@Lyrax: I've got a few things to respond to, but man - do NOT lose sight of the fact that "monster tidbits" is NOT the primary purpose of ANY Knowledge skill - AT ALL! It's kind of just tacked on in an almost afterthought sort of fashion, IMO.
Note - that's NOT a knock against Paizo. It's aimed at the 3.x crew that initially came up with the system in the first place. Regarding monster knowledge - it's just a flawed system. That's why we're all here pondering this stuff.
Remember, the primary purpose of Knowledge: The Planes is to let you know stuff about planar alignments, native environments, possibly even factions of power and importance, major places or persons of interest, etc, etc. It is NOT the "hand book of killing extra-planar baddies" even *slightly* in purpose.
{again - why I went so far as to propose the new Monster-specific Knowledge skill in the first place. BTW - NOT an attack on you at all so much as a reminder of "not seeing the forest for the trees" and all that.}
More later ...
|
I don't think this is true (though maybe the scale could stand to go higher, say up to 30 for unique creatures and maybe a +5 or +10 for how exotic it is). I mean, your contention is what... that an 8th level bard who specializes in one kind of knowledge at the expense of all the others is now a world-class expert in that knowledge?That's a good thing. I think a character who specializes in something OUGHT to be really good at it by 8th level.
But that's the thing - he isn't "specializing in something" by just putting in max ranks in core skills which he probably already would, and by 8th level you are dealing with a possible 16 or more on the score - at unmodified max that is already better than a 50% chance to identify a unique (DC30) creature. So, yeah as the players go up in levels it is a cap. Doesn't matter if you raise the numbers - if you don't include the CR variable then the PC peak on their creature knowledge checks - at a pretty low level.
But if you specialize in something to the exclusion of all other things, you hit the law of diminishing returns. You should! It's what happens in real life, and my art mimics life.
So there should be no problem that goes beyond a certain DC to solve?
No, as you delve into mysteries and unknowns the problems actually get more complex – you shouldn't peak in your ability to solve them. In some cases the mysteries are unknowable or without solution. Same should apply to fantastic creatures.But let's say it does scale up with you. Let's say the DC of your skill checks increases by one per CR. So every level you put +1 skill ranks into your skill to identify monsters, and at the same time the DC of identifying level-appropriate monsters increases by +1. So let's say a 1st-level character has a 30% chance of identifying a rare CR 1 monster. That same character, at level 10, has a 30% chance of identifying a rare CR 10 monster. Did he get better? Nope. He didn't get better. He stayed the same. His chance to succeed didn't go up any higher than it was before. When does he get better? He never gets better, unless he invests in a feat or an ability that grants an additional bonus beyond your skill ranks.
Well 1st off - you don't always encounter unknown or mysterious creatures at your level/CR, so lower level creatures would actually be easier to discern as the character levels up.
2nd - I don't have a problem with scaling knowledge checks - why shouldn't they scale? You wouldn't make that complaint about needing better weapons or more powerful spells to defeat higher CR foes, why does knowledge need to cap?
If you are going to fight tougher, bizarre, and more deadly creatures as you go up in levels then too bad - invest in the knowledge skills to go after these targets so you are properly prepared. That's why 8th level bards might have a hard time getting all the info on a CR 21 Demon Lord. Level up - get better.
3rd - The approach here, and again this could just be a 3.0 legacy issue is that this is very narrow thinking. There are things called books, sometimes they have more information in them than just new spells. They can contain knowledge and lore (bonus when researched or read) to help deal with the unknown on a specific basis.
Ex – The Tome of Lyrax, a renegade mage who fled the surface world for his experiments on the locals. Spent a century living within an Aboleth city as an observer before returning to the surface world to wage war on his old nation. +5 if read (takes 60 days – Int + Know:Arcana score) on all checks related to Aboleth, Skum and Aboleth magic, otherwise can be used for a reference check giving +2.
