Gaming the system versus imaginative creativity


Gamer Life General Discussion

651 to 700 of 1,026 << first < prev | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | next > last >>

knightnday wrote:
Or the advent of silly crap like PunPun, which would not exist if the word NO was used once or twice in its creation.

Fact check: to the best of my knowledge, no one has ever actually used that in a game. It was a thought experiment meant to showcase rules loopholes that needed to be closed.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Wait, I was with you for a moment and then the part about using a prepackaged setting got me. Why do those gain an exception but a homebrewed version of the same doesn't grant the same?
Maybe it's just me, but it seems hypocritical to say, "We're playing in a Black Company setting, but I'm intentionally using rules that don't fit it at all [e.g., Pathfinder] and aren't meant for it. However, your characters better fit it perfectly, or you can't play." That kind of an in-your-face double standard grates on me.

Ah! Ok, was just lost for a moment on what you meant. More on the communication bit involved there, then I guess. And using the right tool for the job.

Liberty's Edge

Kirth Gersen wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Wait, I was with you for a moment and then the part about using a prepackaged setting got me. Why do those gain an exception but a homebrewed version of the same doesn't grant the same?
Maybe it's just me, but it seems hypocritical to say, "We're playing in a Black Company setting, but I'm intentionally using rules that don't fit it at all [e.g., Pathfinder] and aren't meant for it. However, your characters better fit it perfectly, or you can't play." That kind of an in-your-face double standard grates on me.

Where as I look at is as "Hey, I'm running this game in this style, are you interested?"

If the answer is *crickets* then that is the players saying no.

If the answer is "Can I be a Pony Wizard!", you seem to be saying the GM doesn't have a similar right of refusal.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Wait, I was with you for a moment and then the part about using a prepackaged setting got me. Why do those gain an exception but a homebrewed version of the same doesn't grant the same?
Maybe it's just me, but it seems hypocritical to say, "We're playing in a Black Company setting, but I'm intentionally using rules that don't fit it at all and aren't meant for it. However, your characters better fit it perfectly, or you can't play." That kind of an in-your-face double standard grates on me.

I can *sorta* understand that, especially if you're primarily a "systems" player ("lets play Pathfinder this week,lets play RuneQuest tomorrow".)

It's worth bearing in mind that some people are primarily "settings" players, who are quite happy hammering whatever square peg rules they can find into the round hole (especially if they don't own the official licensed rulebook for that setting).

And as usual, it isn't black and white, there are shades of grey between those two :)

Again, for me that all comes down to ensuring everyone is on the same page before forming the group in the first place.

Not everyone has that luxury, and has a permanent group of friends that expect to get together on a certain night and find a game to play, and naturally will tend towards a more permissive, open, and inclusive environment because spending that night as a group is too important for silly squabbles over character concepts to ruin their friendship (or alternatively, will not force their character on the rest of the group. It really goes both ways.)

Liberty's Edge

Kirth Gersen wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Or the advent of silly crap like PunPun, which would not exist if the word NO was used once or twice in its creation.
Fact check: to the best of my knowledge, no one has ever actually used that in a game. It was a thought experiment meant to showcase rules loopholes that needed to be closed.

But half of the loopholes were not actual loopholes. Which an underlying point in this discussion.

Because something can be imagined, doesn't mean it must be permitted. Because you "could" read a rule a certain way, doesn't mean it was written that way.

I don't want an encyclopedia rulebook that we have to stop and reference for every nuance.

This is what the GM is for. But if the GM isn't allowed to say "No", what is the point of having a GM?


Kirth Gersen wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Wait, I was with you for a moment and then the part about using a prepackaged setting got me. Why do those gain an exception but a homebrewed version of the same doesn't grant the same?
Maybe it's just me, but it seems hypocritical to say, "We're playing in a Black Company setting, but I'm intentionally using rules that don't fit it at all [e.g., Pathfinder] and aren't meant for it. However, your characters better fit it perfectly, or you can't play." That kind of an in-your-face double standard grates on me.

So let me get this straight. You are saying that if you are going to play Pathfinder then you should play Pathfinder as it is found within the rulebooks otherwise you are doing it wrong?

Aren't you the guy that basically rewrote the Pathfinder book for your own house rule system?

How is that any different then a GM altering the rules some to fit their setting?

