I suppose this is why I like PFS, they have a clear and consistent platform with all the 'meta' given a vehicle to back it up - the setting is well documented, the available choices well established.
Of course, if you don't like PFS rulings your totally out of luck. Want to play a vivisectionist? Run an evil character? Coherent/good plot? Not work for a mystery group with no clear goal called the decemvirate? Totally out of luck.
Anyways, I'm sure there's always questioning, but no PVP isn't exactly a bad ruling. If you really want to PVP, then wouldn't you be looking at the wrong game if the GM specifically told you there wasn't to be any?
|
Do you balance that with discussing and collaborating ways to deal with problematic issues that are causing them concern? Are they allowed to object to things BEFORE play starts?
Or do they just get what they are given and aren't welcome to raise issues?
Because that is what is being asked for.
I suppose this is why I like PFS, they have a clear and consistent platform with all the 'meta' given a vehicle to back it up - the setting is well documented, the available choices well established.
I have a document that all my players are required to read in order to play. It has some demands of me as a GM. Stuff like:
- No PvP, unless outstanding circumstances which can be discussed on the spot- Bicker and prank each other all you want, but when combat starts, all for one, one for all.
- Take the plot hooks, i can improvise, but don't ignore my effort because you want to throw shenanigans.
Et cetera. These terms are almost non-negotiable. If they can't abide by them, i will not GM. That simple. We can discuss other stuff, but on these three i am adamant.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Players in Lensmans Game.
P1 - OK we walk into the dungeon.
GM - Cool there's four Orcs, they rush at you
P1 - Guys its a trap!
P2 - Good call, we sheathe our swords. No way he's going to punish us for fighting what looked like bad guys again!
P1 - High five guys! Remember, don't attack until we have given the enemy the initiative AND they have had time to attack us for a while, remember that Drow? I think these Orcs are the new party members.Party dies.
Good game.
Because someone at the bar giving you a friendly greeting is just like armed dungeon guards charging at you.
Because someone at the bar giving you a friendly greeting is just like armed dungeon guards charging at you.
How could you be sure they aren't just more players coming to join you? If you react and hit one and are wrong, you get kicked from the game.
Hey, not my rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can only go with what was explicitly said.
Do you balance that with discussing and collaborating ways to deal with problematic issues that are causing them concern? Are they allowed to object to things BEFORE play starts?
Or do they just get what they are given and aren't welcome to raise issues?
Because that is what is being asked for.
I suppose this is why I like PFS, they have a clear and consistent platform with all the 'meta' given a vehicle to back it up - the setting is well documented, the available choices well established.
I have a document that all my players are required to read in order to play. It has some demands of me as a GM. Stuff like:
- No PvP, unless outstanding circumstances which can be discussed on the spot
- Bicker and prank each other all you want, but when combat starts, all for one, one for all.
- Take the plot hooks, i can improvise, but don't ignore my effort because you want to throw shenanigans.Et cetera. These terms are almost non-negotiable. If they can't abide by them, i will not GM. That simple. We can discuss other stuff, but on these three i am adamant.
So one can't flee to save the one? Is that breaking the rules?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And twist it, interpret it in the worst possible light, assuming the GM is out to screw with you.
No interpretations required, I'm going off their explicit statements.
I can only take what they write as their position, and at no point (despite my repeated requests for clarification) have they clarified that I have the wrong end of the stick.
I have asked do they talk to their players, collaborate, work constructively etc and all this time later they STILL haven't agreed they do this. They have only reported their 'personal rules' that they enforce.
And twist it, interpret it in the worst possible light, assuming the GM is out to screw with you.No interpretations required, I'm going off their explicit statements.
If their explicit statement was "Don't attack anything, it could be a PC", people might question you less.
So why weren't the Elves allowed to attack a Drow?
|
|
So one can't flee to save the one? Is that breaking the rules?Do you balance that with discussing and collaborating ways to deal with problematic issues that are causing them concern? Are they allowed to object to things BEFORE play starts?
Or do they just get what they are given and aren't welcome to raise issues?
Because that is what is being asked for.
I suppose this is why I like PFS, they have a clear and consistent platform with all the 'meta' given a vehicle to back it up - the setting is well documented, the available choices well established.
I have a document that all my players are required to read in order to play. It has some demands of me as a GM. Stuff like:
- No PvP, unless outstanding circumstances which can be discussed on the spot
- Bicker and prank each other all you want, but when combat starts, all for one, one for all.
