The problem is not how "hard" or "easy" it is to learn the rules. The problem is that the vast, vast majority of people who say the rules are too hard to learn never read them in the first place.
The big issue I see is "Here learn this 222 page book so I can play a single class" That is alot to ask, if the games gonna be psion heavy or the GM wants to learn thous rules cool, but a vast majority simple do not want to learn a 222 page book and a whole new system for one guy.
I would like to request a recap of the current arguments with seeker so that those of us who are following along due to the train wreck nature of this thread can keep up.
For someone with sufficient intellect to learn D&D and Vancian in the first place, the amount of time is going to net out to "not long" and shooting your player down without even bothering to try on the grounds that you think you're an idiot not only brings into question why you're DMing in the first place, but is most certainly mistreating your friends.
For some people - sure, that might apply. But otherwise... probably not. You're still wrong. (And, as clearly noted previously, you don't get to decide who's an idiot or not.)
The big issue I see is "Here learn this 222 page book so I can play a single class" That is alot to ask, if the games gonna be psion heavy or the GM wants to learn thous rules cool, but a vast majority simple do not want to learn a 222 page book and a whole new system for one guy.
I don't think it is "the vast majority." It's simply that a lot of people don't like the rules. They don't like that it's constructed using a different system, they don't like the flavor, they don't like that if they're going to be introducing one psionic PC they'll likely have to be bringing psionic NPCs into the game as well.
For some reason, people who just love psionics can't seem to understand that. You have the same issue with people who are dying to play Monstrous characters and aren't allowed, or those who want to use 3PP classes but are forbidden, or players who want to use other campaign material but are turned down.
Psionics just happens to be a particularly touchy point for a lot of very outspoken people. And when the psionics favored folks are denied and start to insist on a reasonable (to them) explanation why they're being denied, they like to focus on the explanations they find the most ridiculous. For the purpose of this thread, it happens to be the complexity of the rules. That's actually the least common explanation I've ever heard before reading about it here but clearly, as with everything else in life, YMMV.
|
I would like to request a recap of the current arguments with seeker so that those of us who are following along due to the train wreck nature of this thread can keep up.
Seeker says we are trying to make it two requirements, we say two qualifications can fulfill all three. He refuses to explain why Cure Light Wound doesn't count for item three without referring to item one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's the issue here?
If a player wants me to use rules I don't want to, I won't.
If my GM doesn't want to play by rules I want to, I won't or I'll find another GM.
If somebody whines about it, I'll point and laugh.
"F+*& you I don't wanna," is a poor DMing philosophy that goes against the spirit of cooperation necessary for a healthy gaming group to flourish.
The big issue I see is "Here learn this 222 page book so I can play a single class" That is alot to ask, if the games gonna be psion heavy or the GM wants to learn thous rules cool, but a vast majority simple do not want to learn a 222 page book and a whole new system for one guy.
1) They're there to help teach you.
2) You don't need to look at 3/4 of those 222 pages to know every rule required in detail.
The size of the book is irrelevant.
Her point is not that she's so awesome for being able to do that. On the contrary, she's pointing out that just about anyone could do the same, if they could be bothered. Instead of saying, for example, "Ooh! New rules! They're so big and scary, I better not even look at them!"I know that's her point - and it's not relevant in any way (a bit of a trend for some people in this thread, I see). Good for her that she did that. Assuming that everyone else can/will do that in the same amount of time and pull the same amount of understanding is patent nonsense. (And really, that goes for all the other ridiculous posts that say "it's not that hard", "I did it easily", "there's no work for me", or any other garbage along those lines. Individual people will come to their own conclusions on what's 'work' for them, thankyouverymuch, and no internet wanker's [patronizing] comments are going to change that.)
It's so subjective that it's nothing more than a poor anecdote, and hurts her position more than helps.
I have taught new players psionics without any more trouble than I did teaching them how Vanican works, and I also learned the basics in less than a day. I am sure it is not hard to learn or I am lucky to be surrounded by very intelligent players my entire life. Even the ones that constantly jack up other rules know psionics.
The big issue I see is "Here learn this 222 page book so I can play a single class" That is alot to ask, if the games gonna be psion heavy or the GM wants to learn thous rules cool, but a vast majority simple do not want to learn a 222 page book and a whole new system for one guy.The problem is not how "hard" or "easy" it is to learn the rules. The problem is that the vast, vast majority of people who say the rules are too hard to learn never read them in the first place.
While this is true, it is actually worse than that.
In 3.5, every time one my my player brought in a new splatbook, I would read it, then I would have to go back and reread section of the core rules to double check how things interacted.
