Any power source that's available to the players has been explored by NPCs for hundreds of years. Any martial art style has been perfected by monks for longer than that, etc.
So no one ever learns anything new in your campaign world? It's stuck at its current level of magical, martial, and scientific knowledge for all eternity, and nothing new can possibly be discovered or refined? How dreadfully boring.
My campaign world has advanced through about 200 years of game time since it was started, and the current world would seem just about exactly as familiar to the original characters as 1976 would seem familiar to the Founding Fathers.
Yea, going from 1776 to 1976 is crazy. But going from 200 to 400 isn't. Going from 1100 to 1300 isn't a big deal either. Most of human history isn't happening in some crazy hurry, it's just right now.
Going to D&D default assumptions (almost no one has a campaign world analogous to 100 AD): To the people living in Europe in 1400, the world of 1600 would be equally insane -- suddenly there are colonies an entire hemisphere they didn't know about!
Wow. Screw you.
... And the horse you rode in on!
If you read my earlier posts (reference the discussion of two schools of thought), I'm not saying you're doing it wrong, as long as you and your group are enjoying it -- but what I AM saying is that I personally (and a lot of other people) wouldn't be able to freakin' stand it, and that I personally would not be a player in your game, nor Seeker's, under any circumstances. And that your way of doing it is NOT the only way, despite frequent assertions by others to the contrary.
Seeker, Lilithsthrall -- maybe you should have pointed out earlier that your blanket statements apply strictly to campaign worlds that are totally sealed off, and that do not follow the assumptions of the core rules, much less any expanded rules system. There would have been a lot less confusion.
My statement applys to Every single setting period. If your playing in a setting at lest learn the base of the setting before start asking to play a concept that is inappropriate. Playing a Jedi hiding from the empire in FR is as inappropriate as a paladin in darksuns.
If your unwilling to play in a setting say so, don't cause issues for the rest of the group by trying to kill the tone of the setting.
You would ban the mechanics or the concept?They are one and the same here. The setting has a long list of allowed races and class, both the Gnome and paladin are long dead on athas
First you said if the person was not willing to help build the word=ld they should not be able to suggest changes. Now you are saying if they happened to not be around when the world was made. Those are two completely different things.Correct, neither changes however. A player who leaves world development up to the other players and the GM has no say. A new player who comes into a setting everyone else is fine with also has no say.
If the new player does not wish to play that setting or game he is not forced to do so. You simply do not show up to a new game and start demanding changes to an established setting.
So what if the player can propose the idea in such as way that history is not undone, nor do you have to rewrite the world as it currently stands?
So your world history accounts for every mechanic in the game, and how it came to be?Pretty much, yea. All the ones that aren't possible in the real world at least. Any power source that's available to the players has been explored by NPCs for hundreds of years. Any martial art style has been perfected by monks for longer than that, etc. So there's psions in the world, and they are more prevalent on two of the main continents, one savage, one super highly civilized. I have a creation story about how the world got created, and when, and why, and by which deities, and big notable events that defined the current setup. So while I have magic and psionics written into the fabric of the world, I couldn't add Incarnum or whatever. I wouldn't add classes that change the power balance (9swords), and while I would allow the addition of other classes that I *could* squeeze in (prestige classes, other base classes), some would be harder than others, and some could prove impossible.
You called my campaign world boring. Presumably you said that because I don't promiscuously add mechanics. I don't really need to add anything more here.
I said I found it boring, and why. Because you said you don't add any mechanics or even new fluff -- promiscuously, conservatively, or otherwise.
What you could add is an acknowledgement that some people might like a bit more room for their game world to grow, just as I've acknowledged that some people prefer a hermetically-sealed bubble.
I'm not saying you're doing it wrong, as long as you and your group are enjoying itYou called my campaign world boring. Presumably you said that because I don't promiscuously add mechanics. I don't really need to add anything more here.
I wouldn't add classes that change the power balance (9swords),Yea, thanks for pointing that out? Those things don't only presuppose all sorts of stuff that would invalidate my history (or show that the elders are doin it rong, which I don't want to do), they would also make the standard crew of fighters and rangers feel pretty silly. They also suffer from "created last" syndrome- none of the spells work with their mechanics, etc. If I wanted 9swords in a game, it would have to be a different one totally.
Fighters do more damage, and ranger have a better combination of skills and fighting ability. What spells are you talking about? 9 swords does not use spell, just the vanicam system to do things with standard actions. I am not trying to get you to add it, just wanted to point that out. There are other threads on the issue which is why I did not comment on it before.
