| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...now what about magic items? Does a player have the "right" to any item in the CRB if he has the money as listed in there?
Nope, for several reasons.
#1: By RAW, there are rules about settlement size and the 70% chance-to-find issue. (Granted, this stops becoming an issue once the PCs get teleport and just start going to Absalom for everything)
#2: It's fine to say many items are simply "illegal" and cannot be acquired without appropriate (chaotic or evil) contacts. For example, I have a standing rule in most of my games that most societies have outlawed selling scrolls/magicitems of the Enchantment and Necromancy schools. (I let the PCs go on mini-quests to find a black-market broker, but they don't get it painlessly.)
#3: sSmetimes you want to run a "treasure only" campaign. Because there's a real pleasure and joy in finding and using what you find. You need to be up-front about this campaign-type, and you don't want to run every campaign like this, but once the PCs get accustomed to the constraints, they can start really having some fun with it (and if you do this, please give some appropriate deference to weaponspecialist Fighters)
#4: Sometimes I just ban stuff. Back in 3.5, I banned the spiked chain. "Because." Generally, I try to have a reason for it, but sometimes I don't. The key is being up-front. If you pretend that everything is allowed (because you are silent on the issue), and then a PC decides he wants something, and then you say "no", then you're the jerk GM.
However, if you say upfront "no Asian weapons are for sale in Magnimar" or "no merchants sell swords better than +2" or "anything over 10k isn't just sitting on a store-shelf, you have to custom-order it and then you have to wait for it to be crafted", then the PCs can plan ahead for it. And it even feels "part of the setting" and not just "the GM is banning things."
Basically, you want to set expectations. If you violate expectations, or change the game under the player's feet, they get justifiably upset, and may feel like they are being singled out. Come up with clear, fair rules.
Also, just a tip: I know in the world of email it's tempting to "resolve character build stuff between sessions." Don't. Have everyone get in the room, and everyone discuss, as a group what they want to do. You'll find that peer pressure will shut down the crazy ideas for you, and everyone will gel better. And if peer pressure turns against you as GM, well, maybe you should change, for the betterment of the group.
Then again, if you put an add in Nudists Newsweek for a roommate, you probably shouldn't be shocked that he wants to walk around naked.
|
It seems pretty universally agreed that:
the DM is the arbitrator, but should be fair, compromise and consider a player's pitch on things. A player can make his case but if the DM eventually says no the player needs to just move on. Everyone should be polite, have tact and have good manners etc.
...now what about magic items? Does a player have the "right" to any item in the CRB if he has the money as listed in there?
This is largely what started the "player entitlement" debate.
In my own personal experience, I was quite happy that my GM accepted my wishlist for magic items, even though I knew for a fact I would need to wait several sessions before getting my hands on them. Knowing that I would eventually get them made me quite willing to do without them for some time, while if he had just said NO, I would have been complaining and eroding his will every playing session ;-P
I think a GM should consider very carefully why he wants to ban such or such magic item. And then he decides what are the reachable requisites he expects from the PC to get his wish. And shares the results of his thoughts with the player, who just might have additional ideas.
|
I don't think we actually disagree on that much, you just like to argue and be semantical :P...now what about magic items? Does a player have the "right" to any item in the CRB if he has the money as listed in there?Well, I don't believe so, which I think makes something we agree on for once? :)
You pick up on things quick, my friend. ;)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is a houserule decided on the spot by the GM and not communicated to players before the game starts. And we all know how these are so good for the game.It must be nice to know a priori every instance that you'd need to make a house ruling on a game before the campaign even begins. Each campaign is different. And no matter how experienced the GM and the players are, there's always a chance you'll run into something unforeseen. Or have to make a ruling about a choice that you'd never imagine someone making before.
Yeah. I've seen some people essentially espousing the view that unless the GM made a house rule / ruling known before the "campaign" began, that he has no right to impliment it later. Which makes me wonder if these people have ever actually played this game. As a player, I don't feel like i'm doing my job if I don't do something that GM didn't see coming every once in a while. And as a GM, I'm a bit disappointed if the players don't do something I would never have imagined.
