RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
When I'm a GM and I want to ban something in my game for any reason, I am under no obligation to explain that to my players. If you don't like the game I'm running, find a different game. When it's your turn to GM you can allow whatever you want in your game and I'll either get over it or find another game myself. I can promise you that the appeal of my table is not in what I allow and don't allow, it's that I run awesome games. And the GM's that I play with, I do so because they run awesome games, not because of what they do and do not allow.
|
In this mystical land of internet free face to face tabletop printers don't exist?If someone is already unwilling or unable to purchase the book, what makes you think they have the money to print the book themselves?
If its the player with that mentality then they can suck it up and play a core class but, if I would like to play a gunslinger for example in "your" kill the undead invasion campaign. You can be sure I will bring any and all information on the class and guns with me each time so the group has access to them. I would even go so far as to give you the characters magic item wish list. As to take away as much work on your part to fit the character and concept into the game.
In this mystical land of internet free face to face tabletop printers don't exist?
Listen I am all for saying "If You can't provide the information on X you can't play X" but realistically it is incredibly easy to provide the details on any of the Paizo classes assuming no one has the proper book in the first place.
Printer is broken? No ink? Not enough money to buy a printer?
It seems like a lot of things have to line up for "I ban it if I don't have the book myself" to make sense.
How about instead "I don't ban it, but if you don't have access to any official sources about the class and can't provide them you can't play it."
I once wrote most of the Summoner stuff from the SRD because I didn't have the book and I didn't have a laptop on hand. Mostly shorthanded stuff but f%@~, I had a hand cramp like no other.
I'll ban things, but I always leave my players with the "explain it" clause.
For instance, there are no cavaliers in my post-apocalyptic tribal game. If, however, the players can justify to me why their character is mechanically closer to a cavalier than a barbarian or fighter, then they can have it as long as they do the re-skin themselves and run things by me. Especially considering the hundred-odd archetypes of Pathfinder (not to mention 3rd Party Publishers,) there's always some way to make a class work mechanically in your champaign.
If its the player with that mentality then they can suck it up and play a core class but, if I would like to play a gunslinger for example in "your" kill the undead invasion campaign. You can be sure I will bring any and all information on the class and guns with me each time so the group has access to them. I would even go so far as to give you the characters magic item wish list. As to take away as much work on your part to fit the character and concept into the game.In this mystical land of internet free face to face tabletop printers don't exist?If someone is already unwilling or unable to purchase the book, what makes you think they have the money to print the book themselves?
It is called making survival choices; housing, food, clothes, medicines are important, game rule-books, not really...
so if I had to make a choice between feeding my kids and pleasing a peculiar player, I would chose my kids's lives.
Someone is going to have to explain to me how not banning the gunslinger leads to starving kids. I think I need more coffee. Or possibly much much less coffee.
|
It seems like a lot of things have to line up for "I ban it if I don't have the book myself" to make sense.
DMs don't have to make sense. It's personal preference.
Someone is going to have to explain to me how not banning the gunslinger leads to starving kids.
DM only makes enough money to cover rent and food. DM plays PF because it is cheap entertainment. Buying a rulebook means no money for food. Was that so hard?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can promise you that the appeal of my table is not in what I allow and don't allow, it's that I run awesome games.
Are you incapable of running awesome games without banning things?
If its the player with that mentality then they can suck it up and play a core class but, if I would like to play a gunslinger for example in "your" kill the undead invasion campaign. You can be sure I will bring any and all information on the class and guns with me each time so the group has access to them. I would even go so far as to give you the characters magic item wish list. As to take away as much work on your part to fit the character and concept into the game.
That's legit. But what about the GM who just flat-out refuses to read it because they don't own the book themselves, possibly in the hopes of mooching a book purchase, like that guy upthread?
DMs don't have to make sense. It's personal preference.
Running a gaming table like a tin pot dictatorship just makes someone look like a petty idiot.
It seems like a lot of things have to line up for "I ban it if I don't have the book myself" to make sense.DMs don't have to make sense. It's personal preference.
