Of those how many actualy agree with the pretense that Rogues suck?
You have yet to demonstrate they don't, so it remains a "premise," rather than merely a "pretense." Nice try, though.
...what is ultimately a few.Citation needed.How many people play PF?
Of those How many people regulary post on these boards?
Of those how many people post on those threads?
Of those how many actualy agree with the pretense that Rogues suck?
Of those how many of them are basing it on actually play experience as opposed to just reading the class desciption or reading it on the internet that rogues suck?
The messageboard is just a very small tip of a really big ice berg.
Just to toss in my contribution to this.
I play PF.
I post regularly on these boards.
I post regularly on these threads.
I agree with that premise / pretense.
I do not make assumptions. I look at data others have gathered, compare it with what I have gotten and then draw my own conclusion.
At least one player from my current group lurks these boards, but rarely posts on them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that's great. I've done the same. All I'm saying is that the GM decides 'there is more travel from Asia' or 'there is no travel from Asia'. I'm not endorsing any particular game.
Sure a GMs could decide it...what I am saying is the GM could easily include more trade with Asia because a PCs wants to be a kitsune ninja. There is nothing inherently wrong with this approach.
There have been plenty of posts in this thread where players say the GM can't set the parameters of allowable PCs. That's where I don't agree.
I think you are making a mistake here. In this thread I am seeing alot of GMs saying a GM does not have to be the one to set the parameters of what is allowable. This thread is not a bunch of players trying to convince GMs to be more open.
You haven't been hanging out over on the skill monkey rogue thread?So at this point saying rogues aren't allowed because they are too weak = KosherCould you point that one out to me?
Why are you dragging another thread into this one in the first place?
|
Hell no. I'm tired of arguing mechanics. Let the players play s%$#ty classes if they want. If they have fun, fine. If they die, fine. If they want changes to make them better, fine.
And by the same token let groups that want to keep stuff out keep stuff out.
Just because one person wants to do something doesn't mean that is what the group wants.
And the easiest way to figure out what the group wants is to look at who they picked to run the game.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And if you say "pirates theme" its going to create an image in the players' head of what you mean.
Which could be The Pirates of Penzance or Pirates of the Caribbean or Treasure Island, and could make wildly different images.
And then there is Razor Coast, which is WILDLY different. :)
And you have said feasible extends to anything that could be argued to exist, and defined "good reason" in basically those terms.
I am saying why is the player trying to force the GM to run something they clearly don't want to run rather than just coming up with another concept? Unless your GM swings the ban hammer wildly around, it seems reasonable that a GM not wanting to run something should be more than enough reason for a player to come up with something else.
And my point is that the GM is "wildly swinging the ban hammer around" if he doesn't have a better reason to ban something than "I dun wanna!".
I've already said "It doesn't fit the setting" is a valid response, but what you keep telling me is that coming back with a quick idea like "So what if we change these elements you don't like/that don't fit and keep the rest of the concept" is terribly entitled and is the TRPG equivalent of ramming your dick into the GMs ass as hard as possible.
Would it 'break the story' of King Arthur if Galahad battled ninjas and Merlin consulted with Egyptian-themed birdmen?
Rynjin has been sorta consistent in what he thinks is OK or not ok, it's just I draw the line in a different place. He is ok with the GM banning astromech droids in middle earth, but he's not Ok banning ninjas in Camelot.
What I've said, and continue to say, is that the GM's role is to draw that line. If I want my campaign to have the 'feel' of Arthur from the Excalibur movie (and it was Orf as the soundtrack from that scene, not Wagner, my mistake which I realized later), I can ban ninjas. I can ban pirates and Santa Claus and cyborgs too.
I think where Rynjin is drawing his line (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) is basically, if it's in the PF rules, it's to be allowed. So if this campaign has run without firearms for years, for example, and Paizo releases a book with gunpowder - POOF - I'm supposed to suddenly make that appear in my game.
I'd consider it, maybe. But I'm not going to have it forced upon me if I don't feel it is thematically appropriate.
And considering it is all I ask, really. Gunpowder is one of the MAJOR setting changers much like robots in middle Earth, as it's something that would realistically change warfare and so on.
I personally use the rules for Emerging guns, but don't really do much with it. I added it so one player could play a Gunslinger (since we were starting a new game) but he eventually went with something else.