When rules come up later its easy to feel betrayed or attacked as a player, especially if its as a result of your actions and you don't feel that they are wrong. That said, you can't foresee every problem before it reaches the table.
Except its doubtful that the GM put his ad in Nudist Newsweek anymore than he put his ad for his gaming group in "Penguin-Orc Master Summoner-Dancer Weekly"
I have no way of knowing -- not one person has mentioned where all these problem players are coming from. I find it odd that so many players are supposedly such jerks, given that I somehow don't ever get any at my table, despite DMing for 30 years in games ranging from New York, Virginia, South Carolina, and Texas. So I know it's not a time thing ("players are only jerks nowadays"), and I get the feeling it's not a location thing (given the wide swath of my exerience). So it's got to be a recruitment thing.
Now, my cards are on the table: I meet players in other games (in which case I can get a feel for which ones are jerks, and not invite them), or advertise on the "gamer connection" thread (and meet them in person before inviting them, so I can screen out jerks), or have them referred by existing players (who vouch for them not being jerks). Note that I'm not banning anyone based on anything game-related; rather, if I talk to the person and they come across as Comic Book Guy, I exercise my basic desire to not spend my free time with people like that.
So, for people who are going on and on with these scenarios about all these players who want to play weird classes/races and also, coincidentally, in all cases consitently lack in very basic 5th-grade social skills and are pushy little snots -- where are you finding these people? Because I suspect that's your problem.
Maybe it's not that all players who want to try different things are automatically jerks, because I know they're not. Maybe it's that you're consistently inviting jerks to your home game.
|
|
That is a houserule decided on the spot by the GM and not communicated to players before the game starts. And we all know how these are so good for the game.It must be nice to know a priori every instance that you'd need to make a house ruling on a game before the campaign even begins. Each campaign is different. And no matter how experienced the GM and the players are, there's always a chance you'll run into something unforeseen. Or have to make a ruling about a choice that you'd never imagine someone making before.
You are quite right. But when it pertains directly to a PC's fate, I believe it is better that the GM takes time to speak with the player and consider the possibilities together before giving his ruling rather than give a knee-jerk NO.
Players who are only willing to play odd combinations probably are.
I disagree. Sometimes its just their personality. If you disagree with them maybe your game isn't the one they should be in, but I wouldn't file them all into the jerk pile.
And this is another instance where a DM may feel something is broken, especially item crafting. I don't think it's unreasonable for him to, for instance, change things such as the feats for creation may be a level or two higher if he doesn't want you potion brewing/scroll writing right off the bat.
And "because it's broken and/or overpowered" is a reason to ban it.
Was that so hard to give?
Players who are only willing to play odd combinations probably are.
Back to the question: where are you finding these people? Is there some kind of threat of death if someone actually answers?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because when you go on a date you know after the first or even second time the chick is crazy right? That's just one hole in this argument.
>30 years. >1750 miles. Dozens of players. 100% success rate. Something is working there, yes.
No disagreements with any of these. However, I think a DM saying "I do not want Drow/Gunslingers/Buster Swords in my game." should be acceptable. He shouldn't have to have a 10 point dissertation as to why. (He should certainly listen to why a player is requesting such a thing, but a simple "I don't like them/it doesn't fit" should be enough of a reason.)
Where did I ask for a 10 point dissertation?
But I really don't see the harm on asking why the GM or anybody for that matter doesn't like something or it does not fit. As long as you are polite about it and don't push it...and don't do it during the game.
At worst the player will learn how the GM thinks...and be better able to come up with a concept that works with the GM...and the GM will learn about the player also.
At best the GM may realize that is dislike is really no loner valid or even irational or think of a way for them to fit. Or maybe the player will realize there is a problem with what he wants that he did not see before.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, where are you finding all these "bad players" who are so demanding?Well, read up above....
GM: You have necromancy as a forbidden school, I am already stretching to get an evil red wizard into a good party, are you kidding me?Player: It doesn't say it requires necromancy spells
GM: You are turning yourself into an undead. How would it not require necromancy.
Player: But it doesn't say...
And on and on...
