrase that second one as "How exactly do you intend to pull that off?"

Hopefully all the players are on the same page when it comes to story options. I think if one player crates a backstory that's completely against the spirit of the campaign, as defined by the group as a whole, then that backstory needs to be revisited. If a player shows up to play Skull&Shackles with a LG character who is afraid of water we have an issue with expectations.

In general I'm fine with players writing whatever they want into their backstory - but then again, I don't have players making themselves the children of deities who rule continents either. I'd probably have to veto that (unless that was the campaign, which could be cool).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While there are a few situations that a GM should control (mostly very off shoot setting stuff, like worshiping demons in Wrath of the Righteous; not really too much of a part of actual mechanics usually), I think outright rejecting things like you suggested does seem far, far too much.

While there is of course debate over railroading (player freedom vs. increasing the burden of GM workload), a good GM should give reasons for why going down that back street is a bad idea.

Maybe have it just be a boring dead end cul de ac. Maybe have muggers show up, and then make it a dead end. Pick pockets. Just plain have a list of random encounters so there the players feel something happened, even though...no...not really. Turn it into training for the players- Do you honestly want to go through Mt. Moon without a repel, or do you just want to get to the next Gym?

You can very subtlety make it not worth their while without actually being mean about it. Or give it to them as an option if they feel things need a bit of change of pace.

Another somewhat basic thing you can do is have minor consequences for side trips. NPCs complain about you being late. Road is closed because of a wagon accident that happened just a moment ago, and you have to take the long route (which includes another random encounter). In more serious cases of procrastination (this is usually when the players take 3-5 random side trips like the back alley in a row, instead of getting back on track), you can have the villain steal the McGuffin first, or have the orcs attack the blind-deaf children's orphanage and have a 'barbeque'. Again, don't be mean or use this too often, but make sure the understand that this isn't a videogame RPG, and the story actually reacts to time and their decisions (no, you can't farm the back alleys for XP without assassins being sent at you).

Also....I agree that the example of the dwarf is a terrible action. It is a basic combo of character options, and dwarves do not necessarily make terrible wizards (buffing and summoning let you slide a bit on INT). If we stuck to this kind of stuff, then we would never have halfling cavaliers on wolves. There are of course limits on cheese and optimization.... but banning broad character concepts outright is unfair.

Now, if dwarves abhor arcane magic in this setting...I can see allowing a dwarf wizard, but making them an outcast. Again, consequences, but don't ruin the game just because others want to play something slightly different from what you want to play. Negotiate with the players.


Arachnofiend wrote:
Arturus Caeldhon wrote:
Fluff - Fluff is basically the entire game. Without Fluff this is a Tactical Board Game.
...And at the same time, without the rules this is magical story time and barely qualifies as a game at all. I generally agree with the rest of your post but this line of thinking tends to be problematic.

I would say Fluff - the non-rules elements - comprise about 80% of the game. The story, the world, your characters, the NPCS - that's all fluff. The rules forge the underpinning of the world. They are the games' Physics, essentially. When we eulogize a person, or write a book about them, we don't spend 80% of it talking about how that person accelerated towards Earth at 9.8 m/s^2 for 80 years, or the mass of their body, or any of that stuff. We talk about what they did, and who they were, and where they went. Maybe you don't DM, or maybe your games are very combat-oriented, and you have a different experience than your average player. I derive the concept of an average game from modules and adventure paths and how they are written - and the past majority of those words are Fluff, not Rules.

ryric - I think you nailed it. When a player is just not making a character that will integrate with the game the GM will provide, that is where the Player's freedom of choice starts to blur.


No, but when eulogizing an adventurer you may want to talk about how he vanquished a Great Red Wyrm in a single stroke of his blade. The rules are how we determine he actually did that (high static damage modifiers led to a massive critical hit on his signature falcata). The rules are what separate us from five year olds shouting at each other over who shot who.

And yes, I do GM, and yes, my games do involve a lot of roleplay. I usually play fast and loose with the rules in roleplay situations because Pathfinder's rules for anything outside of combat are basically worthless, but I digress.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

While generally I don't think a GM should keep a character from making their own decisions, In some cases a player is just trying to be disruptive and cause trouble. I have no problem in such a case in informing the player that if their character is going to behave in a certain way then they as the player will not be invited to participate anymore. This would be extreme, and typically would only result in total failure of previous attempts to communicate, and I have personally never had to go anywhere near this far, but certainly I won't let one jerk ruin everyone's fun. I will note that 'in character reasons' are indeed often code for 'player wants to be a jerk'.

