|
Well, yes. One. One explanation.This is my policy as well (although I allow the person to go into depth if I feel I am confused on the issue).
It is very important to note that this whole benevolent dictatorship only holds during play when I have three other people waiting for their turn. Otherwise, I am happy to hash things out.
Yeah that is true...during play you really can only go so far before things get out of hand. I was in a session where there was an issue with blindsight. The DM ruled that you can use it to see above ground while burrowed. I challenged it and asked why. He gave his reason...I didn´t like it...but it was dropped for the session. After the session, we talked in length and came to the conclusion that blindsight isn´t suppose to work while burrowed...and there is a VERY good reason why tremorsense and burrowing is almost never together(entombed in 3.5 FR has it...and they are basically TPK for their CR)...BTW I died that session due to the ruling. Hey it happens. We talked, figured things out after the session, resolved the conflict and moved on.
Let's say, purely hypothetically, that you say no something, the player asks why, and when you provide your answer, your reasons are proven irrefutably, factually incorrect. Are you saying that at that point, you'd just continue to say no on principal?
All in what it was. If it was unbalanced and you could prove it was not and it did not hurt the game, yes I would most likly allow it. However if it was I didn't think it fit the game then no, I would not allow it in.
I NEVER said that disallowing something was treating someone like crap. However, refusing to explain why you banned something when asked is. As is banning something without cause. As is flat refusing to discuss matters that are legitimately important to the players.
See we disagree here, you seem to what an hour long debate on why it is not allowed. You get a "No I do not think it fits this game style" or a "I do no find it balanced" or a " No, I do not want that class/whatever in my games"
"I dislike it" is all the cause you ever need to ban something, you do the same for casters if I recall. You can fancy up why you ban stuff but most time it always comes down on some level to "I dislike it" Some folks just want to make it into an hour long talk is all.
|
Discussion is not automatically endless pedantic bickering. Character-creation is supposed to have a lot of back and forth and dialogue on ideas and concepts, so why would you close the door of discussion in someone's face when it's about hashing out the rules themselves?
It really is fairly simple: if psions aren't allowed in the game because there are no psionic powers in the game, then we do not have a rules issue. What we have is a player not liking it issue. Hence, further discussion is not "hashing out the rules" it is "wasting my time".
Discussion is not automatically endless pedantic bickering. Character-creation is supposed to have a lot of back and forth and dialogue on ideas and concepts, so why would you close the door of discussion in someone's face when it's about hashing out the rules themselves?It really is fairly simple: if psions aren't allowed in the game because there are no psionic powers in the game, then we do not have a rules issue. What we have is a player not liking it issue. Hence, further discussion is not "hashing out the rules" it is "wasting my time".
]
That is my take on it as well. It has nothing to do with wanting to play a psion but wanting to get around a ruling by saying " Well it's not psionics..but just a sorcerer...with all new rules..and powers that are not spell..but kinda are spells...that no other caster can use...but totally not a psion"
As A GM I would ask the concept and help him make it with the allowed rules. If the player wants to use rules the other players are not allowed to use, the player is the issue not the GM.
It really is fairly simple: if psions aren't allowed in the game because there are no psionic powers in the game, then we do not have a rules issue. What we have is a player not liking it issue. Hence, further discussion is not "hashing out the rules" it is "wasting my time".
How is it wasting the DM's time to bring a valid character concept using appropriate rules? The same mechanics can represent many, many things. If a player detests Vancian to the point where running a Wizard ruins their fun, but wants to play a mage, a traditional tower wizard classic, using the much more sensible psionic rules (rules that are actually fun for the player), how is that wasting the DM's time? It's a perfectly valid character who the DM, by his own admission, finds 100% acceptable, yet apparently still rejects for completely unrelated reasons. The DM's reason for denying the Psion class was that psionics don't exist in the world, but this character is a magic-user, and default mechanical rules are "Psionics is magic" anyways. How, at that point, is it not the DM's stubbornness and inflexibility that's wasting the player's and the group's time at that point?
|
|
Discussion is not automatically endless pedantic bickering. Character-creation is supposed to have a lot of back and forth and dialogue on ideas and concepts, so why would you close the door of discussion in someone's face when it's about hashing out the rules themselves?It really is fairly simple: if psions aren't allowed in the game because there are no psionic powers in the game, then we do not have a rules issue. What we have is a player not liking it issue. Hence, further discussion is not "hashing out the rules" it is "wasting my time".
