| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. Talking beforehand is always good. Nothing is lost if the player asks what's allowed before going to the trouble of fleshing out their character - if there's something the player wants that's not on the list that will at least reveal that they need to discuss it.
2. There is no should. If a player tries to argue they "should" be allowed to use something or the DM tries to argue they "shouldnt" then they've both missed the point, in my view.
I think RPGs works best if the DM tries to run a game the players will enjoy - coming up with a campaign does involve setting the limits of what is and what isnt allowed (the rules dictate that's part of the DM's job). After that, if a player comes to them asking for something outside their initial restrictions, the DM can always make suggestions/negotiate/compromise/change their mind as appropriate to enable the player to have a good time. As soon as one of them stops saying "this is what I like" and starts saying "this is correct" then they are in the wrong, as I see it.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's best to have an understanding with your GM as to what sort of campaign he's running. In my experience groups where the GM says nothing about the setting and the parameters of the game beforehand, and the players make what they want, willy-nilly is actually a rare exception.
If I tell you we are playing in an oriental setting, probably it would be nice of you not to try to immediately make life harder by generating a Viking bard named Sven. I mean, you could, but what does that say about you? More strict in this regard are time periods. If I set my game in the Civil War and you bring in a 17th Century pirate, I'm probably going to respond with a long sigh.
Short of it is, most groups have better communication with their GMa and with each other, so they know what niches to fill and how to come dressed to the party.
if the player came up with what amounts to an illegal character, then they are just this side of idiotic. I would say most dm's are willing to bend a little, but like has been said before, communication between dm & player and player & player goes quite a ways. The dm is allowed to tweak/allow/disallow things in his campaign to make the campaign fit.
This 'player entitlement' i dont get. call it what you will. the game is a game for everyone. excepting specific circumstances.
1) When making a new character, should a player beforehand, tell the GM what class he wants to run and ask what materials he's allowed to use? Or should a player create the character he wants and the GM should figure out a way to accomodate him?
2) When it comes to optional materials: Is the burden on the Player to prove why he should be allowed to use certain optional spells/classes/feats etc. or on the DM to show why these materials should NOT be used?
Why or why not?
1) Yes a player should ask what books the GM normally allows etc. Though idealy a GM should offer this upfront. If a GM does not well he should sometimes expect a player to show with a character that is not normally allowed. To me if a GM does not offer guidelines is a signal that the GM is running a campaign that is open.
2) It the GM's job to atleast provide a explanation as to why something is not allowed from what I consider to be the core game(yes that includes books like the APG, ARG, UC, UM, and UE). Now if a player disagrees with the explanation they should(if the gaming enviroment is at all heralthy) feel free to discuss it with the GM.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I tell before the game what i allow and what i don't. If somebody makes a an 'illegal' character, that somebody has to remove everything that i disallowed from it. If that means changing the whole character, well tough luck. I told you what's acceptable, why didn't you listen? So..
1) Yes, both
2) Yes, both
But if the DM says "CRB only" and the player comes with a char using ARG, APG, UM etc without consulting the DM, is the burden on the Player to prove why he should get to play that character or on the DM of why he shouldn't be allowed to play it?
The burden is on both of them to have a civil discussion and try and resolve it. Just as it is in any cooperative endeavour when mutually inconsistent viewpoints collide.
How are the ARG, APG, etc core books when they specifically say in them that they are optional books? Why are optional rule books a given and need to proven why they shouldn't be added?
Every rule in the game is optional. Even the CRB. It specficaly says in the CRB for instance are all rule are optional. So how is what you called Optional books any different from the 'Core'.
Do you accept anything that's published by Paizo to be core? Whether you do or not, I suspect there are plenty of players who feel this way.
As a GM I do. As a player I can usualy accept whatever the GMs says.
Now here is a question for you...why do you consider the books APG, ARG, UC, UM, and the UE to be Player only options? I think when you realize that I find them to be alot more helpful to me as a GM than as I do as a player you will have your answear why I consider them to be core.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They should use a system they are both comfortable with. What this system should be is utterly dependent on the people involved.
What matters is that they both understand and agree on what each person is required/expected to do.