I'm not advocating scaling up the DC for a 10ft jump the PCs made at 1st level so it's now a challenge at 5th. Some DCs should be a constant (while I don't agree with the current numbers -that's another issue) while others should scale like every other feature in the game CR, level, damage, spells, magic items, etc.
@Kirth: I wouldn't trust a power-tripping GM either ... but then, I wouldn't be playing in the first place with such a person. There's a HUGE difference between "gm fiat's" used at the table and "power tripping" here. More often than not, what I keep seeing is an "either/or" sort of tone from your camp. As if there *is* no GM capable of running the game as anything other than a rules lawyer extreme. I don't run games to become some encyclopedia of rules ... I run 'em to have fun telling stories with friends that can help shape the course of the story. If there is *anyone* not ok with the idea that *someone* HAS to "run the world" literally (ie: EVERY npc encountered, EVERY ally, EVERY villain, dictate the weather, guards on duty, corrupted officials, etc, etc, etc), then there's a much more fundamental issue of simply understanding the game. It's not some freakin' RPG game like Baldur's Gate where everything has essentially been pre-scripted and arranged, and it's not like anyone can run a scenario like a computer program.
There are limits to all things. PC's, frankly, are THE most limited element OF the gaming table. They have control over their PC, and their PC alone. They can not make NPC's do things, nor do they have control over beings (barring magical effects of course). The GM is the MOST unlimited element of the table - he runs the scenario, builds the world, setting, characters, determines weather, etc. The NPC's will be ... as powerful as the GM needs them to be, monsters - likewise. Total control over EVERYTHING ELSE! Even within the rule-framework, though, it's just that - a "framework" at the end of the day. There's always been at least *some* section that talks about "do what works for you and the group" even with the amount of rules bloat and codification going down in modern game design. It just means with that much more junk taking up space, the sections devoted to modification and such get smaller and smaller and eventually fully overlooked.
@Troll-lo-lo-lo: Love it man! LOVE IT!!!
I like this progression:
Common = 10
Uncommon = 15
Rare = 20
Unique = 25But I don't think it's necessary to add anything to your basic DC. I hate scaling DC's, in fact, because it means that you will never get better at anything.
If the DC's are all set in stone and they are relatively low, then the PC's will be encouraged to branch out and get some cross-class skills.
Ok ... easy thing to do here, then.
Take a page out of the Old School! Optional rules! Done! ;-)
Seriously, use the above as the 'baseline' and then have a section describing the CLEARLY LABELED AS OPTIONAL modifiers.
This way, it's there IF you want to use it, and you can feel free to ignore it otherwise.
That's what *I* love about the old school myself - the options and empowerment to use or ignore 'em as *I* see fit as the GM running the game.
@Kirth: I wouldn't trust a power-tripping GM either ... but then, I wouldn't be playing in the first place with such a person. There's a HUGE difference between "gm fiat's" used at the table and "power tripping" here. More often than not, what I keep seeing is an "either/or" sort of tone from your camp. As if there *is* no GM capable of running the game as anything other than a rules lawyer extreme.
Your point is well-taken, but there is at least one other alternative: a semi-democratic, cooperative venture, which is more or less how I like my game to run. I'm a referee, not a boss.
There are limits to all things. PC's, frankly, are THE most limited element OF the gaming table. They have control over their PC, and their PC alone. They can not make NPC's do things, nor do they have control over beings (barring magical effects of course). The GM is the MOST unlimited element of the table - he runs the scenario, builds the world, setting, characters, determines weather, etc. The NPC's will be ... as powerful as the GM needs them to be, monsters - likewise. Total control over EVERYTHING ELSE!
Back at ya -- it doesn't have to be that way. I like to give the players the power of suggestion, and ideally a stake in a shared world outside of just their PC. Indeed, I always have each player roll up 2+ characters; they don't play at the same time in real life (but on alternating adventures), but in the game world, they're active concurrently and their actions are impacting the same places and people as the first group's.
|
|
That's what *I* love about the old school myself - the options and empowerment to use or ignore 'em as *I* see fit as the GM running the game.
