So that's a bit of a paper mâché argument. No one is making it.
It seemed a lot like you were, if all of the sudden this issue comes up at the table and somehow no compromise can be reached. If that was simply hyperbole to make a point, OK, good.
I've been Prospective Player #2 in the past, when I talked with a prospective 1e DM who said, "No houserules, Player's Handbook stuff only." So I said I'd like to play a monk and was told "no." I asked if I could be an assassin, and was told "anyone can be an assassin, but that class is banned," and so on. So I went home, happier for not participating.
I'll continue be Prospective Player #2, and you and player #1 can do whatever it is you're doing, and I'll DM my own, more open, game.
Everyone wins.
So that's a bit of a paper mâché argument. No one is making it.It seemed a lot like you were, if all of the sudden this issue comes up at the table and somehow no compromise can be reached. If that was simply hyperbole to make a point, OK, good.
I'll be Prospective Player #2, and you and player #1 can do whatever it is you're doing, and I'll DM my own, more open, game.
Everyone wins.
Save you, who have actually lost because you limited yourself so much, by not being willing to even consider foregoing playing ONE class for the 98% of options which are still open.
If you don't want to play because of the flavor or the setting, that one thing ...
But if you can't create a character and enjoy yourself because a gunslinger isn't available? Really?
Save you, who have actually lost because you limited yourself so much, by not being willing to even consider foregoing playing ONE class for the 98% of options which are still open.
No; I win, too. Because I don't get along with guys like you outside of the game, much less in it -- because in my experience that 98% quickly becomes 5% when you're done in other areas. We're both happier not having to deal with one another. C'est la vie.
And that's OK, though. As long as we're both honest and clear up front, there's no harm done, hien?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will pose an example....Back when I had the philosophy all role playing should be player driven, I was running a GURPs game set in Classical Greece, one of the players playing an Archemedies style character decided he wanted to invent gunpowder, I felt that this was meta gaming and tried to reach a compromise by suggesting all the advancements in steam and mechanical knowledge.. He was insistant so I bent my campaign to accommodate gunpowder.
The other players revolted... Gunpowder ruined the immersion for the other players.
It devolved into 2 camps with me as the GM in the middle waiting for the players to reach consensus... It never happened.
GMs sometimes have to push back on behalf of the other players. They may not be pushing just for their own sense of story and world scope.
The game is not just about the wants of one player it's about the whole table.
Save you, who have actually lost because you limited yourself so much, by not being willing to even consider foregoing playing ONE class for the 98% of options which are still open.No; I win, too. Because I don't get along with guys like you outside of the game, much less in it -- because in my experience that 98% quickly becomes 5% when you're done in other areas. We're both happier not having to deal with one another. C'est la vie.
And that's OK, though. As long as we're both honest and clear up front, there's no harm done, hien?
Well, then you have some really poor experience if you think having one or two classes banned mean that 95% will be.
So you honestly are going to say you can't play if one class is banned, because banning one class means I might suddenly decide out of the blue to ban most of them?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, since everyone agrees, we can stop wasting time talking about it, and we can move on to what happens when compromise and discussion fail.Then I have only one question: Why in God's name are you playing with people with whom you cannot have a discussion?!?!
That is not what I said. You literally quoted what I said, and then paraphrased it into something completely different.
"A discussion that fails to reach compromise" is not the same as "unable to have a discussion." If you can't see the difference, or if you can't understand why the difference matters, then I'm not sure what else to say to you.
@Jeff Wilder:
I get what you are saying now. And yes it is sometimes hard to explain why you don't like something. For the longest time I hated gnomes(Pazio made them interesting). I can't tell you why.
But than again I never banned them...because I can't explain why I would. I guess maybe I am pretty much a tolerant guy with a open mind...having something I disliked in my game actualy would ruin my fun. Heck I also disliked dwarves till I saw friend RP one.
Also what you are saying might be true for your group(s). But I know atleast it is not true for the groups I play with. And there are groups out there with adversial relationships...so in those games the GM does have to rule with a iron fist...and the players have to fight tooth and claw to even get a little...I don't know why they still play with each other...but I have seen one horrible example of this.
So to say this a absolute...I still can't agree with that. There is only one group I run where I am the only GM in. So atleast two groups I play one has four GMs(out of 8 people)...the other has...7 people all of them having gm experience though two of them are not that great at it. And the group where I am the only GM I don't see revolting...and also atleast one player has express a interest in GMing. Oh and probably a handful of other players who play in games with us infrequently.