As for setting, it is completely fine for a GM to choose classes, races etc that are allowed as a PC in a setting. If you want to insist that only female characters can be sorcerers and only males can be wizards, that is fine. Hopefully you have some world building reasons for these decisions, and obviously if your players don't like your world the game will be brief, but given these considerations it is totally legit. Obviously players should be aware of these things before the game starts.

Backstory is along the same lines. The player should be free to make up a reasonable backstory that fits in the campaign world at matches the premise for the campaign. As long as they do that, the GM should be pretty willing to let the player fill in the details. However, if it is "My character is the love child of Drizzt and Queen Talandia Edasseril and has spent the last ten years studying with Raistlin Majere" The DM is pretty free to go, "No we aren't playing in the Forgotten Realms, Golarion or Dragonlance and I said your characters would start out being from a small village on the edge of the wilderness"

Scarab Sages

Sometimes the players aren't aware of what the theme of the campaign is going to be, and it would cause huge spoilers if the GM just told them beforehand.

In those cases, I don't see a problem with the GM giving a little nudge, as long as it's done to increase the potential fun the player will have, playing a PC more fitting to the environment and likely opponents.


Arturus Caeldhon wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Arturus Caeldhon wrote:
Fluff - Fluff is basically the entire game. Without Fluff this is a Tactical Board Game.
...And at the same time, without the rules this is magical story time and barely qualifies as a game at all. I generally agree with the rest of your post but this line of thinking tends to be problematic.
I would say Fluff - the non-rules elements - comprise about 80% of the game. The story, the world, your characters, the NPCS - that's all fluff. The rules forge the underpinning of the world. They are the games' Physics, essentially.

Maybe in FATE fluff is 80% of the game, but have you seen all these rules in Pathfinder? Crunch is probably much more then 80% of the CRB. Full stop.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The easiest way for a GM to control the PCs is to give them direction.

Try giving your players an open ended problem in an open ended world with no immediate catch or decisions before them.

In my experience, the players will do nothing. Eventually they will flail about rolling random skill checks to advance the plot.

There is no reason to go all Harbinger "assuming direct control" on the party. If you lay options before them, they will most likely take them.
IMHO: the fun part is when the party does decide to "take a side street".


Anzyr wrote:
Arturus Caeldhon wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Arturus Caeldhon wrote:
Fluff - Fluff is basically the entire game. Without Fluff this is a Tactical Board Game.
...And at the same time, without the rules this is magical story time and barely qualifies as a game at all. I generally agree with the rest of your post but this line of thinking tends to be problematic.
I would say Fluff - the non-rules elements - comprise about 80% of the game. The story, the world, your characters, the NPCS - that's all fluff. The rules forge the underpinning of the world. They are the games' Physics, essentially.
Maybe in FATE fluff is 80% of the game, but have you seen all these rules in Pathfinder? Crunch is probably much more then 80% of the CRB. Full stop.

The Core RULE Book. The book of rules. Of course it is filled with rules. Even then, I would bet word-for-word there are more descriptions of a thing that are Fluff than description of things that are mechanical in nature. 2-to-1 at least. Probably more like 10-to-1.

But the Game is more than just the rulebook. Also you only use a small sliver of the rulebook at any give time in any given game. The Game can exist without the Rulebook - without Fluff the Rulebook is just a book of mechanical odds and ends that go nowhere.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arturus Caeldhon wrote:


The Core RULE Book. The book of rules. Of course it is filled with rules. Even then, I would bet word-for-word there are more descriptions of a thing that are Fluff than description of things that are mechanical in nature. 2-to-1 at least. Probably more like 10-to-1.

But the Game is more than just the rulebook. Also you only use a small sliver of the rulebook at any give time in any given game. The Game can exist without the Rulebook - without Fluff the Rulebook is just a book of mechanical odds and ends that go nowhere.

When you stop using the rules you are playing a different game.

Now much of the rules you need to stop using before you are not playing Pathfinder is subjective, but if I advertise Pathfinder, but I use Shadowrun mechanics, then we are not playing Pathfinder.

The flavor really has more to do with the campaign setting than the base game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Let me give some more specific examples:

Suicide to Change Character:

I was not the GM of this game, but usually agreed with the GM on most things, one of which was that players may change characters mid-campaign if they want to (though we apparently disagreed on how, I'll get to that).

Long story short, we were investigating a Pelorite temple that seemed to be not so Lawful Good after all. The party was in social/stealth mode as some snuck around looking for clues while others talked to NPCs and tried to distract. One player, we'll call him Jim, decided he'd had enough of his fighter and with the GM's okay, he rolled up a sorcerer away from the table, to be brought it when we had a chance.

