Kind of explains why RPGs are so wildly popular in the US armed forces ;-)I've learned more about leadership being a DM than I have from being a soldier.
Sad, I know.
I hope that is sarcasm or (better yet) I hope that the perception of RPGs in the military changed in the last 10 years.
When I was in the army in early 2000s, people who played D&D were treated as dirtbags by both other soldiers and the leadership. I've even heard (falsely) that it was banned by the army because they didn't want lower ranking people to have power over higher ranking people, even if it's just a PV1 over a PV2. Both ideas are blatantly false; people who play are not dirtbags and scum nor did the army ban it. But still, it goes to show that the perception of RPGs can be really odd. Of course, half my unit were on drugs of some sort (I've seen shroom parties in the barracks), but it was the D&D players who were seen and treated as the irresponsible and worthless ones.
*sigh* If you want to call Yakuza or Tong "low level street scum" you might be accurate. But I'd have my funeral expences paid if I was you.
Considering there are dudes who can't get into the Yakuza or Tong, despite their best efforts, yeah, there are some pretty low-level dudes out there.
Characters should be fairly unique, because generic people are boring, and they aren't really characters, they're stereotypes. The fact that they want to go adventuring in the first place makes them "off the rails", because most people don't want to adventure, they want to live their lives.
Your thought pattern is the same reason I build my 1st level characters fairly defensively, because I want them to live until the higher levels.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
long story about a bad GMChanging rules on the fly is bad form. If you're going to have restrictions, you need to explain them up front to the players, preferably in a house rules document that everybody can reference at any time.
If some mechanical feature is a problem, I've found the best way to handle it is to talk to the entire group, lay out your case as to why it's become a problem, and get as much consensus/buy-in before you make the change. If it's something on somebody's character sheet that you're changing, give them the opportunity to switch out the changed mechanic for something else--if it's a class feature, you probably ought to be willing to grant them a rebuild as a result, and you should offer to help with it because that's pretty inconvenient.
The bolded areas are what I believe should be the proper route whether it's before or during a game. In my opinion, it's important to talk it out with the group and come to a consensus. If the players want to play something that the GM has banned, then perhaps someone else can GM this time, or maybe there's a way to reflavor the class (ninja to a gypsy using same mechanics if the player wants to play the ninja mechanics or a divine mind roleplayed as a cleric for the player who wants a cleric flavor), or ask the player if s/he can play that character next game and for this one let's stick to the flavor of the world we've created, or a hundred other ideas of coming to a compromise that involves talking it out with the players before flat out banning something. At the very least, that is how I run games and that is how I now expect GMs to run games that I am in (especially after my long experience with a bad GM).
Contrast what you and I have written here with what other GMs in this very thread are saying:
Why do you think you are supposed to know why a DM is not allowing something?
You can't make your players do pushups if they don't show up to the game on time.
I can't? Now I have to go find a new punishment for them.....
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can't make your players do pushups if they don't show up to the game on time.I can't? Now I have to go find a new punishment for them.....
Flutter-kicks, that will make them show up on time.
For the Leadership feat, the DM has the leverage of not allowing you to take the feat in the first place if he thinks that you will use it in a way that is not good for his campaign (or if he knows from looking at the NPC that you generated that you are in fact doing just that). He can also establish parameters such as what point buy level to use and so forth. If player and DM are on the same page as to what the role of the cohort will be, the DM may was well leave the work of generating that character to the player -- certainly Leadership is not a feat to be taken by a player who is too lazy to make up his own cohorts and followers. The only reason for the DM to design a cohort would be if a player decides to recruit an NPC that the DM already designed for another purpose, and the DM decides that it would be appropriate for that NPC to become a cohort.
?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, that would be infantile behavior.
You know that childish and infantile mean the same thing, right?
Sorry, that's a false equivalency. Pathfinder/Golarion offers enough "delicious treats" to suit anyone's tastes. If someone leaves a game because there is only the one class he likes about it, he's been playing the wrong system the whole time. I could understand that, and may even allow him in if I'd offer a different system to play. (Or join him in such a game.)
If you prefer, I will revise it to 'leaving McDonalds because they don't have what you want is not childish. Throwing a tantrum and telling them to make you tacos is'.
Is it childish to tell someone you won't be at their game because they don't allow guns? Despite it being the exact same situation, just at a different time?
I play elsewhere. Problem solved.
It would be pretty silly to ban guns in Golarion, but keep Alkenstar as it is, wouldn't it? It's a matter of consistence.As for the rest: Let's assume that I ban guns because I don't like them. You can't play a gunslinger. What now? Will you insist on playing a one?
Really? You leave because you can't play that one particular class, despite there being plenty of others around? Doesn't that strike you as a bit childish?
That sounds to me what Jorin described: the "Special Snowflake Syndrome".
No. If I want to play X and you won't let me for no reasons other than you don't like X then I shall leave. I have no intention of playing with a GM who thinks his personal fantasy preferences should supersede my own.
On top of the fact that If I want to play a gunslinger and you don't allow gunslingers because its not your cup of tea, i'll just find another game. GMs aren't so rare that I have to settle with being unhappy just to get a game. And if I have to I'll just go run my own game, it's no big deal.
So I think walking away from a table were I won't be happy is childish? No I suspect its quite a mature way to handle the situation.