So, no only to I have to read through and understand a 222 page book just so one player can play a certain type of character, but I have to go back and reread parts of that book every time a player brings in a source book with new psionic related feats. If we move to a new campaign setting, I have to review the psionic book for ideas on how to integrate it with the new setting.
In short, a single player wanting to play a psionic character in a generally non-psionic campaign creates lots of extra work for the DM on top all the normal work the DM has for creating a campaign. I only have so many hours a week to devote to D&D.
So at some point, I have to set priorities. Do I focus on designing interesting encounter for my players or do I learn a new set of rules so one player can play something different? The first one benefits all my players, while the second one only benefits one player.
I would like to request a recap of the current arguments with seeker so that those of us who are following along due to the train wreck nature of this thread can keep up.Seeker says we are trying to make it two requirements, we say two qualifications can fulfill all three. He refuses to explain why Cure Light Wound doesn't count for item three without referring to item one.
Thanks. Now what are the three requirements? There are way too many posts to search through them all and Prof keeps using the phrase over and over again.
While this is true, it is actually worse than that.
In 3.5, every time one my my player brought in a new splatbook, I would read it, then I would have to go back and reread section of the core rules to double check how things interacted.
Wow, you are so doing things the hard way. You don't need to read a book cover to cover to allow it; most of my games include toys I've never even seen before that specific character and it's no trouble for one simple reason; I trust my players. When they want to use it, then I look at that specific element and unravel it, but there's no need to do so if no one wants to use Specific Element X.
That you put in a hundred times as much work as you have to without benefit is just a case of your own lack of management skills.
1. Able to cast healing spells
2. Knowledge of the healing arts
3. Able to heal with a touch
...All healing spells in the game are touch spells that makes 1 and 3 pointless. If there were difference between ranges on healing spells or abilities for that matter then I would concede that. On the other hand, Channel Energy is not touch based, but isn't a spell either. I'm going to side with TOZ and Prof on this one.
*grabs popcorn*
Go TOZ and Prof, kick his metaphorical rear-end!
Looking back a few pages I think he mentioned something about having a healing domain. I suppose he believes that Druids shouldn't be allowed to heal then, as they do not have access to that domain?
What's the issue here?
If a player wants me to use rules I don't want to, I won't.
If my GM doesn't want to play by rules I want to, I won't or I'll find another GM.
If somebody whines about it, I'll point and laugh.There's no need to have a multiple page thread on this.
The issue is more about the "why" than the end result(not allowing X). A lot of the whys are "2nd edition psionics sucks so I will assume without having ever opened a book that psionics are still hard to learn and/or broken".
That attitude stinks. It would be like if Paizo said no female posters, and they had a way to enforce it. I don't think your life revolves around Paizo, but I am sure you would not like it if the reason was based on rumors. I am sure you would not like it if they had reasons based on truth, but being denied for things that are not true makes it worse.|
|
Honestly, if he had just said 'heal with an effortless touch' it would have been fine. It just seems like he set it up and refused anything that wasn't exactly what he was thinking of.
In any event, I got some good plot hooks out of the argument. Even if I'm sad seeker called other people arrogant after calling them dense and unable to count past two.
There's no need to have a multiple page thread on this.
I disagree, because I think it's valuable for DMs to go back and really think hard about why they allow some things, and don't allow others -- and more importantly, in light of the last 4 pages -- whether there is any transparency in the process. I've managed to figure out where Seeker is coming from, but it took pages of questions and arguing to get that much information out of him. For his players, it's probably worse, because he can legitimately tell them "not now; I'm too busy running the game." I'm getting a sense that he makes a lot of absolute, unchangeable decisions based on reasons that, while obvious to him, are a complete mystery to his players -- so they never quite know what the rules are.
For his players, it's probably worse, because he can legitimately tell them "not now; I'm too busy running the game." I'm getting a sense that he makes a lot of absolute, unchangeable decisions based on reasons that, while obvious to him, are a complete mystery to his players -- so they never quite know what the rules are.
It's probably better, as they likely know each other and talk. I suspect they understand a whole lot better than random anonymous complete messageboard strangers, actually.
It's probably better, as they likely know each other and talk. I suspect they understand a whole lot better than random anonymous complete messageboard strangers, actually.
I hope you're right.
The GM is telling you more than he needs to. He could tell you, "because I said so and if you don't like it, there's the door".
He won't be a GM for long, then, unless the players are masochists.
I certainly hope seeker speaks better than he types! :)
egads I hope so. otherwise it's quite possible we have been arguing with someone's pet cat this whole time.
Okay. This thread has just been the same few people sniping at each other for several pages now, and beaten this particular horse pretty throughly. I'm going to lay it to rest. If the topic still merits discussion, create a new thread.