You know what cuts down a lot on the time wasting for classes/feats/spells that players may want? Say I am not comfortable adjudicating the rules for that. It is a valid reason for almost any case...weither you think it´s broken, doesn´t fit in your game world or just don´t like it. No matter what you will be uncomfortable adjudicating the rules for it. And it doesn´t make anyone feel inferior. I realize this is basically because I said so...but it is a MUCH more diplomatic way of saying it ;) .
You know what cuts down a lot on the time wasting for classes/feats/spells that players may want? Say I am not comfortable adjudicating the rules for that. It is a valid reason for almost any case...weither you think it´s broken, doesn´t fit in your game world or just don´t like it. No matter what you will be uncomfortable adjudicating the rules for it. And it doesn´t make anyone feel inferior. I realize this is basically because I said so...but it is a MUCH more diplomatic way of saying it ;) .
"I'm not comfortable adjudicating that," is very different from, "Because I said so," because it actually is a reason, and an honest one. If the reason for banning something is that the DM is uncomfortable with, say, psionics or Tome of Battle, that's perfectly fine.
Problem A comes in when the real reason the DM is banning something is that they're not comfortable adjudicating it, but they blame the world or ignorantly call it broken or any number of other things instead of owning up to the fact that they're not comfortable adjudicating it.
Problem B comes up when a player wants to use that rule set time after time after time, and every time the answer is, "I'm not comfortable adjudicating that," when all the while the DM is actively refusing any and all efforts to become more comfortable and familiar with the material.
How is it wasting the DM's time to bring a valid character concept using appropriate rules? The same mechanics can represent many, many things. If a player detests Vancian to the point where running a Wizard ruins their fun, but wants to play a mage, a traditional tower wizard classic, using the much more sensible psionic rules (rules that are actually fun for the player), how is that wasting the DM's time? It's a perfectly valid character who the DM, by his own admission, finds 100% acceptable, yet apparently still rejects for completely unrelated reasons. The DM's reason for denying the Psion class was that psionics don't exist in the world, but this character is a magic-user, and default mechanical rules are "Psionics is magic" anyways. How, at that point, is it not the DM's stubbornness and inflexibility that's wasting the player's and the group's time at that point?
Umm no, it is not 100% valid. The GM stated no psionics and the player is trying to twist the GM's statement. The player is still the one wasting time, he asked he was told no. He asked for an explanation he was given one, and yet he still trys to find away around it. He is indeed the one being inflexible, stubborn and wasting time.
His concept works with the sorcerer or the wizard, he is wanting the mechanics. Not a concept. What he is wanting have zero to do with his concept.
|
|
How is it wasting the DM's time to bring a valid character concept using appropriate rules? The same mechanics can represent many, many things. If a player detests Vancian to the point where running a Wizard ruins their fun, but wants to play a mage, a traditional tower wizard classic, using the much more sensible psionic rules (rules that are actually fun for the player), how is that wasting the DM's time? It's a perfectly valid character who the DM, by his own admission, finds 100% acceptable, yet apparently still rejects for completely unrelated reasons. The DM's reason for denying the Psion class was that psionics don't exist in the world, but this character is a magic-user, and default mechanical rules are "Psionics is magic" anyways. How, at that point, is it not the DM's stubbornness and inflexibility that's wasting the player's and the group's time at that point?
I do see what you are doing here. You are of course using the same approach in this discussion that you would in the case you are describing: endless raising of issues when the decision is already made. You refuse to accept the DM's right to decide what is allowed in his game, by fiat if necessary, by brief explanation otherwise. You attempt to engage in endless debate using definitions you are incapable of making (like your use of the phrase "valid character concept" when it is clearly been defined by the only one capable of making the decision what "valid character concept" means).