Apparently the only way to not be childish is to "put up and shut up".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I play elsewhere. Problem solved.
It would be pretty silly to ban guns in Golarion, but keep Alkenstar as it is, wouldn't it? It's a matter of consistence.As for the rest: Let's assume that I ban guns because I don't like them. You can't play a gunslinger. What now? Will you insist on playing a one?
Really? You leave because you can't play that one particular class, despite there being plenty of others around? Doesn't that strike you as a bit childish?
That sounds to me what Jorin described: the "Special Snowflake Syndrome".
No. If I want to play X and you won't let me for no reasons other than you don't like X then I shall leave. I have no intention of playing with a GM who thinks his personal fantasy preferences should supersede my own.
On top of the fact that If I want to play a gunslinger and you don't allow gunslingers because its not your cup of tea, i'll just find another game. GMs aren't so rare that I have to settle with being unhappy just to get a game. And if I have to I'll just go run my own game, it's no big deal.
So I think walking away from a table were I won't be happy is childish? No I suspect its quite a mature way to handle the situation.
I agree. There's a difference between "I don't want these classes/races in this campaign because they don't fit the flavor/context of the adventure" and "I don't want these classes/races at this table because I don't like them."
Either way, civil conversation can determine what characters can be played and enjoyed by all - modified as needed to ensure everyone can have a good time - or whether it's time to move on and find a different table to play at.
I agree. There's a difference between "I don't want these classes/races in this campaign because they don't fit the flavor/context of the adventure" and "I don't want these classes/races at this table because I don't like them."Either way, civil conversation can determine what characters can be played and enjoyed by all - modified as needed to ensure everyone can have a good time - or whether it's time to move on and find a different table to play at.
Agreed Bookrat.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree. There's a difference between "I don't want these classes/races in this campaign because they don't fit the flavor/context of the adventure" and "I don't want these classes/races at this table because I don't like them."
If I don't like a particular race, class, feat etc then there is a reason. Nobody just doesn't like something for the hell of it. Now, if I am running a game and there is something I don't like then I'm not going to waste campaign building time trying to fit it into the game.
If I don't like a particular race, class, feat etc then there is a reason. Nobody just doesn't like something for the hell of it. Now, if I am running a game and there is something I don't like then I'm not going to waste campaign building time trying to fit it into the game.
I agree. There's a difference between "I don't want these classes/races in this campaign because they don't fit the flavor/context of the adventure" and "I don't want these classes/races at this table because I don't like them."
Then for example I know someone who just started playing and they have found that the only three classes they survive more then one 4-8hr game slot playing are the oracle of life, the gunslinger(musket master) and, the ninja. Would you be upset if that person walked away from the table in a respectful way?
|
|
Then for example I know someone who just started playing and they have found that the only three classes they survive more then one 4-8hr game slot playing are the oracle of life, the gunslinger(musket master) and, the ninja. Would you be upset if that person walked away from the table in a respectful way?If I don't like a particular race, class, feat etc then there is a reason. Nobody just doesn't like something for the hell of it. Now, if I am running a game and there is something I don't like then I'm not going to waste campaign building time trying to fit it into the game.
I agree. There's a difference between "I don't want these classes/races in this campaign because they don't fit the flavor/context of the adventure" and "I don't want these classes/races at this table because I don't like them."
Not sure what your question is with regards to what I said. Basically what I was saying is the that nobody dislikes something for nothing. Not sure where you're going.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I play elsewhere. Problem solved.
It would be pretty silly to ban guns in Golarion, but keep Alkenstar as it is, wouldn't it? It's a matter of consistence.As for the rest: Let's assume that I ban guns because I don't like them. You can't play a gunslinger. What now? Will you insist on playing a one?
Really? You leave because you can't play that one particular class, despite there being plenty of others around? Doesn't that strike you as a bit childish?
That sounds to me what Jorin described: the "Special Snowflake Syndrome".
No. If I want to play X and you won't let me for no reasons other than you don't like X then I shall leave. I have no intention of playing with a GM who thinks his personal fantasy preferences should supersede my own.
On top of the fact that If I want to play a gunslinger and you don't allow gunslingers because its not your cup of tea, i'll just find another game. GMs aren't so rare that I have to settle with being unhappy just to get a game. And if I have to I'll just go run my own game, it's no big deal.
So I think walking away from a table were I won't be happy is childish? No I suspect its quite a mature way to handle the situation.
Mature? I don't think so.
It happened to me a few times, i come up to a dude's gaming table with a concept...
ME: This is what i would like to play
GM: Um, sorry dude, but that class/race combo really doesn't fit what i had in mind for my game
ME: No problem, let's work together to find what approximation to this would fit
And there, problem solved. Walking away is childish, very much so.
Or another one:
ME: This is what i would like to play
GM: That race or class is banned
ME: Why?
GM: I don't like it, and it has no place in my games.
ME: Ok, how about this?
GM: That works...
Conclusion: If you cannot accommodate other people in some way, for whatever reason, you should not expect them to accommodate you in any way. Having your way no matter what (either forcing the gm to allow you whatever it is that you wanted to play, or leaving the table) is childish and shows no sportsmanship whatsoever.