He asked "where". He did NOT ask for an example from another poster. It does help to actually read the question.
|
|
that's the mark of a bad player.Again, where are you finding all these "bad players" who are so demanding? I've never had one at the table, past about 3rd grade or so.
On the messageboards, where this conversation is taking place.
And I think 3rd grade level is about where I would describe the behavior.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, where are you finding all these "bad players" who are so demanding?Well, read up above....
GM: You have necromancy as a forbidden school, I am already stretching to get an evil red wizard into a good party, are you kidding me?Player: It doesn't say it requires necromancy spells
GM: You are turning yourself into an undead. How would it not require necromancy.
Player: But it doesn't say...
And on and on...
That is not a demanding player. That is a houserule decided on the spot by the GM and not communicated to players before the game starts. And we all know how these are so good for the game.
I agree though that the player should have privately stated his intent to the GM as soon as he envisioned it.
Ladies and Gentleman, it is now being argued that saying becoming an undead requires necromancy is a houserule made up one the spot and the GM being unfair to the player.
I rest my case with regards to entitled players.
|
|
Players who are only willing to play odd combinations probably are.Back to the question: where are you finding these people? Is there some kind of threat of death if someone actually answers?
Have you read some of the things people say they are entitled to in these threads?
So far a GM can't ban.
- Furries
- Custom Races
- Any races
- Becoming a Lich
etc, etc...
Because you and I have the good sense to never let such people near our gaming tables doesn't mean they don't exist.
Well considering Alchemists can be Liches apparently, it doesn't seem like it actually does.
Unless that was confirmed as a "One time only thing we did because it was cool and doesn't reflect on the actual rules" thing.
Ladies and Gentleman, it is now being argued that saying becoming an undead requires necromancy is a houserule made up one the spot and the GM being unfair to the player.
I rest my case with regards to entitled players.
That has nothing to do with being entitled. The point was that it didn't come up at the start and you had to decide later, and the player had to ask about it. I wasn't there, so I don't know if he was demanding or not. I am against calling him a names or saying it was a stupid idea.
There's more than one way to become Undead. You could do so through making pacts with outsiders, or evil dieties. Sources that aren't you. You could find dozens of ways to do it with DM fiat. The fact you didn't do it was up to you. Fully in your control. No one can force you to go through with that decision.
Who is saying you can't ban those things anyway? You should have a good reason, but I don't see people saying that you just can't.
most fluff issues and compromises can be fixed with reskinning. setting is a poor reason to ban a class because fluff is generally something mutable.
So, the inner sea hasn't had a lot of interaction with Tian Xia in your Golarion?
in your head, Scratch out every instance of the word ninja and replace it with "Chelexian Hellstalker" then proceed to scratch out "Wakazashi" and Write "Hellcat Fang" in your head. a ninja need not be asian.
a DM should accomodate his players, but a compromise should involve both of them working together to justify why this character has those talents in a way that fits the setting.
and a player should have a minimum of 3 backup characters written at an appropriate level in the case of a dice induced mortal accident or a DM rejection.
the compromise is in the fluff. i have no issues with banning one package of mechanics over another. and that is all a race or class is, a a loosely themed package of mechanics.
There's also an implicit assumption here that it's the mechanics that the player wants and the fluff the GM objects to.
It could be either. The player might, for example, want all the ninja fluff including the Japanese analog origins and reskinning it to a Chelaxian assassin doesn't give the player what he wants.
Or the GM may have a problem with the mechanics and however you reskin it that won't change, if it's the mechanics that the player wants to use.
if one wanted the ninja fluff but not the mechanics, because you have some overly restrictive DM who doesn't like swift action invisibility. let me point out the following official base classes that could be reskinned to be ninja like.
- Bard. the easiest ninjalike
- Inquisitor. Second Easiest Ninjalike
- Ranger. 3rd easiest ninjalike
- Alchemist. just reskin your elixirs as chi powers
- Wizard; take a few ninja skills of your choice, take sneaky spells
- Sorcerer; a bit of intelligence will be needed to afford the required skills, human with Sage Bloodline works best.