Still, I liked the idea of skeletons with muskets so every now and then instead of bowmen I'll chuck a few people with guns at the party. Our Barbarian actually bought a...Blunderbuss I think. Whatever the simple/primitive/whatever version of the Shotgun is, but he's never used it.
But that's beside the point really. In any case, if it's in the book somewhere I generally expect it to be at least considered as an option, and reskinning or small changes should be something easily done as a compromise. I like Gunslingers, you hate guns. Can I have a Gunslinger that uses hand crossbows? You hate the idea of furry catfolk, but I really like their racial features. Can I have one as something more akin to a human with some generic bestial features (claws and eyes and sharp teeth, nothing major)?
Or on an even simpler level, the aforementioned "No Eastern Stuff" ban. Can I take away the eastern fluff and play it as a western character? That's quite easy to do, especially since most of them are alternate classes to one that IS more western based.
If the idea is still no, then whatever, but if the conversation goes something like "You can't have that because of X reason" "Well hear me out for a second-" "No, pick something else", or the GM simply says "No" with no explanation whatsoever about what they don't like about it or why it doesn't fit, that's a big issue in my eyes. It's reasonable to deny a concept. It's not reasonable to deny something for no reason or not give someone a CHANCE to justify it.
I find this post quite reasoned and I believe you and I are closer than some of your earlier posts led me to believe. I value creativity over most else - if you can provide me an interesting reason why your ninja is in Camelot, I'd consider it, sure. But it's my call as GM - and 'time portals' may be a bit of a stretch for me to throw into my game. If the GM feels the PC doesn't fit, the player should acknowledge that and move on. There have been some posts that say, essentially, the GM has no more authority than any player. And I don't agree with that.
Oh. Guess this whole big other post was a slight waste, but oh well.
You may well be right, but i'd contend that if I remove the 'eastern flavor' and the smoke bombs, wakizashis, and pajamas - the aren't ninjas anymore.
Rynjin was very insistent that it was fine to strip the flavor from these classes/races and keep the mechanics. I just don't agree. If I remove all those things, it's not a 'ninja' anymore.
Ah, but that's the point! That's why it's a compromise.
You hate ninjas. Or you hate ninjas in this particular setting, in any case. I want to play a ninja.
But that's not an irreconcilable difference in the slightest. You hate the ninja flavor, okay.
So I take away the ninja flavor, and you should have no problem with it, yes? While it's not the exact concept I wanted to play, it's made you more happy now I've removed that flavor, while I still get a roughly similar character with a more Western feel. Effectively I've traded my ninja for an assassin, and everyone should be happy, yes?
And as a final bit, I hate the Rogue class. It's probably the most terribly designed class in this game and I've never had a good experience with one.
But I do let people play them, though I try to steer them at least toward Ninja so they're a little better.
Of course, some of the people I play with place an extraordinary amount of value on Trapfinding, even though in the games we've HAD a Rogue we never encountered a trap past level 3.
Of those how many actualy agree with the pretense that Rogues suck?You have yet to demonstrate they don't, so it remains a "premise," rather than merely a "pretense." Nice try, though.
Excuse me? Playing rogues alot in 3.0 through 3.5 and PF and not finding that they suck means I should accept that what about thirty people say they do?
So if it becomes the general consenus here that GM must run their game with a iron fist because staticaly speaking most players would run roughshod over are you if you don't going to change how you run your game?
|
|
And the easiest way to figure out what the group wants is to look at who they picked to run the game.Rarely does the group agree on what they want. My wife had to be the DM because the two other DMs could not be players in the others game.
Which is exactly why you have a DM to actually make the call on things.
And exactly why the DM needs to be given the authority to do the job.
And if they abuse that authority, don't give it to them anymore.
But if the DM isn't flexible and compromising (to a degree) he is hurting himself. The more he's a dick and stubborn the harder its going to be to get anyone to play the game
This has more or less been my point the whole time. As a DM in Houston, there were plenty of games to go around. But across the years, a number people in different groups would drive hours to be in my game because, in a buyer's marketplace, they appreciated the customer service they got at Kirth Games. I'm not saying I'm a better DM, just that I was always willing to do what I could to make sure everyone got the game they wanted. [Disclaimer: at least two people found they disliked the style and moved on, and I was sorry to lose those players, but on the whole, it seemed like more people stayed than left.]
