What it boiled down to as pointed out by another poster is banning a class based on a name in some cases. In other cases such as the paladin it is difficult to seperate flavor from mechanics. The gunslinger might also be an issue for some. Your examples I can understand for many of them. I don't know how a summoner would have a more difficult time summoning, but I don't have the details on your world, but I can see how that might be an issue.What I was more referring to was issues where the class name more than anything else was the reason for the ban, when the class name should not even matter. If a GM feels like sneak attack is broken I get that, even if I don't agree. If you ban a class just because you don't like the name "sneak attack" then I am lost.
Well, the basic answer is that a well designed class isn't just a name and a collection of random abilites; all the abilites of the class should support the class flavor. When you're a monk, the abilies you get should make you feel like a monk. If I say "there aren't any monks in this world", and then you say "ok, I'll just be a professional boxer who uses the monk class and gets the monk abilities but I won't call myself a monk", then you lose that. Why does your boxer have slow fall? Why do you channel ki power?
I just don't think you can differentiate so easily between the "flavor" of a class and the "mechanics" of a class, and change one without thinking how it affects the other; ideally they should flow seamlessly into each other.
Your example is a case of not using the right mechanics. If the person wants to use a boxer he could go with a fighter or another martial class. I agree that I see no reason why a boxer should have slow fall either.
Just to be clear I also never said the abilities are random. Which is another way of saying that you can't apply any concept to any class and always expect for it to work.
I am saying that Paizo's fluff is not the only fluff that fits, and you can use the class to fit another concept and it can still be seamless. Let's say the GM bans the barbarian for flavor. Well the barbarian, can be a high classed noble who loves the outdoors(that would explain his skillset), but has learned to tap into his more primal side(rage) even though Paizo's fluff does not support that.
Slow fall - controlled fall. Your brawler has learned how to master his physique to slow his descent given something to brace against. (If I'm remembering slow fall correctly it requires a wall or something similar be within arm's reach to use.)
Ki power - focus. Instead of channeling mystic energy, he's extensively trained and has mastered physical excellence. He's just so awesome that he can pull off seemingly-supernatural feats through sheer skill.
Change all the Ki stuff to (Ex) if you feel it necessary to better fit Focus.
Martial Artist archetype is less of an headache?
Not familiar with it other than "don't have to be lawful" and at work so can't look it up. Working from memory here ;)
I blame most of it on my starting mindset of "I will help my players play what they want to play. If they want the help I'll have them tell me their concept and I'll suggest ways to pull it off mechanically". I'm not sure how long I could play under a GM who didn't extend me the same courtesy.
Not familiar with it other than "don't have to be lawful" and at work so can't look it up. Working from memory here ;)Slow fall - controlled fall. Your brawler has learned how to master his physique to slow his descent given something to brace against. (If I'm remembering slow fall correctly it requires a wall or something similar be within arm's reach to use.)
Ki power - focus. Instead of channeling mystic energy, he's extensively trained and has mastered physical excellence. He's just so awesome that he can pull off seemingly-supernatural feats through sheer skill.
Change all the Ki stuff to (Ex) if you feel it necessary to better fit Focus.
Martial Artist archetype is less of an headache?
Martial Artist doesn't get a Ki/Chi/Qui pool. they instead get the ability to make a martial artist level check as a swift action to find a soft spot on the foe/object for ignoring Damage reduction/hardness. instead of slow fall, they stack with fighter for fighter specific feats that augment unarmed damage and monk weapons only, instead of disease immunity, they get fatigue immunity. and they overall are less supernatural and a lot less Jackie Chan.
The point wasn't specifically that a standard Golem would be some type of perfect weapon. Just that you could build magical weapons adding to technology (cannon / powder) that would be very destructive.
