Wow way to miss the point. The point is that no matter what the houserule is if everyone agreed to it than the person asking for special treatment is being a jerk. It doesn't matter what the rule is or for what reason it was imposed.
So what you're saying is that the player in question initially agreed that archetypes are bad/pointless, then later turned around and asked to play one while demanding that the house rule remain in place for the rest of the players?
|
Wow way to miss the point. The point is that no matter what the houserule is if everyone agreed to it than the person asking for special treatment is being a jerk. It doesn't matter what the rule is or for what reason it was imposed.So what you're saying is that the player in question initially agreed that archetypes are bad/pointless, then later turned around and asked to play one while demanding that the house rule remain in place for the rest of the players?
So you are saying the GM shouldn't be allowed to ban things.
Wow way to make a lot of insulting assumptions about me.
...
Lets put it this way Wombatkidd simplest solution in inventing a feat/discovery to allow the player is to instead to have that archetype.
Umm no. The archetype does a lot of other things too, and it doesn't even make his bombs deal exclusively fire damage like he wanted. Just giving him the archetype wouldn't even give him what he wanted, so I took an existing feat as precedent (elemental spell) and made one for his bombs.
He did not because than he proably forsees every player wanting a archetype all of sudden. Probably because he imagined alot of work for himself. So really his ban on all archetypes has nothing to do with the group but has to do with self-interst. A much more group friendly rule would have been all archetypes must be approved by the GM.
I already explained why I banned them. It has nothing to do with making less work for myself, and everything to do with me not liking them for my new campaign setting I've allowed them in the past.
The fact that he has said his players have agreed to this does not mean anything. As 1) we only actualy have his word that they have all agreed to this...
Casually imply that I might be a liar when you have no reason to do so. How nice.
and 2) Maybe the players are just putting up with his rules for a number of reasons that has little to do with their enjoyment of the game.
Possibly. But I'm open if it bugged them they'd talk to me. They did about the stuff they didn't like in my last setting.
3) heck they may not even think that a GM's ruling can be questioned as they have seen other who do so treated like crap by Wombatkidd.
Completely baseless and insulting to me for no reason. Thanks a bunch.
@Wombatkidd:
My main problem is treating every player who dares to question the GM or even to ask for permission to do something as being badwrongfun. That is what I see here constantly.I'm not saying that either. All my responses have been in regards to players who ask for things that other players have agreed not to use.
If a restriction or new rule has been added and everyone agreed to it, but one guy is asking to not be held to it, he is the one with the problem and should live with the stipulation or find a new group. Simple as that.
Sure...but we often don't what the whole group thinks on message boards. If a player came to you and said he wants to play x in your world and cam up with a way for it to work in your world....and no player has a objection to it would you allow it?
The thing I often see is that the group is almost never consulted in these cases. Just because a player agrees to play with your no archetype game world...could mean they don't find it a big deal...or have a concept they don't need a archetype for. Both though don't rule out with them being OK with a player who has a archetype.
Lets give a 'what if?' example. What if I was playing in your game. Now I am personaly Ok with the non-archetype clause in your world because I got a million concepts that will work. Now if another players wants to play lets say a Rogue with the spy archetype because he does not want to have anything to do with trap but want to be all about Bluff and such...I at the table would think the best solution would be to allow that player the archetype as it fits more with what that player wants and does not destroy my character concept at all. And because I am such a convincing fellow(this is a 'what if?' example) I point out to the rest of the players that allowing this does not suddenly blow up the their characters...they think it is OK also to allow this.
So now the situration is your players are saying it is OK for you to allow it as it won't destroy their fun or even change their character's in the slightest. Would you allow it than? How would just a minor change destroy your fun or destroy your world?
Stuff
You know what. My message was incredibly simple, and you just latched on to an example instead of reading it (and pretty mach acted like a jerk because you think my houserules are bad and I shouldn't be allowed to ban things as a DM).
Here it is in bold italics for you:
ANY PLAYER WHO WANTS SPECIAL TREATMENT THE REST OF THE GROUP ISN'T GETTING IS BEING ENTITLED. THAT IS, IN FACT ,THE DEFINITION OF BEING ENTITLED!
StuffYou know what. My message was incredibly simple, and you just latched on to an example instead of reading it (and pretty mach acted like a jerk because you think my houserules are bad and I shouldn't be allowed to ban things as a DM).
