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.
I would not be upset if some other Dm allowed a summoner at his table.
Well, I don't have random people at my table, so I know who's played what up to this point. So, that's not an issue.
It was a hypothetical anyway. I don't ban summoners.
|
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!"
Is "a GM who is going to run an scenario you won't enjoy playing" automatically a jerk?
See previous point about not all conflicts require jerks.
I'm not taking Kirth's position, I'm discussing what Kryzbyn said was Kirth's position, which was "Don't play with jerks" because I am pointing out it still implies what I am saying about some people are jerks.
Because it does. Because they are.
Kirth's position seems to be "Pick people who are your friends, and these things don't happen, because you presumably your friends are reasonable people, by however you define reasonable."
And for the most part, he is right.
However this is not mutually exclusive to situations where you didn't pick the people sitting down, or you misjudged the people sitting down, or that you are a jerk, and so unsurprisingly so are your friends.
My position is "Hey jackass, stop being a jackass. If you are a GM who is trying to make people play something they don't want to play, stop doing that. You are being a jackass. If it is a player trying to force a GM to run something they don't want to run, stop doing that. You are being a jackass."
Kirth seems to be saying "Don't play with jerks and this doesn't happen"
I am saying "Don't be a jerk and you won't have to play with jerks, because nice and reasonable people will actually let you into games full of nice and reasonable people."
Our positions are completely compatible.
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.
Our expectations are different here. You just made a speech about communication then said sometimes its okay not to communicate. I think it should always be an option. You don't need a thesis or longwinded explanation, but just not giving anything is rather rude. There'd a good way to let people down at least, I'm sure, but I am against a lack of communication.
Under what circumstances should a person get no explanation for a decision? At best I can think of when its meta to the story and you don't want to do any big reveals outside of it, but if you just said "important to the story" that's an explanation in itself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"I don't like that idea, what else have you got"
If the player is your friend, presumably his/her opinion counts for something, too -- so I assume in real life you'd explain why his idea doesn't fit, instead of giving the reply you just did.
"I don't like that idea, what else have you got"
That's akin to saying you don't like the person. "I don't feel comfortable having this at the table" or "I'm not sure how other people will feel about this" is better. Possibly "That doesn't mesh well with the rest of the party". You also get a follow up question. "Why don't you like it?" because your response was vague and leaves a lot to interpretation.
So... What do you say when they ask "Why don't you like it?"
Our expectations are different here. You just made a speech about communication then said sometimes its okay not to communicate.
Correct.
I think it should always be an option. You don't need a thesis or longwinded explanation, but just not giving anything is rather rude. There'd a good way to let people down at least, I'm sure, but I am against a lack of communication.
Rude implies malice where none exists.
Under what circumstances should a person get no explanation for a decision? At best I can think of when its meta to the story and you don't want to do any big reveals outside of it, but if you just said "important to the story" that's an explanation in itself.
But, what if your very reason is that it's story-related, and by providing that explanation, you spoil a surprise? There's a very valid reason right there to defend a lack of explanation.
Like I said - I'm not (nor, do I believe, is anyone else) advocating that not providing an explanation be standard behavior - just that it sometimes is acceptable, that it's not rude, it's not disrespectful, and, sometimes, you just have to accept that you're not going to be provided an explanation.
Like I said - I'm not (nor, do I believe, is anyone else) advocating that not providing an explanation be standard behavior - just that it sometimes is acceptable, that it's not rude, it's not disrespectful, and, sometimes, you just have to accept that you're not going to be provided an explanation.
Agree to disagree. I don't think we disagree that much really.
|
|
"I don't like that idea, what else have you got"If the player is your friend, presumably his/her opinion counts for something, too -- so I assume in real life you'd explain why his idea doesn't fit, instead of giving the reply you just did.
In our games we all generally give the GM about 3 or 4 ideas by e-mail before we start rolling dice so we can get concept feedback before we start digging into anything.
So normally, no we just say "That one works, that one doesn't"
In the unlikely event none of the 3 or 4 concepts work, then more feedback is given.
The GM usually takes the ideas from everyone so they can try to guide everyone together with concepts that will actually work as a party.
Once we have a party, we all talk to each other about how we can find ways to make the concepts interact with each other better, so we all have lots and lots of motivations to be a party. Not to mention synergies.
It is a team game, after all.
|
|
As an example, the most recent campaign I joined started with a GM sending out an email saying he wanted to run a either a Land of the Linnorm Kings or Shackles campaign, send interest and feedback.
