| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Discussing playstyle up front solves a lot of problems.
That's what I said! That's what the GameMastery Guide says! Why does no one read it and take it to heart!?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Every generation thinks the next generation is soft and entitled.
CRO-MAGNON: Man, those Neanderthal guys with their frou-frou 'fire.' In my day, we ripped the loin from the mastodon with our teeth and swallowed it raw and we liked it.
But RPGs have changed significantly. PFRPG, by dint of being far more structured with vastly more specific rules, implicitly gives more power to players. If you read stuff by Tweet and Cook and others, you can see that this was, at least to some extent, intentional.
And I'm in favor of it. I'm a lawyer. I like rules. All else being equal, I think rules are a benefit.
The problem is that because players have been given a much stronger codified framework (as opposed to what a 1E DM may have just kept in his head) and a staggering number of rules-legal choices, players think that the GM's power and say over his or her game has lessened. Players think that "power in the game" is a zero-sum proposal, so if they have "more," the GM must have "less." It's not true, and the 3E designers never intended that interpretation of the gift they were giving to players.
In 1E, a player actively and explicitly had to go to the GM to ask how to do something, in-game, because it simply wasn't codified. From the player's perspective, this meant the GM had immense power.
In 3E, so much of that stuff is codified that the players no longer have to go to the GM to ask how to do something. They can look at the rulebook.
What players don't realize is that the real power inherent in being a GM is, and has always been, "can my PC do this?" (with the answer depending on many, many factors, not all of which the player will or should be privy to), rather than "what is the rule to do this?"
Because players now don't have to ask, "what is the rule to do this?" they have forgotten -- sometimes, IMO, very purposefully -- that the full question is, and always has been, "what is the rule to do this (if it can be done in the current situation in your game world)?"
I'm sorry, but "if it's rules-legal, I get to do it whether the GM likes it or not" is an expression of entitlement. Its one that I never saw -- literally never -- when I was playing and running B/E D&D and AD&D, but see all the time in the current era.
It's not that players-as-people have changed or devolved or just aren't as good people; if 3E existed in 1980, players would feel as entitled as they do now. Given my limited experience as a GM back then, as a player I probably would have felt it, too. And I'd have been just as wrong as "entitled" players are today.
Now that I think about it, I would say that more of my players in the last decade have refused to play MMORPGs than have played them. I have seen no correlation between those who did or did not play MMORPGs and those who were power gamers or munchkins. The most egregious munchkin I ever played with HATED MMORPGs, and I think the reason why is because he was not able to try to cajole, intimidate or bully the game server into granting him his way.
The "WoW fallacy" lives on.
Power gaming and munchkins is a different animal, than an 'entitled' player.
Not all power gamers are whiners, many see it as a challenge and if you tell them no, they just send more time finding some other far more devious exploit.
The Ranger/Monk/Paladin exploit build is fun... the first time or two. When it rolls through the third time as a "i found this build on the internet"....yea it's stale cheese.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Meh. Pulling out my old school cred again: There were rules lawyers back in the day. There are rules lawyers now. There were hack and slash gamers then. And now. There were Monty Haul gamers then. And now. There were roleplaying prima donnas then. And now.
I'm suspicious of any claim that there's been some vast social change. The rules are clearer now, but there are a lot more of them. Leaving more for rules lawyers to work with. And there's the internet to magnify anything into a flame war.
It's an indisputable FACT that I hear much more complaining and whining about D&D on the internet now than I did 30 years ago. The inescapable conclusion is that people are whinier and more entitled. Q.E.2.
WHAT KIND OF GM RUNS 1ST LEVEL CHARACTERS INTO A DRAGON's DEN? I would get up and leave as soon as the encounter happened because just the idea of it is so friggin asinine.The dragon's den exists in the world. It's not the DM's fault if the PCs stumble upon it, it's not the DM's responsibility to fiat away the dragon and replace it with a baby goblin, and it's certainly not the DM's fault if the 1st-level characters decide attacking the dragon head-on - instead of sneaking around, or running away, or poisoning it, or doing pretty much anything else - would be a wise course of action.
Does your world just not have dragons until the PCs hit a certain level, at which point dragons suddenly spring to life fully-grown?
Let's look at this, shall we?
Sneaking around: Your stealthiest character likely has at maximum, a 9 or 10 in Stealth (4 from an 18 Dex, 3 from class skill, 1 from skill point, 1 from trait). An adult red dragon has a +23 Perception. Plus 120 ft of Darkvision and 60 ft of Blindsense.