He decided to try and create that chance though by having his fighter walk into the center of the temple and slice her own throat. He cited some reasons about being upset over not finding her brothers' killer and providing a distraction for us but it was garbage. There was no precedent to this at all, no in-character build up, he just did it because he wanted to stop playing her as soon as possible. Couldn't even wait until we were done the current scene. IMO, if someone wants to change characters, they need to find an appropriate time and manner in which to do so. How am I supposed to roleplay responding to my by all appearances mentally sound companion abruptly killing herself in one of the most gruesome ways right in front of me? Ultimately, the GM let it pass, but if it were me, I would have definitely talked about how he planned on changing characters before we resumed playing and told him ahead of time that this was not an appropriate way to change characters, even if the table rules technically allowed him to change characters whenever he wanted.

Justifying Class Builds, Dips, and Class/Race Combinations:

I will generally require a player give me good, story-based reasons for why they're dipping into something that is obviously outside the purview of their class or race, whether that's by taking a level in barbarian, putting ranks into off-class Knowledge skills, or playing an Orc Magus. I won't out-and-out ban a player doing so, but if I ask them why and they give me a "meta-reason", i.e. because it'll allow them to break a mechanic, or they're doing it so they can more easily beat a monster they know OOC is on its way but not IC, I'll say "Nope, try again" or "Maybe do this slightly different thing instead". I've rarely had to put my foot down completely as the people I game with aren't that stubborn and are willing to work with me, but hypothetically, I would.


Arturus Caeldhon wrote:


But the Game is more than just the rulebook. Also you only use a small sliver of the rulebook at any give time in any given game. The Game can exist without the Rulebook - without Fluff the Rulebook is just a book of mechanical odds and ends that go nowhere.

The game may be more then just the rulebook, but the rulebook is the most important part. The game cannot exist without the rules. If the game has different rules, it is no longer a game of Pathfinder. If the game has NO rules then it is schoolyard cops and robbers or magical tea party, whichever you happen to prefer.

Cryptic'd by wraithstrike.


Big Lemon wrote:

A GM directly controlling what a character may or may not do is wrong, I think we can all agree: "No, you can't take that side-strret", "No, you cannot visit the witch first and the dungeon second", etc. Many also feel that "excessive restrictions" on character options also makes a bad GM, i.e. "You cannot play a dwarf wizard because I decided dwarves can't be wizards", and the countless myriad of variations.

My question, though, is: Is it acceptable for a GM to veto a decision based on the in-character reasons the player has come up with?

-Is it unfair to restrict player options if the story does not warrant them? (i.e. does Story trump Rules?)
I-s PC backstory sacred and purely the domain of the player? Does the GM have a right to decide what may or may not be in the PCs backstory?
-Should the fluff not matter as long as the rules are followed?

There is no one correct answer to your question. It will depend on the specific situation, and even then it may be more a matter of taste than objective right or wrong.


It depends on what type of character background you are talking about: character has a weakness for goat's milk, then the GM is unlikely to have a reasonable reason to ban it; character comes from a Brevoy noble family AND the campaign has scheduled as a major plot device a magical plague which no-save kills all members of the Brevoy noble families, then the GM had better veto that background. The GM is creating a world, if you don't like the world the GM creates then don't play in that world. If you cannot play in a world where dwarves cannot be wizards then don't,

It gets blurrier when talking about established campaign worlds like Golarion. There the GM isn't creating a world, but is instead creating their own variation on a world. The GM should as much as possible stick to the established rules of the world, and on Golarion dwarves can become wizards so a ban would be unreasonable (unless the GM and players agree to play in an irregular version of Golarion), but even on Golarion the GM is reasonable in banning gunslingers in a River Kingdoms campaign if the GM's version of Golarion doesn't encompass firearms so far from Alkenstar.

Grand Lodge

Arturus Caeldhon wrote:
Without Fluff this is a Tactical Board Game. If you don't want fluff play PFS.

I guess PFS is played differently where you are from than here.


dwayne germaine wrote:
Arturus Caeldhon wrote:
Without Fluff this is a Tactical Board Game. If you don't want fluff play PFS.
I guess PFS is played differently where you are from than here.

I never played PFS, but based on what I've heard about it I assumed it was kind of like playing an old school point and click adventure where you cannot proceed unless you hit "yes" when prompted to accept the mission ("no" just looping back to asking you if you accept the mission again) and then wondering why you can't get ye flask if you try to solve problems in the non-expected manner.