He got more Linnorm than Shackles interest, and asked for concepts, saying he would decide if we were on a boat or land based on what he got back.
I sent 'First choice Dwarf Inquisitor of Torag, 2nd choice Human Ranger who wants to join the Black Ravens eventually, 3rd choice Storm druid of some sort (if we are on a boat) and I'm open to just being a viking berserker if someone else doesn't want to go that way and we need one.'
He asked a few follow up questions to make sure the dwarf was going to fit in with a party of humans traveling around, and I said the concept was all about going from place to place teaching dumb humans how to build proper defenses
Concept approved, game on.
EDIT: Once I rolled dice and got more backstory fluff approved
"I don't like that idea, what else have you got"
I am not going to say this is a rude response...the problem is that it gives me nothing to work with. So either you get a very long sting of concepts that you don't like...or you can explain it a little bit and aviod this.
Heck I might just tweak the idea alittle bit a few dozen times just to figure it out.
These discussion about campaigns and character concepts should be a exchange of idea...only a apathic reaction would be a barren response.
Again I don't consider this a rude response...as I would not consider
"What don't you like about it?"
rude also.
|
|
"I don't like that idea, what else have you got"I am not going to say this is a rude response...the problem is that it gives me nothing to work with. So either you get a very long sting of concepts that you don't like...or you can explain it a little bit and aviod this.
Heck I might just tweak the idea alittle bit a few dozen times just to figure it out.
These discussion about campaigns and character concepts should be a exchange of idea...only a apathic reaction would be a barren response.
Again I don't consider this a rude response...as I would not consider
"What don't you like about it?"
rude also.
And it isn't rude. It only becomes rude when you insist I like it and insist allow it into the game, and call my spiteful, etc...if I don't change my mind.
|
|
Though in the context of players be expected to present several ideas, it doesn't seem so bad. Why waste too much time hashing out all the issues of my first concept when the second one might fit just right.
If none of my ideas work, then we need to start digging into why.If you're already set on one idea, then I can see why the blunt dismissal doesn't seem right.
And I would argue being "set" on one idea, and one idea alone is the opposite of being creative.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Set is the right word. I keep hearing about how creative people are, and how GMs are stifling creativity.
How creative are you if you can only come up with one concept?
And if you can come up with more than one concept, how stubborn and self centered are you to demand any single concept be allowed?
And it isn't rude. It only becomes rude when you insist I like it and insist allow it into the game, and call my spiteful, etc...if I don't change my mind.
No one says you have to like it or allow it in your game. Whatever "it" is. It can easily become rude depending on how you reject an ideal however. Doing it because you don't like them or you think their idea is stupid could easily become something spiteful.
Set is the right word. I keep hearing about how creative people are, and how GMs are stifling creativity.
How creative are you if you can only come up with one concept?
And if you can come up with more than one concept, how stubborn and self centered are you to demand any single concept be allowed?
One idea can be very creative. Doesn't have to be right for you. Usually I don't have 11 ideas at a time that I really want. I have lots of ideas yeah, but most of mine I throw away and keep the good ones so I only really have a few I want that I've had over a period of time.
The fact they can come up with more doesn't excuse throwing away the first of course. I'd like to treat all ideas as precious myself, but YMMV. There is a nice way to let someone down on something if there is a problem with it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The ones you think are good. If someone else doesn't think they are good...
Then you freaking talk it over. In the post-Enlightenment free world, one person -- DM or player or anyone else -- doesn't get to unilaterally tell another person that "my opinion is better than yours" and not be considered something of an asshat.
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."Actually I could easily justify banning Ninja and the other Eastern character types for a Golarion campaign if the campaign specs are on the order of.
"I'm creating a campaign for Andoran characters." Or substitute any other homogenous region that's not Tian Xia.
You missed the point entirely. The ninja class is not eastern only. You can take off the label and call it assassin and it wouldn't change the class but you could easily change the fluff. An assassin who uses poisons and has a variety of skills doesn't sound different than any assassins I know. The ki could be relabeled as guile or focus if you have a problem with that(Ki doesn't even use any sort of wacky magic stuffs). Bombs are pretty mundane and I'm shocked they weren't part of the rogue package.
Don't let the names get to you. Samurai and ninja aren't eastern only. They don't have class specific features that require them to be from an eastern country. Beyond the name they have nothing to do with anything eastern. They could've easily been rogue or cavalier archetypes.