Doing what someone else says, period, no if ands and butts, is not 'accommodating' if you can't see how thats a one way street then I don't know what to tell you. But it won't be an issue because I will simply find another game.
Some people just can't handle that kind of rejection I guess.
Also, you don't see Irony in your last statement? Let me try it again...
Conclusion: If you cannot accommodate other people in some way, for whatever reason, you should not expect them to accommodate you in any way. Having your way no matter what (either forcing them to not play whatever it is that they wanted to play, or leaving the table) is childish and shows no sportsmanship whatsoever.
Curiously enough "Compromise" is not defined as "Do what I say, and don't you dare go somewhere else!"
if you can't find a way to fit my concept into your precious little world for no reason other than you don't like that concept, and I have my heart set on that concept? Then I will find a table that is more accepting of it. Period, End of story. You may think negatively of that if you want, but I don't really care.
Yeah, but I've encountered players that have been determined to force their own way and have been less interested in the game, and more in getting exactly what they want. I'm all for individualism, but sometimes it goes too far, into selfish I want I want childish territory.
Example, you explain you have some ideas for a non-Tolkien setting and you try to get someone in, saying the game will really show promise *insert new ideas rarely encountered here*.
Prospective player seems to listen, and then wants to play an elf spellcaster.
*Dm scratches head*
Well you explain there aren't any elves, none. There are a lot of other opportunities though, and more races than can be found in the core books.
So, this player wants to play something he has played before, because he is comfortable with it, and wants those specific abilities and stats of the elf spellcaster, even when this setting is against what has become so strongly a fantasy norm (no elves, dwarves, orcs or halfs). Refuses to make a spellcaster without pointy ears. Refuses to step outside their box and into a new world (which the dm is putting a lot of time into). Sigh. If a player wants to play only the narrowest types of characters, and they aren't in the setting, then there is going to be trouble. The player can listen to the dm as to what is inside the setting, or they can try to dictate what they should have.
When the gunslinger and alchemist came out, because of novelty, players I knew wanted to play them. So here they would step out of their box, but then this didn't fit into my settings at all, and these classes didn't balance with what was already within it. I get the new powerful stuff comes out, and I get some love it, but you must be this reasonable to enter the game.
Doing what someone else says, period, no if ands and butts, is not 'accommodating' if you can't see how thats a one way street then I don't know what to tell you. But it won't be an issue because I will simply find another game.
Some people just can't handle that kind of rejection I guess.
Also, you don't see Irony in your last statement? Let me try it again...
Conclusion: If you cannot accommodate other people in some way, for whatever reason, you should not expect them to accommodate you in any way. Having your way no matter what (either forcing them to not play whatever it is that they wanted to play, or leaving the table) is childish and shows no sportsmanship whatsoever.
Curiously enough "Compromise" is not defined as "Do what I say, and don't you dare go somewhere else!"
if you can't find a way to fit my concept into your precious little world for no reason other than you don't like that concept, and I have my heart set on that concept? Then I will find a table that is more accepting of it. Period, End of story. You may think negatively of that if you want, but I don't really care.
But there will be reasons. What I encountered for an Isger game was this:
Player: I want to play a gunslinger.
DM: Isger isn't anywhere near that tech. Think dark ages, after all that raiding.
Player: I want to play an alchemist.
DM: the class doesn't balance with the others, doesn't pay any cost to make alchemical bombs and gets ridiculous later abilities like true resurrection before the cleric does. It is op and the fluff doesn't work with all the abilities.
Player was s%+~ty, but there absolutely were reasons those two classes couldn't be in the game. The guy worked himself into a bitter state, just like a child not getting their way, and refused to see the reasons why not little jimmy.
If I don't like a particular race, class, feat etc then there is a reason. Nobody just doesn't like something for the hell of it. Now, if I am running a game and there is something I don't like then I'm not going to waste campaign building time trying to fit it into the game.
I agree. There's a difference between "I don't want these classes/races in this campaign because they don't fit the flavor/context of the adventure" and "I don't want these classes/races at this table because I don't like them."
Did you click reply to my post by accident? I only ask because I'm really confused what my post has to do with "banning for no reason."
I never said there wouldn't be a reason, I said that there's a difference between banning for a campaign style (which is what you seem to be doing) and banning from a table entirely (i.e. all campaigns, whether it's a home brew world or a Jade Reagent session).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, but I've encountered players that have been determined to force their own way and have been less interested in the game, and more in getting exactly what they want. I'm all for individualism, but sometimes it goes too far, into selfish I want I want childish territory.
Just a point, every sentiment in this paragraph can very easily be made to apply to GM's.
In the end, we're all arguing against selfishness and encouraging people to play games together, instead of playing games alone, but in the same room.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I play elsewhere. Problem solved.
It would be pretty silly to ban guns in Golarion, but keep Alkenstar as it is, wouldn't it? It's a matter of consistence.As for the rest: Let's assume that I ban guns because I don't like them. You can't play a gunslinger. What now? Will you insist on playing a one?
Really? You leave because you can't play that one particular class, despite there being plenty of others around? Doesn't that strike you as a bit childish?
That sounds to me what Jorin described: the "Special Snowflake Syndrome".
No. If I want to play X and you won't let me for no reasons other than you don't like X then I shall leave. I have no intention of playing with a GM who thinks his personal fantasy preferences should supersede my own.
