When discussing player entitlement why do players get the short end of the stick?


Gamer Life General Discussion

101 to 150 of 1,184 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vincent Takeda wrote:

@Sophia:You're actually driving my point home. What you're running is a 20 year old book. And you're right that if someone wants to bring a gunslinger into it you have every right not to allow it. Doesnt mean your book is bad. Doesnt mean the player who wants to play a gunslinger is bad. Just means you wont be playing your book with that player if he wont give up being a gunslinger for you. And you're all free to do just that.

I simply identify with the gunslinger. I shy away from tables like yours because those kinds of gms are a little to caged by the idea of how they want things to play out in their book. You place your world above my interests and thats not the kind of gming I enjoy. My personal playstyle puts player freedom above story/plot/theme. It doesnt make narrativist style worse, just not one I jump at the chance to be involved in.

YMMV.

So why is "you place your interests above my world" not just as bad?


Seranov wrote:

As a fellow human being, you are every bit as prone to not remembering rules correctly, making mistakes and generally being a human being as anyone else, if not moreso because there's a whole world dancing around in your noggin.

The DM is not infallible in all cases. If you're not willing to discuss things with your players, that's fine, as it's your choice. But given the option between playing at your table and never playing Pathfinder for the rest of my life, I'd start looking for new hobbies.

Not everyone is equal, and if we are talking about recall of a rules set, not everyone has the same level of exposure or investment.

Had to poke at this we are all equally fallible claim.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I don't see this short end everyone is talking about. I've always gotten to play what I wanted to play.

Not every player is a problem. But over the decades I've been playing (and GMing) RPG I have seen the occasional problem player (and, in fact, I've once been thrown out of a campaign for being the problem player, or at least for not playing my character the way the GM felt I should be playing him).

I've seen players run character classes or archetypes that the GM didn't know very well, and 'forget' some of the limitations or restrictions inherent in that choice. I've seen players intent on building their character into a 'glass cannon', and who will complain vociferously if the rest of the party fail in their duty of keeping that character unharmed. But these are, fortunately, few and far between.


Pendagast wrote:
In a game of robotech 20 years ago, I ruled a 'destroid' did not have the same arm/hand agility as a veritech 'battloid' based on 1) the animated series and footage thereof and 2) the vertiech technology was of a higher grade and 'newer' and more advanced.

That is a small ruling that doesn't really change much, and neither of you should have made a big deal about it (not sure if you did or not).

Pendagast wrote:
I already out lined above the possibility of a character 'inventing' a revolver. (and that goes for magic items or other gear)

And that is what I think DMs should do, and as a player I would be happy with the answer "no, that isn't possible right now, but here is a way you can do that".

Dark Archive

3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Seranov wrote:

As a fellow human being, you are every bit as prone to not remembering rules correctly, making mistakes and generally being a human being as anyone else, if not moreso because there's a whole world dancing around in your noggin.

The DM is not infallible in all cases. If you're not willing to discuss things with your players, that's fine, as it's your choice. But given the option between playing at your table and never playing Pathfinder for the rest of my life, I'd start looking for new hobbies.

Not everyone is equal, and if we are talking about recall of a rules set, not everyone has the same level of exposure or investment.

You're trying to make a point here, but I'm not seeing it.


Pendagast wrote:
Seranov wrote:

The thing, Pendagast, is that it always comes down to that: talking with your DM.

The problem is when

  • there are players who won't take NO for an answer, regardless of what reasoning the DM gives
  • there are DMs who won't discuss why the answer is NO in the first place

NO, BUT is the far superior way to discuss things like this (discussion is absolutely 100% the number one best option for any OOC conflict in this game), but when a DM walks in and says "NO, BECAUSE I'M THE DM AND I SAY SO," or a player walks in and says "I WANT THIS, BECAUSE IT'S IN THE BOOK," nothing good can come of it.

On a vaguely unrelated note, if your world can't be changed even an iota, then why should anyone want to play in it?

I just grabbed this/ran across this in another thread: [/quote=anonymous] not allowing arcane mark is the same as not alowing the monk not to flurry of blows.

if paizo did not want the magus to use arcane mark to spell combat with they would not have added it into the specialized magus spell list.

this is a perfect example.

I just ran across this in reference to others, I wasn't involved in this discussion, but here we go: there are several GMs that wont allow arcane mark to be used in spell combat , simply because it's not supposed to. It's not an "attack" spell anymore than mend is.
It's a loophole/exploit to get more for 'free' out of Magus at low level than was intended.

But clearly the other poster disagrees, likening using arcane mark with a magus as clearly the same thing as a monk using his flurry (?)

He wont accept some DM's wont allow this (and maybe some do), why BECAUSE it's on the spell list (in the book).

QED.

You may note that there was an official FAQ/Errata saying that it was possible for the Magus to use cantrips with Spell Combat/Strike.

Feel free to keep disallowing it if you wish but he was not actually looking for a "loophole".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Seranov wrote:

As a fellow human being, you are every bit as prone to not remembering rules correctly, making mistakes and generally being a human being as anyone else, if not moreso because there's a whole world dancing around in your noggin.

The DM is not infallible in all cases. If you're not willing to discuss things with your players, that's fine, as it's your choice. But given the option between playing at your table and never playing Pathfinder for the rest of my life, I'd start looking for new hobbies.

Discussing something like that might be "hey ummmm I was reading (insert rulebook here) and it said (insert quote there)"

this might take place before the game or after the game. not during.

If the players looks something up, it should be fine for the player after bringing it up that the GM is going with another interpretation or not using that rule at all.

That's not an entitled player, its just a discussion.

Entitlement is I want what I want when I want it.

IF you were to be given the choice of playing the game, but no gunslingers and no cat folk, would you still play? Or hold your breath until the GM let you play a Catfolk Gunslinger?

IF a Gm didnt let me play a magus, Id play an inquisitor, if I could play an inquisitor, Id play a cleric. Just too many choices to be wrapped up around one.

I let a player change a skill point the other day because she didnt realize the fact of having the skill wouldnt let her actually fly (without magic, device or mount)...ok no problem, she changed it.

If you were told you couldnt find a wand of cure light wounds in the city would you stop playing?
How would you feel if margret weiss told you there is no magical healing at all in the whole world?
Somebody in that group had to be told, No, you cant play a cleric; and if i remember correctly, Sturm Brightblade WAS going to be a paladin, but there werent any, so he played as close to a paladin as possible.