I do want to know why you created your world without any openings(almost impossible for future change). I am asking because I don't see the benefit of doing it, when you can leave things unsaid in case a player wants to try something different.
So what if the player can propose the idea in such as way that history is not undone, nor do you have to rewrite the world as it currently stands?
Then it might be allowed. Really I don't get why ya just can't play the same game everyone else at the table is playing honestly.
|
Then it might be allowed. Really I don't get why ya just can't play the same game everyone else at the table is playing honestly.
Because no one plays the same game seeker. Very similar games, but there are always minor differences. We just manage to overlook them for the sake of the group unless they turn into major differences.
False. A Jedi hiding from the Empire could be accommodated in almost any game I run. Just because you can't conceive of it doesn't mean that it's impossible.
If you, personally, can't or won't integrate it, OK, that's fine. But to make the blanket claim that therefore no one can is untrue and also a bit insulting.
I would walk out of a pathfinder game if the GM allowed a player to play a Jedi honestly. If I want to play a star wars game I would join one.I am just gonna say I disagree with you and leave it at that.
Then it might be allowed. Really I don't get why ya just can't play the same game everyone else at the table is playing honestly.Because no one plays the same game seeker. Very similar games, but there are always minor differences. We just manage to overlook them for the sake of the group unless they turn into major differences.
Not in any group I have ever ran. I say what the setting is, what books are allowed and to date I can't recall a single person asking to play something that was inappropriate.
Honestly if your have the setting info to read and know thy style of game being ran then their is simply no excuse for showing up with an off the wall concept that does not mesh with setting tone and flavor.
That doesn't address his point in the slightest. I take it by your refusal to continue that you have no refutation for it.I would walk out of a pathfinder game if the GM allowed a player to play a Jedi honestly.
Honestly I find his point non sense. A Jedi is not appropriate for a FR game as the setting is written.
Then it might be allowed. Really I don't get why ya just can't play the same game everyone else at the table is playing honestly.
So what if the player can propose the idea in such as way that history is not undone, nor do you have to rewrite the world as it currently stands?
I don't look at it as playing a different game, and as long as a player comes to me with a non-broken mechanic(for my games), and a good reason as to how it makes sense I don't see a reason to deny him/her the chance to play that character. I have played with more restrictive DM's than myself, but I never really understood the point of saying no when saying yes can make both sides happy or at least not make anyone unhappy. By the player making things fit you dont have to do any extra work, and he gets to play what he wants.
|
|
Honestly I find his point non sense. A Jedi is not appropriate for a FR game as the setting is written.That doesn't address his point in the slightest. I take it by your refusal to continue that you have no refutation for it.I would walk out of a pathfinder game if the GM allowed a player to play a Jedi honestly.
Honestly I think you're missing it completely.
If you, personally, can't or won't integrate it, OK, that's fine. But to make the blanket claim that therefore no one can is untrue and also a bit insulting.
What 'it' is doesn't matter.
I tell ya what, when you get the Jedi listed in the FR setting book and details how its really an outpost of the republic then I'll reconsider it inappropriate. Until you do so it does not fit the setting and I stand by just what I posted.
I don't look at it as playing a different game, and as long as a player comes to me with a non-broken mechanic(for my games), and a good reason as to how it makes sense I don't see a reason to deny him/her the chance to play that character. I have played with more restrictive DM's than myself, but I never really understood the point of saying no when saying yes can make both sides happy or at least not make anyone unhappy. By the player making things fit you dont have to do any extra work, and he gets to play what he wants.
I do see it as wanting to play something different then everyone else. If your the only guy with in the group wanting to play something that does not fit the setting, the issue is not the setting.
For me as a GM I consider breaking the tone, flavor and feel of the setting as bad if not worse then broken mechanics. Once you burst that bubble of believability of immersion in that setting you've more or less lost that game, just as bad as if a guy with a broken build had ruined it.
Honestly if your have the setting info to read and know thy style of game being ran then their is simply no excuse for showing up with an off the wall concept that does not mesh with setting tone and flavor.
That is why I suggested the player coming up with a reason to make it mesh. I know some people's worlds are more detailed than others so the meshing may be difficult.
I don't look at it as playing a different game, and as long as a player comes to me with a non-broken mechanic(for my games), and a good reason as to how it makes sense I don't see a reason to deny him/her the chance to play that character. I have played with more restrictive DM's than myself, but I never really understood the point of saying no when saying yes can make both sides happy or at least not make anyone unhappy. By the player making things fit you dont have to do any extra work, and he gets to play what he wants.I do see it as wanting to play something different then everyone else. If your the only guy with in the group wanting to play something that does not fit the setting, the issue is not the setting.
