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.
Now, now. It's pretty clear I was being facetious. I merely meant to point out that no setting's "canon" is set in stone.
I personally feel as though a certain amount of acceptance of all classes and mechanics as equally valid is required to be an accommodating (if not inherently good) DM. But that's just me.
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.
Actualy just a small correction. There was a witch class in 1st ed. It appeared in Dragon magazine. Also one appeared in 2nd ed...as well as third edition. So obviously your 1st ed answear did not appeal to everyone.
Also oddly I did not want to play a witch till I saw the class in Dragon Magazine.
Something appearing in a magazine makes it a legit standard class? interesting. Are we going to include classes from Geocities that came out in 2e as well?
We can start the magazine article vs. core rules legitimacy debate thread on some other day. But let's focus on the issue at hand.
Everything is optional, but is there an equal amount of expectancy for a GM to allow CRB classes as there is for him to allow stuff from a magazine or website? No.Something appearing in a magazine makes it a legit standard class? interesting. Are we going to include classes from Geocities that came out in 2e as well?We can start the magazine article vs. core rules legitimacy debate thread on some other day. But let's focus on the issue at hand.
Again, this is a topic for later. You've got a lot of other things to address that are a lot more proximate to the issue.
Everything is optional, but is there an equal amount of expectancy for a GM to allow CRB classes as there is for him to allow stuff from a magazine or website? No.
I wouldn't have thought so before people jumped on me for running a game where I'm not allowing an optional rule from an optional book. But apparently, yes. If something was ever published anywhere all players have the right to play it, and the DM who doesn't allow it is just lazy.
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.
Even from those of us advocating on the DM's side of this player entitlement issue, most of us have said that GMs should be willing to inform and even compromise on some issues. But the issue you seem to be disregarding is what happens when, even after a GM may have compromised on some issues (perhaps even many), the player still wants the GM to accommodate him on the issues on which he has said he will not compromise? I'm going to side with the GM on that one because the GM has to be 100% on board with the game he's running. If I were another player at the table, I would accept the GM's right to exert that authority and I would advise the demanding player to adjust to it.
Everything is optional, but is there an equal amount of expectancy for a GM to allow CRB classes as there is for him to allow stuff from a magazine or website? No.I wouldn't have thought so before people jumped on me for running a game where I'm not allowing an optional rule from an optional book. But apparently, yes. If something was ever published anywhere all players have the right to play it, and the DM who doesn't allow it is just lazy.
Is this what you think we are saying?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everything is optional, but is there an equal amount of expectancy for a GM to allow CRB classes as there is for him to allow stuff from a magazine or website? No.I wouldn't have thought so before people jumped on me for running a game where I'm not allowing an optional rule from an optional book. But apparently, yes. If something was ever published anywhere all players have the right to play it, and the DM who doesn't allow it is just lazy.
Straw man and irrelevant. This thread was never about the rules, it is about the GM's willingness to make small (as they usually are) concessions to players. It is also about attempting to remedy the common scenario of a player or players asking for something and having the word "entitled" stamped across there foreheads before the thought is ever considered by the GM.
I personally feel as though a certain amount of acceptance of all classes and mechanics as equally valid is required to be an accommodating (if not inherently good) DM. But that's just me.
Accommodating does not necessarily mean good. I might be able to run an awesome Caesar in Gaul campaign centered around Roman legions, but for a particular campaign concept like that, I'm not going to be particularly accommodating of a whole lot of PF-possible character concepts. Similarly, I might allow anything in the books and still not run a very compelling game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, some of you must have had some experiences with DMs way worse than the ones I've ever had.
I can gurantee that I have alot worst experience with GMs than you...as you don't even see the problem we are talking about.
I don't believe you are the type of GM I am talking about. Or maybe even Scott Betts is talking about. As a matter of fact I would even go as far to say you are a good GM that has been very lucky to have open minded GMs in the past.
Unfortunaly your little cornor of the world does not define it. Why do you think I don't ban things and even invite arguements on te few things I do decide to ban? Or put things up to a group vote?
Perhaps because I see a alarming trend of "The GM is Right". Don't question it. Players turning into sheep. Etc Etc. Personaly as a GM I don't want sheep at my table. I want to be challenged by my players thinking...not meekly going along with what I say.
Lets take your example of banning witches because of the whole 'magical society' concept. Sure I can think that would be a awesome setting...I might design such a setting one day. Now if I do and a player wants to play a witch and I don't have witches include in the 'magical society'. There is two choices...
