|
Outside of a one-off game, whether or not the summoner or summoner synth is allowed and the following discussion probably isnt going to be a show stopper. Or am I the only one that has a whole first session dedicated to character creation, background creation, integration into the beginning campaign world, etc. Thats all that is happening is back and forth and lots of questions about everything. Perfect time to discuss banned classes, exceptions, etc. Four sessions later when the party is 2nd level and a player is still complaining about a ruling is NOT the time to have a discussion. :)
I said I would want to. Again, ignoring what people actually say...
Outside of a one-off game, whether or not the summoner or summoner synth is allowed and the following discussion probably isnt going to be a show stopper. Or am I the only one that has a whole first session dedicated to character creation, background creation, integration into the beginning campaign world, etc. Thats all that is happening is back and forth and lots of questions about everything. Perfect time to discuss banned classes, exceptions, etc. Four sessions later when the party is 2nd level and a player is still complaining about a ruling is NOT the time to have a discussion. :)
I would agree with this.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
What about the hulk and Thor?
Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but both Hulk and Thor have weaknesses. Hulk is a barbarian, Thor is, well, a fighter with an artifact. Both are physical tanks, but both still have their weaknesses. (Hulk's mindless rage and Thor's low Wisdom)
Part of the complaint about CoDruzilla was the same, they had no weaknesses. Even their 'weak spot' (reflex saves) just resulted in damage, which they could deal with. The Synthest brings that back.
(Amusingly part of the plot of Iron Man 3 seems to be dealing with Tony realizing he's outclassed outside his armor, and trying to deal with that fear.)
Outside of a one-off game, whether or not the summoner or summoner synth is allowed and the following discussion probably isnt going to be a show stopper. Or am I the only one that has a whole first session dedicated to character creation, background creation, integration into the beginning campaign world, etc. Thats all that is happening is back and forth and lots of questions about everything. Perfect time to discuss banned classes, exceptions, etc. Four sessions later when the party is 2nd level and a player is still complaining about a ruling is NOT the time to have a discussion. :)
Yep. But are folks here honestly suggesting:
DM: “Well here’s the set up for the next campaign…first it will be a 20 pt buy”
Player “Why?, what’s wrong with a 25 pt buy. It’s legal isn’t it? “
10 minute debate follows.
Then DM: “Next, no Evils, this is a heroic campaign”
Player: “Why, Evil is part of the game, why can’t I play a evil PC, it’s in the rules?”
10 minute debate follows.
Then DM: “You’ll all start in a tavern in Sandpoint”
Player: “Why a tavern- why not a inn, or why can’t we start in Magnimar, it’s in the rules?”
10 minute debate follows
Then DM: “Only Core and APG to start, Ultimate books will be allowed later, but let us discuss the Advanced Race guide, and vote on it now."
Player: “Why not this source book or this 3rd party material, or all this 3.5 stuff, or this homebrew stuff I just made up?”
10 hour debate follows
DM: “Finally, no synthesists”
Player: ” Why not, I wanna play one, evil, with psionics, and this home brewed race, and this 3.5 material and a 30 pt build…”
DM: Walks out the door.
Not I. In Shattered Star after I posted my huge list of character creation "shiz" I got a single "why no evil? I want to play a goblin." I simply explained goblins are a common enemy so it wouldn't work. That was it. There were no follow ups, no arguments, I didn't have the give veiled threats or otherwise "handle" that person. They took the answer and went with it. Next thing I knew it was the first session and I was vetting sheets and getting things under way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rule Zero is also the rule that establishes group discussion. Both are true.
|
|
Outside of a one-off game, whether or not the summoner or summoner synth is allowed and the following discussion probably isnt going to be a show stopper. Or am I the only one that has a whole first session dedicated to character creation, background creation, integration into the beginning campaign world, etc. Thats all that is happening is back and forth and lots of questions about everything. Perfect time to discuss banned classes, exceptions, etc. Four sessions later when the party is 2nd level and a player is still complaining about a ruling is NOT the time to have a discussion. :)
Yep. But are folks here honestly suggesting:
DM: “Well here’s the set up for the next campaign…first it will be a 20 pt buy”
Player “Why?, what’s wrong with a 25 pt buy. It’s legal isn’t it? “
10 minute debate follows.
Then DM: “Next, no Evils, this is a heroic campaign”
Player: “Why, Evil is part of the game, why can’t I play a evil PC, it’s in the rules?”
10 minute debate follows.
Then DM: “You’ll all start in a tavern in Sandpoint”
Player: “Why a tavern- why not a inn, or why can’t we start in Magnimar, it’s in the rules?”
10 minute debate follows
Then DM: “Only Core and APG to start, Ultimate books will be allowed later, but let us discuss the Advanced Race guide, and vote on it now."
Player: “Why not this source book or this 3rd party material, or all this 3.5 stuff, or this homebrew stuff I just made up?”
10 hour debate follows
DM: “Finally, no synthesists”
Player: ” Why not, I wanna play one, evil, with psionics, and this home brewed race, and this 3.5 material and a 30 pt build…”
DM: Walks out the door.
I do get where you are coming from. However, being part of a gaming group besides a pickup one shot usually entails something a bit more like vetting your friends or a semi job interview, mainly for compatability.
If you walk into PETA for a job interview and get asked you what you do for fun on the weekends and your answer is club baby harp seals and drive horses to the glue factory, you are probably not a good fit for each other. If you occasionally wear leather belts, its probably something that can be worked out.
If the GM lays out the guidelines for his game and someone questions most of them and wants to play something that is 6 ways different than what is being asked of them, you are probably not a good fit for each other. If you want the GM to consider one thing that he doesn't want in his game, and you have taken the time to create a character concept and story hook into his game, thats probably something that can at least be considered if not worked out.