If you have a problem with the fluff of a pajama wearing ninja you should probably discuss that at character creation. No need to ban the class when you can just ask them to wear something more than black pajamas. If they had another name you might never have a problem with them in a non eastern setting at all.
|
|
The ones you think are good. If someone else doesn't think they are good...Then you freaking talk it over. In the post-Enlightenment free world, one person -- DM or player or anyone else -- doesn't get to unilaterally tell another person that "my opinion is better than yours" and not be considered something of an asshat.
The GM is saying "That doesn't work"
The GM isn't picking your character for you, the GM is excluding ideas that they don't feel like running.
The player is telling the GM that the GMs opinion doesn't matter when they refuse to come up with more than one possible idea.
The player is saying "My way or the highway" by refusing to consider any other option.
And yes, I know neither of us would play with an asshat like that, that isn't the point of this discussion.
The point of this discussion, for me, is to tell everyone who only brings one idea to the table and feels like the GM is victimizing them if they don't like their little snowflake that they are not victims, they are simply people either too lazy, uncreative, or selfish to come up with a menu of choices rather than trying to ram a single idea into a place it don't fit.
|
|
I think you're missing my point. I'm not talking about the pathological cases of "Let me play my pet concept or I will ragequit and scream and rant and hate you forever."Set is the right word. I keep hearing about how creative people are, and how GMs are stifling creativity.
How creative are you if you can only come up with one concept?
And if you can come up with more than one concept, how stubborn and self centered are you to demand any single concept be allowed?
But that is what I am talking about. The person who says "You have to accept my furry or you are prejudiced" or "But all I want to play is a ninja" or "All my characters have luchadore masks" or "I always play custom races"
Those are the people I am talking about. They exist, on these messageboards, and they are proselytizing about how mean GMs are for not realizing the genius of their drow noble infinite wish machine.
And I am saying "No kids, don't listen to those people. If your GM says no, they aren't being spiteful or mean. Not everything you do or say is gold plated wonder to everyone. Be flexible with authority figures, and your life will be much easier."
|
|
Dude, go back and read the thread.
The discussion hasn't been "Should the GM just shoot down ideas without discussion, compromise, or explanation."
The discussion has been "Why can't the GM find a way to fit my idea in, it is the GMs job to accommodate me. I am too creative to come up with more than one idea, so the GM needs to compromise, in the sense they need to do what I want."
Repeating myself, as what others have said I am saying seems to have drown out what I've actually said (still waiting for Icy to point to a post...)
The GM can't be a GM unless 4 or more people decided they liked the idea the GM had for a campaign and agreed to play in it.
Unless the GM is GMing for his cat.
The GM should post an idea of what type of campaign they are running, including something that provides an idea of what they are looking for in character creation.
If you ignore that, you aren't a victim. If the GM says "Not what I am looking for" they aren't spiteful, they are trying to point you in a direction to create a character they think will work in the game they are running.
Because, you know, they are running it.
If you can't come up with more than one idea, you aren't being creative.
If you take the GM saying "that doesn't work" personally, you are being ridiculous and over sensitive.
If you don't get to play the exact thing you want in this particular game, so what? Grow up and make something that does fit or don't play.
The GM is trying to make a game that works for 4 people, and themselves.
If you aren't actively working to help them meet that goal, you aren't a victim, you are a source of difficulty.
|
|
If you bring me a furry luchadore ninja for a setting for a non-comedy type game and you don't understand why I am saying no, I don't believe any amount of explanation is going to work.
It is kind of like when Justin Bieber commented about Anne Frank being a "Bieleber" and was shocked at people being offended.
If you are so far off in your own little world that you can't see the problem, you either aren't capable of, or are just not making any effort to try to work with the other people at the table.
That part needs to be addressed first.
Sometimes you just say no, because there is no way to get from the furry luchadore ninja to acceptable in most peoples games. They can find a game that will take that, maybe, if they are patient and find like minded people. But I'm going to be investing a lot of time and effort into the game, so is everyone else at the table, and if we are starting off here, where are we going?
If it is something that can be adjusted, of course you try to work with the player to adjust it. Small things can be fixed quickly and easily.
But sometimes you can't. Sometimes you just need to say no, pick something else. And that is ok. It isn't spiteful, it is practical.
If you say it before the player gets to the table, by not allowing them into your group, how is that any less "elitist" than saying it after giving them a shot to propose something?
