Funny you should say that, because my former DM once told me of a character idea of his, a Gnome Alchemist who would eventually invent gunpowder. He probably wouldn't do it right at level 1, but he heavily implied that he and the DM had come to an agreement on how to go about it. Surely they should both burn at the stakes for this kind of heresy.
Did I say you could do those things at level 1 ?
Considering I said "They wouldn't be able to do it at level 1, at the very least" or something to that effect, and you disagreed with me, I figured that's what you were saying, yes.
And what if your chara rolled a 20 on that research?
TBQH Inventing gunpowder is something I'd consider at least equivalent to 2nd level spells, or at least 1.5, making it a DC 30-40, and even were it considered a DC 20 that 1000 GP minimum (more for exotic spells, and I'd consider gunpowder an "exotic material" in a world where it doesn't exist yet, no?) cost is a bit out of a first level character's price range.
If someone really wanted to play a Gunslinger in a campaign of mine, I'd let that one slide.
As would I, but if the GM doesn't want to allow Gunslingers and has a reason for it, that's his prerogative.
But of course, I am this heretic of a DM, who seems to invite disgust and curious looks alike with my unusual methods.
I'm honestly quite tired of the martyr complex on BOTH sides of this damn argument at this point. Stop it.
Just because some people think a GM should be able to just outright ban things doesn't mean you're a "heretic" for not doing so, any more than a player who wants something supposedly off the menu is asking the GM to bend over and get f$#%ed.
And I am saying "No kids, don't listen to those people. If your GM says no, they aren't being spiteful or mean. Not everything you do or say is gold plated wonder to everyone. Be flexible with authority figures, and your life will be much easier."
But but but ciretose... Didn't you teach me authority is an illusion?
i guess i could do without the gunslinger, but Guns and Crossbows practically utilize nearly the same technology and came out not too far apart from each other.
I dunno. I don't consider mechanical propulsion and chemical propulsion to be particularly similar technologies. Nor do I think a span of time ranging from the 5th century BCE to the 7th century CE to be "not too far apart from each other".
But of course, I am this heretic of a DM, who seems to invite disgust and curious looks alike with my unusual methods.I'm honestly quite tired of the martyr complex on BOTH sides of this damn argument at this point. Stop it.
I'm honestly quite tired of the other side of this argument calling me a problem and being jerks to me (which is breaking the most important messageboard rule, mind you) just because I disagree with them and I bring up the fact that there is a bad DM in existence who I had the misfortune of playing with and using that case to reinforce my point.
If the DM comes up with that idea for a plot device that's one thing, but if the DM says "no guns" and some Player says "ok, then I invent it" then a facepalm is warranted.
This does not apply in every table. I just showed you an example of one where it didn't.
DM: "There are no guns or gunpowder in my campaign."
Player: "Then I'll invent them!"
DM: "...what."
Player: *Presents logic and reason*
DM: "Well, that does make sense. Whatever, I guess I can allow it."
I was not the DM who accepted the guy's idea, so you can complain to him if he happens to lurk on these forums. And really, that excuse just doesn't hold water for me as a DM. Some ideas in real life were invented in a very short timespan. Sure, if you are absolutely vehement about banning gunpowder in your games then more points to you. That doesn't mean that I am somehow wrong when real life provides evidence of the contrary.
The player characters are supposed to exceed normal expectations in APs and in some home games. Really, the only campaigns where I can see this "you cannot invent gunpowder, it's too hard" argument being valid are the ones where the DM forces you to start as a level 1 Commoner or something, and I'd never even play in such campaigns myself. Even in games were the mundane is highlighted in comparison to D&D / PF (like GURPS) your character can still invest enough in INT to actually invent something new.
It's mega metagaming..Something that has been around 500+ years for us seems "obvious" but it really isn't, especially if you've seen how much of a pain it is to make effective gunpowder on shows like Mythbusters.
Because mythbusters are never wrong of course.