- Fighter; invest in a decent intelligence, take the tactician archetype for the skills, take crossclass ranks in the appropriate ninja skills
- Monk. has plenty of the needed skills on their skill list, okay at the sneak part, suck at the damage and defense part
- rogue. this is the class that ninja is an archetype for, it gets evasion instead of a Ki Pool and Trapfinding Instead of Poison Use.
- Oracle; invest in a decent Int, invest some cross class ranks in the appropriate skills, works better as a Medic-Nin or a Naruto-nin
- Witch, take a few ninja skills of your choice, take sneaky spells
- Druid; great for emulating naruto sages, see witch and wizard for details
- Magus; take a few ninja skills of your choice, take sneaky spells
i found 13/22 classes that could be tweaked into becoming a ninja with a creative player. 14 if you include the ninja itself. which wasn't listed. if you count alternate classes as archetypes instead of base classes. it becomes 13/19. either way, about 2/3 of the PF classes can call themselves ninja.
Because you and I have the good sense to never let such people near our gaming tables doesn't mean they don't exist.
Missing the point. If it's so freaking easy to avoid them that even you and I (Tweedledum and Tweedledee, if ever they were!) can manage it, then there's really not much excuse for all the whining about them. "I have to be extra-authoritarian and never discuss or compromise, because of all the bad players out to ruin my fun!" becomes a lame excuse, rather than a necessary stance.
The solution to problem players isn't taking a hard line. The solution is simply not to play with jerks. People asking for nonstandard classes, etc. then becomes a non-issue.
|
|
The point is some players, against all reason and logic, will argue with a GM saying that becoming undead requires necromancy.
At my table, the player will later come to their senses, realize they were being a twit, and then we will all laugh about it later.
At other tables, apparently, the GM will be told they must do it.
Because apparently some people on here think that the player is entitled to being able to find a way to do anything they want, exactly as they want, all the time. And that it is the GMs job to make every whim they might have happen, even if it is a really stupid whim.
And trying to play with people like that is going to get really old, really quick for anyone who wants even a modicum of verisimiltude in games they play.
Which is why I don't. And I suspect, why most tables don't.
So in my games, at my tables, neither I as a player or as a GM even need to get to the point where any of us have to argue with someone because the GM said no.
Because anyone who is going to be that much of a pain is screened before they get to the table, and not invited.
And should someone slip through, they aren't invited back.
But when you can't find a game, it's because you are a victim of mean GMs...
|
|
Because you and I have the good sense to never let such people near our gaming tables doesn't mean they don't exist.Missing the point. If it's so freaking easy to avoid them that even you and I (Tweedledum and Tweedledee, if ever they were!) can manage it, then there's really not much excuse for all the whining about them. "I have to be extra-authoritarian and never discuss or compromise, because of all the bad players out to ruin my fun!" becomes a lame excuse, rather than a necessary stance.
We only run home games, we avoid Cons, and we aren't new people trying to find games to get started.
You ran that gauntlet when you were in 3rd grade. I'd rather there be less of a gauntlet of 3rd graders players need to run to find a decent game.
You act as if I was the one who started the fight. I came to both threads to defend the OP from the attacks from the P.E.C.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So in my games, at my tables, neither I as a player or as a GM even need to get to the point where any of us have to argue with someone because the GM said no.
And as I've tried to demonstrate, no one EVER need get to that point at all. So the whole discussion is pointless.
Screen your freaking players, instead of bossing them around. It works better in and out of the game.
The point is some players, against all reason and logic, will argue with a GM saying that becoming undead requires necromancy.
Well... I just said there were other ways to become undead and showed a transmutation spell that does it. Also mentioned DM fiat and conjuration being another road to necromancy. Its not that crazy of an idea. I don't know how that conversation went, but I'm not against someone asking for it and asking why. That can actually be out of innocent curiosity after all, and not require any aggressiveness
At my table, the player will later come to their senses, realize they were being a twit, and then we will all laugh about it later.
Can you not call people we don't know a twit? I think its sort of awkward myself.
Because apparently some people on here think that the player is entitled to being able to find a way to do anything they want, exactly as they want, all the time. And that it is the GMs job to make every whim they might have happen, even if it is a really stupid whim.