For me as a GM I consider breaking the tone, flavor and feel of the setting as bad if not worse then broken mechanics. Once you burst that bubble of believability of immersion in that setting you've more or less lost that game, just as bad as if a guy with a broken build had ruined it.
You are not getting the point. The person in question has a way to bring something into your game without breaking immersion. I don't know how tightly your specific world is written up, but generally speaking there are holes to in most people's worlds that allow outside(things not thought of) to be brought in.
PS:What if more than one person wants something different or what if the normal players are not imaginative enough to want anything different?
1. I would walk out of a pathfinder game if the GM allowed a player to play a Jedi honestly. If I want to play a star wars game I would join one.
2. I am just gonna say I disagree with you and leave it at that.
1. Don't worry -- you would have walked out long before that. You would not like my home game, and that's fine; you're not in it.
2. The thing is, you're disagreeing that I can possibly run the game the way I do and still enjoy it -- and that's not "okay," and I'm disinclined to "just leave it at that," because your continued insistence that everyone's home game needs to adhere to your personal sense of propriety is silly, and, luckily for me and a lot of other people, unenforcable.
His point is not that Jedi can be integrated anywhere. His point is that even if you cannot/will not, that does not mean no one can. You're too hung up on 'Jedi in FR' to even grasp what he's saying, as far as I can tell.
I grasp what he is saying, I fundamentally disagree with it is all.
I dont think they meant the jedi class mechanically. I think they meant the fluff of it, and using PF classes to make it as close as possible to the idea.
Any Jedi, hiding from the empire living on FR no matter what class you choose to use breaks the setting. If ya want to be a mind warror, cool, ya want to build something Jedi like, neat that is not what is being said
They are saying a SW Jedi, from the SW galaxy that is hiding from the SW empire is an appropriate choose for a FR pc.
That is why I suggested the player coming up with a reason to make it mesh. I know some people's worlds are more detailed than others so the meshing may be difficult.
Which I am fine with, but if a GM says it is not an appropriate fit, then it is not. Often times a GM knows more about the world then you do, and sometimes says no not out of malice or because he doesn't want to learn a new rule, but because the choose is simply not one that works with the setting.
Any Jedi, hiding from the empire living on FR no matter what class you choose to use breaks the setting. If ya want to be a mind warror, cool, ya want to build something Jedi like, neat that is not what is being said
They are saying a SW Jedi, from the SW galaxy that is hiding from the SW empire is an appropriate choose for a FR pc.
What if the character was statted up as a Githyanki ftr/wiz, and he's on the run from the mind flayers? Same thing -- he's a jedi running from the Empire, all we've done is changed the names to protect the innocent. I'd allow that. You might not. But you can't tell me that my game is somehow fundamentally WRONGBADNOFUN because I'd okay it and you wouldn't.
2. The thing is, you're disagreeing that I can possibly run the game the way I do and still enjoy it -- and that's not "okay," and I'm disinclined to "just leave it at that," because your continued insistence that everyone's home game needs to adhere to your personal sense of propriety is silly, and, luckily for me and a lot of other people, unenforcable.
I have no issue how ya run your game, said I disagreed with your view of what was appropriate. I did not mean to imply it was not your right as a GM to have or run such a game. Just that I disagreed with it.
I tell ya what, when you get the Jedi listed in the FR setting book and details how its really an outpost of the republic then I'll reconsider it inappropriate. Until you do so it does not fit the setting and I stand by just what I posted.
Shadow the post was not about Jedi in FR. The "it" in question was referring to a concept that the DM is saying no to, but a player found a way to make fit.
You can take the word "Jedi" out, and put in another word. That is why TOZ said "You're too hung up on 'Jedi in FR' to ...".
edit: I saw the previous post where you "fundamentally disagree", and I see you just want people to play within an assigned box for lack of a better phrase. I see now the issue is that those of use that disagree have our boxes with holes in them. I do understand what you are saying now I, and I guess it is just a difference in gaming styles.
I have no issue how ya run your game, said I disagreed with your view of what was appropriate. I did not mean to imply it was not your right as a GM to have or run such a game. Just that I disagreed with it.
Thank you. From your posts, it seemed that you disagreed that anyone should be able to make anything mesh into their own home games, which I found puzzling.