Just because someone did it in our world doesn't mean YOU would do it in THIS world. If a player wants to invent gunpowder and firearms fine. He has to make three 40 DC intelligence checks to do it: one for coming up with the idea and a blueprint sketch of how it might work, 2 for a prototype and the 3rd for his final and effective firearm. Failing any one of these checks means you have to "go back to the drawing board" and wait 3 (game months) to make the next check.
Shrug...depends. I personaly would not set the DC that high. Or even set a DC. It is character background. Do you make the make any class roll a chance to die before they actualy come into play? I mean people do die in training accidents all the time.
edit2: oh ya I forgot about R&D time. The player also needs at least 1500 (ingame) hours of time for this project as well..not to mention a decent amount of GP for materials.
So the character comes in a middle age category.
Personaly I might not allow such a concept...though both campaigns setting I run/play in already have guns. But I would not call the concept 'metegaming'...well anymore than somebody saying they are making a wizard because their str is a 10 and their int is a 20.
But I am curious what if it is the characters father/mother invented guns...would you have the same problems?
I'm honestly quite tired of the martyr complex on BOTH sides of this damn argument at this point.
Hear hear.
Screw the profanity filter - I wish Gary had a way to screen out hyperbole.
*sigh*
Edit: If you think technologies are so easy to develop, I'll be waiting to hear about you on the news as you come up with a badass new laser rifle or the Anti-Matter Bomb.
If you have an Intelligence of 20 or higher, nobody should be surprised if you invent something. Einstein made leaps in the field of physics because of his high IQ, just to name an example of such. Again, your argument only holds water for me (and others here) if your campaign involves a bunch of dime-a-dozen red shirts instead of actual adventurers/heroes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's also narrative considerations - the PCs are (as a general rule) exceptional characters in the typical pathfinder game universe.
Yet some people complain (or throw an entire rage fit) if you make a "special snowflake" (that term still kinda disgusts me) despite already being one by virtue of being a Player Character instead of an NPC. It's just kind of funny, and probably more than just a little bit ironic when you think about it.
Past about level 5, yes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Past about level 5, yes.
At level 1 they're the exceptional level 1 characters. (I'm speaking narratively, remember, not mechanically). If a bunch of newcomers are going to stumble upon a mad wizard's nefarious scheme to rule the world, odds are it will be the PCs.
But they're not significantly more skilled or intelligent than any other NPC with class levels.
Thus, they don't have any more chance of inventing a new technology than any other level 1 character.
There's a huge amount of luck in invention. It's not something you necessarily sit down and plan to do. Note that many scientific/mathematical breakthroughs occur early in the inventor's career, for example.
Plus remember the narrative - they're no more likely to discover the evil plot either....Yet they always do. It all depends on the demands of the story.
Narrative trumps mechanics here.
Anyone here played Disgaea 2 ? One character (the main character of the first game) flat-out claims that he only lost to you because he's not the main character. And in-universe, that is more or less a fact. That same kind of logic applies to the PCs here. They are exceptional, since fate itself seems to just decide they are PCs instead of NPCs.
There's a huge amount of luck in invention. It's not something you necessarily sit down and plan to do. Note that many scientific/mathematical breakthroughs occur early in the inventors career, for example.
This is also true. Actually, I should give the god of invention the Luck domain in my homebrew campaign world...
And ultimately, the GM decides the narrative.
And it's quite doubtful he's going to go "Gunpowder doesn't exist but through some twist of fate you invent it in your backstory".
And ultimately, the GM decides the narrative.
I think that's begging the question really. In a game where a player asks to invent gunpowder and the DM is fine with such things. Maybe it's more collaborative?
And it's quite doubtful he's going to go "Gunpowder doesn't exist but through some twist of fate you invent it in your backstory".
Maybe. Maybe not - I think it all depends on one's mindset. We don't generally challenge our DMs' campaign plans in that way, but I have a feeling that if one of us did the DM would generally say yes.
And ultimately, the GM decides the narrative.