Here it is in bold italics for you:
ANY PLAYER WHO WANTS SPECIAL TREATMENT THE REST OF THE GROUP ISN'T GETTING IS BEING ENTITLED. THAT IS, IN FACT ,THE DEFINITION OF BEING ENTITLED!
And what if they just want to change the campaign's restrictions?
@Wombatkidd:
Lets give a 'what if?' example. What if I was playing in your game. Now I am personaly Ok with the non-archetype clause in your world because I got a million concepts that will work. Now if another players wants to play lets say a Rogue with the spy archetype because he does not want to have anything to do with trap but want to be all about Bluff and such...I at the table would think the best solution would be to allow that player the archetype as it fits more with what that player wants and does not destroy my character concept at all. And because I am such a convincing fellow(this is a 'what if?' example) I point out to the rest of the players that allowing this does not suddenly blow up the their characters...they think it is OK also to allow this.
I'm not going to get into hypothetical with you. That's not even what this thread is about.
I don't know why people are jumping down my throat about this. What if I was playing core only? A lot of people play core only, but I guess if I did so I would be "limiting" my players. I guess everyone who plays core only is doing it wrong too, cause they don't have archetypes.
Gee, I'm being such a jerk limiting my players like that. I mean, I'm only allowing them the core classes, the advanced classes, the core races, all the featured races, and all the psionic classes and races sans archetypes. How will they ever customize their characters when they only have 29 classes to chose from? /sarcasm
And here is where we diverge.
Nope not really I have just different experience than you.
If the group had a problem with it, this person wouldn't be posting on a message board for support. They would have the support of the group, which is all you need to get any GM to change anything. No group means no game.
Not entirely true. That person might not think to ask the group their opinion...which is why I often advise to talk to the whole group.
If "The Group" wants something, it happens or the the GM doesn't get to run anymore. Unless the GM is really good and everyone is happy with how the game is going, and so they trust the GM has a good reason for whatever tweeks are in place.
Again sometime not true. Sometimes the group is just apathitic to it. Or often players feel they should not have a say on what a player does with their characters. Which sometime a GM takes as a mandate from the players to do things that if pressed for their opinion they would disagree with.
Who else would a GM who bans things have in mind but the group? The GM believes, rightly or wrongly, the game will proceed best with the rules they put in place. They have no personal dog in the race other than trying to make the game awesome. They win when everyone enjoys themselves and comes back. They lose when they don't.Not so for players, hence the problem.
I also agree with that...and sometimes the GM's descion actualy does not reflect what the group thinks or feels...they just sometimes put up with the GM.
Also the above is all about good GMs and bad players. Some of the players who come here to complain about a bad GM is not always a bad player complaining about a good GM...there are bad GMs out there...and I am afraid they are becoming quite common because of the general attitude here of to the players of "Just Shut Up and take it"
And what if they just want to change the campaign's restrictions?StuffYou know what. My message was incredibly simple, and you just latched on to an example instead of reading it (and pretty mach acted like a jerk because you think my houserules are bad and I shouldn't be allowed to ban things as a DM).
Here it is in bold italics for you:
ANY PLAYER WHO WANTS SPECIAL TREATMENT THE REST OF THE GROUP ISN'T GETTING IS BEING ENTITLED. THAT IS, IN FACT ,THE DEFINITION OF BEING ENTITLED!
Then they are free to discuss it with their dm and the group, but they should be mature enough to know that just because they ask for something doesn't necessarily mean they're going to get it.
Also the above is all about good GMs and bad players. Some of the players who come here to complain about a bad GM is not always a bad player complaining about a good GM...there are bad GMs out there...and I am afraid they are becoming quite common because of the general attitude here of to the players of "Just Shut Up and take it"
If your GM is bad you should be discussing it with him, not whining about it on a forum. And I''ll say the same for a DM with a bad player. Help them get better. If you don;t see them ever getting better, you shouldn't play with them.
Wow way to make a lot of insulting assumptions about me.
I am sorry I just grabbed you as a example of how on a message board we can not possibly know the situration. I should have replaced your name with 'GM x'.
I again apologize for the post.
Wow way to make a lot of insulting assumptions about me.I am sorry I just grabbed you as a example of how on a message board we can not possibly know the situration. I should have replaced your name with 'GM x'.
