|
My statement was that players are not -entitled- to an explanation. I posted several times that it is a good idea to give players an explanation whether or not they are entitled to one.
Indeed. My apologies for arguing over terminology.
Is it me or did the world go topsy turvy all of a sudden TOB the fix to the core rules book...
The world is fine, we just think opposite of you. :)
Is it me or did the world go topsy turvy all of a sudden TOB the fix to the core rules book......The Pathfinder core rules are still one of the more broken books out there... Tome of Battle is one of the most important sourcebooks to actually fix the game...Regarding almost this entire post... since I've been smacked down on several occasions for insulting others, I'm going to just have to ask you to use your imagination on this one.
I just singled out the two things that made me want to say cuss words.
Wow you guys moved thjis to much today...working back some
You forget. This is a game. A game that is meant to be played. We're not talking about freeform, we're talking about a roleplaying game. Roleplaying plus game. Roleplaying? Good thing. Game? Good thing.Fiddling with character builds is a part of that game, a good thing, and to deny players the right to play that game without is wrong.
No I have not forgot, core is a complete game. You can fiddle to your hearts content with that.Players can be creative as they wish with the core rules.
Nothing in the Game says you have the right to play anything out side the core rules, nothing not a single thing. You may ask but are not entitled to use anything outside the core book.
Again the class does not make you interesting, the player does.
If I remember correctly drow don't get friendly reactions when seen. Maybe when he is greeted by arrows from the town guard he might want to rethink that option. I will admit I am basing my perceptions of the drow's treatment on Mr.Salvatore's novels.
Oh he would have found that out, there was a reason I did not want him playing one, mostly to do with my long term plot and his death. But he didn't want to play a Drow, he wanted the drow powers. That is not the same thing.
[
That´s not really true...try making a magic user when you can only use fighters who´s attack is reflavored into magic missle. Rules MATTER. You can´t say rule are irrelevant to making a character that you can actually enjoy playing with the concept you have in mind.
Yes rules matter, however if you aiming for interesting they do not. A subpar fighter can be more fun to play and have in a group then the most optimized wizard made from 27 splat books.
Interesting, creative and fun have little to do with rules really.Saying you must allow anything you your hurting creativity simply is not true.
No, it isn't - for the reason that the DM knows a great deal more about the world than the player, and is entitled to not reveal everything about the world to the player, especially if it would spoil the the game for the other players.
Trust only goes so far, and the DM is not entitled to unlimited, absolute trust. And odds are, a plot that requires banning this, that, and the other class while keeping the players in the dark as to why is not a well-designed plot.
And even on the off chance that it is a well-designed plot, that doesn't mean it's a good idea. The kind of trust you're talking about is not something to take for granted, nor something to expect as a matter of course. It is something to be developed and fostered over time, not something that belongs to the DM by divine right from day one.
Even if there are plot reasons for denying X, the players are still entitled to the, "For plot reasons," answer. In that case, the DM is crossing a major line and asking a kind of trust from the player that they're not entitled to, since the explanation isn't really laid out and it is not even possible to discuss it. In this case the player only accepts the explanation by choice, and is not in any way obligated to do so. And if saying, "It's for plot reasons," is enough to ruin the plot, then the plot is too fragile and isn't designed to withstand contact with players.
I will, however, concede that any rulings about what is and is not permitted should ideally be made before the game starts. Once it is there, the DM does not need to justify themselves as to why it is there. For example, if the DM bans certain a prestige class of secret assassins because they form the 'bad guys' of the campaign, and half the campaign is finding this out, he has every right to say 'the Black Mantis Ghost Killer PrC is out of bounds to PCs ...' right at the outset and not justify it. Likewise a smart DM will also ban several other PrCs and other things, and not justify them either so as not to give the game away.
And this is why that trust is not something to give out lightly. Do you not see the betrayal here? You're saying that the players should just give the DM endless blind faith precisely so the DM can play shell games and lie to them and ban things because of some bizarre belief that something must be banned.
You may claim it's in the name of fun, but the method you're advocating actively abusing the players' trust, bans things without actual cause, lies, and treats players like idiots. Whatever your intentions, the method you advocate fundamentally revolves around treating your players like crap.
And if the 'smart DM' lies and plays shell games while keeping players in the dark, the wise DM doesn't have to.
Well Lt does have some good points here.
Not really, no.
This is a ridiculous strawman, this "the DM refuses to give an explanation" thing. In all these cases, the DM gives a simple explanation, which is usually "I think that option is overpowered" - or variants, like "In my game you can't just take prestige classes as a choice each level, you have to join a specific in-game org to get training or whatnot to that end." But I've never heard anyone say "because I say so." It's "because I read the same CharOp thread you did, and it's totally abusable. And because I say so."
"It's banned because it's overpowered," is a valid explanation. But more importantly, it's something that can be discussed, that's clear and can have logical premises. "I ban Frenzied Berserker because it's overpowered," is fine, but it begs the question, "Why is it overpowered?" If it's because Deathless Frenzy is ridiculous, then there isn't a problem with Frenzied Berserker itself, just a single ability within Frenzied Berserker, and that can be hashed out more easily to satisfy everyone involved, perhaps by replacing Deathless Frenzy with an extra +2-+4 Con while raging or something. Or even just drop it outright.
However, the fundamental point is that the player is entitled to an explanation of some sort beyond, "Because I say so."
Now if the player disagrees, they're welcome to say "but I don't think it's unbalanced because of X, Y, Z..." But if the DM isn't convinced, it's their place to say "Well, when I run a game I'm the final authority."
Correct, however the DM has the responsibility to lay the reasoning out there and actually hear out the counterarguments before getting to that point, if it is actually necessary to get to that point.
I guess if the DM really objects he can say something, but the default is 'yes unless told not to,' not 'no unless explicitly allowed.'
And that's the way it should be. By default, players are allowed to play the game. You don't have to ask the umpire if you're allowed to swing your bat in baseball.
Is it me or did the world go topsy turvy all of a sudden TOB the fix to the core rules book...
It fixes the ancient legacy issues from the dawn of D&D of, "There is no such thing as a mighty warrior," from when warriors were mooks and casters were leaders, by allowing warriors that are actually effective long-term with meaningful options and countermeasures that can make them dangerous for once.
No I have not forgot, core is a complete game. You can fiddle to your hearts content with that.Players can be creative as they wish with the core rules.
