| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
"Awesome" is subjective, and you did not reply to my opening post, you gave me a "What the GM says goes" rant. As a GM who I already know that I can just say "shut up and play or leave my table." I want to know why other GM's ban things for flavor. .
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Just to be clear the players at your table are not allowed to change flavor?
| 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.
Oh I dunno. Maybe because there's already a class called ASSASSIN? Or maybe they wanted to imply "hey these mechanics right here work really well if you want to make a ninja-themed character". However, that is the absolute lamest reasons in the world to ban a class because of the class's non-mechanical name. It's not even consistent and makes people look stupid.
I mean, you're like "why not assassin!?", and I'm thinking "Oh, darn, yes, why did they choose one stealth killer from the east over ANOTHER STEALTH KILLER FROM THE EAST". Do you listen to your self speak?
I think I'm going to start counting the number of racist posts in this thread. It's kind of amusing how bold people are with their racisms. "I'ma ban an entire class of mechanics, not because of imbalance, or because of the characters that these mechanics could be used to create, but because it's name is from Japan."
Riiiiight.
I've been GM/DMing for five years now and I've went back and forth a lot on this issue. At times I open up everything to players (which in 3.5 was dangerous ground to tread). Eventually I went to basically approving people on a case by case basis (this was purely mechanical in 3.5).
In Pathfinder I loved the simplicity of just a core book. The APG was easily allowed and it wasn't until the Ultimate series that I started banning. This started as a "I don't have the books and several reviews are bashing them for imbalance."
I got over that and finally bought the books. Sure there's some power creep but I thrived in 3.5 so it doesn't bother me.
In all I've only ever banned a class due to flavor once. That was the gunslinger (for the usual reasons).
However at this point I've told people that all my games will be open from now on. If they want to reflavor a class I'd be glad to sit down and help. Even gunslinger can fit in with the only limitation being that it would be early firearms. (I have a couple of setting so if people really want the gunslinger I'd just move my game to a later time period or make them the first gunslinger to develop advanced firearms)
I've learned that arbitrary limits aren't very fun as a player and would prefer to keep it open for my players... of course if they try something broken mechanically they know the character will not survive long. :)
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. 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?
Could you elaborate?
Thank to all of you who are posting. Carry on with the discussion. I shall check the thread again later.
PS:Stuart come back to the thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another question...Why the need to push players to what you want them to play?
I love this quote.
|
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?You can't ban creatures from yourself so I don't even know where you are trying to go with that.
Now I know for a fact that you don't always use each and every monster in the Bestiary in your games because some of them just don't fit into your game, well the same goes with classes, races, feats, and items.
Lot's of DM's decide that certain things are not allowed because of flavor, by not allowing certain things because of flavor is what can make someone's campaign unique
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. |
I don't see how limiting character options to what fit into the particular game's flavor being a bad thing? Is it just me, or do gamers today care only about their character and not the continuity of the setting and the overall meta game?
I mean, if there are no "X" people in the game that would limit class selection, deal with it or go to a different game, is it really that hard?
|
|
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.Just to be clear the players at your table are not allowed to change flavor?
If I say no Ninja's then no Ninja's, period. If I allow a Ninja and you want to reflavor it into something else then I don't have a problem with that but I do have a problem with someone trying to get around what I don't allow by trying to change it into something else.
|
|
I don't see how limiting character options to what fit into the particular game's flavor being a bad thing? Is it just me, or do gamers today care only about their character and not the continuity of the setting and the overall meta game?
I mean, if there are no "X" people in the game that would limit class selection, deal with it or go to a different game, is it really that hard?
That's because it's not a bad thing.
Some people just can't handle being told no.
If I say no Ninja's then no Ninja's, period. If I allow a Ninja and you want to reflavor it into something else then I don't have a problem with that but I do have a problem with someone trying to get around what I don't allow by trying to change it into something else.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.Just to be clear the players at your table are not allowed to change flavor?
They will play what you say or they won't play at all!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see how limiting character options to what fit into the particular game's flavor being a bad thing? Is it just me, or do gamers today care only about their character and not the continuity of the setting and the overall meta game?
I mean, if there are no "X" people in the game that would limit class selection, deal with it or go to a different game, is it really that hard?
The setting fluff is not exactly the problem from what I read, it's the "I don't like X because of its name/implications/fluff"
I don't see how limiting character options to what fit into the particular game's flavor being a bad thing? Is it just me, or do gamers today care only about their character and not the continuity of the setting and the overall meta game?