So, viewed as a business, "the customer is always right." That doesn't mean an electronics store has to sell sandwiches, but it does help if people can get exactly what they're looking for, and can get help in deciding what they need.
Viewed from a management of groups standpoint, the Framers convinced me pretty thoroughly that the government should work for the people, and not the other way around. I try to take that to heart as a DM.
Viewed from the standpoint of "I'm playing a game with my friends," the more I treat them like friends, and the less as subordinates, the happier everyone is.
You ask 100 people what they think when they hear pirates and for 95 of them the first thing thats going to come to mind is cutlasses, bandanas on the heads, parrots etc. The last 5 will probably think of Somalis.
I love how whatever stereotype you subscribe to is "obviously" the one that 95% of humanity "must" also subscribe to. And that that sterotype is therefore the "correct" one, and anything else needs to be purged.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hell no. I'm tired of arguing mechanics. Let the players play s%$#ty classes if they want. If they have fun, fine. If they die, fine. If they want changes to make them better, fine.And by the same token let groups that want to keep stuff out keep stuff out.
Just because one person wants to do something doesn't mean that is what the group wants.
And the easiest way to figure out what the group wants is to look at who they picked to run the game.
Actualy the easiest way to find out what a group wants is to ask them....alot of people forget that.
|
|
But frankly Kirth, you clearly are a better GM because people seek out your games.
I am at least a mediocre GM, because I always have to turn players away to get the numbers right.
And I never have a problem finding a game. Free time is the problem.
If you are having trouble finding a game as a player, and you are dictating terms to GMs about what they must include...maybe it isn't the GM who is the problem...
I also treat my friends as friends. But people who try to treat me like an employee when I'm selected to be in the GM chair aren't going to be my friends for long.
|
|
Actualy the easiest way to find out what a group wants is to ask them....alot of people forget that.Hell no. I'm tired of arguing mechanics. Let the players play s%$#ty classes if they want. If they have fun, fine. If they die, fine. If they want changes to make them better, fine.And by the same token let groups that want to keep stuff out keep stuff out.
Just because one person wants to do something doesn't mean that is what the group wants.
And the easiest way to figure out what the group wants is to look at who they picked to run the game.
Which is exactly what a GM does every time they say "I want to start a new campaign, who is interested"
Crickets = Not what the group wants.
Just to toss in my contribution to this.
I play PF.
I post regularly on these boards.
I post regularly on these threads.
I agree with that premise / pretense.
I do not make assumptions. I look at data others have gathered, compare it with what I have gotten and then draw my own conclusion.
At least one player from my current group lurks these boards, but rarely posts on them.
Sure but undesrtand this your opinion is based on data...is still a opinion. As I can counter it by saying the data I have collected rogues don't suck....which is also a opinion.
I don't post on those threads because in general people who say x class suck or x class is broken usualy have other causes for those conditions that has nothing to do with the class. And it is really not worth argueing with them.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just to toss in my contribution to this.
I play PF.
I post regularly on these boards.
I post regularly on these threads.
I agree with that premise / pretense.
I do not make assumptions. I look at data others have gathered, compare it with what I have gotten and then draw my own conclusion.
At least one player from my current group lurks these boards, but rarely posts on them.
Sure but undesrtand this your opinion is based on data...is still a opinion. As I can counter it by saying the data I have collected rogues don't suck....which is also a opinion.
I don't post on those threads because in general people who say x class suck or x class is broken usualy have other causes for those conditions that has nothing to do with the class. And it is really not worth argueing with them.
He's played in 7 whole games, and even GMed once.
He would know...
Actualy the easiest way to find out what a group wants is to ask them....alot of people forget that.Hell no. I'm tired of arguing mechanics. Let the players play s%$#ty classes if they want. If they have fun, fine. If they die, fine. If they want changes to make them better, fine.And by the same token let groups that want to keep stuff out keep stuff out.
Just because one person wants to do something doesn't mean that is what the group wants.
And the easiest way to figure out what the group wants is to look at who they picked to run the game.
Which is exactly what a GM does every time they say "I want to start a new campaign, who is interested"
Crickets = Not what the group wants.
Or crickets could mean no objections...
As a "can I work x concept in?" does not mean rejection either...actualy it probably means I like the idea but I want to expand on it.