That being said, I do 100% support hard working GMs getting the final say in how their game worlds run. They have to do the heavy lifting week in and week out, while IME players usually show up and roll dice. YMMV on this gaming group model.
|
There seem to be people who are really bent out of shape over the idea that I might disallow an archetype or an entire class in my campaigns.
You know, you’re in good company. Not only does my current DM ban Summoners (he has allowed one as a ‘test” but no more) but so has James Jacobs. Now, when the Creative Director of a company bans a class, maybe there is something wrong with it. What could it be? Oh, maybe it could be: “The complete "do what you want" approach to the eidolon simultaneously made the class into something that doesn't have good strong ties to Golarion, and into the most complicated of all our base classes and as such one that's very easy to make into something that's WAY too powerful (either because you don't know what you're doing and do things wrong, or because you know EXACTLY what you're doing and know all the loopholes and optimizations) and ends up dominating or, at best, merely overcomplicating games.”
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l7ns&page=574?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Qu estions-HereI think this closes the book on how complicated the Summoner and Sythisist is ("most complicated") and whether or not your a bad or lazy DM for not wanting them in your campaign.
It closes it very much, especially since said book did not even exist to begin with, especially the "Not wanting them = bad or lazy DM" part.
What was actually written by several posters is that "Not explaining things = bad or lazy GM". Or, more precisely, GM leading his group into the wall of "group exploding in several disgruntled individuals going their separate ways".
Yes, but if you don't want something in your game, you have every right to ban it.
Nobody said otherwise actually, despite what several posters seem to read over and over again
I have no problems with discussing the rules I use with a game. But as a GM, I'm a benevolent dictator, not President of a democracy.
People often forget that democracy is not a special kind of government (that is what a republic is), but a description of the most fundamental truth of human government : the power comes from the people.
A "benevolent dictator" GM just may see his players leaving because they are dissatisfied with the way he GMs. And if he didn't keep the lines of communication open, he will not even see it coming and thus he will be unable to do anything to prevent it.
Players have input, but the buck DOES stop at the GM's screen. Discussion is fine, but at a certain point, a ruling is made and life goes on.
Complete agreement here.
10 minutes of watching you "discuss" because you can't agree with the GM is 10 minutes other people at the table ain't gaming.
Which is selfish.
I believe you missed that, in his example, Buri IS THE GM, and not the argumentative player. If the GM is open to 10 minutes discussion, I say why not. After all, the GM knows his group of players as well as the tempo of his story better than anyone.
The last several posts have been as the GM, in fact, as the discussion forked a bit when Dark Immortal started speaking on an incorrect premise that I pointed out to which others have commented and I've responded.
I don't think the last few pages of posts are nearly as far apart as some of us are/were thinking.
Earlier posts sounded much more argumentative on both sides.
A) If you don't allow everything you are a horrible GM. There is no excuse. You are wrong about everything.
B) If you question anything the GM says you an obnoxious player. I refuse to discuss anything. If you say anything you are out.
------------------------------------------------------------------
I really think both sides are now saying almost exactly the same thing with just a slightly different slant.
Every group for which I have been GM have had all the house rules clearly written long before play starts. Anything wierd I try to have an explanation written out in the notes. I will not go 4 weeks in and say, oh charm person doesn't work that way in my campaign.
I do not kill a players concept with no warning. Especially not after the campaign has started. If it is becoming a problem for everyone (GM and players) we will talk about it as a group.
I have sometimes banned guns or drow because it doesn't work in my world. I will definitely tell you that much. Depending on why, I may or may not be willing to give you more details. I won't say I won't discuss it because I'm the GM. But I may not discuss it because it is a campaign secret.
Yes, it is sometimes possible to reflavor something so it will still fit. But if I have put a huge amount of effort into my world, I am not going to re-do all of it just because you can't stand any restrictions.
I almost never ban something for being too powerful. If I do, you have the opportunity to convince me I'm wrong. But not by throwing a fit or insults while the rest of us are wanting to play the game.
I have temporarily disallowed things because I don't understand it (psionics is the prime example that comes to mind). I am not being lazy or uncaring. But I don't have the book, I haven't had time to study it, some of it doesn't seem to make sense, and you loaning it to me for a quick glance doesn't necessarily resolve every thing. When I understand it I will let you know if it does in fact fit in my world, if it should wait until the next campaign, or I just can't deal with it.
One time I have had to disallow something for one player. I hate to say it but some people just can't be trusted to really make sure they understand and are following all the rules correctly. I do not want to take the time to go over their sheet and check it every single time. They are not trying to cheat, but they won't take the time and care to make sure all of that koolness really is allowed. The particular player I am thinking of could never build a synth correctly.
Buri, you especially keep saying we should discuss things. I think what it gets down to is what you mean by a discussion. Many of the posts several pages ago do not sound like a desire for discussion. They sound like a set-up for accussations and a fight that the only possible logical conclusion is giving the player what he wants. I do not think that is what you are saying. But some people earlier did sound that way. And that is what alot of us have seen actually happen.
I do not mind a civil discussion. Heck I would probably enjoy it. Again at the correct time. Which is not when the rest of us are trying to play the game.
How to describe discussion..... ?
Speak, without visible anger (it's unreasonable to dictate how someone feels at a given time), in a logical manner trying to figure out if something should be allowed or not... ? yes? I've never been asked to describe what I mean by discussion before let alone in this context.
During play or out of play depends on context. If it's a disagreement how an ability works that let's you survive a saving throw effect that should merit an on the spot "let's examine this." The more dire the situation the more apt this is whether the player realizes it or not.
Post/pre-session discussions quite usually involve session recaps, "what'd ya think" sharing and hashing out any confusing spots.