They certainly have that right, just we have the right to say "No thank you" and find a game elsewhere.
|
|
They certainly have that right, just we have the right to say "No thank you" and find a game elsewhere.It seems like a lot of things have to line up for "I ban it if I don't have the book myself" to make sense.DMs don't have to make sense. It's personal preference.
Do you always state the obvious?
Running a gaming table like a tin pot dictatorship just makes someone look like a petty idiot.
Whining about not getting everything the way you want it just makes one look childish.
Good thing no one is doing either such thing.
Do you always state the obvious?They certainly have that right, just we have the right to say "No thank you" and find a game elsewhere.It seems like a lot of things have to line up for "I ban it if I don't have the book myself" to make sense.DMs don't have to make sense. It's personal preference.
Would be considered stating the obvious if I pointed out that us having the same avatar is making my eyes defocus?
|
I ban Experts, Commoners, Adepts, Aristocrats, Warriors and Monks. The amount of wrought in these classes makes me lose sleep at night, pray heavens forbid were they played at my table.Once again, so glad to be in concert of thinking with a fellow refined intellectual. Truly, it's a glorious day for The Thought!
You, Sir, are awesome!
/ontopic: My current DM bans paladins and ninjas. He feels that "Smite - full attack - LoH" and "Vanish - move - sneak attack" are so broken they're not even worth balancing.
Ah! baseless personal attacks! Excellent.Well, sorry for noting that quite a few people act like poverty/debts/etc exist only in fictions.
No one is really acting like that from what I'm reading. Not to belittle financial problems (having them myself), but printing isn't very expensive. I know you can get a decent price at Office Depot (my local one is 5 cents per page).
Again, not belittling poverty or debt. But it is good you have priorities and I respect that.
|
I honestly don't know how I got on this side of the argument. I'm usually on the player side. Gorb can vouch for that.
I can explain that: you saw posts with your avatar, assumed they're yours, and realized the truth too late. Happens sometimes with me and Dragonsong, too.
And yep, TOZ is very much a pro playa person.
*shrug*
I don't really like to believe in sides. I'd rather just make a game everyone has fun in. That's honestly my number one goal. Or else, why even play Pathfinder?
|
|
If its the player with that mentality then they can suck it up and play a core class but, if I would like to play a gunslinger for example in "your" kill the undead invasion campaign. You can be sure I will bring any and all information on the class and guns with me each time so the group has access to them. I would even go so far as to give you the characters magic item wish list. As to take away as much work on your part to fit the character and concept into the game.In this mystical land of internet free face to face tabletop printers don't exist?If someone is already unwilling or unable to purchase the book, what makes you think they have the money to print the book themselves?It is called making survival choices; housing, food, clothes, medicines are important, game rule-books, not really...
so if I had to make a choice between feeding my kids and pleasing a peculiar player, I would chose my kids's lives.
Yes, Yes, it is. I would hope as a parent if the choice was buy a book or put food on the table, you would pick food.
I myself have to make those kinds of choices, not for my kids lives but, for my own. Being in debt has that effect. So I understand others situations are different or just like mine.
So if you look at my post again. I hope you will find I am not expecting you to do much more then read and work with me to see if you could fit my character, in any way, into the game as is.
As I would be allowing access to the required sources.
That's legit. But what about the GM who just flat-out refuses to read it because they don't own the book themselves, possibly in the hopes of mooching a book purchase, like that guy upthread?
I would ask the player to buy the book, bring it with him/her when we are playing and take it home with him/her when the session is over, so I have the book at the table when I need it and when I get the money I would just buy it. no mooching. (beside, if the guy/girl started DM/GM'ing s/he would be glad s/he has the book).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well the world english dictionary defines cultural discrimination as a form of racism as well. For example, I could be racist vs Norwegians, Japanese, Chinese, Arabians, etc. Honestly, it astounds me when people ban mechanics based on racisms. It's one thing bad a class or mechanic because it's mechanically poor. It's another thing to ban clerics because the iconic cleric looks somewhat Arab, or because you cannot see past your own bias to realized that "Ninja" is just a title given to a set of mechanics that could represent anything from a feudal japanese ninja to an elite elven stalker or gnomish Indiana Jones wannabe.I would rather say culturalism in this particular case :PBehold the power of racism. :PGolarion is not medieval Europe. Do you ban all magic as well?
