No one is making anyone else eat (play) the Surf and Turf (mix and match character concept), they just have to watch you eat (play) it and getting offended over that is the definition of petty (to say the least), since they knew it was a menu item at Pathfinders before they agreed to go there.
Playing is a collaborative process and everyone at the table is playing with and interacting with all the other players. The final result is a collective experience that everyone in the group shares together. How and what character you play does impact my character and experience. Your analogy that the character is an individual entree that no one else has to experience is false because everyone at the table has to experience that character. This is why the analogy of the shared meal that everyone partakes in is better.
Likes and dislikes are not petty, they are the reason we are all at a table together looking to play a game. If those likes and dislikes don't align to everyone's satisfaction then maybe we shouldn't play a game together. It has nothing to do with ability or skill, it is all a matter of preference.
|
No one is making anyone else eat (play) the Surf and Turf (mix and match character concept), they just have to watch you eat (play) it and getting offended over that is the definition of petty (to say the least), since they knew it was a menu item at Pathfinders before they agreed to go there.
Except you are the only one who seems to view the rulebook as a menu.
It would be like me picking up the 007 game and making a child molester spy, because it is on the menu, after all...
No one is making anyone else eat (play) the Surf and Turf (mix and match character concept), they just have to watch you eat (play) it and getting offended over that is the definition of petty (to say the least), since they knew it was a menu item at Pathfinders before they agreed to go there.That's where we come down to group variance again.
The way some people play, they want a shared experience, rather than each person having their own experience, and I think that's the gap between your game and mine. Your group are ordering six individual plates, mine is ordering a big pot of something to be shared out.
The other thing is, you went to the big branch of Pathfinders. My group didn't, we went to a smaller one with a more limited menu to avoid having to eat things not on the menu at the larger branch. Maybe, for example, we are vegetarians :)
So basically, when you eat out vegetarian you insist *everyone* eats vegetarian? No one is saying you have to prepare non-vegetarian food, but why insist that Steve can't even bring himself some nice Steak? Cause that is what your argument boils down to and that smells of stewed cabbage.
No one is making anyone else eat (play) the Surf and Turf (mix and match character concept), they just have to watch you eat (play) it and getting offended over that is the definition of petty (to say the least), since they knew it was a menu item at Pathfinders before they agreed to go there.Playing is a collaborative process and everyone at the table is playing with and interacting with all the other players. The final result is a collective experience that everyone in the group shares together. How and what character you play does impact my character and experience. Your analogy that the character is an individual entree that no one else has to experience is false because everyone at the table has to experience that character. This is why the analogy of the shared meal that everyone partakes in is better.
Likes and dislikes are not petty, they are the reason we are all at a table together looking to play a game. If those likes and dislikes don't align to everyone's satisfaction then maybe we shouldn't play a game together. It has nothing to do with ability or skill, it is all a matter of preference.
No one is making you eat (play) the entree Steve brought. If you can't handle having something like Surf and Turf (mix match character concept) on the table, just because you wouldn't enjoy eating (playing) than that sounds rather petty.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No one is making you eat (play) the entree Steve brought. If you can't handle having something like Surf and Turf (mix match character concept) on the table, just because you wouldn't enjoy eating (playing) than that sounds rather petty.No one is making anyone else eat (play) the Surf and Turf (mix and match character concept), they just have to watch you eat (play) it and getting offended over that is the definition of petty (to say the least), since they knew it was a menu item at Pathfinders before they agreed to go there.Playing is a collaborative process and everyone at the table is playing with and interacting with all the other players. The final result is a collective experience that everyone in the group shares together. How and what character you play does impact my character and experience. Your analogy that the character is an individual entree that no one else has to experience is false because everyone at the table has to experience that character. This is why the analogy of the shared meal that everyone partakes in is better.
Likes and dislikes are not petty, they are the reason we are all at a table together looking to play a game. If those likes and dislikes don't align to everyone's satisfaction then maybe we shouldn't play a game together. It has nothing to do with ability or skill, it is all a matter of preference.