But this is me and my group and depends on what we're doing. If it's a heavily socialized game where nuance is key then I could see some lengthy OOC discussion about rules and interactions during the session. The same could be said about a more stealthy bit in a campaign. If it's just a grab the mcguffin and sell our lootz kind of session I see no real reason for lengthy discourse during play minus the above.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have no problems with discussing the rules I use with a game. But as a GM, I'm a benevolent dictator, not President of a democracy. Players have input, but the buck DOES stop at the GM's screen. Discussion is fine, but at a certain point, a ruling is made and life goes on.
And if you're lucky enough to have a group of players that are willing to have a dictator for a DM, albeit a benevolent one, then that style works fine. My point is that the norm has shifted away from that to a more collaborative approach, and not all DMs can find players that are willing to accept the older approach, and in that case, both sides have to be able to move toward a common ground somewhere in the middle.
EDIT: TO be certain, I would not give up anything as a DM without getting something in return. If the players want a democracy, than I would probably be willing to let them have it, provided they were willing to put in as much work into the campaign as I was. If they want a democracy and still think they can just show up at the game without doing any work outside the game session, they are nuts.
That's not what this game is about. If that's the attitude you GM with then you're doing it wrong.You don't get to say that. If two people want to play chess with one person giving up the queen and the other his bishops and pawns can advance three spaces, that that's fine if they're happy with that. If people want to play B&D Pathfinder, where the DM runs the PCs and the players have to sit in the chairs and watch, if that's cool with them, then you have no business telling them they're doing it wrong.
I do because the CRB establishes a certain social contract directly within rule 0. If you rewrite that social contract then you're not participating in the same gaming environment as intended. Even if the players agree to that dynamic you're cutting out a core piece of what it is to play Pathfinder and are essentially not playing the same game.
Dark Immortal gave off this impression of there's zero discussion to be had. Accept it or f-off, period. ... Again, as I said, and as you ignored, I was speaking to his premise and not the topic at large.They aren't separable. It turns out, after people have been harangued about a subject for an extensive period of time, they're unwilling to contemplate further discussion on the topic. If you had said that you had Monstrous Bloodlines for Sorcerers and wanted to play a character with a stirge bloodline, then I'll look at it. But you've had your ten minutes on the synthesist summoner, so why should a GM be willing to discuss it? You know the litany of reasons why not.
Sure they are. Take some time and think about it. A premise is not the conclusion.
It is ridiculously easy to challenge a synthesist without putting the rest of the party in unequal peril.
A GM who can't manage that shouldn't be GMing.
I guess I'll call my players and tell them that we won't be playing tonight. I don't think they'll accept "someone on the Internet told me I shouldn't be GMing", though.
It is ridiculously easy for you to not play a synthesist, and it doesn't involve me being forced to look at Skeletons of Scarwall and rewrite it to challenge your character. You are not entitled to force the GM to do extra work to support your character.
If you want to internalize the argument make it about you that's your right. The only reason you'd do that, though, is to white knight about it.
Doing extra work to support characters is the GMs primary job. Read the Game Mastery Guide. It's full of advice to do work to help make your player's characters shine when possible. Why? Because PCs play heroes for a reason. This doesn't necessarily "just happen" as not all APs are designed for all classes. If you let in an "x class here" into a "x class unfriendly campaign here" and don't change anything up all you're doing is setting a player up to be disappointed. That's not how GMing works.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even the CRB says your base premise is wrong:
The rules presented are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.This is how the game is "meant" to be played. Anything short of this is you being a jerk GM. The reason these discussions and "why is this?" occurs is because the CRB says they SHOULD occur and presents that sort of discourse as a base expectation of play in the very first chapter of the book. Even the GM Fiat rule in the Gamemastering chapter of the CRB states that if you rule on something incorrectly that you should make it up to your players ASAP. This tells us two things: 1) the GM CAN and WILL be wrong at least from time to time and 2) they should GIVE back to players.
This game isn't about stealing other peoples' fun. There are a plethora of tools the GM can use to balance any party regardless of its composition.
So, if I come up and says "hey, I wanna play a synth" and you say "that's not allowed" and I'm like "why?" and you take the position of "deal with it" then I will not play with you and neither should anyone else. We're not playing the same game. You're playing some gross, perverted version of it and are giving your players a subpar performance whether they realize it or not.
I concede that, since the pathfinder rules state this, you are right. I can't refute what is in print from the official source. Maybe I should adjust my argument to GM, in general, nonexclusive to pathfinder, as each rpg and company has a different view of how their game is to be played. I've been playing since 2nd edition (so not very long compared to many others) but I have a different mindset. I'm fair (in my own way). But I don't feel the need to explain things that I simply don't want to. I'll go so far as to state that the rule you highlighted is a rule I can and if I felt, would choose, to ignore at my discretion. Players would always know that I retained the right to ignore that rule. From there, they can choose to play with me or not. If nobody wants to play with me, I can take that and determine if I am willing to adjust my ideas and standpoint enough to keep players. Otherwise, I can just go play in someone elses game and understand that people didn't like my game or me or my style and that's why I am unable to run. I'm totally cool with that.
My personal experience has been different, however. I used to run a year+ long campaign at a local shop and the customer base grew strictly from role playing. My game was the first and only one for a little while before people who happened by saw, watched, became intrigued and asked to join. They began coming more frequently then. Soon, my group grew too large (over 12 people) and I had to siphon players off. They eventually formed a second group that played at the same time on the same days. Then, other people took note of the two rather large groups, and formed their own in the shop. We had various RP games going from different games and systems (3.5, shadowrun, etc). Several of the offshoot groups had multiple players merely waiting to join my group (either as returning players who had to leave or new players who wanted in). My game had a few tpk's or near tpk's due to the nature of my game world at the time and players wanting to take their chances at riches just beyond their reach. So this allowed room for new people to join every so often and existing players to move on to one of the other games.
