| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it takes you an hour or two to look over a build, there's something up.
Maybe 15 minutes at most.
I think I've figured out what the core of the argument is for some people, and it's something along the line of "I don't feel like/can't be investing much time into reading anything new for this game, so I'll ban it", which is fine I guess but doesn't really prove any sort of point about "player entitlement", it just shows the GM is just as capable of being entitled as well.
Yes, it is.
At least by the time a month or so passes and it's all up on the PRD/SRD for free it is.
You don't have to know it all off the top of your head, but when someone asks "Can I be a Drow" your answer should be "Let me look that up right quick and see" not "I don't know what a Drow is".
Searchable databases are your friend.
It just enhances what you're saying that mechanics is more important and you want(ed) the mechanics.
And getting back to the original topic..here's a realistic scenario for people to consider:
Generally when one game is wrapping up you'll have a week maybe two until the next one comes around..So someone proposes a game like blah blah CRB only for whatever reason and the other 5 people agree. However Player A a few days later emails/messages the DM and says, "Hey, I know you said CRB only but can I play this sorcerer build that just came out in the new Ultimate Snowballery Arcana? (or something from a magazine etc.). Pleeeease?"
Now the DM, like any DM, has to work prep time into his schedule between game sessions and likely has limited time with work, family, other hobbies etc. Now he has to figure out how to add more time, possibly an extra hour or two, to look over the build, be sure its not powercreeped and broken and to compare it to the other classes etc. Not every GM is gonna say "Screw it, its published so I'm sure its fine and won't destroy my adventures" and may want to make sure its as "balanced" as the Core classes.
So now he can either A) say ehh I'll have to look over it at some point, so maybe next game around, sorry. or B) He'll find the time to look at it and add it.
If he's a good DM, he needs to let the other players know he allowed something else. Now one or more of them may say "well he allowed that if I knew that I'll just pull out my X now." ..Now the DM may have to find more time to look over even more classes or just hope they can't be easily abused...That or he just shows up at Game 1 and everyone else finds out and players will either A) get annoyed for the favoritism B) not care or C) be like whatever because they know the player is a pain.
Point being, think about the DM and how his personal time is not limitless. Just because he agreed to be a DM doesn't mean his DM responsibilities consist of revolving his life around you. Consider that when you want to add...
While I am not a core only GM...I do have the caveat that any 3rdpp must be cleared by me. So this is how I would handle it.
Step 1: Ask for a copy of said material.
Step 2: Reveiw it for overpowerness, underpoweredness, etc. Normally this will take me about 20 min.
Step 3: Also check if there is away in the books normally allowed to archieve the same concept.
Step 4: Depends on what I found...either I'll allow it...or not allow it...or suggest a alternative that might already exist in the game...or allow it with houserules. But I discuss this the player.
Step 5: If allowed I let the player know that if during the game it proves to be broken he/she will have to change it.
Never had a problem with floodgates...or anything else like you described. But than again I don't play with those types of players.
So personaly I found your entire option lists to be rather unrealistic and does not even come close to all possible option...but seeing which side you are on it makes sense that you would present limited options..;)
Even better...Now, including the 4+ other books I normally bring, if its at a FLGS now I have to make sure I have my laptop every time you add some OPTIONAL thing for your character whether its feats or spells so now I don't only have to refer to my books, but I have to either A) grab yours or B) have my laptop ready to find it and hopefully there's wifi where I'm at..That or I need to be sure I print out anything you add from all over the books. Not everyone wants to play that way.
And whether its online or not doesn't mean he doesn't have to look it up and evaluate it.
If he isn't keen on having to refer to his laptop regularly or doesn't have time to look into all your options for this game around, then oh well. That doesn't make him a bad GM or a 'not good' GM.
He's your DM. Not your man-slave.
Or you could do what I do and tell the player he must either have a physical copy to give to you...or must send you a electronic copy.
Even better...Now, including the 4+ other books I normally bring, if its at a FLGS now I have to make sure I have my laptop every time you add some OPTIONAL thing for your character whether its feats or spells so now I don't only have to refer to my books, but I have to either A) grab yours or B) have my laptop ready to find it and hopefully there's wifi where I'm at..That or I need to be sure I print out anything you add from all over the books. Not everyone wants to play that way.
