When did making sense become wrongbadfun?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

451 to 500 of 569 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

Quote:

=Adamantine Dragon].The issue is about whether a GM should FORCE a SPECIFIC role playing action to allow a player to make a completely legal game mechanic choice.

That's what this is about.

I Vote no. it is a courtesy for a player to let the Dm know why he is becoming a monk nothing more. it is up to the Dm to incorporate the class choice into his campaign


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arssanguinus wrote:
sunshadow21 wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
The issue is about whether a GM should FORCE a SPECIFIC role playing action to allow a player to make a completely legal game mechanic choice.
In some campaigns and groups, absolutely they can. It needs to be something the player is forewarned about, and it needs to be applied consistently, but if those two conditions are met, and the player still sits down to play, the DM is well within his rights to expect a specific action or a functional equivalent. It's grown less common that DM's do so as the game has progressed, and the rules have become more defined, but there are still plenty of players and DMs that prefer to play that way.
It's not specific to multi classing, its just that actions and results need to have some logical interaction with the world. Just like if you want to attempt some action in character that might seem impossible on its face, if you give me a really good explanation for HOW you are attempting the impossible, I will probably allow a roll anyway, and a chance at succeeding at the purportedly impossible - which through your explanation has now become improbable.

Unless the rules specifically say it's possible and not even difficult, even though you think it's impossible and requires a really good explanation to become merely improbable.


Lobolusk wrote:
Quote:

=Adamantine Dragon].The issue is about whether a GM should FORCE a SPECIFIC role playing action to allow a player to make a completely legal game mechanic choice.

That's what this is about.

I Vote no. it is a courtesy for a player to let the Dm know why he is becoming a monk nothing more. it is up to the Dm to incorporate the class choice into his campaign

A courtesy forced is not a courtesy. It is a demand.

If you and others want to keep calling it a "courtesy" then allow it to be a "courtesy" and stop making it a demand. Do what you should do with "courtesies". Reward and appreciate it and use it as an example to educate and inform others.

Quit b~!*@ing about how it is a requirement, because if it is, then it's not a courtesy.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Lobolusk wrote:
Quote:

=Adamantine Dragon].The issue is about whether a GM should FORCE a SPECIFIC role playing action to allow a player to make a completely legal game mechanic choice.

That's what this is about.

I Vote no. it is a courtesy for a player to let the Dm know why he is becoming a monk nothing more. it is up to the Dm to incorporate the class choice into his campaign

A courtesy forced is not a courtesy. It is a demand.

If you and others want to keep calling it a "courtesy" then allow it to be a "courtesy" and stop making it a demand.

huh?! I think we are on the same side. the DM should not force any body to not take a class because they cant explain it good enough. it is a courtesy to the DM from The Player.


There is always the supposition that not everything is possible. Every game, the moment its played, is to some extent house ruled. The moment you make an interpretation of a rule, you are house ruling, its just a matter of extent and where those rules fall.

And requiring something to make sense within the milieu of the campaign word is not some unreasonable and onerous task.


Lobolusk wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Lobolusk wrote:
Quote:

=Adamantine Dragon].The issue is about whether a GM should FORCE a SPECIFIC role playing action to allow a player to make a completely legal game mechanic choice.

That's what this is about.

I Vote no. it is a courtesy for a player to let the Dm know why he is becoming a monk nothing more. it is up to the Dm to incorporate the class choice into his campaign

A courtesy forced is not a courtesy. It is a demand.

If you and others want to keep calling it a "courtesy" then allow it to be a "courtesy" and stop making it a demand.

huh?! I think we are on the same side. the DM should not force any body to not take a class because they cant explain it good enough. it is a courtesy to the DM from The Player.

Oh, I thought your "no" was in response to my comment. Sorry if I misunderstood.


Arssanguinus wrote:

There is always the supposition that not everything is possible. Every game, the moment its played, is to some extent house ruled. The moment you make an interpretation of a rule, you are house ruling, its just a matter of extent and where those rules fall.

And requiring something to make sense within the milieu of the campaign word is not some unreasonable and onerous task.

I disagree I would say the Campaign has to make sense in the confines of the pathinder rules set. unless there is a alignment restriction or something like that it is not cool for a dm to crush dream because his/her world doesnt like the existence of a Bard/wizard/alchemist.....gunslinger


Arssanguinus wrote:

There is always the supposition that not everything is possible. Every game, the moment its played, is to some extent house ruled. The moment you make an interpretation of a rule, you are house ruling, its just a matter of extent and where those rules fall.

And requiring something to make sense within the milieu of the campaign word is not some unreasonable and onerous task.

It all depends on what "make sense" means and whether everyone's on the same page about it.

If, to use the context of this thread, the GM thinks multiclassing is impossible and makes a house rule against it, that's fine.
If he thinks multiclassing to some classes is impossible and makes a house rule against it, that's fine.
If he's ok with multiclassing as long as you make some token effort to justify it, then that's ok too. Especially if he'll help you work it into the game.
If he thinks multiclassing is impossible, but might let you talk him into allowing it, I've got a problem with that. Requiring a really good explanation is essentially "Talking the GM into it". I'm not fond of anything that requires talking the GM into things. It's inherently open to bias and rewards people who are good at that kind of persuasion. Not possible to eliminate, but there's no need to encourage it.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Lobolusk wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Lobolusk wrote:
Quote:

=Adamantine Dragon].The issue is about whether a GM should FORCE a SPECIFIC role playing action to allow a player to make a completely legal game mechanic choice.