I ruled that divine magic at 3rd level or higher had arcane spell failure chance, in and out of armor. The higher level the spell, the greater the chance. No pc was ever given a reason. No discussion was had. They only knew, upfront, that that was the rule. They could play a divine caster if they wanted...or not. Or not play in my game. For the record, we had a very powerful druid who did just fine and was critical to the parties survival. When she found a staff with divine spells of healing (that didn't have spell failure chances) she, and the party, were IMMENSELY happy. I literally just had a member from that party (now nearly a decade ago) call me about two weeks ago talking about the adventure and bringing up that exact scenario and how cool he thought it was, among others. He's been asking me for advice in GMing as he is attempting to stylize some aspects of his game after mine.
So for me personally, I know that I can DM a game and do a decent job, if not a darn good one. Maybe that's why I feel I can be tight lipped about decisions I make about how the game runs or works. Am I a jerk GM? I don't know. And honestly, it's not my concern if someone thinks I am or not. I know that I run a hell of a game. People I know NOW ask me to tell other people about games I've run in the past...even if those people asking never got to play in those past games of mine. So I must be doing *something* right that the stories and experience, even secondhand is that compelling. And that's my goal...everything I do when I gm builds towards those compelling experiences that keeps my players coming back, addicted, and talking about it- apparently for years and years after the fact. I feel that ALL games should be like that and I strive to better my talents. If not being communicative on some things (like why a feature is or is not in my game) is bad gming, then I am more than happy to take that flaw while I keep working on refining my strengths and mitigating other flaws I feel are more pressing. Not one player has yet to take issue with me not explaining something. Mainly because I tell them, 'I'm not going to tell you man. But you can play something else, or you can try and min/max within the seemingly arbitrary limitations I gave, here's a tip...'
I mean, if someone was still interested enough to play a non-shapeshifting druid with penalized spellcasting, in a game world with already limited magic....and no explanation given as to why things were that way (though they eventually discovered some of the reasons in game)I had to be doing something right.
Ok, I'm done tooting my own horn.
For the record: No, I am not the best GM. I've met a few who make me feel like I have sooo much more to learn. They make me want to improve my gaming.
Yes, I think I am a good GM who is FINE where he is. But I'm addicted to improvement. I've learned and watched some really amazing guys run a game or play one. I don't always get everything right. But I try and learn from those mistakes. So far, being tight lipped on the nature of my game world and not entertaining discussion related to it hasn't proven itself a mistake, either because I am making my diplomacy checks after, or because the players naturally see no point in trying to get me to talk more about it after I've told them 'I'm not revealing the reason behind that decision'. Since this is long, I do want to reiterate that insofar as pathfinder is concerned, though, Buri is correct. I should be open to discussion and hearing players thoughts on those issues (I just choose not to, regardless).
@Ravendork I disagree. Intellectually anyway. Personally, sure, I am on you with this. But the reality is that if I assume that someone unable or unskilled at handling a specific situation or situation type is grounds for them not being a gm then I could set any other number of arbitrary rules in place to the same degree. Since no GM is entirely capable or skilled at every variable that could come up, this is an unfair ideology that effectively removes any new gm from ever being able to gm due to lack of a experience and skills. So as a blanket statement treated as a rule, I find you're totally wrong on this (unless it's like to be a judge or for pfs play, etc). But on a personal level, I agree that if you can't handle a pc or various events in your game, then you should probably figure out how to do so- it betters you as a gm and fixes problems that may be interfering with everyone's enjoyment.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a collaboration. The view I get by most responses concerning GM style here is basically an overlord that can't wait to TPK the party the moment anyone suggests something outside the status quo.
GMs should interpret rules. I never said they shouldn't. However, those rules interpretations should be up for discussion for reasons I've already stated that are backed up by the system itself.
Most games are not a collaboration, and I find it insulting when people claim they are.
I do have some collaboration with one of my players, we trade off on being GM, and we both bounce world ideas off the other. THAT is a collaboration, we both spend hours outside the game working up the worlds, detailing the gods, detailing the countries and peoples and cultures.
If you show up at the game and claim you are 'collaborating' with the GM, you are a liar and a fool. If you want to collaborate, then donate 5-6 hours a week to working out rules, plot, NPCs, treasure hoardes, and all the other pain in the posterior stuff that most players don't even think about.
The actual playing of the game is a collaboration on the storytelling.
The creation of the world is a d**n sight of work that players who b**tch and moan about 'you're ruining my fun' because you won't let them play their noble drow half-dragon half-fiend book of nine swords uber swordsman with leadership and a cohort who also has leadership (and yes, I did have someone b**ch and moan because I said no on this concept) never bother contributing to, nor bother thanking the GM for doing.
As the GM, I have to keep an entire world, a dozen planes, 30 or 40 countries, 27 gods and churches, four continents, an economic system, one to three major plots, and a dozen sub plots and red herrings. If you show up and have one character, and don't contribute in any other way than arguing with me and throwing hissy fits when I say there are no psionics characters on the continent the game is involved on then you are not only not collaborating, you are actively disrupting the game and trying to take over control of the game, in which case, you run the freaking game and I'll show up with my half-celestial fetchling synthesist summoner for your game.
I don't disagree mdt, and you know I got mad respect for your campaign...