And whether its online or not doesn't mean he doesn't have to look it up and evaluate it.
If he isn't keen on having to refer to his laptop regularly or doesn't have time to look into all your options for this game around, then oh well. That doesn't make him a bad GM or a 'not good' GM.
He's your DM. Not your man-slave.
So let me get this straight:
Your entire argument is about how player entitlement is bad because GMs do so much work.
But your entire argument for why you shouldn't allow stuff is that it's too much work to tote around your laptop or a tablet and find wifi (which you can find pretty much anywhere these days) to look up something?
If that reflects the amount of effort you put into everything else...
I'm just not seeing "Can you go here, type these words in, look at it and tell me if you think it's balanced for my guy?" is "making your DM your man slave".
And on top of that, having your PDFs and stuff all in one location (Google Drive is quite nice) takes more effort than carrying around a bag full of the physical copies?
Your non-argument confuses and amazes me.
The world does not revolve around you.
Actually, the universe revolves around me. This has been extrapolated from a piece of cake.
And it doesn't revolve around you either.
The only thing I see here is that the GM may not like using PDFs, he may prefer books, they may have their laptop hooked up to a printer (blast, it's so much effort to unhook a single cord and fold your laptop up!), or any number of other reasons they might use to excuse themselves from making a quick internet search.
But please, continue to believe that this scenario makes it look like the PLAYER wants the world to revolve around him.
I can imagine some people arguing that it's the "GMs responsibility" to find it and have copies of it.
As you have not seen anybody here argue it would be the GM's responsibilty to find and have copies of everything a player wants option wise. Can you quote somebody argueing that? If not lets actualy keep this grounded in what people have been saying shall we?
Never the less, its not to say a GM won't accommodate things, but if he really can't because he doesn't have time before the game to look at 5-6 different optional builds, so be it. This current discussion isn't about a Gm saying he will never look into your build, just he won't/can't do it right now and for this game. If a player can't understand that then he needs to realize other people have lives that don't revolve around him.
Personaly...I have to ask why the GM does not have the time? I would certainly have the time to look into 5 to 6 different builds...and I have work, family, other hobbies, etc as well. And as I usualy devote the first night to character gen(that is about 4 hours to 5hours) of direct communication with my players...sure I have the time.
So if the DM denies a player something and refuses to give a reason (he/she might not have a good one) but the rest of the party have no problem with what the player wanted to try out, which one carries more weight?
In this scenario, the DM and the player are both being stubborn, but the other players lean to favor their fellow player. Is it still wrong for the player to ask for this one thing? The DM had not established any special rulings prior in this example scenario.
Your non-argument confuses and amazes me.
I suspect that's because neither of you are really arguing. You're both framing it as such (ie providing reasons to support your positions) but at its heart those "reasons" are statements of preference - what's a reasonable amount of effort? Should someone expect their DM to use a laptop to check rules in books they don't own? How much "rules veto authority" derives from being the one to craft the setting? Etcetera.
Those questions don't have correct answers, so the conclusions one draws from them are all, ultimately, opinion. The only thing that matters is that the group are all on roughly the same page (or at least reading the same chapter, to abuse the metaphor).
But how can I be sure he's reading the same chapter if he won't read my copy, won't buy his own, and won't use the internet?
I get the feeling one of us has misunderstood the other. Was it me or you?
ZOMG! You actually have to put effort into describing why the mechanics continue to work the same?! I never thought of that! /sarcasm.
Well lets see how you did.
There are a multitude of fluff reasons you can go with. It shorts out his tech, It's draining on his mind and makes mixing potions too hard, he usually doesn;t look when he's brewing potions so doing it while silenced forces him to look at what he's doing an makes it take too long. If you want to put the effort in, I'm sure you can come up with more.
I'll give a D for effort here...but sinbce Silence spell has not even close to this effect on other things in the game...I just don't see making sense. My favorite on is this "he usually doesn;t look when he's brewing potions so doing it while silenced forces him to look at what he's doing an makes it take too long". So his components are making sounds? Makes no sense. Even if it does "takes him longer" so would that not just mean it should just extend his mixing time?