That's what this is about.

I Vote no. it is a courtesy for a player to let the Dm know why he is becoming a monk nothing more. it is up to the Dm to incorporate the class choice into his campaign

A courtesy forced is not a courtesy. It is a demand.

If you and others want to keep calling it a "courtesy" then allow it to be a "courtesy" and stop making it a demand.

huh?! I think we are on the same side. the DM should not force any body to not take a class because they cant explain it good enough. it is a courtesy to the DM from The Player.
Oh, I thought your "no" was in response to my comment. Sorry if I misunderstood.

no worries i got your back brosef


firefly the great wrote:
Craig Frankum wrote:
I've read a few pages of this thread as well as the other. I feel each tables aesthetics vary greatly as I have GM'ed or played under a couple of GM's. My question comes since when did role-playing become devoid in a ROLE-PLAYING game?
It's not about RP, it's about mutli-classing. It's about whether you need to check off a sufficient number of RP boxes to make a legal mechanical decision for your character. It's also full of GMs who won't allow multi-classing, period, because apparently it takes years and years to learn magic missile, but throw a few of those at some kobolds and suddenly you're summoning devils? Sure, makes sense.

I believe the PCs are right now 6th level, and it's been about 5 years of game time. They can't summon devils (devils don't exist) in theory they could summon a low level demon such as a quasit, but that would likely get them killed, as it is against the law, more like against society. There is currently a war going on between the forces of the Gods and the forces of the Demons.


thejeff wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:

There is always the supposition that not everything is possible. Every game, the moment its played, is to some extent house ruled. The moment you make an interpretation of a rule, you are house ruling, its just a matter of extent and where those rules fall.

And requiring something to make sense within the milieu of the campaign word is not some unreasonable and onerous task.

It all depends on what "make sense" means and whether everyone's on the same page about it.

If, to use the context of this thread, the GM thinks multiclassing is impossible and makes a house rule against it, that's fine.
If he thinks multiclassing to some classes is impossible and makes a house rule against it, that's fine.
If he's ok with multiclassing as long as you make some token effort to justify it, then that's ok too. Especially if he'll help you work it into the game.
If he thinks multiclassing is impossible, but might let you talk him into allowing it, I've got a problem with that. Requiring a really good explanation is essentially "Talking the GM into it". I'm not fond of anything that requires talking the GM into things. It's inherently open to bias and rewards people who are good at that kind of persuasion. Not possible to eliminate, but there's no need to encourage it.

So let me get this straight. You would rather the gm says "hell no, go away" than "I'll work with you if you work with me"?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:

There is always the supposition that not everything is possible. Every game, the moment its played, is to some extent house ruled. The moment you make an interpretation of a rule, you are house ruling, its just a matter of extent and where those rules fall.

And requiring something to make sense within the milieu of the campaign word is not some unreasonable and onerous task.

It all depends on what "make sense" means and whether everyone's on the same page about it.

If, to use the context of this thread, the GM thinks multiclassing is impossible and makes a house rule against it, that's fine.
If he thinks multiclassing to some classes is impossible and makes a house rule against it, that's fine.
If he's ok with multiclassing as long as you make some token effort to justify it, then that's ok too. Especially if he'll help you work it into the game.
If he thinks multiclassing is impossible, but might let you talk him into allowing it, I've got a problem with that. Requiring a really good explanation is essentially "Talking the GM into it". I'm not fond of anything that requires talking the GM into things. It's inherently open to bias and rewards people who are good at that kind of persuasion. Not possible to eliminate, but there's no need to encourage it.

So let me get this straight. You would rather the gm says "hell no, go away" than "I'll work with you if you work with me"?

No. I'd rather have an upfront house rule than a default "no", but the guy who's good at badgering the GM into things gets to do it anyway.

"work with you if you work with me" is closer to my "If he's ok with multiclassing as long as you make some token effort to justify it, then that's ok too. Especially if he'll help you work it into the game."


Someone brought up gestalt rules and I just wanted to link to this place which, I think, has a much better approach, which is essentially turning every combination of two classes into it's own variant class.


Big Lemon wrote:
Someone brought up gestalt rules and I just wanted to link to this place which, I think, has a much better approach, which is essentially turning every combination of two classes into it's own variant class.

This should make for some interesting reading, thanks for the link.


Lobolusk wrote:
Quote:

=Adamantine Dragon].The issue is about whether a GM should FORCE a SPECIFIC role playing action to allow a player to make a completely legal game mechanic choice.

That's what this is about.

I Vote no. it is a courtesy for a player to let the Dm know why he is becoming a monk nothing more. it is up to the Dm to incorporate the class choice into his campaign

So I think from my read of this thread--as long as the expectation of every single rule in the game is discussed prior to game play and agreed upon--when the game has started the player should determine via the RAW what is allowable and what the GM thinks at that point is immaterial.

Okay. That seems reasonable.

So the first point I'll make is this. I'm the GM. If you don't like that you need to back away from MY table in MY house and go find something else to do. At that point I really won't care.

Rules set? Good.


Rocketman1969 wrote:
Lobolusk wrote:
Quote:

=Adamantine Dragon].The issue is about whether a GM should FORCE a SPECIFIC role playing action to allow a player to make a completely legal game mechanic choice.

That's what this is about.