..but you do know you don't NEED to do all that, right? ;)
I'm flattered you think I'm good enough to keep all that in my head without writing it down and working things out ahead of time, but I'm not. :)
Unless you mean buying APs, but those aren't a fix all. You have to go through them and make changes to accomodate the gunslinger who wasn't even a gleam in a devs eye when the AP was written, or to handle that fact you've got 6 players instead of 4, or to handle the fact your cavalier's player decided to spend all her coin on her warhorse and it's more powerful than the rest of the party put together. :)
Really, I think you're just making more work for yourself. Which is totally fine, we've all got to DM in our own ways.
I gotta admit, for most of my campaigns, if it isn't in the immediate area, it doesn't exist yet.
The problem I have running like that is it makes it harder for me to weave in subplots and politics. If I have it all in my head, at least at the 30K ft view, then I can plan for politics, keep track of how the isolation of the southern sea port affects the norther countries, how the lack of a doom whale season will affect the rest of the world, etc.
I find personally it makes it a more engrossing story.
|
|
I usually write down the bones of my campaign worlds and cache the rest in memory. I write down any specific, key events or locales (such as major cities, plot-based thieves guilds, etc). So my story is never upset. Beyond that, it's open and I am flexible.
I don't have to map out the wilds to know that every few miles from the edge of civilization, CR's rise. I DO write out what specific categories of things can be encountered and what the increase or decreased chances of random encounters might be. I have maps, history, and plots between multiple nations, specific individuals, and all that 'epic' spanning stuff. PC's don't have to do anything for these things to happen. But they are entirely capable of interacting with and getting swept up in these schemes. In fact, I bank on it.
I promote free-form exploration. Specific areas or legends are told to the PC's either IC or OOC as I determine is necessary. This can result in players completely ignoring any existing plot, adventure path, or storyline I have in place- though, since my worlds are so incredibly thorough, you never really are 'free' from the machinations I have in store. No dungeon is truly random since the dungeon was built for a reason, and while this particular dungeon may not be of much import, whoever built it or their motivations or why the place was built is...and the clues or hints are there, either immediately or over the course of the game. These types of clues, hints, etc, are the things that make all the complexity wort it when a pc says 'hey, didn't we encounter a dungeon like this one about 8 months ago IRL? And didn't we see a mark KIND OF like this one but located in the EXACT same place? And didn't one of the scrolls we got from the lord in that one dilapidated manor on the plane of shadow have a symbol crafted in the same unknown, but distinct hand?'.
Suddenly, the pc's have a mystery and another adventure....just when things had settled down.
I think this sort of stuff is why GM's like mdt and I plot and plan so much of our games. It is incredibly rewarding to see the fruits of those labors acknowledged and you just so absolutely want to high five the face off of whichever PC brought your work to realization.
There simply aren't many more rewarding experiences (for me) as a gm than the expressions that come with the realization that in a completely vast, multiplanar, and terribly open game world...something SO innocuous is connected so substantially to their every day experiences and perhaps the games history or future.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Someone asked why here on this board are no discussions about why you ban/allow something. I already said it before but I say it again, more detailed, perhaps.
At home, in my gaming group I have adult, mature, players who are (like) me working for their money and who have to domestic work to do, have to care for children or other familiy.
If I tell them that I don't want to have to care about the added work of allowing class YX then they understand and accept it in a sensible way.
Now if I use the same argument here, on these boards I get attacked and insulted as being lazy.
So really, why should I start giving reasons to people who will use those reasons against me and insult me?
Even if a gm has more reasons to ban the synth there is a high propability for him to be flamed for it by someone.
Face it, often the discussions around here are very rude/ lacking netiquette.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT: TO be certain, I would not give up anything as a DM without getting something in return. If the players want a democracy, than I would probably be willing to let them have it, provided they were willing to put in as much work into the campaign as I was. If they want a democracy and still think they can just show up at the game without doing any work outside the game session, they are nuts.
As a GM, I feel that I am already getting something from my players if they turn up and play.
They are investing a big part of their free time in my game. And that is not even counting the time they spent on building their character and creating its backstory. Also they are often bringing food and drinks to be shared. They count initiative, HP taken (both their own and those of their opponents), resources expended. Add to that that they all come from various parts of the city, or even from other cities, with all the accompanying costs (and additional time) and I think you can see why I feel they have earned the right to my respect.
After all, I have no way to force them to come and play. Think of them as customers of my gamemastering if you will. They come because they are willing to spend time and money on what I offer them.
It's a collaboration. The view I get by most responses concerning GM style here is basically an overlord that can't wait to TPK the party the moment anyone suggests something outside the status quo.
GMs should interpret rules. I never said they shouldn't. However, those rules interpretations should be up for discussion for reasons I've already stated that are backed up by the system itself.
Most games are not a collaboration, and I find it insulting when people claim they are.
I do have some collaboration with one of my players, we trade off on being GM, and we both bounce world ideas off the other. THAT is a collaboration, we both spend hours outside the game working up the worlds, detailing the gods, detailing the countries and peoples and cultures.
If you show up at the game and claim you are 'collaborating' with the GM, you are a liar and a fool. If you want to collaborate, then donate 5-6 hours a week to working out rules, plot, NPCs, treasure hoardes, and all the other pain in the posterior stuff that most players don't even think about.
The actual playing of the game is a collaboration on the storytelling.
The creation of the world is a d**n sight of work that players who b**tch and moan about 'you're ruining my fun' because you won't let them play their noble drow half-dragon half-fiend book of nine swords uber swordsman with leadership and a cohort who also has leadership (and yes, I did have someone b**ch and moan because I said no on this concept) never bother contributing to, nor bother thanking the GM for doing.
As the GM, I have to keep an entire world, a dozen planes, 30 or 40 countries, 27 gods and churches, four continents, an economic system, one to three major plots, and a dozen sub plots and red herrings. If you show up and have one character, and don't contribute in any other way than arguing with me and throwing hissy fits when I say there are no psionics characters on the continent the game is involved on then you are not only not...