And trying to play with people like that is going to get really old, really quick for anyone who wants even a modicum of verisimiltude in games they play.
Which is why I don't. And I suspect, why most tables don't.
This is conjecture. You need to show proof. Can you quote people on this thread doing it for instance? If not its not an example. Its a theory without backing. I know I'm not saying you have to do something. Its very much an exaggeration to say its the gm's job "Make every whim happen" even if its "stupid". Its also very insulting to individuals.
I came to both threads to defend the OP from the attacks from the P.E.C
This comes off as trying to portray everyone else as a conspiracy who knows what a PEC is and yourself as a heroic defender. There isn't a conspiracy and giving people a label only reinforces your own views without fact behind it. Its can easily turn into an excuse. Bad Mojo.
|
|
So in my games, at my tables, neither I as a player or as a GM even need to get to the point where any of us have to argue with someone because the GM said no.And as I've tried to demonstrate, no one EVER need get to that point at all. So the whole discussion is pointless.
Screen your freaking players, instead of bossing them around. It works better in and out of the game.
If you think about it, you are basically banning the entitled player from playing at all, while I am saying "Stop being an entitled player and you won't have a problem finding games with people who play how you want to play."
If anything your solution is more harsh :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So in my games, at my tables, neither I as a player or as a GM even need to get to the point where any of us have to argue with someone because the GM said no.And as I've tried to demonstrate, no one EVER need get to that point at all. So the whole discussion is pointless.
Screen your freaking players, instead of bossing them around. It works better in and out of the game.
If you think about it, you are basically banning the entitled player from playing at all, while I am saying "Stop being an entitled player and you won't have a problem finding games with people who play how you want to play."
If anything your solution is more harsh :)
"You'll listen to me in my games! This is how it will go." post inviting them, or "Hey, you look like the kind of guy who'll join my game. Want to talk about it?" before you start doing anything. I think I prefer Kirth here actually. I find yours more brutal and likely to create issues, and Kirth more likely to get everything out of the way up front.
Edit: Mind you I don't know either of your, your appearance, nor manner of speaking so I'm being entirely hypothetical here. I do of course prefer talking about things beforehand than being told after that it may be a my way or the highway situation.
If you think about it, you are basically banning the entitled player from playing at all
That's a by-product, not the primary goal, though. Mostly, my free time is valuable to me, so I don't like to spend it with people I don't like. For people I do like, I'm VERY willing to hear them out and, you know, compromise with them and even do favors for them and stuff.
That all has a lot more to do with basic personal interaction, and a lot less to do with someone wanting to play a fox-person.
the only people whom are really opposed to the ninja (in my own experience) are people who are too focused on the name "Ninja". in other words, a fluff issue, i never met anyone with a mechanics issue involving them.
so what if the ninja is a better combatant than the rogue?
the rogue needed to be fixed anyway, and the ninja wasn't even enough of a fix. the real problem with both classes, is that they are dependent on a highly situational and easily negatable source of damage while having no way to augment their attack bonus.
an easy fix to the rogue/ninja is to give them a passive +1 to hit per sneak attack die they possess and to make sneak attack an always on ability. if you don't like the name, change it to dirty fighting or whatever.
Fluff can be changed though, much more easily than mechanics. The barbarian class has the rage feature. If I change the label to battle focus it looks much different. I did not destroy the barbarian or the game in any way. If I play a wizard who calls himself a ninja, and who lives as a thief through use of his magic and puts his skill points in stealth and acrobatics, I did not hurt the fluff in any way. If I suddenly decided that rogues deserve +1 attack per sneak attack dice, or that wizards now cast twice as many spells, then I've radically changed the game. We create the fluff after all.
Saying mechanics and balance can be thrown out the window is also maddening. There should a good balance of both mechanics and fluff.
Yes, in other words the Most Important Part of the Game. As LazarX pointed out, the dismissive term 'fluff' is misleading. It suggests that tone and setting and characterization are unimportant next to mechanics, when in fact they're infinitely MORE important than mechanics.
Again, no.
Fluff is necessary.
Specific fluff is not.
If I want to call my Inquisitor a Cleric it changes nothing for you.
mechanics and balance are utterly irrelevant.