Would the Ninja class (not the concept) fit your world if it wasn't called Ninja, but something less "asian"?
I am curious then, if they did not want me to see the "Ninja" as just a Japanese figure and wanted me to see then as "anything from a feudal japanese ninja to an elite elven stalker or gnomish Indiana Jones wannabe" why didn't they name the class something like assassin?
Words do have meaning and names even more. By the name they selected it would seem they did want me to see the class in a particular light and with a particular flavor.
|
|
Well the world english dictionary defines cultural discrimination as a form of racism as well. For example, I could be racist vs Norwegians, Japanese, Chinese, Arabians, etc. Honestly, it astounds me when people ban mechanics based on racisms. It's one thing bad a class or mechanic because it's mechanically poor. It's another thing to ban clerics because the iconic cleric looks somewhat Arab, or because you cannot see past your own bias to realized that "Ninja" is just a title given to a set of mechanics that could represent anything from a feudal japanese ninja to an elite elven stalker or gnomish Indiana Jones wannabe.I would rather say culturalism in this particular case :PBehold the power of racism. :PGolarion is not medieval Europe. Do you ban all magic as well?
Would the Ninja class (not the concept) fit your world if it wasn't called Ninja, but something less "asian"?
I am curious then, if they did not want me to see the "Ninja" as just a Japanese figure and wanted me to see then as "anything from a feudal japanese ninja to an elite elven stalker or gnomish Indiana Jones wannabe" why didn't they name the class something like assassin?
Words do have meaning and names even more. By the name they selected it would seem they did want me to see the class in a particular light and with a particular flavor.
perhaps this is why, REASON. It would be a little silly to have two classes named the same yes? (on another note Cavalier = Samurai)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i had a gm kill off my rogue once. i told him i wanted to play a ninja, he replied that ninjas dont exsist in his game. i then made a rogue with a ki pool, extra rogue trick (turned to a ninja trick invisibility)
and played it like any other rogue that would normally exsist in the world... well it died by a BS reason.
when i asked him about it, he told me "i said no ninjas" even though i didnt play a ninja in name or flavor he just was being a dick. any way i got back at him by making an insanely OP class that the gm couldnt kill legitimatly, and absolutly wrecked his encounters.
needless to say we dont talk much anymore. but back to the topic!
i agree that the flavor of a class is determined by the player, not the book. unless they are breaking a serious guideline in the reflavor of a class, like a pally not being LG, im 100% ok with allowing anything in my games. im usually better at optimizing characters then players, and with unlimited gm resources i can challange them even if they are WTF OP!!
perhaps this is why, REASON. It would be a little silly to have two classes named the same yes? (on another note Cavalier = Samurai)
Then there was no reason to have the Ninja at all, right? The argument given was people should see the Ninja as just an assassin not as a Japanese character.
eh, I'm ready to get flamed :P
I'd ban the gunslinger to boycott it being put into the books- just on general principle. Guns have no place, regardless of some dev penciling them in. If someone was just totally hell bent on playing one, I'd not be adverse to replacing "gun" with "crossbow" but that'd also require me to become familiar with the mechanics to make sure its being played correctly.
Ninja I'd ban because it makes the rogue obsolete. Not terribly comfortable with a splat core class invalidating a core class.
No big deal refluffing the samurai into something else, if the campaign had no use for the asian themed ones. (or refluffing the others if you were going to do an asian themed campaign).
Tempted to say I'd ben the summoner not out of hate (love the class, myself) but just to avoid so many headaches. I understand why they did what they did.. but it certainly does make it painful for all involved.
1) they are there because a boatload of people asked for it and it fitted the developers vision of their setting.
2) Ninja is an alternate Rogue and Samurai is an alternate Cavalier.