Thats all compromise to let the DM run the world. Sturm Brightblade still got to play his righteous knight, just with no righteous powers.


Arssanguinus wrote:
So why is "you place your interests above my world" not just as bad?

It is just as bad. But there are more people on these boards that will say a player who says "my interests are more important then your world/story" is a "problem child" or is suffering from "player entitlement", but won't say the same things about a DM who says "My world/story is more important then you playing the character you want". The whole point of this thread I started was wondering why this hypocrisy exists.

One of the many threads I've been reading recently had someone post something that pretty much summed up to "As GM I'm telling a story, and players aren't allowed to do anything that would get in the way of telling that story". In the page or so of comments following that not a single person seemed to call them out as being an "entitled player" which bothered me. To paraphrase Vincent Takeda earlier in this thread, why are people like that even DMing instead of writing a book and trying to sell it?

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber
Pendagast wrote:
I let a player change a skill point the other day because she didnt realize the fact of having the skill wouldnt let her actually fly (without magic, device or mount)...ok no problem, she changed it.

In fact, technically, she's required to change it, because it's illegal for her to have put a point into that skill.

PRD Skills(Fly" wrote:
You cannot take ranks in this skill without a natural means of flight or gliding.


Rynjin wrote:
Pendagast wrote:
Seranov wrote:

The thing, Pendagast, is that it always comes down to that: talking with your DM.

The problem is when

  • there are players who won't take NO for an answer, regardless of what reasoning the DM gives
  • there are DMs who won't discuss why the answer is NO in the first place

NO, BUT is the far superior way to discuss things like this (discussion is absolutely 100% the number one best option for any OOC conflict in this game), but when a DM walks in and says "NO, BECAUSE I'M THE DM AND I SAY SO," or a player walks in and says "I WANT THIS, BECAUSE IT'S IN THE BOOK," nothing good can come of it.

On a vaguely unrelated note, if your world can't be changed even an iota, then why should anyone want to play in it?

I just grabbed this/ran across this in another thread: [/quote=anonymous] not allowing arcane mark is the same as not alowing the monk not to flurry of blows.

if paizo did not want the magus to use arcane mark to spell combat with they would not have added it into the specialized magus spell list.

this is a perfect example.

I just ran across this in reference to others, I wasn't involved in this discussion, but here we go: there are several GMs that wont allow arcane mark to be used in spell combat , simply because it's not supposed to. It's not an "attack" spell anymore than mend is.
It's a loophole/exploit to get more for 'free' out of Magus at low level than was intended.

But clearly the other poster disagrees, likening using arcane mark with a magus as clearly the same thing as a monk using his flurry (?)

He wont accept some DM's wont allow this (and maybe some do), why BECAUSE it's on the spell list (in the book).

QED.

You may note that there was an official FAQ/Errata saying that it was possible for the Magus to use cantrips with Spell Combat/Strike.

Feel free to keep disallowing it if you wish but he was not actually looking for a "loophole".

It's not cantrips that makes it an issue, but that arcane mark is not a combat spell, and therefor not a touch 'attack'...just like mend, as I quoted (also a cantrip)

As it were, arcane mark is not included on the magus list specifically to be used in spell combat/spellstrike to get an extra sword attack as quoted. They could have easily included touch of fatigue if that was the intent.
Arcane mark is not a combat spell, thats why most GMs disallow it, and still stands as an example of player not accepting NO as an answer.


JohnF wrote:
Pendagast wrote:
I let a player change a skill point the other day because she didnt realize the fact of having the skill wouldnt let her actually fly (without magic, device or mount)...ok no problem, she changed it.

In fact, technically, she's required to change it, because it's illegal for her to have put a point into that skill.

PRD Skills(Fly" wrote:
You cannot take ranks in this skill without a natural means of flight or gliding.

wouldnt you use this skill if you were to cast the fly spell or ride a broom? or by natural is it referring to the spell being natural? Ive always used fly for those cases. Not that we fly very much in my games. I dont like flying very much.

Silver Crusade

When I DM you know what kind of playground I'm offering before hand. Now whether you decide to come over and play is up to you but I don't throw in any surprises.

If I restrict something then it's for a purpose, not because I can. If you don't like my restrictions then you can always find a DM who suits you better. I don't have a problem with someone chancing their arm but if they keep on and on and aggravate me then I will ask them to leave, and 9 times out of 10 they whine a bit and come right back.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

IT'S NOT US AND THEM, OR US VS THEM for players to GMs, or vice versa...its just US!

Yes, I agree; the GM has more stuff to do for the game...unless they improv everything at which point with all the books and the internet at their disposal, not to mention the occasional canned adventure, they actually have NOTHING to do except draw a map and say "go." But I firmly believe that the players are bringing as much to the table as the GM.

My current homebrew is based on a couple pages of world creation I did about a year ago. The actual campaign however, aside from some vague intonations in said document, is entirely based around the players' backstories.

Am I a terrible person? Are they? Are ANY of us at the table more or less valuable to the experience?

Bottom line: if you are a bunch of players but no GM, you're just hanging out with friends. If you're a GM w/out players, you're playing with yourself (wait, that bit came out wrong...)


iLaifire wrote:
Pendagast wrote:
In a game of robotech 20 years ago, I ruled a 'destroid' did not have the same arm/hand agility as a veritech 'battloid' based on 1) the animated series and footage thereof and 2) the vertiech technology was of a higher grade and 'newer' and more advanced.

That is a small ruling that doesn't really change much, and neither of you should have made a big deal about it (not sure if you did or not).

Pendagast wrote:
I already out lined above the possibility of a character 'inventing' a revolver. (and that goes for magic items or other gear)
And that is what I think DMs should do, and as a player I would be happy with the answer "no, that isn't possible right now, but here is a way you can do that".

as long as it's reasonable and not something silly ( i want my fighter to be able to reverse gravity at will, permanently....) , a character can have all sorts of long term goals. A Gm might put those things in his world, but he does have to bread crumb the player to them either, if he doesnt do the work, search it out, go through the jumps to get to it, it may never be realize.

Of course by level ten he might have some other thing he's working on (levels of spellslinger) and totally forget about revolvers.

On another note, if inventing a revolver or a new spell is something you want to do, letting your GM know about it out of game at a later date would be advisable, that way your arent disappointed when it never happens or doent happen easily, on que.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Pendagast: It's a matter of common sense.