Writing this makes me realize that I have not completely done so with my players : self-improvement comes from the Paizo messageboards.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was answering a post that got deleted. Hope I can still post my point of view
Though I agree with the idea that the GM must be the arbiter because none of the players can be that arbiter, I do not agree with the argument that this comes from the GM putting a lot of energy in the game.
Since the GM chose to be the GM and bear the GM's duties, and nobody forced him to do it, then he does not get any special allowance for it, unless the other players agreed to give him such.
The reason that the player cannot be the arbiter is that the player does not know much about the consequences of a decision on the rest of the game. The GM does.
The GM has much more information on what will happen while playing the game, as well as many more possible actions than the players, which makes him the person with the greatest ability to make an informed decision. It is a huge power, and thus also a huge responsibility.
Except that, by virtue of accepting someone as GM, the Players have, ipso facto, granted the GM arbitration "powers" over the game; it goes with the job.
Sorry this is not entirely true. It depends on the group. While it is true for I will cretainly say it is not true for serveral groups I play with.
|
I've always had a simple rule for supplements. I have to own it in dead tree copy. Its what I call the "DM on the Can" rule. If I can't casually peruse the rules whenever I want, well..
I also tend to try to keep things...simple. So if a character comes in with an urge to superoptimize his character, I tend to ask him to scale back especially if we have players of less experience. Nobody wants an arms war.
As a DM its my job to make sure my players have fun and I enjoy doing my job as a DM. If I need to stomp on a rule here and there, be an easy going guy allowing mulligans on feats and such, or an authoritarian in equal measure to accomplish that, so be it.
Its less like being a president, and more like being a king. You have ultimate authority predicated on people letting you have it. If you're a good one, those you "rule" over will like it, respect you and everyone will be happy. If you're a bad one, you'll have disgruntled people, and a trip to the headsman.
1) When making a new character, should a player beforehand, tell the GM what class he wants to run and ask what materials he's allowed to use? Or should a player create the character he wants and the GM should figure out a way to accomodate him?
2) When it comes to optional materials: Is the burden on the Player to prove why he should be allowed to use certain optional spells/classes/feats etc. or on the DM to show why these materials should NOT be used?
Why or why not?
1) Communication is rarely bad on either end.
2) Third option. This burden lies on both player and GM. If the player presents his case for allowing desired material, and the GM his case for banning what the player wants, then the chances they will resolve the issue in a mutually agreeable manner are much higher than if neither is willing to discuss their reasoning. It can be as easy as a player agreeing not to play a class brokenly.
In my opinion (and this is the way I run games):
1) When making a new character, should a player beforehand, tell the GM what class he wants to run and ask what materials he's allowed to use? Or should a player create the character he wants and the GM should figure out a way to accomodate him?
I think the former. Since the DM is the one who has the final say in which type of campaign, with which style of gameplay, and in which kind of setting the story is going to unfold, the player should consult with the DM what sort of stuff is allowed and what isn't.
Of course, a proper DM will do his best to try and accomodate the player's ideas, but it should be the DM the one to judge when to allow and when to disallow available resources. He should, however, inform it beforehand.
2) When it comes to optional materials: Is the burden on the Player to prove why he should be allowed to use certain optional spells/classes/feats etc. or on the DM to show why these materials should NOT be used?
I'd say the burden should be on the player. Adding new stuff requires the DM to study its impact in the game, and thus the player should present reasons as to why the new resource would be in the benefit of the game.
That said, if the DM is going to disallow something from the core rules, he should inform it beforehand to the players and provide a proper explanation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is a distinction between CRB and Optional books that I already mentioned. It's the core rules needed in order to run the game. Everyone is going to come into a game with the expectation that a Fighter is a Fighter and not a cleric, your fighter will start with +1 BAB, and every other RAW until specifically stated otherwise by house rules. Why would you come into the game with the expectation that a player should definitely get the optional books to use when the books say they're OPTIONAL as in not rules until houseruled otherwise (CRB)..but rules ONLY if specifically added?
Plenty in the core rules is as optional as most of the APG. Half the classes in the core rules are no more necessary then those in the apdvanced players guide. You dont 'need' a druid class any more then you 'need' an alchemist class. The fact that 'druid' and 'monk' and 'bard' are included in the core rules is more or less an arbitrary choice made by the 3rd edition designers. The game functions just fine without then and without half the feats and spells in the core rules as well.
