@LazarX:
From Wisdomcommons (I know, I know! Just bear with me a sec): "Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should. Forbearance protects us against doing harm on impulse in the throes of anger or fear. Since so much of virtue is about finding a balance point between two kinds of excess, forbearance helps to keep us close to the center of our better selves." Coupled with the old saw about great power/great responsibility, that's my take on DMing.
@Terquem, I think that's the real disagreement. Do the extra work and responsibility of the DM mean that his preferences, ultimately, overrule everyone else's put together? Or is group approval always more appropriate, when it comes to creative content? In simpler but less accurate terms, when I'm the DM, is it MY setting or OUR setting?
Or, as one person asserts, is group approval impossible because the only possibilities are a strong dictatorship or else total anarchy?
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
In simpler but less accurate terms, when I'm the DM, is it MY setting or OUR setting?
I know this is purely anecdotal (but then, aren't most people's views formed at least in part from their personal experiences?), but...
In my 30 years of gaming, which occurred in several different cities and in two different states, 100% of that time it has been my experience that the GM comes up with an idea for a campaign (and yes, referred to as HIS/HER campaign), presents that idea to the players, the players ask what type of characters would be acceptable, the GM relates that information, and then the players begin making their characters... Once the character have been made, they are presented to the GM for approval; the GM either accepts or denies the characters (giving any reason why any characters may have been denied) and finally, the campaign commences.
It was not until I ventured onto these message boards 6 years ago, that I had seen things done any differently. My 30 years of gaming did not happen within a vacuum either; I've been a part of countless groups (some of them were even online), and they all did things basically in that same fashion with VERY little differences.
I hope, that explains (at least somewhat) where my views come from...
I hope, that explains (at least somewhat) where my views come from...
Sure, but "that's the way I've always seen it done" is not evidence that that's the best possible way of doing it. My experiences, over 30 years of gaming and across a number of states, have sometimes been like yours, but have often been different, and seeing the difference (on both sides of the DM screen) has shaped my opinion.
Yeah Digitalelf, if it isn't broken, don't try to break it.
|
|
seeing the difference (on both sides of the DM screen) has shaped my opinion.
And for me, seeing things done differently (from both sides of the GM's screen) has only reinforced my opinion.
That may on the surface seem very closed minded of me, but that would only be true if after seeing things being done differently, I had not been open to giving those differing ways a try. Well, I did give those different ways of doing things a try, and my opinion of those ways has remained steadfast.
I also realize that because my views can be seen as "antiquated" or something much worse... This could put limits (perhaps even severe limits) on the available pool of players that would be willing to sit at my table (at least outside of the current pool of players I have), but that is something I accept and even embrace because for me, that IS "the best possible way of doing it."
This could put limits (perhaps even severe limits) on the available pool of players that would be willing to sit at my table (at least outside of the current pool of players I have), but that is something I accept and even embrace.
To parody something said in the other thread, as long as you can attract and keep players, you can require them to call you "master" and paddle them for infractions. Then it's on them, not you.
Antiquated isn't behind the times if it actually gets things done.
Limits and restrictions aren't all bad. No one's human rights are violated by a setting with some restrictions on what is allowed.
Limits and restrictions aren't all bad. No one's human rights are violated by a setting with some restrictions on what is allowed.
(Grinds teeth) Only one (1) person ever said they were, and that person is no longer in the discussion. I, and a number of others, have been saying that it's better to have the group agree on the restrictions, rather than imposing them unilaterally. Is this so hard to understand?
This could put limits (perhaps even severe limits) on the available pool of players that would be willing to sit at my table (at least outside of the current pool of players I have), but that is something I accept and even embrace.To parody something said in the other thread, as long as you can attract and keep players, you can require them to call you "master" and paddle them for infractions. Then it's on them, not you.
Not sure about master, but I made a player drink salt water two games back; this is in my most stable all female player group.
Restrictions? There are no classes, there are instead build points (xp turned into upgrades). They can look however they wish, and in game and gen customisation is high, but all changes away from human are cosmetic. No one is stronger than anyone else by default because they are a chicken-woman with a big head (yes, we do have a chicken-woman in the party).
Next setting? Probably a lot of demihuman possibilities, but limit classes, just like a game I ran a year ago.
I don't think your views are antiquated, or even something worse, Digital. I just think a good GM tries to construct scenarios (never mind campaigns, my players barely track what year it is) that the players enjoy. I really can't stand the 3.5/Dreamscarred Press psionics system, but if a player has to play a dromite soulknife to enjoy himself, we'll figure something out.
Limits and restrictions aren't all bad. No one's human rights are violated by a setting with some restrictions on what is allowed.(Grinds teeth) Only one (1) person ever said they were, and that person is no longer in the discussion. I, and a number of others, have been saying that it's better to have the group agree on the restrictions, rather than imposing them unilaterally. Is this so hard to understand?
