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 Ninjas in Golarion, especially when Golarion not only has a "Japan" Analogue, they have an "Assassin's" Analogue and even "The Chelaxian 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.
This, oh so very much.
|
The "Get away with banning" language is exactly the issue.
The GM doesn't "get away" with saying something is excluded from a campaign, they decide it is not included in the campaign.
If I am running a Shoanti Campaign, and I say "Hey, in this campaign I want everyone to start off as Shoanti in a Shoanti village" and you say "I want to be a Gnome Ninja" you have completely ignored the outline provided.
The GM didn't "Get away" with "Banning" your concept. Your concept ignored the described campaign plan.
Because something "could" exist doesn't mean you are entitled to play it in any campaign that the GM is running.
And I'm actually quite glad the last few posts have come up, because I hope it will stop the counter argument of "No one is saying a GM has to..." stuff.
Because that is EXACTLY what is being argued for from some people.
You are adding extra baggage to the topic and intentionally misinterpreting what Lumiere had said.
Could you please read other people's posts with more thought next time? It kinda goes with proper communication.
|
|
You are adding extra baggage to the topic and intentionally misinterpreting what Lumiere had said.
Could you please read other people's posts with more thought next time? It kinda goes with proper communication.
I did.
The GM can ban whatever they want for whatever reason they want, period, full stop.
If I think you suck at playing Paladins, I can say "No, you can't play a Paladin." I could add "Because you suck at Paladins" at which point I would be a jerk, but just saying "No, you can't play a Paladin" is sufficient, perhaps with some alternative suggestions included to help guide the character toward something that would be allowed.
Why? Because I am going to have to run a game with your character in it, and if I think your character idea is dumb or you aren't able to play that concept with irritating me and/or the rest of the table, I should not be forced to have to run it in a game, in the same way if a player thinks my setting idea is dumb, that player is not and should not be forced to play in it.
The GM doesn't have to let anyone into the game they are offering to run. The player doesn't have to play in a game just because a GM is running it.
Kirth is saying he would never let anyone he doesn't like even come to his table, so he is saying that if you are among friends you should try to work things out with them as best you can to accommodate.
I agree. And so I don't game with anyone so selfish and demanding that they insist I must include whatever they pull out of their butt in a campaign.
You are saying I should do this for everyone.
I disagree completely.
My GMs have rejected more of my concepts than I can count, and looking back he was right every single time. Why? Because he actually knows what is going to happen in the game and he can see pitfalls and problems with concepts that I can't.
Now if you are in a game where mechanics trump making sense, that is wonderful. Have fun! The game is meant to be fun, and if however you are playing it is fun, that is wonderful.
But you aren't entitled to expect everyone in the world to accommodate you or your personal preferences.
I did.
I don't believe you.
The GM can ban whatever they want for whatever reason they want, period, full stop.
He can? Yes. Should he do so every time? Probably not.
If I think you suck at playing Paladins, I can say "No, you can't play a Paladin." I could add "Because you suck at Paladins" at which point I would be a jerk, but just saying "No, you can't play a Paladin" is sufficient, perhaps with some alternative suggestions included to help guide the character toward something that would be allowed.
Why does he suck at Paladins? And why aren't you going to try and teach him how not to suck at one instead of just outright banning it?
Why? Because I am going to have to run a game with your character in it, and if I think your character idea is dumb or you aren't able to play that concept with irritating me and/or the rest of the table, I should not be forced to have to run it in a game, in the same way if a player thinks my setting idea is dumb, that player is not and should not be forced to play in it.
And same goes for the players. If I have to put up with your boring and dumb ideas, I'd rather walk off and find a DM that better suits my tastes. This happened with my former DM, and I suspect it has happened to you as well.
The GM doesn't have to let anyone into the game they are offering to run. The player doesn't have to play in a game just because a GM is running it.
This I agree with. Though what does it say about the GM if 9 out of 10 groups walk off from his table?
Kirth is saying he would never let anyone he doesn't like even come to his table, so he is saying that if you are among friends you should try to work things out with them as best you can to accommodate.
And I game with friends, so that's not been a problem. None of them wanted to gut me for wanting to play a custom race. Me and my former DM used to be friends, but his attitude took a turn for the worse at some part, which also reflected well in how he ran a game.
I agree. And so I don't game with anyone so selfish and demanding that they insist I must include whatever they pull out of their butt in a campaign.
