You are so strict. It's not like I asked to become a deity. I demand you give me a good reason why I can't play a dragon.
I AM THE DM WHO SAYS NO!!!
How many times does an NPC identifying your spell honestly come up in your games? I've never seen it happen once. Ever. In any game. That I've ever been in.
Also VV hasn't changed her attitude at all. "Working with the DM" does not equate to "kowtow."
Player: I'd like to use psionics.
DM: Psionics don't exist in this setting.
Player: Well, can I play a wizard that just uses the point system?The player isn't whining. The DM gave his reason: fluff wise, there are no psionics. The player, in turn, worked with it. They said "Oh, ok, what if I drop the fluff that you dislike?" I don't grasp the misunderstanding here unless it's purposeful - the player is doing exactly what the DM asked.
So why is there an issue when the DM says no? Because it means the DM wasn't being honest. They told the player "My issue is the fluff" when, in reality, the DM has many more different issues. And you know what? That's fine, if the DM then expresses that.
DM: I'd rather you just not use the mechanics at all, honestly; I'm not very comfortable with them.
In this case? I don't really see the issue. However.
DM: No, I said no psionics are in this setting.
Player: Yes, I know. I'm asking if I can alter the fluff so it's a variant wizard.
DM: No psionics in this setting. Saying it again.
Player: ...I. AM NOT. USING. A PSIONIC CHARACTER. It's a wizard. He just uses the point system. That's all. He's just a different type of sorcerer.
DM: No, you can't do that.
Player: Why?
DM: No psi-
Player: YES NO PSIONICS IN THE SETTING. GOOD THING I'M NOT USING PSIONICS.
DM: Yes you are. Your character isn't a wizard, he's a psion.
Player: *Punch, drink, cry*Here, the DM is repeatedly ignoring the player, a sign that should be familiar in this thread. At the player's statement of why, the problem is, the DM has no answer that could solve the conflict. And no, shutting down the conversation never solves a conflict. Ever. In this case, the DM is not...
And in the second situation, I see no problem with the DM. The player on the other hand is being a complete douchebag, and is no different from the 3rd. He is repeated disrespectful after being told no.
How many times does an NPC identifying your spell honestly come up in your games? I've never seen it happen once. Ever. In any game. That I've ever been in.I think I saw it once. Because I asked the player if he wanted to know what spell was being cast or something. Or what aura the magic detected. Either way, he had no idea he could do that.
Wow, cool. When players I have had used wizards they tried to ID everything. Every spell, magic aura, magic item any thing and everything.
Wow, cool. When players I have had used wizards they tried to ID everything. Every spell, magic aura, magic item any thing and everything.How many times does an NPC identifying your spell honestly come up in your games? I've never seen it happen once. Ever. In any game. That I've ever been in.I think I saw it once. Because I asked the player if he wanted to know what spell was being cast or something. Or what aura the magic detected. Either way, he had no idea he could do that.
Every time anyone casts a spell in any game I've been in, dice are being rolled immediately to try to identify it. Both by the GM and players.
And in the second situation, I see no problem with the DM. The player on the other hand is being a complete douchebag, and is no different from the 3rd. He is repeated disrespectful after being told no.
I agree, he is asking the same thing, over and over.
Holy crap these forums destroyed my post's structure. It was nice and had paragraphs and everything before I hit "post!"
Seeker - nobody said only one player gets it. And quite frankly, if all the players want to use psionic classes, maybe it's time to run a psionics game.
And you didn't read my post. Like, at all. Why did the DM say "no?" This is important.
|
ARTHUR: Old woman!
DENNIS: Man!
ARTHUR: Old Man, sorry. What knight live in that castle over there?
DENNIS: I'm thirty seven.
ARTHUR: What?
DENNIS: I'm thirty seven -- I'm not old!
ARTHUR: Well, I can't just call you `Man'.
DENNIS: Well, you could say `Dennis'.
ARTHUR: Well, I didn't know you were called `Dennis.'
DENNIS: Well, you didn't bother to find out, did you?
ARTHUR: I did say sorry about the `old woman,' but from the behind
you looked--
DENNIS: What I object to is you automatically treat me like an inferior!
ARTHUR: Well, I AM king...
DENNIS: Oh king, eh, very nice. An' how'd you get that, eh? By
exploitin' the workers -- by 'angin' on to outdated imperialist dogma
which perpetuates the economic an' social differences in our society!