Considering our discussions of your draconian rulings regarding world design, I find this statement highly hypocritical.
Yes rules matter, however if you aiming for interesting they do not. A subpar fighter can be more fun to play and have in a group then the most optimized wizard made from 27 splat books.
Interesting, creative and fun have little to do with rules really.Saying you must allow anything you your hurting creativity simply is not true.
Seek now the wisdom of Tempest Stormwind.
No one's saying you can't make a character who's interesting to roleplay without multiple books. Heck, I've made many characters who are interesting to roleplay using a sum total of zero books. I do still quite enjoy my freeform, after all.
However, that is completely and utterly irrelevant and to keep bringing it up is naught but obfuscation, since we weren't talking about making interesting characters to roleplay. We're talking about having fun playing the game. The designing of builds, the rolling of dice, the combining of abilities. This is not freeform roleplaying. It's a roleplaying game. Having fun building characters and rolling dice is a part of a roleplaying game.
As a game, many find that core is extremely limited and stifling. Splats contribute tremendously to keeping things fresh and interesting. To deny all the splats to players whose fun stems from being able to play with and explore those myriad splats because of some half-baked notion that it will improve roleplay is wrong, both factually and morally.
|
|
No I have not forgot, core is a complete game. You can fiddle to your hearts content with that.Players can be creative as they wish with the core rules.Nothing in the Game says you have the right to play anything out side the core rules, nothing not a single thing. You may ask but are not entitled to use anything outside the core book.
Again the class does not make you interesting, the player does.
Did Pathfinder get rid of rule 0?
If it didn't, then -regardless- of what anyone else here says, when it comes to RAW, rule 0 trumps all. That means -even- stuff in core can be prohibited by the GM.
Rule 0 is null and void in a discussion of RAW. To invoke rule 0 is to admit defeat as you just can´t do better then nah nah I win because I said so.
Did Pathfinder get rid of rule 0?
If it didn't, then -regardless- of what anyone else here says, when it comes to RAW, rule 0 trumps all. That means -even- stuff in core can be prohibited by the GM.
Every DM should strive to be a good DM. Telling the players, "Rule 0 says I can do whatever I want, so shut up and take it while I treat you like crap," is being a bad DM, no matter what the rules say.
Invoking rule 0 is meaningless when discussing good DMing practices. It also has no bearing on what is right or wrong for someone to do as a human being.
I think both sides have some good points and some bad points in the argument.
I definitely agree with VV and company that creating a good campaign shouldn't just be an exercise of the DM coming up with a sandbox and forcing the PCs to adhere to his/her idea of what fits the campaign.
While many long time campaigns have been essentially built from the ground up by the DM and the Players are just visitors many current gamers are not comfortable with this model. It's placing too much control/tyranny in the hands of the DM for their comfort. They'd prefer a system where the campaign is a negotiation between a group of equals about what stories they want to tell.
However I do think that the group can work together to create a dynamic world and campaign. If the desired campaign is western high fantasy then core only can be very effective. Inclusion of eastern themed classes such as the wu jen or samurai don't fit their desired concept.
I also think that subtracting problem elements can also go a long way towards improving gameplay.
For instance I don't really like how weapon choice is so critical for melee fighters engaging in optimized play. The system should not be written so that system knowledge trumps concept. The 18-20/x2 crit weapons are marginally worse at low levels but after bonuses hit a certain level and certainly by the time keen/imp crit become routine the 18-20/x2 weapons become the clear optimized choice. However maybe as a fighter I don't like having to take a choice of kukri/scimitar/falchion/elven curveblade, maybe I want to be able to take a great axe and not feel like my choice is suboptimal.
I also don't like how several classes are basically worthless out of combat. Access to skills should've never been a primary element for class balance. I personally would like to buff the rogue and other skill classes with additional abilities and boost the number of skill points given to all classes.
Revisions to the game that improve the range of options are in general desirable. One method of doing that is by including a ton of extraneous crunch, another way of doing that is by revising and refining the existing crunch.
I personally like many of the elements that were included in ToB because they made melee classes more competitive in the 3.x landscape. Do I like that it was accomplished through limited use manuevers? It was a strategy and one that many people loathe. I personally would prefer that 3.x had incorporated more feats that scale with level. If class abilities often scale with levels and bonus feats = fighter class abilities then by reason feats should scale. However they decided not to go with that strategy.
I also think that rather than make all the classes equal the quads through a process of buffing them more should be done to reduce the power of the quads so that instead of 5-6 tiers of classes there are at most 1-2 (preferably PC/NPC classes ;))
Considering our discussions of your draconian rulings regarding world design, I find this statement highly hypocritical
Edit: Never mind I know what your talking about, but One world out of about 12 or 13 I have crafted does not make my statement hypocritical in the lest. And I stand by my restriction as a key part of that world.
Did Pathfinder get rid of rule 0?If it didn't, then -regardless- of what anyone else here says, when it comes to RAW, rule 0 trumps all. That means -even- stuff in core can be prohibited by the GM.
No, but most here seem to think they have a given right to use anybook any time without asking. I just said that core is pretty much a given in most games, even if a GM might take stuff out.
Never expect to have anything outside of core without asking. If You are not running the game, then it's simply not your call what is allowed. You may work with your GM or ask to be allowed to play something, but anything past core is not auto allowed.
Lots of good stuff, though I'm gonna have to comment on a couple points.
However I do think that the group can work together to create a dynamic world and campaign. If the desired campaign is western high fantasy then core only can be very effective. Inclusion of eastern themed classes such as the wu jen or samurai don't fit their desired concept.
Mind that the classes can't be out of place. Only characters can. Wu Jen is perfectly capable of representing a more element-focuses western-style wizard. Just because the canned fluff is eastern doesn't mean that's all it can be used for.
CW Samurai... is a nigh unsalvageable wreck that isn't worth bothering with anyways.
I also think that rather than make all the classes equal the quads through a process of buffing them more should be done to reduce the power of the quads so that instead of 5-6 tiers of classes there are at most 1-2 (preferably PC/NPC classes ;))
That's actually one of the benefits of all the splats. The quads can be fixed by replacement. Warmage, Wu Jen, Beguiler, Wu Jen, Factotum, Favored Soul, Psion, Ardent, Binder, blah de blah. Tiers 2 and 3 are very expansive. As are tiers 3 and 4. Just work together to keep everyone on the same couple of tiers.