Saying about how bad the players are yet never admitting one's own faults is mighty suspicious behaviour.
You are saying I should do this for everyone.
I disagree completely.
You are putting words in my mouth and probably doing the same to other people. STOP IT.
My GMs have rejected more of my concepts than I can count, and looking back he was right every single time. Why? Because he actually knows what is going to happen in the game and he can see pitfalls and problems with concepts that I can't.
The amount of things you allow or ban doesn't directly say how good a DM you are. It affects it to a limited extent, though.
Now if you are in a game where mechanics trump making sense, that is wonderful. Have fun! The game is meant to be fun, and if however you are playing it is fun, that is wonderful.
The bolded part reeks of elitism. Don't fake cheers towards other people's games when you really wished they played like you did.
But you aren't entitled to expect everyone in the world to accommodate you or your personal preferences.
Same goes for you, bro.
|
|
And you used bold...
So my needing to "teach" someone how to play a Paladin doesn't "reek of elitism" but my saying "Play something else" does.
I like how the GM is supposed to be patronizing, but not exclude anyone in your world.
Also, since you are saying I don't read things, let me show you something.
This is what I said
"Why? Because I am going to have to run a game with your character in it, and if I think your character idea is dumb or you aren't able to play that concept with irritating me and/or the rest of the table, I should not be forced to have to run it in a game, in the same way if a player thinks my setting idea is dumb, that player is not and should not be forced to play in it."
This is your response.
"And same goes for the players. If I have to put up with your boring and dumb ideas, I'd rather walk off and find a DM that better suits my tastes. This happened with my former DM, and I suspect it has happened to you as well."
EDIT: I actually laughed out loud when I read your response, btw.
I stopped laughing when I realized you're being serious about your stance.
Actually, I can laugh at you once more. You shift goalposts, put words in other people's mouths and insult others indirectly and laugh at other people's responses to you in regards to the topic. How am I supposed to take you seriously? Even if we agreed on one thing, I still cannot agree with your stance as a whole.
Edit: If you can be so passionate about mocking other people's stances in regards to Pathfinder, what's stopping me from assuming you wouldn't do the same regarding video games, sports, writing, etc...
|
|
Actually, I can laugh at you once more. You shift goalposts, put words in other people's mouths and insult others indirectly and laugh at other people's responses to you. How am I supposed to take you seriously?
What is funny is you are attempting to deflect and shift goalposts with this post, because you just said exactly what I've been saying since the beginning.
If a player thinks a GMs idea is dumb, for any reason, they aren't forced to play it.
If a GM thinks a players idea is dumb, for any reason, they shouldn't be forced to run it.
You literally just said the first part, in response to me saying the exact same thing, and now you are trying to dance around because otherwise you have to admit you...*gasp*...agree with me.
|
|
Actually, I can laugh at you once more. You shift goalposts, put words in other people's mouths and insult others indirectly and laugh at other people's responses to you in regards to the topic. How am I supposed to take you seriously? Even if we agreed on one thing, I still cannot agree with your stance as a whole.
Edit: If you can be so passionate about mocking other people's stances in regards to Pathfinder, what's stopping me from assuming you wouldn't do the same regarding video games, sports, writing, etc...
Who said I'm passionate. I'm doing these things while on the phone half the time. Lots of time on hold in my job.
Actually, I can laugh at you once more. You shift goalposts, put words in other people's mouths and insult others indirectly and laugh at other people's responses to you. How am I supposed to take you seriously?What is funny is you are attempting to deflect and shift goalposts with this post, because you just said exactly what I've been saying since the beginning.
If a player thinks a GMs idea is dumb, for any reason, they aren't forced to play it.
If a GM thinks a players idea is dumb, for any reason, they shouldn't be forced to run it.
You literally just said the second part, in response to me saying the exact same thing, and now you are trying to dance around because otherwise you have to admit you...*gasp*...agree with me.
I agree with you on that end. There's no questioning that, and no need to dance around it. If the idea is disliked by one side or the other, then tough s***, time to pack the stuff and leave the table. However, I continue to disagree with you on the whole "Communication between player and DM" part because that's where apparently that is where things really start getting messy. I agree with what Lumiere and Kirth had said, but not with what you have been saying in regards to that specific topic.