So if I wanted to play a core rulebook game but you want to pile on the house rules are you still the bad guy?

Is your massive house rule system playing the wrong way because you are forcing others to accept the rules that you like?

By your logic you are the most authoritarian, my way or the highway, my interest trumps your interest, you should go find another game that suits your wants better hypocritical person on the boards.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Or the advent of silly crap like PunPun, which would not exist if the word NO was used once or twice in its creation.
Fact check: to the best of my knowledge, no one has ever actually used that in a game. It was a thought experiment meant to showcase rules loopholes that needed to be closed.

But half of the loopholes were not actual loopholes. Which an underlying point in this discussion.

Because something can be imagined, doesn't mean it must be permitted. Because you "could" read a rule a certain way, doesn't mean it was written that way.

I don't want an encyclopedia rulebook that we have to stop and reference for every nuance.

This is what the GM is for. But if the GM isn't allowed to say "No", what is the point of having a GM?

Right. Whether someone actually played it is besides the point. It's the idea given there (and in some threads on these boards) that proclaim "Look! I made this monstrosity and I'm going to go bludgeon my GM into letting me play it! Won't he be shocked at what it does tee hee" that offends me.

Liberty's Edge

knightnday wrote:

Right. Whether someone actually played it is besides the point. It's the idea given there (and in some threads on these boards) that proclaim "Look! I made this monstrosity and I'm going to go bludgeon my GM into letting me play it! Won't he be shocked at what it does tee hee" that offends me.

And then when someone says "No" the response is "HOW DARE THEM FOR BEING CRUEL/UNCREATIVE/CLOSEDMINDED/ETC!!!!"


ciretose wrote:
knightnday wrote:

Right. Whether someone actually played it is besides the point. It's the idea given there (and in some threads on these boards) that proclaim "Look! I made this monstrosity and I'm going to go bludgeon my GM into letting me play it! Won't he be shocked at what it does tee hee" that offends me.

And then when someone says "No" the response is "HOW DARE THEM FOR BEING CRUEL/UNCREATIVE/CLOSEDMINDED/ETC!!!!"

Only a few immature people. I don't know many people who actually do that. Usually it goes much differently. I only knew one GM who allowed pun pun, and it was a one on one game with a long time friend just to mess around for an afternoon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Wait, I was with you for a moment and then the part about using a prepackaged setting got me. Why do those gain an exception but a homebrewed version of the same doesn't grant the same?
Maybe it's just me, but it seems hypocritical to say, "We're playing in a Black Company setting, but I'm intentionally using rules that don't fit it at all [e.g., Pathfinder] and aren't meant for it. However, your characters better fit it perfectly, or you can't play." That kind of an in-your-face double standard grates on me.

I wouldn't set such an absurdly high standard. Sometimes you pick the rule set that you all know even if it isn't a perfect fit to the setting and that's fine. You just fit it best you can, screw perfect, but do the best you can (which may mean no My Little Pony).


LazarX wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Snorter wrote:

We all seem to have forgotten about the poor free-willed golem at the beginning of this thread, but if we can all take a moment to reflect, I can see how having a golem around could be great fun.

I imagine the resulting sessions would go something like THIS.

WHY DO I CLICK ON LINKS?!?!?!
Because you're an Internet Kitty. Here kitty kitty! String! String!

can't..stop...watching!


Kirth Gersen wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Or the advent of silly crap like PunPun, which would not exist if the word NO was used once or twice in its creation.
Fact check: to the best of my knowledge, no one has ever actually used that in a game. It was a thought experiment meant to showcase rules loopholes that needed to be closed.

we had a guy who tried to file the serial numbers off punpun more than once.


ciretose wrote:
This is what the GM is for.

This is our main difference. I believe in the goal of creating a game with clear rules that work as intended, not vague ones constantly being shored up on the fly by DM fiat.

ciretose wrote:
But if the GM isn't allowed to say "No", what is the point of having a GM?

To run the adventure and referee any rules adjudication needed. It's a lot more fun that way than his current role, which seems to be, the way you describe it, to constantly fight against the players and game rules just in order to get the game to work.


Freehold DM wrote:
we had a guy who tried to file the serial numbers off punpun more than once.

And he was allowed in your game why...?