Other than the advantage anyone with silent spell has you mean..
You missed my point here...as a verbal component on these characters make no sense you either have to do one of two things to make it internaly consistent.
1) Remove the V from all spells he casts. Which is a change to the mechanics.
2) The character would have to use Silent Spell on all of his 'potions and bombs'. Which would mean he would be greatly ineffective.
Why would Alchemist have to make weird hand gestures to drink a potion or throw a bomb? Though I guess you could 'refluff' this to be the act of mixing a potion.
Or the act of drawing and drinking the potion.
Ok the concept is a bomb thrower? Name a 1st level Blast spell in Core?
Burning hands, magic missle, all the elvel zero damage spells....
Are not even close to explosions.
No, but you will only have limited bombs until you get to higher levels. Excuse me for thinking that a level 1 character shouldn't be able to fully realize their concept. A level 1 "alchemist" of this sort is an inexperienced character who's still learning, not a master of their craft. That's why he's level 1 and not level 10.
Ah but the Alchemist bomb throwing is key to the concept...that kinda of like saying that a Fighter can't use weapons, a wizard can't cast spells, etc till 3rd level.
Problems w/ fireball being a thrown bomb:
Considering that at the same level (5) someone a could easily have an unassisted 13 in acrobatics and thereby be able to do a 33 foot longjump (if you interpret long jump dcs as 1 per foot, 30 if its 5 for each 5 feet. Some poeple read it differently. Real world record is 29 and a half feet), I'm not seeing being able to throw far as a suspension of disbelief breaker.
So you don't see the internal inconsistency here at all? Let me see if I can point it out. What you are suggesting is that a alchemist reskinned as a wizard can 'throw' a bomb that is just a reskinned fireball...he can at 5th level throw a 'bomb' 600' and NEVER MISS his target. At the same level a 5th fighter who is shooting a crossbow at the same range is going to have a -10. You don't see this as inconsistent? How about the fact that no one in the game at any level can throw something of similair shape as a bomb(using the alchemical items in the book) more than 50'? So you could give the 'wizard reskinned into alchemist' who can't throw it that far.
It is a suspension of disbelief breaker when said character can't do the same with other items that he should be able to do.
This goes back to ZOMG! I have to explain stuff! "Because that's how the mechanics work" has always been a valid answer to things that don't make real world sense to me (You know, like a low level rogue being able to beat the world record holder in longjump, and not even be near the best jumper in the world), but if you really want an in game explanation, the same ability that protects the creature from spells protects it from the advanced tech and unique potions the "alchemist" creates and uses.
You brought this up twice...I should make clear...it is not about the Real World it is about INTERNAL CONSISTENCEY so your 5th level Rogue is not the best long jumper in game...and anybody who invest the skill can challenge him...what you have in the above is not even the character in question can duplicate his results.
It is Called SR...meaning Spell Resistance. While I can see you transfering this to TR(Tech Resistance) for some creature...other it just falls flat. Also so a lesser bog standard Alchemeny is better in the case of something produced by a trained Alchemist? Sorry fails my Internal Consistencey test.
Except it was you who's asking people to justify their gameplay choices, not me. It's you who's saying in order to be an "alchemist" you should have to have levels in the alchemist class, thereby telling anybody who's ever refluffed a wizard or sorcerer to be one that they were playing wrong. I never said playing with the alchemist class is badwrongfun. In fact, if you look up and read my posts, you'll see I said that I allow them in my games. What I said was that it isn't necessary to play out the concept, and that I know that from personal experience.
I never asked anybody to justfied anything...just explain it. I might have challenged a few points here and there...but never critized anybody for doing thing differently them myself. I even say personaly I can play with Core only...I have enough concepts in my mind that can work with Core only.
You have said "Which seems to be a common problem on these boards" in direct response to my perference of seeing the mechanics of the game reflecting the lore and concept and vice a versa. And the idea of RP is just talk...mechanics allows you to back up that talk.