On the note of certain books appearing overpowered:
I haven't gotten much of a chance to flip though the Book of Nine Swords yet and when I DM the players haven't really used it. However it is being used in a campaign I play in run by another DM, so this is where I get most of my views from said book.
However I did get a chance to look though the Magic of the Incarnum. I found it was not the book itself, but how the feats, class abilities and spells from a variety of supplement books worked with essentia.
Players are entitled to not be treated like crap. Meanwhile, DMs have no right to treat players like crap. Shooting down players' ideas and desires shot down for no reason or explanation other than, "Because I said so," is firmly within the 'treating players like crap' header and outside the rights of any DM and any human being.No, it isn't - for the reason that the DM knows a great deal more about the world than the player, and is entitled to not reveal everything about the world to the player, especially if it would spoil the the game for the other players.
I will, however, concede that any rulings about what is and is not permitted should ideally be made before the game starts. Once it is there, the DM does not need to justify themselves as to why it is there. For example, if the DM bans certain a prestige class of secret assassins because they form the 'bad guys' of the campaign, and half the campaign is finding this out, he has every right to say 'the Black Mantis Ghost Killer PrC is out of bounds to PCs ...' right at the outset and not justify it. Likewise a smart DM will also ban several other PrCs and other things, and not justify them either so as not to give the game away.
"Because I said so" is not treating your players like crap. It can be trying to create a good game for your players....
You are wrong 10000 times over. Explaining why does not equate to spoilers. As I said in my previous post I can say "I have my reasons", or I can be more specific, and say its for game world reasons. Maybe I plan to use that prestige class as antagonist or maybe they are enforcers if the PC's do X. They may never know why, but at least if I give them that much they know its for the betterment of the story. "Because I said so" does not give them any indication you are doing it for any reason other than a power trip.
That's actually one of the benefits of all the splats. The quads can be fixed by replacement. Warmage, Wu Jen, Beguiler, Wu Jen, Factotum, Favored Soul, Psion, Ardent, Binder, blah de blah. Tiers 2 and 3 are very expansive. As are tiers 3 and 4. Just work together to keep everyone on the same couple of tiers.
So what you are actually advocating is replacing some of the underpowered and overpowered base classes with other base classes. That's a sentiment that I can definitely acknowledge and back.
I personally like the beguiler, duskblade, scout, and (concept wise) the warmage. I also like some of the alternate builds such as the cloistered cleric and the savage bard.
What I don't like was the PrC explosion in late 3.x. While many of the PrCs accomplish what I think of as good PrC goals (flavor + new alternative abilities) a lot of the more egregious PrCs involve making the dubious classes even better (wizard ++ and cleric ++ PrCs are bad ideas).
While core 3.x has some sketchy spells, I'm not entirely comfortable with some of the precedents set with the expanded spell lists in spell compendium and the complete books. The orb spells for instance give conjurers (already the most potent wizard build) additional blast capabilities without some of the problems of evocation blasts :(
Considering a big part of the balancing act that pathfinder did was spell nerfs I'm not sure I want to go through a bunch of books and figure out what spells need to get nerfed or heavily modified to remain in line with the new spells.
Feat balance is another issue I have with some of the splats. Divine Metamagic and persistent spells are easy whipping boys but it's pretty clear that if a feat becomes a "must-have" it's balance vis-a-vis the other feats is suspect.
Everyone has there own view on how a DM should run there game.
Some people feel the DM has final say with no explanation needed. Others feel the characters are entitled to use anything out of any book and a DM has no right to tell them otherwise.
My personal view on this, is the DM does have final word over his gaming world. It is his world, and it is his story to tell. The DM does have complete reign over that world, what is allowed in it, ect. However a dick move is still a dick move, and "because I said so" with no obvious reason will make players unhappy. While I feel the DM should have the final word, he should also listen to the players opinions. While we all can agree that the players should respect the DM, the DM should also respect the players. Without the players, there is no audience.
This is a social game, not the DM vs. PC's (or at least it's not suppose to be). Dungeon Masters play the game for the same reason as the Players, and that's to have fun. Both sides should make an attempt to work something out so everyone can reach this goal.
|
Personally, I would allow 2-3 books at creation and let them add one book at 5, 10, 15. Or something like that if you're worried about "power gamming" as far as the root issue, give more exp for good rp and negative exp for not being able to work together or being petty. Inner-party conflict is one thing, and can make for good rp, but killing each other or setting each other to die is an evil act and only encourages animosity between players.
P.s. I didn't get a chance to read all posts, sorry if these have already been offered as soultions and I'm just being a parrott
Spell Compendium has some awesome assassin, ranger, bard, and paladin spells.
Anything involving wizards, clerics, or druids though? Yeah, no. No. And again, no. Well, wizards do get one spell that no.
As for PrCs, some are good, some are bad. Some are terrible because they're really weak despite sounding cool (or as I call it, Soulknife Syndrome), and others are terrible because why the hell wouldn't you take it?
Casters unfortunately have both in spades due to how spellcaster levels work. Either the PrC makes you lose spellcasting levels, which ergo typically translates to it being worthless, or the PrC gives full spellcaster levels, which typically makes it a no brainer to take - it's effectively nothing more then a power boost. There are a few that I think manage to hit a good stride - Malconvoker makes you lose a spell level, but is still pretty good as a specialist, and I love swiftblade - but overall spellcaster PrCs are...difficult.
And once again the thread degenerates into "your playing the game wrong"
.
There is no wrong way.
There is the way that suits you and your players. That is as near as the "right way" you can get.
What suits me and my group may not be to your personal liking but it doesn't make my way anymore right or wrong than yours.
As a DM I reserve the right to say "No" to a player. I don't need to give an answer why, although I generally do. Be it a class, a spell or a splatbook.
As a player I understand a DM reserves the right to say "No" to anything as its his campaign and they are putting the work in.
I'm not playing a computer game were everything is open to me and I accept that. If someone gives a compelling point about why they should be able to use/do something I have said no to, I will listen to that reason but I still reserve the right to say "No".
My personal view on this, is the DM does have final word over his gaming world. It is his world, and it is his story to tell.
I would certainly phrase that differently. It's the group's story to tell. If the DM alone wanted to tell the story, he would do so without the interference of players.
The DM frames the stories of the NPCs and events going on in the world. Then he mediates the way those stories unfold based on PC involvement. As such, yes, he's the final authority.