Not to mention the APG was paizo's first real foray into making its own stuff, as opposed to simply remaking the 3.5 core rules. Many would argue that Core rules + APG are what the actual core rules consist of given that the APG has more or less set the tone of most subsequent material paizo has produced far more then the core rules have. A DM is certainly within their rights to say core rulebook only, but I think it is fair to say a player might feel like they are missing out on the 'real' pathfinder, when they dont have access to the material that was truly the product of paizo's design team.
All that aside, really its a matter of communication and respect. DMs should talk to their players about what they want to allow, and be reasonably flexible if players want to try something a little different without compromising their campaign. Players should be respectful of DM's wishes and intentions and try to create characters that fit what the dm is trying to acheive. In the end you should theoretically be sitting down to play with friends, or at least people you are friendly with. Work it out person to person and find something that works.
There is a distinction between CRB and Optional books that I already mentioned. It's the core rules needed in order to run the game. Everyone is going to come into a game with the expectation that a Fighter is a Fighter and not a cleric, your fighter will start with +1 BAB, and every other RAW until specifically stated otherwise by house rules. Why would you come into the game with the expectation that a player should definitely get the optional books to use when the books say they're OPTIONAL as in not rules until houseruled otherwise (CRB)..but rules ONLY if specifically added?
I guess it is my life's quest to actualy find a good reason to ban a entire book of 'Options' made by the people who made the orginal game. Have not heard any as of yet.
Note just because I don't think it is a good reason does not mean I can't live with it...I am a easy going guy after all.
But this is a topic for a different thread.
Personally, I'm beginning to wonder whether all these "player entitlement" threads are barking up the wrong tree.
I've never had an issue sitting down with players, saying, "Here are the parameters for the world, now give me your character ideas," and getting ideas.
My 'problem players' are always the ones who, post-generation (usually several sessions in), say, "Oh, I forgot I wanted this ability in my background. Oh, I wanted this as part of my backstory." And those abilities/backgrounds are always intimately intertwined with the plot they're beginning to uncover. Then they get angry because I won't let them modify their backgrounds on the fly to give them an advantage over other players in roleplaying through the campaign. I call these "roleplaying munchkins".
Then there are those who uncover a dragon hoard, pool the 120k gold, and insist that, even though they have never seen a city with even half that purchase limit, insist that "because it's in the book", they are allowed to purchase anything within their price range. I call these "equipment munchkins" or "crafting munchkins".
But for me it's always happened after the campaign has started, NOT before we even begin. Maybe I'm just lucky, but I haven't had the, "But I HAVE to play a gunslinger or I'm just not going to play at all!" issue we keep hearing as the eternal hypothetical example.
NobodysHome, I'll do you one better and allow my players to change any changes they can adequately role play. Life's to short to wait out an entire campaign to play a slight variation of the same PC.
People change their style in real life, I have no big issue with changing course in a game. Advancement choices that lock you in to unfun scenarios don't really add much to the game for me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
NobodysHome, I'll do you one better and allow my players to change any changes they can adequately role play. Life's to short to wait out an entire campaign to play a slight variation of the same PC.
People change their style in real life, I have no big issue with changing course in a game. Advancement choices that lock you in to unfun scenarios don't really add much to the game for me.
How does one roleplay, "Oh, I'm not from Ustalav! I'm from Cheliax! In fact, I attended the academy we're heading for right now..."
EDIT: And it's not a one-time thing. Between every session, I get, "Oh, we're heading to a second academy? Well, I forgot to mention that that's the one I flunked out of before attending the first one! It's for my ROLEPLAYING!" Cue the pained eye-rolls from the other players, wondering when they'll get to actually game...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) When making a new character, should a player beforehand, tell the GM what class he wants to run and ask what materials he's allowed to use? Or should a player create the character he wants and the GM should figure out a way to accomodate him?