I Vote no. it is a courtesy for a player to let the Dm know why he is becoming a monk nothing more. it is up to the Dm to incorporate the class choice into his campaign

So I think from my read of this thread--as long as the expectation of every single rule in the game is discussed prior to game play and agreed upon--when the game has started the player should determine via the RAW what is allowable and what the GM thinks at that point is immaterial.

Okay. That seems reasonable.

So the first point I'll make is this. I'm the GM. If you don't like that you need to back away from MY table in MY house and go find something else to do. At that point I really won't care.

Rules set? Good.

I've lost you.

Are you saying that you're the GM and therefore feel free to ignore RAW at any point without informing the players ahead of time?
Or that you'll follow RAW with the previously discussed changes, but you get to decide what those changes are?
If it's the latter, what does your last paragraph have to do with anything?
If it's the former, what happens when I do something based on RAW and you then inform me for the first it works entirely differently?


danielc wrote:
Big Lemon wrote:
Someone brought up gestalt rules and I just wanted to link to this place which, I think, has a much better approach, which is essentially turning every combination of two classes into it's own variant class.
This should make for some interesting reading, thanks for the link.

No problem. These archetypes have been very well received at my table.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rocketman1969 wrote:

I'm the GM. If you don't like that you need to back away from MY table in MY house and go find something else to do. At that point I really won't care.

Rules set? Good.

So what if you're the GM at MY house Rocketman? Do you have to follow MY rules at MY Table in MY house? Just trying to figure out the ground rules.


While I completely agree with the game as a collaborative efforts--The fact is, that the players in my game simply have to come and sit down and play.

They get fed--most times out of my pocket or my efforts- they get drinks--they get an immersive adventure with products I have used a chunk of my cash to purchase to make their experience better and even a ride home at the end of it.

If they are going to distrust my GMing to the point of conflict over this kind of issue--then I don't need them in my game or --frankly --in my life. It isn't just a gaming contract--its the kind of selfish "me first" crap that I wouldn't accept from my six year old let alone an adult gamer.

Discussions and disagreements can happen and do--but I have the ultimate say in what is allowable in the game world and what isn't. Not the player--not the RAW.

At the very least--there needs to be a whole hell of a lot more respect than I've seen on this board for the effort put in by any GM to make the experience happen for their players.

The outrage from certain players is ridiculous. So to be clear --I'm setting certain rules for the world--If I ask for a justification then give me one. If I determine that your multi-classing doesn't work in the game world it is not for you to sit there and get in my face over it. You have a choice--convince me how it works in context and I'll allow it--or don't and I won't. Then you have a choice; play or don't. And if you show enough disrespect in your dealings with me--you won't even have that choice.

So --if you have a question or a comment as a player in my game be assured I will listen and attempt to be fair--But don't expect me to put most of the g!%$&#ned work into a game to have someone tell me how it is going to go down and think that they are going to have final say in the issue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rocketman, why do you believe "respect" is equivalent to "adheres to my every whim?"


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Rocketman1969 wrote:
So the first point I'll make is this. I'm the GM. If you don't like that you need to back away from MY table in MY house and go find something else to do. At that point I really won't care.

No, you're not. I've actually never met you. You're somebody posting on an internet thread. That means you don't get to pull that card, you're just one opinion out of many and your house rules are valid targets for any sort of criticism I or anyone else wants to throw at you.


So to reiterate the original question, when did it become wrongbadfun for a GM to set a standard for the roleplay?

I mean any GM worth a salt would clearly work with his players to help them conceive their concepts, unless it just offended them on some level.

Clearly some posters become super irate at the idea that somewhere at someone's table, there is a GM going, "At my table, we have standards".

Somewhere we have someone going, "You player hating, control freak; you'll kill million of concepts with your 'standards'." In reality, it's certain "builds" may not work; if the GM is actually willing to work with the player any concepts can still happen.

Somewhere else we hear, "Standards!? Pft, you call those weak sauce baselines standards? Might as well get rid of 'em"

Although in the back, "It's the GM's table and we ought to let them know who's table it really is! Who puts in the most work?"

And then some more banter back and forth:
"Player's are entitled to their character and all the rules availible"

And somehow it becomes a GMs vs Players thread, People keep talking about how their table is their's and nobody gets to interfere, but everybody has to tell everyone one else how to run despite it actually affecting nothing at all, and the answer may never get answered but apparently according to one poster, in 1984 Stop Making Sense was produced which may mean that it's been badwrong fun to be making sense since then.

Note: tones and attitudes may vary from reality, don't be so serious. ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
So to reiterate the original question, when did it become wrongbadfun for a GM to set a standard for the roleplay?

The original question itself was part of a greatly exaggerated overreaction to the question in another thread of whether a GM requiring a player to justify a multi-class choice was reasonable.

Posing the question the way ciretose did is in itself a strawman from that original thread. The question asked in this thread implies that someone is calling it "wrongbadfun" for the campaign to make any effort to "make sense."

The whole purpose of this thread, in my opinion, was to try to reverse the focus of the question so that the pro-player contingent was cast as people objecting to any standards whatsoever, when in fact the great majority of that contingent readily and reasonably agreed that immersivity is a desirable goal.

The actual disagreement is in a very, very narrow area where some feel GMs are exerting too much control over a player's legal mechanical choices and some feel the players are not allowing GMs to create the feel of the game that they desire.

But if it makes it easier to cast one group as "I gotta have my way or I'm gonna whine and cry like a sociopathic baby!" and the other group as "Muahahahaa! I am GOD and I control every aspect of your gaming experience and you better LIKE IT!", then I suppose that's how most of these internet "discussions" end up anyway.

