I don't know about you guys but I tend to review most of my player's character sheets after each game. Having to look into an additionnal book that I do or do not have access to isn't something I'd look up to.
This reviewing is to make sure everything has their stuff together and that there aren't any errors..This simple explanation is enough for me to disallow psions.
My current campaign only allowed one non-human in the group for setting-related stuff. Someone saying that they would play a small and stout human with dwarf stats isn't something I would allow. This is the kind of stuff that is set before the game even starts and arguing shouldn't be a possibility for the players as they are aware of the rules in the current campaign before joining it.
I really cannot wrap my head around this "I hate the vancian system so I should be allowed to run a psion". Allowed books should be determined before a game and the answer of the GM in case of interrogations from players shouldn't have to be more than : "This setting/story doesn't allow this concept to fit easily/This would result in more work for me and therefore I am not allowing it"
I'm really wondering what kind of games you guys are playing in for you to try to argue about allowed/not-allowed stuff with the GM. Nothing about being a jerk there, reasons to disallow stuff do not need to be really elaborated or argued if they are only affecting one player's character concept. Players can always change their character concept.
The talk continues
DMs of all shapes discuss
"Because I said so"
EPIC FAIL!
Oh, that is not even close to an epic! You just failed your Poetry Identification skill roll!
He did say Haiku
But rules changes make me sad
A Monster does weep
I thought he had to ask his players if it was ok first?
So many new friends!
A Monster is excited
Haiku loved by all
I don't post much, but after reading the comments on page 7, I just can't stay quiet anymore...
The amount of hyperbole, twisting-of-other-people's-words, talking past one-another, and ad nauseam-repetition of dogmatic/inflexible points-of-view is truly confounding. Substituting other nouns into someone else's originally plausible analogies to make it into something completely different so that you can take offense at something that was never said is just trolling in my book. It's like this went from an interesting debate to a game of let's-see-how-far-out-of-context-I-can-take-someone-else's-comments.
I thought we "geeks" had come a long way since the 80s, but about half this thread just reinforces the old stereotype that roleplayers, as a group, have a -4 penalty on Charisma-based checks. >:\
Some of the most fervent arguments I've seen on why a DM is in-the-wrong have been put forward in such a way as to convince me that their proponents have more-often-than-not been labeled as "problem players" by "tyrannical" DMs, and the "poor helpless players" who can't stand up to being "treated like crap" by said DMs. Being as I'm actually friends with all of my players, I think I can safely say that none of us would find such pedantic and argumentative individuals welcome at our table. At least where I come from, friends don't badger and brow-beat one another mercilessly when they aren't satisfied.
Go ahead and feel free to deconstruct my comments to mean something entirely different now. It seems that's all that's left for anyone to say…
BTW the term "Munchkin" has also been hurled about as an insult by players who were pissed-off that their own character wasn't the most well-optimized, efficient combatant in a given party. It's no more accurate (or fair) to say that it is a label for a cheater than it is to accuse someone who is good at poker or at video game shooters of being a cheater. For the purposes of discussion, the only inference we can reasonably make is that someone thinks someone else's character is over-powered for some reason. Depending on the circumstances, sometimes it says more about the accuser when they label others a "cheater" than it does about the character of the accused...
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.
The concept is a tower wizard classic. A perfectly acceptable character concept by the DM's own admission. There is absolutely no problem with the concept, and the character does not utilize psionics. "Psionics do not exist" does not veto a magic-user.
And the player does want to play the character of a wizard, it's just that the Vancian horrors are an ill-designed disaster that isn't fun for him to run, while psionics are a system he actually enjoys. That the system has the word 'psionics' slapped on front doesn't change the fact that the character is still the tower wizard classic.
The player is absolutely trying to work with the DM. The DM has voiced zero objection to the psionic mechanics. Only the psionic fluff was opposed, and the player is respecting the DM's wishes, removing the offensive fluff, and using the mechanics (to which there are zero objections) to represent a character type that the DM has already deemed acceptable.
To say, "Alright, you object to psionic fluff, but I want to use psionic mechanics, so I will remove the psionic fluff and retain the psionic mechanics," is the pinnacle of working with the DM. The DM should be happy to accept it.
If the player had, instead, taken the Wizard class to represent a yogi using all the psionic fluff? That would be an example of the player being an ass, because it's using the elements the DM actually objects to.
No. You simply will not except no.
I accept "No" when there is an actual, legitimate, valid reason to say, "No." There are many, many such reasons. However, there are also many, many horrible, invalid reasons.
A good DM will try to say yes. "Yes, and," "Yes, but," if at all possible, these are the answers a DM should strive for unless there is a truly compelling reason to say, "No." A DM should never say, "No," without weighing it carefully. A DM should never say, "No," lightly or on a whim.
