*shudders* Whole burning fields of them...the horror....the horror...Possibly TOZ there have been plenty of straw men.
~laughs~
~laughs~As long as I can get this response even just once, a thread isn't a complete waste.
awww... you sometimes know just what to say don't you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To drag this a bit back towards the original intent of the thread, exotic races and so forth, I do have to say that just reading posts here and other threads (especially right after the Advanced Race Guide came out), there were people that were adamant that Pathfinder Society and many GMs were meanieheads because they wouldn't let them use whichever race it was that caught their fancy.
To play off what someone mentioned earlier (sorry, lotta posts and I didn't want to dig for it), it is all about options. Not every single one has to exist in each game. Some people utterly hate guns and aren't going to bend on that in their games. Others feel the same way for cat people or dog boys or a race that you created because you really really like mushrooms and want to be the Mushroom Bard.
It isn't good or bad, it's just people. We all have things we like and dislike (see bards, paladins, monks, guns threads) and those who GM find their own likes and dislikes colouring their worlds.
That doesn't mean that you as a GM couldn't bend if someone really really really really can only play a dwarf in a dwarfless campaign or else their entire night is ruined. But by the same token, I tend to find that if you bend for that one instance, it never stands. And then you suddenly have dwarves existing where they shouldn't, or a host of Japanese weapons in your world with no such influences and so on.
|
Why is it always "dick" DM and never seems to be "dick" players when it comes to things that folks want to run or not?See the answers to this that I keep repeating over and over and over, and that people like you keep ignoring. Seriously, if you want to argue with me, that's fine, but have the decency to argue against my actual position rather than someone else's oft-discredited misrepresentation of it.
I would be your answers seem inconsistant. 2 posts below this one I'm responding to, players are clamoring for something other then what the DM is presenting(which meets the defination of "dick players") and your response is different for players then it is for DMs. DM presents something....players dont like it, DM needs to adapt. How about the players Adapt? Havent heard you say anything about "dick" players in the same way you present DMs.
DM presents a Ptolus campagin....and players dont want it and DM hs to change after puutting work in? Really? How about lazy players get off their rear and DM instead if they dont like what the DM wants to run?
I would be your answers seem inconsistant. 2 posts below this one I'm responding to, players are clamoring for something other then what the DM is presenting(which meets the defination of "dick players") and your response is different for players then it is for DMs.
For the 40,000th time, it's about what the GROUP wants. One player refuses to comply with what the group wants? Dick player -- everyone agrees. One DM refuses to comply with a quorum of players? In that case, they're no longer "dick players," because they all agree. In that case, it's a dick DM instead. Notice that's the same response, and it's been extremely consistent.
Why is this so hard to understand?
Really? How about lazy players get off their rear and DM instead if they dont like what the DM wants to run?
I've always considered that a perfectly viable option, and have presented it as such on more than one occasion. People tried to tell me than "no one else is ever willing," but I didn't necessarily believe them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Mushroom Bard sounds like an amazing idea. I'm imagining this homebrew race looks like the picture for the fungus leshy from Bestiary 3. They live deep underground in vast caverns filled with giant fungi. The Mushroom Bard didn't like living in this dark, damp, and quiet place; ze wanted to explore the world! When a dwarven bard wandered through the region, ze left with him as an apprentice. It turns out the Mushroom Bard has a fine baritone voice. Ze traveled and trained with him until ze ended up in [place where campaign takes place].
Wait I'm sorry, was the point that DMs ought forbid a player from playing this?
Sissyl was trying to throw others logic back at them...
This approach doesn't always work though. Both because logic and language don't always work that way (), and because simply reversing someone's argument or point doesn't always make your own clearly and often seems more reactionary and frustrated than thought out or insightful.
Which, by the way, is a problem in this thread. The reactionary and frustrated responses of people.
Let's do something from now on:
1) If you think you know what someone is saying, ask if you're getting it correct.
2) If you think someone else is misrepresenting you, explain it again, but using different non-inflammatory words.
3) If you use or used inflammatory words and realize it, feel free to change your post, or apologize and correct later if it's too late to edit.
4) If you are frustrated by something someone said, think of a way of phrasing it. Something like, "I'm frustrated you said that, because it's not what I meant. Let me try again." generally works better than something like, "How dare you!" or "You're pulling a strawman!" (both of which imply intent).
5) If you are trolling or arguing about nothing important, don't. I don't care who started what.
In any event, I'm all over the map, though most often somewhere between 1b and 2b and 2c in my experiences. Most often of them is it starts out 2c, then, as the game goes on, we work together in a 2b-ish format that allows me to grant rather impressive rewards (templates, high magic items, the like) that follow the plot right along. I've been accused of 2a, though, which is really strange to me*, as I really try not to do that sort of thing*. It can certainly happen by accident, though.
We generally have about 2-3 willing GMs per 6-9 players. Some GMs are less willing because they tend to be more perfectionist. Some GMs are more willing because they tend to be more "loose" with stuff. Some GMs buck those trends altogether.