I really, really wanted the AGG to do something like this.
Not so much a batch of homerules but some strong variants or additional rules akin to the "gray boxes" in the 2nd edition books. It was a feature of the game that really helped the GM and players get closer to the type of game they wanted without having to rewrite the game.I'm going to adopt and adapt something along the lines of what you posted Speaker - base DC based on rarity vs HD. Probably drop the listed numbers since I will be adding in CR for scale, but some damn good ideas.
So - Base rarity DC + CR (or 1/2 CR, I'll play with the numbers) with modifiers for templates, extra-planar nature and consideration of other factors -character start region - in the deep underdark and trying to ID a Lurker Above (unless you are a drow), etc.
Could really help each class shine a little better in their areas of knowledge - Rangers and Druids for nature, arcane for wizards and so on. Ex - May give rangers an extra bonus (more than book) for all creatures which would be in his favorable terrain. Again, need to look at the numbers.
Of course that means more work for me - need to assign hard rarities for all the creatures in the Bestiary, APs, and supplements. That's the only way to be fair to the players. Luckily for me I have all the old books so only the new creatures introduced in 3.5 MM and PFRPG Bestiary need to determined.
Some good ideas here - for me at least. Thanks Speaker and others who contributed some positive ideas/variant approaches to the current system.
|
But that's the thing - he isn't "specializing in something" by just putting in max ranks in core skills which he probably already would, and by 8th level you are dealing with a possible 16 or more on the score - at unmodified max that is already better than a 50% chance to identify a unique (DC30) creature. So, yeah as the players go up in levels it is a cap. Doesn't matter if you raise the numbers - if you don't include the CR variable then the PC peak on their creature knowledge checks - at a pretty low level.
We seem to disagree fundamentally here.
1) I think somebody who puts a rank into something every single level IS specializing. If you aren't specializing, then you're putting one rank into it every other level or every third level. I don't want to leave those guys completely in the dust. In fact, I'd like that to be a perfectly viable way to handle knowledge skills.2) I don't see 8th level as "pretty low level" and I definitely don't see "50% chance of success" as "capping out".
So there should be no problem that goes beyond a certain DC to solve?
That's not an argument I have ever made, nor is it one that I have ever intended to make. You're free to add modifiers and make up ultra-high base DC's. Especially for your epic-level games. But identifying monsters is really a basic adventuring skill. I don't mind that adventurers get good at it quickly - that way they can exceed the DC by enough of a margin to get really good information.
...As you delve into mysteries and unknowns the problems actually get more complex – you shouldn't peak in your ability to solve them. In some cases the mysteries are unknowable or without solution. Same should apply to fantastic creatures.
Sure, your PROBLEMS get more complex. Your other knowledge checks are going to be crazy, and you'll be able to accomplish much more with them than before. But identifying creatures? That's basic. Sure, the devil lord before you is CR 21 and ultra-powerful. It should be difficult for you to know without magic or help what his name is off the top of your head (DC 50? 40?), what his goals are, where he rules in the hell you've never seen, and heaven help you if you want to know his True Name (DC 80 or something crazy like that, if it's even allowed). But knowing that he's a bone devil? That should be easy. He looks like other bone devils, only much bigger and stronger. Odds are that his weaknesses and strengths are just like those of all the other dozen bone devils you fought today. There is no reason why THAT check should be any more than 20-25. Maybe give that a -5 adjustment if you've faced bone devils before. -10 if you faced them recently. -20 if they told you that there was a bone devil lord around here, his name is 'Walter', and that he looks like other bone devils only bigger, tougher, and stronger. And in that last case, you'd automatically succeed at knowing his name, because somebody told you.
|
|
I'm quite willing to accept anyone who fits the description "doesn't hesitate to think for themselves and use the brain god gave them to solve their problem". The game may need an infusion of new blood, but I don't want the mentally lazy at my table any more than I want the mentally lazy serving as medical doctors or teachers or any other area that needs an infusion of new blood.