Example...Mr. X saying "I am a sailor". If he has no ranks in Prof. Sailor...guess what he is lieing(which is just fine in game). If has a few ranks in Prof: Sailor than he can back up his claim using the mechanics of the game...he still might be lieing but he can defintly fake it better.
Example...Sure you might not have any problems with the reskinned Alchemist throwing a bomb 600' and always hitting exactly on target...when no one else with long range weapons can even come close to that level accuracey...or no one including said 'alchemist' can even throw something that far...and all the other things that are blaring internaly inconsistent about the character with everyone else in that world...but to me it just gets...really bad storytelling.
That is just my opinion I understand that. I just pointed out why I feel that you can't just play any concept in the universe without changing the mechanics of it.
Many of the players in the groups I play with are pretty busy that they barely have enough time to prep for the game. And I would say players normally favor the GM than other players unless the GM is being extreme and saying "magic missile is a 9th level spell".
Players normally on either player side or GMs side does not matter...personaly I am on the side that makes sense. If the GM is right I support him...if the GM is wrong I will tell him so..politely of course.
As for creation game sessions, personally I HATE this. Like I'll avoid this at all cost. I know I'm not alone on this. I don't want to go somewhere to spend 3+ hours just making characters. If I'm going to go I want to play something. I've had a GM do this once and I made an excuse of why I couldn't make it and just emailed him ideas he approved and quickly hashed out the rest at the beginning of the next session in like 10 mins.
Good for you. Usualy we start playing in character gen sessions...but I think it is important step that the players communicate with each other as well as with the GM. A few times that doing the character gen session was not feasible for one reason or another...I usually ask my players to include all the players on the e-mail. Just so people get a general idea. Of course they don't have to share everything...if they want to keep things a secret than can send me a private e-mail.
I had this situation with Hero (yes the dreaded, convoluted 20d6 system) and it was dreadful. The worst part was even with their "creation program" it was broken and wouldn't work or it wouldn't work properly for the edition we were trying to do so I think some of our characters were like "version 5.5" or something. If anyone hasn't played this system to give an idea (if I remember right) you roll to hit..then location..then damage..and then you multiply for stun ..and then multiply for lethal depending on location..and you don't just buy a sword its a "power" and you do all sorts of min-maxing to give yourself the uber weapon except you can only use it two handed in the moonlight and when you sing Freebird. Horrendous. /end rant.
Chargen can be a chore - but in play it is actually simpler than most d20 games. And "leveling up" can be done is 15 seconds. And I've only rolled 20 dice for damage is high powered superhero games. But it is a game for people that enjoy the sub-game of Chargen.
There are swords built in the book - no need to build them as powers unless yours is special. As for the combat - Hero doesn't have hit points, it has stun and body (unconscious and lethal) that you roll for. 1 3d6 roll to hit, 1 3d6 roll for location, and 1 for damage. It's easy to roll 2 sets of different colored dice for hit and location (and hit locations is an optional rule).
And yes HERO can be min-maxed, and it up to the GM to keep things balanced, but it is easy to see when something is unbalanced. But it also allows you to create just about anything you can think of, rather than just if the game designers had the fluff in mind or not.
As you probably guessed I am a HERO fan. Our weekly group is Hero, and oddly enough I am starting up a Fantasy HERO game set in Golarion in a few weeks*. :D I love the setting, but my wife, who runs my solo Pathfinder game detests it, so the only way I'll get to experience the setting is by GMing.
* The PCs came up with background that fit in really easy - 1 from Alkenstar, one from the Mwangi expanse and one from Thuvia so far - the last could be from most places. It promises to be fun.
Chargen can be a chore - but in play it is actually simpler than most d20 games.
Gonna have to disagree on that one. Between the phases table, recovery actions, myriad numbers of different powers (even if many of them re-use certain mechanics), counting body as well as stun on the dice (except for KA which are different), trying to turn while flying, calculating END costs on powers not used at full, I'm going to say there's every bit as much complexity in play with Champions as there is in d20.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So if the DM denies a player something and refuses to give a reason (he/she might not have a good one) but the rest of the party have no problem with what the player wanted to try out, which one carries more weight?
In this scenario, the DM and the player are both being stubborn, but the other players lean to favor their fellow player. Is it still wrong for the player to ask for this one thing? The DM had not established any special rulings prior in this example scenario.