"I like plain glazed donuts."
"What, really? I prefer lemon filled."
.... (Interwebz stuff happens) ....
"Hitler!!!"


Adamantine Dragon wrote:

But if it makes it easier to cast one group as "I gotta have my way or I'm gonna whine and cry like a sociopathic baby!" and the other group as "Muahahahaa! I am GOD and I control every aspect of your gaming experience and you better LIKE IT!", then I suppose that's how most of these internet "discussions" end up anyway.

"I like plain glazed donuts."
"What, really? I prefer lemon filled."
.... (Interwebz stuff happens) ....
"Hitler!!!"

It's the internet, that's how everything winds up. People create these overgeneralized extremist groups and that's how everyone is represented as parts of these extremists. It might also be an American thing too, but I feel that this over generalization is something that transcends nations.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Rocketman1969 wrote:

While I completely agree with the game as a collaborative efforts--The fact is, that the players in my game simply have to come and sit down and play.

They get fed--most times out of my pocket or my efforts- they get drinks--they get an immersive adventure with products I have used a chunk of my cash to purchase to make their experience better and even a ride home at the end of it.

If they are going to distrust my GMing to the point of conflict over this kind of issue--then I don't need them in my game or --frankly --in my life. It isn't just a gaming contract--its the kind of selfish "me first" crap that I wouldn't accept from my six year old let alone an adult gamer.

Discussions and disagreements can happen and do--but I have the ultimate say in what is allowable in the game world and what isn't. Not the player--not the RAW.

At the very least--there needs to be a whole hell of a lot more respect than I've seen on this board for the effort put in by any GM to make the experience happen for their players.

The outrage from certain players is ridiculous. So to be clear --I'm setting certain rules for the world--If I ask for a justification then give me one. If I determine that your multi-classing doesn't work in the game world it is not for you to sit there and get in my face over it. You have a choice--convince me how it works in context and I'll allow it--or don't and I won't. Then you have a choice; play or don't. And if you show enough disrespect in your dealings with me--you won't even have that choice.

So --if you have a question or a comment as a player in my game be assured I will listen and attempt to be fair--But don't expect me to put most of the g+~!*~ned work into a game to have someone tell me how it is going to go down and think that they are going to have final say in the issue.

Rocketman1969 wrote:
So the first point I'll make is this. I'm the GM. If you don't like that you need to back away from MY table in MY house and go find something else to do. At that point I really won't care.

.

Just want to put some things into perspective here:

rocketman1969 wrote:
its the kind of selfish "me first" crap


Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:

But if it makes it easier to cast one group as "I gotta have my way or I'm gonna whine and cry like a sociopathic baby!" and the other group as "Muahahahaa! I am GOD and I control every aspect of your gaming experience and you better LIKE IT!", then I suppose that's how most of these internet "discussions" end up anyway.

"I like plain glazed donuts."
"What, really? I prefer lemon filled."
.... (Interwebz stuff happens) ....
"Hitler!!!"

It's the internet, that's how everything winds up. People create these overgeneralized extremist groups and that's how everyone is represented as parts of these extremists. It might also be an American thing too, but I feel that this over generalization is something that transcends nations.

I italicized the part of your message that is at risk of igniting competing tirades about international bigotry and prejudice...

:)

Liberty's Edge

Walk away from a thread for a few days...

When you come to a table, you should meet the expectations of the table or not sit down.

In my career, with the same GM I have played an Nigh-Industructable Luchador Hillybilly named "El Tougho Grande" which was such a table favorite it was requested to be brought back for other games by the GM and players, and also been told by that same GM and my fellow players that I couldn't play a human, on Golarion, given the setting we were trying to run.

Same GM. Most of the same players. Different games.

Whatever the table expectations are for a given campaign, your job as a player is to find a way to do something interesting within the parameters. If you don't do that, it is not the fault of the other people at the table who were able to do so.

So, if you bring in a concept that is disruptive, as judged by the other players and the GM, you need to change, not them.

If the expectations is you make an effort to explain your leveling, you either just do so or you refuse to do so. And if you refuse, and everyone else is cool with it, you are just as wrong as if everyone at the table is playing Luchadors in a Luchador campaign and you insist on playing a pretty pretty princess, because it is listed available in the book.

To quote Walter, Life does not stop and start at your convenience.


Quote:
To quote Walter, Life does not stop and start at your convenience.

Walter sounds like an ass-hole.

"I got this beeper so..."
"What if it's during a game?"
"I told 'em if it was during league play..."
"Life does not start and stop and start at your convenience you miserable piece of s@$@."
"What's wrong with Walter?"

Liberty's Edge

It was a league game!


It's a league game! :P


Ashiel wrote:
It's a league game! :P

Actually, upon further consideration that's eerily similar to a D&D fight. Seemingly mundane looking folks doing crazy combat junk, pulling two-handed weapons out of their tiny bags, and it even looks like the GM is one of those folks who expects enemies to explode into coins instead of using their treasure values; complete with XP award at the end.

New campaign ideas brewing... :P


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Rocketman1969 wrote:

I'm the GM. If you don't like that you need to back away from MY table in MY house and go find something else to do. At that point I really won't care.

Rules set? Good.

So what if you're the GM at MY house Rocketman? Do you have to follow MY rules at MY Table in MY house? Just trying to figure out the ground rules.