I get it, you really like your character but your like doesn't necessarily trump the dislikes of the other people present. Everyone eats everything at the table because everyone has to imagine and interact with everything in the game, therefore everyone consumes all parts of the meal. The character you play does impact the experience of the other players as their characters have to interact with your character in a shared experience.
Is it really so hard to understand why someone would not want to spend their free time imagining something they dislike? That isn't petty, it's just common sense. You don't have the right to force other people to endure something they dislike just because it is something you really like.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Man. I am really hungry.
|
No one is making you eat (play) the entree Steve brought. If you can't handle having something like Surf and Turf (mix match character concept) on the table, just because you wouldn't enjoy eating (playing) than that sounds rather petty.No one is making anyone else eat (play) the Surf and Turf (mix and match character concept), they just have to watch you eat (play) it and getting offended over that is the definition of petty (to say the least), since they knew it was a menu item at Pathfinders before they agreed to go there.Playing is a collaborative process and everyone at the table is playing with and interacting with all the other players. The final result is a collective experience that everyone in the group shares together. How and what character you play does impact my character and experience. Your analogy that the character is an individual entree that no one else has to experience is false because everyone at the table has to experience that character. This is why the analogy of the shared meal that everyone partakes in is better.
Likes and dislikes are not petty, they are the reason we are all at a table together looking to play a game. If those likes and dislikes don't align to everyone's satisfaction then maybe we shouldn't play a game together. It has nothing to do with ability or skill, it is all a matter of preference.
A very stupid comparison. That would be like me excusing myself from the table every time your character is in play because i cannot stand an awakened giant dung beetle wizard whose spellbook is actually an enormous ball of dung. So no. If Steve brings his entree to the table, EVERYONE has to partake. So, Steve shouldn't bring his entree to the table if everyone else hates it. He should eat it alone or with people who like it. Because Steve is no more important then any other person at the table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So basically, when you eat out vegetarian you insist *everyone* eats vegetarian? No one is saying you have to prepare non-vegetarian food, but why insist that Steve can't even bring himself some nice Steak? Cause that is what your argument boils down to and that smells of stewed cabbage.No one is making anyone else eat (play) the Surf and Turf (mix and match character concept), they just have to watch you eat (play) it and getting offended over that is the definition of petty (to say the least), since they knew it was a menu item at Pathfinders before they agreed to go there.That's where we come down to group variance again.
The way some people play, they want a shared experience, rather than each person having their own experience, and I think that's the gap between your game and mine. Your group are ordering six individual plates, mine is ordering a big pot of something to be shared out.
The other thing is, you went to the big branch of Pathfinders. My group didn't, we went to a smaller one with a more limited menu to avoid having to eat things not on the menu at the larger branch. Maybe, for example, we are vegetarians :)
If we're having to order a single dish for everyone (a shared narrative experience to construct a story that we all enjoy), then yes, it'd be correct to order something that the group has decided in advance that it would prefer to eat.
Steve, who prefers steak, probably isn't going to enjoy our vegetarian-only group, so I question why he's coming to eat with us in the first place, when all it's going to do is cause bad feelings on all sides when that stinky bowl of stewed cabbage arrives. If we like Steve, it sounds like perhaps taking him to a ball game rather than a meal would be a far better idea.
Again, though, as usual you're assuming everyone else orders six different dishes like your group does, and that those who prefer to order one big shared meal are somehow "doing it wrong".
The real irony here is that IRL I'd be ordering the steak :)
...
Kirth ... Just because it is able to support that - are you saying the rules somehow don't work as well if there are no elves or Tieflings? That somehow the same mechanics that worked before stop working as well? Please tell me HOW?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No one is making you eat (play) the entree Steve brought. If you can't handle having something like Surf and Turf (mix match character concept) on the table, just because you wouldn't enjoy eating (playing) than that sounds rather petty.
Actually they are.
When you bring a character, the group has to create reasons why that character is part of the group and to design adventures that include that character.
Your analogy is like walking into a room, peeing in the punchbowl and saying "No one has to drink the punch"
...Kirth ... Just because it is able to support that - are you saying the rules somehow don't work as well if there are no elves or Tieflings? That somehow the same mechanics that worked before stop working as well? Please tell me HOW?