DM authority is a responsibility that the players entrust the DM with. It is a gift. It is not to be abused, and it is not to be used as a sledgehammer to be used to beat those very same players to a pulp.
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
In other words, "Yes, you can be a wizard using the Psion class, but the character has to hail from a distant land or something." And everyone is happy. Cheers for, "Yes, but," DMing!
Then again alot of folks just plain hate the psionic rules.
Which is a completely different reason entirely from, "Psionics don't exist in this world." If the reason for banning psionics is, "I despise psionics with the white hot intensity of a thousand suns," then you should say that instead of, "Psionics don't exist in this world," because truly hating psionics is a valid reason for excluding it, though you should be willing to explore the reasons why you hate psionics.
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.
Except the player is respecting the DM's wishes and is trying to work with the DM's needs and desires. It's not semantics at all.
To say, "I like and enjoy the psionic mechanics, and wish to utilize them. You do not feel the psionic fluff is appropriate to this game. Therefore, I will remove the objectionable psionic fluff and use the mechanics to represent a character appropriate to the setting and we can both get what we want," is a definitively mature solution. It's attempting to come together as equals in order to find a solution that satisfies everyone.
If a DM is offended that the player might seek out a mutually agreeable solution rather than automatically bending knee to her every whim, guess who's immature in that case?
Bear in mind, I detest magic point systems. Passion of a thousand burning suns, etc.
On a completely unrelated note, I've never understood hating magic point systems while considering Vancian better. After all, Vancian is a magic point system. You just have ten pools of points, and all spells cost one point of whatever type.
It's the DM's perogative to decide what rules he or she is going to use when running her game... She's the one that's doing the donkey work after al. It is perfectly legitimate choice for the GM to say. "No, I'm not using the psionics system, I'm not learning a whole new book or books (considering the supplements said player might be looking to throw in) of rules for something that I don't feel is part of my world's aesthetic design." Because you also seem to forget that something else is part of the "default mechanical rules"... that the DM has the right to change, add, or OMIT anything he or she feels appropriate, and that Psionics has always been an OPTIONAL addition to the 3.5 and earlier edition rules.
1) The reason presented was not, "I don't know the psionic system and I don't wish to/don't have the time to learn it," which would indeed be a valid reason. It was, "Psionics do not exist in this world. Entirely different. "Psionics do not exist in this world," is a fluff reason that can be easily resolved.
2) That it's the DM's prerogative does not remove the DM's responsibility to actually consider the decision logically and legitimately attempt to work with the players.
3) Characters bring the aesthetic.
4) Everything is optional, even core. That doesn't change the fact that the DM still has the responsibility to be a rational human being on the matter of what is and is not allowed, and have reasons that are themselves logical and coherent.
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.
Except there's no discourtesy, and there's no insisting. There's an attempt at a mutually agreeable solution, and if the DM was, in fact, being honest in that the objections to psionics were about the fluff rather than the mechanics, there should be no further objection.
Meanwhile, if the DM decrees Restriction X, no room for discussion, ever, even if every reason for making decree X has been removed, that DM is being discourteous by being irrational, tyrannical, treating the players like children, and refusing to listen to reason all while shooting players down when she has literally no reason remaining to do so.
That so many are so appalled that a player might seek to understand where the DM is coming from, speak with her as an equal, and try to come to a mutually agreeable solution rather than bowing down unquestioningly to the DM's every whim is a testament to just how immature many peoples' notion of DM status is.
Laithoron, dear soul
the frustration is too much
this thread will not die
Using Rule Zero
Summon Epic Postmonster
Becomes a cantrip
EDIT: LIE-tho-ron
The concept is a tower wizard classic. A perfectly acceptable character concept by the DM's own admission. There is absolutely no problem with the concept, and the character does not utilize psionics. "Psionics do not exist" does not veto a magic-user.
Ah so your wanting to play a psion not a wizard. Your wanting magic, the psion has been ruled out. So no your not asking to play a wizard
Your asking to play a class thats been disallowed by working around it. The player is not working with the GM he is trying to work around the GM. His concept works 100% fine with the allowed classes it has nothing to do with concept and the GM has not disallowed his concept he has disallowed a mechanic that is not a wizard.
The player is causing issues not the GM
I accept "No" when there is an actual, legitimate, valid reason to say, "No." There are many, many such reasons. However, there are also many, many horrible, invalid reasons.
No psionic is a valid reason. As is no you may not refluff it I said no psionics
In other words, "Yes, you can be a wizard using the Psion class, but the character has to hail from a distant land or something." And everyone is happy. Cheers for, "Yes, but," DMing!
In other words common folks may call them "wizards" spellcasters would not. "You don't work like I do your no wizard what are you?" And even that does not work for all worlds I would not let in work in any I run as I can't think of a single one I have used you could pull it off in.
No psionic is a valid reason. As is no you may not refluff it I said no psionics
Psionics itself is fluff.