So for me out of 23 players I game with 10 of them are GMs fully able and willing to run a game. With probably another 2 to 3 with the potential to GM. So look at your stement again...as it predated on the ratio being 4:1 and tell me why this is true for me?
While yes there are probably more GM than Players out there...I think the actual ratio is closer to 3:1 or even 2:1In my home game, it was more like, well, 8:6. Almost all of the players were also accomplished DMs in their own right; I've personally played in games run by Silverhair, Houstonderek, Mundane, and Psychicmachinery, and can comment positively on their skill and ability; and I have it on good report that the games Jess Door and TOZ run are also very excellent.
Maybe that has a lot to do with my attitude about sharing power, when I'm the referee -- all the players know how it all works, and without me as DM, there was still ALWAYS a game in town.
That could be true. But before everybody starts recruiting GM as players in their game...I know some GMs who while are great GMs are very lousey players.
But I think this is also part of the disagreement in areas rich with GMs you have three thing that help the general health of a gaming group..
1) Players do have a choice thus more power. Meaning these is less decrepencey of power.
2) GMs have the opportunity to be a player and take a break. Most fights I have seen at the gaming table could probably be avioded if the GM was not burned out...and/or the players get tired of the same voice being the GM. Variety is good.
3) GM is more likely I think to trust the input of a fellow GM than a player...I know every GM calls on me for a opinion when a question raises.
By the way it may sound like I am advocating allows things that you don't like...that you can't explain. I am not. I understand we are all different inviduals...my tolerence for things I don't like is one of my strengths...I can generaly get along with most people I meet...it can be also a weakness at times too.
But again just because you are creative and think of many concepts for game...not every player is. Sure they might not be right for your game...but don't call them names either or show hostilty.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The 4:1 ratio is loosely based on the info WotC shared, dated from many years ago when they were developing 3E. If I remember correctly, it was actually higher than 4:1; I lowered it as a better ballpark just because of my own experiences with all of the gamers I know personally (40 or so), combined with those I've spoken to at cons.
tell me why this is true for me?
The really interesting things about having power (even the nerdy ridiculous power a GM has) are that: (1) nobody can force you to exercise it, (2) you can delegate it to other people, and (3) it exists even if you're not aware of it.
The 4:1 ratio is loosely based on the info WotC shared, dated from many years ago when they were developing 3E. If I remember correctly, it was actually higher than 4:1; I lowered it as a better ballpark just because of my own experiences with all of the gamers I know personally (40 or so), combined with those I've spoken to at cons.
I will still disprute that number. If this was solely a D&D/PF issue I could accept that number...but it is not. I it applies to all games could have issues of GM abusing power/ Player Entitlement. So personaly I would still say the ratio is closer to 3:1...but again in my area I believe it is closer to 2:1. (Also a curious thing of the ten GMs I know all of them can run atleast two different game systems competently)
Since it does varies it would normal to assume the factors that increase GM's power would also vary.
IE it is still not a absolute.
tell me why this is true for me?The really interesting things about having power (even the nerdy ridiculous power a GM has) are that: (1) nobody can force you to exercise it, (2) you can delegate it to other people, and (3) it exists even if you're not aware of it.
A GM without players...does not have power. In my area a GM who does not give at all has no player. And tend to run Organized play games..
Though conversly a player who does not give found himself without a group...and tend to play Organized play games...
(see why I avoid Organized play in my area like the plague?)
I am curious how many player are there in your area? How many GMs?
|
In my home game, it was more like, well, 8:6. Almost all of the players were also accomplished DMs in their own right; I've personally played in games run by Silverhair, Houstonderek, Mundane, and Psychicmachinery, and can comment positively on their skill and ability; and I have it on good report that the games Jess Door and TOZ run are also very excellent.
My wife is also a DM, so yeah.
|
|
The really interesting things about having power (even the nerdy ridiculous power a GM has) are that: (1) nobody can force you to exercise it, (2) you can delegate it to other people, and (3) it exists even if you're not aware of it.
“Power resides only where men believe it resides. [...] A shadow on the wall, yet shadows can kill. And ofttimes a very small man can cast a very large shadow.”
My wife is also a DM, so yeah.
The roommate is also a GM, as well as 3 out of 5 of the rest of the playgroup. I don't get the "shortage of GMs" thing. I guess I'm just privileged.
|
I think you're taking the comment a bit too rules literally. When he said "not connected to the multiverse" he's meaning that his world isn't connected to Marvel, to the Lucas Universe, to DC, or Dick Tracy, to Moorcock's Million Spheres, or whatever fan-driven thing you want to conjure up. The rules set does not require that you connect to EVERYTHING in order for normal functions to work.No connection to the multiverse means no clerics and no conjuration magic, and as DM you can't use elementals or outsiders... that's not "a few banned things," that's like half the game being off-limits from the get go. If you're banning 1/2 of the core rules as "not appropriate," OK -- but something like that should be made abundantly clear to all participants in advance, and they should unanimously agree before even thinking about a character.
