Dances naked across the thread before the lock
Because I said NO!
You(general statement) chose to DM. You choosing to DM does not give you power over the group. Every one is the group is equal. Before anyone tries to twist my words, that does not mean you have to bend to the players whims, but it does mean that even if you plan to say no they should at least know you have a legitimate reason as to why. If you feel like it is such a burden that you should have the right to shut people down without explaining then don't DM. For those that will now say its not a burden I am sure I can find several examples of "I spend X hours a week setting things up so I can do what I want".
Now if the quote is not what you were trying to say, please explain.
Is this turning into a thread which happened about five months ago?
::Runs around the house making like he is an aeroplane::
Thread repeats again
This time with Haiku MonsterMuch is improved
Its only been about 3 months. It was the "Why I don't like Tiers" thread.
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.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.
You can do that, but as I said it is alot of work. VV's stance is that it is little or no work and it is invisible and no wizard could ever tell that your psion"Wizard" was not in act a wizard.
This is just not the case.
What I was saying though was if a GM said no psionics, He should not have to say "No" to the same question phased different ways 47 times. And a player should accept no psionics and not try to loophole out of the GM's intent.
After all you can pull a "psion" off with a sorcerer and the right spell selection.
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.
But it is introducing a-whole-nother subsystem of rules for the game that the DM has to be proficient with. And that's not insignificant whether you skin them as mind powers or magic.
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.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.
Because that is a complete rewrite of either the psionic system or the arcane magic system and is a huge undertaking for the GM
I find throwing myself on the floor and screaming for an hour solves the munchkin problem at my table.
This thread. It is the worst thread.
You are free to ignore it rather than try to attract our attention with your gnashing of teeth and rending of garments.
Because that is a complete rewrite of either the psionic system or the arcane magic system and is a huge undertaking for the GM
Yes, yes it is. Which is why I would not allow the psion "wizard" I do allow psions in most games if the world has them. Lest I have before anyhow. I don't like the system but have allowed it.
After all you can pull a "psion" off with a sorcerer and the right spell selection.
Oh, man!
You just had to say it didn't you...You're playing into someone's hands...
::wanders around humming to himself::
Because that is a complete rewrite of either the psionic system or the arcane magic system and is a huge undertaking for the GMIt 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.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.
From what I see, it appears to be neither. Exchange the "use and lose" system arcane/divine magic currently uses and simply substitute the "pool" system used for psionics. Like every video game RPG on the market.
Maybe not that simple, but not near the level of trying to make every psionic power fit the spell structure.EDIT: Actually, it may be that simple since there is a defined correlation of level to power point cost.
"A strike against the DM"? You're calling such a DM "crap" and ranting over multiple pages of posts here about how "bad" he is, but when it comes right down to it and the DM does what you're whining about, you will waffle (excuse me, mark a "strike" against him)?
I'm not waffling in the least. It's still a Bad Thing to say, "Because I said so." I do not waver from that position. However, humans are imperfect beings. One undeniable fault is not grounds to write a person off as scum, never to be associated with again. That doesn't make mistakes and faults and offenses stop being mistakes and faults and offenses.
And do note, I never called the DM crap. I called the action, "treating the players like crap," and it is. It is rude and disrespectful and inappropriate. However, one rude action does not necessarily mean it's time to cut ties. It's still rude and it's still wrong, but that doesn't mean I won't go fishing with the guy.
The situation as a whole is critical in determining what is to be done about it, whether I call on the other players for their input, whether I tell the DM that if he can't answer I can't play, whether it's a minor enough issue that it's worth just dropping.
Or, whether the DM's being such a prick that it's time for me to take the DM's seat. I've only had to overthrow a DM twice, but both times, I had unanimous support among the players. Once, even the DM ended up agreeing with the call.
I don't think her post demonstrated any kind of progress. I suspect her regular course of action is to b!%!@ about DMs who don't play the way she wants to and then, when the DM doesn't play the way she wants to, call it a "strike" against the DM rather than just leaving.
My regular course of action as a player is to treat the DM with the respect and consideration appropriate to any intelligent adult and peer, and I expect the same in return. If a DM violates that trust and refuses to treat me like an intelligent human being, I will stand up to him, just as I expect anyone I wrong to stand up to me.