Yeah that'll turn out well.
Running away: Using aforementioned Perception score, the dragon probably heard them coming from a mile away, and is likely to be pissed off these guys wandered into his cave. He has a 40 ft ground speed and a 200 ft Fly speed. Your fastest character is likely to have 30 foot movement, and your party has no way to beat a hasty retreat other than the guy who can cast Expeditious Retreat on himself, which'll at least bump him up to almost 1/3 of the dragon's fly speed.
Poisoning it: It has a +16 Fort save. The highest DC poison I can find is a 20 DC. Then the effects of poison are so minimal they might as well not even exist. Even 1d6 Con damage on a max roll bumps said dragon down to a infinitesimal...17 Con. Likely nearly as high as the Barbarian of the group, and this dragon has more HD so he still has more HP than said Barbarian (likely the beefiest of your group).
.....
I think this post scared him off. :)
Every generation thinks the next generation is soft and entitled.
CRO-MAGNON: Man, those Neanderthal guys with their frou-frou 'fire.' In my day, we ripped the loin from the mastodon with our teeth and swallowed it raw and we liked it.
But RPGs have changed significantly. PFRPG, by dint of being far more structured with vastly more specific rules, implicitly gives more power to players. If you read stuff by Tweet and Cook and others, you can see that this was, at least to some extent, intentional.
And I'm in favor of it. I'm a lawyer. I like rules. All else being equal, I think rules are a benefit.
The problem is that because players have been given a much stronger codified framework (as opposed to what a 1E DM may have just kept in his head) and a staggering number of rules-legal choices, players think that the GM's power and say over his or her game has lessened. Players think that "power in the game" is a zero-sum proposal, so if they have "more," the GM must have "less." It's not true, and the 3E designers never intended that interpretation of the gift they were giving to players.
In 1E, a player actively and explicitly had to go to the GM to ask how to do something, in-game, because it simply wasn't codified. From the player's perspective, this meant the GM had immense power.
In 3E, so much of that stuff is codified that the players no longer have to go to the GM to ask how to do something. They can look at the rulebook.
What players don't realize is that the real power inherent in being a GM is, and has always been, "can my PC do this?" (with the answer depending on many, many factors, not all of which the player will or should be privy to), rather than "what is the rule to do this?"
Because players now don't have to ask, "what is the rule to do this?" they have forgotten -- sometimes, IMO, very purposefully -- that the full question is, and always has been, "what is the rule to do this (if it can be done in...
I learned once as a GM (actually while playing earth dawn) NOT to be a "no you can't" DM...but to be a "whats the difficulty" DM,
I want to swing across this chasm on that vine, and swing my sword at that goblin, yes I know it's a greatsword and I have one hand on the vine...but that's what I want to do.
Instead of saying no, I calculate the roll he will have to make, and the negatives for doing something difficult and tell him to roll.
In my mind the centrifugal force generated by the swing on the vine would give the character enough oomph for one swing. Even one handed... but at a -6 (treating it like an untrained TWF)
So the player makes a roll for the jump onto the vine the climb check to hold on, the acrobatics to swing into place close enough to hit the goblin, the attack roll and climb check to stay hanging on for the return swing from where he came.
If he makes ALL those roles! Huzzah!
If he doesn't I'm prepared to describe his failure spectacularly.
|
|
If I'm going to change something about how the world works, I'm going to do it in advance, and I'm going to give a written copy of it to the players so they can learn how things are different from their initial expectation, and so rather than asking me 'if they can do X' they can just DO it and get on with the adventure.
So you're saying that nothing in your world ever changes such that things that PCs could do last adventure, they can't do this adventure?
I'm not talking about house rules or the like; I'm talking about in-game events. The players' in-game situation is never altered enough to make some rules just no longer apply?
... Okay. Have fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Instead of saying no, I calculate the roll he will have to make, and the negatives for doing something difficult and tell him to roll.
Calculate? Or make s$++ up? ;P
Instead of saying no, I calculate the roll he will have to make, and the negatives for doing something difficult and tell him to roll.Calculate? Or make s@+% up? ;P
There's a difference?