But the cannon still has problems a mage with a wand would not. It's still that much more expensive, and you could enchant arrows with the same effects if that was what you really wanted to do, at significantly less cost. Second, you have to use up a lot of manpower, time, and resources to move and defend the cannon. I could perhaps see it being developed as a defensive anti-infantry/cavalry weapon built into permanent walls and forts, but it's just too cumbersome for an offensive weapon when magic already does everything the cannon does. Magic is still more efficient, versatile, and cost effective than even an augmented cannon.
Again, it isn't the cannons are bad, it's just that even with magic ammo, they just don't add enough for the cost and effort to be worth it in the vast majority of cases where magic could be present. They would still be used occasionally, but they wouldn't the first, or even second, offensive weapon of choice. It's just too many resources for a one trick pony.
The point wasn't specifically that a standard Golem would be some type of perfect weapon. Just that you could build magical weapons adding to technology (cannon / powder) that would be very destructive.But the cannon still has problems a mage with a wand would not. It's still that much more expensive, and you could enchant arrows with the same effects if that was what you really wanted to do, at significantly less cost. Second, you have to use up a lot of manpower, time, and resources to move and defend the cannon. I could perhaps see it being developed as a defensive anti-infantry/cavalry weapon built into permanent walls and forts, but it's just too cumbersome for an offensive weapon when magic already does everything the cannon does. Magic is still more efficient, versatile, and cost effective than even an augmented cannon.
Again, it isn't the cannons are bad, it's just that even with magic ammo, they just don't add enough for the cost and effort to be worth it in the vast majority of cases where magic could be present. They would still be used occasionally, but they wouldn't the first, or even second, offensive weapon of choice. It's just too many resources for a one trick pony.
i gotta say i agree with Sunshadow here. crafting such a weapon is far too resource consuming when you could hire a mage instead.
I would imagine, in a world where gunpoweder is apparently fairly common and cheap enough for level 1 characters to be using it on random adventures, building and using a cannon is actually a lot cheaper and easier then hiring a level 15 mage to fight for you.
A crude cannon is basically just brass or iron shaped into a hollow tube. It's probably cheaper and easier to make 1 cannon then it is to equip 10 knights with heavy armor. It's certainly less labor intensive.
It's not just the cost of the cannon itself, though, that would be a problem. It's the fact that you have to expend a fair amount of resources to move and defend the cannon, and even then, in anything other than a long, drawn out siege, it would be too slow to be of any use. For the same cost, you could train a high level mage or train and equip an entire squadron of knights that not only expend less resources in the field, but are capable of more speed and more versatility on more battlefields and even skirmishes. The cannon is simply too much of a one trick pony to make it worth the time and effort to create one that would have a chance of having an impact on the battlefield.
It would probably happen eventually, but rifles and pistols would certainly get the lion's share of any attention that gunpowder powered guns would get. Why try to compete against high level magic when it's much easier to compete against bows and crossbows; the second one you have at least a chance of winning, the first one, not really.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i gotta say i agree with Sunshadow here. crafting such a weapon is far too resource consuming when you could hire a mage instead.The point wasn't specifically that a standard Golem would be some type of perfect weapon. Just that you could build magical weapons adding to technology (cannon / powder) that would be very destructive.But the cannon still has problems a mage with a wand would not. It's still that much more expensive, and you could enchant arrows with the same effects if that was what you really wanted to do, at significantly less cost. Second, you have to use up a lot of manpower, time, and resources to move and defend the cannon. I could perhaps see it being developed as a defensive anti-infantry/cavalry weapon built into permanent walls and forts, but it's just too cumbersome for an offensive weapon when magic already does everything the cannon does. Magic is still more efficient, versatile, and cost effective than even an augmented cannon.
Again, it isn't the cannons are bad, it's just that even with magic ammo, they just don't add enough for the cost and effort to be worth it in the vast majority of cases where magic could be present. They would still be used occasionally, but they wouldn't the first, or even second, offensive weapon of choice. It's just too many resources for a one trick pony.
I would imagine, in a world where gunpoweder is apparently fairly common and cheap enough for level 1 characters to be using it on random adventures, building and using a cannon is actually a lot cheaper and easier then hiring a level 15 mage to fight for you.