I mean, if there are no "X" people in the game that would limit class selection, deal with it or go to a different game, is it really that hard?The setting fluff is not exactly the problem from what I read, it's the "I don't like X because of its name/implications/fluff"
....so it's not the setting fluff, just the fluff? I think you mean class fluff specifically? If so, it the setting fluff doesn't support the class fluff, it's a legitimate reason to make it gone. Again like I said if no X around, then it doesn't exist.
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?
I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. Especially since it doesn't really match up very well with what I was saying, just because not everything gets used, doesn't mean it's banned.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As much as I agree with leaving many options open, I think we really need to stand back and take it easy with jumping on people that ban certain classes, especially pulling the race card and tyrannical GM card. People game differently from each other and I guarantee there are things we all hate in Pathfinder. I for one dislike drow and it's only be recently that I allowed a player to play a drow. Hell, James Jacobs himself hates dragonbord/half dragons and bans the summoner for both mechanical and fluff reasons (mostly mechanical).
Remember, it's not about GMs stifling creativity or railroading. We all play the same game differently and there isn't anything inherently wrong with that. I'm sure all the people here who are GMs have players that enjoy their games. So let's chill out a bit with the accusations of racism and GM tyranny already.
....so it's not the setting fluff, just the fluff? I think you mean class fluff specifically? If so, it the setting fluff doesn't support the class fluff, it's a legitimate reason to make it gone. Again like I said if no X around, then it doesn't exist.I don't see how limiting character options to what fit into the particular game's flavor being a bad thing? Is it just me, or do gamers today care only about their character and not the continuity of the setting and the overall meta game?
I mean, if there are no "X" people in the game that would limit class selection, deal with it or go to a different game, is it really that hard?The setting fluff is not exactly the problem from what I read, it's the "I don't like X because of its name/implications/fluff"
That remind me of one of the page of Order of The Stick, one of the character is a Samurai by title, but her class isn't Samurai and she doesn't have the Master Samurai PrC either; the other characters can't process the information...
We kinda have the opposite here.
Samurai: just change the name, remove some proficiencies and call it a Cavalier Archetype.
Same with Ninja - Rogue.
Now about the "I don't like Ninja/Monk getting X, Y and Z", I hope you are limiting spellcasters from using those as well or it is hypocrisy.
As much as I agree with leaving many options open, I think we really need to stand back and take it easy with jumping on people that ban certain classes, especially pulling the race card and tyrannical GM card.
This. A hundred times this.
Banning ninjas from my game doesn't make you anymore racist than banning clerics and paladins makes you atheist.
There are any number of reasons to ban things from fames. "flavor" is just one way of saying many many things. Most of the time GM's are trying to go for a feel with their game and ban things they feel will disrupt the feel. If a player is just trying to go a different way with the mechanics than it is likely either a misunderstanding or a player trying to get one over the GM for petty reasons.
As much as I agree with leaving many options open, I think we really need to stand back and take it easy with jumping on people that ban certain classes, especially pulling the race card and tyrannical GM card.This. A hundred times this.
Banning ninjas from my game doesn't make you anymore racist than banning clerics and paladins makes you atheist.
There are any number of reasons to ban things from fames. "flavor" is just one way of saying many many things. Most of the time GM's are trying to go for a feel with their game and ban things they feel will disrupt the feel. If a player is just trying to go a different way with the mechanics than it is likely either a misunderstanding or a player trying to get one over the GM for petty reasons.
+1
Player: I made an honorable warrior with a code of conduct, that belongs to an order, rides a mount, and focuses on taking down one foe at a time. I used the Samurai class.
DM: No, there are no samurais in my world.See the difference? In the second case, the player didn't make a samurai. He made a warrior that was built with the samurai class because it fit the concept, a concept that fit in the DM's world. Why was he banned because he used a 'eastern' class to make that character?
Better question: Why didn't the player just shrug his shoulders and make a cavalier? Was it too "Western" for him?
|
|
Because he pictured the character as a tough, difficult to put down person rather than a master tactician?
Player: I made an honorable warrior with a code of conduct, that belongs to an order, rides a mount, and focuses on taking down one foe at a time. I used the Samurai class.
DM: No, there are no samurais in my world.See the difference? In the second case, the player didn't make a samurai. He made a warrior that was built with the samurai class because it fit the concept, a concept that fit in the DM's world. Why was he banned because he used a 'eastern' class to make that character?
Better question: Why didn't the player just shrug his shoulders and make a cavalier? Was it too "Western" for him?
Why didn't he just use the fighter?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why didn't he just use the fighter?Because he pictured the character as a tough, difficult to put down person rather than a master tactician?