Again, one thing most people seem to be missing in their posts is the typical human element of compromise. There've been times I've completely run roughshod over a GM's plans and they've rolled with it. Same thing in reverse. There've been times I've begun to run roughshod over their plans and they stop me and say, "Hey, look, you're breaking the story. Could you not do that?" and I'll try my best not to (though it still happens sometimes, though it's never really on purpose). The same thing has happened in reverse. There've been times I wasn't really interested in something in the group for story and setting reasons, but allowed people to play it anyway, so long as they understood the consequences in-game (this got me called a 2a once as well***). I've rewritten a campaign or trashed it entirely to go with the group's consensus.
To be clear (from memory); regardless of whether or not I agree with their general stances on things; TriOmegaZero, R_Chance, Sissyl, mdt, pres man, Kirth Gersen, and myself have all said the same thing - in some cases more than once - and we over-all really should leave it at that: "different groups have different social contracts, and this doesn't make them bad, but different".
I might have missed some people that said that, and if so, I'm sorry. I'm not reading the *checks* 21 pages just to note that someone else has also said the same thing.
In any event, we might not enjoy the situation of their social contract, but as we're not in it, we shouldn't judge it as wrong. Perhaps give ideas, insights, and personal experience, but not judge it as "wrong".
* Yes, I mean, I did make a situation that if you did that you'd die pretty quickly, but I never expected the fourth level player to try and defeat the entire city guard on his own, and especially not by taking them head on! How was I supposed to know that? Why would anyone do that! No, a super-powerful druid circle made of fifteen druids who are higher level than you and are effectively plot-givers are not good people to attack indiscriminately! Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrg! WHY IS IT ALWAYS THE CORE RACE/CLASSERS?!**
** Not actually true. Though these two examples are. :)
*** Look, all I'm saying is that if you're an arcane caster who's never going to have evocation or transmutation spells anyway, and the GM wants to give you the Shadow Weave feat for free, "because otherwise bad things will likely happen, due to plot stuff", there really is absolutely no downside to taking it. And please don't complain when the exact thing I said would happen happens. I EVEN TOLD YOU TO WAIT ONE SESSION. ONE. SESSION. YOU WOULD BE FIXED AND FINE WITHOUT FEAT OR ANYTHING IN ONE SESSION. ... not that I'm bitter.
The Mushroom Bard sounds like an amazing idea. I'm imagining this homebrew race looks like the picture for the fungus leshy from Bestiary 3. They live deep underground in vast caverns filled with giant fungi. The Mushroom Bard didn't like living in this dark, damp, and quiet place; ze wanted to explore the world! When a dwarven bard wandered through the region, ze left with him as an apprentice. It turns out the Mushroom Bard has a fine baritone voice. Ze traveled and trained with him until ze ended up in [place where campaign takes place].
Wait I'm sorry, was the point that DMs ought forbid a player from playing this?
Heh. This actually sounds like a great idea, and in the right hands and the right game I bet it would be a blast. And no, the DM shouldn't forbid the player from playing it; they may,however, mention the general outlook of the campaign that is going on and whether or not a sentient mushroom singer would fit in. (The Mushroom Bard was actually inspired by a player who, after taking some bio classes, wanted to make a race out of shriekers.)
OK, the theme I'm seeing from the "DM picks setting, take it or leave it" people is that no one else is ever willing to DM; one person always has a monopoly on the job. Is that actually the case? In my last group, out of 7 players, six of them (houstonderek, TOZ, silverhair2008, Jess Door, Psychicmachinery, Mundane) were also accomplished DMs with one or more of their own campaigns. I have never been in a situation in which only one person is willing to run a game.
Arnwyn tells me that this is "almost wholely unique" (although it's true of pretty much all of the gaming groups I've been in, across 30 years and 6 states, so I'm inclined not to believe that continued assertion). So, am I the only person? Let's get some more data here -- please sound in, everyone!
Just a brief note: Actually, my assertion is how you handle choosing a campaign is almost wholly unique, not your group makeup (though that combination together may be a contributor to your relative uniqueness). And yes, I believe it contributes to your confusion in this thread.
Which is obviously impossible, because I'm unique, so there can't possibly be seven other people in the same situation that we can name off the top of our heads. /
However, I was immediately told that I was unique, that no one else ever had multiple people willing to DM in the same area/group, and therefore any comparison of the two was automatically a false premise and should not be entertained.
*rolleyes* Easy does it.
My survey answers:
1a, 2b (which may not be equivalent to your 2b, given how you stated you choose campaign settings in a previous post):
A homebrew we can create and develop together? Other? Everyone please let me know what you'd like to see."
Prior to that, I've pretty much always played in homebrew settings that the players and DM all developed together.
With the exception of default Golarion for learning the Pathfinder rules, I don't think I've ever played in a campaign in which the DM started with "Here's what I'm offering."
Which looks nothing at all like my 2b... Come to think of it, my #2 looks a lot like mdt's 2d.
Thank you Tacticslion I have been trying to say as much... In fact I did say much the same thing back when I was arguing down Pres Man over the "allow anything" side's tendency to call the "GM's painted-in worlder's" wrong/bad. There IS no wrong/bad here despite the small army of evil straw men on both sides.