So, I will put it another way, just as if you were a player at my table and then will not waste my time further on it:
(1) My group has played together for the better part of 25 years. I have 30 years playing experience
(2) I have DM'd my group for a decade of this time
(3) I am, in my players minds, a fantastic DM. Everyone they have ever tried pales relative to my skill. My games last years and the players love them. I have not lost a player in a 10 years of weekly games for any reason.
(4) I have a had a 2-3 player waiting list for at least 6 years to get a spot at my table.
If you do not like my ruling, just go. Your chair will be filled before it loses the warmth of your butt. Something tells me you have heard this before.
Here ends the lesson.
Problem A comes in when the real reason the DM is banning something is that they're not comfortable adjudicating it, but they blame the world or ignorantly call it broken or any number of other things instead of owning up to the fact that they're not comfortable adjudicating it.
Does not matter what they call it. They have told you it will not be allowed in, you have pleaded you case, and still be told no. Kinda end of story right there.
Problem B comes up when a player wants to use that rule set time after time after time, and every time the answer is, "I'm not comfortable adjudicating that," when all the while the DM is actively refusing any and all efforts to become more comfortable and familiar with the material.
A GM does not need to become familiar with a system or class or anything he does not wish to. Do you go to your games toss a copy of GURPS on his table and say "You need to learn this I want to play it"
It is not your place to demand what a GM must allow. If you have ToB and your GM never lets you use it, well sucks to be you. It's not your GM's fault you got a book he will not allow you to use.
Blackwing...
We just started off fresh with Pathfinder (core books only) and ran with that. It was a great leveler and allowed for a new beginning in a format that was same-same, but different.
I think the only person who should be using non-core books is the GM once they have got their notion around how they want things to play out in their campaign, and the players through him/her.
Umm no, it is not 100% valid. The GM stated no psionics and the player is trying to twist the GM's statement. The player is still the one wasting time, he asked he was told no. He asked for an explanation he was given one, and yet he still trys to find away around it. He is indeed the one being inflexible, stubborn and wasting time.
It's not twisting the DM's statement. It's running it straight. That is trying to work with the DM instead of against to find a solution that meets everyone's needs, to allow everyone to enjoy the game. If the DM says, "No, for Reason X," and Reason X is resolved, there is no further reason for the DM to retain the ban.
The player wants to play some manner of mage-like, but Vancian is not fun for him, while psionics are.
The DM rejects psionics because they don't exist in the world.
However, if the psionic rules are used to represent a tower wizard classic, that resolves everyone's complaints, so either the DM was lying when he said that psionics were banned for world reasons. Lying to players is wrong. Banning things for no reason is wrong. Getting your knickers in a twist just because the player tries to work together and devise new and interesting ways to use the rules to create a gaming experience that can be fulfilling for everyone is wrong. Digging your heels in and sticking to the refusal even when the only reason given does not apply at all is wrong.
His concept works with the sorcerer or the wizard, he is wanting the mechanics. Not a concept. What he is wanting have zero to do with his concept.
And there is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting a set of mechanics, especially when there has been zero objection to the mechanics themselves. After all, the DM only objected to the concept of a psion character, not the psionic mechanics themselves. The stated problem is not with the mechanics at all, only with the fluff, and if the mechanics are extricated from the fluff, they're entirely usable.
The player also wants to play a concept, a mage-like character, but detests Vancian. The player is incapable of enjoying a character that utilizes Vancian. Psionics allow for a mage-like character that the player can actually enjoy running. The mechanics can be adapted to a character that the DM finds acceptable, in a way that bypasses all objections. In this case, it's nothing more than DM hardheadedness wasting everyone else's time, while the player is trying to work with the DM.
When a DM refuses to work with the players, when the DM is stubborn and hard-headed and digs his heels in when there is absolutely no reason remaining to do so, it is the DM who is wasting everyone's time, not the player making a good faith attempt at cooperation and collaboration in a shared gaming experience.
Does not matter what they call it. They have told you it will not be allowed in, you have pleaded you case, and still be told no. Kinda end of story right there.
It absolutely matters what they call it! Reason X and Reason Y are two entirely different things, and it's completely possible that Reason X can be resolved in full. If you tell your players Reason X, when it's really Reason Y, you are lying. If you tell your players Reason X, which is then resolved in full, but then continue to say no because of unstated Reason Y, you are a liar who is treating your player like crap, and you are wrong to do so.