If there's ever going to be any progress--
WOMAN: Dennis, there's some lovely filth down here. Oh -- how d'you do?
ARTHUR: How do you do, good lady. I am Arthur, King of the Britons.
Who's castle is that?
WOMAN: King of the who?
ARTHUR: The Britons.
WOMAN: Who are the Britons?
ARTHUR: Well, we all are. we're all Britons and I am your king.
WOMAN: I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous
collective.
DENNIS: You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship.
A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--
WOMAN: Oh there you go, bringing class into it again.
DENNIS: That's what it's all about if only people would--
ARTHUR: Please, please good people. I am in haste. Who lives
in that castle?
WOMAN: No one live there.
ARTHUR: Then who is your lord?
WOMAN: We don't have a lord.
ARTHUR: What?
DENNIS: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take
it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.
ARTHUR: Yes.
DENNIS: But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified
at a special biweekly meeting.
ARTHUR: Yes, I see.
DENNIS: By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,--
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: --but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more--
ARTHUR: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
WOMAN: Order, eh -- who does he think he is?
ARTHUR: I am your king!
WOMAN: Well, I didn't vote for you.
ARTHUR: You don't vote for kings.
WOMAN: Well, 'ow did you become king then?
ARTHUR: The Lady of the Lake,
[angels sing]
her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur
from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I,
Arthur, was to carry Excalibur.
[singing stops]
That is why I am your king!
DENNIS: Listen -- strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power
derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical
aquatic ceremony.
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: Well you can't expect to wield supreme executive power
just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: I mean, if I went around sayin' I was an empereror just
because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me they'd
put me away!
ARTHUR: Shut up! Will you shut up!
DENNIS: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed!
ARTHUR: Bloody peasant!
DENNIS: Oh, what a give away. Did you here that, did you here that,
eh? That's what I'm on about -- did you see him repressing me,
you saw it didn't you?
|
Actually I have no problem with it at all. I was just pointing out to Viletta that the psion has more versatility and manifesting power than a wizard and that she shouldnt complain that a psion gets a measly 3 powers at the beginning. In fact if you dont play magic/psionic transparency (and my group does) psionics can easily overshadow magic. After all many creatures have SR, but the same cant be said for PR. And further there are more ways to protect yourself against magic then psionics.
My apologies, VV tends to be verbose, and since we're mostly in agreement I tend to just skim her posts.
I agree that playing with 'psionics is different' requires a lot more work, since the rules were designed with the transparency rule as default. Treating them differently requires adding or PR as needed and planning more psionic monsters. I personally don't think it is worth the hassle to deviate from the transparency rule.
That power over the wizard is precisely why I think the psion should have been the 3.5 sorcerer, as I mentioned earlier.
And in the second situation, I see no problem with the DM. The player on the other hand is being a complete douchebag, and is no different from the 3rd. He is repeated disrespectful after being told no.I agree, he is asking the same thing, over and over.
Again, did you read my post?
The player is being told he cannot have a psion, because the DM dislikes the fluff.
The player removes the fluff.
At this point, the reason for the DM's contention is gone.
The DM continues to say no because he dislikes the fluff.
That is a conflict. It is a conflict because the player is trying to work with the DM, but the DM is ignoring the player.
DM: "I hate the fluff."
Player: "Ok, I'll change the fluff."
DM: "Well you still can't use it. Nyeah."
Holy crap these forums destroyed my post's structure. It was nice and had paragraphs and everything before I hit "post!"
Seeker - nobody said only one player gets it. And quite frankly, if all the players want to use psionic classes, maybe it's time to run a psionics game.
And you didn't read my post. Like, at all. Why did the DM say "no?" This is important.
Yeah the posting is kinda odd. Every thing I have been posting gets pushed togather
Now , yes if all the players want it then yes it is time or time for one of them to GM a psion game.
Now as I said I have allowed the system, many times. What I will not allow is a player to act like no one can tell he is not be truthful about what he is.
All this depends on the group and what setting is being played. DS for example you could fake being a wizard to most folks{ I would not, thats crazy" FR on the other hand you have zero chance to anyone who even kinda knows about spell casting.
|
Wow I actually agree with Professor Cirno, I will go and check if hell is sitll warm and fuzzy.
regardless, I think he said it pretty well, bot parties need to listen and find a middle ground where both feel confortable. If both of them make a bit of a compromise (like the player not calling his character a wizard in game but a age, and theDM implementing a far away land where all this so called mages are the wizards of the land) then things should work out fine.