On the note of certain books appearing overpowered:
I haven't gotten much of a chance to flip though the Book of Nine Swords yet and when I DM the players haven't really used it. However it is being used in a campaign I play in run by another DM, so this is where I get most of my views from said book.
The thing to remember about Tome of Battle is that it's not a melee supplement. It's a melee replacement. As such, putting ToB characters next to standard melee classes tends to end badly. And if you toss in years of experience totally kitting out the ailing standard melee to get 'em to stop sucking, then take the experience to Tome of Battle, they explode. Not nearly so much as pretty much any caster with the same input, but they explode all the same.
While core 3.x has some sketchy spells, I'm not entirely comfortable with some of the precedents set with the expanded spell lists in spell compendium and the complete books. The orb spells for instance give conjurers (already the most potent wizard build) additional blast capabilities without some of the problems of evocation blasts :(
Eh, Evocation got the shaft all along. And even core, the key spells in evocation aren't blasts. Wall of Force, Contingency, Bigsby's *ing hands. Not much point in defending the separations when core flubs 'em up so much from the get-go.
Feat balance is another issue I have with some of the splats. Divine Metamagic and persistent spells are easy whipping boys but it's pretty clear that if a feat becomes a "must-have" it's balance vis-a-vis the other feats is suspect.
And at the same time, you gotta mind that some "must-have" feats are there to fix long-standing problems in the game. Divine Metamagic: Persist is such a clear and known issue that it's not even a problem. Darkstalker, however? "Stealth characters don't get automatically screwed by a stack of supersenses that are as common as legs," fixes a major problem in that sneaks can't sneak against a bunch of extremely common senses.
Everyone has there own view on how a DM should run there game.
Some people feel the DM has final say with no explanation needed. Others feel the characters are entitled to use anything out of any book and a DM has no right to tell them otherwise.
Do note that no one in this thread has come out supporting that second position.
My personal view on this, is the DM does have final word over his gaming world. It is his world, and it is his story to tell. The DM does have complete reign over that world, what is allowed in it, ect. However a dick move is still a dick move, and "because I said so" with no obvious reason will make players unhappy. While I feel the DM should have the final word, he should also listen to the players opinions. While we all can agree that the players should respect the DM, the DM should also respect the players. Without the players, there is no audience.
Oi oi oi. Any DM who is telling a story ain't much of a DM. DMs don't tell stories, they present scenarios that the characters play through. The result yields a story, a story is being created along the way, but no one is telling a story.
Likewise, it isn't the DM's story. It's the DM's world, sure, but the DM cannot tell a story without being utterly abusive because she does not control the protagonists. It's the group's story that everyone creates (rather than tells) together through play.
Likewise, the players are not an audience merely listening to the DM's story. They are fully-engaged participants in creating the story as things go along.
If the DM has a story to tell and needs an audience to listen while she tells the story, she can open up a deviantART account and start publishing fiction because she's certainly not looking for players.
There is no wrong way.
There is the way that suits you and your players. That is as near as the "right way" you can get.
There is no 'right way' to do things. However, there is a wrong way.
Treating your players like crap, like subordinates, like children (unless, of course, they actually are children) is fundamentally wrong. This is not a gaming style issue. It's a fundamental moral issue. It is morally wrong to treat the players like crap, whether you're in a tabletop gaming setting or going bowling or having dinner. It's morally wrong on a human-to-human level, and a 'playstyle' that revolves around treating the players like crap is, itself, morally wrong.
Insulting the players' families isn't defensible as a part of 'playstyle' because it's morally wrong in and of itself. A playstyle that revolves around insulting players' families is wrong. Punching players in the face isn't defensible as a part of 'playstyle' because it's morally wrong in and of itself. A playstyle that revolves around punching players in the face is wrong. Stealing players' possessions isn't defensible as a part of 'playstyle' because it's morally wrong in and of itself. A playstyle that revolves around stealing players' possessions is wrong. Treating the players like crap isn't defensible as a part of 'playstyle' because it's morally wrong in and of itself. A playstyle that revolves around treating players like crap is wrong.
That which is inherently wrong is inherently wrong.
+1 its what I have been saying all along the GM should lay down the law at the beginning of the campaign to say what goes and what doesn't.
The DM should also listen to, work with, and respect the players, as well as accept the possibility that their logic is faulty, that their reasoning behind a ruling was wrong. A DM should explain why the rulings are the way they are so that everyone can get on the same page regarding the game (one of the absolute most important parts of establishing any game).
Overall? The DM should be a decent and reasonable human being. As should the players. It is not gaming by democracy or any such thing to actually treat the players like your equals, after all. Particularly considering they are your equals.
Oi, poor murdered grammar! Anyway. Um. Nope, got nothing to contribute here. :\
I had deleted that as not to start anything. Yeah I mangle grammar and the English language on a daily basis
I had deleted that as not to start anything. Yeah I mangle grammar and the English language on a daily basisI offer my gratitude. Just got me due to my English course this semester.
I have always had poor spelling and grammar. The spelling more then grammar really. Only writing online and though IM's mostly in the last few years,it has suffered.
And even on the off chance that it is a well-designed plot, that doesn't mean it's a good idea. The kind of trust you're talking about is not something to take for granted, nor something to expect as a matter of course. It is something to be developed and fostered over time, not something that belongs to the DM by divine right from day one.
Yes, it is. Trust goes both ways. If you play in my game, I lay it out right at the start, and it's your choice to join or not. If you do, I try my hardest to make sure you have a fun game within my limits, because I owe it to you.
Even if there are plot reasons for denying X, the players are still entitled to the, "For plot reasons," answer. In that case, the DM is crossing a major line and asking a kind of trust from the player that they're not entitled to, since the explanation isn't really laid out and it is not even possible to discuss it. In this case the player only accepts the explanation by choice, and is not in any way obligated to do so. And if saying, "It's for plot reasons," is enough to ruin the plot, then the plot is too fragile and isn't designed to withstand contact with players.
Granted, that is the phrase I would use, not "because I say so" but actually it's just a politer way of saying the same thing - "you can't have it and I won't give you the details as to why."
And this is why that trust is not something to give out lightly. Do you not see the betrayal here? You're saying that the players should just give the DM endless blind faith precisely so the DM can play shell games and lie to them and ban things because of some bizarre belief that something must be banned.