Yes. Although the way I would order it is the GM setting up the campaign says what source materials and such are available, and THEN the player presents his/her character concept bearing what the GM says in mind. It can end in frustration for both GM and player to create a character first and then hope it works with an upcoming campaign that you know nothing about--and can even be downright frustrating for the player if they can't get what they thought out of the build because of the parameters of the campaign. Better to design a character (or tweak an existing build if it works) FOR the campaign, where it will be more satisfying to play and easier for the GM to work with.
Now, the player can always ask the GM to make an exception and present a case for such, but the GM has of course the right to say no and for both their sakes the player should respect that. It's not just about "GM authority" but also making sure the player is going to have fun with a character that's actually going to work in the world/story.
And if the campaign's restrictions doesn't suit the player, then the player is best off finding another campaign. Some GMs and players just aren't going to get along no matter what anyway.
2) When it comes to optional materials: Is the burden on the Player to prove why he should be allowed to use certain optional spells/classes/feats etc. or on the DM to show why these materials should NOT be used?
Again, ideally at least the way our groups do things, it's the GM who steps forward and says, "I am doing a campaign, it is set in X world, it is about, X, and I am using X books. X, X, and X are not allowed because X doesn't work with the setting/campaign/story concept or X isn't well known by all players [or whatever]."
So there, the GM can explain why some materials are restricted. I would say less it's the "burden" and more just an opportunity for clarity and starting things fresh with everyone on the same page.
If players, knowing the parameters the GM has set, THEN insists on breaking those parameters but still on playing the game, then YES they need to explain why, especially if the GM was clear why the disallowed thing was in fact disallowed. After all, the player was invited to the game, with the parameters laid out clearly. If they want to accept the invitation but establish their own rules, that can veer into some serious problems, so best that's all worked out from the beginning.
I'll note that when I invite my players into a game, I do establish what is and isn't available clearly. I've had potential players, good friends in fact, say to me, "Well, I don't want to play unless we're allowed X, so I'll opt out of joining this one." And they opt out, and there's no hard feelings, and we play again some other times. Other times they might say, "I know you said no X, but if I do it this way which fits into your world like this..." then I might hear them out. I am also clear that if I do make an exception for one player, then I have to then make the exception for all players and make clear what has now become available. And if it's something allowed that the other players are uncomfortable with ("aw, I don't want X class in the game, it's broken"), then that is also something that needs to be worked out--after all, it's not just about being fair to one player, it's about making sure things are fair and happy-making for everyone.
NobodysHome, I'll do you one better and allow my players to change any changes they can adequately role play. Life's to short to wait out an entire campaign to play a slight variation of the same PC.
People change their style in real life, I have no big issue with changing course in a game. Advancement choices that lock you in to unfun scenarios don't really add much to the game for me.
How does one roleplay, "Oh, I'm not from Ustalav! I'm from Cheliax! In fact, I attended the academy we're heading for right now..."
EDIT: And it's not a one-time thing. Between every session, I get, "Oh, we're heading to a second academy? Well, I forgot to mention that that's the one I flunked out of before attending the first one! It's for my ROLEPLAYING!" Cue the pained eye-rolls from the other players, wondering when they'll get to actually game...
Fair enough.
I really meant for mechanical choices... I didn't realize your situation was that bad.
You call it "banning everything", I call it adding things on a case by case basis from an OPTIONAL book..just like I may add something from a magazine, player-created, or the internets on a case by case basis. There's nothing wrong with reviewing things individually to make sure something fits and isn't overpowered.
I agree....taking everything case by case is a good idea...that is not what I am talking about though. Say everything is banned except 'Core' or everything from book x is banned I found often laughable. And that is not taking things case by case as you said.
And if a GM puts in his ad or tells the group beforehand that he's running X campaign and only X classes are allowed is someone really going to come to that game and insist they be allowed to play it anyway? I hope not. I mean I'd understand suggesting a compromise, but if the DM specifically says "nothing from UM" is anyone REALLY going to come to that game and say "I want to play this from the UM! You aren't accommodating me as a player!"
Agreed never said I show up with x character...typicaly we generate characters during the first session...so typicaly no one shows up with a character made...I just love asking them why they are banning entire books of options. It is also a good test. If a GM says he is banning everything outside of 'Core' because he founds everything broken...chances he is not a skilled GM able to roll with a players action.