Sometimes no explanation is best way to move past a concept and try and find a new one. Because I'm not letting the luchadore ninja in, no matter what skin you put on it. Let it go and move on.
Unless of course, it is a campaign with luchadore ninjas.
If you bring me a furry luchadore ninja for a setting for a non-comedy type game and you don't understand why I am saying no, I don't believe any amount of explanation is going to work.
So would you be okay with a Kitsune Tetori/Ninja multiclass who wears a mask, but is completely seriously played?
holy crap I come back to like 120 posts...cliffs for pages 7-9?
I dunno, I kinda skimmed it too.
Basically Ciretose talking about Furry Ninja Luchadores and how every unwanted character is at the same level of ridiculousness as that or some such.
Of course I didn't read it either so there's a 90% chance of this post being completely false.
This is adorable.The ones you think are good. If someone else doesn't think they are good...Then you freaking talk it over. In the post-Enlightenment free world, one person -- DM or player or anyone else -- doesn't get to unilaterally tell another person that "my opinion is better than yours" and not be considered something of an asshat.
What's adorable about it?
Edit: Yeah, I wish that wasn't the example. I'd like us all to keep away from exaggeration. Its harder to take the argument seriously when it happens. Mask-wearing Kitsune Tetori/ninja actually sounds much more sane that luchador. Maybe I imagine cooler masks in my head for that combo.
Again, the issue isn't really that I can't play a Kitsune, or a Gunslinger, or even something more basic like a Bard.
The problem comes when there's no reasoning behind it besides that you arbitrarily don't like a certain thing.
I can't play a Kitsune because they're extinct, never existed, are the primary antagonists, whatever? Cool, I'll make something else.
I can't play a Gunslinger because there's no gunpowder, you think the class is broken/overpowered, I'll be hunted as some kind of blasphemous hellspawn by well intentioned extremist priests? Okay, whatever.
I can't play a Bard because Devils took over the world and their first order of business was to kill all entertainers and continue to murder any they find? Better than okay: A cool plothook, I'll make something else.
But something about "I, for some undefined reason, have a mild dislike fr this class/race/concept so you can't play it" irks me.
Though in the context of players be expected to present several ideas, it doesn't seem so bad. Why waste too much time hashing out all the issues of my first concept when the second one might fit just right.
If none of my ideas work, then we need to start digging into why.If you're already set on one idea, then I can see why the blunt dismissal doesn't seem right.
Well I personaly don't throw out a concept. Or might really perfer to play my first choice or any number of reasons.
If I say I wanted to play a Catfolk Bard Dervish as my number one concept.
And I get a response of "No I don't like it"
Well ask why will let me know if
1) If The GM just does not like furries than I won't include it as a option the next campaign.
2) If GM says I don't like that archetype than I can change the class and still retain the concept...than I can play my first choice.
3) If the GM says it does not work for this campaign...than I know I can keep suggesting as a possible concept in the future.
And I would argue being "set" on one idea, and one idea alone is the opposite of being creative.
Understand this....you are stiffling somebodys creativity when you veto a character concept. Sure you might being doing it for all the right reasons...but stop lieing to yourself about it. And yes my position has always been the GM has that right(or the group).
Also if somebody can create one concept they are still being creative...maybe not as much say as somebody who can come with a million. And as you say no you are stiffling their creativity...just because they have little does not mean you are not stiffling it.
Also somebody who has one concept might just have problem focusing on more than one concept...which has nothing to do creativity.
Again, the issue isn't really that I can't play a Kitsune, or a Gunslinger, or even something more basic like a Bard.
The problem comes when there's no reasoning behind it besides that you arbitrarily don't like a certain thing.
I can't play a Kitsune because they're extinct, never existed, are the primary antagonists, whatever? Cool, I'll make something else.
I can't play a Gunslinger because there's no gunpowder, you think the class is broken/overpowered, I'll be hunted as some kind of blasphemous hellspawn by well intentioned extremist priests? Okay, whatever.
I can't play a Bard because Devils took over the world and their first order of business was to kill all entertainers and continue to murder any they find? Better than okay: A cool plothook, I'll make something else.
But something about "I, for some undefined reason, have a mild dislike fr this class/race/concept so you can't play it" irks me.
that is what i have been saying too.
but even with those examples.
Lack of Gunpowder? guess i will invent it and develop the setting's first functioning firearms. i can't buy gunpowder, but i can buy sulfur, guano, saltpeter and a variety of alchemical components, and take craft (Alchemy) Craft (Blacksmithing) and Knowledge (Engineering) to craft my own weapons. merely means i need more intelligence and less dexterity.