Instead of saying no, I calculate the roll he will have to make, and the negatives for doing something difficult and tell him to roll.Calculate? Or make s%*# up? ;P
Just because he is doing something on the fly doesn't mean he isn't calculating it :P He presented a reasonable way for the player to do something using other rules as inspiration because there was no exact rules for it (to my knowledge). I believe that's the proper way to handle something like that rather than impose a "no vine-swinging attack" rule. Of course, it's up to the GM (and the dice!) how the actions actually play out.
What players don't realize is that the real power inherent in being a GM is, and has always been, "can my PC do this?" (with the answer depending on many, many factors, not all of which the player will or should be privy to), rather than "what is the rule to do this?"While I fully respect a DM's authority in this regard, I find the actual application of it lackluster.
In the capacity of DMing, I want my players to know exactly how things work for their characters to do things. I want them to be pro-active and independent, rather than play 'Mother May I' with me.
I'm there to run the world, to represent the environment in which the player characters operate, not to hold a leash and give "sit, speak, release" commands.
If I'm going to change something about how the world works, I'm going to do it in advance, and I'm going to give a written copy of it to the players so they can learn how things are different from their initial expectation, and so rather than asking me 'if they can do X' they can just DO it and get on with the adventure.
the game has, since it's inception ALWAYS been an "I do this" type of game, not a "may i do this" game.
The earlier game sets were SO lethal, however, the 'permission' came in with the feeling of 'rocks fall everyone dies'
Recall that older rules sets you needed a 16 Con even to get ONE extra HP and ONLY fighters could EVER get more than 2 extra hp.
there was never things like toughness etc.
7th level fighters with 35 hp was pretty regular.
Your level 1-3 characters were targets for blowing wind and savage bambi bites.
With exception to that was the exploit of ranger (back then), ranger started at first level with TWO D8, so a ranger with a good roll or two and a 16 con could have as much as 20 hp at level one! (but they were hard to qualify for and had to be good aligned)
SO to as successful 1st level ranger was to look at a character sheet and think "cheater" when you saw his stats. but if I rolled like that, I wouldnt have played anything else BUT a ranger.
(so, by extension when someone rolled like that, it always WAS a ranger)
be that as it may, usually it was only the ranger who could "do as they liked and get away with it" where as everyone else was rolling a new script.
it was never a design of the game or it's purpose, just an unfortunate (and sometimes hilarious) outcome. The joke from darkness rising about "hiding behind the pile of dead bards" stems from this 1E reality, where characters died so often, they rolled up another, exactly the same and continued to play it. If you watch the scene, you notice the color of his cloak, or the hat or the feather change, from life to life of the character as he dies, and his player whips out another sheet.
but the sit speak release thing comes from the early lethality of the game...coupled with the fact that 10th level was "high level"
|
|
Can you elaborate a little more on this Jeff? I'm not completely sure what you're getting at here.
A GM's PCs just (last session) failed in keeping the BBEG from destroying the existence of non-innate (i.e., non-(Su)) magic.
In the process, however, they gained enough XP to go up a level.
One of the players says he's taking his first level of sorcerer.
Is that player entitled to do so? Is it unreasonable if the GM says, "Remember, magic no longer exists; until it is restored -- if a stalwart band of heroes ever manages to do that -- you can't take that level of sorcerer"?
|
|
He's a sorcerer, so his magic IS innate :P (I know it's not what you said, but that's more along the lines of how I would run it.)
Congratulations on responsibly exercising your power as GM by deciding the question. "Can I do this?"
But you didn't answer my questions: (1) Is the player entitled to take the level of sorcerer (it does, after all, appear in the core rulebook)? (2) If a GM (other than yourself, of course) answers the "can I do this?" question differently than you did, is that GM unreasonable?
If you send monsters at them that they can't beat? You're a bad GM. If the dumbass fighter overspecializes and spends five feats that only work with some obscure weapon? Apparently everyone in the world is supposed to suddenly start using that weapon and drop new ones for the fighter, otherwise you're a bad GM. As if you forced the fighter to take Greater Weapon Specialization (Whip), or as if goblins would really have a +4 whip lying around. If you make players track rations and arrows after level 1? The way players today act, you may as well have killed their dog.
Magic item shops solve that, they sell the +4 X and buy a +2 Whip (if no whip around as loot).
The game seems to cater to this sense of entitlement. d8 hit dice for rogues? Raise Dead guaranteed to work with no XP penalty? Wealth by level? Magic loot should be special; you can't put it on a tight schedule like that. But if you deny the players the +3 armor they're totally entitled to at level 9 or whatever, somehow that makes you the bad guy. Should the game world notice that the characters have hit level 9 and spontaneously generate a large pile of cash in their bank accounts? And that's not even getting into magical healing becoming so easy to get now.