My opinion, based on my experience is that rogues are not horrible/underpowered/wrongbad/etc.
Why are other people telling me my OPINION is wrong. Opinions can't be wrong, they are opinions.
|
|
Or crickets could mean no objections...
As a "can I work x concept in?" does not mean rejection either...actualy it probably means I like the idea but I want to expand on it.
Only if you are GMing for yourself.
People have many other options in life than to come out for a game they don't want to play.
Excuse me? Playing rogues alot in 3.0 through 3.5 and PF and not finding that they suck means I should accept that what about thirty people say they do?Nope.
It also doesn't mean you can say how many people agree with those thirty people without evidence.
Um...yes that is exactly what I am saying. Kirth Gensen is the one who pointed out to the those threads that they is a general consenus that rogues are weak. He even seem to imply that because those thirty people agree we all should do so too.
Sorry but you could be a jerk GM and ban everything under the sun and ect. The moment that you let what a stranger says on a messageboard in anyway impact over what your players think...we reached a whole new level of BAD GM.
Or crickets could mean no objections...
As a "can I work x concept in?" does not mean rejection either...actualy it probably means I like the idea but I want to expand on it.
Only if you are GMing for yourself.
People have many other options in life than to come out for a game they don't want to play.
Why do you always assume that x is something that you will hate with the passion of a thousand firery suns? Maybe it just something you did not think about?
Why do you assume when a player is always trying to 'ruin' your game by thinking outside the box?
Why is it always wrong/ right?
Are we not arguing about how all ninjas must wear PJs in daytime anymore?
Opinions can't be wrong, they are opinions.Westboro Baptist Church.
What they have done is a matter of fact, not opinion. If they had not protested every funeral they could (fact) claiming god hates... well everybody not them (fact) you would have never heard their opinion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My answer to smooth running games is shut down the problem players and help the cooperative players. On the other hand if a concept should fit my world yet I ban it anyway then I probably should just explain myself ahead of time to get everyone on the same page and not leave any lingering resentment from otherwise good players. Some earlier example of a cavalier being banned despite the existence of Rohan being a valid place where they could come from... BUT perhaps the GM simply dislikes the cavalier mechanics. In such a case explanation is a good thing. Otherwise (Kirth?) might think you are being a tyrant.The only thing I disagree on dealing with problems players. I found it is better to talk to the player about what they are doing to disrupt the game...and give them a warning. If the persist boot them. Why low myself to them by 'shuting them down' when I can just kick them out?
Because not all table dynamics are the same. Sometimes it's less complicated to just shut them down rather than go through the complicated effort of getting them kicked out. For example games where the GM isn't the host or where the GMing is shared or any other mix of invite authority. And in nearly every case a problem player knows exactly what problems they are creating and how, they don't need it explained. Keep in mind they have to get labeled a problem player first before they start getting the short end of the stick. Up until then they get all the consideration everyone else does. If someone steps out of line people, GM or not, tell them. If it persists THEN no explanation is needed, they just earned a place on the naughty list and they will have a difficult time till they either shape up and start playing nice OR ship out if they can't see past their pride and would rather miss out rather than join the fun. It isn't lowering yourself at all to shut them down it is doing a good service to the rest of the players.
|
|
Or crickets could mean no objections...
As a "can I work x concept in?" does not mean rejection either...actualy it probably means I like the idea but I want to expand on it.
Only if you are GMing for yourself.
People have many other options in life than to come out for a game they don't want to play.
Why do you always assume that x is something that you will hate with the passion of a thousand firery suns? Maybe it just something you did not think about?
Why do you assume when a player is always trying to 'ruin' your game by thinking outside the box?
Why is it always wrong/ right?
What are you projecting, because it clearly has nothing to do with anything that I have said.
If you don't want to play the setting a GM (Note I didn't say your GM, which implies ownership) don't play.
But if you do play, and the GM says your concept doesn't fit, change it or don't play.
Not because they "hate with the passion of a thousand firery suns" but because coming up with another concept shouldn't be hard to do if you are creative, and you agreed to play in the setting when you picked that GM to run that setting when they asked if you wanted to play that setting.
Do people really have that much difficulty coming up with multiple concepts?
Not because they "hate with the passion of a thousand firery suns" but because coming up with another concept shouldn't be hard to do if you are creative, and you agreed to play in the setting when you picked that GM to run that setting when they asked if you wanted to play that setting.