"I see no logical reason why something that helps you run the game is a bad thing."
You know what helps the game? Simplicity - as opposed to new rules which exist only because somebody is trying to fix a social problem (lack of trust in the GM) with a technical solution. Rule bloat is a bad thing and is destructive to the game system.
See the problem is that while I as may know that the abilites of a medusa out of character in character I cannot. Which is why I would ask if I could do a DC knowledge check and not end up doing metagaming. As a DM sure I could wing it without using the Knowledge checks yet more often than not I use them as I have enough to do already.
And get over yourself your not trying to find a cure for cancer your playing an rpg if you want to pass yourself as being more of an intellectual more power to you yet no matter how many times you say you are all your doing is sitting around a table playing an rpg. I am also curiosu how does having Knowledge DC in the game equal rules bloat. I can see it with too amy feats, classes or spells but knowledge DCs you have not convinced me.
Your point is well-taken, but there is at least one other alternative: a semi-democratic, cooperative venture, which is more or less how I like my game to run. I'm a referee, not a boss.
Ok ... there's never anything wrong with having a sort of pow-wow to do some rule clarification and discussion, etc. The place *for* such is NOT "at the table" (meaning to say "live during a game session"), and NOT in the middle of combat. This is sort of the premise of the OP, and, frankly I can't back that style. It's not ideal for *me* to deal that way. I prefer the OOC/break time/whatever discussion to take place so that at the table we can get on w/the game with minimal "rule" issues brought up in play.
Now, change up the scenario to "we're just learning the system" and this complaint vanishes from my list as, "we're just learning the system" in that case. ;-) Of COURSE we should stop to clarify things - we *need* to understand the new system and that'll help being cooperative in nature. Once the system is down, though, move along and keep the OOC stuff to OOC times.
I ... also have never seen myself as "the boss" either. If I were "the boss" I could mandate and force character actions out of hand ... ??? Have you really had to deal with donks on THAT level of power-tripping? Jeez ... I feel for ya' man! I do. In that case NO gaming is better than bad gaming.
My own horror story - I had all of 1 game with a GM like that, and it lasted all of 1 session. The guy was using our characters to frame some sort of confrontation between NPC's. We were essentially captured and being experimented upon. When these NPC's started to fight, we exited the scene and jumped into the escape ship. The guy was stunned wondering what *we* were doing. "Escaping - we're outta here!" it was the first opportunity, and we were taking it. He was all disappointed because the "whole point" was to watch these two uber-characters fight each other. [note: this is after the first one knocked the snot out of us and nearly killed one of us ... in a Marvel Superheroes game, mind you 8-o Talk about missing the point, eh?] Completely blew me away that some NPC-NPC interaction was supposed to be the point of "our" story ...
Back at ya -- it doesn't have to be that way. I like to give the players the power of suggestion, and ideally a stake in a shared world outside of just their PC. Indeed, I always have each player roll up 2+ characters; they don't play at the same time in real life (but on alternating adventures), but in the game world, they're active concurrently and their actions are impacting the same places and people as the first group's.
I think there's a misinterpretation of what it means to both "run EVERYTHING" and to be "the most limited element at the table" as I mean them.
Run Everything = you, as GM, are fully in control of every thing that takes place in the game world. Environmental factors, locations of exploration, politics, intrigue - all of it stems from the GM, and all of it is controlled by the GM. This does *NOT* mean that it's regardless of PC actions, however. PC's absolutely influence and can change the course of large-scale events ... but they can NOT "take over" the position or any duties or powers of the GM - follow?
Most Limited Element at the Table = PC's have very narrow focus and ability to affect the world around them. They can choose where to go, how to spend resources, etc. Their choices, however, are *always* framed around what the GM has designed and made available, though. They absolutely have a stake in the world around them, and their interactions absolutely shape the world around them. Being limited does not mean "impotent" in terms of affecting change, or being agents of action in general. It just means they are full on, LITERALLY "limited" in every sense of the word.