I again apologize for the post.
Cool beans
ANY PLAYER WHO WANTS SPECIAL TREATMENT THE REST OF THE GROUP ISN'T GETTING IS BEING ENTITLED. THAT IS, IN FACT ,THE DEFINITION OF BEING ENTITLED!
Adj. 1. entitled - qualified for by right according to law; "we are all entitled to equal protection under the law"
eligible - qualified for or allowed or worthy of being chosen; "eligible to run for office"; "eligible for retirement benefits"; "an eligible bachelor"
StuffYou know what. My message was incredibly simple, and you just latched on to an example instead of reading it (and pretty mach acted like a jerk because you think my houserules are bad and I shouldn't be allowed to ban things as a DM).
Here it is in bold italics for you:
ANY PLAYER WHO WANTS SPECIAL TREATMENT THE REST OF THE GROUP ISN'T GETTING IS BEING ENTITLED. THAT IS, IN FACT ,THE DEFINITION OF BEING ENTITLED!
Can you maybe lay off the caps spam (Especially since that's not the definition of being entitled)?
stuff
3: belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges
Yeah, it has nothing to do with wanting things while wanting the same things denied to everyone else in the group. It pretty much just has to do with wanting things. Significant, since the second part is what makes it significantly more douchy.
A player showing up and wanting to play an archetype 'cause he thinks its cool is much less of a douche than a player showing up wanting to be the only one allowed to play an archetype so that he can have what others can't.
stuff
3: belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges
That's entitlement, not entitled.
@Wombatkidd:
Lets give a 'what if?' example. What if I was playing in your game. Now I am personaly Ok with the non-archetype clause in your world because I got a million concepts that will work. Now if another players wants to play lets say a Rogue with the spy archetype because he does not want to have anything to do with trap but want to be all about Bluff and such...I at the table would think the best solution would be to allow that player the archetype as it fits more with what that player wants and does not destroy my character concept at all. And because I am such a convincing fellow(this is a 'what if?' example) I point out to the rest of the players that allowing this does not suddenly blow up the their characters...they think it is OK also to allow this.
I'm not going to get into hypothetical with you. That's not even what this thread is about.
I don't know why people are jumping down my throat about this. What if I was playing core only? A lot of people play core only, but I guess if I did so I would be "limiting" my players. I guess everyone who plays core only is doing it wrong too, cause they don't have archetypes.
Gee, I'm being such a jerk limiting my players like that. I mean, I'm only allowing them the core classes, the advanced classes, the core races, all the featured races, and all the psionic classes and races sans archetypes. How will they ever customize their characters when they only have 29 classes to chose from? /sarcasm
You are the one that put forth your campaign world without archetypes as a example. You are the one saying you are 'sticking' to your guns on it to keep your campaign world 'pure' and to 'protect' the group from 'evil entitled players'.
All I am asking if allowing somebody to play a rogue (spy) really would destroy your world? Lets examine it shall we...the rogue looses trapfinding and such and gain a bonus to bluff to trick people and poison use.
OMG yes I see it now...it completely destroys your world as rogues MUST be able to find remove traps. Also OMG poison use is such a powerful abilty that Rogue will end up ruling your world. /sarcasm.
Also I do disagree with you on archetypes....atleast in regards to concepts. To me atleast it is not just what you gian with a archetype...of equal or sometimes of greater value is what you loose.
Lastly this is all hypothetical in the end.
|
|
And what if they just want to change the campaign's restrictions?StuffYou know what. My message was incredibly simple, and you just latched on to an example instead of reading it (and pretty mach acted like a jerk because you think my houserules are bad and I shouldn't be allowed to ban things as a DM).
Here it is in bold italics for you:
ANY PLAYER WHO WANTS SPECIAL TREATMENT THE REST OF THE GROUP ISN'T GETTING IS BEING ENTITLED. THAT IS, IN FACT ,THE DEFINITION OF BEING ENTITLED!
If the rest of the group is ok with the restrictions...
This is the part you seem to be trying to avoid dealing with.
The player, singular, is unhappy with what the group, plural, is fine with.
stuff
3: belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges
Yeah, it has nothing to do with wanting things while wanting the same things denied to everyone else in the group. It pretty much just has to do with wanting things. Significant, since the second part is what makes it significantly more douchy.
