I removed a post. Please don't make things personal.
Why are you stonewalling her?Because seeker is the Immovable Rock.
And they are not? They are being just as unmoving as I am. Kinda what makes this pointless everyone knows what the other side is saying, we just fundamentally disagree.
Because you're wrong. :)
Less so then they are :)
|
I disagree, fluff would be "you must be red headed or raised in los village" or the likeUh, no. Fluff would be "You worship the proper god and perhaps have a few ranks in religion to show understading in the holy tenants."
Umm isn't must have x ranks of a skill a meta req and not a fluff req...just saying.
Carry on with your disagreements that will never be solved and at this point has nothing to do with psionics.
Subjective.Because you're wrong. :)Less so then they are :)
Which ya know covers this whole thread, even our derail.
I don't like psionics because they shot my Pa.
We've gone over this before. A rabid raccoon bit him. I felt bad for Papa Yeller, but sometimes the only choices left are bad ones.
Because you're wrong. :)Less so then they are :)
You're the one arguing for a non-rule that doesn't exist and directly contradicts the actual rules while saying six different healing touches don't count as healing touches, neither of which you've even bothered to refute in face of hard, factual evidence, unless you count calling the game texts we're talking about in the first place wrong.
By what logic is it even possible to be more wrong?
Carry on with your disagreements that will never be solved and at this point has nothing to do with psionics.
Eh, it's directly related to one of the key objections to psionics. (The "I didn't explicitly write psionics into my setting therefore it's a huge pile of extra work" objection or alternately the "Psionics don't exist in this world" objection.)
You're the one arguing for a non-rule that doesn't exist and directly contradicts the actual rules whil saying six different healing touches don't count as healing touches, neither of which you've even bothered to refute in face of hard, factual evidence, unless you count calling the game texts we're talking about in the first place wrong.
I gave you three requirements, If you could only do two of the three then you simply do not meet all three.
I gave you three requirements, If you could only do two of the three then you simply do not meet all three.
1) And then you declared that six different god-given healing touches don't count as god-given healing touches for the purposes of qualifying as a god-given healing touch, and you refused to give any non-metagame reason why a specific domain should be required.
2) You're still the one arguing for a non-rule that doesn't exist and directly contradicts the actual rules. (A Fighter or a Cleric or a Ranger is a warrior by the book and the book does not in any way imply otherwise.)
|
|
I gave you three requirements, If you could only do two of the three then you simply do not meet all three.
You're the one arguing for a non-rule that doesn't exist and directly contradicts the actual rules whil saying six different healing touches don't count as healing touches, neither of which you've even bothered to refute in face of hard, factual evidence, unless you count calling the game texts we're talking about in the first place wrong.
Be fair. You changed the one requirement after the fact. Instead of saying 'the Healing domains granted power' you said 'heal with a touch'.
The order of the scared hand: This order of healers requires all who join its ranks to be capable of casting healing spells,have knowledge of the healing art and have a god granted power to heal with a touch
No mention of Healing domain there.
And if ya can heal with a touch other then the spell which is number 1 not three then you can join. I did not say the healing domain was the only way for that example, but a spell is part 1 of three requirements not part 3.
Healing domain was what I had in mind yes. A spell is not a valid way to pass part 3.
For that order then yes those would count. A spell however would not.
A note those 2 could not start at level 1 in that order however. A second note: I would never allow BOED anything as valid.
|
|
Why? I mean, sure I can see a great plot hook in someone trying to destroy the order because they refused to accept him when his powers did not meet their exacting standards. But I don't see why diversity among a group is a bad thing.
I guess it isn't really a bad thing either way, just a design choice. And I could see a story about opposed orders, one more liberal about who qualifies and one more conservative and demanding of specifics.
Hey, write what you know, right? :)
|
|
Psionics = fail because no two people can agree on why they like/dislike it...