BiggDawg wrote:
So let me get this straight.

You're clearly not trying to get anything straight, given that you then go on to put a lot of words in my mouth, grossly misrepresent my position, and otherwise pick a fight. If you want to discuss actual things, I'll be happy to oblige, but addressing the rant in your last post won't lead there.

P.S. In my home game, house rules are all subject to vote. As DM, I abstain from voting except in the case of a tie.


MrSin wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Ultimately the DM is someone who either runs a campaign, or lets it spin into an out of control disaster. There really isn't any middle ground.

Lolwut? Seriously, where do you come up with stuff like this?

"Everyone must eat chocolate ice cream or vanilla will destroy the world. There really isn't any middle ground."

So is this another player entitlement type thread we are told how Ciretose does things and there isn't any other way?

Isn't this the thread where one person keeps saying anyone who doesn't agree with him is uncreative or unimaginative, or inexperienced?


knightnday wrote:
"Look! I made this monstrosity and I'm going to go bludgeon my GM into letting me play it! Won't he be shocked at what it does tee hee" that offends me.

I've never had a player like that. If I did, I would have not invited him to begin with, sparing me the effort of constantly whining about him. Then again, I'm not looking for an excuse to advocate for dictatorial authority as DM ("someone has to keep these players in line, or it will be total anarchy!").

I'd rather have no game than play with people I don't like. Even on a ship in the middle of the ocean.

Liberty's Edge

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
we had a guy who tried to file the serial numbers off punpun more than once.
And he was allowed in your game why...?

For the same reason the tyrant GM you keep referring to appeared.

Liberty's Edge

Kirth Gersen wrote:
knightnday wrote:
"Look! I made this monstrosity and I'm going to go bludgeon my GM into letting me play it! Won't he be shocked at what it does tee hee" that offends me.

I've never had a player like that. If I did, I would have not invited him to begin with, sparing me the effort of constantly whining about him. Then again, I'm not looking for an excuse to advocate for dictatorial authority as DM ("someone has to keep these players in line, or it will be total anarchy!").

I'd rather have no game than play with people I don't like. Even on a ship in the middle of the ocean.

Nor would we select the tyrant of the group to be a GM.

You can't say that it isn't a valid argument for one side and then use it on the other side.


ciretose wrote:
For the same reason the tyrant GM you keep referring to appeared.

Because that's what so many people on the boards say the DM has to be, or else the game dissolves into anarchy and the world ends? People hear enough of that and they start believing it. I've met more than one, and always said "no" to their games.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arssanguinus wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Ultimately the DM is someone who either runs a campaign, or lets it spin into an out of control disaster. There really isn't any middle ground.

Lolwut? Seriously, where do you come up with stuff like this?

"Everyone must eat chocolate ice cream or vanilla will destroy the world. There really isn't any middle ground."

So is this another player entitlement type thread we are told how Ciretose does things and there isn't any other way?
Isn't this the thread where one person keeps saying anyone who doesn't agree with him is uncreative or unimaginative, or inexperienced?

They clearly haven't been reading the thread, but jumped in to take a cheap shot at me anyway.

Hence the Big Lebowski reference.


ciretose wrote:
You can't say that it isn't a valid argument for one side and then use it on the other side.

In Houston, you'd be right, because DMs are a dime a dozen there. I'd agree completely. I've been told repeatedly that's "near unique," though, and that in most places, players take whatever DM they can find, which seems bizarre to me, but I don't want to call all those people liars.

Liberty's Edge

Kirth Gersen wrote:
ciretose wrote:
For the same reason the tyrant GM you keep referring to appeared.
Because that's what so many people on the boards say the DM has to be, or else the game dissolves into anarchy and the world ends? People hear enough of that and they start believing it. I've met more than one, and always said "no" to their games.

And I'm seeing players screaming about how they are entitled to anything in the rules and how cruel the GM is daring to say no to them.

And how they can't find games.

The two are not unrelated, IMHO...


ciretose wrote:
And I'm seeing players screaming about how they are entitled to anything in the rules and how cruel the GM is daring to say no to them.