Heck I would gladly light the fires and burn down all those straw man armies myself if it didn't just mean people would spend a lot of time replacing those poor straw men.
all this right here is a huge reason to keep races as written and not start tweaking things, its a slippery, slippery slope once you do, also this all sounds sillyOk everyone, we can stop debating now. Captain Righteous has decreed we are doing our games wrong.
Everyone make sure to commit sepuku to make up for the shame.
a bit of an overreaction dont you think? committing suicide is a terrible despicable act that should only be done by child molesters and murderers, certainly not something to joke about. shame on you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The big thing about my group is we actually have several people who can gm. I run in two separate groups, one with a bunch of my buddies, and one with my family. In the one with my family, I, my dad, and my friend chris who joins us can all DM, but usually it's my father or myself. It's actually a little rare for us to "finish" campaigns because either the gm or the players will get bored, and either my dad or myself will say something, and the convo will go like this.
Dad: "I have some pretty cool ideas for a new campaign, like x"
Brother 1: "I like the sound of x"
Brother 2: "I could take or leave x"
Chris and Me: "I'm not a fan of X"
Dad: "Well I also have y or z, but they need a little more work to be ready, which would you prefer?"
Brother 1: "X or Z sounds good."
Brother 2: "I like Y best, but would enjoy Z."
CHris: "I like Z best, but I would enjoy Y."
Me: "I would enjoy Z or Y equally."
Dad: "So it seems like Z would be the best bet, since only 1 of you wants to play X, 3 of you want to play y, but all of you would want to play Z. We'll play some board games during gaming time next week so I have time to prepare."
The convo pretty much goes like that whether it's Me or Dad starting up the new convo, and one or two times we've had Chris surprise us with wanting to GM, and he always comes up with cool material.
With my other group, we actually DO tend to finish games with very few exceptions, but they take a lot longer. (Longest one was around 8 years, 2x monthly.) And usually that one goes like this.
DM: "Okay, you've beaten it. So who wants to run next?"
1: "Well I have an idea for x"
2: "I also have an idea for y"
3: "I have a couple of ideas, but haven't really organized them."
-Table discusses the ideas put forward, and decides x would be most fun. so Player 1 is the new DM for the game.-
1: "Okay, I'll send out an email with what you need to know for character creation within the week, let me know if you want to do anything special or crazy, and as always backstories are appreciated."
And that's how that goes. They tend to rotate between the three GMs, but we always have fun.
Flyskyhigh's experience seems to be similar to mine: lots of potential DMs means lots of player input. Which is sort of what I'd been anticipating a few pages back:
When DMs are plentiful, everyone gets more input into the campaign, because otherwise someone who allows things closer to the group preference will end up running the next game.
When DMs are rare, they can afford to be as exclusive as they like in terms of what type of campaign gets run, and they can afford to ignore player requests.
Flyskyhigh's experience seems to be similar to mine: lots of potential DMs means lots of player input. Which is sort of what I'd been anticipating a few pages back:
When DMs are plentiful, everyone gets more input into the campaign, because otherwise someone who allows things closer to the group preference will end up running the next game.
When DMs are rare, they can afford to be as exclusive as they like in terms of what type of campaign gets run, and they can afford to ignore player requests.
See? Here is an example.' The way you phrase eveything is " well, circumstances decide if thr gm is evil or not, but the players have the right position". Every now and then, if your teeth are pulled, you seem willing to admit that occasionally there MIGHT exist a rare unreasonable player. Here or there.
For example "they can afford to ignore player requests" rather than , for example, the players ignoring gm requests on things like campaign restrictions and setting.
DM presents a Ptolus campagin....and players dont want it and DM hs to change after puutting work in? Really? How about lazy players get off their rear and DM instead if they dont like what the DM wants to run?
Let me ask you this, what assumption(s) is the GM working under if he has already put in so much work BEFORE asking the players if they might even been interested in the campaign idea?
Thank you Tacticslion I have been trying to say as much... In fact I did say much the same thing back when I was arguing down Pres Man over the "allow anything" side's tendency to call the "GM's painted-in worlder's" wrong/bad. There IS no wrong/bad here despite the small army of evil straw men on both sides.
Heck I would gladly light the fires and burn down all those straw man armies myself if it didn't just mean people would spend a lot of time replacing those poor straw men.
I'm not sure if I ever actually called it bad or wrong.
Every now and then, if your teeth are pulled, you seem willing to admit that occasionally there MIGHT exist a rare unreasonable player. Here or there.
Counter: 40,001.
If one person flagrantly goes against the rest of the group and won't budge, that person is being a dick. It doesn't matter if that person is wearing a "player" hat or a "DM" hat.
One player demanding things that the rest of the players and the DM don't want? That's a dick player. I say so. You say so. Everyone agrees!And because everyone agrees, I don't find the need to repeat that obvious truism in every post. If it makes you feel better, pretend that I am, in fact, repeating that in every post, and use that for a reference point as to what else I'm ALSO saying.
A lot of people have told me that the DM is perfectly within his/her rights to go against the collective will of the players. I, personally, believe that makes that DM a dick, in that case.
