|
Or the players and DM I don't know what kind of compromise you think is possible. "Should we have psionics?" has a "yes"/"no" answer. The closest thing to a compromise is something like, "Here's the Sorcerer rules, pick your spells to reflect that you are some sort of mystic with mentalist powers - do a write-up of your background - where you came from, how you got your powers, etc. and I'll work on putting it into the campaign".
Sometimes a yes or no andwer can work. sometimes it does not. It all depends on the group. While your solution is a good one I can see someone saying asking " why go through all the work with the sorcerer if their is an existing psioncs ruleset we both can use and learn." At the same time your asking them to play a class other than Psion and tellin them to call it a Psion. May work with some players mot all. If i was to play a Psion I would want to play an actual one. Not a disguided Sorcere or Wozard. If it comes to that then I mght as well just play either a regular character of that class. Or no Psion at all.
I'm assuming that you did not have enough players to run a game.
Yeah, we had 4 consistent (and top-notch) players and 2 occasional excellent guests. With 2 of the consistent people looking for a different type of play experience (which I can totally understand), and one of the remaining players needing some personal time (it happens)... well, a one-on-one game works better for basketball than it does for Pathfinder.
Give me an example of a possible compromise.
Situation 1: Player wants psion; DM doesn't want to learn psionic rules.
Solution: Character uses the sorcerer class, but has a bloodline tailored towards mind powers.Situation 2: Player and DM are OK with the psionic rules, but dislike psionic "flavor."
Solution: Character is described as a sorcerer with a very unusual bloodline (mind flayers or something), but uses the psion rules mechanically (he still calls himself a sorcerer).
Situation 3: DM okay with some psionic rules, but dislikes the "nova" effect.
Solution: Player and DM read the oft-ignored rules on "maximum use of power points in one round."
Situation 4: DM okay with things in general, but wants to make some changes.
Solution: Proposes houserule; player can review and agree
(etc.)
You're ruining this thread with your reasonable discussion Kirth. I'm disappointed.
Wait! I can do better! ... I mean, "worse"! I promise!
Give me an example of a possible compromise.Situation 1: Player wants psion; DM doesn't want to learn psionic rules.
Solution: Character uses the sorcerer class, but has a bloodline tailored towards mind powers.
As noted, this was already long since covered (by LilithsThrall himself, actually).
I, too, am interested in what memorax has to offer as a "compromise".
Memorax and I were talking about the situation where the GM doesn't want psionics and the player does. I understood him to imply that there is some sort of compromise other than the Sorcerer option and I was asking him what that compromise might be. You didn't answer that question and that might be because the question wasn't clearly stated. Now, I've clearly stated the question.
If anything, it's LESS clear to me. I understand you don't want to use the psionics rules; that's fine. And you asked for a compromise, but the most obvious one (the sorcerer) isn't OK for some reason -- you mentioned it before, it seemed to work fine, I mentioned it again, but now it's not okay -- why not? I need more information: What exactly are the constraints we're operating under?
|
I can see someone saying asking " why go through all the work with the sorcerer if their is an existing psioncs ruleset we both can use and learn." At the same time your asking them to play a class other than Psion and tellin them to call it a Psion. May work with some players mot all. If i was to play a Psion I would want to play an actual one. Not a disguided Sorcere or Wozard. If it comes to that then I mght as well just play either a regular character of that class. Or no Psion at all.
If you're going to re-skin a class, why not go the whole way?
If i was to play a Psion I would want to play an actual one. Not a disguided Sorcere or Wozard. If it comes to that then I mght as well just play either a regular character of that class. Or no Psion at all.
Ah, that's the rub. It's not that there aren't any number of viable compromises... it's just that this particular player refuses to entertain them.
The problem is the the player whines for "compromise" but seems to be using that word as code for "the GM should stop protesting and just do what I want".
...which of course is not a compromise at all. Gotcha.
I was thinking we had a rules problem -- which of course could be solved, and I'd be happy to help -- but in actuality it seems to be an interpersonal one (which I'm not competent to offer feedback into).
|
The problem isn't that the player isn't willing to consider the Sorcerer alternative. The problem is the the player whines for "compromise" but seems to be using that word as code for "the GM should stop protesting and just do what I want".If i was to play a Psion I would want to play an actual one. Not a disguided Sorcere or Wozard. If it comes to that then I mght as well just play either a regular character of that class. Or no Psion at all.Ah, that's the rub. It's not that there aren't any number of viable compromises... it's just that this particular player refuses to entertain them.
Which could also apply to the DM as well. But such things have no real solution now do they...as hypothetically it's a no solution scenerio.
I HATE anything that starts with P.
Hey, wait a minute...
|
|
Give me an example of a possible compromise.