3) Most of the rules are optional; don't like them, don't use them.
4) If you are gonna bash on an entire game system and its whole development team for something like that... maybe you should find another hobby.
An entire game system? seriously?
I don't like one whole base class and one whole alternate class out of an entire set and I'm bashing the system?Thats awesome.
1) Don't care how many people asked for them- I'm not one of them. in my games, they wouldn't exist. Ever. No guns, no way no how.
The dev's have every right to put it into the books and I have ever right to red-line it out of my games. A right that I freely exercise.
2) The Ninja is a better rogue than the rogue is and makes it completely obsolete. No thank you. Removed.
3) Yep, I know. thats why I said I removed 'em. Everything is optional.
Love the devs, and love their work. that doesn't mean I agree with all of it, or use all of it. (actually I'd allow most of it- just not those two things. Thats what the thread's about tho, yes?)
-S
|
|
When I run my games it's "what you see is what you get". You see a Ninja in the book then it's a ninja, you see a ranger in the book then it's a ranger and if a class, race, etc, doesn't fit in my game then I ban it. If you can use another class that I do allow to do something similar then happy days but if not then tough luck.
|
|
Well the world english dictionary defines cultural discrimination as a form of racism as well. For example, I could be racist vs Norwegians, Japanese, Chinese, Arabians, etc. Honestly, it astounds me when people ban mechanics based on racisms. It's one thing bad a class or mechanic because it's mechanically poor. It's another thing to ban clerics because the iconic cleric looks somewhat Arab, or because you cannot see past your own bias to realized that "Ninja" is just a title given to a set of mechanics that could represent anything from a feudal japanese ninja to an elite elven stalker or gnomish Indiana Jones wannabe.I would rather say culturalism in this particular case :PBehold the power of racism. :PGolarion is not medieval Europe. Do you ban all magic as well?
Would the Ninja class (not the concept) fit your world if it wasn't called Ninja, but something less "asian"?
I am curious then, if they did not want me to see the "Ninja" as just a Japanese figure and wanted me to see then as "anything from a feudal japanese ninja to an elite elven stalker or gnomish Indiana Jones wannabe" why didn't they name the class something like assassin?
Words do have meaning and names even more. By the name they selected it would seem they did want me to see the class in a particular light and with a particular flavor.
FTW!
|
|
perhaps this is why, REASON. It would be a little silly to have two classes named the same yes? (on another note Cavalier = Samurai)Then there was no reason to have the Ninja at all, right? The argument given was people should see the Ninja as just an assassin not as a Japanese character.
That is true based on the argument. Perhaps it was an alignment issue? I like the ninja for the most part but, it could/should have been an archtype or the rogue in my opinion same with the samurai.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well that escalated quickly.
The only class I out and out ban from my campaign setting is the Summoner. Not because it's OMGHAX Broken, but because of the nature of extaplanar entities in this particular setting. They are pretty much the only class that I can't come up with a sufficiently satisfying refluffing to make them fit.
In my experience, if you're logical about your reasons and explain them to your players, they'll be pretty cool about it and play something else. More than anything, calm, constructive discussion can solve most problems like this.
I can speak from both sides of the fence, more as a GM. I ban classes if they do not fit the feel and world I am working with. I generally make my own worlds, or tweek them horribly to do what I want if premade.
I have allowed a lot, and I mean a LOT in my games. But some things on some worlds just do not fit into it, and I make sure my players know this well in advance as to not get anyone's hopes up.
A good example is a world I am running ATM, it's low magic, VERY low magic as in sorcerer, oracle, witch, and druid, and only some archetypes at that only. I game the group a "player's guide" to the setting that was a summery of the history as it is "known" by the mortal races, and a breakdown of how the classes available fit into the world.
None ever complained, even my one player who is a die hard Wizard player. In fact he went all out to make a character that would be a precursor to the founding-father type for wizard of the schools.
As a player, I look at any limitation I am given as a great vehicle to come up with interesting characters, but then again just my 2 coppers.