If I invite you to a party at my house, and say clearly in the invitation "You need to leave by 7:00pm because that is when I am putting the baby down" at 7:00 if every guest at the party doesn't want to leave, you are still all jerks for staying.
The GM does not serve you.
The GM is offering you a menu of options at the table they have prepared. You as a player have decided to either partake of that table, or seek out another table. You can ask to order something not on the menu, it isn't rude to ask. But it is rude to demand it.
Chargen can be a chore - but in play it is actually simpler than most d20 games.Gonna have to disagree on that one. Between the phases table, recovery actions, myriad numbers of different powers (even if many of them re-use certain mechanics), counting body as well as stun on the dice (except for KA which are different), trying to turn while flying, calculating END costs on powers not used at full, I'm going to say there's every bit as much complexity in play with Champions as there is in d20.
Fair point. I guess I've just been playing it so long ('85) that all that stuff is second nature - on the dice counting and end costs.
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?
As to #1, the character should be created after speaking to the GM about the world, what houserules are used, and what is allowed. The rules are to be a guide to a good character. The rules say if it is legal in Pathfinder, but not whether the character fits the GMs world and approach.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That said, there is definitely room for player input... if a player has a concept and wants a feat/archetype/PrC/etc from a "banned" book, I will definitely look the requested item over and make a decision on whether to allow it (either as-is or with changes) or not.
I'll also take player input on things related to the setting. "I know you said halflings are like X, but what if they're more like Y, or there's a "lost tribe" that's Z?" The player and I will then go back and forth, with the ideas I like getting incorporated into the game world.
According to most of what I'm reading, these two items put you and I firmly on the "player entitlement" side of the argument. Supposedly, the sign of a "good" DM is to never negotiate or compromise. Instead, in the above scenarios I take it you're supposed to accuse the player of trying to take away all your fun, and tell him/her to find another game somewhere else.
I wasn't talking about creation sessions with some playing at the end. That's ok. I asked him if we were going to play at all if time allowed and he said no. I personally find that a total waste of time to go to someone's house and only go around making characters. Often once you're done you don't even need to be there anymore and can leave. So now I've come to sit down and make a character for 30 mins and can now leave..or even better, you wait for 2 hours for your turn to build and now everyone is gone and you make yours then take off.
Usually our table hashes out stuff like this on the only other night a week we get together which we call 'paint night'... because ostensibly it is the night we get together and shoot the bull while painting minis, the actual painting of minis which sometimes does or does not happen.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
According to most of what I'm reading, these two items put you and I firmly on the "player entitlement" side of the argument. Supposedly, the sign of a "good" DM is to never negotiate or compromise. Instead, in the above scenarios I take it you're supposed to accuse the player of trying to take away all your fun, and tell him/her to find another game somewhere else.
Gotta love the hyperbole. Can't do without the hyperbole.
Gotta love the hyperbole. Can't do without the hyperbole.
I wish it were, but those things were actually said: both "it is not the GM's job to compromise" and "why should I sacrifice all my fun in order to consider a player's request?"
|
|
Gotta love the hyperbole. Can't do without the hyperbole.I wish it were, but those things were actually said: both "it is not the GM's job to compromise" and "why should I sacrifice all my fun in order to consider a player's request?"
It was also said that not allowing a player to play a furry is wrong and bad.
So, you know, glass houses on both sides.
The line for me is no player can tell a GM they have to run a concept and no GM can tell a player they have to play a concept.
I can't make you join my game as a GM, and you can't make me let you in my game as a player.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It was also said that not allowing a player to play a furry is wrong and bad.
One or two people said that. Most others said, "The player probably deserves to hear some reason for you not even considering it -- and maybe you should be honest with yourself about those reasons."
So, you know, glass houses on both sides.
It's a specrum, not a wall.
I've tried to be careful not to present my stance as the 1st endpoint. If people would stop presenting anything else as the last endpoint, I'd be pretty happy. Because then I wouldn't be accused of hyperbole for repeating them.
|
|
I disagree with the very few people saying you have to allow it.