And it's quite doubtful he's going to go "Gunpowder doesn't exist but through some twist of fate you invent it in your backstory".
Well you never know till you ask.
I do kinda find it funny as I am currently working on a campaign setting that does not have guns. And I wonder what my response would be to a players request would be to be the inventor of fire arms in my world(or maybe his grand pappy and pappy did the work...if you want to be realistic about it).
It would probably depend.
If it is a player I trust and known for a while...I would be OK with it.
If it is the player who is in the group only because he is a nice guy and no one really has the heart to tell him to leave and we put up with sometime rule abusive characters...I would probably say no.
If it is a new player...the answear is no.
It is not that idea in itself is bad(actualy it is sometime a staple in fantasy novels of somebody being the FIRST to do something). To me it is a matter of trust.
Anyone here played Disgaea 2 ? One character (the main character of the first game) flat-out claims that he only lost to you because he's not the main character. And in-universe, that is more or less a fact. That same kind of logic applies to the PCs here. They are exceptional, since fate itself seems to just decide they are PCs instead of NPCs.
Do understand not every gamer plays that way. While yes the PCs in my game are above average...they are not the only ones. I don't like the concept of fate.
It is fine if that is the way your group handles things...but do not expect everyone here to agree with your arguements based on your style of play.
I'm not saying everyone should agree, since I did provide examples of the contrary as well.
I'm not saying everyone should agree, since I did provide examples of the contrary as well.
I apologize than. I must have missed them.
|
If you bring me a furry luchadore ninja for a setting for a non-comedy type game and you don't understand why I am saying no, I don't believe any amount of explanation is going to work.So would you be okay with a Kitsune Tetori/Ninja multiclass who wears a mask, but is completely seriously played?
For a setting that didn't include any of those features, not without one hell of an explaination of how you (Not the GM) are going to work to make it fit into what was described as the game we are playing.
But you haven't described anything in particular.
And I think "No animal races, no ninjas, and no wrestlers" is quite an oddly specific campaign exclusion.
|
|
Again, the issue isn't really that I can't play a Kitsune, or a Gunslinger, or even something more basic like a Bard.
The problem comes when there's no reasoning behind it besides that you arbitrarily don't like a certain thing.
I can't play a Kitsune because they're extinct, never existed, are the primary antagonists, whatever? Cool, I'll make something else.
Or because I don't want to have a Kitsune in this campaign. It doesn't fit. Sorry. Pick something else.
Which is all the GM is required to say.
Flip it over and lets say a GM says to a player "Hey, do you want to play a cleric" and the Player says, "Sorry, I don't really want to play a Cleric"
Is the player required to give a detailed explaination, or is "I don't want to" sufficient.
Exactly.
A GM not wanting to have something in the setting isn't spiteful, or mean, or any of the decriptions being thrown about. It is the person who was selected to make decision about the setting doing the job they were selected to do.
|
|
But you haven't described anything in particular.
And I think "No animal races, no ninjas, and no wrestlers" is quite an oddly specific campaign exclusion.
I know you only skimmed the last 120 posts, so you may want to go back and read exactly what I described as campaign expectations.
Or you could just keep doing the half cocked posts, if they work for you.
The difference in the scenario being one between "I would like this option" and "here take this option".
It's basically like looking at a bottleneck from two different directions.
I know you only skimmed the last 120 posts, so you may want to go back and read exactly what I described as campaign expectations.
Mind just copy-pastaing them from wherever? Probably easier for you to find something you wrote than me to find it in 120 posts.
Or you could just keep doing the half cocked posts, if they work for you.
Thanks. I thought they did too but I wasn't sure.
|
|
And ultimately, the GM decides the narrative.
And it's quite doubtful he's going to go "Gunpowder doesn't exist but through some twist of fate you invent it in your backstory".
Actually the players drive the narrative. The GM provides the antagonists, but the protagonists decide what happens.
This is why the GM needs control over who is in the world, so that when they relinquish control to the players to do whatever the concept they provided is going to do, it doesn't go off the rails.