Cantrips can be used with Spell Combat/Strike, but they must be melee touch attacks.

Arcane Mark is the only cantrip that qualifies.

You can only use Spell Combat/Strike with spells on the Magus spell list.

Therefore this spell was the intended focus of that Errata, otherwise the clarification would be pointless.

As I said, feel free to arbitrarily ban it if you wish. But you have no basis whatsoever other than you don't like it to do so.

Which is pretty much my problem with some GMs. "I don't like it" is a reason to ban something. Not "It doesn't fit in my world" not "It's overpowered" but "I don't like it". Which is pretty silly to be honest.


I'll have to be the voice of disagreement here. I tend to find GM's in my area do the least in preparation for games. Generally most can't even prepare their own games. As such I'm slightly more skeptical of calls of player entitlement than most.

(Most GM's I've met don't prepare before their games, or require another player's help to prepare for their games because they usually don't know the rules well enough. This is not to say that some GM's don't contribute more)

Sczarni

Just wanted to say that "Player Entitlement" applies to the GM as well since he or she is no more than another player. Whatever social contract the group has, involves every single member of the gaming group to contribute to a degree with the activity being performed. This contribution being worldbuilding, argument resolution, food bringing, host, ride, etc is irrelevant. This means that to alter the specified rules of the activity (ruleset to be used, houserules, game location, setting) is a group effort. Which means that any modification to the activity that is not agreed upon by the group and instead taken by a single individual can be denominated entitlement. Even more so when the reasoning behind it is believing to have a right that comes from beyond the agreed social contract. Some examples include things like "I am the GD GM", "the rulebook says so", "this is my house", etc.


iLaifire wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
So why is "you place your interests above my world" not just as bad?

It is just as bad. But there are more people on these boards that will say a player who says "my interests are more important then your world/story" is a "problem child" or is suffering from "player entitlement", but won't say the same things about a DM who says "My world/story is more important then you playing the character you want". The whole point of this thread I started was wondering why this hypocrisy exists.

One of the many threads I've been reading recently had someone post something that pretty much summed up to "As GM I'm telling a story, and players aren't allowed to do anything that would get in the way of telling that story". In the page or so of comments following that not a single person seemed to call them out as being an "entitled player" which bothered me. To paraphrase Vincent Takeda earlier in this thread, why are people like that even DMing instead of writing a book and trying to sell it?

The game is set the way its set. Now, if I can find a way to include your concept in a way that isn't damaging to the setting, peachy, and I'd be happy to see what can be done. But, for example. That gunslinger as is is just NOT existing in the campaign. And if you insist on it existing right out of the book, its not going to. If the thing you want to get out of the concept is achievable in another way, I'll try to figure out how ... But the world is the world.


Pendagast wrote:
JohnF wrote:
Pendagast wrote:
I let a player change a skill point the other day because she didnt realize the fact of having the skill wouldnt let her actually fly (without magic, device or mount)...ok no problem, she changed it.

In fact, technically, she's required to change it, because it's illegal for her to have put a point into that skill.

PRD Skills(Fly" wrote:
You cannot take ranks in this skill without a natural means of flight or gliding.
wouldnt you use this skill if you were to cast the fly spell or ride a broom? or by natural is it referring to the spell being natural? Ive always used fly for those cases. Not that we fly very much in my games. I dont like flying very much.
Quote:
Creatures can also take ranks in Fly if they possess a reliable means of flying every day (either through a spell or other magical manner, such as a druid’s wild shape ability).

I'm not sure how that would work for a character who didn't have the spell, but had a party member who used it on him occasionally.


RadiantSophia wrote:
Vincent Takeda wrote:

I'm a simulationist sandboxer. I never run adventure paths or modules. they're just more 'books on rails'.

I COMPLETELY TAKE THAT BACK. I think you would like it/be very good at playing/running it, if you are o.k. with a majority consensus reality.

I only rail against dictator gms and cringe at stories-on-rails since at the end of the day the more prevalent they are the less meaningful contribution I can have as a player, and start asking myself 'why am I here again?' 'Here's my character sheet. Come back to me when you're done with chapter 36 and we'll see how well you've managed to incorporate my guy.'

I totally roll with majority consensus. Getting the whole table on board is job one in the 'running of a successful game', which is why i'm happy to avoid a game I'm not on board for and encourage playing what you want to play instead of joining a game you wouldnt enjoy since a lack of enjoyment might end up thrashing everyone else's fun.

If your world is a simulationist sandbox built on majority consensus where the players create their reality based on their actions, well then its quite likely i'd find a comfy spot to enjoy. I'm all about theater of the mind. At least you wouldnt have to worry about me making a gunslinger since I don't much care for them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
iLaifire wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
So why is "you place your interests above my world" not just as bad?

It is just as bad. But there are more people on these boards that will say a player who says "my interests are more important then your world/story" is a "problem child" or is suffering from "player entitlement", but won't say the same things about a DM who says "My world/story is more important then you playing the character you want". The whole point of this thread I started was wondering why this hypocrisy exists.

One of the many threads I've been reading recently had someone post something that pretty much summed up to "As GM I'm telling a story, and players aren't allowed to do anything that would get in the way of telling that story". In the page or so of comments following that not a single person seemed to call them out as being an "entitled player" which bothered me. To paraphrase Vincent Takeda earlier in this thread, why are people like that even DMing instead of writing a book and trying to sell it?

Since I specifically used the term "Problem Child", and another person asked, "Why not just let him be a noble?", I'll elaborate.

He wants Knowledge: Local, Knowledge: Nobility, and Knowledge: Geography for free as untrained skill checks as part of his 'character backstory'. He doesn't ever want to have to roll a die for them; he just wants to 'know such things'. And he feels he should know them better than any of the PCs who are non-local who put skill points into the skills. If I ask him to pay skill points, I'm 'suppressing him'.

In our other game, where the GM does not 'suppress him', there are 6 players, but he takes over 60% of all GM-PC interaction.

So yes, he's a complete pain in the rear that we tolerate solely because we like his wife (and because he's a nice guy outside of roleplaying).