Professor your forgetting one point what if I as Dm use the Vancian system and my players do as well and have no problem with it, wouldnt it be unfair to them that I made an exception for one player, then theywill have demands of their own and next thing you know your overhauling the system to fit the players demands, nevermminding the hardwork you have put in. Sometimes NO is NO and that is final.
I didn't forget that point. That was my third example.
DM: I don't feel comfortable with the mechanics.
Player: Well I still want to play it. Do it for me.
Yes. The player is being a jerk here. Read my post.
The player is being told he cannot have a psion, because the DM dislikes the fluff.
The player removes the fluff.
Fluff is strongly tied to the system, very strongly. I hear a GM saying NO and a player asking the same thing over and over like a two year old.
|
|
Professor your forgetting one point what if I as Dm use the Vancian system and my players do as well and have no problem with it, wouldnt it be unfair to them that I made an exception for one player, then theywill have demands of their own and next thing you know your overhauling the system to fit the players demands, nevermminding the hardwork you have put in. Sometimes NO is NO and that is final.
If you built your houserules in such a way that one person requesting something unusual opens floodgates from the rest of the players, you may want to consider including your group in the generation of those house rules.
Fluff is strongly tied to the system, very strongly. I hear a GM saying NO and a player asking the same thing over and over like a two year old.The player is being told he cannot have a psion, because the DM dislikes the fluff.
The player removes the fluff.
Then you're seeing something other then what I typed. If that's the case, I literally cannot help you, as the problem is one of your own construction.
In fact, to run with your problem, if the DM said "I'm sorry, I'm not really comfortable with seperating the fluff and mechanics like that here," then yeah, the player would be right in doing one of two things.
1) Backing down. He understands you have a problem here, and respects it.
2) Offering to do all the conversions himself. He understands you have a problem here, and is offering to do all the work himself.
Neither is really jerkish, and personally, I'd much rather go for 2 because, again, it leads to the win-win. The DM gets what he wants (no psionics fluff). The player gets what he wants (point-cast mechanics). Furthermore, this empowers the player to get in the habit of looking at the game from a DM's perspective, which means he'll both understand where the DM is coming from on his rulings, and it opens the way towards the player potentially DMing himself in the future.
A psion can actually use his powers more than wizards, a 10th level psion with a 20 Int has 113 powerpoints at least plus extra he might get from feats or racial bonus. The power cost to manifest a fifth level power is 9 points. If he so chooses he can manifest 12 fifth level powers within a day. A 10th wizard with 20 Int can cast 3 fifth level spells 4 if he is a specialist. Further a wizard has to prepare his magic and could very well end up with a useless spell for the day. So Viletta your argument that the psion should be rewritten is void. Besides if such a class were to be rewritten you need to overhaul it.
Except that the psion's powers often do not automatically scale, he has to augment them with extra power points to get the same effect. For example, a 10th level wizard casting fireball uses a 3rd level slot to do 10d6 damage. A 10th level psion using energy ball has to burn 7 power points (a 4th level slot equivalent) to inflict 7d6 damage. if he wants to do 10d6 damage, he has to burn 10 power points, a 5th+ level spell slot equivalent.
At 20th level, the wizard (non-specialist) has the equivalent of 350 power points (or 431 if he is a specialist) while the psion has 393 power points. The wizard has 46 spells he can swap out pretty much at will (55 if he is a specialist) while the psion has 36 powers. It should be borne in mind that the pathfinder sorcerer has 52 spells and the equivalent of 512 power points, and the wizard is considered better than the sorcerer by most because of their ability to swap out spells. Remember, if the wizard has a useless spell slot, he can swap it out the next day, while the psion (like the sorcerer) cannot swap out ineffective powers so easily, although many of his powers may be somewhat more flexible than spells.
There's a full comparison here for those with insomnia. Basically, your psion has a better resource management system than the wizard, but he has less resources to manage, and they actually balance reasonably well.
Fluff is strongly tied to the system, very strongly. I hear a GM saying NO and a player asking the same thing over and over like a two year old.The player is being told he cannot have a psion, because the DM dislikes the fluff.
The player removes the fluff.
I interpret it the same way.
Everyone smurf for yourselves!