What if the character was statted up as a Githyanki ftr/wiz, and he's on the run from the mind flayers? Same thing -- he's a jedi running from the Empire, all we've done is changed the names to protect the innocent. I'd allow that. You might not. But you can't tell me that my game is somehow fundamentally WRONGBADNOFUN because I'd okay it and you wouldn't.
They are saying a SW Jedi, from the SW galaxy that is hiding from the SW empire is an appropriate choose for a FR pc.
For an FR game I would be fine with that. I think we are kinda missing each others points with words here.
What I mean was not a Jedi like pc, but a player who wanted to play a Jedi, from SW and be on the run from that Empire. I have seen players {not in my games however} who would not want to change it to fit the setting as you have done above but want to play it as is, without making it work for the setting.
Sometimes you can make changes to make a concept fit as you have done above, sometimes you can not.
I have no issue how ya run your game, said I disagreed with your view of what was appropriate. I did not mean to imply it was not your right as a GM to have or run such a game. Just that I disagreed with it.Thank you. From your posts, it seemed that you disagreed that anyone should be able to make anything mesh into their own home games, which I found puzzling.
Sorry , No I was not disagreeing with that. Sometimes my posts look more clear in my head I fear.
For an FR game I would be fine with that. I think we are kinda missing each others points with words here.
What I mean was not a Jedi like pc, but a player who wanted to play a Jedi, from SW and be on the run from that Empire. I have seen players {not in my games however} who would not want to change it to fit the setting as you have done above but want to play it as is, without making it work for the setting.
Sometimes you can make changes to make a concept fit as you have done above, sometimes you can not.
Like I said, I personally like to think I can make just about any concept fit. In the above example, I haven't changed a thing except for the names. The character concept (a jedi on the run from the Empire) is exactly the same. All I did was translate the word "jedi" into "gish," and translated the word "Galactic" into "Illithid" in front of the word "Empire." He can call his silver sword a "lightsaber" if he wants -- what's in a name?
The rest of it is unaltered. Hell, if the player wanted to use Star Wars jedi class mechanics instead of Eldritch Knight ones, I'd probably STILL allow it.
Shadow the post was not about Jedi in FR. The "it" in question was referring to a concept that the DM is saying no to, but a player found a way to make fit.You can take the word "Jedi" out, and put in another word. That is why TOZ said "You're too hung up on 'Jedi in FR' to ...".
Well I was not talking about a player that tried to make it fit, but one who wanted to run it as is. As it was my example to start with that has been the point of my whole argument really.
When everyone else is wanting to play an FR game and ya get one dude wanting to play a Jedi {not a Jedi like guy but a SW Jedi}, his concept is inappropriate for that game.
When everyone else is wanting to play an FR game and ya get one dude wanting to play a Jedi {not a Jedi like guy but a SW Jedi}, his concept is inappropriate for that game.
My game is big enough to include him, too. Yours may not be. To each their own.
His point is not that Jedi can be integrated anywhere. His point is that even if you cannot/will not, that does not mean no one can. You're too hung up on 'Jedi in FR' to even grasp what he's saying, as far as I can tell.I grasp what he is saying, I fundamentally disagree with it is all.
I dont think they meant the jedi class mechanically. I think they meant the fluff of it, and using PF classes to make it as close as possible to the idea.Any Jedi, hiding from the empire living on FR no matter what class you choose to use breaks the setting. If ya want to be a mind warror, cool, ya want to build something Jedi like, neat that is not what is being said
They are saying a SW Jedi, from the SW galaxy that is hiding from the SW empire is an appropriate choose for a FR pc.
Which I am fine with, but if a GM says it is not an appropriate fit, then it is not. Often times a GM knows more about the world then you do, and sometimes says no not out of malice or because he doesn't want to learn a new rule, but because the choose is simply not one that works with the setting.
That is why I suggested the player coming up with a reason to make it mesh. I know some people's worlds are more detailed than others so the meshing may be difficult.
They are not talking about an actual jedi from SW being in FR. There is no cross world/reality/system/etc going on here. The Gith example refluffed from the Jedi was what they were saying, at least I hope so. Jedi in FR makes as much sense as Transformer and Care Bears, which is why I don't think they meant "jedi".
** spoiler omitted **
When everyone else is wanting to play an FR game and ya get one dude wanting to play a Jedi {not a Jedi like guy but a SW Jedi}, his concept is inappropriate for that game.My game is big enough to include him, too. Yours may not be. To each their own.