If you do not like my ruling, just go. Your chair will be filled before it loses the warmth of your butt. Something tells me you have heard this before.
Inherently fallacious. It's illogical to claim, "I am a good DM, therefore everything I do is good."
Discussion is not automatically endless pedantic bickering. Character-creation is supposed to have a lot of back and forth and dialogue on ideas and concepts, so why would you close the door of discussion in someone's face when it's about hashing out the rules themselves?It really is fairly simple: if psions aren't allowed in the game because there are no psionic powers in the game, then we do not have a rules issue. What we have is a player not liking it issue. Hence, further discussion is not "hashing out the rules" it is "wasting my time".
I always thought it was important to know they whys of situation. At least they have some insight as to why you view things the way you do.
stuff about being a great DM.
Something being accepted does not make it right.
|
How is it wasting the DM's time to bring a valid character concept using appropriate rules? The same mechanics can represent many, many things. If a player detests Vancian to the point where running a Wizard ruins their fun, but wants to play a mage, a traditional tower wizard classic, using the much more sensible psionic rules (rules that are actually fun for the player), how is that wasting the DM's time? It's a perfectly valid character who the DM, by his own admission, finds 100% acceptable, yet apparently still rejects for completely unrelated reasons. The DM's reason for denying the Psion class was that psionics don't exist in the world, but this character is a magic-user, and default mechanical rules are "Psionics is magic" anyways. How, at that point, is it not the DM's stubbornness and inflexibility that's wasting the player's and the group's time at that point?I do see what you are doing here. You are of course using the same approach in this discussion that you would in the case you are describing: endless raising of issues when the decision is already made. You refuse to accept the DM's right to decide what is allowed in his game, by fiat if necessary, by brief explanation otherwise. You attempt to engage in endless debate using definitions you are incapable of making (like your use of the phrase "valid character concept" when it is clearly been defined by the only one capable of making the decision what "valid character concept" means).
So, I will put it another way, just as if you were a player at my table and then will not waste my time further on it:
(1) My group has played together for the better part of 25 years. I have 30 years playing experience
(2) I have DM'd my group for a decade of this time
(3) I am, in my players minds, a fantastic DM. Everyone they have ever tried pales relative to my skill. My games last years and the players love them. I have not lost a player in a 10 years of weekly games for any reason.
(4) I have a had a 2-3 player...
The exact opposite can be stated. I had a GM that just INSISTED melee was far too strong. He nerfed base weapon damage, increased base armor costs by 10x, decreased AC bonuses. That DM banned ToB and allowed ALL SPELLS FROM ALL WotC books. Not surprisingly his casters were uber, while all melee sucked. I played for about a month before I walked away. But obviously I am in the wrong, because he's the DM, and I'm not allowed to question his authority. He could not grasp the concept that melee was too poor. I specifically calculated out math for him, and he just said "well, in this world, magic is more powerful".
On the flip side, my long time DM insists on using a special Crit table he found years and years ago. To keep that going in 3.0, we modified his rules, but even as we're messing with PF, his crit system is just awful. We use the base PF crit range, and confirm roll, but once that is done, the player must roll d%, tell the DM damage type (slash, pierce, bludgeon), and he would consult this small table that his eyes can't read too well anymore, and then give back either base crit damage, or upto 9x. And anything pass base crit is about 15% of the time. So we end up wasting extra time everytime this happens. But because he is a good DM, I don't protest anymore. And in turn, he often lets us long time players have special items, RP moments, or bending of mechanics.
DMs and players have a responsibility to each other to make sure both get what they want, and both are having a good time. If a player LOVES a concept, doesn't abuse the rules, and is a great RPer, the DM should allow for better class or mechanics for that player to enjoy himself better. Likewise, when a DM has bad ideas or wasting of time mechanics, the players should point out those issues, and the DM should recognize what may or may not work.
All I see from detractors is that "DM has the final say, and players shouldn't expect otherwise". That's idiotic. Just as you might say "you suck, so you'll get kicked in my game", I'll flip it around that "your players are so stupid and weak, you (as the DM), and do whatever you like and get away with it."