Arssanguinus, I've explianed this all to you, personally, at least two to three times already. The fact that you continue to ignore me tells me that you're straight-up trolling, pure and simple. Please stop it.
For example "they can afford to ignore player requests" rather than , for example, the players ignoring gm requests on things like campaign restrictions and setting.
The players, plural, can ignore DM requests/demands, if and only if they all want one thing and the DM wants something else. They can push for him to see the fact that he's alone, or one of the players can say "Screw this, I'll DM so we can all play what we want." The DM can ignore one player's (singular) requests/demands -- indeed, is almost obliged to -- if they are not shared by the rest of the group.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But Kirth, what if a player demands to play an elf despite the fact that the whole group hates elves and would rather not have them in the campaign???
.
.
.
Sorry. Sorry... I couldn't resist...
Yeah, like, how many times do I need to explain the same thing, with examples, before someone in the thread might have a slight inkling of what my position is? This is like explaining calculus to hamsters: I start with very simple arithmetic, and try to move on to rates of change, and they just glare at me with their beady eyes and demand more pellets to eat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dude, this just got awesome!. I fully expect to see JJ get torn limb from limb by the opposing factions, all of whom claim he's speaking for them, ala Bacchus and the Bacchante.
I'm not sure if I ever actually called it bad or wrong.
Maybe not in those exact words... but on the chance you didn't say that let me ask: Why were you so focused on their defense if you were not also making the same accusation? And can you not see why someone would think those are your words since you defended them?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How often do DM's only have one idea?
I mean I totally understand if the group agreed one week to play a certain type of campaign, the DM spent a bunch of time throwing it together, and then they show up and decide they want to do something else.
That is pretty rude behavior.
But I would like to think most DM's have multiple campaign ideas and let there players choose something that fits their style. I can't see either the players or the DM sitting down and enjoying a game the DM forced against his players will.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I as GM don't want to run X, but Player 1 wants to, I often will say "Great! I'll be glad to play in YOUR game!" This either results in P1 running X or P1 revealing that he wants me to cater to his whims. (Odd, I just realized I've never had this problem with any of the female players...)
Personally, I absolutely LOVE Champions and will play it under darn near any conditions. Three decades later and it is still my favorite game to play. I have run 7-8 campaigns now and only been able to actually play in 4. The brutal reality is that the rules are shoddy enough for a 'powergaming twit' to ruin the game easily. I long ago got into the habit of crushing them when they turn in the latest iteration of a 'god on 250 points" without a bit of remorse. I used to save these for when the 'PGT' got around to actually running a game, but I've noticed they never do.
I think the real solution to this is: if you want to play X, run a game that makes everyone else want to see them played. The recent back and forth I have engaged in has jarred my skull to see that most of the 'gonzos' I've had problems with NEVER run. I came to this by realizing that I am much more willing to compromise with someone who has shared 'the chair'. EG: some of Kirth's rules rubbed me the wrong way when I first read them, but I've warmed to them and am incorporating some of them into my game. The clown who first urged me to incorporate 'Frank and T's' rules was of the 'I wanna' schools, but actually had good ideas and about the time I was coming around to them, Kirth produced his and I fell in, agreeing with many of his arguments, particularly on Fighter feats.
After I worked through the long reply above. I engaged in a chat with a fellow local GM who pointed out that the 3 PGTs we both have to deal with have NEVER actually run in all the years we've known them.
Personally I feel the GM shouldn't run if his players don't want to play his game. It doesn't do anyone any good trying to force his square players into his round campaign. I think the only thing everyone has agreed on so far is that you should talk to your GM and he should talk to you. If he is a court intrigue GM and his players are all kick in the door and kill them all type players then no one is going to have any fun anyway, better to get out a video game or card game until they can all learn to compromise.
Why were you so focused on their defense if you were not also making the same accusation? And can you not see why someone would think those are your words since you defended them?
How sure are you that I did? Or did I instead separately challenge claims like it is impossible to include a unique individual race in a game world that has all the corners colored. Not just that the GM might not want to, but that it is literally impossible to do so.
Why were you so focused on their defense if you were not also making the same accusation? And can you not see why someone would think those are your words since you defended them?How sure are you that I did? Or did I instead separately challenge claims like it is impossible to include a unique individual race in a game world that has all the corners colored. Not just that the GM might not want to, but that it is literally impossible to do so.
To include any new races? Sure. To include ANY new race? No.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my local groups, it often goes something like this:
Player 1: "Can we play a pirate campaign?"
Player 2: "Dude, that would be awesome!"
Player 3: "As long as I can play a kitsune, I'm fine with anything."
DM: "No. My setting is pure Tolkien and there are no pirates and no kitsune."
Player 3: "Well, here's this cool Razor Coast thing..."
DM: "I've put a lot of work into this Tolkien campaign and I'm not keen on pirates or kitsune. If I forced myself to DM that from scratch, it'd be unsatisfying for everyone. If one of you wants to run Razor Coast instead, I guess that's fine. I can put my game on hold.
Player 1: "But I want to play in a pirate game!"
Player 2: "I don't feel like DMing."
Player 3: "Yeah, and I want to play a kitsune."