Kirth has already done a good job with possible solutions. Still next time mention that the player intersted in psionics is not interested in any compromise. The way you came across it sounded like you were just outright bannig psionics without having tried to work with the player. If he still refuses to use your solution and won't budge than I can se no solution to offer. As a DM I am willing to work with players yet only to a certain point.
|
|
If i was to play a Psion I would want to play an actual one. Not a disguided Sorcere or Wozard. If it comes to that then I mght as well just play either a regular character of that class. Or no Psion at all.Ah, that's the rub. It's not that there aren't any number of viable compromises... it's just that this particular player refuses to entertain them.
Then in this case the player either tries to work with the DM or find another game.
|
|
Now that you've clarified that you agree that the Sorcerer option is the only relevant compromise, I think we're on the same page.
In your case yes not for every single time the question of psionics pops up. Unfortunatley after some thinking no easy answer. I agree with ypu to a certain extent. Not completel however.
If a GM doesn't want psionics and the player does, the player should find another GM. Neither the GM nor the player need to play under rules they don't like.
It's not as easy as just that. As I said in your case yes their is no choice. Yet in some situations that just does not work out. What happens if the player you say no to psionics to is the one whos place you use to game. If you say "find another game" he can be rights say "find someone else house to game". Or the game is held far away from your place and the player is the only one with a car. The smart DM makes ure he is not so relaint on anyone player yet real life unlike hyotethical siutations does not work in anoyne favor. Second as another poster has shown saying no can cause your game to fall apart.
Unfortuntaly usually it does mean either a DM or play or both have to find a new game. Still it has to be done diplomatically and without a heavy handed outright NO. And without using or resorting to "I'm the DM" if possible. You can use that and you are within your rights to do so yet expect the same treatment if you every play in a person game you used that.
Everytime I have seen a dm just be heavy handed about refusing stuff problems always arise. In my upcoming Kingmaker game I have said no to 3.5 stuff yet I left the door open to it by just saying For now no maybe later and I was upfront about it. This apporach for me has worked all the time. I'm willing to bet though that the diplomatic approach vs the I am the DM these are my rules take it or leave it
approach the first one works almost all the time the second one is a pain in the behind to enforce imo.
Frankly, I can't understand a gamer who is so obstinate that he refuses to play unless he can use an alternate rule system, particularly one that's not even been adapted for the gaming system you're using. There are tons of other choices, why would anyone be so stubborn to insist that he has to play a psionic character?
Sure it'd be disappointing if you never got the chance to play a character concept you really like but is it really worth not playing at all? Why ruin the game for everyone else?
Frankly, I can't understand a gamer who is so obstinate that he refuses to play unless he can use an alternate rule system, particularly one that's not even been adapted for the gaming system you're using. There are tons of other choices, why would anyone be so stubborn to insist that he has to play a psionic character?
Sure it'd be disappointing if you never got the chance to play a character concept you really like but is it really worth not playing at all? Why ruin the game for everyone else?
One could ask the same of the DM who refuses to allow it...?
Frankly, I can't understand a gamer who is so obstinate that he refuses to play unless he can use an alternate rule system, particularly one that's not even been adapted for the gaming system you're using. There are tons of other choices, why would anyone be so stubborn to insist that he has to play a psionic character?
Sure it'd be disappointing if you never got the chance to play a character concept you really like but is it really worth not playing at all? Why ruin the game for everyone else?
What system has not been adapted? Psionics is compatible with Pathfinder. Now if he is trying to convert a Rifts mechanics, as an example over to another gaming system then we agree.
Honestly, I think I just don't like doing the math on PP. Especially if all I will do is pop my most powerful power until I'm out. I might as well be playing a Warlock.
One could have most of the math done on index cards so all they had to do most of the time is subtract from the main number.
It is no more book keeping than having druid stats for his wildshape forms, and having summons prestatted.PS: I would hope the DM would have enough variety in the game that blasting off max PP was not an option or even needed.
Frankly, I can't understand a gamer who is so obstinate that he refuses to play unless he can use an alternate rule system, particularly one that's not even been adapted for the gaming system you're using. There are tons of other choices, why would anyone be so stubborn to insist that he has to play a psionic character?
True story: I found a 1e gaming group back in college and was chatting with the DM about joining.
"I had an idea for a monk character..." I began.
He looked at me like I was a lower form of life and said, "Monks are banned."
Not wanting to argue, I moved on: "How about an assassin?"
"Well, any class can be an assassin," he said.
"I was angling more towards the assassin class mechanics, which would let me do a lot of the monk stuff and still have the same basic character concept, just a different class."
"No, I won't allow that."
"Thief, then, I guess."
"No, I think I'll ban that for you since you're obviously trying to cheat."
"I see. Thanks for your time; I'll find a different game."
|
...