So far one (1) person in this thread has said that, and he said he was a DM, not a player.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
ciretose wrote:
You can't say that it isn't a valid argument for one side and then use it on the other side.
In Houston, you'd be right, because DMs are a dime a dozen there. I'd agree completely. I've been told repeatedly that's "near unique," though, and that in most places, players take whatever DM they can find, which seems bizarre to me, but I don't want to call all those people liars.

As I said, I don't think it is a mystery why people who demand the GM accept whatever they bring to the table can't find people who want to GM for them.

I don't think they are lying at all.

Liberty's Edge

Kirth Gersen wrote:
ciretose wrote:
And I'm seeing players screaming about how they are entitled to anything in the rules and how cruel the GM is daring to say no to them.
So far one (1) person in this thread has said that, and he said he was a DM, not a player.

In this thread. And lets remember the OP. Not to say RD is screaming or being unreasonable, but the theme of the thread was "mean GM's who don't allow things"


ciretose wrote:
I don't think it is a mystery why people who demand the GM accept whatever they bring to the table can't find people who want to GM for them.

That seems to be pretty well unanimous.


ciretose wrote:
In this thread.

True, but I didn't want to mention some of the other threads, in which we've had DMs tell us that:

  • The DM should not think about why he/she bans things, because that's pointless "navel-gazing."
  • The DM should never provide explanations for banning things, because it's not subject to discussion and hence pointless to talk about.
  • If you ban elves, and a player brings a human druid to the game, he should be kicked out, because he's obviously just trying to annoy you.
  • If a player rolls up a dwarf barbarian for a pirates-themed game, he's trying to be disruptive and should also be kicked out.
  • If he works on it long enough, the DM's imaginary setting is more real than the actual players.
  • If a PC doesn't wear black pajamas, he's not allowed to be a ninja.

    I wish I could make this stuff up.


  • 1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    ciretose wrote:
    You can't say that it isn't a valid argument for one side and then use it on the other side.
    In Houston, you'd be right, because DMs are a dime a dozen there. I'd agree completely. I've been told repeatedly that's "near unique," though, and that in most places, players take whatever DM they can find, which seems bizarre to me, but I don't want to call all those people liars.

    You live in a forest rather than a large town; its not exactly a buffet of choices, if you know what I mean. When I was younger I'd take what I get, now I'm a bit more picky and won't even play with those friends. Personally though, I always felt like it was a game you play with your friends so I'm not exactly seeking a GM as much as offering to play or GM for people I know.

    Liberty's Edge

    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    ciretose wrote:
    In this thread.

    True, but I didn't want to mention some of the other threads, in which we've had DMs tell us that:

  • The DM should not think about why he/she bans things, because that's pointless "navel-gazing."
  • The DM should never provide explanations for banning things, because it's not subject to discussion and hence pointless to talk about.
  • If you ban elves, and a player brings a human druid to the game, he should be kicked out, because he's obviously just trying to annoy you.
  • If a player rolls up a dwarf barbarian for a pirates-themed game, he's trying to be disruptive and should also be kicked out.
  • If he works on it long enough, the DM's imaginary setting is more real than the actual players.
  • If a PC doesn't wear black pajamas, he's not allowed to be a ninja.

    I wish I could make this stuff up.

  • You ask why you play with that guy.

    I think it is a step beyond playing with a guy to let the guy be the GM for the group.

    If you can't believe people would play with a guy who does "X" I am even more amazed anyone would put the above guys in charge.

    Meaning the guy doing the above was selected as the best person in the group for the job.

    What does that say about the group?


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    ciretose wrote:
    I think it is a step beyond playing with a guy to let the guy be the GM for the group.

    I agree. It really makes me wonder, too, but apparently people do.

    Maybe the best advice we can give* is:

    DMs -- are your players whiny adolescents? There's a solution -- DON'T INVITE THEM!
    Players -- is your DM a petty tyrant? There's a solution -- gather up the other players and BAIL!

    *Doesn't help the people on naval deployment, unfortunately, but can't win 'em all.

    Grand Lodge

    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    I'm saying that the "setting purity" argument is the exact same argument as "I don't like it and my interests trump yours." Because if the DM is insisting on a personal homebrew setting that somehow doesn't allow elves or tieflings, and then pretends that it can't possibly be altered in any way to allow them, that's the exact same thing as the DM saying "No elves or tieflings because I say so. Nanny nanny boo boo!"