Um, yeah you are a bad guy if they can't afford +2 armor by level 9. Not +3, but at minimum if they are poor you need to increase wealth or weaken foes because they are not prepared to fight regular foes.
If you do otherwise then you are the bad guy.
Players weren't always like this. Once upon a time, the DM was god, and the players loved it. If the random encounter table gave them an ancient red dragon, they ran away, or they died, but they didn't complain about this CR junk. Poisons were deadly, traps were deadly, combat was deadly, bringing people back from the dead wasn't a matter of routine. Life was cheap, and players didn't think they were action movie heroes entitled to kill all the baddies and save the world with...
No, the players didn't love it. We just dealt with it and got ulcers.
No, they did complain about the ancient red dragon.
Bringing someone back from dead worked 70-99% of time unless you dumped con (which has never been smart).
Traps we magic Tea Party back then so they were easier.
Life wasn't cheap if you were the type to care about your characters like named them.
And yes we did thing were action movie hero.
You are not the norm. Unless you were talkiing basic, because AD&D 1 or 2 was nothing like you said.
Heck, did you even read the DMG for AD&D 1 or 2? It warned you shouldn't send a monster with Damage immunity until they had the +2 weapon or whatever needed to affect it.
|
|
Is a player entitled to have a GM prep for a game? No.
Is that an expectation if the GM wants to keep players at the table? Yes.
Is a player entitled to ignore the GMs request to run concepts by him before he plays them? Yes.
Can the player expect the GM who asked to keep wanting to GM for him if he refuses? What do you think?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*Thinks back to the state of gamers when he came back to the states in '77*
Nope, they whined just as much back then, too, even before the '77 release of the AD&D Monster Manual (and maybe a little more after that).
But it IS a generational thang, and "entitlement" is such a pervasive North American concept these days (look at all these congresscritters bandying it about like it was gold, while they themselves are living off the public dole and refusing to do a lick of work for which they were elected, be it "pass a budget," "Make the Post Office work," or any of the rest of the things the Constitution says is their job... parasites! :D ).
Anyhow, we had good and bad gamers... on either side of the GM screen... decades ago just like we do now. All we can hope for is that some of the older gamers may grow up and start setting good examples of play and decorum. :D (Not that *I* have, but we can hope that other elder gamers might! ;) )
|
I've gladly been proven wrong about this opinion. I've been playing since 91' and occasionally feel like the "grumpy old gamer" at my table surrounded by players 10 yrs younger than me. From time to time they surprise me, forcing me to reevaluate what I think about "their generation". Case in point: A new player, who is also new to tabletop rpgs, created a dwarven Fighter steeped in 'tolkien-esque' lore, being a HUGE fan of Middle Earth. In our last RotRL session, one of the villains successfully used Shatter to destroy his ancient, familial, mundane axe. He stared at me dumbfounded. When his turn came around he didnt throw a fit, spew his ritalin everywhere, or damn the rules. He stated his action, "I'm going to pick up this chair and beat her to death with it", and over the next 3 rounds did just that. (yeah, he should have had a backup weapon, not the point though)
Point being, its not the generation. You just need to know who you're playing with.
|
|
First, the sense of entitlement is true of the entire generation, not just tabletop roleplayers.
Second, players have ALWAYS complained when bad things happened.
"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers."
Kids:Kids! I don't know what's wrong with these kids today! Kids! Who can understand anything they say? Kids! They a disobedient, disrespectful oafs! Noisy, crazy, dirty, lazy, loafers! While we're on the subject: Kids! You can talk and talk till your face is blue! Kids! But they still just do what they want to do! Why can't they be like we were, Perfect in every way? What's the matter with kids today? Kids! I've tried to raise him the best I could Kids! Kids! Laughing, singing, dancing, grinning, morons! And while we're on the subject! Kids! They are just impossible to control! Kids! With their awful clothes and their rock an' roll! Why can't they dance like we did What's wrong with Sammy Caine? What's the matter with kids today!
RD, you are just old. Like every generation before you.
What players don't realize is that the real power inherent in being a GM is, and has always been, "can my PC do this?" (with the answer depending on many, many factors, not all of which the player will or should be privy to), rather than "what is the rule to do this?"While I fully respect a DM's authority in this regard, I find the actual application of it lackluster.