- Take the plot hooks, i can improvise, but don't ignore my effort because you want to throw shenanigans.Et cetera. These terms are almost non-negotiable. If they can't abide by them, i will not GM. That simple. We can discuss other stuff, but on these three i am adamant.
What i meant, fight as a team, don't backstab each other and do your damnedest not to get anyone else killed. And don't let anyone get if you can.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So why weren't the Elves allowed to attack a Drow?
GM's girlfriend. Instant immunity to all attack rolls and wrath of god on her side.
Kidding aside, because she was new to the game, and there wasn't a big reason to attack her. It also has a lot to do with the meta of making sure the group can stay together and work together. Really you should all just be able to sit down, goof off, and have fun. Outright killing her character on sight wasn't likely to facilitate this, and may have chased her off from the hobby outright.(which is a bad thing! Mutual interest are usually important in a relationship!)
I suppose you could argue the extreme in the other direction, that it should be okay to attack anyone under any circumstances. That might go wrong in itself. Moderation on both sides with a bit of meta.
It also has a lot to do with the meta of making sure the group can stay together and work together. Really you should all just be able to sit down, goof off, and have fun.
Moderation on both sides with a bit of meta.
Which is all that was being asked for. I find it curious not one of these punitive GM's cited have come forward to say this though. Instead all we saw was strong arming.
I can only go with what was explicitly said.And twist it, interpret it in the worst possible light, assuming the GM is out to screw with you.
Don't forget ignoring the pointed-out holes in reasoning.
So a bugbear walks into a bar...
Villager: quick quick, it is here to burn down the village!
Because if Drow are at war with, and the eternal nemeses of surface elves, it is like a major enemy of your people just calmly strolled in. Bugbears are cruel stalkers, killers and kidnappers, much like the Drow, but I think we are going in circles here.
The most important thing I can stress, is for a dm to not command from on high, boss about or restrict the players actions, once the game is going. Nothing more game breaking than doing something you wanted to do, and then the dm tears you out of the immersion and punishes your character, and by extension, tries to punish you. Yeah, learn your place knave!
Gaming for the players is making choices, taking actions, roleplaying and having fun. I don't think many dms get that rules, restrictions and punishments are just not fun for the player (unless you are into that stuff you kinky tease).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Either the relationship between elves and drow isn't quite what you expect or there's an exception for this particular drow.
But you have to rationalise this after the fact, and as we know, none of this has actually been established.
So there was no reason they shouldn't attack.
Armed drow, in their town, standing in their tavern.
"Because if Drow are at war with, and the eternal nemeses of surface elves, it is like a major enemy of your people just calmly strolled in. Bugbears are cruel stalkers, killers and kidnappers, much like the Drow, but I think we are going in circles here."
And now we have it that it was Greyhawk drow there is no confusion, drow are known enemy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yet here you are again, only posting an edited version of the conversation to suit your agenda. Why didn't you include the rest of the conversation I wonder?
So I looked up drow in Greyhawk.
What the... how did this get in the gates or past the palisade? Are the elves thick?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I looked up drow in Greyhawk.
What the... how did this get in the gates or past the palisade? Are the elves thick?
They also let some sort of blood and pus bleeding demon into the town if I remember what was said up thread. Seriously, can we not get past this single anecdotal example?
No cordon sanitaire for pus demons, that is for sure.
I find fantasy games easy to run, but all have to be on the same page. Monster pcs only works easily, if it is a heavy monster setting--so you take Tolkien, you spit in his eye and you throw him and his worlds away and begin your monsters are common and can be civilised, the world is more grey than black and white fantasy world from scratch.
Tolkein had plenty of monsters.
Oh and those pointy eared tall guys who lived forever and had a different sense of empathy. Their solution to life was to move away across the ocean.
There were also these half sized people that ate and ate and ate and probably ate away all the food stores. They had at least three breakfast sessions. They also traded Mathom around, which was pretty much just useless gifts. They stole from people too. Can't trust em.
Anyways, I'm usually fine with homebrewed monsters/PC races in my game, thought I always require approval for the PCs(obviously). Can you have misogyny against a race that has yet to exist? Do I want to know how?
Ok nobody was perfect in the drow example.