A crude cannon is basically just brass or iron shaped into a hollow tube. It's probably cheaper and easier to make 1 cannon then it is to equip 10 knights with heavy armor. It's certainly less labor intensive.
To start, not all 1st level characters would be able to get a gun. Only gunslingers and specific archetypes (for example, the ranger archetype that uses a gun does not start the game with one). Of course, if we're going to change the world that guns and gunpowder are so common that even a commoner could acquire and use a gun, then that might be a different story.
Second, the conversation was based on magical cannons (as in a magical weapon), so you already need magic users to be able to create one. Would creating a magical cannon be better than just using that wizard to supplement mass combat? I mean, this all started with the idea of making a +5 magical cannon self-loading adamantium golum, which would be super expensive. If we're going back to non-magical cannons, then mid level wizards (7-12) should be able to deal with them without much of a problem, as given by examples up thread.
You always need foot soldiers to move the cannon, and they need armor to be protected while doing so.
With that aside I wonder if cannons should ignore X amount of hardness.
i gotta say i agree with Sunshadow here. crafting such a weapon is far too resource consuming when you could hire a mage instead.The point wasn't specifically that a standard Golem would be some type of perfect weapon. Just that you could build magical weapons adding to technology (cannon / powder) that would be very destructive.But the cannon still has problems a mage with a wand would not. It's still that much more expensive, and you could enchant arrows with the same effects if that was what you really wanted to do, at significantly less cost. Second, you have to use up a lot of manpower, time, and resources to move and defend the cannon. I could perhaps see it being developed as a defensive anti-infantry/cavalry weapon built into permanent walls and forts, but it's just too cumbersome for an offensive weapon when magic already does everything the cannon does. Magic is still more efficient, versatile, and cost effective than even an augmented cannon.
Again, it isn't the cannons are bad, it's just that even with magic ammo, they just don't add enough for the cost and effort to be worth it in the vast majority of cases where magic could be present. They would still be used occasionally, but they wouldn't the first, or even second, offensive weapon of choice. It's just too many resources for a one trick pony.
I would imagine, in a world where gunpoweder is apparently fairly common and cheap enough for level 1 characters to be using it on random adventures, building and using a cannon is actually a lot cheaper and easier then hiring a level 15 mage to fight for you.
A crude cannon is basically just brass or iron shaped into a hollow tube. It's probably cheaper and easier to make 1 cannon then it is to equip 10 knights with heavy armor. It's certainly less labor intensive.
you could equip 120 light infantry men with a suit of studded leather, a longspear, a spiked gauntlet, a club, a flask of acid, a sling, 50 sling bullets, a waterskin, 3 days rations, a 50 foot coil of hemp rope and a stick of flint for the same price as one cannon. not counting training or hiring costs.
|
I don't see what your question has to do with his reply. He has already said he would excuse himself from the game so the DM could have his fun while he found another game that would allow him to have fun. He has made no judgement about anyones fun taking precedence.And I would be more than happy to leave such a game. I really don't feel like dealing with an antagonistic and uncompromising DM in what is supposed to be a fun game.Since when does "your" fun take precedence over mine and the rest of the people at the table?
Actually he didn't. If he just left at that then that would have been fine but he started with the insults because I wouldn't let him play what he wanted to play.
|
|
Technically, THIS thread started as "you don't like it: why? Just the name? The mechanics? The fluff/flavor? explain plz", and then has gone three or four different ways.It started as "I don't like it", it was the "I want to play it" group that (mainly) derailed it into that.So now people are discussing the abundance of guano as an excuse to ban/allow the gunslinger? Really?
Can't they say "I don't like gunslingers" instead of "by my calculations, there in not enough guano in this world to supply ammo for firearms"?
This thread derailled into a very silly joke.
This is what the thread needs to end on.