In short, way too touchy a topic for Paizo to waste precious time and money developing only to fall flat on its face during the playtest as the playtesters themselves devolve into rabid apes screaming flame and throwing [expletive] at each other, just like every thread about psionics that has ever been posted in the history of fantasy gaming, especially the ones that start with "I'm not looking to start a flame war", which is akin to saying "I'm not looking to get stung" right before grabbing a beehive and spiking it like a football.
I disagree, fluff would be "you must be red headed or raised in los village" or the likeUh, no. Fluff would be "You worship the proper god and perhaps have a few ranks in religion to show understading in the holy tenants."
Umm isn't must have x ranks of a skill a meta req and not a fluff req...just saying.
Carry on with your disagreements that will never be solved and at this point has nothing to do with psionics.
The skill points were they to representing an understanding of the holy tenants of the religion in question.
See? No metagame :)
So its only meta game when you disagree with it? No man what you have shown is the very thing I am talking about, game mechanics are not invisible. There is not a single difference in requiring you to have a set skill then requiring you to have a set ability.
If one is meta game so it the other.
Oh, they're both meta and neither is appropriate as hard, mandatory prerequisites for entry into an organization. After all, how many Clerics forgo Knowledge: Religion because they get 2+ skill points, have low intelligence, and need Concentration and Spellcraft? They're still appropriate clergy without those ranks in Knowledge.
However, requiring a specific class or class feature is infinitely more invasive than requiring a single rank in a single skill. One is a petty speed bump of little consequence, the other is unnecessary, irrational, and detracts from both game and world while showing blatant disregard for player freedom and a complete absence of trust in the players. It's the difference between dropping a pebble on a road and dropping a brick wall on a road; one's insignificant, the other's a disaster.
And that's the crux of the issue; trust. A GM who does not trust the players with the freedom to come up with something appropriate and glorious has no right to ask the players to trust him with authority.
|
|
I'm going back to my Meals-Ready-to-Eat analogy.
Seekers world is like a box of MREs. Every box contains 12 meals, each made up up the same ingredients every time. The only way you're going to have something different in your meal is if someone is willing to let you trade for something.
Vilettas world is like a potluck. Everyone brings something, but you might not end up with a full meal. So someone has to put forth more to bring it all together. Someone might bring something you don't like, but that's okay because you don't have to eat it.
It has zero to do with trust and everything to do with a setting or a games tone and flavor. Some games will have groups like that some will not.Its not like your trying to screw with a player, but its also not like a catholic church is gonna allow someone in as a priest who has not gone though the training and has not been ordained. It has nothing to do with your player at all and every thing to do with the world your playing in.
Honestly a GM does not need an excuse to say no to a concept , class, feat, spell or what have you. He can just say no.
I'm going back to my Meals-Ready-to-Eat analogy.
Seekers world is like a box of MREs. Every box contains 12 meals, each made up up the same ingredients every time. The only way you're going to have something different in your meal is if someone is willing to let you trade for something.
Kinda, my homebrew limits anyone with any type of magical power to a few options on how you gained that power and such. Non magic types however , not so much unless ya want to say ya trained at one of the Gaifs war collages or the like.
Published setting I am much more open for the most part, but still even then a wizard is a wizard. As unless ya change the game ya just can't hide somethings for long.
Honestly a GM does not need an excuse to say no to a concept , class, feat, spell or what have you. He can just say no.
Not necessarily. A DM has EXACTLY as much authority as the players cede to him. If he tries to seize more, ultimately he'll end up with no players.
Not necessarily. A DM has EXACTLY as much authority as the players cede to him. If he tries to seize more, ultimately he'll end up with no players.
This is so true, but still a player can't just demand he be allowed to use anything he likes either. He can ask, but that is about it. Alot of it is in both how you ask as a player and how the GM says no.
Being a dick is being a dick no matter if your a player or a GM :)
This is so true, but still a player can't just demand he be allowed to use anything he likes either.
I've never had a player "demand" anything. Then again, I usually play with grown-ups.
The relationship between GM and player is like the relationship between a cow herder and a cow.