Once again, you assume there are no good reasons for banning things, in spite of being given good reasons why things may be banned. If there are good reasons, your arguments fall apart at the seams. And you keep on and on about trust and betrayal, which makes me think that you must have got burned really badly at some point; well it wasn't by me, and I don't expect to have to shoulder some other DM's bad karma.
To betray somebody, you have to have their trust. When I start a game with anything banned I say so up front to my players, and it is then their choice if they join or not. See? They have clear choices - if they don't want to trust me, they don't have to play. If they do trust me, then they are happy with what I have laid down, so no betrayal. Wail and beat your chest as much as you like, my conscience is perfectly clear.
You may claim it's in the name of fun, but the method you're advocating actively abusing the players' trust, bans things without actual cause, lies, and treats players like idiots. Whatever your intentions, the method you advocate fundamentally revolves around treating your players like crap.
Once again, trust betrayal and no good cause are your ASSumptions, not the reasons I give. At no point am I advocating any violation of trust, banning without cause, lying, or treating people like crap; for you to suggest so is a deliberate deception or misrepresentation (ie lying), and I would greatly prefer you not do so. Myself, I've had players abuse my trust enough times too, but I don't start on the assumption that every player wanting something I am unsure of is out to do so; unfortunately you are still assuming that any DM banning anything never has a good reason and is just on a power trip. Now I am not denying there are bad DMs out there, but good ones ban things too, for good reasons that they do not have to make full disclosure of. You may not like the fact, but that's not my problem.
And if the 'smart DM' lies and plays shell games while keeping players in the dark, the wise DM doesn't have to.
The smart and wise DM knows when to and when not to. The paranoid player will never accept that, and will say and do anything to get his way. What all your arguments come down to is that you don't trust any DM that bans anything, period. Dude, that isn't their problem, it's yours.
Yes, it is. Trust goes both ways. If you play in my game, I lay it out right at the start, and it's your choice to join or not. If you do, I try my hardest to make sure you have a fun game within my limits, because I owe it to you.
There is trust necessary to have a game, and then there's above and beyond. You're insisting on above and beyond. Trusting that the DM always has good reasons without questioning them and accepting "I will not explain" is above and beyond. It's beyond the required level of trust, and not something you can insist on having from everyone who joins the game.
Once again, you assume there are no good reasons for banning things, in spite of being given good reasons why things may be banned. If there are good reasons, your arguments fall apart at the seams. And you keep on and on about trust and betrayal, which makes me think that you must have got burned really badly at some point; well it wasn't by me, and I don't expect to have to shoulder some other DM's bad karma.
No, I'm not. There are plenty of good reasons. I've listed quite a few. However, they must be laid out in the open upon request, and, "Because I have to ban something to maintain the shell game, but I can't tell you I'm even playing this shell game on you," is never a good reason.
"X, Y, and Z are horrible reasons to do W," is not the same as, "There is never a good reason to do W," and I would appreciate it if folks would stop putting those words in my mouth.
And even if there are good reasons, the DM is still obligated to present them upon request.
To betray somebody, you have to have their trust. When I start a game with anything banned I say so up front to my players, and it is then their choice if they join or not. See? They have clear choices - if they don't want to trust me, they don't have to play. If they do trust me, then they are happy with what I have laid down, so no betrayal. Wail and beat your chest as much as you like, my conscience is perfectly clear.
And if they ask why X is banned, you still have the obligation to explain it to them up front. If you refuse, you're refusing many of the most basic duties of the station, you're refusing to give the players any reason at all to trust you, and you're actively opposing attempts for everyone to get on the same page. That they have the choice to not play while you're putting on a display of bad DMing practices does not make it cease to be a display of bad DMing practices.
If you aren't capable or aren't willing to give the DM your full trust, then don't play the game with him.
Really, how simple can that get?
If you cannot accept that there are limits to the level of trust that you can reasonably expect from your players, then don't DM.
Really, how simply can that get?
A DM who expects no less than 100% absolute trust is being unreasonable.
What some people here seem to want to say is "you -will- DM the game and you -will- DM it the way I want it to be done". But, really, that's putting the DM in a position of servitude. And, wrt that servitude, my response (as is the response of any self respecting DM) is to reply "screw you, buddy". Like I said, if you don't like the way the DM is running things, play elsewhere. Acting like a spoiled brat will get you nowhere fast.
The DM has a responsibility to be a decent human being. If they cannot be a decent human being and DM, then they are not fit to DM. Insisting that a DM not treat you like dirt is not putting the DM in a position of servitude. It's actually having a spine and standing up as an equal.
The relationship goes both ways. That doesn't mean the DM's allowed to be a dick.
I think Tabletop roleplaying is first and foremost about consensual story-telling.
1)World-building is nice and fun, but it can often get in the way of the story. Ultimately you are telling a group story not writing a novel. The campaign world should not be exclusively under the control of the DM. The world should be as detailed or vibrant as possible but if at all possible it should be tailored to the wants and desires of the players.
Granted if you are playing HarnWorld and someone wants to play a character from Gurren Lagann or some other over the top story then you are likely in for some problems. However the type of worlds that can be simulated in D&D are pretty expansive and let's be honest D&D simulates D&D.
Don't get me wrong I love me some simulationist games but I've seen many a campaign go down the world-building wankery bunnyhole and never come back. I think the kitchen sink settings like FR, Eberron and Golarion all appeal to a wide range of audiences not because they present a good real world analogue but rather that they offer a ton of options.
2)Another problem I've seen in these threads has been a DM is always right mentality. Not DM vs Player, fortunately most people here seemed to have moved past that phase, but rather that the empowerment of the player is dependent on the will of the DM. While that might've worked back in the day, and is still used successfully by many old-time campaigns, it's a model that is going to be viewed negatively by many more recent entrants to the hobby.
I used to be a lot more heavy handed in my approach to the game, I had a story I wanted to tell and the players were going to be railroaded into the action.
I have switched to a model where instead of the master of the story, I'm more of a facilitator when I play. I am facilitating the player's interaction with each other and the world in the language of rules and characterization.
Under this model, the storyteller is no more privileged than anyone else. I like it because it enables me to shift back and forth between multiple supporting characters and help create a plot but ultimately I need to acknowledge that the PCs are the main characters and the players are just as responsible for the plot/action as I am.
Note 1: I generally like sandbox play when I DM. I can create aspects of the world, many of which will never be used in play, however the players are generally allowed to manipulate that reality to enable a more enjoyable game.