A player showing up and wanting to play an archetype 'cause he thinks its cool is much less of a douche than a player showing up wanting to be the only one allowed to play an archetype so that he can have what others can't.
And the definiton af a priviladge is a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor : prerogative; especially : such a right or immunity attached specifically to a position or an office
Entitlement is thinking you are entitled to a privilege, a privilege by definition is peculiar. pecular is defined as being characteristic of one person, or being unusual
So to combine all that into a single string:
A person who feels entitled to something is expressing entitlement, which is belief that one is deserving of certain things unique to themselves or otherwise unusual.
In other words someone who is entitled wants special treatment, and ipso facto wanting special treatment actually is the definition of entitled just like I said in the first place.
But gee, it sure is fun to argue about semantics instead of about teh actual topic, isn't it?
|
|
And here is where we diverge.Nope not really I have just different experience than you.
If the group had a problem with it, this person wouldn't be posting on a message board for support. They would have the support of the group, which is all you need to get any GM to change anything. No group means no game.Not entirely true. That person might not think to ask the group their opinion...which is why I often advise to talk to the whole group.
If "The Group" wants something, it happens or the the GM doesn't get to run anymore. Unless the GM is really good and everyone is happy with how the game is going, and so they trust the GM has a good reason for whatever tweeks are in place.Again sometime not true. Sometimes the group is just apathitic to it. Or often players feel they should not have a say on what a player does with their characters. Which sometime a GM takes as a mandate from the players to do things that if pressed for their opinion they would disagree with.
Who else would a GM who bans things have in mind but the group? The GM believes, rightly or wrongly, the game will proceed best with the rules they put in place. They have no personal dog in the race other than trying to make the game awesome. They win when everyone enjoys themselves and comes back. They lose when they don't.Not so for players, hence the problem.
I also agree with that...and sometimes the GM's descion actualy does not reflect what the group thinks or feels...they just sometimes put up with the GM.
Also the above is all about good GMs and bad players. Some of the players who come here to complain about a bad GM is not always a bad player complaining about a good GM...there are bad GMs out there...and I am afraid they are becoming quite common because of the general attitude here of to the players of "Just Shut Up and take it"
So let is take the scenarios.
1.If a person goes to ask strangers rather than the people actually present...suspect. My scenario is far more likely.
2. If the group is "apathetic" and the GM says "This is the rule" than the group put the GM in charge of making the call, not any one player at the table.
3. And if they put up with the GM, there must be enough good about the game that they are fine with it.
Every group is going to have disagreements on given rules interpretations. Part of being a player is saying "I trust this guys judgement enough to defer on the grey areas, because it is more important to have fun tonight than to be right about a given ruling."
If you can't do that, don't let him run or don't sit at his table.
And hell, if you can't do that, you won't be missed.
And what if they just want to change the campaign's restrictions?StuffYou know what. My message was incredibly simple, and you just latched on to an example instead of reading it (and pretty mach acted like a jerk because you think my houserules are bad and I shouldn't be allowed to ban things as a DM).
Here it is in bold italics for you:
ANY PLAYER WHO WANTS SPECIAL TREATMENT THE REST OF THE GROUP ISN'T GETTING IS BEING ENTITLED. THAT IS, IN FACT ,THE DEFINITION OF BEING ENTITLED!
If the rest of the group is ok with the restrictions...
This is the part you seem to be trying to avoid dealing with.
The player, singular, is unhappy with what the group, plural, is fine with.
Well, I don't think it's wrong for the one player to try talking with the GM and group to see if there's leeway or if they can work something out. Even if the rest of the group isn't using any archetypes and is fine with that.
Now, if the player is all "my way or the highway" and not open to any discussion, then yeah, problem. Same as is often the case when a GM adopts that attitude.
If your GM is bad you should be discussing it with him, not whining about it on a forum. And I''ll say the same for a DM with a bad player. Help them get better. If you don;t see them ever getting better, you shouldn't play with them.
I agree with you a 100%. I'll even extend it to threads about GMs asking about if a house rule would work. He really should consult with their groups.
But people will always look for outside support. It is in our nature...and it is not neccessarily a bad thing. Sometimes you just need to rant....sometimes you are looking for validication in your veiws. It is harmless in of itself. It is when the extremes of either side comes along and mess things up that it becomes a problem.