"Every DM is different. Some DM's ban things because of flavor, mechanics, and even the name but you know what, that's perfectly okay because DM's are allowed to do that, without being insulted, just like player's are allowed to not participate in the game if they find they don't like it".
|
|
Actually he didn't. If he just left at that then that would have been fine but he started with the insults because I wouldn't let him play what he wanted to play.Are you talking about a player in real space, or a poster here on the forum? Because I haven't seen these insults.
Kitsune Knight 12:21 AM
Flag |List
| FAQ | Reply
Kaleb Hesse
+
1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
Sounds to me like the real answer behind this is the fact that some people want to have their cake and eat it too. They want nothing banned and they want the option of just re-skinning their character to go with the class that has the best mechanics.
If you want to play a ninja in my game and I don't allow ninja's then you play a rogue. I don't care if you want the ninja's mechanics, you either abide by my restrictions or you don't play the game.
DM's have just as much right to ban things in their games as a player has of playing a specific class.
And I would be more than happy to leave such a game. I really don't feel like dealing with an antagonistic and uncompromising DM in what is supposed to be a fun game.
I find the above insulting as a DM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Technically, THIS thread started as "you don't like it: why? Just the name? The mechanics? The fluff/flavor? explain plz", and then has gone three or four different ways.It started as "I don't like it", it was the "I want to play it" group that (mainly) derailed it into that.So now people are discussing the abundance of guano as an excuse to ban/allow the gunslinger? Really?
Can't they say "I don't like gunslingers" instead of "by my calculations, there in not enough guano in this world to supply ammo for firearms"?
This thread derailled into a very silly joke.
This is what the thread needs to end on.
"Every DM is different. Some DM's ban things because of flavor, mechanics, and even the name but you know what, that's perfectly okay because DM's are allowed to do that, without being insulted, just like player's are allowed to not participate in the game if they find they don't like it".
I already know GM's are different. Nothing in that post is new information. The point of the my opening post was to see if I had missed anything. Was there some logic whether I agreed with it or not that would give me a better understanding. The best answer I have received so far is that such GM's have an inability to separate the name from the flavor*. That may or may not be true, but I am more than willing to accept that at this point.
*not the exact words.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Saying someone is uncompromising is a matter of opinion, and some GM's in this thread have said what they say goes, player input need not apply, so it is not exactly an insult to everyone.
Whatever.
I'm the DM. My rules go, without argument, period.
At the start of the campaign I'll state what's ok and what isn't, plus any houserules regarding how the game plays etc for that campaign.
My players have the option to play something that's "in". They all pick something and off we go.We don't have pj wearing Rangers, generally all my players have multiple ideas and character concepts that they want to play and all of them have ready made back-up character in case of death - assuming they don't reincarnate/raise.
I've never had a problem with banned classes. I've never had a player come to me with a build that isn't "in".I'm the DM. My rules go, without argument, period. I run a balanced game and my players appreciate this because it means we don't get broken-ness/over-powered PC's in our games. We don't want that sort of game.
There are other similar posts in this thread and all over the forums where GM's say "they make the decisions, and the group can play what they come up with or just not play at all".
If the players accept it I can't really say much about it, but I was just pointing out that being uncompromising is seen as a positive trait by some people. The post I just quoted has quiet a few favorites.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then I find you to be overly sensitive.Doesn't fecking matter. DM's should be allowed to ban things from their games without being ridiculed for it.
That is SO not ridicule, and after all the arguments we've had you should know the difference.
As wraithstrike noted, the observations are supported by the antagonistic, uncompromising statements made in this very thread.
Having an opinion and disagreeing about something is not rude or disrespectful.
It is when you call the DM "antagonistic and uncompromising" when, as a player, you're doing the same thing.
To answer Wraithsrike's original question, I would never ban a class just for it's Paizo-based name/concept if I'm playing in a Paizo-based world. In such a situation, Paizo has done all the fluff work for me and changing it all around would seem to defeat the point of using a pre-published setting (which, in my mind, is either to avoid having to do all the work yourself or, because you like the tropes that Paizo has decided to emphasize/de-emphasize).