In the capacity of DMing, I want my players to know exactly how things work for their characters to do things. I want them to be pro-active and independent, rather than play 'Mother May I' with me.
I'm there to run the world, to represent the environment in which the player characters operate, not to hold a leash and give "sit, speak, release" commands.
If I'm going to change something about how the world works, I'm going to do it in advance, and I'm going to give a written copy of it to the players so they can learn how things are different from their initial expectation, and so rather than asking me 'if they can do X' they can just DO it and get on with the adventure.
the game has, since it's inception ALWAYS been an "I do this" type of game, not a "may i do this" game.
The earlier game sets were SO lethal, however, the 'permission' came in with the feeling of 'rocks fall everyone dies'
Recall that older rules sets you needed a 16 Con even to get ONE extra HP and ONLY fighters could EVER get more than 2 extra hp.
there was never things like toughness etc.
7th level fighters with 35 hp was pretty regular.Your level 1-3 characters were targets for blowing wind and savage bambi bites.
With exception to that was the exploit of ranger (back then), ranger started at first level with TWO D8, so a ranger with a good roll or two and a 16 con could have as much as 20 hp at level one! (but they were hard to qualify for and had to be good aligned)
SO to as successful 1st level ranger was to look at a character sheet and think "cheater" when you saw his...
Also realize than an adult red dragon in 2e AD&D had about 70 hp, with 3 attacks (1d10/1d10/3d10), a breath weapon, and 3 spells usable at max 3/day. In pathfinder it has 212 hp, with 6 attacks, a breath weapon, and 20 spells usable 5/day or more.
|
|
First, the sense of entitlement is true of the entire generation, not just tabletop roleplayers.
Second, players have ALWAYS complained when bad things happened.
[Please note I haven't read all the posts in this thread, apology if this duplicates one].
Yes players have always complained but we didn't blame the rules or the DM (unless obviously trying to mess with us). Undead drained levels, coming back from the dead didn't always work, spells could kill with a failed save, magic users had bugger all hit points, etc, etc. But these were things in the rules that we understood were there, they didn't sneak up on us months after playing. We still wanted to play. For me they made the world dangerous. I don't feel that sense in d20 games. Healing and raising is quick and easy and the world(s) now owe the players a living - and unless your GM is mean living means until your PC dies of old age or you get bored of them.
People can tell me the things under d20 are better and I understand the perceived reasons, I just disagree they were problems, for me they were features. Complaining about a core rules was as alien as complaining about gravity - sure it might annoy me now and then but in the whole we live with it. My highest level 1e character was a 16th Mage, 37 hp - a class feature. The offset to my low hp, well Meteor Swarm & Power Word Kill come mind. Still a couple of angry Ogres (4+1 HD), melee range and couple bad initiative rolls and a Resurrection roll and -1 CON was on the cards.
For example, I loved playing Middle Earth Roleplaying (Iron Crown) - yet in any given battle if a crit was rolled and the crit number came up as 66, you were dead. Never occurred to me to complain about that fact, if I choose to enter combat or got tangled up in one it was always a chance. Still my Warrior of Rohan went to battle the Orcs coming back a hero. Well... until the day of the d100 = 100 and he got an arrow through the eye. Still nice funeral.
d20 is a VERY different game, play it like d20 and its fine.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I am seeing a generational difference after all, at least within the confines of this thread.
I have read a number of posts in this thread from players who are repping ten, twenty, even thirty years of gaming experience.
Few of these posts have been complimentary to the generations to come after them. Nor have they been complimentary to those players who do not have an equivalent length of time in the hobby. Of those few that did attempt some sort of non-negative view in one way or another, most of those have been backhanded compliments at best toward younger and/or newer players.
I'll read and/or listen to what these more experienced folks have to say with grace when it comes to what they think of my generation or any other that has come after their own.
Then, I'll get back to helping to teach the next generation how to enjoy and embrace this fantastic hobby while setting the best example I can for them, both in my own play as well as my GM'ing. With that, I'll hope that they're not viewing me at all like I view most of the responses in this thread.
Well look at that, I guess I found a subject on this forum I cared enough about to actually use some punctuation.
|
|
Recall that older rules sets you needed a 16 Con even to get ONE extra HP and ONLY fighters could EVER get more than 2 extra hp.
there was never things like toughness etc.