That is why I always give the advice of talking to the GM or player or group. I might than also give my own perspective on the situration...or present the other side's veiw. Also importantly is advice on how to approach another person.
|
|
And what if they just want to change the campaign's restrictions?StuffYou know what. My message was incredibly simple, and you just latched on to an example instead of reading it (and pretty mach acted like a jerk because you think my houserules are bad and I shouldn't be allowed to ban things as a DM).
Here it is in bold italics for you:
ANY PLAYER WHO WANTS SPECIAL TREATMENT THE REST OF THE GROUP ISN'T GETTING IS BEING ENTITLED. THAT IS, IN FACT ,THE DEFINITION OF BEING ENTITLED!
If the rest of the group is ok with the restrictions...
This is the part you seem to be trying to avoid dealing with.
The player, singular, is unhappy with what the group, plural, is fine with.
Well, I don't think it's wrong for the one player to try talking with the GM and group to see if there's leeway or if they can work something out. Even if the rest of the group isn't using any archetypes and is fine with that.
Now, if the player is all "my way or the highway" and not open to any discussion, then yeah, problem. Same as is often the case when a GM adopts that attitude.
Which is where we have gotten to, generally, if you are posting on the internet.
Talking to the GM is exactly what you should to, preferably out of game.
Demanding the ruling you want, not so much. Going to the internet to complain about the GM and get reinforcement, not so much...
But gee, it sure is fun to argue about semantics instead of about teh actual topic, isn't it?
I like semantics, to a point. Language is fun. And you were the one who brought dictionary definitions up. But okay, back to substance:
The point is that no matter what the houserule is if everyone agreed to it than the person asking for special treatment is being a jerk. It doesn't matter what the rule is or for what reason it was imposed.
I find that even if I put aside the semantic problems with this statement (if one player disagrees with the houserule, then everyone didn't agree), I disagree with it regardless. If one person has a problem with a houserule, they should be able to discuss it with the GM and perhaps seek change or compromise in a non-disruptive manner.
You are the one that put forth your campaign world without archetypes as a example.
As an example of a house rule that someone who wanted special treatment would try to change even though everyone else was fine with it. Not a pinata for people to beat at because they don't like my house rule. What the actual house rule is is beside the point.
You are the one saying you are 'sticking' to your guns on it to keep your campaign world 'pure' and to 'protect' the group from 'evil entitled players'.
Um... No. I have never once said anything of the sort. I said I'm not allowing them because I think there's enough customization without them. The same reason someone who doesn't like psionics might disallow that. Maybe if you're gonna use 'apostrophes' to make it 'seem' like you're 'quoting' me you should use things I actually 'said.'
All I am asking if allowing somebody to play a rogue (spy) really would destroy your world? Lets examine it shall we...the rogue looses trapfinding and such and gain a bonus to bluff to trick people and poison use.
OMG yes I see it now...it completely destroys your world as rogues MUST be able to find remove traps. Also OMG poison use is such a powerful abilty that Rogue will end up ruling your world. /sarcasm.
No. I didn't say it did. I said I didn't want to use them in this setting. Why are you so up on convincing me to use them? Why do you care? No one's forcing you not to use them. It doesn't affect you in any way.
Also I do disagree with you on archetypes....atleast in regards to concepts. To me atleast it is not just what you gian with a archetype...of equal or sometimes of greater value is what you loose.
And I disagree with you. But please, go on. Having you tell me I'm playing wrong is so fun. /sarcasm
@ciretose: I tend to agree with you...read my above post on people who put up threads about such things.
Also please note...I am against any arguements during the game. But that does not mean a player can not respectfuly approach the subject of a GM's ban or ruling at all.
Also if you are apthetic about something chances are you really don't care one way or the other. So you won't be upset if the GM reverse a ban on something. So the GM is such a case is not upholding his ban on something for the group.
@All: Every GM who has posted in this thread don't seem to be the type of GM I am talking about. I would probably enjoy playing in most of their games. I am not unreasonable.
A GM banning thing is not a bad thing. Also a GM upholding a ban is not a bad thing.
What I do consider a bad thing is people's seemingly inflexabilty on certain things. And people's assuming things one way or the other.