15 posts from the point I predicted this would turn into complete nonsense

mark

Grand Lodge

chaoseffect wrote:
dwayne germaine wrote:
Arturus Caeldhon wrote:
Without Fluff this is a Tactical Board Game. If you don't want fluff play PFS.
I guess PFS is played differently where you are from than here.
I never played PFS, but based on what I've heard about it I assumed it was kind of like playing an old school point and click adventure where you cannot proceed unless you hit "yes" when prompted to accept the mission ("no" just looping back to asking you if you accept the mission again) and then wondering why you can't get ye flask if you try to solve problems in the non-expected manner.

It's certainly not as open as a home game, It has to be to allow people to drop in, play a single session with a cohesive storyline and then go their separate ways to game another day with different people.

That doesn't mean that characters don't get to explore their own motivations, interact with one another or role play in any meaningful way (despite what PFS detractors would have everyone think) and it doesn't mean that the GM can't reward creative thinking for alternate ideas on how to handle the problems persented in the scenario.

Lamontius wrote:

15 posts from the point I predicted this would turn into complete nonsense

mark

Touche.

I let this get off topic


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

/use babushka


When someone who is older than 12 says 'it's not fair', I tend to stop listening.

It is fair for a DM to set the terms of engagement of a game they are running. It is fair for the player to choose not to take part in the game based on those terms.

There are 7 players in my homebrew sandbox. They regularly split the party and go and do different things, and not every avenue and NPC is fully nuanced. I doubt 6 of them would be overly happy if I stopped the game for an hour while I rolled up the NPC and their whole backstory so that 1 person can try to bluff them out of some specified potion they may or may not have about their person. So yeah, sometimes I'll say I'd rather you didn't pursue that this week, but I'll sort it for you for next time.

I set up the table. Buy the rule books and minis, and build the terrain. I populate the sandbox, invite the people to my home, feed them and facilitate the game. Damn right it's fair I have a veto on what your character has as a back story and abilities. I try to be fair, and give clear reasons why certain things may not be allowed, and am amenable to most ideas, but if I say I don't want- oh, I dunno, let's say gunslingers- I don't expect it's not fair stompyfoot pet lip. A polite 'No thanks Mike, I'll sit this game out.' will suffice.


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

A GM has the right to veto any character concept not appropriate for his game before/during its creation. That's it. That's all.

The player can make a different character concept, not play in that particular game, or work with the GM to make their existing character fit the framework of the campaign.

A GM does not ever have the right to fiat control your character* or to change your concept without your permission. It is your intellectual property.

* Fiat control, or "just because," rather than via a legitimate rule that may allow for it, such as dominate person.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:

A GM has the right to veto any character concept not appropriate for his game before/during its creation. That's it. That's all.

The player can make a different character concept, not play in that particular game, or work with the GM to make their existing character fit the framework of the campaign.

A GM does not ever have the right to fiat control your character* or to change your concept without your permission. It is your intellectual property.

* Fiat control, or "just because," rather than via a legitimate rule that may allow for it, such as dominate person.

A GM has whatever rights the players agree to give him. Player has whatever rights the GM agrees to give them.

Subject of course in both cases to the ultimate right in gaming: You can leave the table.

I've played in games where the GM couldn't veto rules-legal character concepts. I've played in games where the GM could fiat control your character. I've played in games where the players could fiat make changes in the world. All of those games worked well and were fun to play.

I'll admit your rules, or something very close to them, are much closer to the norm, but there are no absolutes.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Big Lemon wrote:

A GM directly controlling what a character may or may not do is wrong, I think we can all agree: "No, you can't take that side-strret", "No, you cannot visit the witch first and the dungeon second", etc. Many also feel that "excessive restrictions" on character options also makes a bad GM, i.e. "You cannot play a dwarf wizard because I decided dwarves can't be wizards", and the countless myriad of variations.

My question, though, is: Is it acceptable for a GM to veto a decision based on the in-character reasons the player has come up with?

-Is it unfair to restrict player options if the story does not warrant them? (i.e. does Story trump Rules?)
I-s PC backstory sacred and purely the domain of the player? Does the GM have a right to decide what may or may not be in the PCs backstory?
-Should the fluff not matter as long as the rules are followed?

In my years of gaming since the '80's I've never heard nor seen any GM do something that literally extreme as far as your first part.

As to the second, if a GM says dwarves can't be wizards in his world, than that is a perfectly valid statement. Especially if it's from an old-school GM who gamed from the decades when such statements were TRUTH in D+D.

Is it me, or are the boards filling up with people who come crying here for validation because they can't deal with their GMs or their decisions like the adults they presume to be?