I'm not entirely sure why people would ban anything to begin with unless it's really unbalancing, which doesn't happen nearly as often as people think it does in the first place. I think it's all very arbitrary and silly. Especially since GMs have basically all the power to begin with and people have never been stationary.
Silly GM:"Monks are okay, but no ninjas!"
Me:"....What?"
Silly GM:"They are inappropriate for my campaign."
Me:"What if I just played a magical rogue?"
Silly GM:"That's fine."
Me:"Were I a man with less self-control, I would be beating you with the book right now."
Silly GM:"Why?"
Me:"...I'm not going to dignify that with a response. I'm playing a magic rogue."
Silly GM:"...Umm... okay."
Me:*begins building a "magic rogue" using the ninja class and wondering why I'm doing this to myself.
As far as investment of time and money, I have been plotting out the campaign for some weeks and ponied up money to buy both the APG and ROTL anniversary edition. This is occurring in the month I have no paycheck ($25 dollars left in my checkbook) as well as in my 6th year of a PhD program. Free time for me is limited to whatever spare time I have that is not taken up by writing and analysis. To put this in perspective, I only have had a grand total of 7 days (including weekends) where I wasn't working, since May. I think I am well within my rights to temporarily limit a whopping 4 classes, especially since no one else was interested in DMing and none of the players had expressed a prior interest in those classes.
I have no problem banning things for flavor reasons. My current game is set on a custom world that doesn't have standard fantasy races, and started in New York City with all of the PCs being Human-- so the only race allowed to PCs at first was Human, and the only races allowed now are custom races. (Koopa, Kong, Heiho, Mouser.)
I also ban Gunslinger and Summoner as a matter of course, but those are for mechanical reasons.
If I ever run a game with a limited milieu, I would have no problem banning races and classes to suit-- but I typically play Pathfinder for the fantasy kitchen sink approach and I want all of the crazy.
|
I agree with you. If someone wants to reflavor a class in my game I have no problem with it, as long as it makes sense for the character.
I won't really change game mechanics for that reflavor though, with alignment restrictions MAYBE being an exception.The only reason I would consider banning something is because of the mechanics.
Or gunslingers in a world were guns don't exist is fine too, even though some might say thats flavor-banning again. But reflavoring that to xbow-slinger seems silly :)
Hey, i just brought up x-bowslinger to my dm recently. Chris is this you?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ninja I'd ban because it makes the rogue obsolete. Not terribly comfortable with a splat core class invalidating a core class.
Just because one class was made first....... That is all the flaming I can produce. :)
In my upcoming game that I'm about to GM, I've banned the Paladin. This isn't because of fluff or mechanics, but because of players. I've never banned it before this game. Each time it's played (with one and only one exception), it ends up being the Lawful-Stupid type of character that justifies ridiculousness with his own righteousness.
I understand this. You probably want to just tell that one player he can't play the class, but you don't want him to feel singled out.
|
|
What classes could your campaign do without?
The above mentioned thread has GM's saying they do or would ban a class due to the flavor that Paizo gave it. I am not understanding this. A class's mechanics is just a means to an end. Nobody has to be making a character that get rages/gets angry, and hits harder due to his untamed nature. He could make a living by guiding people into dangerous area, and is able to channel some mystic force when it is time to fight. The fatigue could be a result of the force causing him a lot of strain. The ninja concept class does not even need the ninja class. I would use a ranger to do it, for those that say eastern classes don't fit.
In short banning class X does not really stop the concept from being played so why ban the class?
I say; "You don't like the flavor? That's what archetypes are for."
What classes could your campaign do without?
The above mentioned thread has GM's saying they do or would ban a class due to the flavor that Paizo gave it. I am not understanding this. A class's mechanics is just a means to an end. (...) In short banning class X does not really stop the concept from being played so why ban the class?
In essence, I agree with you. But on the other hand, I have found myself in situations where a class grant abilities that would not match the themes of a particular campaign for purely fluff reasons.
Lets take the (infamous) case of monks and ninjas. These classes grant abilities to become ethereal/invisible/teleport over short distances. This may not fit the campaign for purely aesthetic reasons. ...