Extinct entertainers? yeah, my PC may have levels in the bard class, but she doesn't entertain others. she is merely a noblewoman who through her use of words, stories, and poems pulled from history inspires the soldiers to work harder on the battlefield. she may also know how to dance and act, but that isn't for entertainment, it is for subterfuge. Dancing to make manuevering easier to accomplish, and acting, to better lie and disguise herself.
Extinct Kitsune? Never Was a Kitsune? down with that, Kitsune are Main Antagonists? guess i drop Kitsune and pick another Race for my sorcerer. IDK, Human?
Gnomes, Kender, and Goblins, i find far less serious than any anthropomorphic animal could ever be. mostly because their descriptions have a very looney toonsey feel to them.
but even with those examples.
Lack of Gunpowder? guess i will invent it and develop the setting's first functioning firearms. i can't buy gunpowder, but i can buy sulfur, guano, saltpeter and a variety of alchemical components, and take craft (Alchemy) Craft (Blacksmithing) and Knowledge (Engineering) to craft my own weapons. merely means i need more intelligence and less dexterity.
Extinct entertainers? yeah, my PC may have levels in the bard class, but she doesn't entertain others. she is merely a noblewoman who through her use of words, stories, and poems pulled from history inspires the soldiers to work harder on the battlefield. she may also know how to dance and act, but that isn't for entertainment, it is for subterfuge. Dancing to make manuevering easier to accomplish, and acting, to better lie and disguise herself.
Not all GMs dig special snowflakes unfortunately. I'm not against it myself, but if a GM says no gunslingers because of a lack of gunpowder he may not want you to invade his setting with this new gunslinger. He's not obligated to take the new idea either. He may as also have other reasons such as balance and feeling that gunslingers are just too out there.
In the bards case they are definitely much more than entertainers. Many of the bard's archetypes give up perform entirely. Archaeologist, Dawnflower Dervish, and Dervish of the Dawn all give up their ability o buff others for a new form of perform all about them. It ceases to be entertainment and becomes a fantastic tool for battle and they use their spellcasting and skills and their good charisma still. No entertainment needed. I dislike banning whole classes because they're inappropriately labeled.
Not kitsune? Personally I'd keep the animal motif but I wouldn't be anthropomorphic. I've met crazier people who ask to be magical experiments gone wrong or last of the kind. Sometimes the GM actually goes through with this. So long as its okay with the group why not. Personally I'd rather keep the animal motif and continue my gig with a human. I might have issues if GM says no to that however... Especially if its on the grounds that I wanted to play something else before!
that is what i have been saying too.but even with those examples.
Lack of Gunpowder? guess i will invent it and develop the setting's first functioning firearms. i can't buy gunpowder, but i can buy sulfur, guano, saltpeter and a variety of alchemical components, and take craft (Alchemy) Craft (Blacksmithing) and Knowledge (Engineering) to craft my own weapons. merely means i need more intelligence and less dexterity.
Extinct entertainers? yeah, my PC may have levels in the bard class, but she doesn't entertain others. she is merely a noblewoman who through her use of words, stories, and poems pulled from history inspires the soldiers to work harder on the battlefield. she may also know how to dance and act, but that isn't for entertainment, it is for subterfuge. Dancing to make manuevering easier to accomplish, and acting, to better lie and disguise herself.
Extinct Kitsune? Never Was a Kitsune? down with that, Kitsune are Main Antagonists? guess i drop Kitsune and pick another Race for my sorcerer. IDK, Human?
Gnomes, Kender, and Goblins, i find far...
At this point you're just searching for a way around it.
He said why he banned it, and gave the reason. Perhaps a Bard that gave up Perform would fly, but inventing Gunpowder just for your character has more ramifications than it seems.
And on top of that, if it was just so easy as having a few ranks in Kn. Engineering and Craft: Alchemy why did nobody come up with it before? It'd really have to be something only possible at high levels, if at all to explain that away, and at that point you wouldn't be able to play a Gunslinger until your next character anyway (if you wanted to be even mildly effective).
Perhaps a good, interesting way to change the GMs world from the inside, but not so good as a justification for playing the Gunslinger from the get-go.
I have to say something about this because I've seen it several times:
This idea of "well if it doesn't exist I'll just invent it!". It's total logic fail and a DM is well within his rights to say no to this."But gunpowder and a musket is so simple!"