My regular course of action as a DM is to treat the players with the respect and consideration appropriate to any intelligent adult and peer, and I expect the same in return. I listen to the players. I consider their positions. I acknowledge that I might be wrong. And then after hearing them out, I make my decision. I do not and down decrees and expect the players to submit; I make decisions subject to logic and reason, something which the players are every bit as much a source of as I am. Valid logic is valid logic, regardless of its source.
I do not treat the DM as an infallible god, for the DM is not an infallible god. I do not treat the players as lowly peons, as they are not lowly peons. The DM and players are friends, peers, equals in a social gathering, and they are to treat each other as such.
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.
Handwaving is less work, chief. And the question in that case becomes, "Why shouldn't you handwave it if the result is a solution that everyone can be happy with?"
But it is introducing a-whole-nother subsystem of rules for the game that the DM has to be proficient with. And that's not insignificant whether you skin them as mind powers or magic.
And if the reason for not using psionics is not wanting to have a whole other subsystem to deal with, the DM should say, "I don't want to deal with a whole other subsystem," rather than, "Psionics do not exist in this world." Not wanting to deal with another subsystem is a perfectly valid reason to reject psionics, and should be put forward openly and honestly as such.
Because that is a complete rewrite of either the psionic system or the arcane magic system and is a huge undertaking for the GM
No it isn't! It's not any sort of undertaking at all. You don't need to rework the entire system. A level one Psion has a whopping three powers! Another two per level, and maybe an extra here and there if the Psion chooses to spend a feat or something. That's all that needs to be tweaked if the DM chooses to be a profound stickler. And it doesn't even need to be the DM doing the revision at all.
At worst, you have Spellcraft identify powers and have the player pick out an appropriate spell school and comparable spell for a whopping three powers up front, and a couple more every level. It's minute. It's petty. It's not a total overhaul.
Because I said NO!
If I give you cookies can I play a Dragon?
Caineach wrote:
Because that is a complete rewrite of either the psionic system or the arcane magic system and is a huge undertaking for the GMNo it isn't! It's not any sort of undertaking at all. You don't need to rework the entire system. A level one Psion has a whopping three powers! Another two per level, and maybe an extra here and there if the Psion chooses to spend a feat or something. That's all that needs to be tweaked if the DM chooses to be a profound stickler. And it doesn't even need to be the DM doing the revision at all.
At worst, you have Spellcraft identify powers and have the player pick out an appropriate spell school and comparable spell for a whopping three powers up front, and a couple more every level. It's minute. It's petty. It's not a total overhaul.
It is not the same
Hand waving is not propermore work must be done
Yes it is a rewrite of the entire system. Not only that, it requires reworking the game world to make it so your not the only one in existence with these powers, as many psion powers are not the same as wizard powers. And as I have pointed out before, there are in world ways to tell the difference between a psion and a wizard, unless you go to a whole lot more work. Handwaving works fine in some games, but in others I would be pissed at the GM if I were annother player. It depends on the expectations.
Because I said NO!If I give you cookies can I play a Dragon?
mmmm cookie
*Leans closer.*
I await the next installment of the Chilling Tale of the DM Who Said 'No!'
Handwaving is less work, chief. And the question in that case becomes, "Why shouldn't you handwave it if the result is a solution that everyone can be happy with?"
Handwaveing is fine and useful on the fly. It gets messy when it's something new every session and you can't recall what you ruled on it last time. But you better belive someone will.
"Wait that was envocation right"
"Umm I thought it was abjuration"
"No, No it was necromacy right?"
It's not a solution is a fill gap when ya need to game to run sooth, but psionis is to complex for simple handwaveing not to hurt in the long run.
When I tell a player something one week, it does not change. Small handwaveing you can make a note, your way the note is 37 pages.
The only person happy with it is the one who whined about it until he got his way. To hell with everyone else, as long as he gets his way they can go jump. right? After all he gets rules bent for him left and right the other players are just not as special
but that's not SOSL's reason, so it has nothing to do with the VV/SOSL perpetual motion flamewar.
It takes two, or in this case 5 or 6 sides for a war. VV has a "Saying no is wrong crusade unless she is the one who says no"
Nice double standard that.