Tell you what--you are the GM i follow your rules or I don't play your game. Now in 99% percent of the cases we are going to get along famously. In the 1% situation the outcome of that disagreement will be based on whether the outcome is a deal breaker. If it is --I'll thank you for your efforts and head on my way.


bookrat wrote:
Rocketman1969 wrote:

While I completely agree with the game as a collaborative efforts--The fact is, that the players in my game simply have to come and sit down and play.

They get fed--most times out of my pocket or my efforts- they get drinks--they get an immersive adventure with products I have used a chunk of my cash to purchase to make their experience better and even a ride home at the end of it.

If they are going to distrust my GMing to the point of conflict over this kind of issue--then I don't need them in my game or --frankly --in my life. It isn't just a gaming contract--its the kind of selfish "me first" crap that I wouldn't accept from my six year old let alone an adult gamer.

Discussions and disagreements can happen and do--but I have the ultimate say in what is allowable in the game world and what isn't. Not the player--not the RAW.

At the very least--there needs to be a whole hell of a lot more respect than I've seen on this board for the effort put in by any GM to make the experience happen for their players.

The outrage from certain players is ridiculous. So to be clear --I'm setting certain rules for the world--If I ask for a justification then give me one. If I determine that your multi-classing doesn't work in the game world it is not for you to sit there and get in my face over it. You have a choice--convince me how it works in context and I'll allow it--or don't and I won't. Then you have a choice; play or don't. And if you show enough disrespect in your dealings with me--you won't even have that choice.

So --if you have a question or a comment as a player in my game be assured I will listen and attempt to be fair--But don't expect me to put most of the g+~!*~ned work into a game to have someone tell me how it is going to go down and think that they are going to have final say in the issue.

...

I see... more clarification then--If I have put in the bulk of the effort--then in fairness I should have the benefit of the doubt. If you decide your game play experience takes precedence over everyone else's because the character is yours then that is what I'm talking about.

Now I've had this situation happen before. It actually involved one of my players threatening--physically--another person in MY house. This individual was not invited back because HIS good time--didn't outweigh everyone elses.

You either trust your GM or you don't. Seems like a pretty simple equation to me.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Rocketman, why do you believe "respect" is equivalent to "adheres to my every whim?"

Strawman, ( And,might I add, a very blatant one. You are usually much better than this.) It is not about my every whim. It is me saying no to something not out of fiat--but because part of my job is to define the game universe and to ensure a balanced good time. It is about respecting my judgement within the game when a potentially divisive or unbalancing aspect is at issue.

Where does simply showing respect for the person who organized the game and the rest of the players around the table constitute "my every whim."

I will grant that if I sat there saying no. Absolutely not--you require no explanation--I am god. Then I'm not doing my job very well. And I don't GM like that--but sometimes mastering a game means making a decision--you are either going to allow that decision or the game stops.

If I am put face to face with a rule and I look it over and I think it imbalances the game or doesn't fit into the scenario--and I briefly explain and still get grief over it I can deal with that--but at the end of the day I will have to insist.

Multiple confrontations like that and the fun starts to descend into chaos and a waste of time.


thejeff wrote:
Rocketman1969 wrote:
Lobolusk wrote:
Quote:

=Adamantine Dragon].The issue is about whether a GM should FORCE a SPECIFIC role playing action to allow a player to make a completely legal game mechanic choice.

That's what this is about.

I Vote no. it is a courtesy for a player to let the Dm know why he is becoming a monk nothing more. it is up to the Dm to incorporate the class choice into his campaign

So I think from my read of this thread--as long as the expectation of every single rule in the game is discussed prior to game play and agreed upon--when the game has started the player should determine via the RAW what is allowable and what the GM thinks at that point is immaterial.

Okay. That seems reasonable.

So the first point I'll make is this. I'm the GM. If you don't like that you need to back away from MY table in MY house and go find something else to do. At that point I really won't care.

Rules set? Good.

I've lost you.

Are you saying that you're the GM and therefore feel free to ignore RAW at any point without informing the players ahead of time?

What I'm saying is we can work to decide the rules as best we can ahead of time--but if something comes up and there is a disagreement the players vote as to the outcome has merit but not equal value with the decision of the GM. In that case after a lively discussion a decision will be made. By the GM.
Or that you'll follow RAW with the previously discussed changes, but you get to decide what those changes are?
If it's the latter, what does your last paragraph have to do with anything?
If it's the former, what happens when I do something based on RAW and you then inform me for the first it works entirely differently?


One common theme I'm seeing from those who say the DM can't do something like demand rp is the assumption that everything in the book is automatically available for every PF campaign they will ever play. While this is the default response, it is by no means automatic. Different DMs come up with different worlds for different campaigns all the time. Even in Golarion, DMs may be aiming for a specific type of campaign, and might restrict the available options the PCs have to work with. If these house rules are explained and implemented in a reasonable manner, than the player has no room to gripe just because the DM didn't allow their favorite multiclass combo/feat/whatever mechanical goody they were wanting to take in this particular campaign. As the game developed and published worlds became more commonly used, the restrictions and house rules tended to fade away to some extent, but published rules and content are still just a starting point, not automatically the end point; DMs can still freely change them to fit their interests and campaign as long as they do so with full disclosure to the players as to what is happening.


firefly the great wrote:
Rocketman1969 wrote:
So the first point I'll make is this. I'm the GM. If you don't like that you need to back away from MY table in MY house and go find something else to do. At that point I really won't care.
No, you're not. I've actually never met you. You're somebody posting on an internet thread. That means you don't get to pull that card, you're just one opinion out of many and your house rules are valid targets for any sort of criticism I or anyone else wants to throw at you.