Do people really have that much difficulty coming up with multiple concepts?
Well they come up with them better and like the idea more if you tell them they're stupid and berate them for not doing it. There is only one way to play after all. [/sarcasm]
Yeah, they don't. Many people do however have an idea they get really into however. Depending on how your going about character creation it may not make sense to create a list off the top of your head. Is it hard to believe not everyone does it exactly the same as you?
Again, in this dichotomy of player's concept vs. GMs setting the question raised is "should the DM change his setting." and the question then becomes "why should he change his setting?"
No one says the GM has to change his setting to match whatever you want and run that whenever. Nor that you have to allow furry ninjas. Don't suppose anyone ever ask how to help the character fit into the setting without breaking it either.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not because they "hate with the passion of a thousand firery suns" but because coming up with another concept shouldn't be hard to do if you are creative, and you agreed to play in the setting when you picked that GM to run that setting when they asked if you wanted to play that setting.
Do people really have that much difficulty coming up with multiple concepts?
Well they come up with them better and like the idea more if you tell them they're stupid and berate them for not doing it. There is only one way to play after all. [/sarcasm]
Yeah, they don't. Many people do however have an idea they get really into however. Depending on how your going about character creation it may not make sense to create a list off the top of your head. Is it hard to believe not everyone does it exactly the same as you?
You still haven't explained why you can't run a concept by your GM before you fall in love with it and stat it up.
What you are basically saying is "I can't come up with more than one option, so you must figure out a way to accommodate that option"
Maybe you need to find options that work rather than expecting everyone else to bend to you?
Because it is not a high bar to set when you say "Run a few idea by the GM before you get to deep into creating the character"
If you are stating out a build with a backstory before you've even run the idea by your GM, that is your fault.
In a buyer/seller market the DM is the seller and its a sellers market (not an econ major, but I think the point comes across)
Wait 'til a couple of your players learn to DM and start their own games, and then see where you stand. I was a sought-after DM in a place that was very much a buyer's market -- pretty much every player at the table had the option, in any given week, of running their own game or coming to mine. You can ignore my advice for now, but as soon as a couple of players realize they can run games, too, your monopoly goes out the window and you might actually care about retaining players. Come back and look at the thread again, at that time, and you might see some of my posts in a different light.
You still haven't explained why you can't run a concept by your GM before you fall in love with it and stat it up.
The GM ran his game by me right? The other players probably run their characters by me? We all try and make it fit. The GM doesn't have to be the final arbiter or totalitarian for this to happen. From my experience it works best if there is communication involved. Again, it might work that way in your group but that's not the only way to do it nor is it the best for everyone.
Who said there was already a built character sheet? I think you threw in a detail there. Concept and build can be very different things.
What you are basically saying is "I can't come up with more than one option, so you must figure out a way to accommodate that option"
Maybe you need to find options that work rather than expecting everyone else to bend to you?
I didn't say that at all. When I say those exact quotes then you can put it in the quotation marks if you want and tell me that's what I said, but since I didn't I didn't. Your trying to tell me what I'm doing again. It just doesn't work no matter how many times you do it.
Regardless, if a concept doesn't work I'm probably going to move on. Its not like I can't think of more ideas. At the same time I expect all my ideas to be treated with some degree of respect. Someone comes to you and says "this is what I want to play" you don't say "I think you have 4 more ideas, why don't you tell me those and let me pick what I like best?". I mean, I guess that works in some cases, but again, not for everyone and every situation. If it works for you that's great, don't get me wrong, just don't enforce that opinion on others likes its the way its supposed to be done.
Because it is not a high bar to set when you say "Run a few idea by the GM before you get to deep into creating the character"
Usually I do, just not always all at once and give him the choice of however many I have.
If you are stating out a build with a backstory before you've even run the idea by your GM, that is your fault.
I'm sorry for making builds and characters for entertainment and other campaigns. I must be a terrible person [/sarcasm]
I usually don't stat out or write a 20 page backstory before my campaign. In fact, I've never done it for a particular campaign and then bring it to the GM. I've met people who have folders filled with characters like that, and they can do it, but I don't. Why would I?
Careful btw, your sounding really insulting there. "That is your fault" is pretty harsh. Its also unnecessary.