Lets not forget a DM may not allow something because A) he doesn't have the books and doesn't want to get them B) he wants to keep things simple and C) He doesn't want to open the flood gates. If he says no archetypes just CRB it makes his life simpler and if thats how he wants his game so be it...let's say he approves one thing from the ARG. He knows that someone else may next want to try something more complicated like summoner that he has to now learn all the rules. Then someone wants to try something out of another book (UM? or something) since you allowed APG. Then someone wants to try something they saw online. Next thing you know someone may be complaining that you allowed something for one person but not his archtype and that isn't fair. Avoiding this to start and giving everyone equal access to CRB can avoid this headache if the DM doesn't want to deal with it.
And I would suggest that a GM that disallows something for the above reason is just being lazy. Or can't just be straight forward. Take your pick. Usualy these are hidden behind everything but Core is broken...or the rules are broken...but in all honestly is more of a fear of loosing control.
Really are the summoners rules that hard? Or the rules on guns are that hard to understand? I understand them pretty well...am I some kinda freak of nature?
And for anyone who as actually GMed, everyone should know that as the ruler the GM isn't perfect. He's going to make mistakes and imperfect rulings that he may fix later when you talk to him..but if the players can just argue constantly about every decision and b&%#~ until they get their way you've just taken away the normal balance of the game...
Who is saying anything about constantly bithching or argueing...heck I have said numerous times in this thread that rudeness rather it is from player or the GM should not be tolerated. Or that just because a player wants something does not mean he should get it.
But it seems the GMs are often eagerly lining up to hang a player for just questioning a GM...'How dare they!!!'...when really nobody on a message board is possibly in a position to judge.
It is like posters like you take everything as a personal attack on your style.
Well when someone says my play style is "laughable" that damn well is a personal attack on my play style. And when you say a DM who wants to play a certain way is doing so because he's "lazy" that's damn well attack on his play style too. If you don't want people to think you're attacking their play style, then stop doing it.
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.
And I said it before. You shouldn't be b!*#%ing about this on a thread. If playing the game by the game rules the DM set out before the game started is so painful don't play with them. Taking your personal crap to a forum smacks of entitlement.
This comes across as if the GM isn't a participant in the game who is also deserving of having fun...like he's just a host there to serve the whims of the players and make sure they have the best time possible. He's not just there to make it as awesome for you as he can and just tolerable for himself. Hes there to have FUN. He isn't spending his free time just in an altruistic attempt to make your day awesome. He's spending his time to have fun too.
The GM is going to have fun regardless. If allowing one archetype stops him from having fun, he's doing something horribly wrong.
Can you seriously not have fun if you can't have whatever you want?
Do you ever ask that question to the GM?
..cuz the other players can probably do just fine making some concessions for the game. Is this about the players now or just YOU?
The other players shouldn't give a damn one way or the other whether someone plays an archetype. This is the sort of thing the GM says, "Hey, I don't like these archetype things," and the other players say, "Sure, ban 'em, I wasn't going to play one anyway, what do I care?" to.
It's HIS game. You can say its lazy all you want, but he isn't obligated to buy every book
We're not saying he is.
and learn every rule for you.
No, but he should probably be willing to skim over roughly four characters worth of rules. I don't see how it really matters where those four characters come from.
He isn't your slave. He spends hours preparing the game so god forbid he doesn't go out and buy a $30 book, learn the various rules and intricacies of it, and not spend extra time trying to tweak his adventures to make sure your master summoner doesn't break it and make it too easy.
You realize that most of the people you're talking to are frequently (if not always) GMs, right? It's not like we don't know what GMs go through (oh! how hard the life of a GM is!).
|
My point was the difference between whatever you want (meaning want access to many things) and what you want (something in particular) is irrelevant. The specificity isn't important because in both cases its within the DMs right to say no.
As Scott pointed out, I am the DM. So I don't know what point you are trying to make to me that I don't already know.
And I said it before. You shouldn't be b##$#ing about this on a thread. If playing the game by the game rules the DM set out before the game started is so painful don't play with them. Taking your personal crap to a forum smacks of entitlement.
I completely disagree. What is wrong with ranting? Personaly I rant to friends about stuff so when I have to actualy talk to the person I can do so in a calmer way.
Also I found bringing my problems to other people to be great way to orgainze my own thoughts. To maybe get their perspective on it...or a third party perspective on it. Etc. Talking about problems in a constructive way can be helpful.
Unfortunaly when they are called 'Entitled Players.' Or as you just so elgarantly put up "You shouldn't be b##$#ing about this on a thread." That is not helpful. Than you just end up increasing the hostility. Usualy just responses are because the GM tends to be projecting their own issues with players in the past. IE they are just assuming.