Wow that's a new level of purposeful misreading of intent.

In my games as GM what I am saying is your right to contest the rules ends at my final decision.

If you don't like it as a player you recourses are are to hold off until after the game to discuss it further, to accept that not everything in the game is going to be to your personal satisfaction and accept it or to swear in my face and drop threats or take your ball and go home.

You on the internet will never play in one of my games but if there was a "hypothetical" game the above rule would apply. Hopefully we would have all of that worked out before our "hypothetical" game but if not--then we would hopefully work the problem out amicably. However, as I said at the end of the day--the world definition and what is allowable will be my decision.

I have stood firm. I have been convinced. I have reversed a previous decision based on a good conversation. I have also calmly refused the attempt and had some serious disrespect on the issue thrown my way.

At the end of the day--the responsibility for balancing everyones fun at the table is ultimately mine as GM. If we can't agree with that--we can play a board game where everyone is a player.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

what about playing a AP not a home brew?

I agree when you sit down at rocketman1969s house he lays down the rules what class to take and what not to take. by sitting at his table you are agreeing to follow his home brew rules.

now if you want to multiclass to a acceptable class that is not banned under his initial dm speech that is not okay. I woudl say if you are playing a AP then any class is fair game because you are running somebodies else adventure.

I think I agree with what most of what folks are saying i think int he extreme circumstances is when this vitrol is bubbling up.

i think it is a safe bet to assume that if you are playing DND you can come up with a reason why your paladin went wizard in the middle of the hellscape of cronos on the 5th parellel of zod.


Lobolusk wrote:

what about playing a AP not a home brew?

I agree when you sit down at rocketman1969s house he lays down the rules what class to take and what not to take. by sitting at his table you are agreeing to follow his home brew rules.

now if you want to multiclass to a acceptable class that is not banned under his initial dm speech that is not okay. I woudl say if you are playing a AP then any class is fair game because you are running somebodies else adventure.

I think I agree with what most of what folks are saying i think int he extreme circumstances is when this vitrol is bubbling up.

i think it is a safe bet to assume that if you are playing DND you can come up with a reason why your paladin went wizard in the middle of the hellscape of cronos on the 5th parellel of zod.

Depends on how closely the DM sticks to the AP; a lot of DMs run APs, but in their own world and/or with numerous other changes. Again, the published AP is a starting point, and the default; the DM is not required to follow it religiously and without making any changes of their own. The only time they have that level of restrictions on putting their own spin on the adventure is if they are running Pathfinder Society, RPGA, or something similar.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rocketman1969 wrote:
I see... more clarification then

Clarification wasn't needed. Perhaps a bit of introspection, but not clarification.

Rocketman1969 wrote:
You either trust your GM or you don't. Seems like a pretty simple equation to me.

When a GM claims that he'll kill a player character's horse because the player used math, then I would find it very difficult to trust that GM. As would most people, I suspect.

Liberty's Edge

bookrat wrote:
Rocketman1969 wrote:
I see... more clarification then

Clarification wasn't needed. Perhaps a bit of introspection, but not clarification.

Rocketman1969 wrote:
You either trust your GM or you don't. Seems like a pretty simple equation to me.
When a GM claims that he'll kill a player character's horse because the player used math, then I would find it very difficult to trust that GM. As would most people, I suspect.

I know, and we live in a cruel world where GM's are assigned to us and we simply have no choice but to...

Wait, no we don't. False choice is false.


bookrat wrote:
Rocketman1969 wrote:
I see... more clarification then

Clarification wasn't needed. Perhaps a bit of introspection, but not clarification.

Rocketman1969 wrote:
You either trust your GM or you don't. Seems like a pretty simple equation to me.
When a GM claims that he'll kill a player character's horse because the player used math, then I would find it very difficult to trust that GM. As would most people, I suspect.

That was a joke. Obviously I didn't tell it well--and you don't have the insight to perhaps consider that-- having said that--lets just say even given the chance I would never play a game with Ciretos or Bookrat and Bookrat and Ciretos would never play a game with me.

Our styles just wouldn't mesh.

Let's leave it at that. The twain shall never meet. La da da--What's for lunch...

Liberty's Edge

You are missing out. I run great games.


If someone has the energy and imagination to run a game, I have the courtesy to listen and adapt to the parameters of his or her game.

If a friend just marathoned the Star Wars movies, and is now inspired and fired-up to run a SW campaign that has no gungans in it, then By the Force, I'm on board, and I respect his limitations. I'm not going to wave the book around and shout and scream that I am entitled to play a gungan Jedi right after he got done saying there aren't any gungans in his universe because the Empire had the foresight to cap them all. Hell, I'd probably play Empire at that point.

To...get on a forum anywhere, and use words like "badwrongfun" is akin to calling someone a "racist" or a "heretic" in the middle-ages. It puts people on the defensive by saying effectively "look how this guy is wrong from us normal people". It shuts down debate. It's pointless and tribalistic. I would discourage you from doing it.

Suggestion: Learn to loosen up and respect other people's parameters, especially the Game Master. He's got his imagination fired-up and you might have a good time playing in a world where you need to stand on your head to cast spells, or use downtime to level up in a realistic way (it helps with immersion). I think it would be a small price to pay to have no gungans around.