But at the risk of sounding redundant or confrontational (OK, it's out-and-out confrontational, I'll admit it):
- When a GM says, "No, you can't have that," I have always agreed with the GM that it's been a valid point, even if the decision was against me. (Heck, I'm about to play an Aasimar with no Darkvision, no elemental resistances, and a restricted set of available feats.) Maybe I've just been lucky with a slew of good GMs, or I'm willing to accept the GM's world as-is and roleplay within it instead of trying to work my way around it.

- When a player says, "I need that," it has always been because the player wanted to steal the thunder from the other players around the table, dominate the game, and otherwise be an ass.

Obviously, my experience is not universal; although I've gamed for 35+ years, it's only been with around 30-40 different people.

But my honest-to-goodness answer in all my experience has been, "Why do players get the short end of the stick?" "Because when they're arguing with the GM about 'needing' something, they're being a$$hats trying to steal the glory from everyone else around the table, both the GM and the other players."


Vincent Takeda wrote:
RadiantSophia wrote:
Vincent Takeda wrote:

I'm a simulationist sandboxer. I never run adventure paths or modules. they're just more 'books on rails'.

I COMPLETELY TAKE THAT BACK. I think you would like it/be very good at playing/running it, if you are o.k. with a majority consensus reality.

I only rail against dictator gms and cringe at stories-on-rails since at the end of the day the more prevalent they are the less meaningful contribution I can have as a player, and start asking myself 'why am I here again?' 'Here's my character sheet. Come back to me when you're done with chapter 36 and we'll see how well you've managed to incorporate my guy.'

I totally roll with majority consensus. Getting the whole table on board is job one in the 'running of a successful game', which is why i'm happy to avoid a game I'm not on board for and encourage playing what you want to play instead of joining a game you wouldnt enjoy since a lack of enjoyment might end up thrashing everyone else's fun.

If your world is a simulationist sandbox built on majority consensus where the players create their reality based on their actions, well then its quite likely i'd find a comfy spot to enjoy. I'm all about theater of the mind. At least you wouldnt have to worry about me making a gunslinger since I don't much care for them.

Railroads suck. Simulationist isn't the opposite of railroad. A good narrativist/dramatist GM will focus even more than a simulationist one on making character decisions matter. A hallmark of the style is creating points where characters are forced to make hard choices: character development.


Seranov wrote:
3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Seranov wrote:

As a fellow human being, you are every bit as prone to not remembering rules correctly, making mistakes and generally being a human being as anyone else, if not moreso because there's a whole world dancing around in your noggin.

The DM is not infallible in all cases. If you're not willing to discuss things with your players, that's fine, as it's your choice. But given the option between playing at your table and never playing Pathfinder for the rest of my life, I'd start looking for new hobbies.

Not everyone is equal, and if we are talking about recall of a rules set, not everyone has the same level of exposure or investment.
You're trying to make a point here, but I'm not seeing it.

You were claiming that everyone is fallible, that we are all prone to making mistakes and "every bit as prone" as other people. Except it doesn't fly because it isn't accurate. If I know a rules system I am going to know it better than a new player. I have a friend who is encyclopedic concerning feats, that is his specialty. He doesn't make many mistakes, he knows what he is talking about.

So the we are all pathetic fallible humans can only be stretched so far before it comes up against actually experience and expertise.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Vincent Takeda wrote:
RadiantSophia wrote:
Vincent Takeda wrote:

I'm a simulationist sandboxer. I never run adventure paths or modules. they're just more 'books on rails'.

I COMPLETELY TAKE THAT BACK. I think you would like it/be very good at playing/running it, if you are o.k. with a majority consensus reality.

I only rail against dictator gms and cringe at stories-on-rails since at the end of the day the more prevalent they are the less meaningful contribution I can have as a player, and start asking myself 'why am I here again?' 'Here's my character sheet. Come back to me when you're done with chapter 36 and we'll see how well you've managed to incorporate my guy.'

I totally roll with majority consensus. Getting the whole table on board is job one in the 'running of a successful game', which is why i'm happy to avoid a game I'm not on board for and encourage playing what you want to play instead of joining a game you wouldnt enjoy since a lack of enjoyment might end up thrashing everyone else's fun.

If your world is a simulationist sandbox built on majority consensus where the players create their reality based on their actions, well then its quite likely i'd find a comfy spot to enjoy. I'm all about theater of the mind. At least you wouldnt have to worry about me making a gunslinger since I don't much care for them.

Railroads suck. Simulationist isn't the opposite of railroad. A good narrativist/dramatist GM will focus even more than a simulationist one on making character decisions matter. A hallmark of the style is creating points where characters are forced to make hard choices: character development.

Yeah, railroading takes away what is best in this game--actually making choices, adapting, trying new things and the unexpected.


thejeff wrote:
Railroads suck. Simulationist isn't the opposite of railroad. A good narrativist/dramatist GM will focus even more than a simulationist one on making character decisions matter. A hallmark of the style is creating points where characters are forced to make hard choices: character development.

  • Railroads definitely suck.
  • My understanding of simulationist is a gm who's responsibility is largely to play the world's reaction to the players, but to let the players choose the story, which is the opposite of railroad in that, in a railroad, the story is chosen and marches forth despite or in spite of character actions. Pure narrativist is so adamant about things going as planned that there is no room for player input. "If you don't go in the sewers then we're done for the week because I can't tell the story I want to tell unless you go into the sewer. You will miss a critical plot point and the whole city will be destroyed if you won't go into the sewer." Is pure narrativist, pure railroad, and makes my eyebrow twitch.
  • I'm fairly certain that lumping narrativist and dramatist is where we disagree here since drama can happen without a narrative. I've never even heard of dramatist so I can't vouch for it matching what I believe a narrativist to be.
  • Character development through hard choices can easily be obtained equally either through clever improvisation by a simulationist or by being written in to a planned story. I personally sort of feel more jazzed when it's improvised and character specific than I do when it's just 'a hard decision put into a module/ap/story/narrative set to challenge any player/character/class equally.'