Now, by comparison of being a "limited agent of action" then the PC's are fully capable of affecting things around them, but only in as much as is determined by their limitation.
The GM, on the other hand, is an "unlimited agent of action and reaction" of necessity. It is necessary that this primary conceit be granted to the GM for the sake of facilitating game play *at all* of the nature we tend to do in RPG's. So, the GM is the agent of action in that he can alter EVERY facet of the game world by virtue of being the one that NEEDS to run/create it. It is his/her "agency power" that allows this. The reaction part is the responsibility of the GM to ensure that PC's are getting the experience they are after in the first place - generally, that their actions have meaning and consequence within the world of the GM.
I hope that clarifies my stance a bit.
@Aux: you're perfectly welcome, man! Use and modify to your heart's content! I'd like to see what you settle on if you feel like posting it up somewhere, though. ;-)
Therefore, I have to assume that the game really isn't as bad as what Kirth claims it is.
Games I play in aren't like that at all, because I've learned to avoid games run by very restrictive DMs -- of whom there are a lot. Seekerofshadowlight's game, for example, seems so tightly constrained that I'd quit before a character got rolled up. I like a more open game -- as DM, I love it when the PCs don't follow the "story line" and force me to improvise -- and as a player I want the same freedom. Your metaphor of the DM keeping the PCs corralled like cattle, for example, made me want to play solitaire instead.
I've been playing for 30 years -- in that time, yes, I've had the unfortunate experience of playing with DMs who thought their imaginary world was more important than the players, who were so socially maladjusted that they just wanted to be little Napoleons for 2 hours while we played, who ignored most of the rules in order to make total bonehead rulings that had no purpose other than to ensure that no one had fun except for them.
So I've learned to avoid those people. One of the best tests I've found is to ask some simple questions.
You talk about trust, and on that point I absolutely agree, 100%. But trust runs two ways. The DM owes the players as much, if not more, than they owe him or her. Som back on topic: I believe the DM in this case abused that trust, and the player turned around and broke it as well.
Games I play in aren't like that at all, because I've learned to avoid games run by very restrictive DMs -- of whom there are a lot. Seekerofshadowlight's game, for example, seems so tightly constrained that I'd quit before a character got rolled up. I like a more open game -- as DM, I love it when the PCs don't follow the "story line" and force me to improvise -- and as a player I want the same freedom. Your metaphor of the DM keeping the PCs corralled like cattle, for example, made me want to play solitaire instead.
I've been playing for 30 years -- in that time, yes, I've had the unfortunate experience of playing with DMs who thought their imaginary world was more important than the players, who were so socially maladjusted that they just wanted to be little Napoleons for 2 hours while we played, who ignored most of the rules in order to make total bonehead rulings that had no purpose other than to ensure that no one had fun except for them.
So I've learned to avoid those people. One of the best tests I've found is to ask some simple questions.
You talk about trust, and on that point I absolutely agree, 100%. But trust runs two ways. The DM owes the players as much, if not more, than they owe him or her. Som back on topic: I believe the DM in this case abused that trust, and the player turned around and broke it as well.
Have to agree with all this.
btw, gaming for 30 years as well, I feel old now but a tad better knowing other ancients (by gamer standards) are out there. :)
|
|
"Passing one's self off as an intellectual"? You act like intellectuals are some class of special people. All they are are people who think for themselves and use their brains. With the exception of the severely mentally retarded, we're all capable of that.
Excuse me. I'm not the one calling players who want to have an easier set of rules unintelligent or the one possibly banning them from your table for not using a certain amount of intelligence. Which are of course the limits are set by you. Your trying to pass me off as a snob. Great doubl standars you have.
I'm beginning to doubt if you are even following this thread. It's fine if you're not. Except, if you're not, then throwing in insults like "get over yourself" is out of line. No one said that having knowledge DC in the game equals rule bloat. If you're going to insult me, then know what you're talking about first.