On top of the fact that If I want to play a gunslinger and you don't allow gunslingers because its not your cup of tea, i'll just find another game. GMs aren't so rare that I have to settle with being unhappy just to get a game. And if I have to I'll just go run my own game, it's no big deal.
So I think walking away from a table were I won't be happy is childish? No I suspect its quite a mature way to handle the situation.
Mature? I don't think so.
It happened to me a few times, i come up to a dude's gaming table with a concept...
ME: This is what i would like to play
GM: Um, sorry dude, but that class/race combo really doesn't fit what i had in mind for my game
ME: No problem, let's work together to find what approximation to this would fitAnd there, problem solved. Walking away is childish, very much so.
Or another one:
ME: This is what i would like to play
GM: That race or class is banned
ME: Why?
GM: I don't like it, and it has no place in my games.
ME: Ok, how about this?
GM: That works...Conclusion: If you cannot accommodate other people in some way, for whatever reason, you should not expect...
This just really baffles me. Results of a situation don't determine whether it was handled maturely or not; how people act determine that.
Examples:
Mature Player (not enough info to comment on GM)
ME: "This is what i would like to play"
GM: "Um, sorry dude, but that class/race combo really doesn't fit what i had in mind for my game" OR "Um, sorry dude, but that has no place in my games because I don't like it for reason xyz."
ME: "No problem, let's work together to find what approximation to this would fit" OR "No problem. How about this other idea?"
Result - Player stays with new character
Immature Player (not enough info to comment on GM)
ME: "This is what I would like to play"
GM: "Sorry, I don't allow that in my games because I don't like it."
ME: "Fine. Whatever. I'll play this." (said with an attitude and pouts)
Result - Player stays with new character
Immature Player (not enough info to comment on GM)
ME: "This is what I would like to play"
GM: "Sorry, I don't allow that in my games because I don't like it."
ME: "Well, that's stupid. And so are you. I'm not going to play if I can't play that. Good luck finding another player! (last sentence said sarcastically)"
Result - Player leaves to find new table
Mature Player, but Immature GM
ME: "This is what I would like to play"
GM: "Sorry, I don't allow that in my games because I don't like it."
ME: "Oh. Ok. Have you seen it in action? Maybe we can do a test run to see if it will actually work out."
GM: "NO! This is my table, and what I say goes! When I say you can't use it, I mean it, and you shall not question me!"
ME: "Um.. ok. So why don't you like it?"
GM: "You don't deserve to know the reasons why I ban things. My table, my rules. Don't like it, find somewhere else to play."
Result - Player leaves to find new table
Both Mature Player and Mature GM
ME: "This is what I would like to play"
GM: "Sorry, I don't allow that in my games because I don't like it."
ME: "Ok. Thanks for the offer for joining the game. I'd rather play at a table that allows it."
GM: "Ok. Hope you find a good table that you will enjoy."
ME: "Thank you! Hope you find a good player to match your games."
Result - Player leaves to find new table, GM finds new player
Both Mature Player and Mature GM:
ME: "This is what I would like to play"
GM: "Sorry, I don't allow that in my games because I don't like it."
ME: "Oh. Ok. Have you seen it in action? Maybe we can do a test run to see if it will actually work out."
GM: "You know, I haven't. Let's give it a try. But before I enter it into my home brew game, we'll try it on some side adventures. Does that sound good?"
ME: "Yes. Sounds great."
Result - Player stays and gets to play the character s/he wants.
Why do you just assume that everyone is lying about their motives? It's getting really insulting. I have no problems with guns in fantasy. I would love to play in, say, a RPG based on Brandon Sanderson's "alloy of law" book, for example. I just have problems with a world not being internally consistent.
Interestingly enough, in the prior trilogy (Mistborn, Well of Ascension, Hero of Ages), guns explicitly do not exist. It's stated a few times. They aren't simply absent, but their absence is remarked upon.
...but you know that I'm right, and that dropping a few guns into a fantasy world and pretending that they change nothing and somehow the one guy with the guns has an unlimited supply of available ammo and supplies makes no sense. A world with handguns but no cannons makes no sense, and as soon as you add guns and seriously consider what they mean most standard fantasy tropes just begin to break down.
This isn't reality, where we can look at the evidence at hand and determine - to the best of our ability - what the correct answer is. This is make believe fantasy where we throw out conjectures and hypotheses and discuss the implications of such things as guns versus magic. No one is right or wrong when talking about whether a bunch of troops with guns and cannons will drastically alter the face of war in a magic heavy world.
Please do not insult those of us who have seriously considered what they mean and have come to the opposite conclusion as you by insinuating that we have not put serious thought into the topic.
Bookrat, you still haven't acknowledged there are good reasons for banning races and classes. This isn't all about likes and dislikes.
I like firearms and especially scoped or WW2 rifles, but they don't fit into what I run. In my latest Dark Souls influenced world, well Dark Souls doesn't have firearms. Combat is really close, horrific and gritty. There is no, nicely load up your highly advanced gunpowder weapon and blat the enemy from distance, or quickly cycle your revolver and feed the enemy six shots.
