| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What Kryzbyn said.
That said, being on these forums and seeing all the myriad other playstyles that people apparently enjoy (even if for the life of me I can never understand why) does make me all the more thankful for my own group, who are all very strongly on the same wavelength as to what we want out of the game. I think one of the reasons I'm more comfortable saying "I wouldn't play in a group that does X" is because I know I have my group to stick with where I don't have to worry about those sorts of things becoming a problem.
If I didn't have a play group at all, I either would quit playing entirely if I couldn't find one that shared my mindset, or just deal with a group whose style doesn't quite jive with my own and probably end up bottling up my frustrations save occasional rants to non-group friends about the things I don't like.
Oh no doubt, I've had to do that myself over the years. But much like your comment about solutions to non-existent problems, I think that the text environment and the way things come across makes people less likely to want to game with each other based on a one-off comment on play style or preferences.
More than likely, if people were actually talking and could get their points across better or illustrate them better, they might be received better and we'd be more likely to give these alternate ideas a chance rather than shunning or avoiding these games.
Kind of like foods that you'd never think you'd like, sometimes something that sounds horrible isn't so bad. Of course, sometimes it IS horrible. :)
It's Marvel dude. Somewhere in some alternate universe, everyone is a Avenger. (and has changed gender)I never saw The Avengers (or the recent sequel). If Spider-Man had been in it, I would have been sufficiently motivated (yes, I'm aware he was never an Avenger).But he is ! An Avenger, I mean... in the comics books... you know, the real thing !
I've never read comic books, but I of course heard about superheroes from a young age. For a long time, I assumed that each superhero existed in his or her own universe -- even within the Marvel and DC franchises -- because with the exception of the mutant phenomenon which handily explains a bunch of mutant superheroes running around together, the thought of so many people having or acquiring so many different super powers within such a short span of human history is just too implausible, even within the context of a fictional universe that allows for one superhero. Right...?
Wrong, I am! I guess it's not a problem for most readers/viewers.
I enjoyed both Avengers movies, but I did so despite the added implausibility of all those characters existing within the same universe. Let alone all speaking the same language.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I miss beholders.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kind of like foods that you'd never think you'd like, sometimes something that sounds horrible isn't so bad. Of course, sometimes it IS horrible. :)
I have to admit I am extremely non-adventurous when it comes to food =) So I'm not surprised to find my gaming preferences and willingness to try unfamiliar things equally unlikely.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love trying new foods. And I'm so desperate sometimes to be a player instead of the GM I'd probably play in nearly any game offered.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Geez...and all I said was they should use prayerbooks......
Hey Cal, I was going fishing, and I was wondering if I can take this can of worms that you unintentionally opened... :D
I guess?Please note that someone else being more discerning does not mean you aren't discerning. ;)
Heh, oh I'm discerning, I just am usually willing to give the game a shot. Now, that isn't to say that after a session of insane things I won't bow out and find something else to do .. even if that is watch paint dry.
Back on point, a confession! I really dislike some of the weirder things like tumor familiar. I can see it in some situations, but for the most part it doesn't do it for me.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think in the hands of a good GM, this kind of idea works well. So long as they keep in mind that their deity should be helpful toward their goals, that is.
"I want to prepare two Resist Energy's, a Destruction, three Holy Words, and a bunch of Shield of Faiths."
"Today, my child, you might be better off trading some of those Shield of Faiths for some Endure Elements. I have it on good authority it's going to be cold as balls today."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think in the hands of a good GM, this kind of idea works well. So long as they keep in mind that their deity should be helpful toward their goals, that is.
"I want to prepare two Resist Energy's, a Destruction, three Holy Words, and a bunch of Shield of Faiths."
"Today, my child, you might be better off trading some of those Shield of Faiths for some Endure Elements. I have it on good authority it's going to be cold as balls today."
I think that is exactly what people don't expect.