See how easy it is?
If you do not like my ruling, just go. Your chair will be filled before it loses the warmth of your butt. Something tells me you have heard this before.Inherently fallacious. It's illogical to claim, "I am a good DM, therefore everything I do is good."
In all fairness, that's not what he said in what you have quoted.
he DM rejects psionics because they don't exist in the world.
However, if the psionic rules are used to represent a tower wizard classic, that resolves everyone's complaints, so either the DM was lying when he said that psionics were banned for world reasons. Lying to players is wrong. Banning things for no reason is wrong. Getting your knickers in a twist just because the player tries to work together and devise new and interesting ways to use the rules to create a gaming experience that can be fulfilling for everyone is wrong. Digging your heels in and sticking to the refusal even when the only reason given does not apply at all is wrong.
No psionics do not exist, there for your concept does not work. The player is being an ass. His concept works with the allowed class, but he is not wanting to play a wizard, hje is wanting to play a psion that has been banned. The player is not working with the GM, the player is trying to work around the GM. He has been told no, but will not except it.
I am not gonna go though you points as it's useless. The player is being a child. He wants to play a psion..he can call it what he wants but he wants a psion. He has been told no. So he goes "But it's a wizard..but not using the rules the other players use is all"
No. You simply will not except no. Asked and told why and because he didn't give you a 72 page report on just why he disallowed it you look for a loophole in how he said it. Thats childish. "Well mommy told me no puppys..a full grown dog is not a puppy"
|
|
he DM rejects psionics because they don't exist in the world.
However, if the psionic rules are used to represent a tower wizard classic, that resolves everyone's complaints, so either the DM was lying when he said that psionics were banned for world reasons. Lying to players is wrong. Banning things for no reason is wrong. Getting your knickers in a twist just because the player tries to work together and devise new and interesting ways to use the rules to create a gaming experience that can be fulfilling for everyone is wrong. Digging your heels in and sticking to the refusal even when the only reason given does not apply at all is wrong.
No psionics do not exist, there for your concept does not work. The player is being an ass. His concept works with the allowed class, but he is not wanting to play a wizard, hje is wanting to play a psion that has been banned. The player is not working with the GM, the player is trying to work around the GM. He has been told no, but will not except it.
I am not gonna go though you points as it's useless. The player is being a child. He wants to play a psion..he can call it what he wants but he wants a psion. He has been told no. So he goes "But it's a wizard..but not using the rules the other players use is all"
No. You simply will not except no. Asked and told why and because he didn't give you a 72 page report on just why he disallowed it you look for a loophole in how he said it. Thats childish. "Well mommy told me no puppys..a full grown dog is not a puppy"
So if your best player, who always does things right by you, but never liked how the mechanics restricted what he likes as an idea, let's say CW samurai, and he just loves that class, you would not try and figure out something else he can use instead, and call it a samurai?
Because my longtime DM and I trust each other, and he'd totally allow me to play whatever I wanted. I loved the Leap Attack barb for a long time, and I, the PLAYER, went to the DM saying Power Attack is too good (before I realized it wasn't too good), and I wanted to nerf PA with Two-Handed weapons to 1.5, and Leap Attack to 2x.
I call a samurai a fighter, but he could use a paladin or maybe a ranger, of the new classes caviler works fine as well.
But switching a name on something like that is not the same as allowing something on the scope of psionics in. That takes a crapload of work to make it work un noticed with magic.
Edit: Besides we are not talking my game, but if a GM told me no psionics I would not try the but it's a "wizard" you just said no "psions" crap
|
|
I call a samurai a fighter, but he could use a paladin or maybe a ranger, of the new classes caviler works fine as well.
But switching a name on something like that is not the same as allowing something on the scope of psionics in. That takes a crapload of work to make it work un noticed with magic.
See, if you and your players get along, and there were no abuses, what's the problem? There's lots of ways to explain "magic" in your world. I mean, once APG comes out, alchemist is clearly an arcane caster using a different delivery system. That's how I see psions and wizards nowdays.
I used to be hung on up mechanics, but as I got older, and enjoyed and expanded my RP, I just wanted to play whatever I wanted, and hoped the mechanics fit it. If your players are good and don't try to abuse things, I don't see why a DM wouldn't allow them to bend things a little. They earned your trust.