In a situation where there is a critical plot point hiding in the sewers and the players don't want to go down there... my definitions of the three pronged possibility of how to handle it go like this


  • for me a gamist simply uses story to get you to the next fight. He'll either give you a fight to get you where he needs you or he'll take the fight to you. A gamist will say you don't want to go down there? Ok. You are attacked from behind! You can either fight or flee into the sewers! Or if the point was to simply get into the fight a gamist will just make the thing jump out of the sewer at you!
  • a narrativist has to have things go the story way because they have no way around it. They will tell you that if you don't go into the sewers then we're just going to retire your character and now you can roll up a character that isn't so averse to going into the sewers. They will provide the illusion of being a simulationist by putting the story on hold until eventually you get the hint that he has pressed the supergod pause button on your characters world until you just suck it up and go into the [blinkityblank] sewers.
  • a simulationist will, at worst, be lazy and resort to gamist tactics and force/railroad you through whatever logic they can come up with that not going into the sewers isnt really an option, delaying the campaign , be lazy and resort to narrativist superpause button until you get around to doing what they expect you to do, but that's all not true simulationist...
  • A true simulationist will simply agree that you wouldnt, wont, havent and will not go in to the sewers. Then they will play out what horrible thing they've imagined that would happen if you didn't go down in the sewers to intervene, and then show you the consequences of your actions since indeed you did not go down into the sewers... Or they'll just blow the whole thing off and merrilly follow your characters into their next big scheme and save whatever atrocity was happening in the sewers for another time.

I wont say gamists style infringes on a player's contribution to the story by infringing on their free will since they're free to not go into the sewer and get trounced by random encounters before the gm finally just gives up on the campaign and welcome to sandbox gladiator arena until everybody gets sick of it or gets back on the rails.
I will say that narrativist does. For me free will unquestionably seems to just go right out the window in a narrativist campaign. Try getting through an adventure path with a character that doesnt care about the path. Or a whole group that doesnt care about the path. Or a group that stops caring about the path. How long does that last? How long does it last when all the gm really wanted to do was tell the story written in the adventure path?
If you're a simulationist there's no problem. Rise of the runelords. Want to go boar hunting with aldern? NO! We go kill goblin clans! Want to maintain a presence in town when the town asks you to, so the town can feel safer? NO We go kill goblin clans! And then we open up a shop selling goblin burgers in town! Yarr! And a simulationist will be like cool. Whatever. And if he cares to he'll figure out what what the characters were supposed to stop from happening that they blew off, and it'll happen since they didn't stop it. And everyone will still enjoy the campaign and even feel guilty at having screwed around (made a difficult choice and discovered the ramifications of it)...

Spoiler:
as sandpoint is ripped apart by the combined forces of a fully formed succubus/malfeshnikor/alderns ghast army wreak havoc that the players just didnt really feel like tackling. Which might suck, and might ruin your AP early but is amuch more awesome way for it to go than just letting them march down every little path on the lockstep rail to victory. IMHO

I have no idea what a dramatist would do because I have no idea what a dramatist is.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I hate the concept of GM is the law/god. I've been running games for just around a decade now and have never once given that as a reason, even when players are bothering me. Gm may be final arbitor but that doesnt mean he/she should disregard what the players think.

That said I do believe the Gm has more say because he/she doesn't have to worry about just one or two characters, but an entire world or cosmos.

Dark Archive

3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Seranov wrote:
3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Seranov wrote:

As a fellow human being, you are every bit as prone to not remembering rules correctly, making mistakes and generally being a human being as anyone else, if not moreso because there's a whole world dancing around in your noggin.

The DM is not infallible in all cases. If you're not willing to discuss things with your players, that's fine, as it's your choice. But given the option between playing at your table and never playing Pathfinder for the rest of my life, I'd start looking for new hobbies.

Not everyone is equal, and if we are talking about recall of a rules set, not everyone has the same level of exposure or investment.
You're trying to make a point here, but I'm not seeing it.

You were claiming that everyone is fallible, that we are all prone to making mistakes and "every bit as prone" as other people. Except it doesn't fly because it isn't accurate. If I know a rules system I am going to know it better than a new player. I have a friend who is encyclopedic concerning feats, that is his specialty. He doesn't make many mistakes, he knows what he is talking about.

So the we are all pathetic fallible humans can only be stretched so far before it comes up against actually experience and expertise.

Considering the person who that statement was aimed at is the kind of fellow who bans things outright because they're too common and claims this is a valid style of DMing, my statement is ironclad.

Being knowledgeable about the game doesn't give you the right to dictate your rules to everyone without question. My statement extends to everyone who would refuse to discuss things with their players: go write a book if your vision of your campaign is so ironclad that you can't make small changes to it. You're not doing anyone any favors by running your own personal fantasy where no one can have any say in it.

I've said my piece, you fellows can feel free to whine and moan about how the big bad players refuse to see the beauty and eloquence of your elaborate campaign setting. I'm going to go play the game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
NobodysHome wrote:
Since I specifically used the term "Problem Child", and another person asked, "Why not just let him be a noble?", I'll elaborate.

I used "problem child" in my statement because I have seen that used several times, by different people in different posts and was not directly targeted at you.

NobodysHome wrote:

Since I specifically used the term "Problem Child", and another person asked, "Why not just let him be a noble?", I'll elaborate.

He wants Knowledge: Local, Knowledge: Nobility, and Knowledge: Geography for free as untrained skill checks as part of his 'character backstory'. He doesn't ever want to have to roll a die for them; he just wants to 'know such things'. And he feels he should know them better than any of the PCs who are non-local who put skill points into the skills. If I ask him to pay skill points, I'm 'suppressing him'.

I'm not saying a DM isn't allowed to say "No", I'm just against that being a DM's first reaction instead of "Alright, I would rather you not, but please explain why you want to play/do that and I will either consider it or we can try and think of a compromise that works for both of us." And it seems very few of the DMs who post about "player entitlement" are willing to do that.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The is no force on earth that will make me add the gunslinger as is from the book. Now, you can talk to me about what you want out of the gunslinger and see if there is another way to give that to you, but if it doesn't fit, it doesn't fit. And why is it not equally incumbent on the player to try t find something from the nearly infinite combinatorial possibilities of class, race, skills, spells and feats that exist that doesn't press at that one button? Is there really someone out there that can only have fun with ONE class?


Seranov wrote:
3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Seranov wrote:
3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Seranov wrote:

As a fellow human being, you are every bit as prone to not remembering rules correctly, making mistakes and generally being a human being as anyone else, if not moreso because there's a whole world dancing around in your noggin.

The DM is not infallible in all cases. If you're not willing to discuss things with your players, that's fine, as it's your choice. But given the option between playing at your table and never playing Pathfinder for the rest of my life, I'd start looking for new hobbies.

Not everyone is equal, and if we are talking about recall of a rules set, not everyone has the same level of exposure or investment.
You're trying to make a point here, but I'm not seeing it.