Now, if I'm creating a brand new world from scratch, as a world builder, one of the first decisions I'm going to make is the tone I want the world to convey. Is it dark/gritty/gothic? Is it Arthurian romance? Is it "standard"? Whichever I pick, even "standard", I then have to decide (just as Paizo did) what tropes do I want to emphasize, de-emphasize, and/or ignore all together. Now, after creating this world, I'm going to (one would think) explain to the players what these trope choices were so they can make informed decisions. If my three players come back saying they want to play: the Dark Knight, Max Payne, and a Jedi Knight my answer is going to be no, no and no (unless I had already specified that low-end superheroics, gun-fu and all Star Wars tropes were part of the world). The Dark Knight's an easy reskin because the character is as much about motivation as anything else. I can allow that just from the Core book alone without having to admit superhero comic tropes into my fantasy game; I can make that concept work even in my Arthurian-themed game. The Jedi Knight is harder unless my world is specifically science-fantasy. In this case, I think the name does matter because it implies certain default allowances into the gameworld. If my players are really deadset on playing those things then I'll say fine, set PF aside, and pull out my Torg rulebook.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then I find you to be overly sensitive.Doesn't fecking matter. DM's should be allowed to ban things from their games without being ridiculed for it.
You shouldn't misspell words to circumvent the filter.
Having an opinion and disagreeing about something is not rude or disrespectful.
ToZ was responding to an accusation leveled at me claiming that I start start threads in order to disrespect others...
Why do you keep making/heavily contributing to threads with the express purpose of disrespecting other GMs and how they choose to run the game.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You shouldn't misspell words to circumvent the filter.Then I find you to be overly sensitive.Doesn't fecking matter. DM's should be allowed to ban things from their games without being ridiculed for it.
You shouldn't assume I was doing that.
"Fecking" is a word that is used in Ireland a lot to mean "freaking".
Sometimes it doesn't make much sense.
I once ran a martial-only game for 3.5 - no magic users.
If I'm doing some cave-man or low low tech game, why would there be gunslingers? It even says that the guns don't have to be added in a game.
I hardly see ninja or samurai in games anyways, so yea.
I don't mind the whole banning, especially if there's reasons with it
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You shouldn't misspell words to circumvent the filter.Then I find you to be overly sensitive.Doesn't fecking matter. DM's should be allowed to ban things from their games without being ridiculed for it.You shouldn't assume I was doing that.
"Fecking" is a word that is used in Ireland a lot to mean "freaking".
That just reinforces the fact that it's a euphemism for the unmentionable word and a circumvention of the word filter.
If you want to ban things then you're entitled to your opinion but posters shouldn't have to see you use (what you might deem socially acceptable) profanity to read your opinion.
|
|
You shouldn't misspell words to circumvent the filter.Then I find you to be overly sensitive.Doesn't fecking matter. DM's should be allowed to ban things from their games without being ridiculed for it.You shouldn't assume I was doing that.
"Fecking" is a word that is used in Ireland a lot to mean "freaking".
That just reinforces the fact that it's a euphemism for the unmentionable word and a circumvention of the word filter.
If you want to ban things then you're entitled to your opinion but posters shouldn't have to see you use (what you might deem socially acceptable) profanity to read your opinion.
I'm afraid it's not masking profanity.
So if I say something is a pile of crap are you going to jump down my throat and accuse me of masking that word because it has another word that means the same thing?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are as many reasons to ban certain classes as there are concepts for campaigns. Doing so in one of my campaigns is not a sleight to any of you, since I neither know you, nor do you play in my games.
Seems to me the main reason for this thread's existence is to act offended about things that do not personally concern us, or to try to force builds into genres where they do not belong.
I, myself, am going to be running a short campaign for Halloween concerning Lovecraftian hijinks set during the American Revolutionary War. As is often the case with a Mythos-based campaign, the PCs will be more in line with normal people than with uber-heroes. I am interested in it being very low magic (mostly perpetrated by NPCs) for a situation where one minute the world seems normal, and the next weird crap happens.