I am sorry, mdt, but you will doubtlessly find my post insulting, though it is not my intent.
As I mentioned above, I feel that a player who shows up at my game is already collaborating with me. Even better if he tries his utmost to play the story I planned for his character and the other PCs.
But absolutely NO ONE forces a GM to spend hours, days or months building his world and aventures in excruciating detail. It is only a matter of GM style, as I have known GMs who could tell great stories with next to nil preparation.
Just as no one forces a player to spend the same hours, days or months building their character and its backstory in the same excruciating detail. And such a player should not expect to be treated differently at my table than the one who spent just the minimum necessary amount of time on his character.
And it is the same thing for the GM. That you wish to put a lot of time and effort in your campaign is all good and well, but it gives you absolutely zero right to scorn your players. Nor should it allow a GM to be a jerk.
BTW : telling people that they are "a liar and a fool" IS an insult. And written the way it is, it does seem to be aimed at some of the posters on this thread, myself included maybe. I am not sure that was your intent though.
|
|
Someone asked why here on this board are no discussions about why you ban/allow something. I already said it before but I say it again, more detailed, perhaps.
At home, in my gaming group I have adult, mature, players who are (like) me working for their money and who have to domestic work to do, have to care for children or other familiy.
If I tell them that I don't want to have to care about the added work of allowing class YX then they understand and accept it in a sensible way.
Now if I use the same argument here, on these boards I get attacked and insulted as being lazy.
So really, why should I start giving reasons to people who will use those reasons against me and insult me?Even if a gm has more reasons to ban the synth there is a high propability for him to be flamed for it by someone.
Face it, often the discussions around here are very rude/ lacking netiquette.
In my experience, reading insults and attacks where there are none and reacting accordingly plays an important part in the discussion becoming rude and lacking in netiquette.
Thankfully, most threads around here are far more peaceful. Only the few very long ones exhibit this kind of behaviour ;-)
Also note that, as an "explaining GM" (ie, you tell your players why you ban such and such), you are not part of the "lazy, bad GMs" as defined above.
|
|
...
but it gives you absolutely zero right to scorn your players. Nor should it allow a GM to be a jerk....
You are permitted to *feel* however you want. We all are. But gaming isn't about rights. So that's irrelevant. If a PERSON, in this case a GM, wants to scorn their players. They are free to do so until free will or actual laws dictate otherwise. You can be of the opinion that they shouldn't be able to choose to scorn- but until some aspect of reality changes to accommodate your opinion, it's moot.
Also, you call it scorn. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. That is up to each individual involved to determine, just as it is up to each individual with the option of playing in said GM's game to choose to play in it. You can view it as whoever is doing the other a favor, be it GM or player, or as just a game. Either way it doesn't matter nor change the fact that in either case, no one is forced to do anything. The people in your game who come from other cities could just as well take the time to find a closer location if they felt scorned by you or as though your game wasn't a good fit for them.
Calling the individual a jerk is a bit of a stretch. I never felt like a jerk for not explaining things to my players. I never got the impression that those players felt like I was a jerk either. Maybe they did. Still, it doesn't matter what they thought. They WANTED and CHOSE to play with the possible jerk of a GM (me). It wasn't forced. A jerk would maybe be the guy forcing the option or removing all other options leaving himself as the only remaining choice.
Throwing out, 'jerk' and 'scorn' and 'right' and all of these assumptions (whether I FEEL the same way you do or not) seems like stepping into territory we can't possibly know and making assumptions based on little information.
And until you can get past the fact that every last person involved has a choice in what type of game they will play in, what kind of GM will run the game and what medium the game will be performed on, then any of the above arguments seem like we are intentionally, and fruitlessly beating a dead horse and just using poor word selection in vain attempts to say 'I feel it should be the way I want it, and not the way you want it or the way it is/can be'.
That's all each of us is really saying at this point. Nobody HAS to GM the way you (or I) want them to. Both of our opinions on someone elses style are irrelevant. It is up to the people who choose to play with that particular GM to make their own determinations. And if you or I dislike a style or method a GM is using we can simply say 'I dislike your style or your method. Would you be willing to try this instead'?
Seems simple enough to me.
Just as no one forces a player to spend the same hours, days or months building their character and its backstory in the same excruciating detail. And such a player should not expect to be treated differently at my table than the one who spent just the minimum necessary amount of time on his character.
And it is the same thing for the GM. That you wish to put a lot of time and effort in your campaign is all good and well, but it gives you absolutely zero right to scorn your players. Nor should it allow a GM to be a jerk.
Bullshit. You rights end at my doorstep. If you don't like my gaming style, that's your right not to show up. If you're showing up at my house, drinking my soda, and eating my candy, and sitting at my table, then you will observe common courtesy. You will not claim that you are collaborating with me when you show up 10 minutes before the game character in hand, and then argue with me about why you should be allowed to play <insert banned character concept>.
Your rights do not include derailing the game for everyone else.
Your rights do not include the right to be a jerk. That right is one given to you by whatever power evolved or created you (depending on your belief system), but that right ends at my door.
Sitting at my table, you are signing a social contract. That contract says : I will not be a selfish prig or I will not be invited back. I will attempt to play a game in which I put forth effort to make sure everyone has fun, and it is not my god given right to run roughshod over everyone elses fun.
If you can't live up to that contract, go find another place to hang out.
I believe in meritocracy, and part of that is, you get benefits and respect based on how you act, and how much effort you put into making sure everyone at the table enjoys themselves. You want to have things your way, and exercise your rights to play whatever you want, however you want, but you don't want to acknowledge the rights of anyone else at the table. It's all me me me on these forums. I have this right, I have that right.