I find that even if I put aside the semantic problems with this statement (if one player disagrees with the houserule, then everyone didn't agree), I disagree with it regardless. If one person has a problem with a houserule, they should be able to discuss it with the GM and perhaps seek change or compromise in a non-disruptive manner.
You're lookign at the example instead of the message. Why did I bother capsing, bolding and italicizing it? grr. ;)
Any player who wants special treatment the rest of the group isn't getting is being entitled.
My whole message was common sense, but people have used the example I picked to go on diatribes about my example. /sigh
You are the one that put forth your campaign world without archetypes as a example.As an example of a house rule that someone who wanted special treatment would try to change even though everyone else was fine with it. Not a pinata for people to beat at because they don't like my house rule. What the actual house rule is is beside the point.
You are the one saying you are 'sticking' to your guns on it to keep your campaign world 'pure' and to 'protect' the group from 'evil entitled players'.Um... No. I have never once said anything of the sort. I said I'm not allowing them because I think there's enough customization without them. The same reason someone who doesn't like psionics might disallow that. Maybe if you're gonna use 'apostrophes' to make it 'seem' like you're 'quoting' me you should use things I actually 'said.'
All I am asking if allowing somebody to play a rogue (spy) really would destroy your world? Lets examine it shall we...the rogue looses trapfinding and such and gain a bonus to bluff to trick people and poison use.
OMG yes I see it now...it completely destroys your world as rogues MUST be able to find remove traps. Also OMG poison use is such a powerful abilty that Rogue will end up ruling your world. /sarcasm.
No. I didn't say it did. I said I didn't want to use them in this setting. Why are you so up on convincing me to use them? Why do you care? No one's forcing you not to use them. It doesn't affect you in any way.
Also I do disagree with you on archetypes....atleast in regards to concepts. To me atleast it is not just what you gian with a archetype...of equal or sometimes of greater value is what you loose.And I disagree with you. But please, go on. Having you tell me I'm playing wrong is so fun. /sarcasm
1) Um no you present a player who wannted to play a archetype as a example of a player wanting special treatment. Yet to prove how reasonable you are you gaved another player special treatment by creating a feat. So how is the player who wanted to play a goblin not being entitled?
2) My use of ' is not directly quote you but to signified I see alot GMs(not neccessarily you) use these arguements to defend their ruling on things. When it really is just more of a ego trip. Again not saying this defines you.
3) While of course you may ban archetypes...I am just pointing out that I don't think you fully understand the level of concept building a archetype allows. That is all.
I find that even if I put aside the semantic problems with this statement (if one player disagrees with the houserule, then everyone didn't agree), I disagree with it regardless. If one person has a problem with a houserule, they should be able to discuss it with the GM and perhaps seek change or compromise in a non-disruptive manner.You're lookign at the example instead of the message. Why did I bother capsing, bolding and italicizing it? grr. ;)
Any player who wants special treatment the rest of the group isn't getting is being entitled.My whole message was common sense, but people have used the example I picked to go on diatribes about my example. /sigh
I'm not missing your point, I'm rejecting your framing of the scenario that leads to it.
I agree that a player who comes to the table wanting you to disallow archetypes for everyone but him is, pretty likely, not behaving well. However, since I have seen nobody in this thread advance the perspective that a GM would be best served by showing blatant rules favoritism at the table, I am moving the scenario back towards one which is actually relevant to the topic of the thread, which would be one where a player asks for a rules change that would affect all players rather than just himself.
I would rather posit a player arriving at the table where archetypes are houseruled out and saying "oh, I had this great idea for a warrior who just never gives up - any way you could see your way to allowing us archetypes after all? Maybe if it's balance and flavor concerns, you could individually approve archetypes to ensure they aren't broken or flavorless?"
Sure, he as an individual wants something, but he's asking to change a table rule. Not asking for a change only for himself and then screaming his head off if you allow that change to another player as well as himself.
Going back to semantics, entitlement is typically used to refer to groups. Exclusive or peculiar groups, yes, but it's "knights" who are entitled to be called "sir", not "a knight" and "old people" who are entitled to Social Security, not "one particular old person." And "players" who are entitled to discuss things they don't like with their GM, not "one particular player." Even if there is only one player who feels strongly about an issue, he is certainly capable of, and indeed, I would think he is expected to bring it up in a way that would not exclude fellow players who might then want to jump aboard.