ProfessorCirno While I would thank the player for the offer, myself I would still have to tell him no. The reason being in any world that I have ran to date every single caster uses the same rule set. All psions use the psion rules, every wizard who ever liked used the wizard class and so on.
If the player wants to play a wizard he has the class for that. If he wishes to play a psion he has a class for that. It's not just a title it is the way the world works to me. A psion simply is not a wizard. he can call himself what he wishes but that does not change the fact that to the world he is a fake.
Case in point take eberron, your psion says he is a wizard, all fine and good. But it works different in that setting and drawls power from a different place. People can hate it or like it but classes (casters more then any other class) have fluff deep in the mechanics
And most if not all worlds have taken this pre built fluff and made it a part of the world.
Now I am not saying all wizards are alike, but I am saying they all use the same class. As always YMMV
Your post is Irrelevant
Your post is Irrelevant
Just the post!? the last 9 pages of this thread are irrelevant! We have to do something quick or else the cycle will continue and the internet will implode!
Your post is IrrelevantOh yeah? Well your FACE is irrelevant! HA!
Your statement is incorrect
This drones face contains senors and data crystals, communication hardware and bio-ceramic armorNecessary components to this units functionality
|
|
Your post is IrrelevantOh yeah? Well your FACE is irrelevant! HA!Your statement is incorrect
This drones face contains senors and data crystals, communication hardware and bio-ceramic armor
Necessary components to this units functionality
Which is totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand you...straw...metal...somethingman!
How many more smurfs until critical smurf?
Ah "irrelevant"
That blissful state of nothing
Now this thread can sleep.
How many more smurfs until critical smurf?
You know, you really could have smurfed that last smurf better.
How many more smurfs until critical smurf?You know, you really could have smurfed that last smurf better.
AHHH! A smurfing twin!
Species 269 do make effective drones
My last contribution to this thread (not that I've contributed to it really to date)...
I anticipate running a campaign using PF core in the near future. However, I also have several house rules that I anticipate enacting based on some comments from this board as well as our own gaming group's exploits.
I plan on announcing the proposed houserules in advance of the game. If I give any reason for said houserules, it most likely won't be a lengthy one. I will be civil with any players that object to them (they are my friends after all), but I plan on keeping my houserules all the same.
I feel that by notifying my players in advance that they can make intelligent decisions about whether they want to play that class or not (and our games tend to run for years, hence why I haven't DMd in a few years). Am I treating my players like crap?
Dos: Impossible to tell. To the point you've listed, you're doing your due diligence and are acting appropriately by informing the players of the houserules and giving the explanations for them. However, the real test is whether you're willing to listen to your players if they have their own views on the matter and, if they have a logical argument against your reasoning for a given houserule, whether you're willing to seriously consider changing it.
And, if the players don't ask any questions or have any objections, then it's a moot point.
I feel that by notifying my players in advance that they can make intelligent decisions about whether they want to play that class or not (and our games tend to run for years, hence why I haven't DMd in a few years). Am I treating my players like crap?
Not at all. You plan to tell them upfront what is going to be changed or allowed.
Dos: Impossible to tell. To the point you've listed, you're doing your due diligence and are acting appropriately by informing the players of the houserules and giving the explanations for them. However, the real test is whether you're willing to listen to your players if they have their own views on the matter and, if they have a logical argument against your reasoning for a given houserule, whether you're willing to seriously consider changing it.
And, if the players don't ask any questions or have any objections, then it's a moot point.
I wanted to quote this VV post because it's the first one I've ever seen that won't get clipped when doing so.
It is a cold, gray day on the Paizo message boards.
:D
|
Even after 10 pages of discussing Player Rights (as defined at the Lake Geneva Convention 1978 after the publication of "Tomb of Horrors") I still think my post is most relevant. If your players are not having fun, something is wrong.
Even if they are all level 5 and all have rings of three wishes and are the most munchkined party in existence, the fun is what matters. It sounds cliched, but it is true. If it's the roleplaying experience that you feel you are missing out on, I advise starting a new campaign using the XDM ruleset (as found in the Xtreme Dungeonmaster's Handbook by Tracy Hickman) which allows the players only one stat- the lower the better.
By insisting on playing a character type the GM does not want in the campaign, the player is forcing the GM to do something they do not want to do. This is far more disrespectful than the GM's refusal to allow the player to play a Psion under the guise of being a Wizard.