    Why is it okay for a player to say "my interest trumps yours" by insisting on playing a character that does not fit into a GMs homebrew game setting.

    Why must a GM create a setting that allows for the possibility for every single class, race, spell, feat, etc. to exist within it simple by using the PFRPG?

    Not sure if you're familiar with the Dark Sun setting, but in the 2nd edition version (as I am not familiar with the 4th edition version), an awakened pony spell-caster would not have fit, and it would have ruined the setting's "alien" feel to shoe-horn one in (especially just to satisfy a single player).


    Digitalelf wrote:
    Why is it okay for a player to say "my interest trumps yours" by insisting on playing a character that does not fit into a GMs homebrew game setting.

    FAQ #1.

    Scarab Sages

    Bruunwald wrote:

    Is this thread still going? Reading the last few pages, it's clear this is a waste of time.

    File this under "what goes on at another person's table on the other side of the country from you does not ruin your own game" and move on.

    Other side of the world, sir.

    If we are to be pedantic and curmudgeonly, then it is only right that we give things their proper due.

    Grand Lodge

    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    FAQ #1.

    If we go by the logic you have presented in this thread, it is pointless for a GM to even attempt to create a truly unique setting (i.e. a setting that does not conform to the "high fantasy" standard) using the Pathfinder rules, because he must be willing to abandon the setting's verisimilitude at the drop of a hat just to allow for the possibility of having to use every single rule within the game so as to accommodate a given player's wishes that go outside of the setting's established parameters.


    Digitalelf wrote:
    If we go by the logic you have presented in this thread, it is pointless for a GM to even attempt to create a truly unique setting using the Pathfinder rules, because he must be willing to abandon the setting's verisimilitude at the drop of a hat just to allow for the possibility of having to use every single rule within the game so as to accommodate a given player's wishes that go outside of the setting's established parameters.

    I've repeatedly shown that to be false (both the generalization and the particulars, the latter with specific examples), but don't let that bother you.

    Liberty's Edge

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    ciretose wrote:
    I think it is a step beyond playing with a guy to let the guy be the GM for the group.

    I agree. It really makes me wonder, too, but apparently people do.

    Maybe the best advice we can give* is:

    DMs -- are your players whiny adolescents? There's a solution -- DON'T INVITE THEM!
    Players -- is your DM a petty tyrant? There's a solution -- gather up the other players and BAIL!

    *Doesn't help the people on naval deployment, unfortunately, but can't win 'em all.

    See, we do agree!

    Scarab Sages

    If GMs are finding players are constantly bringing unsuitable characters to the table, maybe they are not as good at describing and explaining their setting as they think they are?


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Digitalelf wrote:
    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    FAQ #1.
    If we go by the logic you have presented in this thread, it is pointless for a GM to even attempt to create a truly unique setting (i.e. a setting that does not conform to the "high fantasy" standard) using the Pathfinder rules, because he must be willing to abandon the setting's verisimilitude at the drop of a hat just to allow for the possibility of having to use every single rule within the game so as to accommodate a given player's wishes that go outside of the setting's established parameters.

    Couldn't the GM and the player work together to create the setting or in the very least find a way to make it fit without destroying the uniqueness of the setting? Awakened ponies likely won't fit in much, but if your going for a humanoid barbarian there's very likely a good way to make it work. That's usually what I try to do anyway. Imo the best way to handle awakened ponies is to play in a game with other people who want awakened ponies in their game, possibly some sort of ponyfinder...

    Its insane to expect you to bend over backwards to change your world for every idea mind you, but just the same hearing people out and talking and working together is one of the better parts of the game imo. Your all friends(ideally), may as well work with each other and make the best of things so you can all have fun.*

    *Disclaimer! I try to only play with friends or people I'm interested in being friends with and my favored style is group storytelling and that is an expectation I have, so I may be a little biased towards letting everyone in rather than making the setting all about my own ideas. Those settings are ones I'd write a book about maybe, but not what I'd do with my friends unless they volunteered for it.

    Grand Lodge

    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    I've repeatedly shown that to be false (both the generalization and the particulars, the latter with specific examples), but don't let that bother you.

    And then you go on to say that if I create a setting that does not have elves or tieflings, and I do not allow you to bring one of those in, I am saying "my interests trumps yours!"