But it can be taken quite literally too. Sometimes using magical teleportation doesn't mean that you travel through the Astral plane or whatever nonsense. Sometimes it just means you freaking teleport. How does it work? It's goddamn magic, that's how.
But it can be taken quite literally too. Sometimes using magical teleportation doesn't mean that you travel through the Astral plane or whatever nonsense. Sometimes it just means you freaking teleport. How does it work? It's g%~!**n magic, that's how.I think you're taking the comment a bit too rules literally. When he said "not connected to the multiverse" he's meaning that his world isn't connected to Marvel, to the Lucas Universe, to DC, or Dick Tracy, to Moorcock's Million Spheres, or whatever fan-driven thing you want to conjure up. The rules set does not require that you connect to EVERYTHING in order for normal functions to work.No connection to the multiverse means no clerics and no conjuration magic, and as DM you can't use elementals or outsiders... that's not "a few banned things," that's like half the game being off-limits from the get go. If you're banning 1/2 of the core rules as "not appropriate," OK -- but something like that should be made abundantly clear to all participants in advance, and they should unanimously agree before even thinking about a character.
Precisely.
It can have the exact same mechanics without invoking extra planar explanations.
I will pose an example....Back when I had the philosophy all role playing should be player driven, I was running a GURPs game set in Classical Greece, one of the players playing an Archemedies style character decided he wanted to invent gunpowder, I felt that this was meta gaming and tried to reach a compromise by suggesting all the advancements in steam and mechanical knowledge.. He was insistant so I bent my campaign to accommodate gunpowder.
The other players revolted... Gunpowder ruined the immersion for the other players.
It devolved into 2 camps with me as the GM in the middle waiting for the players to reach consensus... It never happened.
GMs sometimes have to push back on behalf of the other players. They may not be pushing just for their own sense of story and world scope.
The game is not just about the wants of one player it's about the whole table.
Should have just said, the max tech is greek fire, and they can't invent gunpowder and weaponise it into firearms no matter their intelligence and application. It always annoys me when some try to force guns where they do not belong--there are a lot of gun nuts out there.
Primitive greek fire spray compressions device on a spear, but no guns. There.
A shame one fool ruined it for everyone.
Except if I wanted to use the core fighter in his game, he'd let me.
So, no, he did not ban the core rulebook.
Core is nothing sacred, it can be improved upon. Like giving the whole range of melee classes barbarian like special abilities, one every two levels and tied to the essence of the class. You can always break down, re-do, add more and try to make your own balance.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What are players entitled to?
What are GMs entitles to?
Nothing. The game only exists as a social contract between different people on an individual level. A GM is not entitled to players, and players are not entitles to a GM. Neither side is entitled to have fun. Neither side is entitled to get all of, some of, or nothing of what they want.
I think it has been made clear on the boards in this discussion that everyone has different opinions on what a GM should do, what there role is, where their power lies. Who cares whether there exists someone who will call your style "benevolent dictatorship", or call you a "frustrated novelist"? Who cares if some people online think you are a "powergaming munchkin" or a "special unique snowflake"? What it boils down to is each game played is a social contract between you and the other players, and as such, mutual respect, honesty and recognition of other's dignity comes into play.
If you cannot play the game unless you are a gnome, and the GM's world does not allow gnomes, it is up to the individual foibles of you and the GM to work it out. The reasons you have for wanting to be one are endless, as are theirs for banning it. You need to think about your reason for wanting to, and see whether you can have fun doing something else, and the GM should think about why they banned it, and see if they can figure something else out. If it crosses the line, and making concessions makes the game un-fun for either side, then they have the privilege to back out, and certainly do not have the right to impose their desire on another person.
It is this fundamental truth that gives power to the GM over an individual player. If there are 6 people wanting to play PF, and a GM comes up with an idea that four people like, and the 5th does not, the 5th's exercising of his power does not stop the GM from having a game.
It is this fundamental truth that gives power to the GM over an individual player. If there are 6 people wanting to play PF, and a GM comes up with an idea that four people like, and the 5th does not, the 5th's exercising of his power does not stop the GM from having a game.
Truth.
Within the group a GM has two options: Play without the problem player(s) or Quit running. A player has one option: Quit playing. The only time this is even and not in the GMs favor is if there are not enough players left to run the game anyway.