If the players make the setting, then they get to add input. If the setting is made/developed/edited by the dm, they get what they get. To try and change someone else's sole creation is a bit haughty and unwarranted. As digitalelf said, the dm doing the work is the norm, and what I have seen.
Gunslingers?
*checks notes*
This setting isn't even up to middle ages tech. You might want to go and play boot hill (which does gunslingers quite well, and they are deadly too) to get that.
I don't think your views are antiquated, or even something worse, Digital. I just think a good GM tries to construct scenarios (never mind campaigns, my players barely track what year it is) that the players enjoy. I really can't stand the 3.5/Dreamscarred Press psionics system, but if a player has to play a dromite soulknife to enjoy himself, we'll figure something out.
The glaring and gaudy elephant in the room, is that the player doesn't actually have to play a dromite soulknife. The case may be that they have an idea they want to run with and what they want to play next, but this has not been reconciled or placed within the setting they are entering.
There are no dromites. You want me to add dromites?
*Dm sighs, considering if they fit and where would they go*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
seeing the difference (on both sides of the DM screen) has shaped my opinion.And for me, seeing things done differently (from both sides of the GM's screen) has only reinforced my opinion.
That may on the surface seem very closed minded of me, but that would only be true if after seeing things being done differently, I had not been open to giving those differing ways a try. Well, I did give those different ways of doing things a try, and my opinion of those ways has remained steadfast.
I also realize that because my views can be seen as "antiquated" or something much worse... This could put limits (perhaps even severe limits) on the available pool of players that would be willing to sit at my table (at least outside of the current pool of players I have), but that is something I accept and even embrace because for me, that IS "the best possible way of doing it."
I do not believe they are antiquated, or if so I may be in that boat along side you, as they mirror some of my own experiences.
That said, communication is key in this as with any relationship. My homebrew worlds and campaigns are "mine" in the sense that I created them, maintain them, and so forth. The game we play is "ours" in the sense that we all pull together to make something fun, challenging, and exciting. I've taken a good deal of input on my homebrews and used some ideas, dismissing others as they don't fit.
As we've said before, to address Immortal Greed's point, no the player doesn't have to play X race/class/thingy, but neither does the GM have to use X world/campaign. I keep a generic world setting around (and/or use the Inner Sea) for times when we want to explore something with less restrictions or changes to what many consider the status quo.
Yeah input can be great. I've helped a dm friend build his world. Input and helping isn't really the same as the selfish attempt to play a specific class and racial combination. I'll give an example:
"This setting needs more Thri-kreen summoners."
"Why, and how would they fit in with the adventure set in the south west region?"
"I just want to play a thri kreen summoner, so they should be in."
Strip it back, this is how I see it. If it fit, it would already be in.
Yeah, absolutely. Try to make something that is great, rich and draws them in. Specific classes and racial combinations as a must? Yeah yeah, plenty of online games for that munchkin initiative.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Terquem, I think that's the real disagreement. Do the extra work and responsibility of the DM mean that his preferences, ultimately, overrule everyone else's put together?
Kirth no one is arguing that position.
It isn't everyone else.
It is a single person.
If everyone else wants to play something other than what the GM is running, I'm not sure why they have come to the table with that GM running that thing.
If as a GM 2 players disagree, that is generally half the table and you have a mutiny on your hands to deal with or lose the game.
This is about one person not being willing to adjust to the table expectations.
Ciretose, I disagree. Maybe the only way is to ask people for each scenario:
1. One player wants something, everyone else disagrees. Allow?
2. One player wants something, everyone else agrees except DM (although the players all generally like the setting/game otherwise). Allow?
My answers are 1. No; 2. Yes.
Anzyr's were 1. Yes; 2. Yes.
Answering 1. Yes; 2. No is fairly schizo, so let's ignore that possibility.
The remaining possibility is 1. No; 2. No. Many people's posts, especially when they start talking about the purity of their setting, tells me that this is what they're hinting at.
If people are willing to reply, I'd like to invite them to have the courage of their convictions, and come right out and say so. If so, I think you'll see that you're incorrect in saying "it's only if it's one player bucking the trend." I think, if a player wants something, and the other players agree, many DMs will still ban it if they can do so without driving off the players.
Ciretose, I disagree. Maybe the only way is to ask people for each scenario:
1. One player wants something, everyone else disagrees. Allow?
2. One player wants something, everyone else agrees except DM (although the players all generally like the setting/game otherwise). Allow?My answers are 1. No; 2. Yes.
The replies by a number of people lead me to believe that their answers would be 1. No; 2. No.
If people are willing to reply, I'd like to find out.
I hate to be that guy, but I'd need a bit more information to make an accurate answer. What does the player want? I mean, everyone can agree that letting Player A have something I'd believe to be broken and I'd still be likely to say no.
So I'd say 1. No (Maybe?) and 2. Yes (Maybe?)