1) Just say "no". stagnate response.
2) Say OK...but witches would be on the outside of this Magical society. They would be seen as outcast by some...or heroes by others as they buck the traditions of the 'magical society'. I could turn it into a very great plot.
I wouldn't have thought so before people jumped on me for running a game where I'm not allowing an optional rule from an optional book. But apparently, yes. If something was ever published anywhere all players have the right to play it, and the DM who doesn't allow it is just lazy.Is this what you think we are saying?
Well considering I've had one guy go on and on trying to convince me to use archetypes in a campaign where I'm not allowing them, and then had him say that the only reason not to is laziness, and then had you saying that (in what I made clear was hypothetical but people took literally) I should let a bladebound magus into a no archetype game because it "doesn't break the game" regardless of my own feelings about the archetypes rules, I think that's exactly what's been said.
IIRC you were the one saying that me not allowing these optional rules was , and I quote, "laughable."
This thread was never about the rules, it is about the GM's willingness to make small (as they usually are) concessions to players.
This does kind of sum it up, as far as I see it.
Something appearing in a magazine makes it a legit standard class? interesting. Are we going to include classes from Geocities that came out in 2e as well?
Sigh...no it does not. Never said it did. But pointing how they did things in the 'good old days' as the person I quoted said does not mean it is the only solution...or even the best solution....or the only way to do thing something.
Just because 1st ed did not have rules for a witch class does not mean all editions of game should be without. 1st edition also had the Combat Matrix as oppose to the BAB...should we go back to that because it was in 1st ed?
Lets be honesat if D&D did not expand to include character options like feats, PrCs, etc it would probably have died a death as other systems started to give those options for building a character.
Straw man and irrelevant. This thread was never about the rules,
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"? In both cases it is one person at the table trying to dictate how the game will be played to all the other people at the table, so why does almost everyone on these boards perfectly fine with that happening if the person is a DM, but completely against it when it is anyone else?
It's about why its ok for DMs to ban stuff. Fine the answer I seem to be getting from this thread in that context is "It is not ok for the DM to ban anything, and if a player wants to play something that doesn't fit in with the setting, or that the DM isn't comfortable running than the DM should let him or else he's a bad dm."
At least that's what it seems like from the reaction I got to the very notion of a no archetypes game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lets take your example of banning witches because of the whole 'magical society' concept. Sure I can think that would be a awesome setting...I might design such a setting one day. Now if I do and a player wants to play a witch and I don't have witches include in the 'magical society'. There is two choices...
1) Just say "no". stagnate response.
2) Say OK...but witches would be on the outside of this Magical society. They would be seen as outcast by some...or heroes by others as they buck the traditions of the 'magical society'. I could turn it into a very great plot.
I have a story to back this one up. I'm currently running a campaign in which a player choose to be an elf. My writing for the campaign had thus far never addressed elves. It was an Asian-based setting where other races were center stage. There were effectively "no elves in my world."
So I made a decision. Her character was the last elf. The others had vanished 200 years ago.
Blamo! Awesome new plot point and player wasn't cheated out of a good character concept.
And what is small is relative. What may seem small to you like getting to have classes from magazines, may be a much bigger deal to the DM who said he'd be running CRB only and is half way through planning the adventure to 3rd level..
Who said anything about changing stuff mid stream of a campaign? Though I kinda think 3rd level is low enough that it would not blow up your world. Heck do your players already know everything about your setting at 3rd level already?
And the witch class in PF is not just something in a magazine...or even a 3rd part product. It is in the core rule line called the Advance Players Guide.
I don't even usually ask for much. All I asked for was a homebrew race. I was willing to take all the class choices, feats and such from the Core Rulebook if the DM insisted we play that way. Just letting me have one thing (when I could have asked for 20) was apparently too much asked though.
And the witch class in PF is not just something in a magazine...or even a 3rd part product. It is in the core rule line called the Advance Players Guide.
The Advanced Player's Guide isn't core rules. Core rules are Player's guide, GameMastery Guide, Bestiary.
Well considering I've had one guy go on and on trying to convince me to use archetypes in a campaign where I'm not allowing them, and then had him say that the only reason not to is laziness, and then had you saying that (in what I made clear was hypothetical but people took literally) I should let a bladebound magus into a no archetype game because it "doesn't break the game" regardless of my own feelings about the archetypes rules, I think that's exactly what's been said.
So you saw "archetypes" and read "everything published anywhere".
Got it.