I suppose I could shove a bunch of ninja into the game and call them the B. Franklin Super Secret Fighting Corps. But that would end up sounding as stupid as it played, and STUPID, my friends is PLENTY ENOUGH REASON TO BAN A CLASS FROM A SPECIFIC CAMPAIGN.
In short, because you CAN do a thing does not mean you SHOULD.
Personally, I think being unable to conjure an image of a campaign so spectacularly detailed and specific that certain classes would not fit, is less imaginative than just assuming you should be able to bend and twist and cram in anything you want at any time. It's like bringing a sledgehammer to a pottery class.
As to there being a "logical" reason, that's silly and beside the point. You've stacked the deck so that you can win. There is no, nor should there be a requirement of a "logical" point where opinion and taste are the real issue.
Shucks if this thread hasn't turned useless.
As to the poster above. I seriously doubt anyone is going to give you grap if you reject their gunslinger character in a stone aged game. But if your world and concept is that narrow and people know about it a head of time they probably won't see an issue with designing a stone aged themed character.
I once ran a martial-only game for 3.5 - no magic users.
If I'm doing some cave-man or low low tech game, why would there be gunslingers? It even says that the guns don't have to be added in a game.
You would probably need to ban Wizards as well; Writing doesn't exist yet so no written word = no spellbook = no Wizards.
Shucks if this thread hasn't turned useless.
As to the poster above. I seriously doubt anyone is going to give you grap if you reject their gunslinger character in a stone aged game. But if your world and concept is that narrow and people know about it a head of time they probably won't see an issue with designing a stone aged themed character.
You could end up very surprised...
"But he is a Time Traveler/Dimentions Hopper/etc"
might make a good villain
Shucks if this thread hasn't turned useless.
As to the poster above. I seriously doubt anyone is going to give you grap if you reject their gunslinger character in a stone aged game. But if your world and concept is that narrow and people know about it a head of time they probably won't see an issue with designing a stone aged themed character.
You could end up very surprised...
"But he is a Time Traveler/Dimentions Hopper/etc"
With the right group, having a clearly outsider character like that can be interesting. It can allow the DM to highight, and sometimes even challenge, aspects of the campaign world that wouldn't warrant mention if all of the characters were fully immersed in it. It takes the right combination of player, DM, and a willing table of other players, but it can be fun every now and then.
|
|
Interesting topic.
I've banned Gunslingers from my Carrion Crown campaign. It just breaks my suspension of disbelief. I also banned the "Eastern" classes, though relented because someone really, really wanted to play a Ninja. So he's skinned it differently, taking a level of Cleric and using that as a justification for the "magic" abilities.
It works pretty well for the most part, but I can't say I wouldn't rather do without it.
For me, the "Sweet Spot" in gaming rules comes when the rules reflect exactly what you would expect from the theme. Reskinning seems to involve making the theme match the rules, which to me is backwards.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Shucks if this thread hasn't turned useless.
As to the poster above. I seriously doubt anyone is going to give you grap if you reject their gunslinger character in a stone aged game. But if your world and concept is that narrow and people know about it a head of time they probably won't see an issue with designing a stone aged themed character.
Isn't. That. The point. Of EVERY game?
Are you telling me you go into every campaign you play with no knowledge of the setting or the GM's style, and with the expectation that you will be able to play anything and everything?
Hate to break it to you, but in my 32 years of gaming, in every gaming group I've ever been in, we have known the setting, era, world, whatever, we were being asked to make characters for.
Or maybe what this is, is just another surprise variant stacking the deck for a one-sided argument. Not only must we all now come up with "logical" points, rather than taste or setting, but we also must take into account that our campaigns are all setting-neutral.
Congratulations. Yes, in a world where every setting was totally neutral and without any particular genre or specific theme, nobody can come up with a "logical" reason why they would utilize their own particular opinions or taste. You win.