This seems more like a ban on mechanics, not flavor though, which I can understand. The teleport mechanic as an example may not fit into your world or campaign. That is different from "Paizo named this class Tfdos(random silly name), and I don't like that name so nobody can play it".
I'm not entirely sure why people would ban anything to begin with unless it's really unbalancing, which doesn't happen nearly as often as people think it does in the first place.Do you use every monster available from the Bestiary in your campaign?
That's not banning monsters. That's just being unable to use every single monster from all the bestiaries in an adventure. For example just because I didn't use ghouls in a campaign doesn't mean I consciously banned them. I just ended up using zombies instead.
|
|
That's not banning monsters. That's just being unable to use every single monster from all the bestiaries in an adventure. For example just because I didn't use ghouls in a campaign doesn't mean I consciously banned them. I just ended up using zombies instead.I'm not entirely sure why people would ban anything to begin with unless it's really unbalancing, which doesn't happen nearly as often as people think it does in the first place.Do you use every monster available from the Bestiary in your campaign?
Why didn't you use ghouls for example?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why didn't you use ghouls for example?That's not banning monsters. That's just being unable to use every single monster from all the bestiaries in an adventure. For example just because I didn't use ghouls in a campaign doesn't mean I consciously banned them. I just ended up using zombies instead.I'm not entirely sure why people would ban anything to begin with unless it's really unbalancing, which doesn't happen nearly as often as people think it does in the first place.Do you use every monster available from the Bestiary in your campaign?
Too high of a level for wanting to use multiples of them. I didn't ban them because of flavor, mechanics, or their name. It's not even a ban. Just for that particular session, zombies fit the CR. There could be ghouls out in the world of [Insert name of my example setting], but I just decided to not use them yet. It's like saying "We didn't fight any wizards this session, therefore I can conclude there are no wizards in this setting."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what about the ranger(pseudo ninja) or rogue(pseudo ninja) when it is obvious to everyone at the table what the player is actually doing, even if he never says the word "ninja". The ranger or fighter could also be a Samurai..
Next are the infamous Asian classes and the gunslinger, because I like my Golarion without them. I'm fine and dandy with those classes in Tian-Xia and Alkenstar, but they don't fit well with my vision of Inner Sea.
My players understand that reason I'm banning those classes is because I don't want Tian-Xia in my campaign. Of course they wouldn't make a Ranger wearing ninja outfit, just to spite me.
Do Tian-Xia and Alkenstar not exist in your Golarion? If so what is stopping those classes from making it to the inner sea?<--serious question.I tend to run very localized campaigns. When I ran Carrion Crown, all of the PCs were from Ustalav. I'm about to run Curse of the Crimson Throne, and all of the players will be from Korvosa (or its surroundings). I'm sure most of my players could think up a reason why would there be a Aleknstar Gunslinger in Ustalav, I just don't want them playing them. I want to see natives to the region, not outsiders, because they're better suited to the setting. It's a wasted opportunity NOT to play a dhampir in Ustalav, or a Shoanti in Varisia, or a Suli/Genasi in Katapesh, so I tend to encourage my players to play those races/classes. If I run an Alkenstar campaign at some point in the future, then I'd ban dhampirs from Ustalav and encourage them to play Gunslinger(s).
There's a time and place (or AP) for each and every race/class. That's why they usually have 3-4 character concepts ready and if one of them doesn't fit, it's not a problem, there's always more.
Another question...Why the need to push players to what you want them to play? If those "home" race or class is not the first choice the players come to you with then maybe they don't care so much about the opportunity.
Disclaimer:Not trying to get you to change your GM style, but I have never seen a GM say "You should play ____.",with the intent of your above post.
A little background:Maybe I am too disconnected as a GM, but I don't care what they players play. I keep my myself out of the story for the most part. When/if I play I want to have the same freedom to play what I want.
I guess I am asking why does the GM care in these situations what the players play?
PS:Once again, not judging, just not "getting it".
PS2:I have seen other GM's here make similar statements. I just never made a thread on the issue until now. :)