If a dm makes a world a gaming reality, the player should choose from the many class and or race options presented, and stop trying to force their way. Especially when it doesn't fit at all. This is one of the reasons Ancient world settings are looking increasing alluring. The tech is simple, but there is still a need for real heroics in the conflicts of the ancient world. Fighting off the yoke of the Romans with Spartacus or Boudica, here you will not find gunslingers.
Objectivity in a dm is very important. Also fantastic name crit.
Bookrat, you still haven't acknowledged there are good reasons for banning races and classes. This isn't all about likes and dislikes.
I like firearms and especially scoped or WW2 rifles, but they don't fit into what I run. In my latest Dark Souls influenced world, well Dark Souls doesn't have firearms. Combat is really close, horrific and gritty. There is no, nicely load up your highly advanced gunpowder weapon and blat the enemy from distance, or quickly cycle your revolver and feed the enemy six shots.
If a dm makes a world a gaming reality, the player should choose from the many class and or race options presented, and stop trying to force their way. Especially when it doesn't fit at all. This is one of the reasons Ancient world settings are looking increasing alluring. The tech is simple, but there is still a need for real heroics in the conflicts of the ancient world. Fighting off the yoke of the Romans with Spartacus or Boudica, here you will not find gunslingers.
Sorry. Ok.. ahem.. There are good reasons to ban classes.
There. Now I've said it in an official capacity. :)
What I'm arguing for is that a table shouldn't ban classes/races/whathaveyou without discussion and consensus amongst all the people at the table.
If the entire table agrees that guns aren't appropriate, then by all means, don't have guns. If only the GM says that, but all the players want to have guns in the game, then discussion should occur to determine where things go from there. I just don't think that it should be GM fiat every time, all the time (or any of the time, really).
Also, just out of curiosity, for your up-close and gritty game, where do bows, crossbows, and slings fit in? For early firearms, the maximum range is 250' (that would be for the double hackbut). The max for any of them is 800'. For a longbow, the max range is 1000', 1200' for a heavy crossbow, 800' for a light crossbow, and 500' for a sling. Bows and crossbows shoot further than guns. And guns only ignore armor for the first range increment (which for most guns, is only 10-20').
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, what about alignments? I ban chaotic neutral in my games, for a very good reason. In my 12+ years of gaming, i have never seen anyone roleplay chaotic neutral the way it should be. They either chose it and then went completely CE, but wanted an excuse, or they went the CG way. No one, no one ever played CN right.
Bookrat, you still haven't acknowledged there are good reasons for banning races and classes. This isn't all about likes and dislikes.
I like firearms and especially scoped or WW2 rifles, but they don't fit into what I run. In my latest Dark Souls influenced world, well Dark Souls doesn't have firearms. Combat is really close, horrific and gritty. There is no, nicely load up your highly advanced gunpowder weapon and blat the enemy from distance, or quickly cycle your revolver and feed the enemy six shots.
If a dm makes a world a gaming reality, the player should choose from the many class and or race options presented, and stop trying to force their way. Especially when it doesn't fit at all. This is one of the reasons Ancient world settings are looking increasing alluring. The tech is simple, but there is still a need for real heroics in the conflicts of the ancient world. Fighting off the yoke of the Romans with Spartacus or Boudica, here you will not find gunslingers.
Sorry. Ok.. ahem.. There are good reasons to ban classes.
There. Now I've said it in an official capacity. :)
What I'm arguing for is that a table shouldn't ban classes/races/whathaveyou without discussion and consensus amongst all the people at the table.
If the entire table agrees that guns aren't appropriate, then by all means, don't have guns. If only the GM says that, but all the players want to have guns in the game, then discussion should occur to determine where things go from there. I just don't think that it should be GM fiat every time, all the time (or any of the time, really).
Also, just out of curiosity, for your up-close and gritty game, where do bows, crossbows, and slings fit in? For early firearms, the maximum range is 250' (that would be for the double hackbut). The max for any of them is 800'. For a longbow, the max range is 1000', 1200' for a heavy crossbow, 800' for a light crossbow, and 500' for a sling. Bows and crossbows shoot further than guns. And guns only...
Thought you might take that up. It is more a melee/throwing weapons world. The jarid is more common amongst adventurers than the bow, its a d8 javelin. One empire that uses it has been very successful. The type of arrows used becomes more significant, lamellar armours are quite good against ranged, shields are a tiny bit better, and longbows and shortbows are both d6 with some alterations to rules and costs and such. You can get hold of short-term bleeding broadheads pretty easily though, so that's good, but they cost. An archer build can work, but it won't work for everything or everyplace. (I also like archery, have been getting into it in the past two months and am paying keen attention for information relevant to games). So that is a departure from 3.5 to PF archery builds and rules.
Wide open spaces, using your absolute range without being inconvenienced by cover, obstacles and such, is a lot harder. Most of the natural surroundings are very dense thus messing with shots. Druids control a lot of the rural areas and don't want ranged armies stomping through the lands of nature. There are no elves, so there is no elven influence upon archery. Crossbows are made a bit better, but then there is loading time and they are rare--two countries mainly uses them for defenders of fortifications.
I see you are against dm fiat, but if the players try to put firearms in an ancient world, or repeating rifles into a world where there is only very early matchlocks, we are getting into tyranny of the majority here and it is getting a bit silly. No I want to shoot Caesar with a .44. I want a six gun when high ranged-tech is armour piercing jarids and the crossbow. :/
Do you get my drift?