While yes to only real advice people can get from a messgae boards is to talk to the GM, player, or group in question in a polite and respectful manner and be prepared to say that this group is not for me.
But tell me...how dfoes somebody coming into such a thread blasting insults and crying about 'Player Entitlement helps anyone?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whenever I DM, I try to create settings which can fit as much content and options in as possible. I even go out of my way to create new options for my players. Maybe some would call me too lenient, but I think world-building requires some flexibility. Unless the DM has written out everything that exists behind every single tree in the world or catalogued every being that exists in it (which I do not recommend doing as it would be very time-consuming) then a DM must have be willing to alter their "vision" just a tiny bit for the sake of the players. By that I mean, nobody should be afraid to change the lore of their setting a tiny bit. It's your imagination the builds the world after all, not a immutable cage of objective logic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We keep talking about a player's precious character that he loves so much and must have.
WHAT ABOUT THE GM'S SETTING?
We've been over this. Like, 8 times.
First, it's far, far more common for a player to compromise with his or her character concept than it is for the GM to compromise with his setting.
Second, it's very likely that the GM would have to modify relatively little of his setting in order to accommodate a single character concept.
Third, the setting exists to facilitate the game being played at the table. Roping it off as inviolate reflects a really weird list of priorities, where preserving a setting intact is more important than the desires of one of the people actually playing the game.
Fourth, many of the changes we're discussing are setting-neutral (archetypes, for instance, don't inherently have anything to do with the setting).
And with your archetype you love that might be a powercreep, he has to go back and rethink all his encounters because its all about YOU.
If the player was looking for a power level increase, he'd play a full caster. Archetypes don't even come close to what a full caster would do to the table's power level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whenever I DM, I try to create settings which can fit as much content and options in as possible. I even go out of my way to create new options for my players. Maybe some would call me too lenient, but I think world-building requires some flexibility. Unless the DM has written out everything that exists behind every single tree in the world or catalogued every being that exists in it (which I do not recommend doing as it would be very time-consuming) then a DM must have be willing to alter their "vision" just a tiny bit for the sake of the players. By that I mean, nobody should be afraid to change the lore of their setting a tiny bit. It's your imagination the builds the world after all, not a immutable cage of objective logic.
Exactly.
And hell, if the GM's vision of the campaign setting isn't for the sake of the players, whose sake is it for?
but as the person taking that much time to make sure you have fun,
If they're not willing to make minor changes to their campaign setting to accommodate a character concept that is otherwise reasonable to play, they're not taking that time to make sure I have fun. In fact, they're doing the opposite: they're taking all this time to make sure that no one can play anything except the stuff that the GM has bothered to explicitly write in to his setting, so that anyone who wants anything else doesn't get to have as much fun.
god forbid they get a creative choice to say no to something because it adds time to their busy schedule or they want to stick to their creative picture If you think they're obligated to serve you for a 100% amazing game experience they are not.
There are precious few character concepts that would require more than five minutes worth of "creative" work to accommodate, even in the most thoroughly-neckbearded of campaign settings.
It's HIS game. You can say its lazy all you want, but he isn't obligated to buy every book and learn every rule for you. He isn't your slave. He spends hours preparing the game so god forbid he doesn't go out and buy a $30 book, learn the various rules and intricacies of it, and not spend extra time trying to tweak his adventures to make sure your master summoner doesn't break it and make it too easy.
Pathfinder as this very handy thing called the PFSDR that the GM can look up the rules for free. Also everything is built upon the core rules of the game so it rather easy to figure out how new things work. It is not like summoners invented completely different rules of casting or eidlions don't basicaly fight like everything else.
Also a GM pro-tip don't design every encounter before you know what your group is playing. Than you don't have to worry about redesigning every encounter ever because the entire group decided to play all Rogues or something like that. I mean that is just commen sense.
Actualy I am curious do you design every single adventure and encounter before you know what your players are playing? Perhaps that is why it is taking you hours of time...your time can be spent much more efficiently.
Also...I am not saying lazy is bad...it just annoys me when people have to dress it up as anything but being lazy. If a GM said to me Core only because I am lazy...while I am going to figure the rest of game is going to be very casual...I atleast know what I am getting. When a GM says everything outside of core is broken...that is when I just laugh. After all the most broken things in the game are usualy core only.
Anyway just so you know I am a GM so I know exactly what a GM does. I also play as well...so I know exactly what a player does.
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).This comes across as if the GM isn't a participant in the game who is also deserving of having fun...like he's just a host there to serve the whims of the players and make sure they have the best time possible. He's not just there to make it as awesome for you as he can and just tolerable for himself. Hes there to have FUN. He isn't spending his free time just in an altruistic attempt to make your day awesome. He's spending his time to have fun too.
Can you seriously not have fun if you can't have whatever you want? ..cuz the other players can probably do just fine making some concessions for the game. Is this about the players now or just YOU?