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

:/


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Big Lemon wrote:
Justifying Class Builds, Dips, and Class/Race Combinations:

I have to say I dislike this sort of thing and have walked out on games where the DM do this. It means that players with 'ranks' in 'diplomacy DM' play by a different set of rules than everyone else. If I know you and what you'll likely accept, any dip or combination is fine. If I'm not the most eloquent person or don't know you then I'm out of luck...

Limits should be everyone's limits. No gunsingers in the game: cool. No elf gunslingers or multiclass ones with wizard levels: not cool.


foolsjourney wrote:

When someone who is older than 12 says 'it's not fair', I tend to stop listening.

It is fair for a DM to set the terms of engagement of a game they are running. It is fair for the player to choose not to take part in the game based on those terms.

There are 7 players in my homebrew sandbox. They regularly split the party and go and do different things, and not every avenue and NPC is fully nuanced. I doubt 6 of them would be overly happy if I stopped the game for an hour while I rolled up the NPC and their whole backstory so that 1 person can try to bluff them out of some specified potion they may or may not have about their person. So yeah, sometimes I'll say I'd rather you didn't pursue that this week, but I'll sort it for you for next time.

I set up the table. Buy the rule books and minis, and build the terrain. I populate the sandbox, invite the people to my home, feed them and facilitate the game. Damn right it's fair I have a veto on what your character has as a back story and abilities. I try to be fair, and give clear reasons why certain things may not be allowed, and am amenable to most ideas, but if I say I don't want- oh, I dunno, let's say gunslingers- I don't expect it's not fair stompyfoot pet lip. A polite 'No thanks Mike, I'll sit this game out.' will suffice.

Nobody asked about YOU. The topic is about GM's in general.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Damnit, the Paladin should fall!


foolsjourney wrote:
Damn right it's fair I have a veto on what your character has as a back story and abilities.

So in other words, it would be unfair if the GM didn't have that veto right. I wonder what people would have to say about it being unfair.

foolsjourney wrote:
When someone who is older than 12 says 'it's not fair', I tend to stop listening

Oh. Well, I guess that settles that.


Ravingdork wrote:

A GM has the right to veto any character concept not appropriate for his game before/during its creation. That's it. That's all.

The player can make a different character concept, not play in that particular game, or work with the GM to make their existing character fit the framework of the campaign.

A GM does not ever have the right to fiat control your character* or to change your concept without your permission. It is your intellectual property.

* Fiat control, or "just because," rather than via a legitimate rule that may allow for it, such as dominate person.

My own opinion falls in line with this. However, for any given game, it is an agreement between the GM and the players. But because I've had bad experiences with GMs bullying players into submission, I tend to have a strong reaction in favor of the players - even when I am the GM (which I am most of the time nowadays).


Anzyr wrote:
Arturus Caeldhon wrote:


But the Game is more than just the rulebook. Also you only use a small sliver of the rulebook at any give time in any given game. The Game can exist without the Rulebook - without Fluff the Rulebook is just a book of mechanical odds and ends that go nowhere.

The game may be more then just the rulebook, but the rulebook is the most important part. The game cannot exist without the rules. If the game has different rules, it is no longer a game of Pathfinder. If the game has NO rules then it is schoolyard cops and robbers or magical tea party, whichever you happen to prefer.

Cryptic'd by wraithstrike.

I would disagree with this. The rules are the most malleable part of the game and we have dozens of editions and errata to back that up. If I'm playing Tom the barbarian and his quest to rescue the Golden sheep of Azkaban... That's the game I'm playing. The rules can change around the campaign (and have) but 'the game' that we're playing on wendsday is still Tom the barbarian's crew. Same with our Marvel games or our Star Wars games... the characters and worlds have become living creations... whether I roll a d20 or d6 doesn't alter things TOO much.

It's honestly why I don't get so hung up on edition wars. I'll play what we're all playing... My 'game' doesn't change that much. Having played with a dozen or so rule systems from TSR Marvel to World of Darkness it really all comes down to 'I shoot the bad guy... did I hit?'

This is like saying that the Original Runelords or Crimson Throne games weren't 'pathfinder' games because they were written for 3.5 and that anything involving the Advanced Class guide isn't Pathfinder because it isn't using the same stuff from the Core...

The Rules shift and change throughout the life of any game.

Liberty's Edge

This can be fine when done sparingly. All DMs railroad to some degree. Sometimes rather than a thinly veiled attempt at mechanics-based justification for something happening I’d rather a DM be up front and say ‘it happens’.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

A GM has the right to veto any character concept not appropriate for his game before/during its creation. That's it. That's all.

The player can make a different character concept, not play in that particular game, or work with the GM to make their existing character fit the framework of the campaign.

A GM does not ever have the right to fiat control your character* or to change your concept without your permission. It is your intellectual property.