Yeah some dms get a bit weird, when they ban alignments and you still use an alignment as a basis for character attitudes. Old habits die hard.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The point was that despite TOZ's non-use of alignments, he'd be highly unlikely to ban entire character concepts built around flavor rooted in alignments.
Illustrating GMs and players working together and, if it doesn't work out, politely parting ways to game in different venues which has been rather bizarrely called out as immature lately in this thread.
For example, one thing I'd like to know if I'm potentially playing with a new GM is how they run their games. There are certain types of games that I have negative interest in, and honestly I'd appreciate knowing ahead of time whether or not it's a game I'd even want to play in. That wouldn't be fun for me, the GM, or the rest of the group unless one or more of us were griefers of some sort.
Specifically on the race issue, I really don't have any interest in playing in a game that was squarely rooted in the LotR "humans/elves/dwarves/halflings ONLY" formula. So I'd pass on that game, leaving a spot open for someone that actually would enjoy it.
Yeah Mikaze, that guy really wanted an elf, and I just can't give it to them. So good luck to them.
There's a lot of assumption that games and GMs are vastly plentiful. In some out of the way places, there might only be one person in the whole city that knows how to or is willing to GM.
Thought you might take that up. It is more a melee/throwing weapons world. The jarid is more common amongst adventurers than the bow, its a d8 javelin. One empire that uses it has been very successful. The type of arrows used becomes more significant, lamellar armours are quite good against ranged, shields are a tiny bit better, and longbows and shortbows are both d6 with some alterations to rules and costs and such. You can get hold of short-term bleeding broadheads pretty easily though, so that's good, but they cost. An archer build can work, but it won't work for everything or everyplace. So that is a departure from 3.5 to PF archery builds and rules.
Yeah, it seemed odd to ban guns because of range when other weapons have further range. I figured there was more to it. :)
Are there actual PF rules about which armor is better against which weapon, or is that a throwback from an earlier edition that you've incorporated into your game? I remember rules like that back in 2nd ed., but I never played enough of 3/3.5 to know off hand.
(I also like archery, have been getting into it in the past two months and am paying keen attention for information relevant to games)
Isn't it a blast? I love archery. I've got several recurves and a long bow that I use at the range. I introduced my wife to it, and she loved it so much that now she makes all of our arrows.
I see you are against dm fiat, but if the players try to put firearms in an ancient world, or repeating rifles into a world where there is only very early matchlocks, we are getting into tyranny of the majority here and it is getting a bit silly. No I want to shoot Caesar with a .44. I want a six gun when high ranged-tech is armour piercing jarids and the crossbow. :/
Do you get my drift?
I totally get it. I'm just saying that if a group really wants to play with advanced firearms in a stone age world, then that's what they want to do (and you know what, that actually sounds kind of cool; ammo might become a problem quickly, though). If you don't want to GM it, then someone else might. Could even open up another night for that game and continue to play yours on your standard night.
If it's a GM designed world, then yeah, things might get banned and new players will have to agree to the rules already in place before they start the game. But, contrary to what other posters seem to think, choosing to not play in that game because they don't like the rules presented is a valid option. Additionally, if a rule is going to be banned or altered in mid-campaign, it should be something the entire group discusses, rather than just GM fiat.
If a group is in a situation like what Umbral Reaver says above, then it's even more important for the group to come to a consensus - rather than just one person making all the decisions (or even 5 people overruling 1 person) - because choosing to leave the table means choosing to quit the hobby. Remember, consensus means all involved consent, not just the majority.
Its no different than "Guns can't exist in my world because bat guano supplies are to low!". You just don't want guns in YOUR fantasy, and you feel your preference should override the player's because you are the mighty GM.But my god at least admit it!
Would you please stop strawmanning me like that?
Why do you just assume that everyone is lying about their motives? It's getting really insulting. I have no problems with guns in fantasy. I would love to play in, say, a RPG based on Brandon Sanderson's "alloy of law" book, for example. I just have problems with a world not being internally consistent.
You can keep making jokes about "bat guano", but you know that I'm right, and that dropping a few guns into a fantasy world and pretending that they change nothing and somehow the one guy with the guns has an unlimited supply of available ammo and supplies makes no sense. A world with handguns but no cannons makes no sense, and as soon as you add guns and seriously consider what they mean most standard fantasy tropes just begin to break down.
Perhaps you're willing to accept a world that makes no sense, but please stop strawmanning that into "lol you just don't like guns".
First of all, it's not a strawman, it was literally your argument. I didn't need to set up a strawman, your argument was already silly enough. Starting with a lack of the rare materials needed to make bullets, and then the rare materials needed to make black powder. Once pointed out your hypothetical world likely already has these things you started in about how there wasn't enough.
But I know you are right? ] What the hell is this supposed to mean? Of course I don't "know you are right." I came to the opposite conclusion you did. I stated my conclusion already, 'You can drop a few guns into many fantasy settings with out drastically upsetting the world if you are willing to give it a try.' I am sorry if you came to a different conclusion, but that happens sometimes when you are imagining fantasy worlds and hypothetical situations.