Rocketman1969 wrote:

-- having said that--lets just say even given the chance I would never play a game with Ciretos or Bookrat and Bookrat and Ciretos would never play a game with me.

Our styles just wouldn't mesh.

Let's leave it at that. The twain shall never meet. La da da--What's for lunch...

I would be willing to bet real, honest cash money that if you guys met up in a real world game play situation, not knowing each other's PF Messageboard aliases, you'd play together just fine.

This is just another example of how the internet polarizes everything.


Rocketman1969 wrote:
thejeff wrote:

I've lost you.

Are you saying that you're the GM and therefore feel free to ignore RAW at any point without informing the players ahead of time?
What I'm saying is we can work to decide the rules as best we can ahead of time--but if something comes up and there is a disagreement the players vote as to the outcome has merit but not equal value with the decision of the GM. In that case after a lively discussion a decision will be made. By the GM.

And that's pretty much how I, and everyone I've ever played with handles things. Barring a small handful of rules lawyer idiots. What are we arguing about again?

I'd assume the multiclass thing wouldn't come up unexpectedly. I mean it's a basic part of the core rules of the system, not some obscure combination of corner cases. If you're going to disallow it, or only allow it with much effort, you'd make it clear up front, right?

That's cool. It's a house rule, but not a particularly bothersome one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
bookrat wrote:
Rocketman1969 wrote:
I see... more clarification then

Clarification wasn't needed. Perhaps a bit of introspection, but not clarification.

Rocketman1969 wrote:
You either trust your GM or you don't. Seems like a pretty simple equation to me.
When a GM claims that he'll kill a player character's horse because the player used math, then I would find it very difficult to trust that GM. As would most people, I suspect.

I know, and we live in a cruel world where GM's are assigned to us and we simply have no choice but to...

Wait, no we don't. False choice is false.

I really, really wish that were true in all cases Ciretose. Unfortunately, for many of us there are places where finding a good game is actually incredibly difficult. Most of the people I know who game in the area game because I taught them, and I GMed because there was no one else around to play with. Looking back on it I do not regret it in the least, but I've heard some horror stories about one or two other GMs that some of the people I've met played under. Now that I'm older, I've met other people who game. Unfortunately, the pool of gamers in our area is still really low and most of us can't reliably meet up together. So while I've had the good fortune of having mostly friendly groups, I've heard horror stories from others who basically had the option of sitting with a bad GM or none at all. I've also had, I believe, one bad player.

I'm not sure how to fix the problem. At least not beyond getting way more people into the hobby. Maybe some sort of player campaign? Maybe we should, as a community set out and try to get more local people in our areas with small gamer population. Spread the love as it were. I'm not sure. I really do wish it was as easy as just trading out PCs and GMs but my experiences with the local scene (or rather lack of scene) have taught me sometimes you game with who you can (or who you know) in a for better or for worse sort of way (especially if you're friends outside of RPGs). I think working together to find compromises is probably the best idea in most of these situations.

About the Bad Player:
The worst player I've ever had to GM for might have surprised some. He was actually much older than the rest of us. I'm the oldest in our group and I believe he was about 11 years older than me. He was a friend of the family and spent time in the air force. Lastly, he had lots of experience playing D&D from "back in the day" and was the only one in our group who had been playing D&D longer than I had. Sounds like a great prospect for a player!

Except I was rather surprised, and disappointed. When he first joined us, he complained at length about how 3.x was about giving everything to the players, not being hard enough, leveling too fast, etc. Despite this, he later whined about things like not getting enough XP for defeating a dragon or the difficulty of some of the encounters and such (yeah, I'm aware that contradicts what he complained about before joining, but that's kind of the point :P).

He bemoaned when people were "stealing his thunder" or doing things that "his class was supposed to do". Nevermind that he had multiclassed like a million times. To give an example, during our Red Hand of Doom campaign, he began as a rogue, multiclassed into wizard, then cleric, then fighter, and ranger, and then into assassin. That kind of meant that he was - in theory - the sneak, the martial, the healer, the caster, and the problem solver. He once got butt-hurt 'cause the bard/fighter in the group - who invested in Climb - climbed up a tower instead of him. "I'm the rogue, I should do that" he said. Keep in mind he had 0 ranks in Climb.

By 14th level, he complained everyone was better than he was (everyone else consisted of Bard 10/Fighter 4, Druid 14, and Wizard 14). He on the other hand was like 6 different classes at this point, most all using different ability scores, etc. He did this supposedly because he was trying to build "organically" and be "a good roleplayer". I showed him how to take advantage of what he had and got him back into the game with no changes (just suggestions on how to actually make use of the advantages of that multiclassed horror :P).

In other games he caused group problems. He didn't get along well at all with my younger brother (who was less than 10 at the time and yet had been a great gamer in some of my campaigns due to having played since he was 4). He would instigate conflicts with him or make fun of him OOC. That was more or less the last straw.

I put up with him because he was a friend of the family. At one point in my young life I looked up to him. I was sorely disappointed. When I stopped running for him it created some problems in other areas of our social dynamics (as a group) but such wounds heal with time.

To this day I wish there was some way I could have just fixed the problem without simply giving him the boot, but I realize that his issues were actually much deeper than merely gaming and I'm no psychiatrist. On the other hand, I had an online player who was a walking D&D horror story and in a few years of subtle patience, firm but fair rulings, and generally being nice to that individual they turned into quite a nice little gamer (and grew as a person).