You were claiming that everyone is fallible, that we are all prone to making mistakes and "every bit as prone" as other people. Except it doesn't fly because it isn't accurate. If I know a rules system I am going to know it better than a new player. I have a friend who is encyclopedic concerning feats, that is his specialty. He doesn't make many mistakes, he knows what he is talking about.

So the we are all pathetic fallible humans can only be stretched so far before it comes up against actually experience and expertise.

Considering the person who that statement was aimed at is the kind of fellow who bans things outright because they're too common and claims this is a valid style of DMing, my statement is ironclad.

Being knowledgeable about the game doesn't give you the right to dictate your rules to everyone without question. My statement extends to everyone who would refuse to discuss things with their players: go write a book if your vision of your campaign is so ironclad that you can't make small changes to it. You're not doing anyone any favors by running your own personal fantasy where no one can have any say in it.

I've said my piece, you fellows can feel free to whine...

So much ironclad. We aren't whining pal, this isn't the pathfinder guild of whiners in whineopolis. I was pointing out one of your statements (that of course I have heard before) was baloney!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arssanguinus wrote:

The is no force on earth that will make me add the gunslinger as is from the book. Now, you can talk to me about what you want out of the gunslinger and see if there is another way to give that to you, but if it doesn't fit, it doesn't fit. And why is it not equally incumbent on the player to try t find something from the nearly infinite combinatorial possibilities of class, race, skills, spells and feats that exist that doesn't press at that one button? Is there really someone out there that can only have fun with ONE class?

As they say in politics, "Here here!"

I've ran into the player obsessed with playing a gunslinger and determined to argue for it being allowed, even if it doesn't fit at all with what is being run.

You would think with the number of first person shooters they would just go and play one of those, and not try to drag that in and muddy up the setting.


iLaifire wrote:
RadiantSophia wrote:
Because my world has 20 years of history, through 7 different RPGs. If what you want to play cannot exist by the natural laws of my world, there is no way I'm going to let you play it.

Of all the reasons I have seen on the boards on the topic, this is probably the only acceptable reason I have seen so far.

And even then, is not "I will only run games in my setting" just as obstinate as "I will only play this one race/class/weapon combo"? (Of course this doesn't apply if you are already running the game and either a new player is joining or an existing player is rolling up a new character).

If you don't think Jedi are a good fit in your quasi-medieval fantasy game, you are not obligated to allow Jedi, just because we all wish we were that cool.

I wouldn't allow gunslingers nor summoners in my Golarion. If you can't imagine some other class you would like to play, then maybe this particular game isn't for you.

No one has a problem with that. I've bowed out of certain games, too. Someone else will be happy to accept the world as presented, and play within it.


In reply to Vincent Takeda:

Spoilered, since we're way off topic here and I'm going farther

Spoiler:
Vincent Takeda wrote:

  • Railroads definitely suck.
  • My understanding of simulationist is a gm who's responsibility is largely to play the world's reaction to the players, but to let the players choose the story, which is the opposite of railroad in that, in a railroad, the story is chosen and marches forth despite or in spite of character actions. Pure narrativist is so adamant about things going as planned that there is no room for player input. "If you don't go in the sewers then we're done for the week because I can't tell the story I want to tell unless you go into the sewer. You will miss a critical plot point and the whole city will be destroyed if you won't go into the sewer." Is pure narrativist, pure railroad, and makes my eyebrow twitch.
  • I'm fairly certain that lumping narrativist and dramatist is where we disagree here since drama can happen without a narrative. I've never even heard of dramatist so I can't vouch for it matching what I believe a narrativist to be.
  • Character development through hard choices can easily be obtained equally either through clever improvisation by a simulationist or by being written in to a planned story. I personally sort of feel more jazzed when it's improvised and character specific than I do when it's just 'a hard decision put into a module/ap/story/narrative set to challenge any player/character/class equally.'

Dramatist is roughly equal to narrativist. It was the original term, in the Threefold model that the GNS theory was based on. That's where I was introduced to the concepts and the way I still think about it.

Narrativism is about the game as story, but in terms of story structure, not in terms of the GM telling a story that you have to follow along with: the classic railroad.

wikipedia GNS Theory wrote:

Narrativism relies heavily on outlining or developing motives for the characters, putting them into situations where those motives come into mutual conflict, and making their decisions in the face of such stress the main driving force behind events. For example, a Samurai character sworn to honour and obey his lord might have that loyalty tested when directed to fight against his own rebellious son. <snip>

This has two main effects. Firstly, and in contrast to much Simulationist play, characters usually show considerable change and development over time. Secondly, any attempt at imposing a fixed storyline is either impossible or highly counterproductive. Moments of drama – which is to say, inner conflict on the part of the characters – inherently make player responses difficult to predict, and the consequences of such choices cannot be minimised.

None of this has anything to do with using prewritten adventure paths or anything like that. APs probably cater to a gamist style more than anything, but could be run more simulationist or narrativist, though either might lead to significant deviations from the expected path. Planned stories aren't what it's about. Building good stories around the characters and their actions is the goal. Character driven stories, rather than plot driven.

The original intent of the distinctions was to highlight that people were looking for different things in their games, not just trying to do the same thing badly. There is a valid place for story based techniques in roleplaying games. It's not my favorite style, I actually lean more simulationist, though not as much as I used to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

my issue with the Gunslinger is not with the setting, but with all the rules exceptions and munchkin bait the class possesses.

despite the short firing range, the guns target touch AC, which makes ridiculous scenarios like the full plate armor, designed to counter firearms, does nothing to stop them. it also makes such defenses as Kevlar, useless. unless you use Armor As DR, which makes touch attacks useless. unless armor provides both AC and DR.

the misfire rules, were clearly included to balance the unprecedented touch attacks. if Gunslingers are supposed to target Touch AC. make that a 1st level class feature of the gunslinger, or a feature of gun training and it's archetyped equivalents.

in fact, if i removed the misfire chance and made the touch attack thing a feature of Gun training and it's archetyped equivalents. the gunslinger can still target touch AC and guns would suck less for everyone else

i would also cheapen gun and ammunition prices to be more in line with crossbows. and make the gunslinger also function with a crossbow or sling. reload times would also be closer to those of crossbows.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Full Plate armor was not designed to stop bullets. It was, in fact, pretty darn bad at doing so. Wasn't very good at stopping crossbow bolts even, if I recall.