GM:
1. Starting a new player off with a non core race, increasing the complexity for said player.
Especially allowing them to play a race that is described as demon worshiping genocidal killers, in Greyhawk, every elf and Paladin within 100 miles would hunting that Drow down. (No Mikazie most people dont play Orc=Klingons, good drow exist games)
2. Disregarding the objections of his players and railroading them into taking on a race they did not want.
3. Setting up the new player to be targeted by not advising that the other players objected to that race. You let your player walk into a hostile situation. I would have advised your player that the other player really objected to a drow PC.
If this thread had started the GM is forcing us to play a game with races we don't like the bleeding hearts above would be saying how bad The GM is.
Players:
1. Being jerks
2. Not taking it easy on a new player
The only time I allow monsters like Drow and Hobgoblins is if I am playing an evil game, in such games I don't discourage PvP it's half the fun, I get everybody to have a couple of back up PCs and I don't take it easy on the PCs.
Well, one of the other two players was an abyss born third party creature with a weeping unholy symbol carved into his chest, what with it apparently being an evil party, and the lady in the example made a Drow character to try to fit in.
I assume we now have to switch all the arguments to, 'Well, it's an evil party, they can kill who they want or they aren't being true to there alignment.' Poor drow. No way to win.
I can't help but wonder how this would be if the conversation had been, 'Man, I hate gnomes, I will kill any gnomes I run into. No one can play a gnome at a table I sit at.' Should the GM still have to bend over backwards to make the gnome hating player happy? Or how about if the guy decided kitsune were too Japanese, and any kitsune players would get some sneak attack damage to the spine?
It seems very off to me that people are A-OK with a pair of players, who apparently, trying to bully another player into playing what they want but when the GM says no, and I'll kick anyone who tries to bully the new player, the GM is a hideous being of evil spurting fire from there buttocks of iron. I'm not a big fan of the 'The GM is GOD' theory, this is a co-operative game after all - but I really don't like the idea of sitting down at a table and having another player going, 'No, I don't like the character you've made for OOC reasons, so I will kill him if you try to play that character.'
Which is what actually happened, no hyberbole about never fighting any monsters again just in case they might wanna not be evil. Or, in this case, do wanna be evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, one of the other two players was an abyss born third party creature with a weeping unholy symbol carved into his chest, what with it apparently being an evil party, and the lady in the example made a Drow character to try to fit in.
Yet none of this very pertinent information was fielded from the get go, so the GLM and Aranna arguments do not have this to fall back upon.
No revisionist history allowed - their commentary was made thinking it was two randoms and a drow. It was also made knowing that the original players had asked for the drow to not be included, but teh example given was that the GM forced the point.
Nothing is changed (other than the original GM looking less shady and having a few other more appropriate things he should have dealth with).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK, that makes a certain sense - but I still don't understand how another player, or players, should be allowed to decide what a third player can have as a character. If the GM gives permission then that's pretty much it. I could see raising concerns about character balance, or about whether a certain type of character would fit into a specific setting, but that's not what happened within the example - they simply announced they hated drow for out of character reasons and would kill one on sight.
I don't really see exactly what else the GM could do other than telling them, 'No, you don't get to be mean, and I'll boot you if you try.' They weren't talking about balance or setting issues, which I would discuss any concerns and seek to fix valid issues - they were announcing there personal opinion and expecting either them GM or the character to change to suit them.
Again, I can't help but wonder how people would feel if they'd announced a deep, abiding loathing of gnome characters, or a hatred of a race from the APG like kitsune. Or maybe a third party race like Rite's Ironborn? 'Man, I hate them steampunk metal guys, I shall shank each and every one of those if you try playing one.'
OK, that makes a certain sense - but I still don't understand how another player, or players, should be allowed to decide what a third player can have as a character.
Exactly right, and what we were asking for was a collaborative approach to resolving the issue, not the GM just forcing things on players and removing their right of protest.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What was there to resolve, exactly? The players decided that OOC they didn't like Drow. This was for personal, OOC reasons, not for issues of balance or setting concerns. The GM, who had obviously decided that balance and setting concerns were not an issue, told them they weren't allowed to try and gank the drow and the game went on.
I honestly don't see what there was to discuss. They had a certain dislike of a certain race. Without any real reason other than that dislike, what was there to talk about? I wouldn't expect a GM to stop and talk about how to resolve my hatred of gnomes. I would expect him to listen if it was a setting without gnomes, and he was suddenly allowing them. Or if the gnomes had +4 to all attributes. But 'I really don't like gnomes' doesn't seem a valid issue, just a personal quirk.