This idea usually comes up as an idea to make clerics more balanced, or to stop them from getting too big from their breaches when they outfight the fighter type while being a fullcaster, regardless of how important the cleric's mission is or whether the cleric is actually becoming arrogant or is just grateful that they are able to contribute so much to the success of an important quest.
Hence why many people tend to have such an extremely hostile reaction to the idea. Usually when it gets suggested the person suggesting it has a purpose in mind, and when used for that purpose it isn't interesting, or helpful to the player, or good for enhancing the feel of the god or the setting. It is just a tool for the GM to give a player the middle finger whenever they feel like by arbitrarily screwing over their spell selection despite no sensical ingame justification beyond "the gods can do what they want because they be gods yo". It doesn't have to be this way, but most of the time when I see the idea come up it is blatantly for exactly this purpose.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I once ran a homebrew where the gods had been imprisoned by a more powerful force. Every day when the cleric prayed for spells I told him what he got for the day. A good time was had by all.
After a quick glance at the Core Rules, I allow 21 or 22 of the 25 1st-level spells to a 1st level cleric. I hardly think that's tremendously inconvenient or outrageously restrictive.
which ones dont you like?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't have to be this way, but most of the time when I see the idea come up it is blatantly for exactly this purpose.You have my sympathy, then, because you've run into a phalanx of tyrannical, self-aggrandizing, control super-freak DMs.
This is sounding just like the DMPC thread, now, where everyone assumes that something out of their wheelhouse will be done primarily or even exclusively to screw them. It's really kind of tiresome, to be frank.
I have the feeling I'd employ this method and fully two-thirds of the people who're screaming, "UNFAIR! YOU ... YOU ... MOON-FACED ASSASSIN OF JOY!" wouldn't even identify what I was doing as objectionable, because it would never come off as, "Muah ha ha! You wanted that spell, and everyone else but you can have it!" That's not the intent at all, and it's not what I do.
To me, it's a deity being engaged with his/her divine caster, giving guidance and help, as well as certain limitations, as opposed to them simply being a divine Exxon station.
I have seen the "god may or may not grant spells to cleric based on GM fiat" idea come up on these boards quite a few times. I believe this is the first time I have seen that it hasn't been for the express purpose of controlling a cleric's power level in some way.
Lets be clear though - I actually wouldn't mind at all if the GM played it like Rynjin suggested. If a GM I was playing under wanted to implement an idea like this, I would discuss exactly how they were running it. Something like Rynjin's suggestion of a god granting spells that they know the cleric will need from time to time instead of the spells they asked for is reasonable. Your suggestion of restricting a handful of spells per level unless circumstances warrent the god permitting using those spells is reasonable.
What is not reasonable is that the GM will just say sometimes nuh uh, no divine power or divine favor for you today because you are fighting better than the fighter and getting too big for your breeches and so your god doesn't like it, despite the fact that your god knows that your quest is vital for the safety of the world, not having those spells harms your chance of success, and your character doesn't care if they are better than the fighter and couldn't give a damn less about personal glory or superiority - they just want to save people. This would be a massive warning sign to me that this GM is a bad GM, and I would explain to them exactly why it is a bad idea to do this (and I expect that if the GM is a decent GM they will adjust their idea to be more reasonable or throw it out).
My point when I said what you quoted was that when this idea comes up it is exactly the unreasonable suggestion that the idea of sometimes refusing to grant cleric spells gets brought up for. In fact, it is frequently even to stop the cleric outfighting a fighter type. I picked my example carefully. Hence my point. It doesn't have to be a tool for the GM to screw with a player. Most of the time when the idea gets brought up on these boards this is exactly why it is being suggested, so when people see the idea brought up without an explanation of it's purpose, then they reasonably tend to assume that the purpose is the same as it was the last 20 times it was brought up until the poster says otherwise. You have said otherwise in a later post, and that's great and your suggestion isn't unreasonable, but based on your first post on the topic it is more likely than not based on how this topic usually goes that you were not going to be any more reasonable than the people who post and say "my clerics are fine and not imbalanced because I sometimes don't give them things that the rules say they get when I feel like it because I am the GM and I can make up BS explanations to justify my thinly veiled punishment of a player for having a more effective character than another".