The cow herder lays out a stretch of land. It might be an acre or it might be many acres. The cow herder checks that plot of land for anything that might hurt the cow (eg. gopher holes, poison oak, etc.) The cow herder erects a fence around that plot of land which keeps the cow inside as well as keeps wolves outside).
The cow is free to wander anywhere within that fenced in area it wants.
Likewise, the GM erects a campaign setting. He makes sure that there's nothing boring or verisimilitude busting in that campaign setting. The PC can wander anywhere the player wants within that fenced in area. It's understood that the fence is there to keep the PC in and to keep the bad stuff (dull material, verisimilitude busting stuff) out.
Maybe your players are cattle, and that works for you, but it's not a general rule. My players are human (nominally), and my philosophy is therefore totally different. It's not my job to keep the players penned in, nor railroaded. If they hit 9th level and the cleric plane shifts them to Oz, that's their prerogative; I'll write an adventure in Oz.
In fact, I don't even call myself the DM. I'm the "referee."
This is so true, but still a player can't just demand he be allowed to use anything he likes either.I've never had a player "demand" anything. Then again, I usually play with grown-ups.
Me to, but I had this one player once.......... And I had this other one who while he didn't demand he whined and b~~$!ed like you would not believe.
Neither lasted very long.
Vilettas world is like a potluck. Everyone brings something, but you might not end up with a full meal. So someone has to put forth more to bring it all together. Someone might bring something you don't like, but that's okay because you don't have to eat it.
And that "someone" is "everyone" who all come together to make sure it works. The group is a team, after all.
It has zero to do with trust and everything to do with a setting or a games tone and flavor. Some games will have groups like that some will not.Its not like your trying to screw with a player, but its also not like a catholic church is gonna allow someone in as a priest who has not gone though the training and has not been ordained. It has nothing to do with your player at all and every thing to do with the world your playing in.
Except that lack of trust seeps into design. When you say every single member of some horned woodsy order must be an archery Ranger, that is not merely a matter of flavor; it's a lack of trust. That's saying that only your vision of the archery Ranger could ever possibly be suitable for this organization, that nothing the players devise could possibly fit, and that they should be preemptively shut down by even trying in order to keep them from ruining your lovingly crafted setting. You do not trust them to create a horned woodsman, therefore you create it for them and create requirements not to enhance the flavor of the world, but to force your exact vision of a horned hunter upon them.
You create a world without trust, and then blame the setting you created as an excuse to claim the way you run your game has nothing to do with a lack of trust.
Honestly a GM does not need an excuse to say no to a concept , class, feat, spell or what have you. He can just say no.
A GM who says no without just cause is betraying the trust given to him by the players is forfeiting right to that trust. Just because you have an authority does not make you right in its use.
Again VV it does not have anything to do with not trusting players. It has everything to do with a setting. Some worlds are not grand open planescape like with anything goes. Some have structure or themes. It simply has not a damned thing to do with the players at all.
Your simply not understanding, which is fine its not your game style but it simply has nothing to do with trust. You seem to think saying no or running a game with a set tone or flavor you would not run is being disrespectful or distrustful of the players and that simply is not the case.
If you try real hard, you just might learn to read a parable as something other than a description of literal truth. You just might learn that parables are intended to express a deeper truth.
Literal truth or metaphor, it still applies to your game, not to mine. That's the "deeper truth" here: you don't get to dictate the relationship between other DMs with their players. Your philosophy is different from mine. One of the differences is that I accept mine is not universal.
|
|
Like I said, the PC is free to wander anywhere in that fenced in area he wants. The GM puts that fence up to demarcate where the safe area is ('safe' meaning not dull or breaking suspension of disbelief). Why is that the safe area? Because it's what the GM has prepared. Why is that the area the GM has prepared? Possibly because anything outside of it isn't fun for the GM to prepare.
Hmm, how should I put it. I'd rather it be a highway. Exits everywhere leading to all sorts of things. And dirt roads you can brave, knowing it will be a little rougher. Of course, you can't have a highway without guard rails.