Player: I made an honorable warrior with a code of conduct, that belongs to an order, rides a mount, and focuses on taking down one foe at a time. I used the Samurai class.
DM: No, there are no samurais in my world.See the difference? In the second case, the player didn't make a samurai. He made a warrior that was built with the samurai class because it fit the concept, a concept that fit in the DM's world. Why was he banned because he used a 'eastern' class to make that character?
Better question: Why didn't the player just shrug his shoulders and make a cavalier? Was it too "Western" for him?
My guesses would be: 1) better skill list 2) more skill point 3) "more apropriate" class features.
Because he pictured the character as a tough, difficult to put down person rather than a master tactician?
Player: I made an honorable warrior with a code of conduct, that belongs to an order, rides a mount, and focuses on taking down one foe at a time. I used the Samurai class.
DM: No, there are no samurais in my world.See the difference? In the second case, the player didn't make a samurai. He made a warrior that was built with the samurai class because it fit the concept, a concept that fit in the DM's world. Why was he banned because he used a 'eastern' class to make that character?
Better question: Why didn't the player just shrug his shoulders and make a cavalier? Was it too "Western" for him?
So why didn't he play an archetype that replaces tactician? There's any number of those.
I note that at no point in said example does the player acknowledge the flavor of the class and asks if its possible to refluff it to his purposes. You know that's actually doable right?
And really even that would be too much effort for me. I'd just play with different mechanics. Unless the GM had a problem with the concept nothing stops me from just choosing different mechanics.
If I say no Ninja's then no Ninja's, period. If I allow a Ninja and you want to reflavor it into something else then I don't have a problem with that but I do have a problem with someone trying to get around what I don't allow by trying to change it into something else.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.Just to be clear the players at your table are not allowed to change flavor?
Ok. I get it now. At first I thought you were saying nobody shall deviate from the flavor Paizo gives a class.
I don't see how limiting character options to what fit into the particular game's flavor being a bad thing? Is it just me, or do gamers today care only about their character and not the continuity of the setting and the overall meta game?
I mean, if there are no "X" people in the game that would limit class selection, deal with it or go to a different game, is it really that hard?
My question was on banning a particular class due to the flavor Paizo gave it. I am not against a GM running a very particular campaign which might negate certain concepts.
....so it's not the setting fluff, just the fluff? I think you mean class fluff specifically? If so, it the setting fluff doesn't support the class fluff, it's a legitimate reason to make it gone. Again like I said if no X around, then it doesn't exist.I don't see how limiting character options to what fit into the particular game's flavor being a bad thing? Is it just me, or do gamers today care only about their character and not the continuity of the setting and the overall meta game?
I mean, if there are no "X" people in the game that would limit class selection, deal with it or go to a different game, is it really that hard?The setting fluff is not exactly the problem from what I read, it's the "I don't like X because of its name/implications/fluff"
Then why not just change the class flavor/fluff?
Another poster upthead mentioned how a class's mechanics might not fit into the campaign fluffwise. I am not asking about that. I am saying that if a class presents no mechanical issues, but Paizo's flavor does not fit the current campaign, why not change the flavor, or let the player do it?
Because he pictured the character as a tough, difficult to put down person rather than a master tactician?
So why didn't he play an archetype that replaces tactician? There's any number of those.
I note that at no point in said example does the player acknowledge the flavor of the class and asks if its possible to refluff it to his purposes. You know that's actually doable right?
And really even that would be too much effort for me. I'd just play with different mechanics. Unless the GM had a problem with the concept nothing stops me from just choosing different mechanics.
I'm sorry, I thought it was assumed that he'd be refluffing from the standard concept of the class. He'd be wearing full plate, carrying a longsword, etc.
It doesn't really matter why the player wants to use the samurai class (which is a glorified archetype, by the way). The mechanics of the class are exactly the mechanics he wants. Why does he have to compromise?
Why does the GM?
I mean let's be honest here if you are going to pitch a fit because the GM banned something from the game before you even started for whatever reason than you should probably not be at that table.
And still, nothing stops you from just picking a different archetype to suit your needs. If you absolutely have to violate a GM's comfort zone to suit your concept you should probably try a different concept. If you absolutely refuse to play anything but your concept you should just play a different game. Most of the time this is really unnecessary.
TOZ: The point is to just pick something else that suits the flavor. This is a big game with a lot of choices. The removal of a handful is not a reason to flip the table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What some people need to understand is the fact that certain classes carry heavier fluff than others. Fighters, rogues, wizards, sorcerers, clerics etc are pretty open, especially the fighter but classes like the paladin and ninja go deeper.