Because Pathfinder is designed for high fantasy. A world with flying, intelligent, magic using dinosaurs is a world in a which an Awakened Pony Wizard is not at all out of place. You can't both have magic which awakens animals, moves you to another plane of existence, turns you into say... a horse and then go "Talking horse that can cast spells... NO not my verisimilitude!" (Well you can but again but the fault there lies with that persons notions.)
Seriously, there are already Druids that can turn into a horse and cast spells. People in a Pathfinder world aren't going to turn around and go "Oh look a bear, that talks and summons bears that's completely unrealistic!" A denizen of such a world would go "Oh a spellcaster of some kind, maybe one of them druids."
Even if the talking horse with phenomenal cosmic power did try to convince people that no the horse is in fact a horse not someone turned into a horse, would likely be met with some cautious skepticism. But it wouldn't be out place in that world, not even a little bit.
Now you can remove Awaken, Polymorph spells, cut Druids, exile ponies, and rip out spells that allow players access to other planes of existence, but at this point why are you playing Pathfinder? There are other systems that cater to a play style where such things are not part of the world. Really its ok to go eat at Ars McAgica.
Matt Thomason: If the vegetarians can't handle someone eating steak at their table and would not wish to sit a table with a person eating steak, I'd say their attitude is the problem wouldn't you?
Ciretose: That metaphor is disingenuous. You brought the punch for yourself, if you want to pee in it its only going to effect you.
Matt Thomason: If the vegetarians can't handle someone eating steak at their table and would not wish to sit a table with a person eating steak, I'd say their attitude is the problem wouldn't you?
You're misreading what I wrote.
They don't just sit at the table with the person eating steak. The person choosing steak is putting it on their plates too.
The problem is choosing to mix people with completely different tastes, that also have completely different eating styles (your steak eater is used to having his own separate meal, and not a single group one, and therefore is better off either finding people that like the same food as him or only going to restaurants that serve individual meals, rather than forcing everyone to eat his food). It's not in attitude, because that would infer that preferring to eat a single group meal is "doing it wrong", and that everyone should only go to restaurants that will bring them their own individual choice of dish, even if they don't enjoy eating that way.
People fall into different categories psychologically, it isn't possible to treat them all the same and say "you need to think this way".
Even if the talking horse with phenomenal cosmic power did try to convince people that no the horse is in fact a horse not someone turned into a horse, would likely be met with some cautious skepticism. But it wouldn't be out place in that world, not even a little bit.
That, I would agree with 100%.
Lets say the issue for my group is that we just don't like talking horses. It isn't necessarily that we don't think they exist in our campaign world, because it's quite logical that a wizard somewhere miscast a spell and accidently created one. Or something. It's that we just don't want stories that have talking horses in them. We find them distasteful. Maybe the talking horses exist, but they do so off-camera in other stories that happen in the world, and we don't have to listen or read about them, and we like it like that.
That's no different to a group that doesn't really want any undead in their game deciding between them not to have any undead. Perhaps they find them repulsive, or perhaps they read a Twilight novel and it really put them off the undead for the rest of their lives.
They then have a social contract between them to avoid having them in the game. When Sarah (lets give poor Steve a break here) joins the group a week later and - despite being told it's an undead-free game - presents her Vampire character, they turn to her and say "Look, I'm sure its a great concept and all, but we do have an agreement in this group not to ever mention any kind of Undead, and you were in fact told this when you asked to join the group. Please choose something that isn't a form of undead."
...Kirth ... Just because it is able to support that - are you saying the rules somehow don't work as well if there are no elves or Tieflings? That somehow the same mechanics that worked before stop working as well? Please tell me HOW?Because Pathfinder is designed for high fantasy. A world with flying, intelligent, magic using dinosaurs is a world in a which an Awakened Pony Wizard is not at all out of place. You can't both have magic which awakens animals, moves you to another plane of existence, turns you into say... a horse and then go "Talking horse that can cast spells... NO not my verisimilitude!" (Well you can but again but the fault there lies with that persons notions.)
Seriously, there are already Druids that can turn into a horse and cast spells. People in a Pathfinder world aren't going to turn around and go "Oh look a bear, that talks and summons bears that's completely unrealistic!" A denizen of such a world would go "Oh a spellcaster of some kind, maybe one of them druids."