Note 2: Player empowerment isn't necessarily tolerating every special little snowflake. D&D is pretty much a combat focused wargame at it's core. If a player wants to play a master pastry chef, I will try to facilitate it, but when the rubber hits the road it's a good chance that the pastry chef is going to suck >50% of the time.
3) Like it or not players want options, options = empowerment to a large number of people. Even though 1e was humanocentric, many players don't feel the need to conform to old ideas of a humanocentric 4-man band (fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard). They feel that those tropes are tired and used up and on top of that 2 of those classes are grossly overpowered vs the other 2.
I personally have no problem with limiting to core but the reasons for doing so should be based upon maximizing player enjoyment. I personally find it more enjoyable when the entire group really knows the core rules backwards and forwards. Expanded content adds options but it also creates a burden on the players in order to stay somewhat current on all of the options. In many groups this is an unreasonable demand, yet almost inevitably there will be one or more optimizers that by virtue of optimization can make the other players feel inadequate. Social contract can restrain this but in some cases a more heavy hand is required.
But if you don't like the published expanded content, either make expanded content of your own or at least explain to your players your reasoning.
So if someone really wants to play a fighter/mage gish and doesn't want to deal with eldritch knight then I would strongly consider incorporating the duskblade or some homebrew alternative class.
There is trust necessary to have a game, and then there's above and beyond. You're insisting on above and beyond. Trusting that the DM always has good reasons without questioning them and accepting "I will not explain" is above and beyond. It's beyond the required level of trust, and not something you can insist on having from everyone who joins the game.
No, I'm not insisting on anything I wouldn't be prepared to give, so to me it isn't 'above and beyond' by any means. I can appreciate that it may be more than you want to give, but that's your limit and not mine. I don't see it as treating one's players like crap, or disrespecting anyone by any means. I just see it as part of the unspoken social contract of gaming.
No, I'm not. There are plenty of good reasons. I've listed quite a few. However, they must be laid out in the open upon request, and, "Because I have to ban something to maintain the shell game, but I can't tell you I'm even playing this shell game on you," is never a good reason.
Yes, it is, and it's not a shell game. "I cannot tell you because it may spoil the game later" is perfectly valid reason, as is "that does not exist in this universe". When I DM I always lay out my limits and conditions on the table before hand. If I'm not prepared to give reasons, I say so and let players make a choice. Funnily enough, I've never lacked for players.
"X, Y, and Z are horrible reasons to do W," is not the same as, "There is never a good reason to do W," and I would appreciate it if folks would stop putting those words in my mouth.
Then my apologies, I misinterpreted what you were trying to say.
And even if there are good reasons, the DM is still obligated to present them upon request.
And that is where we differ. The DM is not obliged to do so, if doing so would potentially spoil the game for the players.
And if they ask why X is banned, you still have the obligation to explain it to them up front. If you refuse, you're refusing many of the most basic duties of the station, you're refusing to give the players any reason at all to trust you, and you're actively opposing attempts for everyone to get on the same page. That they have the choice to not play while you're putting on a display of bad DMing practices does not make it cease to be a display of bad DMing practices.
No, and it isn't bad DMing. Some of the best DMs I know have done this, and it has always been well worth it. That is my experience and my sincerely felt opinion, and I don't care how many people feel otherwise, it's not going to change what I believe. Only reasoned arguments will do that, and thus far I haven't seen any that shake my faith in it.
You are saying that this is refusing a basic duty of the station, but I am saying it is trumped by another, more basic duty of the station: to ensure everyone has fun. You say it removes a reason for the players to trust me, and I'm saying that it isn't an issue for me as a player so why would it be for anyone else? You say I'm opposing attempts to get everybody on the same page, and I'm saying that the DM has to consider the whole book. You're saying it's bad DMing, and I'm saying that I've seen it done by the very best I have played with.
That said, it isn't something I would do unless I felt I absolutely had to for the sake of the game.
If you cannot accept that there are limits to the level of trust that you can reasonably expect from your players, then don't DM.
Really, how simply can that get?
A DM who expects no less than 100% absolute trust is being unreasonable.
It doesn't take 100% trust, quite frankly. Sure there are limits, but this is not beyond them by any means. It's a game, for heaven's sake, not life and death! I've never had an issue with another DM doing it, I've almost never had a player have a problem with it (other than a munchkin, who stormed off and frankly I was glad to see the back of as he was a renowned game-wrecker - to give you some idea of how bad he was, the other players thanked me for getting rid of him, and when word got around that he wasn't in my game I had even more players the next session!).
Like I said before, you seem to have a big issue with trusting people without full and detailed explanations. As far as I am concerned, if the DM isn't happy running with something, that's a good enough reason not to have it. If he says, "No, sorry, I can't give you an explanation as to why XYZ is not allowed in PCs, it could spoil things if I did," then that's good enough for me. After all, this guy is running a game, which takes a lot of work. It's important that he enjoy it if it's going to be a good game, so I'll respect his wishes and run with what he wants. If it turns out to suck, I can always quit.
could we get back to the orginal problem please?
i know post-modernism, the true meaning of rpg's, and what certain people believe about what they can and cannot do is all well and fun, but i don't think its helping solve the OP's problem...
You are correct - sorry! I get easily sidetracked ...
To be slightly more on topic, OP, do you have any specific examples of things your players are doing that's grossly overpowered? I hesitate to call anyone a munchkin or powergamer unless they're laying down the cheese.
Viletta Vadim, you are officially the sun on my cloudy day. You beat your head against this wall far more eloquently than I ever did.
You ever ask someone about a movie and they refuse to tell you anything about the plot? "I can't tell you xyz because it will ruin it for you!"
Those are some of the most insufferable people I've ever had to tolerate.
OP, it sounds like you have some VERY thick-skinned players. If in-party murder is that common, they're probably not going to bat an eyelash at: "We're going to game with stuffy people, don't piss and moan."
Sure, the DM has a responsibility to be a decent human being. "Decent human being" means "pays taxes", "takes care of family", etc. It does -not- include "-DM- by the rules I think he should".
I'm not saying, "DM my way or you are a terrible human being." I'm saying, "It is wrong for a DM to treat me like crap." Big difference.
So, you are telling me that if the DM and a group of 7 players have been playing and enjoying themselves for years according to some set of rules and they invite you to join them, if the DM doesn't let you play whatever you want to play, that's evidence that he's not a "decent human being" and that the game should stop?