Is it for roleplaying?
If a cleric of The Wormlord asks for a raise dead, he or she gets it, an animate dead, and a create undead.
Maybe really roleplaying npcs, including gods, is shunable.
The Wormlord is my first and still only alias, which might get me shunned.
Why Magic Weapon? That is one of the few ways a level 1 character can AT ALL harm an incorporeal creature.
Arbitrary? So if the game is being played with a rule that states "When you pray for spell levels above 3rd, there is a chance you do not get the spell you asked for," is arbitrary in the same way as telling a fighter his weapon changed without an explanation?
Now, if the game began with a rule that stated, "It is a conflicting and ever changing realm of wild magic, where physical reality can alter on a whim, and some days you will reach for a sword and find you are holding a dagger." And you agree to play in that setting, then..., wait, why do I care about this again?
Different strokes for different folks
If a player has a problem with not always getting the spell they wanted they will not be able to handle wild magic rules.
They are not ready.
I miss beholders.
Put them in. If running an AP, find a place to put them in.
I once ran a homebrew where the gods had been imprisoned by a more powerful force. Every day when the cleric prayed for spells I told him what he got for the day. A good time was had by all.
So the spells were sort of slipping through the prison bars?
Beholders miss ME.
I threw two into games last year as a part of traps. One was undead and under water, guarding a goddess, another was safely behind metal bars and blasting players as they entered a treasure room.
Would beholder again.
I miss beholders.Put them in. If running an AP, find a place to put them in.
I've got "bootleg" PF stats for them, but the group I GM for is usually only 3 players and they are not equipped to handle one. The only TPK I've ever had was a 2e game with 4 players against the beholder.
I once ran a homebrew where the gods had been imprisoned by a more powerful force. Every day when the cleric prayed for spells I told him what he got for the day. A good time was had by all.So the spells were sort of slipping through the prison bars?
No, the big bad was actually the one who created the gods. He intercepted the cleric's prayers and, thinking it was cute, assigned ones that he liked better. Of course, this was in 3.x days so spontaneous casting was a thing. I'd do it a bit differently in 5e.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The player only has his PC. The DM has the rest of the multiverse!
The PC is the only thing the players have, and taking away control of that PC makes the player wonder why he's even playing. Is it just to listen to the alleged 'DM' tell a story?
This rings alarm bells for many players. The post that started this may have been meant innocently, but the way it came across was like this:-
Cleric's player: Here's today's list of spells that I'm preparing. Note that this list was compiled entirely within the rules for my cleric.
DM: No, you don't get to choose your spells; I get to choose your spells, and if you don't like it then you're a whiney little bi...hey, where's everyone going?
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love trying new foods. And I'm so desperate sometimes to be a player instead of the GM I'd probably play in nearly any game offered.
This is so me. I run four or five games because I have the time and inclination. I play in two - one with a controlling GM and a homebrew world I don't especially care for, and one with a GM who would be great if he would. Just. $%*&ing. Try.
I know he has it in him...
On the plus side, I may play PFS sometime soon. I'd be way more excited if I could get a Tiefling boon off of someone. ^_^
|
Contributor
|
I think in the hands of a good GM, this kind of idea works well. So long as they keep in mind that their deity should be helpful toward their goals, that is.
"I want to prepare two Resist Energy's, a Destruction, three Holy Words, and a bunch of Shield of Faiths."
"Today, my child, you might be better off trading some of those Shield of Faiths for some Endure Elements. I have it on good authority it's going to be cold as balls today."
I've done this on occasion.
Technically, the most recent time was from Urgathoa, who I've been running as entitled and manipulative (with player consent), so she did just say "No, you get one of these instead."