But hey, I'm apparently a terrible DM if I let my player reskin his Ninja instead of banning the class outright!
Who said I'm passionate. I'm doing these things while on the phone half the time. Lots of time on hold in my job.Actually, I can laugh at you once more. You shift goalposts, put words in other people's mouths and insult others indirectly and laugh at other people's responses to you in regards to the topic. How am I supposed to take you seriously? Even if we agreed on one thing, I still cannot agree with your stance as a whole.
Edit: If you can be so passionate about mocking other people's stances in regards to Pathfinder, what's stopping me from assuming you wouldn't do the same regarding video games, sports, writing, etc...
Who knows? You seem to respond pretty fast for someone claiming to be lax about this.
|
|
Where have I said "The GM shouldn't communicate with the player to come up with a solution"
Point to that post.
What I have said is that if the GM doesn't think the concept works, they don't need to allow it. And that "I don't want to run a game with that concept" is enough of a reason for a GM to reject a concept.
Where have I said "The GM shouldn't communicate with the player to come up with a solution"
Point to that post.
What I have said is that if the GM doesn't think the concept works, they don't need to allow it. And that "I don't want to run a game with that concept" is enough of a reason for a GM to reject a concept.
From what I've seen, you've been heavily implying it on multiple occasions. I doubt I am the only one seeing such.
I still disagree with the latter part. Surely it's not too audacious to ask a friend why he/she dislikes the concept you like?
|
|
Where have I said "The GM shouldn't communicate with the player to come up with a solution"
Point to that post.
What I have said is that if the GM doesn't think the concept works, they don't need to allow it. And that "I don't want to run a game with that concept" is enough of a reason for a GM to reject a concept.
From what I've seen, you've been heavily implying it on multiple occasions. I doubt I am the only one seeing such.
I still disagree with the latter part. Surely it's not too audacious to ask a friend why he/she dislikes the concept you like?
Point. To. A. Post.
You can't, because I haven't said it.
Your argument would be correct if I had said it. But I didn't. So it isn't.
My friend isn't going to ask me to allow something in the game that I'm not interested in running. My friend is going to try and come up with things that will make the game fun for all of us.
That is why I game with my friend, and not a jerk.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Near as I can tell what Kirth has been saying is that he's never seen it so no one actually has any problems with this unless they're a horrible mean authoritarian GM. <Slight exaggeration>
No, I'd say your reading comprehension needs a lot more work than your DMing, to be honest. I'm saying I've never seen it -- not because of my DMing style -- but because for my home game I don't pick players willy-nilly out of a dumpster or crack house or elementary school, the way I'm led to believe that many people here do.
Therefore I don't have these problems.
Therefore, I don't have to be a dick.
In this case, cause and effect are 1-directional.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The strength of your pre-game screening process for players/DMs is inverseley proportional to the strength of player/DM problems you will face in game. The more care you put into selecting your players/DM, the less problem you may have later.
I think this is what Kirth is saying.
EDIT: Or even more simply: "Don't play with jerks."
The strength of your pre-game screening process for players/DMs is directly proportionate to the strength of player/DM problems you will face in game.
"Inverseley proportional," but, yes, you've got the gist of it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fixed mum.
To add to this, I do not understand folks who 'play just to play', with jerks or other disruptive or generally asshat-ish people, just for playing's sake. I understand the itch to RP, but it has to be in a good game, with good friends or it isn't worth it.
It's not a good use of my already limited free time to be frustrated or pissed for 4 or 5 hours. I already have that sometimes. It's called 'work'.
|
|
The strength of your pre-game screening process for players/DMs is inverseley proportional to the strength of player/DM problems you will face in game. The more care you put into selecting your players/DM, the less problem you may have later.
I think this is what Kirth is saying.
EDIT: Or even more simply: "Don't play with jerks."
Because I am me, I have to point out that implicit in this statement is that people who cause problems for GMs are jerks. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nope, I was careful to say players/DMs. Both sides.
DMs looking for players, or players looking for DMs to run for them.
1 jerk in either role can ruin it for the rest of the group.
Implicit should be that people who cause problems at the gaming table are jerks :)
Because I am me, I have to point out that implicit in this statement is that people who cause problems for GMs are jerks. :)The strength of your pre-game screening process for players/DMs is inverseley proportional to the strength of player/DM problems you will face in game. The more care you put into selecting your players/DM, the less problem you may have later.