Even if the talking horse with phenomenal cosmic power did try to convince people that no the horse is in fact a horse not someone turned into a horse, would likely be met with some cautious skepticism. But it wouldn't be out place in that world, not even a little bit.
Now you can remove Awaken, Polymorph spells, cut Druids, exile ponies, and rip out spells that allow players access to other planes of existence, but at this point why are you playing Pathfinder? There are other systems that cater to a play style where such things are not part of the world. Really its ok to go eat at Ars McAgica.
Matt Thomason: If the vegetarians can't handle someone eating steak at their table and would not wish to sit a table with a person eating steak, I'd say their attitude is the problem wouldn't you?
Ciretose: That metaphor is disingenuous. You brought the punch for yourself, if you want to pee in it its only going to effect you.
Irrelevant? Just because it CAN work with it there doesn't mean it DOESNT work without it there. Utterly false dilemma. And since "better" is a matter of taste - unless you can demonstrate that somehow the mechanics stop working if you leave out awakened pony sorcerers ... Then your 'point' is null and void other then as the statement of the obvious; that with the ruleset it is possible to include it.
So the problem boils down to "Some players aren't mature enough to play despite there being a a lot they would enjoy if there is something they don't agree with." Seriously, there's a lot of things in well... everything that most people are not fanw of, but that doesn't stop them from enjoying the parts of well... everything that they enjoy.
Hama: An Awakened Pony Wizard makes just as much sense as your avatar... just saying.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So the problem boils down to "Some players aren't mature enough to play despite there being a a lot they would enjoy if there is something they don't agree with." Seriously, there's a lot of things in well... everything that most people are not fanw of, but that doesn't stop them from enjoying the parts of well... everything that they enjoy.
Hama: An Awakened Pony Wizard makes just as much sense as your avatar... just saying.
Yes the problem is that you aren't mature enough to accept that other people may have different preferences then you and may not find fun what you find fun.
So the problem boils down to "Some players aren't mature enough to play despite there being a a lot they would enjoy if there is something they don't agree with." Seriously, there's a lot of things in well... everything that most people are not fanw of, but that doesn't stop them from enjoying the parts of well... everything that they enjoy.
Hama: An Awakened Pony Wizard makes just as much sense as your avatar... just saying.
So "if someone doesn't agree with you they are being immature."
How ...
Mature of you.
How about back at you ...
"Some players aren't mature enough to play despite not having one special class or race, despite there being allot they would be able to enjoy even without it."
Its fun playing the "I win the argument by calling my opponents immature childish idiots unimaginative etcetera ...
No it means that mature people should be able to handle there being an Awakened Pony Wizard at the table. Agreed?
If the only reason you don't want someone to play a character is because you don't like that character, that rather is immature. Agreed?
I don't see why you are taking such offense to such statements.
BiggDawg: Except... I accept such things at my table. Steve's is a-ok in my book, even though I personally would never watch MLP.
No it means that mature people should be able to handle there being an Awakened Pony Wizard at the table. Agreed?
If the only reason you don't want someone to play a character is because you don't like that character, that rather immature. Agreed?
I don't see why you are taking such offense to such statements.
Wouldn't you agree that a mature player should be able to handle that he might not get to play his awakened pony sorcerer in this game and might just pick something else?
No it means that mature people should be able to handle there being an Awakened Pony Wizard at the table. Agreed?
If the only reason you don't want someone to play a character is because you don't like that character, that rather immature. Agreed?
I don't see why you are taking such offense to such statements.
Wouldn't you agree that a mature player should be able to handle that he might not get to play his awakened pony sorcerer in this game and might just pick something else?
Not at all. The only objection people are raising is "I don't like it." Steve shouldn't have to sacrifice his character for such petty reasons A game that is forced to include only things that everyone likes would be the equivalent of ending up in a restaurant no one wanted to go to ala Seinfeld.
No it means that mature people should be able to handle there being an Awakened Pony Wizard at the table. Agreed?