In my groups if someone did that everyone would probably look at each other like wtf!?
We would also. I am not saying a GM has to do anything...I am just looking for a reason that makes sense to ban a ENTIRE Book.
I am not saying a GM has to do anything...I am just looking for a reason that makes sense to ban a ENTIRE Book.
One reason which probably doesnt apply to your group is a general unfamiliarity with the rules. At our table, nobody really understands the rules very well. The more options we allow, the slower things run.
I struggle to understand these internet debates (since the idea of players and DMs not knowing each other really, really well is completely outside my experience) but for people like us who like simple systems but find ourselves playing a complicated one - an 'enforced dumbing down' is sensible.
One reason which probably doesnt apply to your group is a general unfamiliarity with the rules. At our table, nobody really understands the rules very well. The more options we allow, the slower things run.
I do get this to a certain extent. But is this a reason to ban a entire book? I mean take the feats from APG, UC, UM, etc. Sure some of them are overpowered or badly written...most of them are simple and straightforward though. Most them build already on existing rules. How does it slow down your game if a character selects one of these feats?
Or take traits from the APG. It might add 10 minutes to character creation...alot less if you have a strong concept in mind. They either give a small bonus in ceertain siturations or make a class a class skill.
So if you as a group take the APG and ban all the new classes, archetypes, etc. I get that (though I don't have that problem)...but to ban every single feat or spell also...I think goes a little beyond my understanding.
I struggle to understand these internet debates (since the idea of players and DMs not knowing each other really, really well is completely outside my experience) but for people like us who like simple systems but find ourselves playing a complicated one - an 'enforced dumbing down' is sensible.
Which is true if you have stable group of players and GM(s). Personaly due to attrition(people moving, etc) no group I am is stable to the point that a new player does not join once in a awhile. Also I personaly like meeting new people and playing with new people is a way to do so.
Sure I understand the need for simplicity...but sometimes don't you think you might be 'dumbing it down' a little too much?
Also please I really mean no insult and if you take any I apologize. I am really just trying to understand something that is different from me.
One reason which probably doesnt apply to your group is a general unfamiliarity with the rules. At our table, nobody really understands the rules very well. The more options we allow, the slower things run.I do get this to a certain extent. But is this a reason to ban a entire book? I mean take the feats from APG, UC, UM, etc. Sure some of them are overpowered or badly written...most of them are simple and straightforward though. Most them build already on existing rules. How does it slow down your game if a character selects one of these feats?
Or take traits from the APG. It might add 10 minutes to character creation...alot less if you have a strong concept in mind. They either give a small bonus in ceertain siturations or make a class a class skill.
So if you as a group take the APG and ban all the new classes, archetypes, etc. I get that (though I don't have that problem)...but to ban every single feat or spell also...I think goes a little beyond my understanding.
That would almost certainly be true - there probably are feats/options/etc in those books which we'd be able to use fine. But we dont know that until we look through them and understand. I'm pretty much the only one in our group with any time to read rulebooks and I'm not that good at rule retention, so I'm not much of an authority.
It's safer to just stick to core - otherwise when faced with the "how does that work?" question, I'm going to waste a few minutes to look it up. Even if it turns out to work the way I thought it did originally anyhow. You dont know it's not difficult until you understand it well (if you know what I mean).
I struggle to understand these internet debates (since the idea of players and DMs not knowing each other really, really well is completely outside my experience) but for people like us who like simple systems but find ourselves playing a complicated one - an 'enforced dumbing down' is sensible.Which is true if you have stable group of players and GM(s). Personaly due to attrition(people moving, etc) no group I am is stable to the point that a new player does not join once in a awhile. Also I personaly like meeting new people and playing with new people is a way to do so.
Yeah - I've played with the same group for the last twenty-twenty five years so that is a completely different thing. We never have these kinds of jarring encounters that people hypothesise - I can usually predict how everyone at our table is going to feel about a rule debate before it happens.
It does make me shake my head sometimes to read the passion people feel for these sorts of issues. I'm not denying it's a real thing - it's just a long way from my experience.
Sure I understand the need for simplicity...but sometimes don't you think you might be 'dumbing it down' a little too much?