I also don't see any removing rights to complain. Apparently they managed to complain already - that they really didn't like drow - and the GM decided it wasn't enough of a complaint, and certainly not a big enough one to allow them to shank a new player in the left kidney. I don't see him stopping them from raising valid concerns, only that there personal preferences aren't a valid concern any more than my undying hated of Gnome Chompski.
i personally have no problems with Drow PCs. some of my group mates in my 5 groups, some of them have issues.
hell
tuesday tony is very selective about what classes he allows, and has dissallowed
D&D wiki dancers (Full Bab hit and run class w/ 1/2 sneak attack progression and bardic performance, but no class features.) because he thinks that full bab, half sneak attack, and bardic performance is too much, despite the fact the dancer has no other class features whatsover.
book of 9 swords in general, not because it is eastern or animesque, but because he doesn't like "per encounter casters" with 9th level "spells" and full bab that bypass every spell based resistance and blatantly ignore a lot of physical resistances
psionics, because he believes power points violate the casting rules and invalidate sorcerers.
anything with full bab/even a single sneak attack die, regardless of class features.
anything that adds either int or cha to AC
any arcane class that has access to healing spells or divine caster with access to arcane direct damage
anything that can break 30 DPR in a full attack at level 10 without buffs, anything that adds more than 10 base damage to an attack before level 15.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given the further information on those players, I have to say Josh M. apparently has a lot more patience than I do. I absolutely could not play alongside or GM for those guys. I had my fill of that kind of behavior in my first(worst) years playing the game.
So I looked up drow in Greyhawk.
What the... how did this get in the gates or past the palisade? Are the elves thick?
Greyhawk was 3.x's salad bar setting. Any notion of Always Chaotic Evil as an actual rule was something left behind in 1st edition where it belongs.
Also, James Jacob's Shensen showed up there as well.
(No Mikazie most people dont play Orc=Klingons, good drow exist games)
[citation needed]
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK since Shifty can't figure out what a first day player learns as their first lesson I will explain it and maybe just maybe he will learn something today.
What is a PC?
A PC is a character played by a player.
So to elaborate on what everyone else knows, the drow being friendly at the bar who is played by the other player at the table, THAT'S a PC. And that group of orcs charging you in the dungeon being run by the game master that's NOT a PC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(No Mikaze most people don't play Orc=Klingons, good drow exist games)[citation needed]
Indeed.
Actually according to the OP this was a one off game JUST starting. So no shifty no established characters. The OP clarified it as a generic setting (Greyhawk). It was never stated what town they started in... I doubt it was important since this was a generic one off setting. The players had what they could and couldn't use for character creation already and drow were allowed obviously since someone chose one. So obviously wherever they were starting was NOT hostile to drow by default. If you attempted PvP in such a situation Shifty then you deserved some manner of punishment.
And a NO PVP game requires that players not make characters that are violently hostile to each other as a rule. If you can't function without stabbing your team mates then this ISN'T a game you will like shifty, and the other players are not going to be happy with you there.
So a bugbear walks into a bar...
Villager: quick quick, it is here to burn down the village!
Because if Drow are at war with, and the eternal nemeses of surface elves, it is like a major enemy of your people just calmly strolled in. Bugbears are cruel stalkers, killers and kidnappers, much like the Drow, but I think we are going in circles here.
The most important thing I can stress, is for a dm to not command from on high, boss about or restrict the players actions, once the game is going. Nothing more game breaking than doing something you wanted to do, and then the dm tears you out of the immersion and punishes your character, and by extension, tries to punish you. Yeah, learn your place knave!
Gaming for the players is making choices, taking actions, roleplaying and having fun. I don't think many dms get that rules, restrictions and punishments are just not fun for the player (unless you are into that stuff you kinky tease).
Bolded for emphasis. Game wasn't even going yet, this was all during group character creation.
It also has a lot to do with the meta of making sure the group can stay together and work together. Really you should all just be able to sit down, goof off, and have fun.
Moderation on both sides with a bit of meta.
Which is all that was being asked for. I find it curious not one of these punitive GM's cited have come forward to say this though. Instead all we saw was strong arming.
Come forward and say what, exactly? A couple of older, experienced players wanted to curb-stomp a brand new players character before the game even started, and I said no.
The fact that she was my SO just made me more angry, but my decision would have stood regardless of who the player was. Nobody gets bullied at my table. Period. If something comes up in game, and it justifiable, I may let a PvP happen. But seriously, not during character creation.