No we do not agree on this because it is BS. Having likes and dislikes is not immature, not accepting that others likes and dislikes may differ from yours and then "looking down on them" for that difference is immature.
No we do not agree on this because it is BS. Having likes and dislikes is not immature, not accepting that others likes and dislikes may differ from yours and then "looking down on them" for that difference is immature.No it means that mature people should be able to handle there being an Awakened Pony Wizard at the table. Agreed?
What other people like or dislike is not the issue. Its how the people arguing against Steve are treating him that is the problem. You can dislike Awakened Pony Wizards all you want, like I do, but that doesn't mean you should be a jerk to Steve about it. "Either play something we like or don't play at all" is the equivalent of taking one's toys and going home. Steve is fine to play in my book, how about yours?
Not at all. The only objection people are raising is "I don't like it." Steve shouldn't have to sacrifice his character for such petty reasons.No it means that mature people should be able to handle there being an Awakened Pony Wizard at the table. Agreed?
If the only reason you don't want someone to play a character is because you don't like that character, that rather immature. Agreed?
I don't see why you are taking such offense to such statements.
Wouldn't you agree that a mature player should be able to handle that he might not get to play his awakened pony sorcerer in this game and might just pick something else?
No. That isn't the only objection raised.
I might be perfectly fine with your concept ... In a different campaign or on a different world but it does not fit in this one. I gm some anything goes games. I gm other games that aren't. I'll gm a golarion game. I'll gm a game that is somewhere else. Not everything exists everywhere.
If all you hear is "I don't like it because", then I submit that you must not be reading two thirds of every post by anyone who disagrees with you.
What other people like or dislike is not the issue. Its how the people arguing against Steve are treating him that is the problem. You can dislike Awakened Pony Wizards all you want, like I do, but that doesn't mean you should be a jerk to Steve about it. "Either play something we like or don't play at all" is the equivalent of taking one's toys and going home. Steve is fine to play in my book, how about yours?No we do not agree on this because it is BS. Having likes and dislikes is not immature, not accepting that others likes and dislikes may differ from yours and then "looking down on them" for that difference is immature.No it means that mature people should be able to handle there being an Awakened Pony Wizard at the table. Agreed?
Telling Steve "no that isn't in this campaign. Maybe in another game" is not 'being a jerk to Steve'. Equally wouldn't Steve be being a jerk if he specifically brings to the table a concept that the gm already said he doesn't want to gm for for whatever reason?
And Steve is the one threatening to take his toys and go home if he doesn't get to play what he wants.
It must be, because otherwise an experienced GM could fit such a concept in. (And I've said many times I have no problems with inexperienced GMs excluding them.)
Or do you not believe that an experienced enough GM could make the concept work in that game?
Finally, no one is asking you to include everything, just the things you players want to play. Which seems like it should be obvious.
I mean things your players like seems like they would be the first thing you should to add to a game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It must be, because otherwise an experienced GM could fit such a concept in. (And I've said many times I have no problems with inexperienced GMs excluding them.)
Or do you not believe that an experienced enough GM could make the concept work in that game?
Finally, no one is asking you to include everything, just the things you players want to play. Which seems like it should be obvious. I mean things your players like seems like they would be the first thing you add to a game.
'Could' is not the same as 'should'. A car is capable of going much faster than the speed limit on any given road. Try arguing with the cop that you should be able to go 180 just because your car is capable of it.
An experienced player could find an enjoyable concept that doesn't violate the strictures of a given campaign.
Not at all. The only objection people are raising is "I don't like it." Steve shouldn't have to sacrifice his character for such petty reasons A game that is forced to include only things that everyone likes would be the equivalent of ending up in a restaurant no one wanted to go to ala Seinfeld.
Except we're not talking "everyone". We're talking lots and lots of individual restaurants with their own collections of customers, and suggesting Steve finds one that suits him instead of walking in the door and demanding they change the way they do things.
Nobody is asking him to sacrifice his character. We just don't want him in our games if he can't find a concept that fits better with the game the rest of the group want to play, as forcing it will just end up with everyone resenting his presence for ruining the game, and hating him.
It's very important, however, to define something at this point, and that is:
How long has Steve been in this group?