Of course, if that's the case, then the thread was useless as soon as Wraithstrike... well, I'll let the matter of which orifice it came from lie.
Why hello, what a lovely attitude you wrote your post with. Allow me to clarify if you will.
I contrast that example with this example.
GM, "Hey everyone we are going to be hosting a Jade Regent came. Make sure you read up of the campaign setting, thats where it takes place."
Player, "Alright cool, heres my gunslinger! Hs got a smoothbore single shot pistol and a longsword as a backup weapon! Also I talked to the other players he's going to be life long friend of the bomb tossing Alchemist and the Fireball tossing wizard!"
GM, "What?!?! GUNS?!?! GET. OUT. OF. HERE CLINT EASTWOOD. MY TABLE MY RULES!"
Player, "..."
30 minutes later.
Player, "eh.. alright... well heres my new character Hito Minamoto Ninja from the far east!"
GM, "NINJA?!?! GET. THAT. ANIME. CRAP. OUT OF HERE MY TABLE MY RULES!."
Player, "..."
Player, "Do you even know what this AP is about?"
Seems to me the main reason for this thread's existence is to act offended about things that do not personally concern us, or to try to force builds into genres where they do not belong.
Nope. You are free to read my previous posts to obtain an accurate answer though.
As to there being a "logical" reason, that's silly and beside the point. You've stacked the deck so that you can win. There is no, nor should there be a requirement of a "logical" point where opinion and taste are the real issue.
Even taste is based on logic at least to the person making the decision.
As an example if say guns don't belong in fantasy my logic may be that it ruins the feel of the fantasy setting. I never said I had to be convinced or agree with any opinion. I just asked for reasoning.
If I owned a physical copy of UC, I would cover the word Ninja with whiteout and write in Rogue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe I should make a new thread asking why people throw fits when someone post something contrary to their beliefs.
Maybe I should make a new thread asking why people throw fits when someone post something contrary to their beliefs.
I suggest Off-Topic, since it would barely fit anywhere else.
Maybe I should make a new thread asking why people throw fits when someone post something contrary to their beliefs.I suggest Off-Topic, since it would barely fit anywhere else.
I was not serious. :)
Such a thread would be flamebait.edit:It could fit under general discussion or gamer talk. How long it would stay there is another question.
Maybe I should make a new thread asking why people throw fits when someone post something contrary to their beliefs.
Because they think they're right.
Not saying they're wrong and you're right, but here's an interesting talk that provides a little insight.
|
Why hello, what a lovely attitude you wrote your post with. Allow me to clarify if you will.
I contrast that example with this example.
GM, "Hey everyone we are going to be hosting a Jade Regent came. Make sure you read up of the campaign setting, thats where it takes place."
Player, "Alright cool, heres my gunslinger! Hs got a smoothbore single shot pistol and a longsword as a backup weapon! Also I talked to the other players he's going to be life long friend of the bomb tossing Alchemist and the Fireball tossing wizard!"
GM, "What?!?! GUNS?!?! GET. OUT. OF. HERE CLINT EASTWOOD. MY TABLE MY RULES!"
Player, "..."
30 minutes later.
Player, "eh.. alright... well heres my new character Hito Minamoto Ninja from the far east!"
GM, "NINJA?!?! GET. THAT. ANIME. CRAP. OUT OF HERE MY TABLE MY RULES!."
Player, "..."
Player, "Do you even know what this AP is about?"
How does this example have anything to do with anything? When would this happen? The GM you've presented in your post is a complete caricature that doesn't actually exist.
Why would a GM with a noted dislike of Eastern Character classes and themes run an AP jam packed with them like Jade Regent? Why does this have anything to do with the post you quoted?
This thread is so thick with irony you could choke on it.
Maybe I should make a new thread asking why people throw fits when someone post something contrary to their beliefs.Because they think they're right.
Not saying they're wrong and you're right, but here's an interesting talk that provides a little insight.
That was good. Thanks for the link.
SOMEONE's Bitter.