Eh if I want to run a star wars game I have that book, If I want to run a NWOD game I have that book, the same for about a dozen other systems. I don't feel a need nor a desire to mesh all those game style and types into one game.
They are not talking about an actual jedi from SW being in FR. There is no cross world/reality/system/etc going on here. The Gith example refluffed from the Jedi was what they were saying, at least I hope so. Jedi in FR makes as much sense as Transformer and Care Bears, which is why I don't think they meant "jedi".
But that is the issue. It was my example and that was the very thing I was speaking about as inappropriate for an FR game.
And that's not all that relevant, either. The DM above still has an "exciting, interesting" world, and also probably understands the concept of diminishing returns (and most likely has a life as well).
Watch, as I seamlessly integrate every single magical subsystem into my game world simultaneously within minutes!
"Magic is weird. Magic is wondrous. Magic on the whole is incomprehensible and bizarre and many-faceted."
Done. Now, pact magic and incarnum and psionics and truespeech and shadow magic and Vancian all fit into the world for one simple reason; magic is magic. I have successfully and coherently incorporated every magic system that does and does not exist into my world.
You don't have to explicitly write in every single subsystem into your world as its own entity. You can just make magic an aspect of self, of how the individual draws upon whichever power source she utilizes.
Let us say the world has the Most Heated Order of Glowy, god of that big fiery thing in the sky. You can declare that priests of Glowy are all Clerics with the Sun and Fire domains, but there is no purpose to that. It's one-dimensional and meaningless, and rather uninteresting. You can say it's a part of your world and it's flavor and force it upon your players, but that's a case of using bad design to justify bad GMing when you refuse to let the players bring these alternate systems just because you refuse to include them where they already fit in a well-designed system.
I'd much rather see the three servants of Glowy standing side-by-side wielding the might of their god actually be different from each other, in ways appropriate to their personages and their god. One can be a vicious and wrathful Psion or Warmage or Wilder, with heavy emphasis on killing things with fire, calling down Glowy's flames to burninate his god's foes. One can be gentle and passionate, spreading the life-giving light of Glowy to the world as a Healer or Bard. The third can be the noble knight champion of Glowy's followers as a Soulborn (forgiving for a moment the fact that they suck) who smites heathens while on fire.
With no extra work, the Most Heated Order of Glowy incorporates three different subsystems quite easily while maintaining (and even enhancing) the integrity of the Most Heated Order of Glowy. If your method is one of explicit inclusion in order to get another version of magic to fit, you are the cause of all the extra work, not your players, and you have no right to complain about the unnecessary work you're giving yourself that doesn't contribute to the world one whit.
I simply do not agree. As a cooperative game, it is the players responsibility to create characters that fit the setting. Just as it is the GM responsibility for maintaining the settings flavor and style.
And it is important for the GM to create and run that setting with respect for the players, placing trust in them, rather than declaring, "All members of the Most Heated Order of Glowy are automatically Clerics with the Sun and Fire domains and if you have an idea to the contrary for your character in the Most Heated Order of Glowy, you are minmaxmunchkinpowergamercommiemutanttraitor who does not want to play this game and has no respect for the GM and expects the GM to do all this extra work to integrate all these world-destroying aberrations into this beautiful and perfect world because there's nowhere in existence that could possibly fit and that's absolutely not an abject failing on the part of the GM and you kill puppies for Satan."
And it is important for the GM to create and run that setting with respect for the players, placing trust in them, rather than declaring, "All members of the Most Heated Order of Glowy are automatically Clerics with the Sun and Fire domains."
I am failing to see how declaring One order of clerics must have those domains is disrespectful to players in the lest.
I am failing to see how declaring One order of clerics must have those domains is disrespectful to players in the lest.
Why should they even be Clerics in the first place? The world is far richer for the aforementioned Psion/Healer/Soulborn team.
And a key part of freedom is individual choice. It's the player's duty to make choices as to how best to represent their own characters, not yours. It's their call what classes and aspects are appropriate, whether that's Psion or Healer or Warmage or a Cleric with the Sun and Fire domains.
Why should they even be Clerics in the first place? The world is far richer for the aforementioned Psion/Healer/Soulborn team.
Because a church and the churches god wishes it to be clerics? Character are but a small part of the world.
so why the hell are you two disagreeing for 2 pages?!?
Pretty sure neither of use anything better to do.
How does the church and the god know what a Cleric or Soulborn is?
Game mechanics do not exist in a vacuum. If someone know what to look for its as clear as a car vs a bike.