And yet, the entire point was that the DM had no objection to the character itself, no objection to the mechanics, and yet refuses the Psion wizard. If the DM did, in fact, have problems with the psionic mechanics, then he should say so. That the player presses on is not a case of the player trying to force the DM to do something he does not want to do, but of the DM lying to the players about the real issue and the player trusting that she is not being lied to.
No GM should be required to allow something in a game they are running that they are uncomfortable adjudicating, because all that will do is make the game less fun for everyone at the table.
Which is something no one has argued against, and has already been endorsed repeatedly as a prefectly valid reason to ban something, so long as that reason is put forth openly and honestly.
Fluff is strongly tied to the system, very strongly. I hear a GM saying NO and a player asking the same thing over and over like a two year old.I interpret it the same way.
I let this one slip for too long.
There is no mechanic in the world that can be used for one And Only One thing. There are mechanics designed towards certain ends, but ultimately, they always end up rather flexible in what they represent. After all, whether it's a thrown rock or a series four deatomizer, a 1d20+X versus AC Y for NdZ+W damage with range increment V works just fine.
To decree that a mechanic is only allowed to represent one And Only One thing is not only a sign of a lack of imagination, but worse, a lack of belief that there can be more than one imagination, a lack of belief in the other players' imaginations. Fluff has some correlations, true, but not so much that one wizard casting magic spells is totally and irrevocably unrecognizable as such by another wizard who casts magic spells.
And D&D/PF isn't even a remotely functional simulation to begin with, much less one that actually has integrity to defend in the first place. We're talking about a system where a fairly tough mid-level character can drink a nice, cool glass of hemlock tea, tap dance on molten lava, and then dive face-first off a thousand-foot cliff, all with little actual risk, and then get all better with no permanent ramifications with no magical intervention whatsoever, needing only some chicken soup and maybe a warm bed. Though the character would recover just as well spending the time in the interim doing hard labor. Spell points versus spell slots and a (very) slightly different array of options when telling the laws of physics to pike off are the least of your worries when treating D&D/PF like a simulation.
No, the entire point is that, while the DM has said in no uncertain terms that he does not want this class in his game, the player refuses to show him respect by accepting that statement. Rather, the player is being argumentative and sucking away time from everyone (which is rude).
The DM, when asked, voiced the exact nature of his objections in no uncertain terms; the DM objected to fluff, not mechanics, and the player respected that by devising a solution that would meet everyone's needs if the DM were, in fact, being honest. Or is it suddenly the player's responsibility to assume everything the DM says is automatically a lie, the DM objects to everything, her opinions and needs don't matter one whit, and nothing is ever subject to discussion unless the DM is magnanimous enough to specifically ask?
The DM said he didn't want the class. That should have been the end of the discussion. He went beyond that and told you that he didn't like the fluff. There has been no mention that that is the only reason he has.
A lie of omission is still a lie, and the player is not responsible if the DM is a liar. When a player acts in good faith on the DM's lies, when a player tries to resolve an issue when it is, in fact, not the real issue at all and the DM was merely lying to the player, then it is completely and utterly, 100% the DM who is wasting everybody's time by lying.
Again, though, he's under no obligation to give you his reasons and, given your penchant for arguing and sucking away time, I don't blame him if he doesn't give you all his reasons. In fact, given your penchant for arguing and sucking away time, I wouldn't blame him at all if he showed you the door and asked you not to come back (or, as two different GMs I've had have done on two seperate occasions - move the game location/time and not inform the problem player).
How unfortunate that you come from a tradition of utterly failed interpersonal skills that can only function under the model of an emperor and mindless sheep slaves that cannot bear the weight of strong and rational human beings, that would sooner oust a keen and interested mind than relate to it, and that is so damnably passive-aggressive as to actually think it a good idea to move the game and not tell the blighter.
That ain't treating people right. That's treating 'em like garbage out of cowardice. How can you not see that?
Mindless sheep aren't mindless sheep because they disagree with me. They're mindless sheep because they're mindless sheep; it's what you're claiming the players owe the DM. Complete and unconditional submission without objection or question, which is the pinnacle of failure in resolving interpersonal conflicts.
A lie of omission is still a lie
So your player is a liar. He is wanting to play a psion not a wizard, and is a liar by your logic. As it does not matter why he wants to play that class or what he calls it.