Maybe. Except that my personal preference (and being the guy who buys the books, I'm somewhat dominant at our table wrt to this stuff) is for very simple games - AD&D is the one I'm most comfortable with (and rolemaster, although a little rusty on that now). I like it when the DM just says "Roll 2d10 and get below your dexterity" rather than looking up climbing rules.
The complexity of more modern systems doesnt add much to my enjoyment when I put the effort in to try to learn them, so when I play them, I generally err on the side of simple and straightforward. (Granted, I've never truly understood one of the more complicated, nuts and bolts systems).
Also please I really mean no insult and if you take any I apologize. I am really just trying to understand something that is different from me.
No worries. I describe myself as "not very good at Pathfinder" so you're unlikely to offend. I'm sure I could master it - it just isnt much fun for me to do so. (I much prefer reading the flavor stuff).
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed never said I show up with x character...typicaly we generate characters during the first session...so typicaly no one shows up with a character made...I just love asking them why they are banning entire books of options. It is also a good test. If a GM says he is banning everything outside of 'Core' because he founds everything broken...chances he is not a skilled GM able to roll with a players action.
I've run several "core only" or "core + limited additional material" campaigns for the following reasons:
1. I was an inexperienced GM still learning the rules, and I didn't want more rules to have to learn on top of the basic ones. I wouldn't say I was unskilled, but I was inexperienced. And the only way you become an experienced--and skilled, for that matter--GM is starting somewhere. In fact, most of my experiences where a new GM starts out using ALL the books, those campaigns get ridiculously messed up quickly, as the GM starts getting confused about what is where. It's also hard if you are an inexperienced GM working with experienced players--while this can also be a boon, if the players know the splats better than you do simply because they've been playing longer, it can lead to difficulties.
And let me reiterate: GMs have to start somewhere. They don't burst fully formed from Zeus's skull with a d20 in their hand. And a BETTER GM is going to absolutely learn the core rules inside and out before they move on to the supplements.
2. I was running a game for inexperienced players who did not own or have access to the supplementary books. I did not want to use material they would either find overwhelming or hard to access or make them feel like they had to spend money to "compete." There's a also the "option paralysis" issue thejeff mentions. In fact I'm setting up a new campaign IRL and am allowing more than core, and some new players told me they felt overwhelmed.
3. I didn't have time to "screen" supplementary books. I often ran 3.5 "core only" because there was such a HUGE amount of material out there, and often in a given book there would be a mix of things, some of which were fine and others were way broken. If I spent all my time reading through books learning what worked and what didn't work I wouldn't have any time to prepare or write the adventure. (And where the "brokenness" comes in isn't, "all of it is broken," it's "I know some of this is broken and I don't have time to fix it, so let's stick to what we know works"). Other times I would simply have players run by me whatever supplementary material they wanted to use, and I would okay it on a case by case basis.
4. Let me reiterate: time factor. It takes time--and money--to read through supplements. Some people have the time to collect and read EVERYTHING. It's all they do and it's their only or primary hobby. Others game as once in awhile, and have work, family, other obligations, and other hobbies. Sitting down and reading through half a dozen supplements doesn't get worked into their routine. And the more books you add to a game, that also increases GM prep time, because when you're creating NPCs and monsters, that's that many more books you're looking through to do so (and if the supplements do introduce power creep, which some of them do, you pretty much have to use them to keep up with/challenge the players who are using the same materials).
I will say since I switched to Pathfinder I use more of the supplementary materials since there are fewer of them (from the game line only) and they come out in broader intervals, meaning I have more time to look through them.
5. Some of the splat material doesn't work with my world. I've got a world I've spent 10 years working on, some splats fit in fine, others have parts or wholes that don't at all. For example, a core part of the concept of the world is there is no such thing as firearms, so obviously, all the gunny bits of Ultimate Combat are out.
I've also had one (1) (I.) person out of a pool of dozens of players who complained I was running a core only game, and he simply opted out of joining the game with no hard feelings. That was nearly ten years ago. I've had some players present me splat stuff they want to use I hadn't explicitly okayed. Sometimes I said yes. Sometimes I said no. Either way, there was no drama, just moving on to play the damn game.