DM: "Sooo... What else are we interested in?"
Player 1: "Call of Cthulhu?"
Player 2: "Ugh, no."
Player 3: "What about a sci-fi?"
DM: "I dunno. Has anyone got anything written for sci-fi?"
Player 1: "I've got a near-future mecha game with a covert war and politics focus."
Player 2: "Like Gundam?"
Player 1: "Yeah, but the governments are trying to keep the mech engagements and technology secret from the public. You guys would be black ops mech pilots."
Player 3: "That sounds cool."
DM: "Yeah, okay. Give us the details and we'll make characters."
A sequel!
Player 1 (Now DM): "I've got some stuff ready for you to read. It's a multinational force, so you can be from these countries. It's 2020, so it's a lot like Earth today. The public don't know about the mechs and secret war."
Player 2: "Hmm. It says here the pilots are recruited from military and covert agencies. Could I be a MI6 agent?
Player 1: "Sure, that's ideal, actually."
DM (Former): "Do they have any cybernetics? Like mind-machine interfaces?"
Player 1: "Hmm. I hadn't accounted for that, but I can come up with something. Oh! I have something you might like. Do you want to play an agent raised from childhood by the force's scientists, trying to make the ideal pilot? You'd have awkward problems and be ignorant of the world, but you'd get some neat tricks with upgrades."
DM (Former): "Haha. I'll do that. It sounds like a challenge."
Player 3: "I want to be one of those, too! A Japanese pilot, who was raised in the same experiment. And they fused him with fox genes for extra agility but didn't realise the fox they took the samples from was actually an ancient spirit-"
Player 1: "Hold it. Are you trying to justify a kitsune?"
Player 3: "It makes total sense, right?"
DM (Former): "Uh, what the hell?"
Player 3: "I still want to play a kitsune."
Player 1: "Genetic engineering doesn't work like that. Besides, there aren't any ancient Japanese spirits in this game. And this is supposed to be a covert game. There will be sections where you don't have your mechs and have to move amongst civilians undetected."
Player 3: "That's okay. Kitsune have the ability to take a specific human form."
Player 2: "We're not playing Pathfinder, dude."
Player 1: "Could you just... play a furry, or otherkin or something?"
DM (Former): *laughs*
Player 3: "Ew, no! Look, is it possible that there's an argument that could convince you to let me play a kitsune?"
Player 1: "Logically, I can't say no. But that doesn't-"
Player 3: "Then assume I've given that argument and we're cool."
Everyone else: "What."
Note: A player actually tried the 'assume there is an argument that will convince you' line on me. It didn't work.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whew... You guys sure kept the steam up here. And kept reiterating the same misrepresentations of my position. And despite the attempt at "discussion should be done this way", fact remains that trying to correct everyone who harps on about stuff you never said in an environment like this is fruitless.
So, to answer Kirth's question: 1b and 2b-ish. If they have agreed to the campaign and the campaign specifically nixes elves, there won't be elves. If someone wants to play a kitsune, they can suggest a way for this to improve the campaign, and not everyone plays a freak, I will probably let them. If the group doesn't want to play a no elf campaign, what do you think I would do? Pull out a gun and force them to? I have a few campaign ideas that have not yet seen the light of day because the players in my group haven't been enthusiastic enough. I aim to eventually make them awesome enough to sway them. What I was talking about from the start here was a situation where a player demanded to play something that truly did not fit in, and the other players went against the GM. To me, it would be simple. I would not budge. This got me called a bad GM. Probably because people from the start were hung up on the wrong situation, that this was about a player respectfully asking to play a different race. As Kirth found out as well, it did not help however many times I explained this. Bleargh.
There are many reasons to ban stuff from a campaign. One of the most clear examples is Exalted. In it, there are many different types of exalted... But each comes with its own complete rule book, with skills, backgrounds, magic and so on all working differently. Playing an all included game of Exalted is a challenge I would not attempt due to complexity far beyond anything Pathfinder can manage. To make it remotely possible to play, you need to exclude MOST of the published options, and including just one more type of exalted is a pretty serious commitment to dealing with complexity. The same, by the way, goes for the enemies.
Kirth, did it ever strike you that one reason you are okay with letting the group decide is probably that all of your players are accomplished GMs? There is a serious difference between thinking as a GM and as a player, and that remains no matter your current role. If you are an accomplished GM, you have a solid understanding of what the difficulties of GMing are, and will be respectful to the GM about those areas. You don't play with non GM players, so, honestly, is it so far fetched that your situation is not only different to what most groups have, but significantly so? No, a GM player will usually not do dickish stuff to their GM, but a player who never did GM often sees only their character as important in this discussion, and as a consequence may do things out of ignorance that are pretty dickish. He just wants to play his kitsune, though.
Another point I thought about... When I was the only GM of the group, these demands to play freak characters were more intense, not less. Which is what you would expect, both from the above, and because being denied your kitsune probably meant never playing one.
Please don't misrepresent my position again. I have answered that too many times already.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I heard Sissyl was doing it wrong, just for saying so!