    If I should allow you and everyone else that wishes to play an elf or a tiefling in a setting in which I purposefully left them out to create a specific mood or feel, then why should I have even bothered to create such a setting in the first place?


    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Freehold DM wrote:
    we had a guy who tried to file the serial numbers off punpun more than once.
    And he was allowed in your game why...?

    because he's a brilliant player. Meh dm, but he's given us some amazing moments ib game.


    Not sure if mood is the right word there. What mood does a lack of elves and tieflings create? And what about that mood isn't spoiled by a half-fiend or Druid?


    Snorter wrote:
    If GMs are finding players are constantly bringing unsuitable characters to the table, maybe they are not as good at describing and explaining their setting as they think they are?

    good point.


    Snorter wrote:
    Bruunwald wrote:

    Is this thread still going? Reading the last few pages, it's clear this is a waste of time.

    File this under "what goes on at another person's table on the other side of the country from you does not ruin your own game" and move on.

    Other side of the world, sir.

    If we are to be pedantic and curmudgeonly, then it is only right that we give things their proper due.

    LOL - Methinks you don't know the definition of pedantic if you think my comments were in any way reflective. (Or at least I'd like to know how it applies.)

    As to curmudgeonly, I hardly think trying to bring a little reflection into the conversation qualifies me as such.

    Look, I threw in my two cents on this one days ago. For days since, the argument has sat in pretty much one place without budging. People are getting angry at each other and this is going nowhere.

    In the end, people are going to play with whom they are comfortable. For some people that means they are going to get to ride around on a sentient, talking dinosaur. For others, it means straight-up Tolkieneque fantasy. Neither the twain need in any way meet, so long as you are happy at your table.

    This has been said already, countless times, but it doesn't seem to end the argument.

    So let's just walk away, already.

    Scarab Sages

    Sorry, Bruunwald, I wasn't having a pop at you.

    I was the one pretending to be a pedant, for comic relief.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    MrSin wrote:
    Digitalelf wrote:
    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    FAQ #1.
    If we go by the logic you have presented in this thread, it is pointless for a GM to even attempt to create a truly unique setting (i.e. a setting that does not conform to the "high fantasy" standard) using the Pathfinder rules, because he must be willing to abandon the setting's verisimilitude at the drop of a hat just to allow for the possibility of having to use every single rule within the game so as to accommodate a given player's wishes that go outside of the setting's established parameters.

    Couldn't the GM and the player work together to create the setting or in the very least find a way to make it fit without destroying the uniqueness of the setting? Awakened ponies likely won't fit in much, but if your going for a humanoid barbarian there's very likely a good way to make it work. That's usually what I try to do anyway. Imo the best way to handle awakened ponies is to play in a game with other people who want awakened ponies in their game, possibly some sort of ponyfinder...

    Its insane to expect you to bend over backwards to change your world for every idea mind you, but just the same hearing people out and talking and working together is one of the better parts of the game imo. Your all friends(ideally), may as well work with each other and make the best of things so you can all have fun.*

    *Disclaimer! I try to only play with friends or people I'm interested in being friends with and my favored style is group storytelling and that is an expectation I have, so I may be a little biased towards letting everyone in rather than making the setting all about my own ideas. Those settings are ones I'd write a book about maybe, but not what I'd do with my friends unless they volunteered for it.

    And that is the bit of data that might be missing in all this: is the imaginary problem player (called Steven upthread) a friend that plays with us all the time or a new person to the game?

    Does Steve always bring in some weird build and want to force it into whatever game we are playing .. and this doesn't have to be Pathfinder. In a superhero game does he have to play a sentient spider made of pure energy who can only communicate with light sockets? Does he basically demand the spotlight and the other players wait with both interest and dread at what new nightmare he'll bring to the next game?

    Or is Steve a guy that wanders up to the table on Open Game Night or is a friend of a friend who is getting a foot in the door to play with the group?

    I imagine that who Steve is may decide exactly how Steve is dealt with at the table and how his concepts may be greeted.


    Hama wrote:

    You lost me at japanese mythology.

    Any awakened animal spellcaster is quite silly to me. I don't see what is wrong with core races. And i also hate that everyone must be "different" to have a good time.

    Even if you don't like Awakened Animal Spellcasters

    What is Wrong with the Following Races from the Advance Race Guide that are Either human crossbreeds or Pallette Swapped Humans?