Never heard the term munchkin bait, I quite like it actually. Nice and apt.

Yes oh yes on full plate armour. Some people and systems promote guns as if they always go through all types of armour (in pf there is also insane natural armour to consider), but even heavy lamellar often stopped bullets (see Tokugawa Ieyasu, who was lucky enough to survive multiple shots up close and keep fighting). Advanced armour could save your hide from bullets, if you were lucky (you don't catch the bullet with your eye).


I was always pretty sure Japanese armor was a lot better at stopping bullets than European armor because it was layered, whereas plate armor was, well, a fairly thin plate of steel and some leather.


Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:

my issue with the Gunslinger is not with the setting, but with all the rules exceptions and munchkin bait the class possesses.

despite the short firing range, the guns target touch AC, which makes ridiculous scenarios like the full plate armor, designed to counter firearms, does nothing to stop them. it also makes such defenses as Kevlar, useless. unless you use Armor As DR, which makes touch attacks useless. unless armor provides both AC and DR.

the misfire rules, were clearly included to balance the unprecedented touch attacks. if Gunslingers are supposed to target Touch AC. make that a 1st level class feature of the gunslinger, or a feature of gun training and it's archetyped equivalents.

in fact, if i removed the misfire chance and made the touch attack thing a feature of Gun training and it's archetyped equivalents. the gunslinger can still target touch AC and guns would suck less for everyone else

i would also cheapen gun and ammunition prices to be more in line with crossbows. and make the gunslinger also function with a crossbow or sling. reload times would also be closer to those of crossbows.

Guns were the reason armor was abandoned. The heavy armor of the medieval ages was abandoned due to the fact that its not very effective at blocking bullets. If anything, not having guns ignore the armor of the time would be more of a suspension of realism. The stuff isn't like armored tank plating.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
Full Plate armor was not designed to stop bullets. It was, in fact, pretty darn bad at doing so. Wasn't very good at stopping crossbow bolts even, if I recall.

it was built in the Renaissance as a response to firearms. not to stop a bullet, but to provide a layer of cushioning against the shot. not the best strategy, but it made gunslingers consider trying to learn better aim.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:

my issue with the Gunslinger is not with the setting, but with all the rules exceptions and munchkin bait the class possesses.

despite the short firing range, the guns target touch AC, which makes ridiculous scenarios like the full plate armor, designed to counter firearms, does nothing to stop them. it also makes such defenses as Kevlar, useless. unless you use Armor As DR, which makes touch attacks useless. unless armor provides both AC and DR.

the misfire rules, were clearly included to balance the unprecedented touch attacks. if Gunslingers are supposed to target Touch AC. make that a 1st level class feature of the gunslinger, or a feature of gun training and it's archetyped equivalents.

in fact, if i removed the misfire chance and made the touch attack thing a feature of Gun training and it's archetyped equivalents. the gunslinger can still target touch AC and guns would suck less for everyone else

i would also cheapen gun and ammunition prices to be more in line with crossbows. and make the gunslinger also function with a crossbow or sling. reload times would also be closer to those of crossbows.

Guns were the reason armor was abandoned. The heavy armor of the medieval ages was abandoned due to the fact that its not very effective at blocking bullets. If anything, not having guns ignore the armor of the time would be more of a suspension of realism. The stuff isn't like armored tank plating.

full plate isn't medieval, but a renaissance invention. and guns back then, didn't pack the offensive power they do today. you weren't firing copkillers, merely lead balls projected from a tube by black powder.

fullplate cannot stop todays ammo, but it could stop matchlock and flintlock ammo.

cartridge based ammunition wasn't around until about the late 19th century.


Rynjin wrote:
I was always pretty sure Japanese armor was a lot better at stopping bullets than European armor because it was layered, whereas plate armor was, well, a fairly thin plate of steel and some leather.

Look up proofing, the testing of breastplates to take bullets. If they punched through, it would not be bought by the discerning gentleman.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The problem that led to the end of the armored knight wasn't that armor couldn't stop bullets, its that it put deadly force into a greater number of hands who didn't have to go through extensive training. The training to use a gun was nothing near that required to use a bow, and bows could make an armored knights life miserable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'll try and stay on topic, then get to my thoughts as a GM.

I don't really see a ton of this 'entitlement' issue either way. As a GM, I basically allow everything my players ask for - mostly because they don't ask for ridiculous things. Everything is basically by RAW. One of my players mentioned he was taking improved familiar (you know the one - the fairy-thing with like 20 CHA and you replace her feats with Skill Focus: UMD and something else), and he said "On the forums, people are basically like 'Yeah, replace her feats, but run it by your GM first'". So I looked at it all, thought about it some, and eventually said he could replace one feat (Agile Maneuvers) since we combined that feat and Weapon Finesse into one (Weapon Finesse gives you AM). I could tell he was disappointed, but he accepted the ruling and hasn't brought it up sense.

Within that, there was an implicit understanding of trust. My group, for the most part, does not min-max as well as the people on these boards do. I balanced the new ability (Improved Familiar, which basically means "I get a free wand use every turn"), with the power level of the party, and did what I thought was best for the game. He understands that, and while he may not agree, he knows I'm doing the best I can, and that my decision is not arbitrary or random. It's thought out with the best interests of the group in mind. Of course, if someone wanted free skills (like the nobleman example), I would shoot him down quick in the name of game balance. I would help as much as I could, but ultimately, the onus to keep the game balanced falls on the DM. If I'm given little choice, I have to pick the one that benefits the majority of the group.

So I don't see the entitlement either way in my group, but I can see both sides of it. And both sides are ugly. I also feel a bit blessed to have who I have. Problems and all, they're good people. Usually. ;-)

On to the other issue everyone seems to be talking about - does a GM deserve any more say in matters (however small) than players?

This one is a far harder issue. During the game itself, I think absolutely. He's got a ton more responsibility than everyone else and has about a hundred things to think about, while PCs generally have about a dozen. I certainly don't expect my GM to get every call right. As long as it's not too important, I'll let it slide, even if I think it's a bad call.

When it comes to how they influence character creation, they also have a bit more say than others. But not much. If a GM is really uncomfortable with a certain class (say, Gunslinger) or certain concepts (like Eastern Weapons/Armor or evil characters), I think he's within his rights to say "None of this stuff, I'm not comfortable running it". If a player has a really intriguing idea though - say an evil character who will be compatible with the party for several levels, then leave without causing a PC death or some such at a critical moment in the story - that is something I would work with a player on. But in most cases, as long as it's not something extreme, the little problem areas individual DMs have should be respected.