Well considering I've had one guy go on and on trying to convince me to use archetypes in a campaign where I'm not allowing them, and then had him say that the only reason not to is laziness, and then had you saying that (in what I made clear was hypothetical but people took literally) I should let a bladebound magus into a no archetype game because it "doesn't break the game" regardless of my own feelings about the archetypes rules, I think that's exactly what's been said.So you saw "archetypes" and read "everything published anywhere".
Got it.
Archetypes are an optional rule in an optional book and you're treating me like I don't know what I'm doing because I don't want to use them. Apparently I'm a bad DM if I don't let a guy have an archetype in a no archetypes game. So apparently you at least think that if something was published in a Paizo official release book the players should be entitled to it automatically regardless of the concerns of the DM.
Well considering I've had one guy go on and on trying to convince me to use archetypes in a campaign where I'm not allowing them, and then had him say that the only reason not to is laziness, and then had you saying that (in what I made clear was hypothetical but people took literally) I should let a bladebound magus into a no archetype game because it "doesn't break the game" regardless of my own feelings about the archetypes rules, I think that's exactly what's been said.
IIRC you were the one saying that me not allowing these optional rules was , and I quote, "laughable."
As the 'one guy' who tried to convince you to remove your ban on archetypes...I don't really care. But since brought this ban as some written stone rule that you would never think of changing. With non-existance attempts by a player to play a class with a archetype. I brought up non-existance instance that I would feel might get you to say "OK I get your concept I'll allow it".
I was merely bringing up what I would consider reasonable challenge to your ban. My main thrust was for the spy archetype for rogues. The whole nonsense about the black blade magnus was entirely of your own devising. As you later admitted that said play does not actualy exist. So of course the imagniary player was rude and a jerk. It supported your side.
Archetypes are an optional rule in an optional book
That's not your justification, so don't pretend that it is.
and you're treating me like I don't know what I'm doing because I don't want to use them.
No, I just don't think your reasoning is very solid.
Apparently I'm a bad DM if I don't let a guy have an archetype in a no archetypes game.
I think the idea of a "no archetypes" game is a little weird to begin with.
So apparently you at least think that if something was published in a Paizo official release book the players should be entitled to it automatically regardless of the concerns of the DM.
No, I was speaking specifically for archetypes. I'm familiar with them, and know that they are broad enough that they don't inherently raise any story concerns.
And the witch class in PF is not just something in a magazine...or even a 3rd part product. It is in the core rule line called the Advance Players Guide.The Advanced Player's Guide isn't core rules. Core rules are Player's guide, GameMastery Guide, Bestiary.
Again, this isn't about rule sources. The label of "player entitlement" is a vicious one and hinders communication between everyone at a gaming table. It also serves to diminish the player to the point that the GM is the sole arbiter of events at the table.
Well considering I've had one guy go on and on trying to convince me to use archetypes in a campaign where I'm not allowing them, and then had him say that the only reason not to is laziness, and then had you saying that (in what I made clear was hypothetical but people took literally) I should let a bladebound magus into a no archetype game because it "doesn't break the game" regardless of my own feelings about the archetypes rules, I think that's exactly what's been said.So you saw "archetypes" and read "everything published anywhere".
Got it.
Archetypes are an optional rule in an optional book and you're treating me like I don't know what I'm doing because I don't want to use them. Apparently I'm a bad DM if I don't let a guy have an archetype in a no archetypes game. So apparently you at least think that if something was published in a Paizo official release book the players should be entitled to it automatically regardless of the concerns of the DM.
Sigh yet again...
No one is saying you are a Bad GM for disallowing something. No one is saying anything about you personaly. You brought up your example not us. I do think it is weak...personaly as I do see alot of concepts that are playable now with archetypes than without. But that I recognize as just a difference in style.
On the other hand the people(who this thread is really about) who come screaming on any thread when a player dares question a GM's decsion about 'Play Entitlement' and such...are also launching into personal attacks when they don't have any idea what the situration is. That kinda gets people feeling like you do now.
I have a story to back this one up. I'm currently running a campaign in which a player choose to be an elf. My writing for the campaign had thus far never addressed elves. It was an Asian-based setting where other races were center stage. There were effectively "no elves in my world."
So I made a decision. Her character was the last elf. The others had vanished 200 years ago.
Blamo! Awesome new plot point and player wasn't cheated out of a good character concept.
But what if being the last elf wasn't part of his concept? What if he wanted to have an extended family of elves?