Handwaving is less work, chief. And the question in that case becomes, "Why shouldn't you handwave it if the result is a solution that everyone can be happy with?"Handwaveing is fine and useful on the fly. It gets messy when it's something new every session and you can't recall what you ruled on it last time. But you better belive someone will.
"Wait that was envocation right"
"Umm I thought it was abjuration"
"No, No it was necromacy right?"It's not a solution is a fill gap when ya need to game to run sooth, but psionis is to complex for simple handwaveing not to hurt in the long run.
When I tell a player something one week, it does not change. Small handwaveing you can make a note, your way the note is 37 pages.
The only person happy with it is the one who whined about it until he got his way. To hell with everyone else, as long as he gets his way they can go jump. right? After all he gets rules bent for him left and right the other players are just not as special
You can easily convert the base system for psionics to arcana (especially in Paizo where 0th level spells are handwaved anyway). Converting psionic powers to arcana is a different beast.
Because I said NO!If I give you cookies can I play a Dragon?
NO!!!
Dragon? Are we playing Rifts?Because I said NO!If I give you cookies can I play a Dragon?
NO!!!
And if the reason for not using psionics is not wanting to have a whole other subsystem to deal with, the DM should say, "I don't want to deal with a whole other subsystem," rather than, "Psionics do not exist in this world." Not wanting to deal with another subsystem is a perfectly valid reason to reject psionics, and should be put forward openly and honestly as such.
Actually saying "psionics don't exist in this world" should be a perfectly valid reason as well. Content that doesn't fit the campaign world strikes me as a valid reason for exclusion. It should also be acceptible that you're limiting psionics to a very limited set of NPCs because of overall plotline or campaign background reasons but can't reveal the full purpose to the players at this time. The point is, there's a reason other than "I said so" or "I don't like them" and that should be acceptible to the players.
Converting psionic powers to arcana is a different beast.
Yeah, which is my issues with it. Look I don't mind if other folks want to do that. If a GM wish to allow it, right on have at er.However There is not a thing wrong if a GM does not wish to allow it.
My issues is a player demanding to a GM that he wants not only to use a different set of rules then everyone else but then saying "Oh yeah no one in game can tell"Thats like saying "Oh yeah I want to use true sorcery rules...but in game no one can tell I am nit using the same type of casting they are"
It has little do do with psionics and everything to do with a players telling a GM how the game will be run and what is and is not allowed.
|
Because that is a complete rewrite of either the psionic system or the arcane magic system and is a huge undertaking for the GMIt 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.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.
You and Seeker are welcome to lend a hand if you like.
NO!!!Dragon? Are we playing Rifts?Because I said NO!If I give you cookies can I play a Dragon?
"Just curious. What you say if we offer to hook ya up with a group of succubi, Immunity to energy drain,oil and a pack of Viagra?"
You and Seeker are welcome to lend a hand if you like.
Thanks but not my interest really. I did have 20 or so pages where I had reworked the psion power list up as spells. Some times it was just spells other times it was converted powers.
Sigh...hard drives crashes hurt so much
|
|
Thanks but not my interest really. I did have 20 or so pages where I had reworked the psion power list up as spells. Some times it was just spells other times it was converted powers.
Sigh...hard drives crashes hurt so much
Ouch, I feel you on that. Any tips you can post from experience would help if you have the time.
|
|
A psion can actually use his powers more than wizards, a 10th level psion with a 20 Int has 113 powerpoints at least plus extra he might get from feats or racial bonus. The power cost to manifest a fifth level power is 9 points. If he so chooses he can manifest 12 fifth level powers within a day. A 10th wizard with 20 Int can cast 3 fifth level spells 4 if he is a specialist. Further a wizard has to prepare his magic and could very well end up with a useless spell for the day. So Viletta your argument that the psion should be rewritten is void. Besides if such a class were to be rewritten you need to overhaul it.
So you have a problem with the psion being able to use his highest level spells more often than the wizard? Wouldn't that actually lessen the '15 minute workday', due to the fact you're not popping off your top three spells and then refusing to continue until after you rest?