If a Kitsune Ninja automatically throws your campaign off the rails you might want to think about getting better rails, just my 2 cents.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The difference in the scenario being one between "I would like this option" and "here take this option".
It's basically like looking at a bottleneck from two different directions.
Since you didn't go back, I'll re-explain best practice.
A wild GM appears, proposes an idea or two to the group as to a game they would like to run. Discussion ensues and if 4 people are interested in either idea (or the GM) they pick one of the ideas as the setting.
Players send the GM multiple rough ideas for concepts. The GM reads all of them and makes suggestions (which can include "not that idea") and everyone talks to each other until you have a group of characters that will actually be a party, rather than a bunch of individuals all showing what unique snowflakes they are, but who have no real motivation to work together.
The characters get created for final approval, the GM signs off and at that point the GM has no further control over the character beyond rules adjudication.
The difference isn't "I would like this option" and "here take this option".
Both are "Here is an option, do you want it? No? Ok, next option is..."
Neither the player NOR the GM should be telling the other what they MUST run. Both should be giving the other options so they can find a middle ground.
Telling the GM to adjust the setting so your special snowflake can exist is not compromise.
|
|
If a Kitsune Ninja automatically throws your campaign off the rails you might want to think about getting better rails, just my 2 cents.
If the only concept you can come up with is a Kitsune Ninja, you might want to be more creative.
But I do appreciate this post, as when others come back and say "No one is saying you have to accomodate any concept" I can add this to the furry, luchadore, and custom race example.
|
|
And I am saying "No kids, don't listen to those people. If your GM says no, they aren't being spiteful or mean. Not everything you do or say is gold plated wonder to everyone. Be flexible with authority figures, and your life will be much easier."But but but ciretose... Didn't you teach me authority is an illusion?
It is. And I'm glad you point this out because it is the underlying problem here, and why the player is causing problems.
The GM's only authority is that the players have agreed to give the GM authority.
When a player agrees to someone being a GM, but refuses to actually give them the authority to do the job of the GM (create the setting and adjudicate the rules) the GM is unable to do what they have been appointed to do.
If as a player you aren't going to accept the GM's ruling, what is the point of submitting a character for approval?
At that point you aren't asking for approval, but rather aquiesence.
At that point the GM has no actual authority. You have cut the legs out from under them. You can expect arguments and dissent, because the GM's authority has been completely undermined from the first.
Authority is an illusion. People are only in charge because people accept them as the person in charge.
Which is why problem players are such a problem and most GM's will just stop inviting people who aren't willing to let them run the game.
|
|
Funny you should say that, because my former DM once told me of a character idea of his, a Gnome Alchemist who would eventually invent gunpowder. He probably wouldn't do it right at level 1, but he heavily implied that he and the DM had come to an agreement on how to go about it. Surely they should both burn at the stakes for this kind of heresy.
Key passage.
Funny you should say that, because my former DM once told me of a character idea of his, a Gnome Alchemist who would eventually invent gunpowder. He probably wouldn't do it right at level 1, but he heavily implied that he and the DM had come to an agreement on how to go about it. Surely they should both burn at the stakes for this kind of heresy.Key passage.
Tell that to the guys who claimed that this was badwrong anyway.
If a Kitsune Ninja automatically throws your campaign off the rails you might want to think about getting better rails, just my 2 cents.If the only concept you can come up with is a Kitsune Ninja, you might want to be more creative.
So a DM can be as narrow-minded as he wants, but a player must demonstrate immense creativity?
I would never accept a DM doing a half-assed job, and anyone supporting such behaviour does not deserve the DM seat.
Hell, I would politely step down from being DM myself if my players did point out that I wasn't giving it all I got in a given campaign.
Then again, maybe I just want to hold myself to a higher standard as an amateur fantasy writer who wants to some day get a work or two published.
|
|
Again, it is narrow minded to say "I don't want kitsune PC's in this campaign" but it is open-minded to only have one possible concept you are willing to play...