I admit I was a little out of line. Yet your the one saying that Knowledge Dc are apparently for those who do not want to think for themselves in the game. How is that even relavent to the thread at hand. The OP DM was imo and still being very unfair to his group. If I roll a high number on the dice for a Knowledge DC check I expect to get the amount of knowledge my dice roll allows. Not some abbreviated version that favors the DM. At the very least not with an explanation of "I'm the DM and that's how it's going to be".
In my games I allow Knwledge DCs yet I give a penalty for them during combat. It's one thing to study a creature outside of combat. Another when it's trying to attack you. As your too busy trying to defend yourself and your attention is focused on defending yourself not studying the creature.
if not more,
No, probably not.
if not more,No, probably not.
I don't know. 4+ players, one DM. Do the math.
I don't know. 4+ players, one DM. Do the math.
I've done the math, and with all the factors included, it doesn't add up.
I'm glad it works for you and your particular group, though.
So the players have to give the DM trust for one person, and that's all the trust the DM has to give his players?
No, and that doesn't even make any sense. Stick with the given context please.
(And if you need to be reminded, here is the entire relevant section from Kirth that I was responding to: "But trust runs two ways. The DM owes the players as much, if not more, than they owe him or her.")
"As much" will suffice, thanks. Though, as I also clearly stated just above, I'm glad however Kirth does it works for him and his particular group.
Nothing more to debate, here.
Wait. There was a debate?
"Discuss" is probably a much better word.
|
|
if not more,No, probably not.I have to side with Kirth on this one.
The DM has a greater responsibility, and as such really needs to engender more trust than the players.
Its commonplace for a DM to conceal things from the players.. what's behind the next door, what the plans of the evil overlord are, etc.
Meanwhile its rare that the players' need to conceal things from the DM.
Whenever one or the other occurs there has to be trust on the other side that the concealing side is being honest. Since the concealing side is the DM far more often than it is not, he needs to engender far more trust.
-James
Agree and seconded also.
Have to agree with all this.
btw, gaming for 30 years as well, I feel old now but a tad better knowing other ancients (by gamer standards) are out there. :)
Well ... hell. I'm not quite 30 years of gaming yet, but I'm at 21 years!
I still remember the games and what have you.
Honestly, I'm kind of torn on the trust thing. PC's need to trust the GM to provide a fun and entertaining storyline/premise/adventure sort of thing, so I get that.
At the same time, PC's need to spend what? 1/10th of the effort required to *actually* run a game?
That seems *awefully* unbalanced to just show up w/an attitude of "Hey GM! Run this game and let me do EVERYTHING I want at will, you donk! You're just a glorified referee anyway, so we don't *really* need you in the first place!"
Clearly, that's not Kirth's attitude, but man ... crapping all over the GM's game, time, and effort isn't all that sociable or conducive to gaming either. I'm not even sure if it's a trust thing there.
When the GM comes out with "his rules" or something, for ME, it's a matter of him saying up front something like this:
"Hey ... here's the stuff I *know* how to handle guys, so my game will need to sort of hang out in this comfort zone so that I *can* be an effective GM for you here. Little help?"
Even if laid out in absolutes, this is the same thing: the GM has laid out where and how he is willing to run the game. If that kind of specification is too much for player's to trust, the issue is with the player not being even remotely considerate towards the GM.
If the GM wants to play a LotR inspired game, should he give enough freedom to the PCs so that they can fly to Mordor in a UFO?
Back at you -- if the players all want to go to Mordor a la LOTR, the DM should force them to take a UFO there?
Neither scenario is any good. That's where trust comes back in -- in both directions. Players should get a say in things -- not the entire say, but a reasonable vote on the setting.
I believe that the majority of people who have this problem have never, themselves, GMd a campaign. Further, they don't want to. Because they are more than willing to complain about a 'trust' issue with a GM as long as they aren't the GM. If they ever were the GM, they know they'd be complaining about inconsiderate players instead.