In my mind, he's not a member, and is asking to join, and we're telling him what types of character will be acceptable. Now, if he doesn't like that joining our group will come along with some kind of expectations on his part, he's going to find life extremely hard later on, when he grows up.
If, however, he's been a member of this group all along, there's a pretty high chance that he wouldn't be asking to use this character in the first place. On the off chance he is asking though, then we're back to whether or not he really wants to end up with everyone else resenting his presence, as he's been with the group long enough to know that it'll turn everyone against him, which really does make him an incredible jerk to be causing the situation in the first place.
Give me a good reason an experienced enough GM who can make the concept work, shouldn't as I am genuinely curious.
An experienced player could and should for an inexperienced GM, but there's no reason for them to change for an experienced one. unless as above there is some good reason that you could fill me in on.
Give me a good reason an experienced enough GM who can make the concept work, shouldn't as I am genuinely curious.
An experienced player could and should for an inexperienced GM, but there's no reason for them to change for an experienced one. unless as above there is some good reason that you could fill me in on.
If the concept can work sure.
But not every concept works in every world.
Give me a good reason an experienced enough GM who can make the concept work, shouldn't as I am genuinely curious.
When the rest of the group has told them they'll leave if they allow it, and the GM happens to find their reasoning (that it will take the story to places nobody wants it to go) logical and fair.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Give me a good reason an experienced enough GM who can make the concept work, shouldn't as I am genuinely curious.
An experienced player could and should for an inexperienced GM, but there's no reason for them to change for an experienced one. unless as above there is some good reason that you could fill me in on.
If the concept can work sure.
But not every concept works in every world.
An experienced GM knows when one concept or player is going to be detrimental to the game as a whole, and experienced players know the same.
Let's bottom line this: Some people enjoy being disruptive. Those people don't care what the rest of the group wants, they want their way. Those people tend to create problems. The concept is seldom the issue, they can do this with anything they play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly at this point, the fact he's a fictional character notwithstanding, I'm really starting to hate Steve's guts. He's more trouble than he's worth, and I know for a fact I'll not be welcoming him to any game I run.
He just seems to want to constantly pester my group to be allowed to play with us, when we've made it patently clear he and his ideas aren't welcome. He behaves like quite the entitled child when we explain to him why we don't like his characters, and seems to think his own enjoyment is far more important than ours. Quite why he doesn't find another group to join is beyond me. I'm also beginning to think he's got somewhat stalkerish tendencies if he can't leave us alone. It seems quite likely that he's mentally damaged, and really does say some nasty things about today's society that he's allowed to wander the streets freely...
EDIT: And I haven't even started on his restaurant manners!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Give me a good reason an experienced enough GM who can make the concept work, shouldn't as I am genuinely curious.
An experienced player could and should for an inexperienced GM, but there's no reason for them to change for an experienced one. unless as above there is some good reason that you could fill me in on.
Because he and the other players dislike the concept and its presence in the game would be an impediment to their fun.
|
because otherwise an experienced GM could fit such a concept in. (And I've said many times I have no problems with inexperienced GMs excluding them.)
So, if I, as an experienced GM decide to create a game world (I mean the setting the game rules take place within) using the Pathfinder RPG rules that does not have horses or any other kind of equine creatures in that world (again, I'm talking setting not game rules), then I have to let our proverbial Steve have an awakened pony sorcerer/wizard simply because he wants one?
What about the verisimilitude of the game world in which equine creatures do not exist??
Do I not have a right as a GM to create such a world barren of equine creatures??
Or should I in your opinion try and find a high fantasy game system without horses and other equine creatures in it (or better yet, ignore the verisimilitude of the game setting and just let Steve have HIS fun)??
because otherwise an experienced GM could fit such a concept in. (And I've said many times I have no problems with inexperienced GMs excluding them.)So, if I, as an experienced GM decide to create a game world (I mean the setting the game rules take place within) using the Pathfinder RPG rules that does not have horses or any other kind of equine creatures in that world (again, I'm talking setting not game rules), then I have to let our proverbial Steve have an awakened pony sorcerer/wizard simply because he wants one?
What about the verisimilitude of the game world in which equine creatures do not exist??