Whew... You guys sure kept the steam up here. And kept reiterating the same misrepresentations of my position. And despite the attempt at "discussion should be done this way", fact remains that trying to correct everyone who harps on about stuff you never said in an environment like this is fruitless.
So, to answer Kirth's question: 1b and 2b-ish. If they have agreed to the campaign and the campaign specifically nixes elves, there won't be elves. If someone wants to play a kitsune, they can suggest a way for this to improve the campaign, and not everyone plays a freak, I will probably let them. If the group doesn't want to play a no elf campaign, what do you think I would do? Pull out a gun and force them to? I have a few campaign ideas that have not yet seen the light of day because the players in my group haven't been enthusiastic enough. I aim to eventually make them awesome enough to sway them. What I was talking about from the start here was a situation where a player demanded to play something that truly did not fit in, and the other players went against the GM. To me, it would be simple. I would not budge. This got me called a bad GM. Probably because people from the start were hung up on the wrong situation, that this was about a player respectfully asking to play a different race. As Kirth found out as well, it did not help however many times I explained this. Bleargh.
There are many reasons to ban stuff from a campaign. One of the most clear examples is Exalted. In it, there are many different types of exalted... But each comes with its own complete rule book, with skills, backgrounds, magic and so on all working differently. Playing an all included game of Exalted is a challenge I would not attempt due to complexity far beyond anything Pathfinder can manage. To make it remotely possible to play, you need to exclude MOST of the published options, and including just one more type of exalted is a pretty serious commitment to dealing with complexity. The same, by the way, goes for the enemies.
Kirth, did it ever strike you that one reason you are okay with letting the group decide is probably that all of your players are accomplished GMs? There is a serious difference between thinking as a GM and as a player, and that remains no matter your current role. If you are an accomplished GM, you have a solid understanding of what the difficulties of GMing are, and will be respectful to the GM about those areas. You don't play with non GM players, so, honestly, is it so far fetched that your situation is not only different to what most groups have, but significantly so? No, a GM player will usually not do dickish stuff to their GM, but a player who never did GM often sees only their character as important in this discussion, and as a consequence may do things out of ignorance that are pretty dickish. He just wants to play his kitsune, though.
Another point I thought about... When I was the only GM of the group, these demands to play freak characters were more intense, not less. Which is what you would expect, both from the above, and because being denied your kitsune probably meant never playing one.
Please don't misrepresent my position again. I have answered that too many times already.
sometimes, with for Example, Weekly William, there are some concepts, that as players we almost never get to experience.
we get Psionics used against us, but we never get to personally use it without explicit DM permission, which takes a heavy proposed case to approve and is lucky to happen once every so many campaigns.
book of 9 swords, used against us, but we never get to use it, like psionics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Player 1: "Can we play a pirate campaign?"
Player 2: "Dude, that would be awesome!"
Player 3: "As long as I can play a kitsune, I'm fine with anything."
DM: "No. My setting is pure Tolkien and there are no pirates and no kitsune."
Player 3: "Well, here's this cool Razor Coast thing..."
DM: "I do all the work, so I pick the setting! I'm running a Tolkien campaign. Period. If you don't like it, you can leave."
Player 1: "can we play a pirate campaign?
Player 2: "dude that would be awesome!Player 3: As long as I can play a kitsune i'm fine with anything
Player 4 (notice we don't call him a dm because there's no campaign yet): I can run one with no kitsunes because its pure tolkein!
Player 3: that blows monkeysauce for me... anyone else hate the idea of my kitsune in a pirate campaign?
Player 2: dude that would be awesome!
Player 1: I dont care as long as I get to play a crafter for profit
Player 4: *chokes on his own bile*
Player 3: whaddya say there mister 'super thinks he's got such a great campaign planned' the tolkein lover? is that going to ruin your precious plot? I mean how could it if you're so awesome...
Player 4: *jumps out the window and runs screaming into the night*
Player 2: dude. Lets call player5... I bet he'll run it... He's not such a po*ue. His homebrew sandboxes are always 10 times cooler than stories that have already written themselves.
Player 1: They'd kinda have to be cooler... I mean come on... Crafters and Pirate kitsunes? Thats a better recipe for awesome than any tolkein I've ever read.
Umbriere: I am typically pretty specific on this, in that either I do not at all include something in my campaign, meaning no enemies will use it either, or it's a strong part of the plot. If I made a campaign focused on a struggle against psionics, I would offer some way for the players to access these things as well, such as giving them temp characters for a session or two that did not have the option of psionics, but represented the old world, then let the players choose psionics for their main characters. Retraining, remaking characters and so on could also be options. Generally, though, if I want a psionics campaign, I would like it to replace some other power source, such as arcane magic, so we could explore the consequences of it more fully.
Regarding other races, it is one thing to play a tengu that gets killed by the PCs after a few minutes, and quite another to have to plan around a PC tengu for an entire campaign.
Player 1: "Can we play a pirate campaign?"
Player 2: "Dude, that would be awesome!"
Player 3: "As long as I can play a kitsune, I'm fine with anything."
DM: "No. My setting is pure Tolkien and there are no pirates and no kitsune."
Player 3: "Well, here's this cool Razor Coast thing..."