You'd be very much wrong, in my case. I've probably DMed as many games as you've ever played in -- on either side of the screen. (TOZ has played at my table more than once -- ask him). And as I've said before, I don't ever have to complain about these inconsiderate players you worry so much about, by the simple expedient of not inviting them to the game in the first place.
If the GM wants to play a LotR inspired game, should he give enough freedom to the PCs so that they can fly to Mordor in a UFO?Back at you -- if the players all want to go to Mordor a la LOTR, the DM should force them to take a UFO there?
Neither scenario is any good. That's where trust comes back in -- in both directions. Players should get a say in things -- not the entire say, but a reasonable vote on the setting.
Hmm ... I think I know what we're all sort of having hang ups about.
It's the "bait and switch" maneuver basically.
With the GM - it's exactly what Kirth's describing. "Hey guys! Let's play LoTR"
*time passes, game starts, PC's are in the forest and ... "Suddenly a light begins to descend from on-high. You see before you a brightly glowing disk-shaped object. The light seems to radiate from the bottom of the disk, and it's very large. You can see a ray of light suddenly burst forth from the bottom and strike the ground before you. When the light lessens, you can see three impossibly tall and thin beings with gray flesh and large eyes staring at you. They appear to be holding some sort of wands in their hands ... roll initiative!"
THAT's some serious ass-hattery. It's so NOT what was advertised or expected. Jerk-move. Depends on the circumstances, though, too. If everyone's just in "random silly mood" this could be hella' fun to just roll with it and see what kind of hijinx ensues!
So ... I get that. I'm also about 99% positive neither LT or myself are advocating this sort of a thing.
On our side, we're looking at LotR and trying to run that game, then a PC shows up and wants to be an alchemist tinker gnome with craft wonderous item and the life-goal of "I want to build an apparatus of Kwalish(sp?) and just make a B-line for Mordor.
That's ... equally asinine a move to come to the table and pointedly insist on playing something out of theme and/or concept entirely.
Again, I'm about 99% sure that Kirth and everyone on the other side of the camp is also not advocating for THAT Guy at all either.
In the end, what I think we're *all* saying but in different ways is that we need some sort of "social contract" to game effectively, no?
Agreed. Likewise, the player has the right to leave the table since the GM is 'clearly stifling my creativity' of whatever the complaint/accusation will be.
If it's not a match, it's not a match. Why struggle through what's supposed to be "fun" when it's turning into a headache?
|
|
In the ned it comes done to both sides comprimising. The player does not get everything he wants yet at the same time the dM does not veto everything without having at least tried to work with the player. Sure some casses are obvious such as building a UFO and taking it straight to Mordor. I'm 99% sure no DM would allow that. Yet if a player want to play a Gnomish Alchemsit in LOTR an attempt at the very least should be made to see if the rules themselves allow such a concept.
What does your scenario, in any way, have to do with my analogy of the GM giving the players a field to wander in?
It's not related to it at all.
Non sequitors don't advance discussion.
Been thinking about this response, and evidently I'm a low-grade moron, and am much, much too stupid to be involved in any discussion -- because I can't understand how this could be construed as "not related." I took your exact scenario and merely reversed the people advocating it. The UFO is the "field" this DM has given them, even though they were all fired up for an epic journey across many lands, he hasn't developed those areas and doesn't want to improvise them, so he keeps them off-limits and uses a gimmick (a hypothetical UFO or any other device you'd care to name) to keep them within the bounds he's set. It's fundamentally no different from him banning the UFO and instead railroading them a trip through specific areas.
If you disagree that there's an equivalence -- because the DM presumably can do whatever he wants with his setting -- that's fine; but to claim there's no relation to the topic doesn't make any sense at all to me.
In the ned it comes done to both sides comprimising. The player does not get everything he wants yet at the same time the dM does not veto everything without having at least tried to work with the player. Sure some casses are obvious such as building a UFO and taking it straight to Mordor. I'm 99% sure no DM would allow that. Yet if a player want to play a Gnomish Alchemsit in LOTR an attempt at the very least should be made to see if the rules themselves allow such a concept.