Or do you just assume if someone comes to the opposite conclusion you do that not only are you right, but everyone knows you are right and just refuses to acknowledge it? Thats a very silly way to go through life my friend.
You should go back to just flat out insulting me. At least that made some kind of sense.
There's a lot of assumption that games and GMs are vastly plentiful. In some out of the way places, there might only be one person in the whole city that knows how to or is willing to GM.
Ah see, if you are willing to play live with a virtual desktop application, and something like Skype or what have you on the internet you will find your cup over run-eth (heh) with GMs. You can meet a lot of great players that way, and a lot of new and enthusiastic players as well.
Takes care of the remote location thing nicely.
The point was that despite TOZ's non-use of alignments, he'd be highly unlikely to ban entire character concepts built around flavor rooted in alignments.
Illustrating GMs and players working together and, if it doesn't work out, politely parting ways to game in different venues which has been rather bizarrely called out as immature lately in this thread.
For example, one thing I'd like to know if I'm potentially playing with a new GM is how they run their games. There are certain types of games that I have negative interest in, and honestly I'd appreciate knowing ahead of time whether or not it's a game I'd even want to play in. That wouldn't be fun for me, the GM, or the rest of the group unless one or more of us were griefers of some sort.
Specifically on the race issue, I really don't have any interest in playing in a game that was squarely rooted in the LotR "humans/elves/dwarves/halflings ONLY" formula. So I'd pass on that game, leaving a spot open for someone that actually would enjoy it.
Yeah, that all seems perfectly reasonable. I don't understand where this concept that bowing out of a game you won't be compatible with is some how childish, or selfish, is coming from.
Ah see, if you are willing to play live with a virtual desktop application, and something like Skype or what have you on the internet you will find your cup over run-eth (heh) with GMs. You can meet a lot of great players that way, and a lot of new and enthusiastic players as well.
Takes care of the remote location thing nicely.
That's not a valid solution if you want a tabletop game. The setup costs and logistics for that can be severely prohibitive, too, especially in countries with limited internet.
That's not a valid solution if you want a tabletop game. The setup costs and logistics for that can be severely prohibitive, too, especially in countries with limited internet.Ah see, if you are willing to play live with a virtual desktop application, and something like Skype or what have you on the internet you will find your cup over run-eth (heh) with GMs. You can meet a lot of great players that way, and a lot of new and enthusiastic players as well.
Takes care of the remote location thing nicely.
In those cases then you are correct. I suspect however for many players it can make for a nice alternative if they are having trouble finding local games.
Thought you might take that up. It is more a melee/throwing weapons world. The jarid is more common amongst adventurers than the bow, its a d8 javelin. One empire that uses it has been very successful. The type of arrows used becomes more significant, lamellar armours are quite good against ranged, shields are a tiny bit better, and longbows and shortbows are both d6 with some alterations to rules and costs and such. You can get hold of short-term bleeding broadheads pretty easily though, so that's good, but they cost. An archer build can work, but it won't work for everything or everyplace. So that is a departure from 3.5 to PF archery builds and rules.Yeah, it seemed odd to ban guns because of range when other weapons have further range. I figured there was more to it. :)
Are there actual PF rules about which armor is better against which weapon, or is that a throwback from an earlier edition that you've incorporated into your game? I remember rules like that back in 2nd ed., but I never played enough of 3/3.5 to know off hand.
(I also like archery, have been getting into it in the past two months and am paying keen attention for information relevant to games)Isn't it a blast? I love archery. I've got several recurves and a long bow that I use at the range. I introduced my wife to it, and she loved it so much that now she makes all of our arrows.
I totally get it. I'm just saying that if a group really wants to play with advanced firearms in a stone age world, then that's what they want to do (and you know what,...I see you are against dm fiat, but if the players try to put firearms in an ancient world, or repeating rifles into a world where there is only very early matchlocks, we are getting into tyranny of the majority here and it is getting a bit silly. No I want to shoot Caesar with a .44. I want a six gun when high ranged-tech is armour piercing jarids and the crossbow. :/
Do you get my drift?
It isn't because of the range that I ban guns, although if you start to get into wild west tech, the range of those things can really be high.
Archery is damn good. I am trying with a 45lbs recurve and a 54 longbow. We go to a club up in the forested hills, with plenty of different animal targets. A friend who is also into archery once explained to me, with the perfect example that we could both see, that you sometimes can't see through 40ft of thick scrub, so how would you shoot through it with a bow? That is when I got to thinking more on the limitations to shots.
I also don't like the touch rules of firearms. I get why people think it should be, but heavy armour can actually stop shots, with a lot of variables in play. Proofing breastplates, we have the example of Ned Kelly in Australia. To say nothing of how thick the natural Ac of some monsters gets, a firearm should not just have to "touch".
The armour rules do go back to some old influences, but its homebrew and oh how their lamellar has saved their ars*s a few times. I gave each type of armour a special trait or property, and removed breastplate. Making more room for choice, and each choice significant.
Yeah, a consensus can be great in theory, but I've stood on some small sides against ridiculous consensus' before. Dm runs what they want, if the players are interested huzzah. If it is not their thing it is not their thing, my latest anti-Tolkien journey isn't for everyone.
Umbral is right on skype. I've done it, but it doesn't always work out.