* Fiat control, or "just because," rather than via a legitimate rule that may allow for it, such as dominate person.

A GM has whatever rights the players agree to give him. Player has whatever rights the GM agrees to give them.

Subject of course in both cases to the ultimate right in gaming: You can leave the table.

I've played in games where the GM couldn't veto rules-legal character concepts. I've played in games where the GM could fiat control your character. I've played in games where the players could fiat make changes in the world. All of those games worked well and were fun to play.

I'll admit your rules, or something very close to them, are much closer to the norm, but there are no absolutes.

That's not really the issue. the issue is that however lax or strict a GM is about character creation, if the player and the GM can't work out their differences without one going to an outside source to air their dirty laundry, that may well be a sign that they can't work together the way two adults should be able to manage.


graystone wrote:
Big Lemon wrote:
Justifying Class Builds, Dips, and Class/Race Combinations:

I have to say I dislike this sort of thing and have walked out on games where the DM do this. It means that players with 'ranks' in 'diplomacy DM' play by a different set of rules than everyone else. If I know you and what you'll likely accept, any dip or combination is fine. If I'm not the most eloquent person or don't know you then I'm out of luck...

Limits should be everyone's limits. No gunsingers in the game: cool. No elf gunslingers or multiclass ones with wizard levels: not cool.

This is not necessarily a "You have 30 second to convince me why I should let you play this" situation. What I was trying to emphasize was, after the initial "This doesn't work", I would discuss with the players what WOULD work for the character, which is where it becomes relevant as that is the GM determining (at least partly) something about the character that is purely fluff.

"Why is your elf different from all other elves?" does not seem like an unreasonable or altogether difficult question to me.


I'll agree with the general sentiment that the GM can limit/ban anything they want to during character creation. However, I'd be a lot less inclined to play in a game where the GM has lots of arbitrary restrictions.

When it comes to actual gameplay, the only ways a GM should limit player actions are to enforce the rules and to clamp down on any behavior that would excessively disrupt the table.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Looks in Player entitlement thread....yummy


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Big Lemon wrote:
graystone wrote:
Big Lemon wrote:
Justifying Class Builds, Dips, and Class/Race Combinations:

I have to say I dislike this sort of thing and have walked out on games where the DM do this. It means that players with 'ranks' in 'diplomacy DM' play by a different set of rules than everyone else. If I know you and what you'll likely accept, any dip or combination is fine. If I'm not the most eloquent person or don't know you then I'm out of luck...

Limits should be everyone's limits. No gunsingers in the game: cool. No elf gunslingers or multiclass ones with wizard levels: not cool.

This is not necessarily a "You have 30 second to convince me why I should let you play this" situation. What I was trying to emphasize was, after the initial "This doesn't work", I would discuss with the players what WOULD work for the character, which is where it becomes relevant as that is the GM determining (at least partly) something about the character that is purely fluff.

"Why is your elf different from all other elves?" does not seem like an unreasonable or altogether difficult question to me.

The amount of sweet talking required doesn't really matter. If one person gets to have a 1 level dip because they know what you think is reasable and another can't because they don't know you as well is unfair IMO. "This doesn't work" should work on a global basis.

Instead of "Why is your elf different from all other elves?" my question is 'why does my being an elf matter?'. I don't see the point in NEEDING to justifying the majority of class builds, dips, and class/race combinations. If all the individual components are legal for the game, what possible difference would it make how I combine them?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Maybe the need is to understand the build so the Gm knows how to challenge it? Or is this a player vs. GM situation?


phantom1592 wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Arturus Caeldhon wrote:


But the Game is more than just the rulebook. Also you only use a small sliver of the rulebook at any give time in any given game. The Game can exist without the Rulebook - without Fluff the Rulebook is just a book of mechanical odds and ends that go nowhere.

The game may be more then just the rulebook, but the rulebook is the most important part. The game cannot exist without the rules. If the game has different rules, it is no longer a game of Pathfinder. If the game has NO rules then it is schoolyard cops and robbers or magical tea party, whichever you happen to prefer.

Cryptic'd by wraithstrike.

I would disagree with this. The rules are the most malleable part of the game and we have dozens of editions and errata to back that up. If I'm playing Tom the barbarian and his quest to rescue the Golden sheep of Azkaban... That's the game I'm playing. The rules can change around the campaign (and have) but 'the game' that we're playing on wendsday is still Tom the barbarian's crew. Same with our Marvel games or our Star Wars games... the characters and worlds have become living creations... whether I roll a d20 or d6 doesn't alter things TOO much.