No, you don't, nobody does. You have exactly one right, and it's the same right that I have when I am a player in someone else's game. You have the right to leave if you don't like the game. That is the beginning and ending of your (and my) rights as players. I have no more right to demand to play a pixie Shadowrun than I do to demand to play a cyborg in Pathfinder.
I blame it on the way society has been dumbing things down lately. Little League where they don't keep score because 'everyone wins'. We need to 'validate' our kids, not teach them. And then when they get out of college, and have to deal with the real world, they expect everything on a silver platter. (God I sound old!)
BTW : telling people that they are "a liar and a fool" IS an insult. And written the way it is, it does seem to be aimed at some of the posters on this thread, myself included maybe. I am not sure that was your intent though.
It is aimed at some of the posters on these boards. If you want to show up at my game and claim you collaborated on my game with me because you showed up with a character sheet in hand demanding to play something that was banned and that this somehow must be accomodated in my world, and that by forcing it into my world with a crowbar and a bunch of whining, you have somehow collaborated on the game, then you are, I repeat, a LIAR and a FOOL.
Liar : You are lying when you say you are a collaborator. You didn't collaborate, you dictated and whined and disrupted the game until you got your way. That's the opposite of collaboration.
Fool : You are a fool because what you've really done is antagonized the GM, taken up the time of the players, and diminished them. You have told them that they are less important than you, because your desires are more important than their desires, because you will disrupt the game to get what you want. That's foolish, because it alienates everyone around you.
So yes, there are some posters on this board that are espousing that they get to have their way and the GM is not allowed to nay-say them. That's selfish, it's counter-productive, and it's not something I have to put up with. If you want to dictate what I do, you can pay me for my time. Otherwise, you better treat me like my likes/dislikes/wants/needs are important, rather than being a selfish prig who insists on having everything their way.
EDIT: TO be certain, I would not give up anything as a DM without getting something in return. If the players want a democracy, than I would probably be willing to let them have it, provided they were willing to put in as much work into the campaign as I was. If they want a democracy and still think they can just show up at the game without doing any work outside the game session, they are nuts.As a GM, I feel that I am already getting something from my players if they turn up and play.
They are investing a big part of their free time in my game. And that is not even counting the time they spent on building their character and creating its backstory. Also they are often bringing food and drinks to be shared. They count initiative, HP taken (both their own and those of their opponents), resources expended. Add to that that they all come from various parts of the city, or even from other cities, with all the accompanying costs (and additional time) and I think you can see why I feel they have earned the right to my respect.
After all, I have no way to force them to come and play. Think of them as customers of my gamemastering if you will. They come because they are willing to spend time and money on what I offer them.
At the same time, the time they spend on their character does not begin to approach the time DMs spend building the world and the campaign. I've come down hard on hardnosed DMs in this thread, but I'll come down even harder on any player that thinks that simply building their character and showing up to play is even remotely similar to the work the DM puts in. Players do deserve respect for the effort they put forth, but I've seen a lot of players that simply show up and roll dice; they don't do any of the math, they don't track anything, they don't pay attention, and they are usually the first to complain about any restrictions or tactics that they think hurts "their" character.
I can't entirely disagree with the DMs who say if the players don't like it, they can go find another game; I personally think that doing so should be the last tactic used, not the first, but it is still a valid response if everything else has failed.
I can't entirely disagree with the DMs who say if the players don't like it, they can go find another game; I personally think that doing so should be the last tactic used, not the first, but it is still a valid response if everything else has failed.
I've had exactly 3 players in 25 years of GMing that I had to either ask to leave my games, or who have left because we couldn't come to some understanding.
I also agree it's the last step, and I usually bend myself over backwards to avoid it, because I feel like I failed as a GM if it comes to that.
However, I have also been lucky that I have never run into some of the posters on these boards, who have a sense of entitlement that their desires are more important than everyone elses desires either. I'm honestly flabbergasted at the idea. I'd never show up at someone's game and demand they run it my way. I might ask politely, and if they ask me to give them good reasons, I will, but when they say 'No' that's it. I move on to something else.
You have exactly one right, and it's the same right that I have when I am a player in someone else's game. You have the right to leave if you don't like the game. That is the beginning and ending of your (and my) rights as players. I have no more right to demand to play a pixie Shadowrun than I do to demand to play a cyborg in Pathfinder.
While true, I've found anyone on either side of the screen that is willing to carry an argument to that extreme on a regular basis probably is part of the problem themselves. Just because someone can do something doesn't mean it needs to be or should be the first response.
However, I have also been lucky that I have never run into some of the posters on these boards, who have a sense of entitlement that their desires are more important than everyone elses desires either. I'm honestly flabbergasted at the idea. I'd never show up at someone's game and demand they run it my way. I might ask politely, and if they ask me to give them good reasons, I will, but when they say 'No' that's it. I move on to something else.
It's hard to say how the experience would turn out. My experience is that forums very rarely accurately and fully reflect how a person would actually respond in an actual scenario that wasn't pure theorycrafting.
Personally, I ban them for a number of reasons.
1)Because they are a summoner. You see, I do not allow the summoner class at all. The entire class is just a huge redundancy. There are plenty of ways the use the Summon Expendable HP Sponge spell without bothering with a class that does nothing but complicate things.
2)Because I am not running, "The Guyver", I am running a fantasy RPG. They just do not seem to fit in anywhere at all, much less anywhere that my game is actually set.
3)I usually run AP's. The Adventure Paths have small maps. When you have a six player party and have to add 50% more minions as well this tends to leave little to no room left for hordes of monsters. Espescially Large sized ones.