Personally, I leave it fairly open to players to come up with something that will fit the setting we agreed to. If you bring something oddball, the onus is on you to convince me to allow it.
If you can't do that, my standpoint is "Why can't you come up with something less dumb, and if you can't, do I really want to game with you instead of one of the other available people..."
But fortunately, we both only game with people who generally aren't full of dumb ideas. :)
|
|
And before you say talk about the rarity of demands for tolerance, in addition to the "must allow furries" I have read "I alway wear a luchadore mask, it's my thing" and "I always play a custom race" as arguments made for expectations that GMs must meet to have the priviledge of allowing those players into the game.
I am not saying any of the three above are wrong, or having wrongbadfun.
I am saying that demanding any of those concepts be allowed in a game, and anyone saying otherwise is a cruel dictator...
Yeah, I wouldn't want to try and defend that position...
I am saying that demanding any of those concepts be allowed in a game, and anyone saying otherwise is a cruel dictator...
(Shrug) I never said that, so take it up with someone who did. I said that requesting it doesn't autmatically mean the player is trying to be disruptive. I said allowing some leeway probably won't automatically "destroy all your fun" -- and if it does, there are more issues than we can deal with on a message board. And I do feel that being over-eager to swing the banhammer without considering the possibility of compromise isn't necessarily something to be proud of.
I'm going to jump outside the paradigm for a second. Let's talk about a competitor's gameline for just a moment. In (new) World of Darkness, each of the major races (Vampire, Werewolf, Promethian, etc), have cross-compatible rules. They are still each very much their own game, but if your Werewolf story wanted to feature a Vampire, you could do that. It also allows them to sell splat-books that can be picked up by GMs of multiple lines.
So let's say that I, as GM, conceive of a plotline involving the vampires of New Orleans, and their dark plans to rule the night. I come up with neat scenarios whereby certain NPCs can only be accessed during the daylight hours ... and this is now a huge and complicated problem (because vampires die in sunlight). I have an elaborate setup, and all but one of my PCs says "yea, let's do it!", but one player says "guys, this is gay like Twilight. I'm playing a Promethian." Well, now Mr Problem Player is able to go around during the day, not have to drink blood, and otherwise upends everyone else's experience. (And Prom's have their own drawbacks that I have to start writing into the plot.)
The problem player has just made the game experience less fun for the other players.
That's not acceptable. This is a group game, and people need to get on-board with the premise. If there is a real, true, deep issue (some player's religion doesn't allow him to play vampires, for example), then you accommodate the person with the real issue. Otherwise, you knock heads and say "get with the program."
It's not because the GM is entitled. It's not because we're against PC entitlement. It's because the Group is entitled and the Group takes predominance over the individual.
|
|
Unless the group is going to boot the DM over his refusal, and put someone else in the big chair, it's a rather obvious answer. What are you going to do, hold a crossbow over his head?So if the DM denies a player something and refuses to give a reason (he/she might not have a good one) but the rest of the party have no problem with what the player wanted to try out, which one carries more weight?
I would ask him to stop reading these threads and start considering the people who are okay to play with him as normal human beings (ie, worthy of at least a modicum of respect).
Then we can all have a discussion as perfectly sensible and respectful human beings, quite willing and able to find a compromise that will be agreeable to all. Especially when it all deals with a GAME rather than a matter of "kill or be killed", "me or them" or any kind of "player vs GM" mentality
|
|
Unless the group is going to boot the DM over his refusal, and put someone else in the big chair, it's a rather obvious answer. What are you going to do, hold a crossbow over his head?So if the DM denies a player something and refuses to give a reason (he/she might not have a good one) but the rest of the party have no problem with what the player wanted to try out, which one carries more weight?
I would ask him to stop reading these threads and start considering the people who are okay to play with him as normal human beings (ie, worthy of at least a modicum of respect).
Then we can all have a discussion as perfectly sensible and respectful human beings, quite willing and able to find a compromise that will be agreeable to all. Especially when it all deals with a GAME rather than a matter of "kill or be killed", "me or them" or any kind of "player vs GM" mentality
Funny, I would say the same thing to the player.
And then ask them to come up with another concept that actually fit.