But really. Is this an argument of player creativity and concept or of GAME MECHANICS?
...
So really. Is this an issue of not being allowed to express yourself or you just want the cool mechanical aspects of certain classes? I await some pretty sophist and silly answers in response to this...Both. If you look through this thread you will see several people mentioning they banned gunslingers (and other classes) for being broken mechanically. You will also see several people mention they have banned classes (paladins, samurai, ninja) because the fluff didn't fit into their world.
If you ban a class/race for mechanics reasons, and I want to play it for fluff reasons I would appreciate you sitting down with me to come up with a solution that gives me the fluff I want and doesn't have the mechanics you want to avoid. There is also the possibility the problems with the mechanics are only problems in the hands of certain players and instead of having a general ban it might be better to have bans for those players. Just because Tom tries pick pocketing everyone he encounters (including the other players) when he plays a rogue it doesn't mean there is a problem with the rogue class or that they should be banned, just that Tom should be banned from playing rogues.
If you ban a class/race for fluff reasons, and I want to play it for mechanics reasons I would also appreciate you sitting down with me to come up with a solution that gives me the mechanics and keeps the offending fluff out of your world. While the Japanese Samurai may not fit into your campaign, the rules appear to be pretty much similar to the Cavalier, so why not use the the samurai class, but call him a cavalier in game?
One could also wonder why the play instantly gravitated to having to have the banned class.
One could also wonder why the play instantly gravitated to having to have the banned class.
Do they? I don't know because I don't band in thing from the core set( meaning Pazio 's direct books...)...so I never had this problem. If you ban things in your game how often do people bring up playing them?
If they do...well you know what they say about forbidden fruit right?
Twice. Both times the player was adjudged to be a troublemaker, and not just by me. It also makes a big difference to me if you approach me outside of the game and in private and ask to work something out bringing some of your own ideas to the table on how to make things fit vs sitting down at the table after we all meet and pouting. And they don't even have to work to prime the pump, its just the proof that your are at least making the effort rather than just expecting. If you at least make a good faith effort, I'll make one myself, if you aren't going to bother to make the effort when asking for a special cookie then I'm also not going to make an effort.
Twice. Both times the player was adjudged to be a troublemaker, and not just by me. It also makes a big difference to me if you approach me outside of the game and in private and ask to work something out bringing some of your own ideas to the table on how to make things fit vs sitting down at the table after we all meet and pouting. And they don't even have to work to prime the pump, its just the proof that your are at least making the effort rather than just expecting. If you at least make a good faith effort, I'll make one myself, if you aren't going to bother to make the effort when asking for a special cookie then I'm also not going to make an effort.
You really don't have to explain how you operate...I am not judging you. Actualy the way most GMs have posted I would not have trouble playing under.
I asked more to see how actualy common does this come up. Sure we see threads here. But is player 'entitlement' or GM 'tryanny' really getting more common..or are we just seeing more due to access of the internet?
vs sitting down at the table after we all meet and pouting.
Arss, I think a lot of our differences stem from the fact that, to hear you describe your players, they sound like obnoxious six-year-olds. In my experience, most players aren't like that -- especially if you're reasonably choosy about who you play with.
I suspect that with table of more mature, reasonably well-brought-up adults, you'd be amazed at how you can dial your "authoritarian rating" down to 5 or less and be fine, whereas a 7 or 8 is maybe what you need currently.
Indeed, I'd submit that there's not one "best" level of authority, but that, even in the same DM, it depends on the players and the overall social dynamic.
Most players are fine ... But I'm not dialing back below a five. I'm running a game, not a debating society. Did say I'm between five and seven point five depending on the circumstances.
OK, so much for that idea.
OK, so much for that idea.
Yes, I know you seem to think putting every decision up for a vote is better inherently.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here is another question for those who ban things in their campaign. If you have a houserule/ campaign setting guide write up do you include explanation on why things are banned...or do you just say x is banned?
Example:
Gunslingers -banned: Guns don't fit in with my vision of setting.
Summoner- banned: The rules of the Eidolon are too complicated for what I want to deal with in the game.
Dwarves- Banned: This is one of the campaign mysteries...perhaps you'll discover it in game.
I wonder if this simple step could head off atleast some problems.
One could also wonder why the play instantly gravitated to having to have the banned class.Do they? I don't know because I don't band in thing from the core set( meaning Pazio 's direct books...)...so I never had this problem. If you ban things in your game how often do people bring up playing them?
If they do...well you know what they say about forbidden fruit right?
Absolutely.
The Gunslinger is a prime example. I've had one over like 7 campaigns sense the book came out and there has never been on in a game I was a player.