The paladin might be difficult to make a significant change to, but the ninja is pretty easy. He could have been trained as a rogue, and his ki powers could be from some entity.
What mechanic of the ninja's doesn't fit in a standard as possible, wizard/fighter/cleric/rogue world?ki.
Seriously, how many completely different kinds of magic does one setting need? We have at least arcane, divine, rage, ki, music, and alchemy. Witches use arcane magic with divine fluff. Summoners seem wonky as well, getting arcane casting through their eidolon link or something. Oh, and then there are wordcasters. That makes by my count 13 distinct kinds of magic. 15 if druidic casting is different from god oriented clerical casting, which it may be in any setting that requires gods for clerics but not druids.
There's something to be said for setting coherence and the magic user/fighting man/cleric/thief world can get by with just two kinds of magic. The black mage/fighter/white mage/thief world can get by with just one.
At that point you should as well "Make your own system" if you are gonna need that much houseruling.
At that point you should as well "Make your own system" if you are gonna need that much houseruling.What mechanic of the ninja's doesn't fit in a standard as possible, wizard/fighter/cleric/rogue world?ki.
Seriously, how many completely different kinds of magic does one setting need? We have at least arcane, divine, rage, ki, music, and alchemy. Witches use arcane magic with divine fluff. Summoners seem wonky as well, getting arcane casting through their eidolon link or something. Oh, and then there are wordcasters. That makes by my count 13 distinct kinds of magic. 15 if druidic casting is different from god oriented clerical casting, which it may be in any setting that requires gods for clerics but not druids.
There's something to be said for setting coherence and the magic user/fighting man/cleric/thief world can get by with just two kinds of magic. The black mage/fighter/white mage/thief world can get by with just one.
Corebook only. No monks or bards.
System done! :D
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...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.
I'm not saying everyone in Carrion Crown should be a Dhampir. All the regular (core) races are allowed, as are the classes, I'm only banning uncommon races/classes. Dhampir (in case of Carrion Crown) is just an extra race that I feel would be suitable to the setting. On the same margin, I'd allow Tieflings anywhere near Cheliax, Fetchlings in Nidal, Suli/Genasi in Katapesh, etc. Although with the onset of Blood of Fiends, I might allow Div-Tieflings in Katapesh etc.
I don't feel comfortable DMing to characters that I don't feel that don't belong in my campaigns. If players are against that, with no hard feelings, they don't have to play in my games. But that's never happened and everybody's more than happy to play in my games, because those are really small adjustments that (my) players can adapt to easily, with no grudges.
At that point you should as well "Make your own system" if you are gonna need that much houseruling.What mechanic of the ninja's doesn't fit in a standard as possible, wizard/fighter/cleric/rogue world?ki.
Seriously, how many completely different kinds of magic does one setting need? We have at least arcane, divine, rage, ki, music, and alchemy. Witches use arcane magic with divine fluff. Summoners seem wonky as well, getting arcane casting through their eidolon link or something. Oh, and then there are wordcasters. That makes by my count 13 distinct kinds of magic. 15 if druidic casting is different from god oriented clerical casting, which it may be in any setting that requires gods for clerics but not druids.
There's something to be said for setting coherence and the magic user/fighting man/cleric/thief world can get by with just two kinds of magic. The black mage/fighter/white mage/thief world can get by with just one.
Corebook only. No monks or bards.
System done! :D
My bard Remeira weeps because of you, sir. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is what we call cheating.
Just to be clear I don't consider, Barbarians, Monks, Alchemists, Ninja and Bards as cheating.
Only thing I don't allow are Gunslingers. I don't use firearms in my games unless they are Sea Campaigns. Kinda rules out the Gunslinger.
Also I'm not a fan of them getting to use Touch Attacks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is what we call cheating.Just to be clear I don't consider, Barbarians, Monks, Alchemists, Ninja and Bards as cheating.They are playing by a different ruleset than the other magical classes.
Core only barbarian is fine. I think they're pure (Ex) and I think the martial artist monk may be pure (Ex). Pure (Ex) is okay. Spellcasters that follow the spellcasting rules are okay. But (Su) marks an ability that breaks the rules both of magic and mundanity. They don't belong in a well ordered world. Golarion isn't a well ordered world, but you can't blame anyone for wanting to homebrew one or even houserule Golarion into one.
I liked the Final Fantasy like Black Mage/Fighter/Thief/White Mage analogy, but in a pathfinder like system, you would need to up the Fighter and Thief to keep them relevent after a while.
Video Game like stuff could be an idea how to keep balance, but it requires a lot of Homebrew/Houserules.
Well for me I decided you can have guns but buying them is a different story lol