It's honestly why I don't get so hung up on edition wars. I'll play what we're all playing... My 'game' doesn't change that much. Having played with a dozen or so rule systems from TSR Marvel to World of Darkness it really all comes down to 'I shoot the bad guy... did I hit?'

This is like saying that the Original Runelords or Crimson Throne games weren't 'pathfinder' games because they were written for 3.5 and that anything involving the Advanced Class guide isn't Pathfinder because it isn't using the same stuff from the Core...

The Rules shift and change throughout the life of any game.

And those are called different games. If your game doesn't change much despite the editions changing either you are still playing OD&D, not being honest with your players about the system you are playing, or have been playing magical tea party all this time. There may be another explanation, but these are the only three I can come up with.

Because you see it turns out the rules are important. If you advertise playing Pathfinder, then I show up to play Pathfinder. If it turns out you aren't playing that but are instead playing phantom1592 non-specific RPG system rules, then we are going to have a problem. And that problem is undoubtedly with how you advertise your game.


graystone wrote:
Big Lemon wrote:
graystone wrote:
Big Lemon wrote:
Justifying Class Builds, Dips, and Class/Race Combinations:

I have to say I dislike this sort of thing and have walked out on games where the DM do this. It means that players with 'ranks' in 'diplomacy DM' play by a different set of rules than everyone else. If I know you and what you'll likely accept, any dip or combination is fine. If I'm not the most eloquent person or don't know you then I'm out of luck...

Limits should be everyone's limits. No gunsingers in the game: cool. No elf gunslingers or multiclass ones with wizard levels: not cool.

This is not necessarily a "You have 30 second to convince me why I should let you play this" situation. What I was trying to emphasize was, after the initial "This doesn't work", I would discuss with the players what WOULD work for the character, which is where it becomes relevant as that is the GM determining (at least partly) something about the character that is purely fluff.

"Why is your elf different from all other elves?" does not seem like an unreasonable or altogether difficult question to me.

The amount of sweet talking required doesn't really matter. If one person gets to have a 1 level dip because they know what you think is reasable and another can't because they don't know you as well is unfair IMO. "This doesn't work" should work on a global basis.

Instead of "Why is your elf different from all other elves?" my question is 'why does my being an elf matter?'. I don't see the point in NEEDING to justifying the majority of class builds, dips, and class/race combinations. If all the individual components are legal for the game, what possible difference would it make how I combine them?

Campaign setting reasons? In Golarion, for example, guns are from Alkenstar. If the game is set in the Realm of the Mammoth Lords, I'm going to want something about how and why your character is there and has guns - especially if he isn't from Alkenstar. If you've been playing for a few levels and decide to take a level of gunslinger, it's going to have to be pretty convincing, if it already hasn't come up in game. "It's a legal component" isn't going to cut it.

Other examples for other settings and games could abound.

But that's just my preference. I've played in games where it really was "any rules legal combination". And games much more restrictive. Doesn't make that much difference to me, though I prefer some focus.


thejeff wrote:
Campaign setting reasons? In Golarion, for example, guns are from Alkenstar. If the game is set in the Realm of the Mammoth Lords, I'm going to want something about how and why your character is there and has guns - especially if he isn't from Alkenstar. If you've been playing for a few levels and decide to take a level of gunslinger, it's going to have to be pretty convincing, if it already hasn't come up in game. "It's a legal component" isn't going to cut it.

Because my character was trained by someone from that region. Or was trained by someone from their region who follows that regions trends. Or...

This is so easy you might as well just let them have it.

Seriously, "My character is a gunslinger, therefore I want to play him as a gunslinger." should be enough.


wraithstrike wrote:
foolsjourney wrote:

When someone who is older than 12 says 'it's not fair', I tend to stop listening.

It is fair for a DM to set the terms of engagement of a game they are running. It is fair for the player to choose not to take part in the game based on those terms.

There are 7 players in my homebrew sandbox. They regularly split the party and go and do different things, and not every avenue and NPC is fully nuanced. I doubt 6 of them would be overly happy if I stopped the game for an hour while I rolled up the NPC and their whole backstory so that 1 person can try to bluff them out of some specified potion they may or may not have about their person. So yeah, sometimes I'll say I'd rather you didn't pursue that this week, but I'll sort it for you for next time.

I set up the table. Buy the rule books and minis, and build the terrain. I populate the sandbox, invite the people to my home, feed them and facilitate the game. Damn right it's fair I have a veto on what your character has as a back story and abilities. I try to be fair, and give clear reasons why certain things may not be allowed, and am amenable to most ideas, but if I say I don't want- oh, I dunno, let's say gunslingers- I don't expect it's not fair stompyfoot pet lip. A polite 'No thanks Mike, I'll sit this game out.' will suffice.