Really? You suddenly come up with world-changing technology within your own time period? Can you say metagaming?
It's like you saying "well it's 2013 and I'm just going to invent something right now that's going to change the world". 30 years from now it will seem obvious but TODAY it will only occur to that rare, brilliant and creative individual.
The same thing applies to people living in a "medieval-esque" culture.
Its a fantasy game. If its player centric game its not far fetched they might do crazy things like that. Its the kind of thing characters do in novels all the time. Special snowflakes. "My grandpa was an engineer. He helped me build so many amazing things! We were really ahead of our time. The family never shared their inventions though. The world just wasn't ready." Its not an abnormal story plot. I'm not saying anyone has to accept it(or should!) but that its not far fetched for fantasy genre.
i guess i could do without the gunslinger, but Guns and Crossbows practically utilize nearly the same technology and came out not too far apart from each other.
i consider firearms just as valid as crossbows.
i consider psionics just as valid as magic
and i consider KARAS to be not too different from your traditional shapeshifting warrior with a trinket.
a pair of high level synthesists duking it out
there is a difference between using the skills to entertain, and using them for non-entertainment based uses.
Perform (Dance); a noblewoman better know how to dance in the ballroom to impress a random guy.
Perform (Act); acting doesn't even have to be a performance, and it isn't much different from infiltration
Perform (Oratory) Speeches, Poems, and Stories pulled from history to inspire.
I have to say something about this because I've seen it several times:
This idea of "well if it doesn't exist I'll just invent it!". It's total logic fail and a DM is well within his rights to say no to this."But gunpowder and muskets are so simple!"
Really? You suddenly come up with world-changing technology within your own time period? Can you say metagaming?
It's like you saying "well it's 2013 and I'm just going to invent something right now that's going to change the world". 30 years from now it will seem obvious but TODAY it will only occur to that rare, brilliant and creative individual.
The same thing applies to people living in a "medieval-esque" culture.
Well at one time in our history somebody invented guns. So how is it far fetched that it could happen in a fantasy setting?
Also, people really do need to stop being so oversensitive. Just because you didn't get to play your ninja furball this time around doesn't mean the GM is a meanie and hates you. People seem to take it so personal if they don't get their way and their exact character.
Of course, but when the GM makes every NPC rude and unfriendly towards your character regardless of your class, race and alignment, then there's something not exactly going right in that table. Bonus points if said GM does this right after you had asked to play a ninja furball and the idea was shot down without any further argument.
Though that's going off on an unrelated tangent and personal experiences with a bad GM.
It's a fantasy game. If it's player-centric game it's not farfetched they might do crazy things like that. It's the kind of thing characters do in novels all the time. Special snowflakes. "My grandpa was an engineer. He helped me build so many amazing things! We were really ahead of our time. The family never shared their inventions though. The world just wasn't ready." It's not an abnormal story plot. I'm not saying anyone has to accept it (or should!) but that its not farfetched for fantasy genre.I have to say something about this because I've seen it several times:
This idea of "well if it doesn't exist I'll just invent it!". It's total logic fail and a DM is well within his rights to say no to this."But gunpowder and a musket is so simple!"
Really? You suddenly come up with world-changing technology within your own time period? Can you say metagaming?
It's like you saying "well it's 2013 and I'm just going to invent something right now that's going to change the world". 30 years from now it will seem obvious but TODAY it will only occur to that rare, brilliant and creative individual.
The same thing applies to people living in a "medieval-esque" culture.
Yeah, if your characters have the chance to save the world from certain doom (as is true in a few APs) and can slay dragons, then it just seems weird that inventing gundpowder is just way beyond their grasp, especially when one of your party members is a Wizard with an Intelligence ranging from 20-30 who could craft golems and other amazing pieces of machinery by just taking one or two feats.
The difference being that said golems and stuff already have set ways to be created, discovered by others long before.
Inventing something new would require checks much like spell research, and probably wouldn't be something your level 1 character could do. Nor could he save the world from doom or slay dragons.
Come to think of it, said golem crafting Wizard would only be able to do so, at earliest, at level 5.
Did I say you could do those things at level 1 ?
No, I did not. And what if your chara rolled a 20 on that research?
If someone really wanted to play a Gunslinger in a campaign of mine, I'd let that one slide.
But of course, I am this heretic of a DM, who seems to invite disgust and curious looks alike with my unusual methods.