7th level fighters with 35 hp was pretty regular.With exception to that was the exploit of ranger (back then), ranger started at first level with TWO D8, so a ranger with a good roll or two and a 16 con could have as much as 20 hp at level one! (but they were hard to qualify for and had to be good aligned)
For the record CON 16 was +2, 17 was +2 or +3 for fighters, 18 was +2 or +4 for fighters. This like exceptional strength was taken away from fighters, now we complain fighters have nothing nice, really?! They had nice things, d20 stole them and made everyone equal.
The reasoning was sound however for the bigger potential CON and STR bonuses. I am a Fighter I spend my days training with weights and swords and fitness! Compare with, I am a Wizard I, er, read books and walk around occasionally to stretch my legs.
Rangers aside, Monks got 2d4 at 1st level... 2e brought all fighting classes back to d10 per level (and dropped the Monk).
Damage output was proportional to hp's. Same is true now but you do 100's hp damage against thinsg with 100's of hps. Not so much an improvement or change as a scale shift.
Okay, for future reference, when people talk about "realism" and "verisimilitude" in a tabletop RPG, what they're talking about is "internal logic and consistency in the game world," and not "things functioning by the physics of the real world."
And to a certain extent, that's alright. I acknowledged this on the next page.
But there's a certain point where "realism" (only NPC classes exist) needs to be chucked out the window. And this is pretty much the line the OP was proposing as what is supposed to be the norm in the post you quoted that I quote that he quoted that the guy was replying to in the first place.
I learned once as a GM (actually while playing earth dawn) NOT to be a "no you can't" DM...but to be a "whats the difficulty" DM,
I want to swing across this chasm on that vine, and swing my sword at that goblin, yes I know it's a greatsword and I have one hand on the vine...but that's what I want to do.
Instead of saying no, I calculate the roll he will have to make, and the negatives for doing something difficult and tell him to roll.
In my mind the centrifugal force generated by the swing on the vine would give the character enough oomph for one swing. Even one handed... but at a -6 (treating it like an untrained TWF)
So the player makes a roll for the jump onto the vine the climb check to hold on, the acrobatics to swing into place close enough to hit the goblin, the attack roll and climb check to stay hanging on for the return swing from where he came.
If he makes ALL those rolls! Huzzah!
If he doesn't I'm prepared to describe his failure spectacularly.
I'm going to go out and give my 2 cents on why people would like this rule better than the "Perma invisible Cleric who casts damaging spells from invisibility but you can't do it ever" thing.
Now, while the "Make some rolls, see if it's possible" approach can often bite you squarely on the ass. You could have failed those rolls and done anything from dropping your sweet Greatsword in the chasm to dropping YOURSELF in the chasm.
But it also has the potential to be pretty freakin' awesome.
Houserules that add a Risk:Reward mechanic to play are good. Houserules that are applied universally or are given some explanation for why they work are also good. Say, if the aforementioned Predator Cleric was something achievable either by a custom Domain the GM made up, or some kind of artifact that would be possible (if difficult: Plot hook!) to find, that would've been god.
The issue with that is that it was all risk, and no reward whatsoever. That's why I don't really agree with your "Rule 0 is the only rule, respect it" approach as a whole. The rules are there to protect the players from a GM as well. If you tried to Rule 0 that a Skeleton had an instant death no save touch attack at +30, I think I'd be very well within my rights to say 'Okay first off, skeletons can't do that, secondly, that ability doesn't exist anyway, and thirdly, that's f@#&ing ridiculous".
IMO houserules should always be like that. Either a Risk:Reward mechanic, universally applied (in my Gestalt campaign important NPCs with PC class levels are all Gestalts as well), or given SOME explanation for why they exist ("Ah, you find a map to the Inviso-McGuffin upon the Cleric's corpse, the writing says that for 10 minutes per day it allows perfect, unbreakable invisibility.").
|
|
The issue with that is that it was all risk, and no reward whatsoever. That's why I don't really agree with your "Rule 0 is the only rule, respect it" approach as a whole. The rules are there to protect the players from a GM as well. If you tried to Rule 0 that a Skeleton had an instant death no save touch attack at +30, I think I'd be very well within my rights to say 'Okay first off, skeletons can't do that, secondly, that ability doesn't exist anyway, and thirdly, that's f+!+ing ridiculous".
I agree only IF that sort of power was completely over the top given the level/context of the game. So killer GM syndrome aside, what is the problem?