Your simply not understanding, which is fine its not your game style but it simply has nothing to do with trust. You seem to think saying no or running a game with a set tone or flavor you would not run is being disrespectful or distrustful of the players and that simply is not the case.
This has nothing to do with flavor or tone; you can respect player freedom without sacrificing a single inch of flavor or tone.
It has everything to do with trust. It's the player's duty to bring an appropriate character. By denying players things as basic as the right to select their own character's class, you're not protecting tone. You're saying, "I will not let you make choices because I do not trust you to maintain the tone we're going for."
You can have all these options and freedoms and still maintain a coherent tone if you trust and work with the players, rather than making their decisions for them.
TOZ the setting is for both the GM and the players. That does not mean saying no to a player has anything to do with not trusting that player. If I run a game in a very human dominated world, with no other races but demons and beasts, then its not a trust issues when I say "No ya can't play a minotaur" It is simply maintain the flavor of that setting.
But that goes back to what I was talking about earlier and making an appropriate pc for a game when it has a set theme.
Not necessarily. A DM has EXACTLY as much authority as the players cede to him. If he tries to seize more, ultimately he'll end up with no players.This is so true, but still a player can't just demand he be allowed to use anything he likes either. He can ask, but that is about it. Alot of it is in both how you ask as a player and how the GM says no.
Being a dick is being a dick no matter if your a player or a GM :)
As many times as we have had this discussion I don't see the point in making things so player has to be so restrained. I understand you don't want the immersion ruined, but why can't your(or anyone with similar view) world be full of flavor with certain things in stone, yet have enough openness to introduce something new? You could answer that is not what you want in your world, but for the sake of argument, would it really ruin your setting if you had written it that way originally?
There was another poster who had his entire world's history written out. I applaud the effort, with the detail, but I feel like he wrote himself into a corner. Having mysteries, such as Eberron's situation with Cyre, can open up a lot of things, and make for great adventures if they players ever decide to try to find out what happened.
This has nothing to do with flavor or tone; you can respect player freedom without sacrificing a single inch of flavor or tone.
And see there is the fundamental difference in our views. You refuse to see it as anything but distrust and malice toward the players and I refuse to see it as such.
The player has as much freedom as the setting allows. If he is not wanting to play that setting it is his responsibility to inform the GM, and if the rest of the group wants to play in a setting and style he does not, then that is his issues not the GM's and not the rest of the group.
Even so, 'appropriate PC' seems to mean 'one from this list I have prepared for you'. Choices already made for you.
Under your definition the 5 core follow under "One I made for you" If I don't allow some off the wall race that does not fit the setting.
I don't like psionics because they shot my Pa.We've gone over this before. A rabid raccoon bit him. I felt bad for Papa Yeller, but sometimes the only choices left are bad ones.
Now I'm sad thinking about Old Yeller. <:| <-- quivering lip.
His pa or his paw?
That joke occured to me but I wanted to hold onto it and see if it was out there already in film. No getting anything past you guys though. ;)
As many times as we have had this discussion I don't see the point in making things so player has to be so restrained. I understand you don't want the immersion ruined, but why can't your(or anyone with similar view) world be full of flavor with certain things in stone, yet have enough openness to introduce something new? You could answer that is not what you want in your world, but for the sake of argument, would it really ruin your setting if you had written it that way originally?
I can't speak for anyone else setting, but I have room for a bit, I left grey areas to add things. However magic works one set way. It must be taught and can not very from that tradition without "bleed" effecting the world.
So that does limit magic, however a player wanted to play a summoner, so I outlined just how magic worked, why it worked that way and then told him, pick a region I have not made and make your "tradition" So I helped him make both the tradition and the culture it hailed from. And so was born the Malaron Deamon Binders. They have the same limits to a guild like structure of training all other spellcaster do, but he got his summoner
I have kinda painted myself into a corner on types of magic and how they work but I am ok with that. And thus far the groups I have ran though it liked that it was not just random generic fantasy setting 704