Do I not have a right as a GM to create such a world barren of equine creatures??
Or should I in your opinion try and find a high fantasy game system without horses and other equine creatures in it??
The instant the player asks, the horses should spring into existence fully formed.
(Would post, but am busy right now with the rest of my group making phone calls. We believe we've got enough evidence to have Steve committed as a serious threat to the general public.)
because otherwise an experienced GM could fit such a concept in. (And I've said many times I have no problems with inexperienced GMs excluding them.)So, if I, as an experienced GM decide to create a game world (I mean the setting the game rules take place within) using the Pathfinder RPG rules that does not have horses or any other kind of equine creatures in that world (again, I'm talking setting not game rules), then I have to let our proverbial Steve have an awakened pony sorcerer/wizard simply because he wants one?
What about the verisimilitude of the game world in which equine creatures do not exist??
Do I not have a right as a GM to create such a world barren of equine creatures??
Or should I in your opinion try and find a high fantasy game system without horses and other equine creatures in it??
The instant the player asks, the horses should spring into existence fully formed.
The idea, from other posts in the thread, is that the character could come through a Gate or another dimension or a space ship or whatever, as long as a way is made for the character to exist.
Otherwise, you are an inexperienced and uncreative and unimaginative GM and player/group. Everyone should be allowed to play what they want to as long as the rules allow it.
The point that seems to be being missed by the poster is that "We do not want that at our table" is a valid reason.
|
|
the character could come through a Gate or another dimension or a space ship or whatever, as long as a way is made for the character to exist.
And an experienced GM could have accounted for this when he first created the world by having it exist within a closed, alternate material plane that is cut off from the rest of the multiverse were gates and gate spells do not exist...
The idea, from other posts in the thread, is that the character could come through a Gate or another dimension or a space ship or whatever, as long as a way is made for the character to exist.An old and tired cliche that is becoming more unwelcome, each time I hear it used to justify a character, that has otherwise no reason to exist in a setting.
Exactly. I start to get tired if every other character idea has to be an import from another dimension or planet or time just so someone can get in a strange concept. Most games I've been in or even heard of have ample races and classes for everyone to pick from. If you consistently have to go outside the box, the issue might not be with the game.
And an experienced GM could have accounted for this when he first created the world by having it exist within a closed, alternate material plane that is cut off from the rest of the multiverse were gates and gate spells do not exist...
No, no, no! Obviously it is the sign of a non-experienced GM that they had not planned for it! Or whatever the usual denial is.
the character could come through a Gate or another dimension or a space ship or whatever, as long as a way is made for the character to exist.And an experienced GM could have accounted for this when he first created the world by having it exist within a closed, alternate material plane that is cut off from the rest of the multiverse were gates and gate spells do not exist...
Or, alternately it exists with a defined multiverse which is different for the pathfinder multiverse. In that multiverse not everything from the pathfinder multiverse exists.
As a veteran of this thread take it from me. You're not going to convince Anzyr of his wrongness. If he were willing to consider other views on the matter he'd have done so by now.
Convincing him that either
- just because pathfinder allows something doesn't mean it should be allowed in every setting
or
- One persons desire to have a character in a game doesn't trump 4 peoples desire not to have that character in a game
is a lost cause.
He's been presented with numerous reasonable arguments and scenarios and he refuses to acknowledge the merit of any of them.
It's not worth your time guys.
- Torger
P.S. best of luck though if you just can't help yourself.
I will just repeat the challenge and any post that is not an answer to it will receive nothing but a repeat of the challenge;
Tell me in what way the ruleset of Pathfinder stops functioning properly if there are no Elves.(or instead no dwarfs. Or no Gnomes. Or no Awakened Pony Sorcerers. Or ...or ... Or ...)
In what way are the mechanical aspects of the pathfinder game influenced at all for good or ill by the absence of any given race. One specific example anywhere of how that would make the ruleset imbalanced or not work properly. For it to be not suited for playing that sort of game you really have to show me that; otherwise all ya got is opinion and your own personal preference vs someone else's opinion and personal preference.