You might want to look up the definition of "hubris".
I never said anything of the sort.
If the DM and a group of players have been playing and enjoying themselves for years and invite me to join them, and then the DM treats me like crap, the DM is wrong to treat me like crap. If the DM refuses to speak with me like an intelligent human being, if he treats me like a subordinate and a child, if he demands absolute, unquestioning submission to his every whim? He's morally in the wrong as a human being for treating me in that way regardless of whether or not he's the DM. Even if the others bend knee to that kind of abuse, the DM is still wrong for treating me like that. I wouldn't stand for being treated like that at a dinner party. I wouldn't stand for being treated like that on the bowling team. I wouldn't stand for being treated like that on the beach. I'm not about to stand for being treated like that while I'm gaming.
And again and again and again, I NEVER said that it's wrong to ban things. EVER. Even things that players want to play. I ban all kinds of things myself. However, when something is banned, it must be done for a valid, logical reason, available upon request, and subject to discussion. A discussion that may or may not overturn the ruling.
That does NOT (for the umpteen millionth time) mean, "Never ban anything."
I personally have no problem with limiting to core but the reasons for doing so should be based upon maximizing player enjoyment. I personally find it more enjoyable when the entire group really knows the core rules backwards and forwards. Expanded content adds options but it also creates a burden on the players in order to stay somewhat current on all of the options. In many groups this is an unreasonable demand, yet almost inevitably there will be one or more optimizers that by virtue of optimization can make the other players feel inadequate. Social contract can restrain this but in some cases a more heavy hand is required.
See, this has never made sense to me. First off, you don't need to keep on top of all the options, or even most of them. Just a handful that keeps you relevant. And it's not a burden on any one individual; if one person is a much better optimizer than everyone else, that shouldn't mean everyone else feels inadequate. They can easily go to her for help, work out a build, and everyone is more badass for it. Heck, I practically build half the characters and NPCs in my groups when I play. Group character creation solves so many problems.
No, I'm not insisting on anything I wouldn't be prepared to give, so to me it isn't 'above and beyond' by any means. I can appreciate that it may be more than you want to give, but that's your limit and not mine. I don't see it as treating one's players like crap, or disrespecting anyone by any means. I just see it as part of the unspoken social contract of gaming.
Just because you're willing to give it doesn't mean everyone else is or should be. Just because you don't ask for something does not mean that everyone else doesn't have the right to ask.
The players have a right to be treated like intelligent adults and equals. This is a fundamental truth. Part of that is the ability to conduct logical discourse. Refusing to give the players the most basic information required to conduct logical discourse is refusing to treat the players like intelligent adults.
Yes, it is, and it's not a shell game. "I cannot tell you because it may spoil the game later" is perfectly valid reason, as is "that does not exist in this universe". When I DM I always lay out my limits and conditions on the table before hand. If I'm not prepared to give reasons, I say so and let players make a choice. Funnily enough, I've never lacked for players.
And here, we're getting closer to the root of the problem.
"That does not exist in this universe," is never a valid reason to shoot down a mechanic. It's only ever a reason to shoot down a character or a character aspect. Any given mechanic can represent many, many things. It's like the DM who shoots down psionics because "Psionics don't exist in this world." That's all well and good, but the Psion class can represent a scholar who tells the laws of physics to go lay by their dish through intense study (read: the tower wizard classic) just as easily as it can represent the bald, topless guy with a crystal fetish.
The campaign may center around the Order of the Crimson Lotus, represented as assassins with the Ghost-Faced Killer PrC, but that doesn't mean some other assassinesque PC can't take that same PrC and have it mean something completely different. The Order of the Crimson Lotus isn't defined as ten levels of full BAB, invisibility X/day, Sudden Strike, and so on. It's defined as the most dreaded order of assassins in all of Wutai who're blackmailing half the nobles and have the entire nation under thumb. That a PC might also have ten levels of full BAB, invisibility X/day, Sudden Strike, and so on through means that don't involve being in the Order of the Crimson Lotus isn't going to ruin the game.
And on a vein closer to the problem itself, when a DM starts saying that Mechanic X represents onw And Only One thing in one And Only One way, she starts cheapening the game tremendously without contribution to the quality of the game as a whole.
In this case, the solution is not to ban the Ghost-Faced Killer in the name of fun and then refuse to explain. The solution is to not ban the Ghost-Faced Killer and then get on with the game. In fact, not banning Ghost-Faced Killer decreases the probability of spoilers dramatically, and thus keeps from ruining everyone else's fun.
You are saying that this is refusing a basic duty of the station, but I am saying it is trumped by another, more basic duty of the station: to ensure everyone has fun. You say it removes a reason for the players to trust me, and I'm saying that it isn't an issue for me as a player so why would it be for anyone else? You say I'm opposing attempts to get everybody on the same page, and I'm saying that the DM has to consider the whole book. You're saying it's bad DMing, and I'm saying that I've seen it done by the very best I have played with.
Just because a DM is doing something in the name of fun doesn't mean it actually enhances fun, and just because one good DM does it does not make it a good DMing habit; even the best DMs have bad habits. That a game is fun, or even extremely fun, does not mean that every single aspect of the game is inherently good or contributes to that fun. If aspects A, B, and C are done spectacularly well, they can easily throw a cover over Bad Thing D, particularly if that particular group doesn't particularly give a hoot about D one way or another. That doesn't make D stop being a Bad Thing.
could we get back to the orginal problem please?
i know post-modernism, the true meaning of rpg's, and what certain people believe about what they can and cannot do is all well and fun, but i don't think its helping solve the OP's problem...
Eh. We've presented what advice we have to give. If the OP wants to toss in more information or more questions, he'll get more answers and input. 'Til then? We've got other ground to tread.
Viletta Vadim, you are officially the sun on my cloudy day. You beat your head against this wall far more eloquently than I ever did.
Gracias.
You are using "treat me like crap" as synonymous with "bans something and doesn't tell me why" which, in other words, is saying "plays by rules I don't approve of" - just like I said.
It's not a matter of playing by rules I don't approve of. To say, "No, because I said so," to refuse to give a reason, to refuse logical discourse? That's treating me like a child instead of the intelligent adult that I am. I'm not calling it "treating me like crap" because I disapprove. I'm calling it "treating me like crap" because it actually is treating me like crap.