4)The need to audit. I already have several new players. Some of them are big on story, but not on rules. I have to do regular audits of their character sheets in order to keep everything straight to begin with. Allowing Summoners (of any sort, much less Synth. or Master archetypes) is heaping more onto an already full plate. I run an immersion game requiring prep time similar to mdt's above. I already spend more than a day (sometimes two or more) of prep time per week. Why would I choose to add more to that for a class option that is like a square peg in a round hole to begin with?
5)My players do not know the bestiaries. Frankly, I like it this way. I really do not want to promote the study of every monster entry in the game.
6)The Eidolon. In my experience convoluted rules that are only used by one class promote confusion and endless, needless debate. And usually that endless, needless debate involves only 1 PC while the rest of the players sit on their hands and contemplate swallowing their dicebag to alleviate their boredom. (Dont believe me? Run a messageboard search on the word "Monk" or "Flurry of Blows".)
7)In a group with many players the Summoner class seems to naturally steal spotlight time away from the other players. Often it does this and then the summoned, tailored just for this-and-that monster fails at the task at hand and further complicates numerous story elements, and often this is detrimental to the party as a whole (i.e.,unseen guards sound an alarm, the monster-to-be-dealt-with could see the summoned invisible critter and one shots it spoiling the parties surprise, etc...)All so one player could showboat more, when the party rogue (or ninja or whatever) could have done a better job to begin with.
8)Everywhere I look, I see validation. PFS does not allow Synth-archetypes. I know over a half-dozen GM's personally (Yes, in real life) that do not allow them either. Do not get me wrong I am not the type to follow a crowd off a cliff, but if things were exploding around me I WOULD follow them into a bomb shelter. Last I checked that makes me practical, not a lemming.
I am NOT saying Summoners are broken or useless. It is just that the only place I could honestly see allowing one would be in a AP that only had two players, or in a similar situation.
Now, I understand that my play style is not for everyone. And that is fine. I also understand everyone elses play style is not for everyone. And that is fine, as well. I just thought I would drop my $.02 in the jar full of change.
Best of Luck,
Weslocke of Phazdaliom
Also note that, as an "explaining GM" (ie, you tell your players why you ban such and such), you are not part of the "lazy, bad GMs" as defined above.
Someone in this thread said that if you ban the synth because it is too much work for you as the gm to handle all his special rules and every errata then you are lazy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, but I have to laugh at that whole "lazy" concept.
Let me get this straight. The Player of a fictional character who summons critters all day to do ALL the things he doesnt want to do is calling someone else "lazy"?
Thats FUNNY!
Someone in this thread said that if you ban the synth because it is too much work for you as the gm to handle all his special rules and every errata then you are lazy.
Also note that, as an "explaining GM" (ie, you tell your players why you ban such and such), you are not part of the "lazy, bad GMs" as defined above.
Just because I don't explain things does not make me a lazy GM. I may have a good reason involving the plot of the world not to explain things. Someone up thread had a good example.
Again, your right is to leave the game if you don't like it. Beyond that, you are not 'owed' anything other than common courtesy. The GM is owed that same common courtesy, including the common courtesy of not badgering him if he says 'Sorry, no, and I can't tell you why'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However, I have also been lucky that I have never run into some of the posters on these boards, who have a sense of entitlement that their desires are more important than everyone elses desires either.Impossible, you've had me at your table! 8)
Yes, but I had your wife there too, and she can beat you up. So I think it kept your ego under control. :)
The reason a game is a collaboration is because both of you are forming the game world. Your world shifts and changes as the PCs do things. The king isn't the king anymore if the party rogue shivs him when he sleeps. Assuming he's not resurrected etc all that character's political dreams and motivations stop as well as any future plans you had for him. A contingency may kick in but your player's just changed your world.
The reason a game is a collaboration is because both of you are forming the game world. Your world shifts and changes as the PCs do things. The king isn't the king anymore if the party rogue shivs him when he sleeps. Assuming he's not resurrected etc all that character's political dreams and motivations stop as well as any future plans you had for him. A contingency may kick in but your player's just changed your world.
That is collaboration in telling the story, which I said yes, they do for that part.
Building the world, designing it, that's the GMs job.
In other words, without the GM putting time in, there would be no king for the rogue to shiv.
So, to reiterate again, unless you are spending time during the week with the GM to help him build the world, you are not collaborating with him to run the game. You are just showing up and collaborating on telling the story.
If you show up with something that doesn't fit the world (like a half-dragon half-celestial noble drow in a world with no dragons, no celestials, and no drow) and then whine and complain and call the GM lazy for not accomodating your build, then.. you are not collaborating on anything, not on the world, and not on the story either.
The initial version of it, sure. Depending how high level you run your adventures, though, the PCs can have drastic changes on it which can change very fundamental aspects of it.
I see the interaction from the whole package. You seem to have issues subdivided and are protective over certain facets of the game process. I'm not.
I haven't had synths in a game before, but I'm about to allow one because:
1. The player knows the rules at least as well as I do.
2. He's the only melee character in the party. Everyone else is caster/ranged/stealth/face/etc.
3. I didn't find the synth rules/errata particular difficult to understand compared to the rest of the rules.
4. I'm not worried about the player hogging the spotlight, since I know the other players will have areas they'll shine in.
5. The player is a team player, so I know that encounters with one or two straight-forward strong monster and tricky minions are going to be a lot of fun to run, and I'm looking forward to it.
6. I made its Eidolon its own NPC with it's own motivations and backstory, and exploring that relationship is going to be a big part of the player's character arc, as it ties in to everything else happening in the world.
If your countless hours could be resolved in a few hours then you over spent your time. I don't know about you but my campaigns last a year or so. The months I spent setting up ducks are easily countered by a year or more commitment from my players. I'm no more entitled to anything than they are. Maybe you think you are but that's bound to lead to a very nasty argument.