"Just curious. What you say if we offer to hook ya up with a group of succubi, Immunity to energy drain,oil and a pack of Viagra?"NO!!!Dragon? Are we playing Rifts?Because I said NO!If I give you cookies can I play a Dragon?
Yea thats what they all say...I'm just curious...
NO!!!!
My reply is noIf I give you cookies can I play a Dragon?
<shakes the magic 8-ball>
What about now?
Ouch, I feel you on that. Any tips you can post from experience would help if you have the time.Thanks but not my interest really. I did have 20 or so pages where I had reworked the psion power list up as spells. Some times it was just spells other times it was converted powers.
Sigh...hard drives crashes hurt so much
To be honest I was not doing what you are. I was seeing if I could make a psion and keep the feel with the slot based casting
what I did was took the spell lists, and took "mental" or what I thought as mental powers off them first. Even stuff like flame strike as it fit"firestarter and all"
Teh I want though and pull out the psion powers I found would make good spells, A good amount of powers are really just reworked spells of do the very same thing as spells. So you end up with a much smaller list from the XPH really.
"Just curious. What you say if we offer to hook ya up with a group of succubi, Immunity to energy drain,oil and a pack of Viagra?"NO!!!Dragon? Are we playing Rifts?Because I said NO!If I give you cookies can I play a Dragon?Yea thats what they all say...I'm just curious...
NO!!!!
You are so strict. It's not like I asked to become a deity. I demand you give me a good reason why I can't play a dragon.
Converting psionic powers to arcana is a different beast.Yeah, which is my issues with it. Look I don't mind if other folks want to do that. If a GM wish to allow it, right on have at er.However There is not a thing wrong if a GM does not wish to allow it.
My issues is a player demanding to a GM that he wants not only to use a different set of rules then everyone else but then saying "Oh yeah no one in game can tell"Thats like saying "Oh yeah I want to use true sorcery rules...but in game no one can tell I am nit using the same type of casting they are"
It has little do do with psionics and everything to do with a players telling a GM how the game will be run and what is and is not allowed.
Converting psionic powers to arcana is not my argument and I don't think it was his.
"Just curious. What you say if we offer to hook ya up with a group of succubi, Immunity to energy drain,oil and a pack of Viagra?"NO!!!Dragon? Are we playing Rifts?Because I said NO!If I give you cookies can I play a Dragon?Yea thats what they all say...I'm just curious...
NO!!!!
"Eh your lose I guess. But I do have so many, when you make up your demon hoard of 70% succubi , it gets a bit tiring trying to keep them focused . No time for conquest but still fun"
Converting psionic powers to arcana is not my argument and I don't think it was his.Converting psionic powers to arcana is a different beast.Yeah, which is my issues with it. Look I don't mind if other folks want to do that. If a GM wish to allow it, right on have at er.However There is not a thing wrong if a GM does not wish to allow it.
My issues is a player demanding to a GM that he wants not only to use a different set of rules then everyone else but then saying "Oh yeah no one in game can tell"Thats like saying "Oh yeah I want to use true sorcery rules...but in game no one can tell I am nit using the same type of casting they are"
It has little do do with psionics and everything to do with a players telling a GM how the game will be run and what is and is not allowed.
No, but in order to play a Psion and call yourself a Wizard, your psion powers must work into an already existing world where people know what a Wizard is. In order to maintain the integrity of the world, you must do some rewrite of the psionic powers. You can handwave it, but that doesn't work for some people, myself included.
You are so strict. It's not like I asked to become a deity. I demand you give me a good reason why I can't play a dragon.
I want to play an unkillable smurf, with magical shoes
|
|
Teh I want though and pull out the psion powers I found would make good spells, A good amount of powers are really just reworked spells of do the very same thing as spells. So you end up with a much smaller list from the XPH really.
This is the basis I went from in the 'psions can be wizards' argument. Mapping the spell schools is so far the only requirement I have found. I welcome any observations on that point, of course.
Although I think the psionic system would have worked better at representing the Sorcerer class than the spontaneous Vancian system does. Damn page constraints.
How many times does an NPC identifying your spell honestly come up in your games? I've never seen it happen once. Ever. In any game. That I've ever been in.
Also VV hasn't changed her attitude at all. "Working with the DM" does not equate to "kowtow."