You always have the option to walk away from the table if the DM is playing by rules you don't approve of. Really. You can walk away. If you can't (if the DM has strapped you in a chair with leather straps against your will and forced you to create and play a character) -then- you can justifiably say the DM is treating you like crap. Let me know if that happens, alright? I can call the cops for you. Whining about the DM treating you like crap because he doesn't play by your rules is making you look really, really bad.
*Sigh.* Alright, this needs an example.
Hypothetical Situation: I am at a party. The host is hitting on me, and I am rejecting him in no uncertain terms. He is putting his hands in places they are not welcome, and he keeps on no matter how many times I tell him no.
In this situation, the host is in the wrong. This is sexual harassment. I have the option to leave the party (which I'm liable to exercise in short order), but that does not change the fact that it is wrong of the host to treat me that way.
Likewise, just because I can leave a game when the DM is treating me like crap does not change the fact that he is treating me like crap and that he is wrong to do so. Just because I can leave the room when someone punches me in the face doesn't change the fact that it's wrong to just go around punching people in the face. Just because I can leave the park when someone's throwing rotten fish at me doesn't change the fact that it's wrong to throw rotten fish at folk walking along in the park.
|
|
Rule 0 is null and void in a discussion of RAW. To invoke rule 0 is to admit defeat as you just can´t do better then nah nah I win because I said so.
No I have not forgot, core is a complete game. You can fiddle to your hearts content with that.Players can be creative as they wish with the core rules.Nothing in the Game says you have the right to play anything out side the core rules, nothing not a single thing. You may ask but are not entitled to use anything outside the core book.
Again the class does not make you interesting, the player does.
Did Pathfinder get rid of rule 0?
If it didn't, then -regardless- of what anyone else here says, when it comes to RAW, rule 0 trumps all. That means -even- stuff in core can be prohibited by the GM.
Rule 0 is RAW. To ignore it while, at the same time, claiming to base your argument on RAW is to be cherry-picking RAW and selecting only those parts of RAW which agree with your argument. Such an argument isn't logical, rational, or consistent.
And, to be clear, you don't need a logical, rational, or consistent argument to play the way you like to -unless- you want to try to argue that people who don't share your opinion or style of play are wrong/bad. If you do -that-, then you're just coming across like a spoiled brat.
Rule 0 is RAW...rule 0 is also not a valid argument when talking about RAW as it basically nullifies RAW. Invoking rule 0 is basically going nah nah I´m right and I win because I said so in a message board (congratulation for reaching 3 year old logic). Honestly you nit picked so many things that the OP is horrible lost by now and this thread is fast becoming useless other then to debate useless points for debate sake. And for the record YOU seem to be the most adamant about people playing wrong.
|
|
If you aren't capable or aren't willing to give the DM your full trust, then don't play the game with him.
Really, how simple can that get?
What some people here seem to want to say is "you -will- DM the game and you -will- DM it the way I want it to be done". But, really, that's putting the DM in a position of servitude. And, wrt that servitude, my response (as is the response of any self respecting DM) is to reply "screw you, buddy". Like I said, if you don't like the way the DM is running things, play elsewhere. Acting like a spoiled brat will get you nowhere fast.
You serious got to be joking. You don´t have that kind of a relationship in a marriage and you want it from your players?!? Get real.
And NOBODY is saying that the players can go tthe rules are this and that´s that...since we are saying not even the DM should be doing that for crying out loud. Your just exaggerating something that isn´t even being said. Asking WHY is not some big offense...and if you won´t allow your players to even ask why, then who is being the spoiled brat here?
|
|
Rule 0 doesn't nullify RAW. Nullifying Rule 0 nullifies RAW. As everyone here agrees, Rule 0 -is- RAW.
You can use Rule 0 to change a rule. However, changing a rule means you are no longer using the rules as written. So Rule 0 nullifies RAW.
You always have the option to walk away from the table if the DM is playing by rules you don't approve of. Really. You can walk away.
Walking away from a problem removes the conflict, but does not solve the problem.
Rule 0 doesn't nullify RAW. Nullifying Rule 0 nullifies RAW. As everyone here agrees, Rule 0 -is- RAW.
Rule 0 is RAW...rule 0 is also not a valid argument when talking about RAW as it basically nullifies RAW. Invoking rule 0 is basically going nah nah I´m right and I win because I said so in a message board (congratulation for reaching 3 year old logic). Honestly you nit picked so many things that the OP is horrible lost by now and this thread is fast becoming useless other then to debate useless points for debate sake. And for the record YOU seem to be the most adamant about people playing wrong.
Rule 0 is nullifying RAW though. Rule 0 is "It doesn't matter what the rules say - I'm the DM."
That's the very definition of nullifying RAW :|
Secondly, rule 0 is not an excuse, because if that were the case, why buy the game in the first place? Houserules doesn't mean the problem never happened. Houseruling means that you, the player, had to fix the problem yourself.
As for the DM banning stuff argument, if I want to make, say, a sublime chord and the DM says no, I typically go "awwww, why?" If he responds in any way that is not "Because I said so," my next response is pretty much always "Oh, ok."
If the DM responds with "Because I said so," what he is saying is "You don't need to know, I am the one who makes all the rules, and if I feel you deserve to know, I'll tell you." Ergo, I say goodbye and find another game.
Can't wait to be paraphrased out of context!
|
|
Rule 0 doesn't nullify RAW. Nullifying Rule 0 nullifies RAW. As everyone here agrees, Rule 0 -is- RAW.
Rule 0 is RAW...rule 0 is also not a valid argument when talking about RAW as it basically nullifies RAW. Invoking rule 0 is basically going nah nah I´m right and I win because I said so in a message board (congratulation for reaching 3 year old logic). Honestly you nit picked so many things that the OP is horrible lost by now and this thread is fast becoming useless other then to debate useless points for debate sake. And for the record YOU seem to be the most adamant about people playing wrong.
Rule 0 DOES nullify RAW because anything written can be unwritten or changed by rule 0 (even rule 0). The reason we don´t use rule 0 in a RAW discussion is because it make discussion of rules not matter at that point. Going well the clerics suck because they get only 3rd level spells and bad BAB and one domain and no armor prof because I said so makes talking about rules invalid. This is a VERY basic concept of discussion for anyone who knows even one ounce about valid game design or development.
Fine I´ll use your 3 year old logic...I invoke rule 0 to say that rule 0 no longer exists...I win. Have fun.