You can make arguments that the pathfinder ruleset doesn't work well with low magic. Numbers can be provided. Examples of where it could cause problems in the rules can be cited. You can make arguments that a mechanical aspect or a house rule that changes the way things work mechanically causes imbalances and problems. Heck, you can argue that INCLUDING a specific race as a player option can be a cause of imbalance or mechanical and rules issues that may cause the proper functioning of the ruleset to break down.
So; cite me one problem with the operation of the ruleset caused by the absence of any one race. By elves for example. Or Dwarves. Or the absence of awakened pony sorcerers. And "but I want it" or "but its possible in a world 'because ... DRAGONS!!!" Is not a valid answer. Neither is 'well if you were experienced or imaginative you would just give me what I want'. 'Argumentum Ad homenim may be personally satisfying but it doesn't have very strong probative value.'
|
We butt heads with Anzyr because he's the guy who shows up to the dinner party with Lutefish and gets pissed off when the host says not to open it because it smells like rotten fish and says "I told you we were having italian"
"You can get Lutefish in italy" shouts Anzyr!
I'm going to pick back up the food metaphor since its the easiest way to make my point.
Pathfinder isn't a grocery store system, that'd be something like GURPS, HERO, or FATE where the ingredients to make many styles of food (campaigns) are present, but you have to actually put it all together yourself to make the food (campaign) you want.
Pathfinder is a restaurant that serves High Fantasy style food (campaigns). Now, if you and your friends say, "Hey let's go to Pathfinders." it seems rather strange that a group of fellow diners (players) would complain that you order the Surf and Turf (Some mix/mash character concept), when all they ordered was burgers and fries. You eating Surf and Turf shouldn't make them ask you to eat elsewhere, just because they enjoy Burgers and Fries. Both menu options are high fantasy style food (campaign) choices and you are eating at a high fantasy style restaurant.
You all agreed to come to Pathfinders after all which serves high fantasy style food (campaigns). If they only wanted everyone to order Burgers and Fries (for some odd reason), they should have gone to Ars McAgica down the street.
No Anzyr, you're the guy going to a Sushi place and demanding why he doesn't serve Hamburger even though he buys his supplies from the same guy who services Johnny Rockets.
AHHHH! Empty your "pockets" Johnny Rockets.
|
|
I think people need to look at the beginning of the conversation. What I mean by that is, lets say your friend invites you over for dinner and he tells you he is making pizza. Now before youdecide you know what you will be having so if you agree to come to dinner then you have agreed to eat what has been offered. If not then you simply say no. It would be very cheek of you to show up demanding something different. If the DM outlines what type of game he is wanting to run, and he tells you that PCs will have to be approved before, then you need to come to the table with the knowledge that your character may not be approved of.
In the end, if I am the DM and I offer to run a game then you have the power to say no. You do not have the power to tell the DM what he will allow and what he will not, that is not your decision as a player. The position of DM is one of authority and it is a position that is shared amongst the group and each time its changed hands, that person's decision needs to be respected. If I sit there through one of your games and I respect your rules then I expect the same, even if you allow anything and everything in the books.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh goodness, another instance of the "Entitled Special Snowflake Syndrome".
Far too many years of gaming, pen and paper and later online, and this beast continues to rear it's ugly head. Players get these "great concepts!!!111!11!!" and insist on making them, rules or setting be damned... their story/concept is more important than mere mechanics, balance of storyline integrity! They force their idea on the gaming group/community and show everyone just how unique and special they are, heedless of anyone's concerns but their own.
Unfortunately, just like the scads of horrible Fanfic out there, these Special Snowflakes are generally dull, vapid and lifeless... only memorable or notable on account of how little they fit in with the setting/group and generally serve no purpose other than ego stroking of the player, and terminal annoyance and exasperation of the rest of the player base. However, these abominations are continuously churned out and slammed down onto the table like a slab of rancid, noxious, 7 day old pork tar tar, and the creators cannot ever understand why everyone does not revel in their presence.
I happen to be a very experienced player and DM, Flying Spaghetti Monster knows I wouldn't mind being a decade or so -less- mature than I am... but because of that, I have learned to just say no to these types of characters (and the player as well if needed) in order to maintain a group and story that is fun for everyone, not the "Only One".