Ah now you are argueing that the group is very important...so lets reverse the situration...
If the GM and one player loves guns in fantasy and four players don't. But the GM insists on allowing them. Is than he/she somehow defending the rights of the groups from the demands of one player. Is it now just about YOU(the GM)?
Ya...cuz when the DM spent time planning out this heroic chivalrous campaign, he should completely scrap it or figure out how to totally redo it when you insist on having your anti-paladin..
Woah, no one is saying that. There are excellent reasons to avoid that situation that have more to do with game flow than anything else.
as opposed to you just figuring out a different class...And if the GM says he doesn't want witches in his setting because magic works like X he should suddenly add them because you can't figure out another class to play?
Just let him play a witch. I promise it's less painful than you imagine it to be.
Honestly Scott Betts, have you ever GMed? And more than a prefab?
Oh that's adorable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly Scott Betts, have you ever GMed?
Now that is just unnecessary. GMing is not some prestigious honor. You alone choose to do it and the players choose to trust with running the adventure. It isn't always glamourous, but it does come with a share of responsibilities. The most important of which is making the story ABOUT the player characters. This is the reason the entire structure of the game exists in the first place.
Whether or not someone has GMed before is not a valid excuse to devalue their opinions.
ou think just because you're attached to your character idea The GM isn't attached to the setting he's made? What if there's things in his settings he's really attached to that if he compromises also compromises his fun? He was stoked to have a magic society that now has to be totally different because you MUST play a witch. Now every week he has to adjust his setting and adventure he was stoked about because you couldn't take 3 minutes to just pick something else this time around. What makes your character concept any more important than his setting ideas?
This is not the big deal you think it is. Let the guy play a witch. Your campaign setting will survive. Again, priorities.
Honestly Scott Betts, have you ever GMed?Now that is just unnecessary. GMing is not some prestigious honor. You alone choose to do it and the players choose to trust with running the adventure. It isn't always glamourous, but it does come with a share of responsibilities. The most important of which is making the story ABOUT the player characters. This is the reason the entire structure of the game exists in the first place.
Whether or not someone has GMed before is not a valid excuse to devalue their opinions.
Even if it were, the official Paizo message boards are a pretty odd place to accuse a regular of not having enough GM experience.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are no settings I know of that would be utterly destroyed by the existence of a single witch.
At the very least, add a single sentence of lore to the world.
Witches are rare, but in some remote corners of the world they do exist.
Its not that big a deal. pick a new class. You will survive with a different character. This can go both ways. You can just as easily pick one of many classes.
Absolutely. Except for two major points (that we've already been over time and again, but that you're still ignoring for some strange reason):
1. If the GM compromises, he changes a tiny bit of his setting to accommodate the player. If the player compromises, he throws out the entire concept to accommodate the GM.
2. Players throwing out concepts to accommodate the GM is something that already happens. In fact, it's so common that you expect players to do it, and anyone suggesting otherwise is so weird to you that you can't even fathom them being a GM! There is a subset of GMs out there who are rarely - if ever! - willing to compromise their setting for the sake of a player's character concept. We're suggesting that they should probably loosen up a little.
None of them, since anyone can GM.
Everyone can but not everyone will. If players aren't going to step up to GM (or find a GM from elsewhere), the group is going to limit its options to what the GM is willing or able to provide.
There are plenty of people who have only been a player and never a DM.
And a lot of them have 5,000+ posts here, do they?
And posting a lot doesn't mean you've played 20 campaigns, obviously.
No, but it makes it pretty likely that they see GMing as a big enough deal that they're willing to invest a significant amount of time in talking with other GMs about it.
I never said (or insinuated) you just picked up DnD yesterday to be clear.
No, but you basically insinuated that I'd never taken personal creative ownership of a campaign setting. Which is silly. Even if I'd never created a campaign setting from scratch (and I have), the act of setting a game in a pre-established setting gives you license to change that setting at your whim anyway.
Everyone can but not everyone will. If players aren't going to step up to GM (or find a GM from elsewhere), the group is going to limit its options to what the GM is willing or able to provide.
None of them, since anyone can GM.
And good GMs ought to recognize this plight, and make themselves accommodating enough that the players aren't forced to wrestle with deciding whether to put up with a restrictive game, or try and find a new GM.
There are no settings I know of that would be utterly destroyed by the existence of a single witch.
At the very least, add a single sentence of lore to the world.
Witches are rare, but in some remote corners of the world they do exist.
Hyperbole check. Is anyone actually saying the setting will be "utterly destroyed" by most of this debate? If not, let's drop the exaggeration.