DM: "I do all the work, so I pick the setting! I'm running a Tolkien campaign. Period. If you don't like it, you can leave."
Player 1: "can we play a pirate campaign?
Player 2: "dude that would be awesome!
Player 3: As long as I can play a kitsune i'm fine with anything
Player 4 (notice we don't call him a dm because there's no campaign yet): I can run one with no kitsunes because its pure tolkein!
Player 3: that blows monkeysauce for me... anyone else hate the idea of my kitsune in a pirate campaign?
Player 2: dude that would be awesome!
Player 1: I dont care as long as I get to play a crafter for profit
Player 4: *chokes on his own bile*
Player 3: whaddya say there mister 'super thinks he's got such a great campaign planned' the tolkein lover? is that going to ruin your precious plot? I mean how could it if you're so awesome...
Player 4: *jumps out the window and runs screaming into the night*
Player 2: dude. Lets call player5... I bet he'll run it... He's not such a po*ue. His homebrew sandboxes are always 10 times cooler than stories that have already written themselves.
Player 1: They'd kinda have to be cooler... I mean come on... Crafters and Pirate kitsunes? Thats a better recipe for awesome than any tolkein I've ever read.
Now you want to talk about straw men? HERE is example one a.
So excluding any specific races or classes means that the story has already written itself? Really? Excluding specific elements at the beginning means that you can't also be saying, once the starters horn goes off, 'do what thou wilt?"
I've played in wide open play anything in existence character creation games with horrendous railroader GMs and in human thief only character wide open sandboxes. The two are separate elements, not one and the same.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kirth, did it ever strike you that one reason you are okay with letting the group decide is probably that all of your players are accomplished GMs? There is a serious difference between thinking as a GM and as a player, and that remains no matter your current role. If you are an accomplished GM, you have a solid understanding of what the difficulties of GMing are, and will be respectful to the GM about those areas. You don't play with non GM players, so, honestly, is it so far fetched that your situation is not only different to what most groups have, but significantly so? No, a GM player will usually not do dickish stuff to their GM, but a player who never did GM often sees only their character as important in this discussion, and as a consequence may do things out of ignorance that are pretty dickish. He just wants to play his kitsune, though.
The one group I play with, and have played with the longest, which is my favorite, is like this. Its online and we play via virtual tabletop, and almost everyone is a past gm. Most of us have played long enough that we have the "kewl new race" gene out of our system and pretty much just look at the restrictions and make a character. A plain old human fighter can become interesting during play, while a half-dragon whatever can be a boring cardboard cutout. The most exotic race, if you can call it that, in the current campaign(one I'm not gming (yeah! Chance to just play). Has its most exotic thing being a half-Orc paladin. That, a halfling bard, a human(died reincarnated as a dwarf now) barbarian, a human oracle, a human witch, a human summoner ...
Why is it rude for a player to ask to play something not allowed?
Ok everyone, we're going to play flag football now.
I want to play tackle football while everyone else plays flag, 'kay?
Honestly while I can conceive of a player asking to play something the GM had disallowed (can't hurt to ask?), and I can even conceive of a tool demanding to play such a thing over the rest of the group's objections (seen it happen), I can't really conceive of a player demanding that he be allowed to play whatever race but the GM must also prohibit it for everyone else.
I would genuinely boggle. (while kicking them and/or myself out)
And then when we started facing Drow, it was all mirror inamge, all the time.
I hate mirror image so much.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will say that I am appreciative of my new group rolling some very appropriate characters. Partly because of the very nice player's guides I received with my Razor Coast stuff, but also because they were cool with making characters and not rules combos. The ifrit monk with the fire tattoos doesn't like the water, the aasimar cleric is returning to investigate the disappearance of his mentor, the aasimar bard uses a fiddle, etc.
How often do DM's only have one idea?
I mean I totally understand if the group agreed one week to play a certain type of campaign, the DM spent a bunch of time throwing it together, and then they show up and decide they want to do something else.
That is pretty rude behavior.
But I would like to think most DM's have multiple campaign ideas and let there players choose something that fits their style. I can't see either the players or the DM sitting down and enjoying a game the DM forced against his players will.
I agree. And the same might be said for players as well. If the only idea you have is for your kitsune thingy or drow whatsits or barbarian howzits, you may want to make some notes throughout the week so that you have options in case the GM and/or other players aren't as happy with your only creation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, hey, here's a story about a GM kind of making a mess their campaign with my character. Without me trying.
Once, in 3.5, just for fun (not for any specific campaign), I decided to make an uber-psionics character. Using chicanery, I managed to take an 8th level creature with relatively normal stats, and reduce it to a first level creature with studicul-awesome stats. Further, he effectively got the benefit of various templates without actually having those templates, side-stepping the rules of granting ECL. Bunch of random bonus feats, bunch of other things as well. The plan was always to start psion, take a couple of wizard, and then proceed to cerebromancer. Of course, due to rules chicanery, I ended up with full caster level even when I cross-classed.
It was pretty sweet and I'd always wanted to run him, but never really expected to do so. Never really asked to, either, because, as a GM, I knew what a nightmare it could be to run.