Player: I'd like to use psionics.
DM: Psionics don't exist in this setting.
Player: Well, can I play a wizard that just uses the point system?
The player isn't whining. The DM gave his reason: fluff wise, there are no psionics. The player, in turn, worked with it. They said "Oh, ok, what if I drop the fluff that you dislike?" I don't grasp the misunderstanding here unless it's purposeful - the player is doing exactly what the DM asked.
So why is there an issue when the DM says no? Because it means the DM wasn't being honest. They told the player "My issue is the fluff" when, in reality, the DM has many more different issues. And you know what? That's fine, if the DM then expresses that.
DM: I'd rather you just not use the mechanics at all, honestly; I'm not very comfortable with them.
In this case? I don't really see the issue. However.
DM: No, I said no psionics are in this setting.
Player: Yes, I know. I'm asking if I can alter the fluff so it's a variant wizard.
DM: No psionics in this setting. Saying it again.
Player: ...I. AM NOT. USING. A PSIONIC CHARACTER. It's a wizard. He just uses the point system. That's all. He's just a different type of sorcerer.
DM: No, you can't do that.
Player: Why?
DM: No psi-
Player: YES NO PSIONICS IN THE SETTING. GOOD THING I'M NOT USING PSIONICS.
DM: Yes you are. Your character isn't a wizard, he's a psion.
Player: *Punch, drink, cry*
Here, the DM is repeatedly ignoring the player, a sign that should be familiar in this thread. At the player's statement of why, the problem is, the DM has no answer that could solve the conflict. And no, shutting down the conversation never solves a conflict. Ever. In this case, the DM is not working with the player.
Now, I feel the need to stress this. This, too, is problematic.
Player: I'd like to use psionics.
DM: I'm not really comfortable with the mechanics, and would really rather you didn't play them.
Player: C'mon, let me do it.
DM: ...Er, no, I'm really not into it.
Player: Just do it. let me play it.
DM: Look, no. I said no.
Here, the player IS refusing to work with the DM. But - and this is important - nobody is advocating this. Nobody is saying that this is a good thing, or that people should be doing this.
The first example is the ideal for a reason. For starters, both parties win. They both get what they want. When both parties win, that's a good thing. Second, the conflict is over. Both are happy with the results. There won't be any further or more heated arguments. Thirdly, neither side walks away with bad feelings. This conflict won't fuel future conflicts; on the contrary, at the next fight, both sides will remember when the other worked with them.
This is what working together means. It's when both sides LISTEN to each other, find the nature of the problem (I don't like the psionics fluff in my setting), and work to resolve it. And if the conflict had been "I'm not comfortable with the mechanics," then yes, the proper response is for the player to accept it. That said, if that was the conflict, it would be pretty nice if the DM, now recognizing that one of his players does like the mechanics, looked more into it. And if the problem after that was in the workload, hell, that's also easy - ask the player to help. Hell, if you wanted, you could ask the player to do the whole thing! I'm sure the player wouldn't have troubles with helping to make his own character!
Nobody should be king of the table. That's stupid, and it's jerk behavior. The "DM vs the party" viewpoint is a horrible one that does nothing but drag the game and the hobby itself down. The game should be everyone working together, and likewise, the game should be fun for everyone. Yes, the DM has more power then the party. That doesn't make him better or "more right." It means that he has more responsibility, and one of those includes seeing that the players are having fun. Likewise, the players have a responsibility to accept DM rulings and requests where they feel comfortable. Yes, conflicts could end with one side just walking away, but if we ended all conflicts like this, I don't think anyone in the world would have any friends. It is far better to see where the disconnect is and work to find a solution.
That's what VV and myself and others have been saying. Find the solution. Player wants something, DM wants something. See where they both meet. If they don't, then both sides should be respectful of that. That's it - that's the grand truth to this ungodly long post. Find the solution.
And I don't think that's asking a lot.
|
|
How many times does an NPC identifying your spell honestly come up in your games? I've never seen it happen once. Ever. In any game. That I've ever been in.
I think I saw it once. Because I asked the player if he wanted to know what spell was being cast or something. Or what aura the magic detected. Either way, he had no idea he could do that.