    *Half-Drow
    *Dhampir
    *Changeling
    *Samsaran
    *Tiefling
    *Aasimaar
    *Suli
    *Fetchling
    *Undine
    *Sylph
    *Oread
    *Ifrit

    most of the above 12, despite being not published in the core rulebook. i'd consider human enough to be core by Proxy

    What About the Following Theoretical Races?

    *Wood Elves
    *Half-Nymphs
    *Half-Dwarves
    *Half-Giants
    *Grey Elves
    *A Dwarf/Orc Crossbreed
    *A Halfling/Gnome Crossbreed
    *An Elf/Nymph Crossbreed
    *A Tiefling/Aasimaar Crossbreed
    *A Half-Samsaran
    *An Elf/Samsaran Crossbreed
    *A Kobold/Nagaji Crossbreed
    *A Subterranean Human Equivalent
    *Nekomimi to go with the Kitsune, Tengu, and Usagi in the land of Generic Japanese Sounding Creatures
    *A Race Descended from Humans and Lycans?

    Scarab Sages

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    I've repeatedly shown that to be false (both the generalization and the particulars, the latter with specific examples), but don't let that bother you.
    Digitalelf wrote:

    And then you go on to say that if I create a setting that does not have elves or tieflings, and I do not allow you to bring one of those in, I am saying "my interests trumps yours!"

    If I should allow you and everyone else that wishes to play an elf or a tiefling in a setting in which I purposefully left them out to create a specific mood or feel, then why should I have even bothered to create such a setting in the first place?

    Well, why did you create the setting, before speaking to the players?

    If you know that there's a guy in the group who loves playing elves, why write them out?

    Even if he isn't an elf fanatic, if you went to the group, and said, "I'm thinking of a campaign with no elves...", and get eye-rolls, or people say, "But I was really looking forward to playing an elf.", why would you go ahead?

    If your response is "Well, how was I to know what they wanted to play? I did all the work before I showed it to them.", then that's why you have issues.

    Kirth doesn't have these issues, because he finds out what his players are into, then writes a campaign around that.

    To do otherwise just seems like masochism, to me.


    Snorter wrote:

    Kirth doesn't have these issues, because he finds out what his players are into, then writes a campaign around that.

    To do otherwise just seems like masochism, to me.

    On the other hand, I may have created a great setting and elves have no part in it, nor planetouched. I'd ask what you wanted about elves or planetouched. I'm okay with giving you their stats and letting you play a human, or with a character being from the wilds or from a magical civilization(if there's no magic then I wouldn't use pathfinder...) On the other hand, if it has to be an elf biologically and socially and statistically, that's asking for quiet a bit.


    Snorter wrote:
    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    I've repeatedly shown that to be false (both the generalization and the particulars, the latter with specific examples), but don't let that bother you.
    Digitalelf wrote:

    And then you go on to say that if I create a setting that does not have elves or tieflings, and I do not allow you to bring one of those in, I am saying "my interests trumps yours!"

    If I should allow you and everyone else that wishes to play an elf or a tiefling in a setting in which I purposefully left them out to create a specific mood or feel, then why should I have even bothered to create such a setting in the first place?

    Well, why did you create the setting, before speaking to the players?

    If you know that there's a guy in the group who loves playing elves, why write them out?

    Even if he isn't an elf fanatic, if you went to the group, and said, "I'm thinking of a campaign with no elves...", and get eye-rolls, or people say, "But I was really looking forward to playing an elf.", why would you go ahead?

    If your response is "Well, how was I to know what they wanted to play? I did all the work before I showed it to them.", then that's why you have issues.

    Kirth doesn't have these issues, because he finds out what his players are into, then writes a campaign around that.

    To do otherwise just seems like masochism, to me.

    I can field this, at least in part.

    I've created a number of campaigns without player input because, at that time, I didn't have players. Now, that doesn't mean I cannot or will not modify as things develop and I find players, but this is one of many examples of how this might come about. A few I've managed not to have to change overly much, while others have completely been reworked with contact with new ideas, revisions of the original campaign, or the realization that what I made was not going to work.

    651 to 700 of 1,026 << first < prev | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Gaming the system versus imaginative creativity All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.