Eh, it doesn't matter what I say. You'll twist it into a worst-case scenario anyway and still paint me the bad guy.
I can only go with what was explicitly said.
No, you aren't. You are going on some kind of hyperbolic rampage, misshaping words and drawing your own conclusions on a whim.
Your examples act as if the "new PC/NPC of questionable race might be a PC, we'd better not attack or we'll get kicked out of the game." This is NOT what I said AT ALL.
The new player mentioned making a drow and the other players got all in a huff and started making comments that they'd kill her on sight. The game had not even started yet. They were still in the process of making their own characters. The group had not even met in-game yet.
On top of all of that, in every game I have ever played, we knew ahead of time what each persons character was. I have never seen this surprise bait-and-switch "oops we killed a PC!" scenario you are describing. Stop it.
Yeah, I don't get how anyone can think you did wrong when the players themselves were trying to bully that one player to not making a Drow. What the setting itself says about the Drow is irrelevant here, because the problem was the players trying to be the boss when the DM had given a green flag. That's like me allowing someone to play a Hobgoblin in Kingmaker only for the players to say that they will kill the character on sight. There are no Hobgoblins in Brevoy, so they'd most likely just mistake him for an unusually ugly half-orc, and even then, my main gripe is with the players and not with the setting.
Exactly. It was a one-nighter, so by me, the DM, allowing a new player to play a certain race, for this pre-written module, I'm probably not going to send every paladin and elf in the district after her. I already had enough on my plate as it was.
If drow being hunted down for being evil were going to be something I was going to approach in game, the player would have been warned up front. But with this party(which I should have mentioned as evil in the first place), any one of them would have been equally hunted down by paladins, guards, you name it. This was not the point of this game. I just wanted to run a one-nighter and I allowed them to make whatever they wanted, since it wasn't going to last more than 1 game.
So you have an evil party and you expect them not to be evil to each other, and you throw a new player into an evil game. When your players have already told you what they are going to do to a drow.
That's part of this evil isn't really evil it's just sparkling vampires in leather jackets and dark sun glasses, attitude that makes vampires, drow, werewolves and Orcs not terrifying but cartoonish, lame and cliched.
Our ancestors we genuinely afraid of the supernatural, they didn't call fairies the good folk because they were good they called them the good folk for the same reason you call a vicious pit-bull that is about to tear your throat out good dog, just hoping to placate it in some way.
You set it in Greyhawk where Drow are a dangerous threat and will be dealt with by authorities, if you are in a wretched hive of scum and villainy that would accept demons and drow like Iuz or the Bandit Kingdoms nobody is going to care if you kill somebody at a bar because they would be too busy looting the body.
I have run a lot of all evil games you can expect PCs to off one another, that's part of the fun.
When I run an all evil game I lay out my ground rules and expectations.
1. PCs can gank each other, but it won't get them closer to the door knob of ultimate evil power.
2. Have at least 2 replacement characters because if the other players don't kill you the NPCs will have a good go.
3. I have work very hard to promote cooperation after the initial blood letting, I fully expect the PCs to tear eachother limb from limb to gain the artifact or become the ruler in the final part of the game.
One of best games we had the party reached the artifact of ultimate evil they had to fetch for demon lord (the container was warded against the demon and he could not get it himself) fell into bickering and then decided to kill eachother... The demon lord appeared in front of them to get them to fiinish the job promising many rewards.. The antipalidin looked at the drow cleric he was about smash and said - do you reckon we could take him... So the party spontaneously attacked the demon and the only survivors the cleric the anti paladin went on to claim the crown of shadows for themselves with the cleric becoming the "Nightmare Queen" and the anti paladin her hand of death... Thus was born the next campaign where the players as good PCs fought to rid the world of their previous characters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's be fair - a lot of adventures use metagame knowledge to identify who they're going to be teaming with. I have never, ever seen a situation where the characters all decide they'd rather go work with another group of half orcs, a bard and his merry back up dancers and the thieve's guild instead of each other.
There is a point where realism yields to the combined might of 'it's a game' and common sense. Otherwise encounters would end with the barbarian having a fit due to there rage issues, the fighter dying of a septic wound from a dirty kobold dagger and the cleric shanked when there God didn't answer there prayers. Not to mention everyone being dead from a single sword blow because, usually, three feet of sharp steel is fairly terminal no matter where it hits.