Guys above are getting serious. Orcish shotputs at five paces people! :D
Yeah you are right, and I think I am done with 'seriousness' it's to damn exhausting. I am going to ignore the bat guano guy from here on out.
At any rate my original point was, so long as you don't just want to ban something because you personally dislike it then in many cases you can make it work by talking with the player. Many examples have already been given of course so I will skip those.
And yeah some things won't work, but we have accepted this already and theres no point arguing those either.
===
As for skype? well like anything it requires a good group. But if you already have a steady internet connection, and a computer system there is zero over head from that point. Definitely an attractive option if you are having trouble with a local group.
Sometimes if you get bat guano on your shoe, you've just got to keep going (and perhaps find a wizard to sell it to).
Gamed with a guy in Singapore over skype (I'm in Australia). It worked for a bit, and much humour was had.
It isn't because of the range that I ban guns, although if you start to get into wild west tech, the range of those things can really be high.
Yeah, it only seemed that way from the original post that started this conversation. But I figured that wasn't the actual case.
Archery is damn good. I am trying with a 45lbs recurve and a 54 longbow. We go to a club up in the forested hills, with plenty of different animal targets. A friend who is also into archery once explained to me, with the perfect example that we could both see, that you sometimes can't see through 40ft of thick scrub, so how would you shoot through it with a bow? That is when I got to thinking more on the limitations to shots.
I can completely understand. I gave up on realism in RPGs quite a long time ago. It really comes down to knowledge of the real world vs how the system works. As we learn more on a specific subject, we realize how off our fantasy games are, but we are still completely ignorant as to how far off they are in other subjects. For example, professionally I'm a toxicologist, and because of such the poison rules always get to me. It is really difficult trying to make those rules realistic. :)
I also don't like the touch rules of firearms. I get why people think it should be, but heavy armour can actually stop shots, with a lot of variables in play. Proofing breastplates, we have the example of Ned Kelly in Australia. To say nothing of how thick the natural Ac of some monsters gets, a firearm should not just have to "touch".
Well, the touch AC rules are only for the first range increment. So for most of the firearms, that's within 10 or 20 feet; that's really close range.
As for the armor, I've always wondered about that. I have no idea to the truth of it, but for some reason I have the idea in my head that the reason we stopped wearing heavy armor was because of guns. I'm meeting up with a historian tomorrow, so I'll ask him.
Yeah, a consensus can be great in theory, but I've stood on some small sides against ridiculous consensus' before. Dm runs what they want, if the players are interested huzzah. If it is not their thing it is not their thing, my latest anti-Tolkien journey isn't for everyone.
I hear ya. Would you believe that I actually prefer games that are straight out of the book; no home rules, pre-made adventures, etc... Based on everything I've posted, it's a huge shock, huh? :)
If you read my bad GM story from the last page (maybe two pages ago?), then this should also shed some light on my personal choices: I want no home rules, official worlds (aka Golarian), and premade adventures because I want the GM to be held to those same rules as the player. My last GM (the one I play with for over a decade) had a habit of going by different rules than the players (I only realized it during the last year).
Maybe I'm like a recovering addict who wants nothing to do with their previous addiction; I'm a bad GM victim and I want nothing to do with those same situations.
I'm not saying that everyone else has to be like me, but I do like sharing my ideas so that when people read it they might get ideas about how to run their own games.
Umbral is right on skype. I've done it, but it doesn't always work out.
I've actually had some really good experiences with skype/maptools games. I've even run one before. It stopped, because I prefer face-to-face games and I had to choose between the two (they were on the same night), but before I had that I used the internet.
Also, and this may be dating me, I remember playing D&D games using mIRC.
Orcish shotputs at five paces people! :D
OMG! Now I want to make this character!
No, that would be infantile behavior.You know that childish and infantile mean the same thing, right?
Almost. A child is more mature and intelligible than an infant.
Also, some preteens play like adults, and visa versa.
Kind of explains why RPGs are so wildly popular in the US armed forces ;-)I've learned more about leadership being a DM than I have from being a soldier.
Sad, I know.
I hope that is sarcasm or (better yet) I hope that the perception of RPGs in the military changed in the last 10 years.
When I was in the army in early 2000s, people who played D&D were treated as dirtbags by both other soldiers and the leadership. I've even heard (falsely) that it was banned by the army because they didn't want lower ranking people to have power over higher ranking people, even if it's just a PV1 over a PV2. Both ideas are blatantly false; people who play are not dirtbags and scum nor did the army ban it. But still, it goes to show that the perception of RPGs can be really odd. Of course, half my unit were on drugs of some sort (I've seen shroom parties in the barracks), but it was the D&D players who were seen and treated as the irresponsible and worthless ones.
I was in the Air Force from mid 2000's until recently, no one gave a damn about anyone playing D&D in their free time (or WoW, or Magic, or poker, or anything not illegal). Then again we are really lax about a lot of things, when I was an E-3/E-4 and was hanging out off duty with E-5s/E-6's, we all called each other solely by last names (or first names), all those ranks and titles were only for work.
On topic, my buddy who is usually the DM bans gunslingers and firearms from his homebrew world, nobody really cares. All the rest of the classes are allowed, including the asian ones, although we've never had anyone play a summoner. He also usually sticks to core races for PC's, and for the longest time, until recently, had banned gnomes.