Nobody asked about YOU. The topic is about GM's in general.

Ah, OK; if personal examples aren't welcome, then a general GM answer to the questions posed might be the same as 90% of all questions posed in Gamer Talk. "Yes. Or no. Maybe. Sometimes".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
phantom1592 wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Arturus Caeldhon wrote:
But the Game is more than just the rulebook. Also you only use a small sliver of the rulebook at any give time in any given game. The Game can exist without the Rulebook - without Fluff the Rulebook is just a book of mechanical odds and ends that go nowhere.

The game may be more then just the rulebook, but the rulebook is the most important part. The game cannot exist without the rules. If the game has different rules, it is no longer a game of Pathfinder. If the game has NO rules then it is schoolyard cops and robbers or magical tea party, whichever you happen to prefer.

Cryptic'd by wraithstrike.

I would disagree with this. The rules are the most malleable part of the game and we have dozens of editions and errata to back that up. If I'm playing Tom the barbarian and his quest to rescue the Golden sheep of Azkaban... That's the game I'm playing. The rules can change around the campaign (and have) but 'the game' that we're playing on wendsday is still Tom the barbarian's crew. Same with our Marvel games or our Star Wars games... the characters and worlds have become living creations... whether I roll a d20 or d6 doesn't alter things TOO much.

It's honestly why I don't get so hung up on edition wars. I'll play what we're all playing... My 'game' doesn't change that much. Having played with a dozen or so rule systems from TSR Marvel to World of Darkness it really all comes down to 'I shoot the bad guy... did I hit?'

This is like saying that the Original Runelords or Crimson Throne games weren't 'pathfinder' games because they were written for 3.5 and that anything involving the Advanced Class guide isn't Pathfinder because it isn't using the same stuff from the Core...

The Rules shift and change throughout the life of any game.

And those are called different games. If your game doesn't change much despite the editions changing either you are still playing OD&D, not being honest with your players about the system you are playing, or have been playing magical tea party all this time. There may be another explanation, but these are the only three I can come up with.

Because you see it turns out the rules are important. If you advertise playing Pathfinder, then I show up to play Pathfinder. If it turns out you aren't playing that but are instead playing phantom1592 non-specific RPG system rules, then we are going to have a problem. And that problem is undoubtedly with how you advertise your game.

Advertising a public game for random strangers to show up to? Sure, rules systems are probably pretty high on the list of what I'd want to know.

Talking to friends about a homebrew campaign that's lasted through multiple editions or even switched rules systems entirely? I'm not going to argue that it's a different game when it's the same people sitting down to continue the adventures of the same characters.


As a GM, why do you really care how I fluff my character?

You want to throw down something like "this campaign is set before guns are a thing, so no gun classes", sure, we can roll with that. If you lay out a setting to me I'll stick with it.

But the OP's questions aren't about settings.

The first scenario presented, suicide to change a character: why did the GM not let the player change immediately? Unless the session started in the middle of this temple, is there any reason why Jim's Fighter wasn't retired in the first five minutes of the session?

This one sounds like it was mismanaged on both ends. The GM knew that Jim wasn't having fun with his fighter but forced him to keep playing said fighter. That was wrong. Jim decided that instead of being patient he'd take matters into his own hands. That was wrong.

The second scenario about "justifying" builds... I'll be honest.

I, as a GM, do not care what you're running.

I care that you're rules-legal, or if not that you okayed whatever change you want to make beforehand with me.

I care that I know at least roughly what your capabilities are (read as: that if I ask, you can pass me your character sheet) so that I can provide the group a proper challenge.

That's it. If Jim the Fighter decides to start reading a book for a level then gets bored of it once he has one rank in Knowledge: That Monster We're Obviously Going To Fight Soon, then good for him. If Johann the Arcanist decides to dip Sorcerer entirely because he wants to be better at slinging Fireballs, go for it. I don't even know how you'd come up with a non meta reason to dip Sorcerer, since that's literally something you're born with.

But the reason I don't care?

I cannot for the life of me imagine how caring about that would make the game more fun for me.

Being involved in a coherent story is fun. What I care about from a story perspective is the character in front of me, not what's on his sheet. And I have more than enough to worry about managing the characters on my end of the screen without trying to track how Jim and Johann are developing and if it makes sense for them to pick up a book now or not.

Perhaps you, meaning the OP or anyone else who does things along these lines, have had some experiences that I have not. So I ask earnestly, seeking understanding: why do you care?

1 to 50 of 200 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / The Fluff Veto: GMs Controlling the PC "Why" All Messageboards