But what if being the last elf wasn't part of his concept? What if he wanted to have an extended family of elves?I have a story to back this one up. I'm currently running a campaign in which a player choose to be an elf. My writing for the campaign had thus far never addressed elves. It was an Asian-based setting where other races were center stage. There were effectively "no elves in my world."
So I made a decision. Her character was the last elf. The others had vanished 200 years ago.
Blamo! Awesome new plot point and player wasn't cheated out of a good character concept.
If this was important to the character concept, it probably could have been worked in, too (not to speak for Pig).
I was merely bringing up what I would consider reasonable challenge to your ban. My main thrust was for the spy archetype for rogues.
If you want to be a roguish character who wins people over through social skills like bluff instead of through trapfinding there's a core class for that. It's called the bard.
Archetypes are an optional rule in an optional bookThat's not your justification, so don't pretend that it is.
My justification is that I don't want to use them in my setting, and because they are an optional rule I don't bloody well have to use them. But apparently not using them means I'm lazy, or don't respect my players or some such nonsense.
No, I just don't think your reasoning is very solid.I think the idea of a "no archetypes" game is a little weird to begin with.
So once again, if I don't want to use this optional rule, my reasoning is crap and I'm doing something wrong.
No, I was speaking specifically for archetypes. I'm familiar with them, and know that they are broad enough that they don't inherently raise any story concerns.
And again, that's fine and dandy for you. If someone else doesn't want to use them they should't have to just so you can feel better about yourself for teaching the guy who "doesn't know what he's doing" better.
Honestly, you are fighting for the right of a non existent player in a game that hasn't started yet and that you are in no way involved in to play with something that the group has agreed not to because you think that anyone who plays without it is doing it wrong.
That goes to both of you.
If that doesn't make the case in itself for players feeling entitled, I don't know what does.
But what if being the last elf wasn't part of his concept? What if he wanted to have an extended family of elves?I have a story to back this one up. I'm currently running a campaign in which a player choose to be an elf. My writing for the campaign had thus far never addressed elves. It was an Asian-based setting where other races were center stage. There were effectively "no elves in my world."
So I made a decision. Her character was the last elf. The others had vanished 200 years ago.
Blamo! Awesome new plot point and player wasn't cheated out of a good character concept.
Well, her concept was an elf raised by a band of orcs. She explained it beforehand and I ran with it.
Had her concept been something different, I would have ran with it as well. Albeit in a different direction.
If you want to discuss "what ifs" with something who is willing to give his all in terms of his imagination, all I can say is... prepare to receive.
But what if being the last elf wasn't part of his concept? What if he wanted to have an extended family of elves?I have a story to back this one up. I'm currently running a campaign in which a player choose to be an elf. My writing for the campaign had thus far never addressed elves. It was an Asian-based setting where other races were center stage. There were effectively "no elves in my world."
So I made a decision. Her character was the last elf. The others had vanished 200 years ago.
Blamo! Awesome new plot point and player wasn't cheated out of a good character concept.
While not put words in Pigs #1 mouth....
Ok I get the players concept about it. Than we would work together for something that works.
If the player is not willing to meet you half way...and not willing to bend even the slightest...if they can not drop it...than they get the boot.
But many GMs here seem to think if they give a inch the players will take a mile. When in my experience that almost never happens to GMs who have no problem giving a inch. It usualy occurs when the GM is unbending. Stuburness is often meant with stuborness after all.
No one is saying you are a Bad GM for disallowing something.
I'm not so sure of that. When someone says "A good GM should be accommodating..." what's that imply about one who isn't accommodating?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And in disallowing archtypes that doesn't mean the DM can't be flexible and work with you.
You wanted to be a witch. I already limited the other guys to CRB and you really like that concept so Ok how bout this. We make you an "x" sorcerer and modify it slightly this way. ok?
This seems perfectly reasonable to me.
To you, yes. But it will vary from player to player. Everyone who comes to your table is an individual with different preferences. You can't guarantee that your idea of a stand-in for their concept will go over well, nor can you have objective faith in it being the "right way" to play that concept.
Wouldn't you be acting on a slightly arrogant sense of authority to assume that your players should have no issues with your decision? The decision you essentially made for them?
I'm not so sure of that. When someone says "A good GM should be accommodating..." what's that imply about one who isn't accommodating?
No one is saying you are a Bad GM for disallowing something.