Completely incorrect. Without the rules and balance it's just people sitting around and playing a role. The mechanics are what shape the game.
Without the mechanics, you're not playing Pathfinder. Without Pathfinder/Golarion specific fluff you're still playing the same game, just in a new setting.
|
|
If you think about it, you are basically banning the entitled player from playing at allThat's a by-product, not the primary goal, though. Mostly, my free time is valuable to me, so I don't like to spend it with people I don't like. For people I do like, I'm VERY willing to hear them out and, you know, compromise with them and even do favors for them and stuff.
That all has a lot more to do with basic personal interaction, and a lot less to do with someone wanting to play a fox-person.
But the thing is, you give that level of flexibility because of a pre-screening process where the person demonstrated they aren't going to demand something you can't deal with.
You are basically saying you don't like unreasonable players who demand things, so you don't invite them to game with you, so you have no problem.
Which is the same as saying that if you are going to be a pain in the ass, I'm not letting you in my game, and you can't make me.
Which is more or less what I am saying.
If you think about it, you are basically banning the entitled player from playing at allThat's a by-product, not the primary goal, though. Mostly, my free time is valuable to me, so I don't like to spend it with people I don't like. For people I do like, I'm VERY willing to hear them out and, you know, compromise with them and even do favors for them and stuff.
That all has a lot more to do with basic personal interaction, and a lot less to do with someone wanting to play a fox-person.
But the thing is, you give that level of flexibility because of a pre-screening process where the person demonstrated they aren't going to demand something you can't deal with.
You are basically saying you don't like unreasonable players who demand things, so you don't invite them to game with you, so you have no problem.
Which is the same as saying that if you are going to be a pain in the ass, I'm not letting you in my game, and you can't make me.
Which is more or less what I am saying.
Why not phrase this as a question rather than say it as a statement?
I don't think that's exactly what he said myself.
the only people whom are really opposed to the ninja (in my own experience) are people who are too focused on the name "Ninja". in other words, a fluff issue, i never met anyone with a mechanics issue involving them.\
Yes, in other words the Most Important Part of the Game. As LazarX pointed out, the dismissive term 'fluff' is misleading. It suggests that tone and setting and characterization are unimportant next to mechanics, when in fact they're infinitely MORE important than mechanics.
If a player's character concept doesn't fit the TONE of the game, it doesn't belong in the game... mechanics and balance are utterly irrelevant.
i can understand if a character's concept doesn't exist within the setting (like gunslingers in dark sun as an example). but it requires a basic explanation of why it doesn't fit. and "Because i said so." isn't sufficient.
but even though i approve banning gunslingers in dark sun because they are an ill fit for the setting. i wouldn't allow that Same DM to get away with banning Ninja in Golarion. especially when Golarion not only has a "Japan" Analogue. they have an "Assassin's" Analogue and even, "The Chelexian Hellstalkers."
i also have no problem with Obscure PC races, as long as the Player and DM can work together on how the PC from Race X got to Region Y and has class Z. i would even allow a player to (at character creation) design their own organization to justify how they got their class, assuming it wasn't too specific or niche an organization.
If you think about it, you are basically banning the entitled player from playing at allThat's a by-product, not the primary goal, though. Mostly, my free time is valuable to me, so I don't like to spend it with people I don't like. For people I do like, I'm VERY willing to hear them out and, you know, compromise with them and even do favors for them and stuff.
That all has a lot more to do with basic personal interaction, and a lot less to do with someone wanting to play a fox-person.
But the thing is, you give that level of flexibility because of a pre-screening process where the person demonstrated they aren't going to demand something you can't deal with.
You are basically saying you don't like unreasonable players who demand things, so you don't invite them to game with you, so you have no problem.
Which is the same as saying that if you are going to be a pain in the ass, I'm not letting you in my game, and you can't make me.
Which is more or less what I am saying.
The difference is that while Kirth is being reasonable about this topic, you seem to go out of your way to make yourself sound like a self-righteous jerk. And really, if you talk down to every potential player like that (whether the player him/herself is a jerk or not), I can understand why some people here don't agree with your statements or approve of your stance.