I will also say people have had fun playing the games where I used limited or no splats, and people having fun is all that matters. You should be able to have fun with a pick up game with notepaper and pencil as much as you can have fun with a game with nine dozen supplements -- the fun shouldn't be in how much money you spent on the game or how many rules there are, but in the playing and the imagination of it. And if limiting the number of books makes it more fun for the GM because it frees up time and money and prep work for him or her, all the better, because generally if the GM isn't having fun, the players definitely will not be.
I'd also add to this that there are plenty of cases where the brokenness isn't obvious. Or "A" is fine by itself and "B" is fine by itself, but "A+B" is broken. As the number of options grows, the number of possible combinations grows exponentially and it's even harder to catch everything.
3. I didn't have time to "screen" supplementary books. I often ran 3.5 "core only" because there was such a HUGE amount of material out there, and often in a given book there would be a mix of things, some of which were fine and others were way broken. If I spent all my time reading through books learning what worked and what didn't work I wouldn't have any time to prepare or write the adventure. (And where the "brokenness" comes in isn't, "all of it is broken," it's "I know some of this is broken and I don't have time to fix it, so let's stick to what we know works"). Other times I would simply have players run by me whatever supplementary material they wanted to use, and I would okay it on a case by case basis.
Yes. This is also why if you are a GM using a lot of splats, you have to have the kind of mind that can easily memorize and calculate a lot of rules so you can anticipate some of these combos. Not everyone has that ability (but may be excellent GMs in other ways, such as telling stories, mediating rules disagreements, portraying NPCs, etc.).
And after all--usually the reason why these "broken combos" show in books is because not even the developers realized that combination could occur. If you have so many rules not even the developers can keep track of them all, that should give pause for thought.
PF isn't really there yet and seems to be doing a better job of keeping the power creep down. 3.5 was more of a problem.
If you're using the RPG line books only, it's not bad. There is some power creep, but not by much. And fortunately, it is easier to suss out what might cause problems -- it tends to be a very specific feat or class ability, not, say a whole prestige class or whatever.
I don't know what PF is like if you're using all the RPG line AND all the Setting line AND all the additional stuff in APs.... and feel dizzy thinking about trying to track that much stuff.
When making a new character the player and the DM should work together to ensure the result is acceptable to both sides.
When it comes to optional materials the player and the DM should share their thoughts and reach a consensus.
Absolutely this.
And I would suggest changing the last clause to "the players and the DM should share their thoughts and reach a consensus."
Because sometimes--and in my experience, even often--it's not just the GM who wants to avoid using certain materials. Sometimes the objection to them comes from other players. And that's a factor that often gets overlooked in these player vs GM discussions. There usually isn't just one player in a gaming group, and players are not a hive mind--far from it. (I can remember in one of my groups in fact a group of players begging the GM not to allow certain books for fear of what one of their fellow players would build if he had access to them. ;) )
I prefer to short circuit most of the issue by having the players generate their characters at the first session. Then all questions can be dealt with as a group, all approvals given, all characters built so that they aren't needlessly antagonistic toward each other and can gel together as an adventuring band, and so on.
Q: "If the DM makes a campaign where all races except gnomes are banned, and only core classes from the CRB, and no spellcasting classes allowed, and no swords because they haven't been invented yet, is player 1 wrong to ask to play a dwarf, and player 2 a magus, and player 3 a gnome with a short sword?"
A1: "Of course they're wrong! Those entitled players are just trying to be disruptive!"
A2: "Is the DM wrong to make the campaign setting so restrictive, especially since the players don't seem to want to play in a game with those restrictions?"
1) When making a new character, should a player beforehand, tell the GM what class he wants to run and ask what materials he's allowed to use? Or should a player create the character he wants and the GM should figure out a way to accomodate him?
Well, more of the first than the second, I suppose. For us, however, the DM creates a Character Creation guide and Campaign Guide based on the campaign everyone previously agreed to, so there are very clear guidelines on what is expected and everyone's long since been on the same page.
It helps that we're all long-time friends and already know what each others' likes and dislikes are (and we all happen to pretty much like most of the same things).