And I hate that class, so much. I just act like it isn't there, and as long as I keep that up, it doesn't seem to be.
Right there with you brother cranefist. Running a game with low ranged tech and no gunpowder, and a guy insisted he had to play a gunslinger.
Or the "I want to play an Alkenstar gunslinger" since we are in golarion. "Nope the tech level of Alkenstar is all over the place in the book, in this game they are placed at very early matchlock, with no fast reload and not yet a 'gunslinger' class available. They just use and experiment with the new gun tech."
"No I want to play a gunslinger with repeating rifles and six shooters."
*face palm*
Here is another question for those who ban things in their campaign. If you have a houserule/ campaign setting guide write up do you include explanation on why things are banned...or do you just say x is banned?
Example:
Gunslingers -banned: Guns don't fit in with my vision of setting.
Summoner- banned: The rules of the Eidolon are too complicated for what I want to deal with in the game.
Dwarves- Banned: This is one of the campaign mysteries...perhaps you'll discover it in game.
I wonder if this simple step could head off atleast some problems.
Wow we are really on the same page. I also banned Dwarves, not because I dislike them (which I don't), but because in my setting, they got exterminated by two human tribes they helped and elevated (dog bites the hand that feeds it). Which eventually led to these humans becoming one of the great powers, since they stole so much from the Dwarves.
So yeah, no Dwarves. I also canned elves in this setting, I really don't like them and how they have been copy pasted across settings, but also so I have space for more monsters and fey. Give them some attention rather than the damn elves. Anti-Tolkien fantasy is good fun.
Wow we are really on the same page. I also banned Dwarves, not because I dislike them (which I don't), but because in my setting, they got exterminated by two human tribes they helped and elevated (dog bites the hand that feeds it). Which eventually led to these humans becoming one of the great powers, since they stole so much from the Dwarves.
So yeah, no Dwarves. I also canned elves in this setting, I really don't like them and how they have been copy pasted across settings, but also so I have space for more monsters and fey. Give them some attention rather than the damn elves. Anti-Tolkien fantasy is good fun.
Oh I don't usualy ban things in my game (though I working on a setting that does). This was more of a suggestion for GMs who face problems from their play group. The list of examples just covered the three most common reasons to ban something...not liking the rules, not liking the flavor, it part of the campaign world's themes.
I highly doubt a DM is going to do something completely randomly like "I'm banning swords" ...why? ...just cuz. There's always a reason to why something is banned whether its the DM's bias against a class or how his setting works.
What are you talking about?
Here is another question for those who ban things in their campaign. If you have a houserule/ campaign setting guide write up do you include explanation on why things are banned...or do you just say x is banned?
Example:
Gunslingers -banned: Guns don't fit in with my vision of setting.
Summoner- banned: The rules of the Eidolon are too complicated for what I want to deal with in the game.
Dwarves- Banned: This is one of the campaign mysteries...perhaps you'll discover it in game.
I wonder if this simple step could head off atleast some problems.
Since I only ban Gunslingers and Summoners and I do so for both rule and lore reasons ( although in case of the Summoner its more of a "The Eidolon kinda sorta makes me feel uneasy" thing as a lore reason, I happily can give reasons from both realms, rules and lore. ^^
Yes, I know you seem to think putting every decision up for a vote is better inherently.
One of the reasons I live in the U.S., instead of North Korea.
Here is another question for those who ban things in their campaign. If you have a houserule/ campaign setting guide write up do you include explanation on why things are banned...or do you just say x is banned?
Example:
Gunslingers -banned: Guns don't fit in with my vision of setting.
Summoner- banned: The rules of the Eidolon are too complicated for what I want to deal with in the game.
Dwarves- Banned: This is one of the campaign mysteries...perhaps you'll discover it in game.
I wonder if this simple step could head off atleast some problems.
There is a campaign pitch, with flavor material, what does and doesn't exist with the story behind its nonexistence, sometimes just saying "see me before making such a character rather than after", a listing of the main deviations from standard rules in play ...,
Yes, I know you seem to think putting every decision up for a vote is better inherently.One of the reasons I live in the U.S., instead of North Korea.
Bad example. You know the US isn't actually a democracy, right? You elect representative to make the decisions FOR you. If you don't like their decisions, and enough of your fellows agree, you remove them ...
He didn't say it was. Just that we get to vote.Bad example. You know the US isn't actually a democracy, right?Yes, I know you seem to think putting every decision up for a vote is better inherently.One of the reasons I live in the U.S., instead of North Korea.
Yes. But you don't vote on the decisions, only on who goes to make them.