And then, one day, said GM asked if I wanted to play that character. I was really surprised. I mean, it was super-awesome, but, you know, I was hesitant.
Were they sure?
Yes.
Really, really sure?
Yes.
Because, they knew, of course, it was broken as all get-out. Totally not normally legal.
It's okay, they assured me. They were running a pre-published adventure. A newfangled thing published by Paizo. It was called Kingmaker.
So, without knowing any better, I acquiesced and gleefully got the chance to play it.
I don't really think I have to spell out for you all the ways such a character completely dominated and overran the plot. It got to the point that, as a player, I worked at not winning all the time. I mean, with crafting being the thing it is in that game anyway, that alone makes the game nearly "easy mode" (and he started with the benefits similar to most crafting feats already - 3.5 crafting feats which reduced cost and all that stuff). I was literally giving the preponderance of our gained treasure away to every non-enemy NPC in my Kingdom (and raising most of the former-enemy NPCs into non-enemy NPCs, and then giving them stuff, too). Because we had too much.
Here's the thing: I'm no longer playing that character. I've pulled out ridiculous, contrived reasons and elements to make him "fit" the game, but it simply wasn't working. I couldn't play him as I'd designed him to play, and it wasn't as fun for me or the GM as a result.
So I retired him to effective NPC status. (Technically he's still a PC, but in reality, he functions as an NPC. I now travel around as a human-seeming Golem - his "twin brother" - that he created and "shares experiences" with him to allow him to rule and grow in power, and still go adventuring and be part of expanding the Kingdom.) This Golem is nowhere near as powerful as the King (my old character). I love the King, and wish I was playing him, but I'm not. It's still somewhat easy mode, and I still have relatively little difficulty playing the game, but it's far better than it was for everyone.
And that, really, is the art of compromise (also a mistake on the GM's part). When you want something and it's not good for the rest of the group, get rid of it. I'm not interested in forcing my vision on the rest of the group or the GM. No one else should be either.
Like Sissyl and Kirth have both said repeatedly. Just slightly differently enough to seemingly tick others off.
I love harranguing the twitchy logical fallacy boys. Apparently the queen of sarcasm has been gone too long. People have been turning their detectors off.
Why would you detect sarcasm in something that sounds exactly like an argument some people have made seriously?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Poe's Law.
So, hey, here's a story about a GM kind of making a mess their campaign with my character. Without me trying.
Once, in 3.5, just for fun (not for any specific campaign), I decided to make an uber-psionics character. Using chicanery, I managed to take an 8th level creature with relatively normal stats, and reduce it to a first level creature with studicul-awesome stats. Further, he effectively got the benefit of various templates without actually having those templates, side-stepping the rules of granting ECL. Bunch of random bonus feats, bunch of other things as well. The plan was always to start psion, take a couple of wizard, and then proceed to cerebromancer. Of course, due to rules chicanery, I ended up with full caster level even when I cross-classed.
It was pretty sweet and I'd always wanted to run him, but never really expected to do so. Never really asked to, either, because, as a GM, I knew what a nightmare it could be to run.
And then, one day, said GM asked if I wanted to play that character. I was really surprised. I mean, it was super-awesome, but, you know, I was hesitant.
Were they sure?
Yes.
Really, really sure?
Yes.
Because, they knew, of course, it was broken as all get-out. Totally not normally legal.
It's okay, they assured me. They were running a pre-published adventure. A newfangled thing published by Paizo. It was called Kingmaker.
So, without knowing any better, I acquiesced and gleefully got the chance to play it.
I don't really think I have to spell out for you all the ways such a character completely dominated and overran the plot. It got to the point that, as a player, I worked at not winning all the time. I mean, with crafting being the thing it is in that game anyway, that alone makes the game nearly "easy mode" (and he started with the benefits similar to most crafting feats already - 3.5 crafting feats which reduced cost and all that stuff). I was literally giving the preponderance of...
A cool story, thanks.
Kingmaker was great fun, and we removed crafting. It was then not on easy mode.
As lords and mighty heroes, there were too many problems to solve, we didn't take the crafting route, nor would it exactly fit with what we had and what we were pushing (my ninja Mongol was not interested in crafting).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Player 1: "can we play a pirate campaign?
Player 2: "dude that would be awesome!
Player 3: As long as I can play a kitsune i'm fine with anything
Player 4 (notice we don't call him a dm because there's no campaign yet): I can run one with no kitsunes because its pure tolkein!
Player 3: that blows monkeysauce for me... anyone else hate the idea of my kitsune in a pirate campaign?
Player 2: dude that would be awesome!
Player 1: I dont care as long as I get to play a crafter for profit
Player 4: *chokes on his own bile*
Player 3: whaddya say there mister 'super thinks he's got such a great campaign planned' the tolkein lover? is that going to ruin your precious plot? I mean how could it if you're so awesome...
Player 4: *jumps out the window and runs screaming into the night*
*Players 1 through 4 roll initiative*
Player 1: Blood for the Blood God! *runs up and hamstrings Player 4*Player 2: Ryuken! *casts fireball, kills Player 4*
Player 3: Aw, man. I never get to kill anything. *loots Player 4's body*