Remember what I said about accommodating (if not inherently good) GMs. I am personally a big fan of flexible GMing, but I never implied it was a universal virtue. You may disallow things, nobody is stopping. But people will question it. Not out of entitlement or bad attitude, but at the very least because they are curious about why something is banned in the first place.
Giving an inch..or a foot..or a yard is fine..But if it soon becomes realized that the DM doesn't have the spine to put his foot down and enough nagging and hounding can get you pretty much anything, soon the monkeys will be running the asylum..or however that expression goes.
Shows how thoroughly you wish to stereotype the average player with this statement. As for spineless GMs, it seems rare for those people to become GMs at all. Now, control freak GMs... far more common problem.
If you want to be a roguish character who wins people over through social skills like bluff instead of through trapfinding there's a core class for that. It's called the bard.
I was merely bringing up what I would consider reasonable challenge to your ban. My main thrust was for the spy archetype for rogues.
Um there is no mechanical advantage a bard has over influencing people through Bluff, Diplomacey or Intimindate a rogue. Though rogue does get some talents that help. Besides that Bards get thing I don't want in my concept...spells and bardic music. Rogue get the Evasion, Uncanny dodge and the sneak attack I want for my concept.
But besides that point I don't want to play a bard. I want to more importantly play a rogue without the ability to find remove traps.
Again...I am really a easy going player and this not a breaking point for me as a player(I just think people overuse 'Player Entitlement' creates a unhealthy communication for the hobby) I would just play a rogue and tell you as the GM that while technicaly I have Trapfinding and Trapsense don't expect me to ever use them.
Sure I am guessing you are reasonable GM and would work with me on this concept. All I am saying is just because a player asks for archetype in your game does not mean that player is Entitled...or trying to ruin the game for you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Giving an inch..or a foot..or a yard is fine..But if it soon becomes realized that the DM doesn't have the spine to put his foot down and enough nagging and hounding can get you pretty much anything, soon the monkeys will be running the asylum..or however that expression goes.
I've been pretty darn open-minded as a DM myself, yet my players haven't turned into rampaging howler monkeys demanding they get everything they want. Like Pig said, you're trying to use a stereotype to reinforce your point. He's also right about control freaks being far more common than spineless DMs, if only because absolute power tends to corrupt people instead of weakening their resolve. Hell, I bet my old DM still sees no fault in what he did.
While not put words in Pigs #1 mouth....
Ok I get the players concept about it. Than we would work together for something that works.
If the player is not willing to meet you half way...and not willing to bend even the slightest...if they can not drop it...than they get the boot.
And that's what most of us in this thread, taking the GM's side, have been saying. But pretty much every time we do, we're still met with statements that the GM should accommodate, that not doing so is lazy, that it's a small thing for a GM to make an accommodation while the player who has to has to toss out his whole concept. Basically stuff that implies that the GM is in the wrong to not bend for the unbending player.
But many GMs here seem to think if they give a inch the players will take a mile. When in my experience that almost never happens to GMs who have no problem giving a inch. It usualy occurs when the GM is unbending. Stuburness is often meant with stuborness after all.
I think I can turn this around and say that most player advocates around here seem to think that if the GM has restrictions he's some kind of tyrant and who stubbornly cling to that in message board arguments - and so stubbornness is met with stubbornness...
I'm not so sure of that. When someone says "A good GM should be accommodating..." what's that imply about one who isn't accommodating?
No one is saying you are a Bad GM for disallowing something.
And when someone say 'a good player nevers questions his/her GM' what does that imply about a player that does.
There is a world of difference between a GM who tries accommodates his player than one who caves into every players wishes. And note the important part is the TRY part...I see too often of players at my table who are afraid to even ask something....because a previous GM shot them down hard for requesting something.
Yes I know there are Jerk Players...as well as Jerk GMs...who do you think has a worse effect on the hobby though?
The example I gave was as if the GM was talking to the player to figure out a solution. The player could just as easily come back with "how about is a wizard with x, y, z" ..even still what I was saying wasn't an issue of changing the characters concept or threatening creative control. It was discussing the issue of mechanics which obviously the DM has jurisdiction over.
The player in this case is already in an inferior position compared the GM. Sure, negotiation can still happen at this point, but it isn't the only type of negotiation that could occur. The player might decide to succumb to the GM's idea or come up with a second choice which will still be unlike their original concept. Point is, it isn't really a compromise. It is pushing the player in the direction the GMs wants them to go in, implying any other options they could try would over step the bounds of what they are entitled to. At that point, the player might even better off creating a wholly new concept from scratch.