*BANG*
And boom goes the dynamite.
*BANG*
And boom goes the dynamite.
He killed the President! Quick, prepare the Transmute Gold to Spell Components and rez him quickly! Make it a Reincarnate... the deficit is high enough as it is.
*smoke clears*
Did I get that goody two-shoes me that shaved off his 'stache of power?
What if he rolls a monstrous humanoid? We can't have that as President!
*checks*
Nothing against it in the constitution.*salutes the Gnoll with a top hat*
"The righteous GM has power over the players. He may, in fact, do things the players dislike, or despise, if it pleases Tian (in this case, I guess that means the game is fun).
But if the GM aims to please himself and not the game, if he is not righteous, then the game will use the players to destroy his authority. It is not the will of the players, they are merely the agent of balance.
This is actually kind of important to the function of a violent RPG like Pathfinder, where the GM is really the sadist in a weird masochist session of make-believe. The GM must do things that hurt the players, in psychically meaningful ways, but only in service to the game.
Players can't cry "No fair" or "He didn't hit me" like in some playground game. The GM's authority is real and it comes from the game. The players don't have authority over the GM, but they retain a nuclear option (the right to revolt) in the event that the GM becomes intolerable. That's an intentional balance."
This is one of the best explanations for the GM's role I have ever seen. I kind of wish folks would think about stuff like this for a second or two before going off on the "Rule Bi+ch vs. GM God" stuff, and most of the other rule debates now that I think of it.
Good Stuff. Or Evil Stuff. Or good Evil stuff.
You are the cancer that is killing America, meatrace. >:(
You're clearly just racist against gnolls.
|
But I'm the DM! I can kill you whenever I want! *pouts* You're totally playing it wrong.There is a principal in Confucianism called the Mandate of Heaven. I think it applies to your statement.
Evil Lincoln, you may be dead. But I will always remember you for likening the power of a DM to the Mandate of Heaven. *SNIFF*
|
But... did the players have fun? If the answer is "yes," then my question is, "then who cares if the characters faced challenges that weren't risky?"
Oh, hell yeah. Actually, I tend to think that they are going to have to figure out very clever ways to rack up the body count if that is their goal, so it might be more fun.
I mean, I'm easily bored myself, so as a GM if they insisted on giving this a go, I'd pretty much have to figure out a way to spice it up and keep it from being a grind. After they hit the mid-point of the Great Orc Genocide, at the very least the next few encounters are going to see the Orcs try something new, like herding kobolds in front of them to absorb AoEs first, or catapulting goblins wearing alchemical fire vests. Flavorful encounters can be just as fun as deadly encounters!
|
Re: Amber Diceless
I know nothing about this system, what is it?I can never find any information on it when I go looking either.
Dude, I have the books. We tried playing it once in Michigan.
You have a 100 point buy at character creation, and you bid against other players to determine your "rank" in an attribute.
iirc, there's Psychic, Strength, Stamina, Warfare
You bid against the other players to up your rank versus the other players in a skill - if you're first ranked, any contest based totally on that skill you automatically win (so it's in the other players' interest to make the contest change to include some other skill they're better at). You also need these points to purchase skills such as the ability to craft trumps or cast spells or gain special magical items.
In the game we tried, everyone wanted to be a spellcaster...including myself. But when I noticed everyone bidding on Psychic I got out early - ended upranked 4th (last) in it, but had lots of my points left over.
Bid on the other skills...ended up everyone else spent so much in psychic, I got 1st rank in all the others. I decided my character would aspire to be the goddess of war. hehe.
it was interesting, we didn't get to play it much, though.
Just remember it's highly likely that you need your GM more than your GM needs you. Especialy in a network play convention where seats are in short supply. Ultimately there IS only one Judge at the table, not 7.Maybe you do, I try to leave my hands off my party as much as I can.This. My default response to anyone declaring that the DM is god is to declare that I am atheist and make my Will save to disbelieve in them. If this happened at my table I would immediately volunteer to replace them. I have been fortunate enough not to encounter such people.
I think a lot of people just dislike the "god" term. It implies that the players have no input or control. Whereas, if you use the term judge (like you just did) it implies final authority, but that they are still constrained by the rules and framework of the game.
In an organized play setting, a GM is even less of a god. Because if the player opens up the book and points at a rule, the GM most likely has to abide by it. The GM can't ban books accepted into organized play if they're allowed. He can't introduce house rules either. He isn't a god, he's just a referee.
I agree, during the game, for simplicity and to keep the game moving, the GM should make a decision and the group should move on. Between sessions, the players should be allowed to give input and assist the GM in shaping the rules so they work best for the whole group.
|
|
Maybe you do, I try to leave my hands off my party as much as I can.This. My default response to anyone declaring that the DM is god is to declare that I am atheist and make my Will save to disbelieve in them. If this happened at my table I would immediately volunteer to replace them. I have been fortunate enough not to encounter such people.
My default response is "Only in his world, and I don't live in his world, just my character does."
Point: DM is god of that world. Doesn't mean you have to play in that world, but by the very definition of a god that's what the DM is.Point (Part 2): Don't assume a DM is going to be an a#+!~#% or suck because he makes the claim that DM is god. Give them a chance at least. Then, if they suck, tell them you don't like their DMing style and ask if someone else can DM (better if you can offer). If no, *then* bow out.
Note that the DM has to maintain some extra level of power over players so that a single player being unruly can't deadlock him power-wise. A DM with less power than the players results in a completely crazy (and often stupid) world. Too many cooks in the kitchen, you might say.
|
|
You only have to tolerate bad DMs if you want to. And bad DMs who think they can be bad DMs because no one else will do their job will quickly learn the error of their judgment.
Agreed.
The only complication arising is what is a bad DM?
I've had one player walk because I, with good game World reason, refused to let him just go buy a magic item. He accused me of derailing his character concept. I of course replied that if his "concept" was derailed by the current lack of a single item then he should rethink things. I had pointed out that later in the campaign (out of game talk here) they would go to a place that would be much more likely to provide such an item. He replied that he would be too higher level for the item to matter anymore?! Shall we say he walked and I held the door open for him.
S.
*smoke clears*
Did I get that goody two-shoes me that shaved off his 'stache of power?
I have scruff!
It's hard to grow a mustache when you are good...evil makes hair grow
Nonetheless I have returned with my fine yet sternly worded letter to Evil Lincoln complete with a petition that has been prepared following all of the required procedures of the local authorities.
So ladies and gentleman, if you are ready please use your blue or black pens to (legibly) indicate that you support my resolution to ask Evil Lincoln (sternly) to not be as "evil" as he has been. We'll have this ratified by Christmas!
Can you taste the delicious democratic process at work?
I know I do!
Good. Bad. I'm the one with the gun.
I've seen more bad players than bad DMs. I find one bad player in group can ruin a game. Where as bad DMs just find it hard to find players so you don't see them too often.