What happens if the player you say no to psionics to is the one whos place you use to game. If you say "find another game" he can be rights say "find someone else house to game". Or the game is held far away from your place and the player is the only one with a car...
What if the DM and the player are conjoined twins? :-p
"I see. Thanks for your time; I'll find a different game."
That was a good call on your part.
|
|
Which could also apply to the DM as well. But such things have no real solution now do they...as hypothetically it's a no solution scenerio.I was curious because I saw no possible compromise other than the one I first mentioned.
Now that we've cleared the air and all seem to agree that there is no other possible compromise, my original statement stands.
If a GM doesn't want psionics and the player does, the player should find another GM. Neither the GM nor the player need to play under rules they don't like.
Except of course that real life interaction are rarely so clean and straight forward. In real life there is quite a bit more flex then I make up this harsh unflexable situation where the player/DM is being completely absolute NO MATTER WHAT. So honestly, in real life, all the options that Kirth mentioned are pretty viable solutions.
|
|
One could ask the same of the DM who refuses to allow it...?Frankly, I can't understand a gamer who is so obstinate that he refuses to play unless he can use an alternate rule system, particularly one that's not even been adapted for the gaming system you're using. There are tons of other choices, why would anyone be so stubborn to insist that he has to play a psionic character?
Sure it'd be disappointing if you never got the chance to play a character concept you really like but is it really worth not playing at all? Why ruin the game for everyone else?
And does this apply to an alternate rule in the alternate system too...because I WILL say no to that alternate rule every single time. So kinds curious if that makes me a bad DM....
One could ask the same of the DM who refuses to allow it...?
Sure it'd be disappointing if you never got the chance to play a character concept you really like but is it really worth not playing at all? Why ruin the game for everyone else?
In my experience, DM's are kind of rare and hard to come by. Good DM's especially so. If a DM is willing to go through all the work to provide a game for a group to take part in, I think he or she should generally be allowed preferences one way or another. If he's set up the game and doesn't want psionics (or Paladins, or Assassins, or one of the other hotly controversal elements) in the game, the player either ought to respect his decision or not play.
Currently psionics is not a part of the core rules. As such, it does take additional effort to bring into play unless the game itself is set-up expressly for psionics. I think the least a player can do is respect the DM's preference in such a situation.
That's just my humble opinion, anyway.
What system has not been adapted? Psionics is compatible with Pathfinder.
If that were categorically true, you wouldn't have whole threads devoted to requesting/inquiring after a Pathfinder version of the psionics rule. Show me a DM who can just drop the psionics rules into an existing Pathfinder campaign, and I'll show you an unusually talented or patient person. Unusually being the key word.
The problem is that most excuses for banning psionics are just those - excuses.
I've not only said, I've flat out shown how the entire psionics system can be explained in a handful of lines - far less time then it takes to explain the Vancian system. It ain't exactly captain of the complexity team.
Fluff? Players can easily refluff things. Oh, sure, if the player talks about being a powerful android from the future sent back in time and space, you'll probably bar that. But if someone makes a psion and talks about how they feel themselves flying and doing marvelous things in their dreams and can bring a bit of that power back into the mortal world? That's magical as all hell.
Balance? Anyone who would ban psions and allow wizards and clerics does not have balance on his mind.
Explained is not a synonym for Implemented.
Fluff for the player is not necessarily as easy as fluff for the DM.
Balance is probably not a core assumption for D&D.
Bold is so everyone knows I'm not making blanket assertions on those last two points.
And a comment that explains an excuse as being an excuse is trivially correct, but not the same as as explaining a reason. But you know that Prof don't you? Which is why you said 'most'.
And for the record, I'm neither mad for or dead against psionics.
:-)
you also have the power progression to learn
It's on the class chart, nothing to learn
the psionic focus thing to learn
This one I will grant you.
the psionic feats thing to learn
There's nothing to learn here
the differences between psionic disciplines and Wizard schools
When would this ever come up?
the differences between psicrystals and familiars
No more then learning any other new feat from any new book would be, as psions do not come with psycrystals
the rules regarding autohypnosis
A single page detailing what the skill does. No more learning then one new spell, and each splat book came with thirty new spells.
the different psionic classes and PrCs
Again, this differs from any other book how?
the different psionic monsters
How do they differ from anything in MM2?
I just noted -some- of the differences between the psionics system and the wizardry system and that took more than "a handful of lines". To explain those differences as well as all the other differences would take far longer. It would, in fact, take an entire book.
Nope. What you did was point out that the psionics book was, indeed a book. None of that had anything to do with the power point system save for psionic focus.
One could ask the same of the DM who refuses to allow it...?