How about if I don't like the structure of hex powers and their unlimited usability? Should I be forced to deal with that when running a game? I don't think so. If I don't want to include hex powers and the player wants to be a witch, he can have play a wizard with the trappings of a witch (oddly enough, that's exactly what a witch was back in 1e days) and have his familiar be his spellbook.
If a player is missing..the game can go on. If the DM is missing it can not. He is the one making sure you have any game at all so that you can have a fun gaming experience. If its a battle between who should get his way, the guy who shows up to play the game.or the guy who spends time preparing the game so 5 other people can have fun..the guy who prepares it should win.
Unless the players aren't having fun. In which case, the players must obligate themselves to indulge the DM simply because there isn't an alternative?
This doesn't mean a GM shouldn't compromise to give players things they want, especially when he doesn't really care...but if both a Player and Gm are equally stubborn on an issue the GM wins.
Ideally, both sides should be cooperating to make the game fun for everyone. Stubbornness should be met with mature discussion. This is true for both sides of the argument.
If a player is missing..the game can go on. If the DM is missing it can not.
So?
He is the one making sure you have any game at all so that you can have a fun gaming experience.
As are the players, collectively.
If its a battle between who should get his way, the guy who shows up to play the game.or the guy who spends time preparing the game so 5 other people can have fun..the guy who prepares it should win.
What, every time? The GM should never feel compelled to compromise, because he (maybe) spends more time prepping for the game?
Speaking as a GM, I reject that. It's incredibly selfish, and not the sort of attitude I would take towards my friends playing the game.
This doesn't mean a GM shouldn't compromise to give players things they want, especially when he doesn't really care...but if both a Player and Gm are equally stubborn on an issue the GM wins.
We're suggesting that the GM should probably make an effort to be a little less stubborn, because it seems like they are quite often stubborn in the extreme (see: "I can't figure out how to add witches to my campaign so no witches!")
Player: If I can't have a Shadowdancer I'm outta here and not playing!
Everyone: Uhh well that sucks but ok later man.GM: If you aren't going to respect my rules at my table and just do CRB like everyone else agreed to I'm not running the game
Everyone: woooah hold on there lets talk about this.If the player or Gm threatened to walk..who do you think the table is going to rally behind? Ya its not an equal relationship. To be clear, I'm not saying the DM should be a dick and do this, just making a point that it isn't equal.
We know it's not equal. We think the GM should be mindful of this, and make a special concerted effort to compromise as a result, rather than taking advantage of this inequality to make the game more enjoyable for himself at the expense of the players' enjoyment.
Hyperbole check. Is anyone actually saying the setting will be "utterly destroyed" by most of this debate? If not, let's drop the exaggeration.
Close enough. kmal2t was posing a hypothetical where a magical society the GM came up with would have to be "totally different" if a player wanted to be a witch.
How about if I don't like the structure of hex powers and their unlimited usability?
That's a mechanical concern. At the moment we're talking about GMs who feel like character concepts destroy their setting. If you want to switch and talk about that we can.
And good GMs ought to recognize this plight, and make themselves accommodating enough that the players aren't forced to wrestle with deciding whether to put up with a restrictive game, or try and find a new GM.
And again, your implication is the GM must be expected to be the bending party. If my group wants to play Vampire or, just as bad, a Vampire-inspired game of D&D in which every PC is a vampire, I'm not running it even if I'm the only one who ever GMs. I'm not interested in the subject matter.
I'll pitch what I want to run. They can agree to play it or ask for another proposal. I may have one (in fact, I usually do) or I may not. That's the price the players pay - they need to be willing to agree to play something a GM is on board to run.
I'm not ignoring anything just saying your point is false..the time and effort it takes a DM to adjust his setting and learn new rules is less than for you to just pick another class? No.
Speaking as a GM, adjusting my setting and learning one class's worth of new rules to accommodate an unusual request probably is less time-intensive than forcing the player to create an entirely new character concept.
That's a mechanical concern. At the moment we're talking about GMs who feel like character concepts destroy their setting. If you want to switch and talk about that we can.
It's not just a mechanical concern. Those mechanics have a big impact on the concept of the witch in Pathfinder.
And again, your implication is the GM must be expected to be the bending party.
No, just that, currently and for many games, the GM is never the bending party because the common wisdom is that GMs put in more effort and thus should be able to restrict things at a whim. We have pretty clear-cut examples of exactly this happening in this thread. We'd like to see that change.
It's not just a mechanical concern. Those mechanics have a big impact on the concept of the witch in Pathfinder.
That's a mechanical concern. At the moment we're talking about GMs who feel like character concepts destroy their setting. If you want to switch and talk about that we can.
I'm confused. Are you objecting from a game balance standpoint, because you're concerned that unlimited hexes might be too strong? Or are you objecting from a flavor standpoint? Because if it's the latter you're going to have to go into more depth and explain how it's objectionable and not reworkable from a flavor standpoint.