If a player and a GM agree to having a character who can only vocalize through the sphincter, that isn't wrongbadfun. It isn't the concept that is wrongbadfun.
It is telling the GM that they have to run ANYTHING that they don't want to run in a given campaign. When I played in the Kitsune campaign my GM ran, I couldn't play a human. Why?
Because it was a Kitsune campaign.
The issues isn't the concept, it's the demanding the GM allow you to do whatever you want.
Either you are going to let the GM do the job you picked them to do or you aren't.
Again, it is narrow minded to say "I don't want kitsune PC's in this campaign" but it is open-minded to only have one possible concept you are willing to play...
Implying this was the only concept a player might have.
It is telling the GM that they have to run ANYTHING that they don't want to run in a given campaign. When I played in the Kitsune campaign my GM ran, I couldn't play a human. Why?
Because it was a Kitsune campaign.
Oddly specific, really rigid rails on that campaign. But hey, if it was fun for you, cheers.
The issues isn't the concept, it's the demanding the GM allow you to do whatever you want.
Either you are going to let the GM do the job you picked them to do or you aren't.
And that's where the whole proper communication thing comes in. However, it just seems to me like you automatically assume the worst of the player in these situations, when the GM can be (and sometimes is) just as fallible. I'm guessing you had more problem player experiences than problem GM ones.
|
|
Again, it is narrow minded to say "I don't want kitsune PC's in this campaign" but it is open-minded to only have one possible concept you are willing to play...Implying this was the only concept a player might have.
If it wasn't, then the GM saying "Not that one" isn't a problem, now is it? Unless they are all unacceptable, in which case bigger problems may be at play.
There's also nothing wrong with more niche worlds and campaigns in which not all concepts fit. Some of them have even been published and proven quite popular.
We once played a halfling-only campaign. Oh the horror of the narrow-minded, uncreative GM who proposed that. Restricting our freedom and creativity. Why couldn't he find a way to work my half-ogre barbarian concept into it?! Actually, it was great fun. Off-beat and different. Little folks in a big world.
I never denied the appeal of niche concepts.
Again, if you had fun in that game that's good for you. Kudos to the GM and the group.
D&D and Pathfinder have all those options for races, classes and other such things for a reason. I have created characters based off them so I could play them and have fun doing so. Personally, I prefer to have chances to actually make use of those options instead of being crammed into a niche game. I might have tried out this campaign where you were in if I had been there, making a halfling like everyone else without complaints. Chances are I wouldn't have enjoyed it, and would have looked for a different GM pretty soon after.
|
|
They aren't niche concepts. They are how most people play. Most people don't play in open sandboxes with characters seemingly pulled out of a box at random.
Many, if not most people try to create a campaign, with characters who would logically work together over a long period of time.
You call it crammed in to a niche, we call it creating a world that makes sense so that we can all actually play what we created rather than constantly having to throw up deus machina to create excuses and reasons that a random group of PC's would stick together to do things.
They aren't niche concepts. They are how most people play. Most people don't play in open sandboxes with characters seemingly pulled out of a box at random.
Many, if not most people try to create a campaign, with characters who would logically work together over a long period of time.
You call it crammed in to a niche, we call it creating a world that makes sense so that we can all actually play what we created rather than constantly having to throw up deus machina to create excuses and reasons that a random group of PC's would stick together to do things.
And here is the real problem. You are an elitist.
Those other campaign worlds can (and usually do) make as much sense as the ones you speak of,
and need (or don't need) just as much Deus Ex Machina as yours do. That depends on the DM, not the individual elements.
What you said now is an insult to all those with a differing playstyle, and just an underhanded way of accusing people like me of badwrongfun. Those games are just as playable as your games, if not more so. If the characters aren't sticking together, it is much more common that this is due to alignment issues or the players not getting along, not because someone decided that having only humans around gets dull after a while. I have no idea where you got this dismissive attitude of yours, but it disgusts me.