I think this is what Kirth is saying.
EDIT: Or even more simply: "Don't play with jerks."
I wonder if you only play with yourself, clones of yourself, or a legion of sycophants, because not everyone in the world can share your tastes, even if they were your friends. Also, do you automatically assume that there is no such thing as a bad GM because only players can be the jerks? Because really, what Kryzbyn just said is far more believable than your somewhat absurd claim.
To add to this, I do not understand folks who 'play just to play', with jerks or other disruptive or generally asshat-ish people, just for playing's sake. I understand the itch to RP, but it has to be in a good game, with good friends or it isn't worth it.
It's not a good use of my already limited free time to be frustrated or pissed for 4 or 5 hours. I already have that sometimes. It's called 'work'.
I used to think that I'd never find another GM, which is why I stuck around with my former GM so long. That, and I thought he'd eventually listen to his players instead of whipping them around until one of them quit D&D altogether (which would be the case with my childhood friend, who used to play with me in said group until she had enough of him). I learned my lesson eventually and haven't gone back since, though he seems to think I'd come crawling back to him judging from the fact that he called me and told me about his 4th or so campaign setting a few weeks back.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm bothered by the idea that people who question the GM are jerks myself. What's up with that?
Edit: Arguing that someone's idea was stupid to begin with is awful I think. Harsh language is entirely unneeded, and it might not have been to them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm bothered by the idea that GMs that question the players are jerks, myself. What's up with that?
Ciretose has this bad habit of interpreting everything I say as negatively as possible.
I figured it's only fair to do the same to him. And yeah, both sides can have jerks, there's no denying that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ciretose has this bad habit of interpreting everything I say as negatively as possible.
I figured it's only fair to do the same to him. And yeah, both sides can have jerks, there's no denying that.
To be fair, that negative interpretation is pretty one-sided, and not on ciretose's side of the fence.
But, hey, if you're aiming for another threadlock, you're dead-on.
|
|
Ciretose has this bad habit of interpreting everything I say as negatively as possible.
I figured it's only fair to do the same to him. And yeah, both sides can have jerks, there's no denying that.
Still waiting for you to point to a post.
Kirth can correct me if I am wrong, but he seems to be saying "Don't game with Jerks"
That means don't game with a GM who is going to run an scenario you won't enjoy playing AND don't play with players who are entitled and play the victim card.
But I expect this to be read as "YOU WANT TO KILL MAH PUPPY!"
I'm bothered by the idea that GMs that question the players are jerks, myself. What's up with that?
Who is saying that? Making things up is not helpful. Ciretose however did call his own player a twit. He did however say his idea was stupid. That's just insulting, and its not helpful.
The player and the GM have a right to question each other. People have a right to feel comfortable in a situation and ask questions. What if and can I are a part of that. If the player can expect to be called stupid and if the excuse is that his idea was stupid then something is wrong.
Expectations != rights.
Ciretose has this bad habit of interpreting everything I say as negatively as possible.
I figured it's only fair to do the same to him. And yeah, both sides can have jerks, there's no denying that.
Still waiting for you to point to a post.
Kirth can correct me if I am wrong, but he seems to be saying "Don't game with Jerks"
That means don't game with a GM who is going to run an scenario you won't enjoy playing AND don't play with players who are entitled and play the victim card.
But I expect this to be read as "YOU WANT TO KILL MAH PUPPY!"
...and since we can both agree on this, why didn't you make that clear in the first place? I didn't see this in your earlier posts.
If the player can expect to be called stupid and if the excuse is that his idea was stupid then something is wrong.
Yes. But it's quite possible that what was wrong is that a stupid player produced a stupid idea, which was correctly labelled as such by the game master.
While it may be rude and insulting to be called "stupid," that doesn't mean that it's the wrong label.
Who said I'm passionate. I'm doing these things while on the phone half the time. Lots of time on hold in my job.Actually, I can laugh at you once more. You shift goalposts, put words in other people's mouths and insult others indirectly and laugh at other people's responses to you in regards to the topic. How am I supposed to take you seriously? Even if we agreed on one thing, I still cannot agree with your stance as a whole.
Edit: If you can be so passionate about mocking other people's stances in regards to Pathfinder, what's stopping me from assuming you wouldn't do the same regarding video games, sports, writing, etc...