1) 1) Um no you present a player who wannted to play a archetype as a example of a player wanting special treatment.
Umm no. I presented a player who wanted to play as an archetype in a game where they were banned as wanting special treatment. That's a world of difference.
Yet to prove how reasonable you are you gaved another player special treatment by creating a feat. So how is the player who wanted to play a goblin not being entitled?
Because the goblin is an allowed race and I did the same thing I would have if archetypes didn't exist and he asked me for a way to make bombs always do fire damage.
2) My use of ' is not directly quote you but to signified I see alot GMs(not neccessarily you) use these arguements to defend their ruling on things. When it really is just more of a ego trip. Again not saying this defines you.
Fair enough.
3) While of course you may ban archetypes...I am just pointing out that I don't think you fully understand the level of concept building a archetype allows. That is all.
I do, and I disagree that they are necessary. I don't want to derail the thread by arguing about it further.
I'm not missing your point, I'm rejecting your framing of the scenario that leads to it.I agree that a player who comes to the table wanting you to disallow archetypes for everyone but him is, pretty likely, not behaving well. However, since I have seen nobody in this thread advance the perspective that a GM would be best served by showing blatant rules favoritism at the table, I am moving the scenario back towards one which is actually relevant to the topic of the thread, which would be one where a player asks for a rules change that would affect all players rather than just himself.
I would rather posit a player arriving at the table where archetypes are houseruled out and saying "oh, I had this great idea for a warrior who just never gives up - any way you could see your way to allowing us archetypes after all? Maybe if it's balance and flavor concerns, you could individually approve archetypes to ensure they aren't broken or flavorless?"
Sure, he as an individual wants something, but he's asking to change a table rule. Not asking for a change only for himself and then screaming his head off if you allow that change to another...
I responed to the original post in the thread: "Why is it that a player saying "X is in the official rules, so I can play X" is considered "player entitlement", but the statement "You can't do/play Y because of Z" from the DM is not seen as "player entitlement"? "
The answer is because (and follow this): the DM has the right to ban things, and if the group didn't agree to those things being banned no one would want to play, therefore if someone is on the boards complaining that the DM didn't let them play something it's because the DM and the rest of the group agreed it was banned, so those players are looking for special treatment and are therefore full of player entitlement.
The context was in regards to these boards, not in regards toprivate interaction and I answered as such. I don;t think I was very clear on that though, so my bad as well.
I'm not missing your point, I'm rejecting your framing of the scenario that leads to it.I agree that a player who comes to the table wanting you to disallow archetypes for everyone but him is, pretty likely, not behaving well. However, since I have seen nobody in this thread advance the perspective that a GM would be best served by showing blatant rules favoritism at the table, I am moving the scenario back towards one which is actually relevant to the topic of the thread, which would be one where a player asks for a rules change that would affect all players rather than just himself.
I would rather posit a player arriving at the table where archetypes are houseruled out and saying "oh, I had this great idea for a warrior who just never gives up - any way you could see your way to allowing us archetypes after all? Maybe if it's balance and flavor concerns, you could individually approve archetypes to ensure they aren't broken or flavorless?"
Sure, he as an individual wants something, but he's asking to change a table rule. Not asking for a change only for himself and then screaming his head off if you allow that change to another...
I responed to the original post in the thread: "Why is it that a player saying "X is in the official rules, so I can play X" is considered "player entitlement", but the statement "You can't do/play Y because of Z" from the DM is not seen as "player entitlement"? "
The answer is because (and follow this): the DM has the right to ban things, and if the group didn't agree to those things being banned no one would want to play, therefore if someone is on the boards complaining that the DM didn't let them play something it's because the DM and the rest of the group agreed it was banned, so those players are looking for special treatment and are therefore full of player entitlement.
The context was in regards to these...
Cool. Anyway, I continue not to agree with the perspective you've been advancing - at least, not as an absolute rule - but to be fair I don't like the idea of a player demanding to play something come hell or high water, no matter what good reason a GM might give, any more than I like the idea of a GM who won't suffer any houserules discussion or compromise.
I also think I'm repeating myself now, or at least I'm fairly sure I've said this at some point already in this thread, so maybe it's time to go off to another part of the board again.
Because the goblin is an allowed race and I did the same thing I would have if archetypes didn't exist and he asked me for a way to make bombs always do fire damage.