Err, I'm babbling now, so I digress. XD


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Rocketman1969 wrote:

-- having said that--lets just say even given the chance I would never play a game with Ciretos or Bookrat and Bookrat and Ciretos would never play a game with me.

Our styles just wouldn't mesh.

Let's leave it at that. The twain shall never meet. La da da--What's for lunch...

I would be willing to bet real, honest cash money that if you guys met up in a real world game play situation, not knowing each other's PF Messageboard aliases, you'd play together just fine.

This is just another example of how the internet polarizes everything.

Yeah. I'm trying to keep that sort of thing in mind. For example, Ciretose and I have crossed wires on the boards often. Yet in recent times I wonder how much of that is over pure misunderstanding. Sometimes I get the feeling that sometimes we take each others jests too seriously, or have a difficult time communicating with each other in written format (there's a lot of subtleties or implications that may be missed in such a conversation, and a forum - love 'em as I do - often jumbles ideas around rather haphazardly). I've thought with great concern that maybe I'm simply not understanding him in some of our disagreements. I get the feeling that some of his posts probably aren't meant to seem as hardline as I read them, and my games probably aren't as crazy as I think he thinks they are (I mean, I get the feeling sometimes that he might think my average campaign is exceptionally over the top or very Monty Haul-ish or where everyone tries to exploit stuff; yet my current campaign has basically consisted of a gnome bard, a now deceased dwarf alchemist, and an orc barbarian modeled as a samurai, fighting bugbears).

Thinking about this a lot lately, I realize it's very, very easy to get mixed up and muddled. Sometimes we don't say things or convey them in ways that we want. I realize, perhaps, we are missing out because of it. I really, really began thinking about this in great earnesty after a thread Ciretose made about Paladins (which is still going). I've had cause to re-read large portions of the thread and have - at Lemmy's sage advice - distanced myself from the thread beyond casual reading. I feel I misunderstood Ciretose several times in that thread and feel like I'm a little closer to understanding his points now (if not entirely). This thinking leads me to believe maybe I'll try to take a break from general debating and put forth more effort into other avenues like my blog and writing advice pieces for players & GMs (I enjoy writing these more than debating, but the last major advice piece I did on the Paizo boards got drowned in a flamewar so I've pretty much been on hiatus from doing that since).

All in all, most of the people on the Paizo boards would probably get along a lot better IRL than we do on the boards. I mean, if we don't, then God knows Paizocon would be its own little slice of Hell. XD


Lobolusk wrote:

what about playing a AP not a home brew?

I agree when you sit down at rocketman1969s house he lays down the rules what class to take and what not to take. by sitting at his table you are agreeing to follow his home brew rules.

now if you want to multiclass to a acceptable class that is not banned under his initial dm speech that is not okay. I woudl say if you are playing a AP then any class is fair game because you are running somebodies else adventure.

I think I agree with what most of what folks are saying i think int he extreme circumstances is when this vitrol is bubbling up.

i think it is a safe bet to assume that if you are playing DND you can come up with a reason why your paladin went wizard in the middle of the hellscape of cronos on the 5th parellel of zod.

I'm not sure anyone is saying that DM's don't have the right to ban things in their games... even APs.

Our DM hates the Gunfighter class. We only play Pathfinder AP's in Golarion... but in his version of the world, Guns are nearly nonexistant and nobody uses grit or the class.

In our 2E games, he had a bad experience with a monk... so no more 'monks' in games...

We knew all that going in, and everyone is happy.

What I think people have issues with is surprise limitations that the DM has NOT outlawed... If for example, I'm playing a wizard... then want to take a level of Bard... Both are acceptable in the DM's world... multiclassing is acceptable in the DM's world... but since I didn't 'train with a bard'... then the DM vetoes the decision.

Every DM has the right to make the world HIS, and he shouldn't ever feel 'forced' to run for a character class he hates. Gunfighter, Summoner, Ninjas... there are a lot of them out there that people just don't LIKE, and they are easily cut out of even standard APs.

But to acknowledge that YES, the world DOES have Alchemists... but no, I don't think your character would take that level...

THAT'S the line I think a Lot of people chafe under.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I have (rather painfully I'm afraid) learned that if I don't make a determined and explicit effort to be as generous and agreeable as I can possibly stomach, someone (and usually more than one) is going to think I'm being an ass.

There is a real life corollary, at least in my case. As a youngster I had a very difficult time interacting with other kids until one day my dad sat me down, tossed the book "How to Win Friends and Influence People" in front of me and said "Read this book. Learn it. Live it."

And I did, and it definitely made a difference.

People who invest any real amount of time interacting on message boards are pretty much a self-selected group of highly motivated, opinionated, and generally intelligent people. The forum gives an illusion of casual informality, so people tend to toss off what they are thinking, assuming people will take it in the tone that they are writing it.

But the words just sit there on the page, hard, cold and indifferent. They are like a Rorschach test which allows any reader to infer anything they like from them. And when someone does infer something they find to be rude, ignorant or offensive, they tend to respond in kind and soon you've got this escalating rhetorical arms race.

I know in my case I find myself coming back to a thread after taking a break for dinner or to watch a TV show and realize that some off-the-cuff comment I've made has somehow generated paroxysms of rage from someone...

It's just the nature of the interface.

I'm trying to get better...

451 to 500 of 569 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / When did making sense become wrongbadfun? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.