2) When it comes to optional materials: Is the burden on the Player to prove why he should be allowed to use certain optional spells/classes/feats etc. or on the DM to show why these materials should NOT be used?
Both, really. The second is implicit when the DM released the Character Guide and Campaign Guide, and if the player wants something additional, it's up to them to justify why they think they should be able to go outside of the already-clearly-delineated guides.
Works for us.
Sounds like they just didn't want to learn to play.
Who?
I prefer to short circuit most of the issue by having the players generate their characters at the first session. Then all questions can be dealt with as a group, all approvals given, all characters built so that they aren't needlessly antagonistic toward each other and can gel together as an adventuring band, and so on.
This is generally a good idea and I'm trying to do this more often as opportunities to GM come up.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whenever I start a new campaign, I always write up and distribute a "Campaign Players Guide," that sets the expectations of the kind of game I'm planning to run. The guide always includes:
* A short synopsis of the themes that will be encountered (e.g. "An urban campaign with heavy political intrigue and strong horror elements. Undead will likely play a big role;" or "A globe-spanning 'collect the artifacts' campaign with long overland journeys through forests, deserts, and mountains. Connections with the First World will be an important story element.")
* A brief summary of where the campaign will start, so as to give the players a reason to have the PCs be there. (e.g. We are playing in Golarion, the official Pathfinder campaign world. We are starting in Sandpoint, a peaceful coastal town under the protection of the city of Magnimar, 50 miles to the southwest. Your characters are in town for a big annual autum holiday.)
* What books are allowed (e.g. Core Rulebook, plus Feats, Archetypes, and Equipment from the Advanced Players Guide. Other rules from APG and other books are not allowed.)
* Which optional rules are in play (e.g. Character Traits: You may select from the sample traits from the APG, plus the following...; We are using the additional Combat Maneuvers from the APG; We are NOT using Hero Points.)
* Any home rules in play (e.g. 10' Reach Weapons: This campaign will be using the 3.5 rule for reach weapons: the second diagonal counts as a threatened square, even though it's normally considered to be 15 feet of movement.)
I like to hand out the players guide a week or so before I run "Session 0." In "Session 0," the players and I get together to work through PC design, background, answer questions about the campaign world, and generally get the group ready to start playing the actual game the following week.
The reason I like to run a Session 0 is to help the players put together a well-balanced party, and to be there to answer questions about character background. I like to know a bit about the chacters' backgrounds before I start running so that I can run plotlines that include the PCs backgrounds as part of the story.
|
|
Whenever I start a new campaign, I always write up and distribute a "Campaign Players Guide," that sets the expectations of the kind of game I'm planning to run. The guide always includes:
* A short synopsis of the themes that will be encountered (e.g. "An urban campaign with heavy political intrigue and strong horror elements. Undead will likely play a big role;" or "A globe-spanning 'collect the artifacts' campaign with long overland journeys through forests, deserts, and mountains. Connections with the First World will be an important story element.")
* A brief summary of where the campaign will start, so as to give the players a reason to have the PCs be there. (e.g. We are playing in Golarion, the official Pathfinder campaign world. We are starting in Sandpoint, a peaceful coastal town under the protection of the city of Magnimar, 50 miles to the southwest. Your characters are in town for a big annual autum holiday.)
* What books are allowed (e.g. Core Rulebook, plus Feats, Archetypes, and Equipment from the Advanced Players Guide. Other rules from APG and other books are not allowed.)
* Which optional rules are in play (e.g. Character Traits: You may select from the sample traits from the APG, plus the following...; We are using the additional Combat Maneuvers from the APG; We are NOT using Hero Points.)
* Any home rules in play (e.g. 10' Reach Weapons: This campaign will be using the 3.5 rule for reach weapons: the second diagonal counts as a threatened square, even though it's normally considered to be 15 feet of movement.)
I like to hand out the players guide a week or so before I run "Session 0." In "Session 0," the players and I get together to work through PC design, background, answer questions about the campaign world, and generally get the group ready to start playing the actual game the following week.
The reason I like to run a Session 0 is to help the players put together a well-balanced party, and to be there to answer questions about character...
You should post this in the Advice subforum and they should turn it into a sticky. It's beautiful.