I would like to think my players would be thinking "Did you see what that skeleton just did? Do we have a plan B considering I'm buggered if I know what we are up against!" I would say as soon as such an ability is used it DOES exist, in your game. The idea that just because a player doesn't understand something or the GM doesn't adheres 100% to the 'rulez' the GM is wrong, bad, or insane is the 'player entitlement' issues I encounter. I like surprises, and with a little bit of trust in your GM they can add to the game.
And no I don't think that automatically means a PC can EVER learn such a power - unless the GM thought it appropriate.
I'll read and/or listen to what these more experienced folks have to say with grace when it comes to what they think of my generation or any other that has come after their own.
Cute, basically saying you'll give respect when its given to you, when you started the disrespectful tone when it comes to old school gamers.
My post was clearly a sarcastic reply to the first post on the thread using exageration (evidenced by the cane bit and the walking in the snow.) I then told 2 anequdotes from my gaming past which demonstrated that the orginal authors complaints abbout PCs is nothing new, then I shared a piece of wisdom taught to me by a creative writing professor.
"In fact no work of literature belongs to an author once it hits print, it belongs to the audience at that point for better or worse."
Its why we weren't allowed to clarify or defend our work when we were in a writing workshop. It wasn't ours anymore, we wouldn't be there everytime something we wrote was read.
Instead of focusing on that you derailed this discussion into a discussion about old timey gamers and what to make of us. That's fine but also not particularly respectful. I was taught to treat folk with courtesy until the proved they were unworthy of it, and to expect courtesy but respect was something you earn by your actions.
Really, as gamers we need to stop venting nerd-rage on one another and just be positive. I'll go ahead and blame the internet because blaming human nature is too depressing...
OH and Stay off my lawn you punk kids (shaking my fist!)
I agree only IF that sort of power was completely over the top given the level/context of the game. So killer GM syndrome aside, what is the problem?
That is the problem. We'll say it's a level 3 or so game and you introduce it for no other reason than for the lulz. Anything can be justified with a good enough reason, yeah. But IMO something like that needs a pretty good damn reason.
|
|
I agree only IF that sort of power was completely over the top given the level/context of the game. So killer GM syndrome aside, what is the problem?That is the problem. We'll say it's a level 3 or so game and you introduce it for no other reason than for the lulz. Anything can be justified with a good enough reason, yeah. But IMO something like that needs a pretty good damn reason.
If just for a giggle then I agree - but there is no reason a GM can't have a critter that doesn't play by the rules. No reason, is bad - a reason that the players aren't aware of and won't be explained until later is fine. A player saying, "I'm sorry a skeleton can't do that unless you immediately tell me why!", is over stepping their role in the roleplaying game. If I'm going to craft a story I am not going to tell the players the ending before we even begin.
S.
PS: The damn good reason can be, the story demanded something of that nature.
I agree only IF that sort of power was completely over the top given the level/context of the game. So killer GM syndrome aside, what is the problem?That is the problem. We'll say it's a level 3 or so game and you introduce it for no other reason than for the lulz. Anything can be justified with a good enough reason, yeah. But IMO something like that needs a pretty good damn reason.
If just for a giggle then I agree - but there is no reason a GM can't have a critter that doesn't play by the rules. No reason, is bad - a reason that the players aren't aware of and won't be explained until later is fine. A player saying, "I'm sorry a skeleton can't do that unless you immediately tell me why!", is over stepping their role in the roleplaying game. If I'm going to craft a story I am not going to tell the players the ending before we even begin.
S.
PS: The damn good reason can be, the story demanded something of that nature.
I agree. Generally if I know him I'll trust the GM with that but people I don't know or don't trust that much (because they sometimes DO throw things like that in just because), I don't think a nod to the effect of "Yes it's story related" is too much to ask for.
|
|
I think this might be a conflict of GMing styles. Personally speaking at least, I'm not interested in telling a story. I'm interested in creating a story with the help of my players. I play the world, they play the main characters of their own story (not of the world, just their own personal story with who knows how many other stories going on around them- mostly in the background but perhaps occasionally having a slight convergence) and together we see what happens.
If I'm sand-boxing then 'see what happens' is fine but if I'm running, say a Paizo AP, then there is a story and hopefully at the end of the AP the players all have a sense of what it was and the part they played.
No insult intended in right way comment, right way is generally the non dick way when I say it. Folk are welcome to their play styles and likes and dislikes, but a dick is a dick in terms of RP as one, etc, etc.