So you created a feat for a player's concept...that in my opinion is very cool of you. I have done similair. Though I don't believe in throwing out a whole rule concept(like archetypes) than have to reinvent the wheel.
But now lets go back to the player who wanted to play a black blade magnus. Did you create a feat(or a feat chain) to allow that player to play that concept?
If not...how are you not showing the goblin player favoritism and entitling that player above a player who is not asking you to create new rules because the rules already exist?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's been a bit of back and forth about the "power imbalance" between Players and GMs.
Sequitur.
That is, "it follows."
GMs take on vastly more work than Players; with great responsibility comes great power, to invert a popular aphorism.
Even if you're running prefab APs rather than building your own game from scratch, the GM shoulders the majority of the work to make the game run.
NOW...
I'm not advocating that the power that goes along with that can't be abused... but I do think that if someone is willing to GM, the folks playing ought to support them by being the more flexible people.
I simply have the opposite take: as a GM, it's your responsibility to facilitate the fun of your players. The aphorism doesn't hold as much weight inverted. The GM has a lot of power, and accordingly has a responsibility to make the game as enjoyable as possible to his players (without making it intolerable for himself in the process, of course).
If not...how are you not showing the goblin player favoritism and entitling that player above a player who is not asking you to create new rules because the rules already exist?
Sigh. If you cant see the difference between asking for something nicely and demanding that something that's been banned be allowed I don't see the point in continuing to discuss this with you.
JK,
There's a world of difference between a feat to modify a class feature and adapting an entire archetype, whether via feats or some other method. And the Magus archetype in question changes a lot of stuff...
Not to put too fine a point on it, but Bladebound Magus changes less than just about any archetype out there. It literally only modifies a single class feature (and counts as your 3rd level arcana). You'd be hard-pressed to find an archetype that changes less than Bladebound Magus. You give up a bit of your pool for what is essentially a weapon-familiar. Sure, it's got a lot of text to describe the weapon-familiar, but that's because there are a lot of rules governing familiars and familiar-like creatures/objects.
Sigh. If you cant see the difference between asking for something nicely and demanding that something that's been banned be allowed I don't see the point in continuing to discuss this with you.
If not...how are you not showing the goblin player favoritism and entitling that player above a player who is not asking you to create new rules because the rules already exist?
Was that the difference? One player asked nicely and the other demanded? If so, this has less to do with players feeling like they should have a say, and more to do with one player being a belligerent jerk to his friends.
Was that the difference? One player asked nicely and the other demanded? If so, this has less to do with players feeling like they should have a say, and more to do with one player being a belligerent jerk to his friends.Sigh. If you cant see the difference between asking for something nicely and demanding that something that's been banned be allowed I don't see the point in continuing to discuss this with you.
If not...how are you not showing the goblin player favoritism and entitling that player above a player who is not asking you to create new rules because the rules already exist?
Well bladebound magus was an example, no one is asking for it.
The difference is one guy just wanted one thing that said archetype he brought up wouldn't even get him and was equivalent in power to a feat which if it existed would be similar to an existing allowed feat and the other guy wanted something that is outright banned. If you can't see the difference I think we're done.
Sigh. If you cant see the difference between asking for something nicely and demanding that something that's been banned be allowed I don't see the point in continuing to discuss this with you.
If not...how are you not showing the goblin player favoritism and entitling that player above a player who is not asking you to create new rules because the rules already exist?
You never did say that the player who wanted to play a black blade magnus demanded anything...you just said that player expressed a desire to play one. There is a world of difference you realize...how am I suppose to know how the player asked for anything? I was not there after all.
Heck who knows if you might not have misread something that the player said to be a 'demand'. Did you talk to this player about it at all? For all we know it could have gone like this...
Player: I want to play a black blade mangus...
GM: No archetypes allowed. Next.
Goblin player:I want to play a alchemist that just throws fire bombs.
GM: that is funny...sure have this feat.
Player: Um..I just want to...
GM: Shut UP!!! Stop Causing problems. You are ruining the game.
Player: sigh whatever I'll just play a fighter.
Sure I don't think your conversation went that way. But in your mind and many others this scenario like this never happens. That when a played posted these stories they are often attacked certain posters as being entitled...they are all entitled players. It is like posters like you take everything as a personal attack on your style.