Bring a DM to places and rules he's not familiar with is bad. So it's better for the game if a player can compromise with the DM and say "OK, I'll make do with another class".


Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:

my issue with the Gunslinger is not with the setting, but with all the rules exceptions and munchkin bait the class possesses.

despite the short firing range, the guns target touch AC, which makes ridiculous scenarios like the full plate armor, designed to counter firearms, does nothing to stop them. it also makes such defenses as Kevlar, useless. unless you use Armor As DR, which makes touch attacks useless. unless armor provides both AC and DR.

the misfire rules, were clearly included to balance the unprecedented touch attacks. if Gunslingers are supposed to target Touch AC. make that a 1st level class feature of the gunslinger, or a feature of gun training and it's archetyped equivalents.

in fact, if i removed the misfire chance and made the touch attack thing a feature of Gun training and it's archetyped equivalents. the gunslinger can still target touch AC and guns would suck less for everyone else

i would also cheapen gun and ammunition prices to be more in line with crossbows. and make the gunslinger also function with a crossbow or sling. reload times would also be closer to those of crossbows.

Guns were the reason armor was abandoned. The heavy armor of the medieval ages was abandoned due to the fact that its not very effective at blocking bullets. If anything, not having guns ignore the armor of the time would be more of a suspension of realism. The stuff isn't like armored tank plating.

Nope, breastplates, greaves, gauntlets and helms continued well into the age of firearms. See 15th century to 17th.


TheRedArmy wrote:

I'll try and stay on topic, then get to my thoughts as a GM.

I don't really see a ton of this 'entitlement' issue either way. As a GM, I basically allow everything my players ask for - mostly because they don't ask for ridiculous things. Everything is basically by RAW. One of my players mentioned he was taking improved familiar (you know the one - the fairy-thing with like 20 CHA and you replace her feats with Skill Focus: UMD and something else), and he said "On the forums, people are basically like 'Yeah, replace her feats, but run it by your GM first'". So I looked at it all, thought about it some, and eventually said he could replace one feat (Agile Maneuvers) since we combined that feat and Weapon Finesse into one (Weapon Finesse gives you AM). I could tell he was disappointed, but he accepted the ruling and hasn't brought it up sense.

Within that, there was an implicit understanding of trust. My group, for the most part, does not min-max as well as the people on these boards do. I balanced the new ability (Improved Familiar, which basically means "I get a free wand use every turn"), with the power level of the party, and did what I thought was best for the game. He understands that, and while he may not agree, he knows I'm doing the best I can, and that my decision is not arbitrary or random. It's thought out with the best interests of the group in mind. Of course, if someone wanted free skills (like the nobleman example), I would shoot him down quick in the name of game balance. I would help as much as I could, but ultimately, the onus to keep the game balanced falls on the DM. If I'm given little choice, I have to pick the one that benefits the majority of the group.

So I don't see the entitlement either way in my group, but I can see both sides of it. And both sides are ugly. I also feel a bit blessed to have who I have. Problems and all, they're good people. Usually. ;-)

On to the other issue everyone seems to be talking about - does a GM deserve any more say in matters (however...

Quite a considered response. :)


Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:


full plate isn't medieval, but a renaissance invention. and guns back then, didn't pack the offensive power they do today. you weren't firing copkillers, merely lead balls projected from a tube by black powder.

fullplate cannot stop todays ammo, but it could stop matchlock and flintlock ammo.

cartridge based ammunition wasn't around until about the late 19th century.

Then now might be a horrible time to note that a good number of the firearms listed by paizo don't use the kind of ammunition you're talking about. They're packing pistols, rifles, and shotguns.

Most of the stuff in there seems to use heavy solid ammunition not buckshot.

EDIT: Yes Shotguns aren't solid ammunition. Just listing what they use.


Yeah at the range that buckshot wouldn't straight-out kill an unarmoured person, brigandine would do a great job.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:


full plate isn't medieval, but a renaissance invention. and guns back then, didn't pack the offensive power they do today. you weren't firing copkillers, merely lead balls projected from a tube by black powder.

fullplate cannot stop todays ammo, but it could stop matchlock and flintlock ammo.

cartridge based ammunition wasn't around until about the late 19th century.

Then now might be a horrible time to note that a good number of the firearms listed by paizo don't use the kind of ammunition you're talking about. They're packing pistols, rifles, and shotguns.

Most of the stuff in there seems to use heavy solid ammunition not buckshot.

EDIT: Yes Shotguns aren't solid ammunition. Just listing what they use.

lead balls propelled by powder. the powder doesn't provide enough propulsion on it's own whether triggered by flint or match. at least, not enough to invalidate plate.

as has been said, the real reason plate armor went obsolete, is because guns were easier to train, and more people could afford the time to train, plus it was cheaper to equip a small platoon of soldiers with a musket each than it was to forge one suit of full plate. including ammunition, powder, and a bayonet.


Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:


lead balls propelled by powder. the powder doesn't provide enough propulsion on it's own whether triggered by flint or match. at least, not enough to invalidate plate.

as has been said, the real reason plate armor went obsolete, is because guns were easier to train, and more people could afford the time to train, plus it was cheaper to equip a small platoon of soldiers with a musket each than it was to forge one suit of full plate. including ammunition, powder, and a bayonet.

If you want I've got experience with energetic materials and launching mechanisms. I can go through and mathematically show that a ball of lead could go through a thin piece of steel.


Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:


lead balls propelled by powder. the powder doesn't provide enough propulsion on it's own whether triggered by flint or match. at least, not enough to invalidate plate.

as has been said, the real reason plate armor went obsolete, is because guns were easier to train, and more people could afford the time to train, plus it was cheaper to equip a small platoon of soldiers with a musket each than it was to forge one suit of full plate. including ammunition, powder, and a bayonet.

If you want I've got experience with energetic materials and launching mechanisms. I can go through and mathematically show that a ball of lead could go through a thin piece of steel.

Can, yes. So could an arrow, that didn't mean a person was better off in a cloth shirt than a breastplate when an archer was shooting at him.

101 to 150 of 1,184 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / When discussing player entitlement why do players get the short end of the stick? All Messageboards