I don't get why people have such antagonistic attitudes towards DMs. I play with my RL friends and that usually means I want them to have a very good time? I mean I'm not exactly twisting arms here. Even with homebrew rules it's a constant negotiation where it's approached from a place of respect on all sides. Everything that Jaelithe and Dungeonmaster Cal have said seemed to convey, to me, that this wasn't some evil trap they had lying in wait for unwitting players to set foot in. Personally I thought they were brilliant ideas that offer a real challenge to players that play clerics.
I suppose I shouldn't say "I don't get" - I mean I understand that people have had bad DMs. That does happen - but you haven't had these people on the forums DM for you so why automatically assume they're all as bad as your worst experience? Or even just that they're going to be bad because they choose to do something you disagree with. I hate, HATE only playing Pathfinder Core Rulebook and "Nothing. Else." but I don't deride people who choose to do so and tell them that's against the rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Confession: People's comment that they will drop a game on a given dime over every perceived slight or table variation boggles my mind. I can count on one hand the number of games I've left in 35 years. Given the comments on the boards, I am shocked that some people manage to game at all.
Yeah me too (I can count mine on no hands). I've sometimes wondered at whether a significant part of the forum grar arises from two groups - those who play long term with the same half dozen people and those who mix regularly/often with several different grous.
My theory is that the experience of the two groups is quite different - especially in the 'how to resolve conflict between different preferred playstyles' part of the game. I sometimes find it quite difficult to even picture the scenes others describe.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
On a related note I've recently switched to communal character creation in one of my games. Players are allowed access to classes based on their in-game roleplay (they start as a generic commoner at 'level 0' as they put it with 1 hp and no stats), state their preference based on the options given to them (group input is sought but I have final say) and then the group gives feedback as to how well the choice aligns with their style of play and final suggestions are made in the event that anyone feels party balance is important.
Interested in your opinions as players/GMs.
I would probably hate this for anything more than a one-shot.
Half the fun of the game, to me, is picking a character and fiddling with it and making all the pieces fit just right. My character is my character, and I have absolute control over what it is, and what it can do.
Letting someone else pick my class for me takes the biggest part of that mechanical tweaking out of my hands. And while that might be fun every now and then (trying a new class in a new way unexpectedly), I wouldn't want to deal with it long term since if I don't like it...well I'm stuck with it for months or years.
The player only has his PC. The DM has the rest of the multiverse!
The PC is the only thing the players have, and taking away control of that PC makes the player wonder why he's even playing. Is it just to listen to the alleged 'DM' tell a story?
This rings alarm bells for many players. The post that started this may have been meant innocently, but the way it came across was like this:-
Cleric's player: Here's today's list of spells that I'm preparing. Note that this list was compiled entirely within the rules for my cleric.
DM: No, you don't get to choose your spells; I get to choose your spells, and if you don't like it then you're a whiney little bi...hey, where's everyone going?
Speaking of alarm bells, every time I hear "The poor player only has his character" and "is the alleged DM telling a story" I see in my mind Mel Gibson from Braveheart screaming "FREEDOM!"
Especially when combined with Player 1 in Jaelithe's example. I've met far too many of them in online games who need to relax a bit. No one is taking some unassailable right away; rather, a different way to play is being presented.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After a quick glance at the Core Rules, I allow 21 or 22 of the 25 1st-level spells to a 1st level cleric. I hardly think that's tremendously inconvenient or outrageously restrictive.which ones dont you like?Comprehend Languages, Endure Elements, Magic Weapon and Summon Monster I
And only the first two would be totally off the board in most cases. I like low-level characters to have to face off against language problems and the weather, at times. Those two spells make day-to-day existence too facile.
I have more of a problem with the orisons, actually. Fully a quarter of them I find problematic for some of the same reasons.
Wow, yeah, those are spells my players use all the time. While it's only a small segment of the available spells at that level, it's easily four of the most-frequently used.
And amusingly the two you've perma-banned are the two that still retain usefulness at high levels and give players something worthwhile to do with their low-level slots past level 10 or so.