I think the people in this thread need to take a deep breath and think before hitting the 'post' button. It's getting a bit heated in here.
Psionics itself is fluff.
No psionic is a valid reason. As is no you may not refluff it I said no psionics
Yes it is fluff, however the fluff is built into the system. Your asking a damned lot of work on part of a GM to rework a whole subsystem just so you can fake a wizard.
Now some might be ok with that but when a GM says No psionics, it should be clear to anyone the whole book is out.
I mean really if a GM says no spellcaster do you say "Well I am a fighter...but I want to use the wizard class, but totally his powers are not spells"
It is the same thing.
Yes it is fluff, however the fluff is built into the system. Your asking a damned lot of work on part of a GM to rework a whole subsystem just so you can fake a wizard.
No, you're not.
A wizard is a scholar whose studies grant her the ability to tell the laws of physics to go lay by their dish. Psion can easily represent that, as powers are just spells by any other name. It's not faking a wizard. The character is fully and truly a scholar whose studies grant her the ability to tell the laws of physics to go lay by their dish. The Psion could have been printed as a variant Wizard with no problems whatsoever.
However, even if the DM does want to get worked up over the pettiest and most minute details, that still doesn't mean the player is dropping any sort of burden on the DM's shoulders. The DM can just as easily list terms and modifications that would be required and leave the player to come up with 'em herself. And it doesn't require a total-system overhaul. Unlike Wizards, Psions don't get many powers. A level 1 Psion has a whopping three powers, so to insist that the DM has to revise the other twenty the character doesn't take is just absurd.
Haiku is the best
Everything seems much more fun
My gift to the boards
What exactly are you going to do if the GM still says 'no'?
That's entirely dependent on the validity of the reason.
Yes it is fluff, however the fluff is built into the system. Your asking a damned lot of work on part of a GM to rework a whole subsystem just so you can fake a wizard.No, you're not.
A wizard is a scholar whose studies grant her the ability to tell the laws of physics to go lay by their dish. Psion can easily represent that, as powers are just spells by any other name. It's not faking a wizard. The character is fully and truly a scholar whose studies grant her the ability to tell the laws of physics to go lay by their dish. The Psion could have been printed as a variant Wizard with no problems whatsoever.
He is not a wizard, and any real wizard would know it. He is some kind of caster, but not a wizard. His powers would need totally reworked as spells, each would need reworked into the spell schools and thats just starters.
We might as well stop here I have no interest in getting into this for like the what is this 18th time?
For me if a GM tell me no I am not going to be all childish and try to find a way around his ruling. Accept the no, as it does not even effect the concept.
Psionics itself is fluff.
No psionic is a valid reason. As is no you may not refluff it I said no psionicsYes it is fluff, however the fluff is built into the system. Your asking a damned lot of work on part of a GM to rework a whole subsystem just so you can fake a wizard.
Now some might be ok with that but when a GM says No psionics, it should be clear to anyone the whole book is out.
I mean really if a GM says no spellcaster do you say "Well I am a fighter...but I want to use the wizard class, but totally his powers are not spells"
It is the same thing.
I somehow doubt that, unless this suddenly became 4e.
How much exactly does psionics differ significantly from arcane/divine magic?
Let me clarify. What exactly are you going to do if the GM says "because I said so"?
Then, there's a strike against the DM and I have to decide whether I let it slide this time or I choose to stop granting that DM authority over me.
Let me clarify. What exactly are you going to do if the GM says "because I said so"?Then, there's a strike against the DM and I have to decide whether I let it slide this time or I choose to stop granting that DM authority over me.
I don't think you would be allowed to play at any table I have ever played at...
Fire or large rocks
Either way this thread must die
A Man in Black speaks
How much exactly does psionics differ significantly from arcane/divine magic?
Alot really, besides the way it works the powers just do not mesh up as spells. A non-psionic spell caster has no chance of IDing the "spell} without GM handwaving and then the powers do not use the schools and wizards/sorcerers/ clerics/druids have zero chance of learning them, and the psion can not learn the other "wizards" spells
You can pull it off, but it is a good amount of extra work on the GM.
Is this turning into a thread which happened about five months ago?
::Runs around the house making like he is an aeroplane::
How much exactly does psionics differ significantly from arcane/divine magic?
Alot really, besides the way it works the powers just do not mesh up as spells. A non-psionic spell caster has no chance of IDing the "spell} without GM handwaving and then the powers do not use the schools and wizards/sorcerers/ clerics/druids have zero chance of learning them, and the psion can not learn the other "wizards" spells
You can pull it off, but it is a good amount of extra work on the GM.
It seems the problem is with psionics, not the system that psionics applies. Then why not just find a way to apply the psionic system to arcane/divine spells? That ignores some of those issues and probably reduces the tedium of other ones.