Sure it'd be disappointing if you never got the chance to play a character concept you really like but is it really worth not playing at all? Why ruin the game for everyone else?In my experience, DM's are kind of rare and hard to come by. Good DM's especially so. If a DM is willing to go through all the work to provide a game for a group to take part in, I think he or she should generally be allowed preferences one way or another. If he's set up the game and doesn't want psionics (or Paladins, or Assassins, or one of the other hotly controversal elements) in the game, the player either ought to respect his decision or not play.
Currently psionics is not a part of the core rules. As such, it does take additional effort to bring into play unless the game itself is set-up expressly for psionics. I think the least a player can do is respect the DM's preference in such a situation.
That's just my humble opinion, anyway.
What system has not been adapted? Psionics is compatible with Pathfinder.If that were categorically true, you wouldn't have whole threads devoted to requesting/inquiring after a Pathfinder version of the psionics rule. Show me a DM who can just drop the psionics rules into an existing Pathfinder campaign, and I'll show you an unusually talented or patient person. Unusually being the key word.
It's true and the threads don't have anything to do with compatibility
...the people I've seen most attracted to psionics are the ones who'd most like to be able to use vast amounts of min-maxing munchkinitude to make their characters and the opportunity to learn a rules system they know the GM will pay passing attention to is a wide opened door to warehouse full of abusive potential...
It's amazing; I've only been playing rpg's for the past year, and out of the several dozen games in which I've played, this is precisely the same impression I have people who want to play psionics. I've never read one book about them or learned a single rule they are based on, and I already don't like them.
|
|
I think everybody in this thread knows that GMs are much more rare than Players.
That's why psionics is such an issue.
There are many more people here that want to play psionics than there are GMs who want to run psionics. So, the only resource the players have is to b*!~* and complain about how GMs won't let them play a psionic character. See, it's not enough to have psionics in the campaign. If it were, then all the people who want psionics could GM games that have them and the problem would be resolved. But the people who want psionics want to play psionics without being saddled with the burden of GMing psionics. They want to push that burden off to someone else and most GMs don't want that burden.
You make it sound like every single psionics fan out there is a big old douche bag...
Can't really disagree with you on that from personal expierence...but I'm sure none douchy psionics fan exists...
|
|
I think everybody in this thread knows that GMs are much more rare than Players.
That's why psionics is such an issue.
There are many more people here that want to play psionics than there are GMs who want to run psionics. So, the only resource the players have is to b*!~* and complain about how GMs won't let them play a psionic character. See, it's not enough to have psionics in the campaign. If it were, then all the people who want psionics could GM games that have them and the problem would be resolved. But the people who want psionics want to play psionics without being saddled with the burden of GMing psionics. They want to push that burden off to someone else and most GMs don't want that burden.
You make it sound like every single psionics fan out there is a big old douche bag...
Can't really disagree with you on that from personal expierence...but I'm sure none douchy psionics fan exists...
statistically they must. :-)
Again, I find it extremely bizarre that people would get mad at "minmaxing munchkin" psionic players and not feel the same way about caster classes.
Or perhaps we're fine with caster supremacy - I've certainly seen it on these forums - but not with psionics being a little bit less powerful?
|
|
Again, I find it extremely bizarre that people would get mad at "minmaxing munchkin" psionic players and not feel the same way about caster classes.
Or perhaps we're fine with caster supremacy - I've certainly seen it on these forums - but not with psionics being a little bit less powerful?
No I have issues with psionics fan being a douche and demanding an optional rule be used...and even worse demanding that an optional variant of the optional rule be used. Hell, I have no problem with psionics as a rule set...but when the player demands that I get rid of the psionics/magic transparency so I have to do whole lot more work dealing with the effects then yes I have issues. And yes I have had psionic players agree to play by the default rule only to demand that the optional variant be used several games in. Not discuss, demand or they take their toys and leave...usually breaking up the game in the process. So yeah it's not about the rules, it's about the people who happen to LIKE those rules.
No I have issues with psionics fan being a douche and demanding an optional rule be used...and even worse demanding that an optional variant of the optional rule be used. Hell, I have no problem with psionics as a rule set...but when the player demands that I get rid of the psionics/magic transparency so I have to do whole lot more work dealing with the effects then yes I have issues. And yes I have had psionic players agree to play by the default rule only to demand that the optional variant be used several games in. Not discuss, demand or they take their toys and leave...usually breaking up the game in the process. So yeah it's not about the rules, it's about the people who happen to LIKE those rules.Again, I find it extremely bizarre that people would get mad at "minmaxing munchkin" psionic players and not feel the same way about caster classes.
Or perhaps we're fine with caster supremacy - I've certainly seen it on these forums - but not with psionics being a little bit less powerful?
I'm going to give you the same answer I gave to people who ban all cross-gender characters because of a few bad eggs:
"Don't play with jerks"