I would never allow the psion"wizard" in most worlds. It is just not seemless. Now if ya said you had a "wizard" from some far off land where all "wizards" were like him. Fine that I can get . However if you come from a land or wizard school where everyone else took the wizard class and you didn't. No
Other wizards would know you were no wizard.
To me it depends on the world, I have to know what world we play in before I just say no to the concept. But a concept is not a set of stats but an ideal.
Then again alot of folks just plain hate the psionic rules.
How is it wasting the DM's time to bring a valid character concept using appropriate rules? The same mechanics can represent many, many things. If a player detests Vancian to the point where running a Wizard ruins their fun, but wants to play a mage, a traditional tower wizard classic, using the much more sensible psionic rules (rules that are actually fun for the player), how is that wasting the DM's time? It's a perfectly valid character who the DM, by his own admission, finds 100% acceptable, yet apparently still rejects for completely unrelated reasons. The DM's reason for denying the Psion class was that psionics don't exist in the world, but this character is a magic-user, and default mechanical rules are "Psionics is magic" anyways. How, at that point, is it not the DM's stubbornness and inflexibility that's wasting the player's and the group's time at that point?
You have highlighted more effectively than any example exactly why a DM should sometimes say "Because X, end of discussion." What some people mean by 'open to logical debate' is 'must let me harangue and pester him constantly, holding up the game, spoiling it for everyone else, until I get my way' which is what some players will do given the chance.
On the point you have chosen above, the DM has said "No psionics" and the player is not respecting that by using semantics to argue he is not using psionics when in fact he is. He is treating his DM and his fellow players, to use your own term, like crap.
I respect him, my wife and I treat him like an adult.
He sounded like he had some good points in your example. I don't know any adults that would accept, "my plans are more important than yours".
Guys, in my system, all magic works the same, and all mages know everything about magic, because the last thing I want magic to be is magical
Very profound... except that in this case... it's not the group who seems to have the problem with the DM.... unless there's evidence to the contrary it's only one player who can't seem to accept the house rule set has given.And you've assigned the GM the automatic support of the rest of the group...because of the divine right of kings, I guess? I've seen that fight go down both ways. Sometimes the rest of the group backs the player, sometimes the rest of the group backs the GM...and most of the time the group just drifts away from the ugliness and seeks out other groups and other hobbies.
If this fight turns nasty, both the player and the GM have equal shares of ugly fault. The GM doesn't invite people to play in the GM's world; the GM is the member of the group who has the job of handling the world. The players are the GM's peers in the game, and any power the GM has over the other players is conceded to the GM only at the tolerance of those players.
If you come to the game as the GM and expect to be granted unlimited fiat, you'd better hope the players agree. Because otherwise they'll ditch you and pick someone else to be GM, or just ditch you and play TF2.
Which means there is an unequal burden on the DM whenever they houserule something. Which means, to be fair, they should recieve a benefit of some sort to balance that burden. In games I play in, DM fiat is that benefit. It's part of out social contract.Right. I'm fine with a group deciding the GM is in absolute charge for their own reasons, good ones or bad ones. But outside of that specific table, it's important to understand that such a relationship isn't the only relationship, or the right relationship, or the relationship dictated to us by THE HOLY EDITION DELIVERED TO US BY GOD (pick what ruleset you want to put in there, it doesn't matter).
I've seen "I'm the GM, I'm in charge, sit down and shut up" destroy a few too many games.
Actually, in almost every game I have ever played, the GM invited players to sit as his table, and often had to turn 1/2 dozen players away. I've seem GMs tell players to bid character concepts for games and they would select the ones that fit the story he wanted to tell the best. The GM gets to decide what he will allow at his table. If players do not like it, as was said earlier, they can leave. The GM is not obligated to change his game to the player's whims. Players always have the option to not play if the game does not go the way they want.
That being said, courtesy is a good thing that everyone at the table should exercise. In VV's example, it is the player being discourtious by insisting the GM allow something and not accepting the GM's ruling. Arguing after the GM has made up his mind is discourteous, no matter how wrong you think the GM is.