Glad I am not the only one. :P
But it's quite possible that what was wrong is that a stupid player produced a stupid idea, which was correctly labelled as such by the game master. While it may be rude and insulting to be called "stupid," that doesn't mean that it's the wrong label.
Note only "rude" and "insulting," but also stupid in and of itself, if you're seriously calling your friends that and expect to keep them. Or are we back to playing with people we can't stand anyway?
But it's quite possible that what was wrong is that a stupid player produced a stupid idea
Of course, it's also possible a smart player comes up with a stupid idea
Stay with us here...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The player and the GM have a right to question each other. People have a right to feel comfortable in a situation and ask questions.
And I don't think there's anyone (or very many people) that are endorsing the opposite of this.
The real gripe is that people seem to think they're entitled to a thesis on why the GM made his/her decision.
Nobody really seems to be endorsing the idea that the GM providing an explanation is a bad thing, simply that, the GM doesn't have to provide an explanation.
Unfortunately, there's a cabal that seem to want to take personal offense to everything, and have continually championed the idea that a GM that doesn't want to provide an explanation is being disrespectful and rude, which is a complete load of nonsense.
The foundation of the game is communication. I think the rational ones amongst us understand that, but we also understand that, SOMETIMES, we're not going to get or provide an explanation for certain decisions, and we need to accept that, or find another place to play.
OMG add pigshit to the filter!
I flagged me.
Right? Self-edited, I figured the filter would catch it, but, hey.
(1) The foundation of the game is communication. (2) We also understand that SOMETIMES we're not going to get or provide an explanation.
Since (2) runs directly counter to (1), I'd think you'd want to make the "sometimes" as infrequent as possible, rather than make it a default condition.
I think more importantly, that even if explanations are given, they aren't ever complete enough for some folks.
If I banned summoners from my games, the reason being that tons of folks on there very boards have all had trouble with them, the response is usually, well you should try it for yourself! You didn't read it! You don't know for sure!
I don't have to know. I just said no.
Mechanics being the reason why I would say no, not the fluff.
(1) The foundation of the game is communication. (2) We also understand that SOMETIMES we're not going to get or provide an explanation.Since (2) runs directly counter to (1), I'd think you'd want to make the "sometimes" as infrequent as possible, rather than make it a default condition.
This is what I was trying to say ^^
I think more importantly, that even if explanations are given, they aren't ever complete enough for some folks.
If I banned summoners from my games, the reason being that tons of folks on there very boards have all had trouble with them, the response is usually, well you should try it for yourself! You didn't read it! You don't know for sure! I don't have to know. I just said no.
Mechanics being the reason why I would say no, not the fluff.
Would you be upset if a DM allowed someone to play one?
I can understand if nobody knew how to play the class and then wanna try it, but if the guy really does know how to play one and has successfully played them before, I see less reason in the ban. Not saying you are bad for banning them, but just that these kinda things need context.
Yeah, it is ok to call an idea stupid, but usually not a good idea to call a person stupid. It tends to dead end alot of conversations.
In regards to where do people pick up some of these people who tend to cause drama(GMs/Players). I do have a story about that. I came across it when I took up the hobby again after a decade hiatus. An old friend invited me to his group and there was a guy there that I am surprised that they put up with. He was argumentative, he was mean, and he cheated (after a situation arose where he was no longer with the table, I found out he stole from other people, little things and big things).
I wondered why people were willing to put up with it. Now, I never got any of it, so I just figured when in Rome. When I asked for a turn to DM Pathfinder, he disagreed with a ruling that I made. (I knew I was right as it was written in the book that way.) Where he began to yell and sulk. I didn't put up with this behavior and basically told the group that I was not interesting in DMing with this group of people. This pulled some of them away and we ended up reforming and continuing the campaign minus some of the socially inept people. Now that there is a new social group norm, it is easier to screen people before they come in.
(I guess the main thrust of my post is that sometimes we have to enter certain social situations blind and get a read before we can tailor to meet our needs. I can see a discussion between how a GM and player compromise as one of those norms that need to be established by the group.)
(1) The foundation of the game is communication. (2) We also understand that SOMETIMES we're not going to get or provide an explanation.Since (2) runs directly counter to (1), I'd think you'd want to make the "sometimes" as infrequent as possible, rather than make it a default condition.
I can't say that I disagree. Is anyone disputing that?