*end* I'm assuming you meant, yes? ;-)
Anyway, totally agree with the bold above.
Just banning things "out of hand" is kind of rare, IME. Things have been "frowned upon" at best, but there's always discussion. Even if, in the end, the concept is just weak or a bad fit, everyone (GM and PC's) walked away fine and we continued gaming, maybe slotting aside some exploration of whatever was deemed "not for this" at a later point in a different game. (even by the same GM that said NO in the first place mind you.)
Just to pick a *tiny* bit on the LotR and "gnomish alchemist" ...
1) There are *no gnomes* in LotR [nitpick - but relevant]
2) There really weren't any *alchemists* in LotR either, nor in much of D&D until Paizo *just* created them [again - bear with me here]
On point (1) forget the gnome even, but just insert "statted in some book somewhere Race of X that the PC has some extreme fascination with and is obsessed with using" and the point becomes clear. It's the idea of limiting player entitlement - in that they are not "entitled" to anything beyond which the GM is willing to allow within the setting. You wouldn't let or expect someone to be playing a ThriKreen in Forgotten realms willy-nilly and free-roaming with impunity. Why? Because it is SO beyond the scope of initial setting expectations. FR has such things as "kill on site" and to see one would be such a rarity that EVERYONE in the setting (NPC's and PC's too honestly) should be taken fully aback and fearful for their lives to see such a thing. Now, flip that choice for Darksun, where ThriKreen are fully common place, gladiator arena champions, and all that. Different setting, different feel and expectations. Point being, *only* the GM sets the tone and feel of the setting and the PC's need to operate within those limits. {LT's point I believe}
On point (2) if class X doesn't exist in the setting, or the GM just hasn't been exposed to it enough to consider how it operates in the setting, etc, then it's totally within his rights as GM to ban the class. Not having understanding of how it works is a DAMN good reason for GM's to say "no" to something at the table. It means even MORE preparation and effort on his/her part. I, for one, will never begrudge a GM not wanting to be bothered with some new, corner-case class in his game for the sake of ONE player trying to "play with new toys" just because. GMing is NO JOKE ... throwing more stuff at the GM just because you, as a player, have access to it is kind of a donk move, IMO.
Still I go back to the initial, bolded statement above. Every effort is generally made by any GM worth his/her salt to negotiate players ideas within the frame work of his/her game world.
I like this progression:
Common = 10
Uncommon = 15
Rare = 20
Unique = 25But I don't think it's necessary to add anything to your basic DC. I hate scaling DC's, in fact, because it means that you will never get better at anything.
Not from a good challenge design perspective.
Once the players hit a certain mark they won't need to spend points on knowledge skills to identify even if the foes get more and more exotic. Having CR as a scaling factor (plus any other kind of additional modifiers) keep the skill relevant after 7th-8th level. As the PCs progress in levels the foes they encounter may get rarer and stranger (CR) – the skill shouldn’t hit a cap of identifying unique creatures at the middle levels.
I think a problem may be viewing the knowledge check DC as an element in challenge design. Personally, I'm not fond of basing the knowledge DC on the CR of the creature. It would mean nobody knows anything useful about powerful entities that might be notorious. What can the tarrasque do? No normal people know, the DC is too high based on his CR. This despite his legendary status.
I'd far prefer the entirety of the knowledge DC to be based on the creature's frequency + notoriety. I really don't buy the idea that a powerful creature would leave no survivors and thus nobody knows much about it. If the creature were frequent enough, people would know something about it even if close encounters were always deadly. Too much evidence would be left behind. But that creature nobody knows anything about, it's probably out in the remote wilderness and hard to encounter in the first place. That's a low frequency, high DC.
I would also buy into the idea that, as PCs investigate places farther from and different from their homelands, the DC would shift a category upward. A common creature in the forests of Andoran is probably uncommon on the plains of Taldor, rare in the deserts of Katapesh (being farther AND in an even more different environment). And vice versa.