What does the player want? I mean, everyone can agree that letting Player A have something I'd believe to be broken and I'd still be likely to say no.
To keep on one topic, we're talking racial preference, etc., not broken mechanics. One person wants a non-broken LA +0 balanced race that you just don't think "fits" your setting for flavor reasons.
And, again to cut that off, no waffling with "but they all agreed!", because then you're dealing with scenario 1, not 2.
What does the player want? I mean, everyone can agree that letting Player A have something I'd believe to be broken and I'd still be likely to say no.To keep on one topic, we're talking racial preference, etc., not broken mechanics. One person wants a non-broken LA +0 balanced race that you just don't think "fits" your setting for flavor reasons.
And, again to cut that off, no waffling with "but they all agreed!", because then you're dealing with scenario 1, not 2.
Aha. Alrighty, then 1. No and 2. Yes
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to invite them to have the courage of their convictions, and come right out and say so.
1. No
2. NoIt's like I said upthread: If I create a setting without elves (for example), I do so for a particular reason; and that reason typically (but not always) has to do with a particular mood or feel I want to present, and to allow an elf would totally destroy that. Which leaves me with the question; If I am expected to make exceptions and allow players to play elves (regardless of whether or not the other players mind), why did I even bother to try and create something unique in the first place? Why not just make every setting plain and vanilla, where nothing would be out of place?
Not all of the +0 balanced races are balanced or close to equal to other +0 races. Paizo, why did you have to stuff this part up?
I'd like to invite them to have the courage of their convictions, and come right out and say so.1. No
2. NoIt's like I said upthread: If I create a setting without elves, I do so for particular reason; and that reason typically has to do with a particular mood or feel I want to present, and to allow an elf would totally destroy that. Which leaves me with the question; If I am expected to make exceptions and allow players to play elves (regardless of whether or not the other players mind), why did I even bother to try and create something unique in the first place? Why not just make every setting plain and vanilla, where nothing would be out of place?
The removal of elves actually adds a lot of freedom. You are out and beyond elves in fantasy and all the baggage that involves.
I have a question for Kirth. Have you done any world building?
I'd like to invite them to have the courage of their convictions, and come right out and say so.1. No
2. NoIt's like I said upthread: If I create a setting without elves (for example), I do so for a particular reason; and that reason typically (but not always) has to do with a particular mood or feel I want to present, and to allow an elf would totally destroy that. Which leaves me with the question; If I am expected to make exceptions and allow players to play elves (regardless of whether or not the other players mind), why did I even bother to try and create something unique in the first place? Why not just make every setting plain and vanilla, where nothing would be out of place?
Which is why I said yes to #2. Sure, you can play blah if everyone likes it. I'll change folders and we'll be on a different world and everyone wins. While there seems to be some negative connotation to setting purity among some, for me it's just easier to set things outside of the area of restriction and let the folks who need to play whatever get it out there, and then when they are ready to go to whatever world with the restrictions we'll go there.
Are you in?
Good.
Simple.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll change folders and we'll be on a different world and everyone wins.
But there is a difference when one person wants to play an elf (to continue my example) with the rest of the group not minding when another player wants to play an elf, and having the whole group not wanting to participate in a setting that has no elves (which is something I must admit to having never encountered, as all of the gamers I have gamed with had no qualms about retaining a setting's purity).
That is why I answered "No" to question #2.
I'll change folders and we'll be on a different world and everyone wins.But there is a difference when one person wants to play an elf (to continue my example) with the rest of the group not minding when another player wants to play an elf, and having the whole group not wanting to participate in a setting that has no elves (which is something I must admit to having never encountered, as all of the gamers I have gamed with had no qualms about retaining a setting's purity).
True. But this being a message board, we have to assume that there are groups where this sort of thing takes place.
I don't have this problem in home games; everyone comes in knowing the setting, has hand outs and can talk to be long before it becomes a problem. With a pick up game, I've run across it now and again and default to something that cuts down the arguments.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
this being a message board, we have to assume that there are groups where this sort of thing takes place.
And if I were to go out to my local gaming store tomorrow and run a "pick-up" game (something I never do), I would not run that game any differently than I run my "normal" games - to do otherwise would be to sacrifice my enjoyment, so what would be the point?
Like I said, I know my gaming style is in the minority by today's standards, but I am okay with that...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ciretose, I disagree. Maybe the only way is to ask people for each scenario:
1. One player wants something, everyone else disagrees. Allow?
2. One player wants something, everyone else agrees except DM (although the players all generally like the setting/game otherwise). Allow?My answers are 1. No; 2. Yes.
Anzyr's were 1. Yes; 2. Yes.
Answering 1. Yes; 2. No is fairly schizo, so let's ignore that possibility.The remaining possibility is 1. No; 2. No. Many people's posts, especially when they start talking about the purity of their setting, tells me that this is what they're hinting at.
If people are willing to reply, I'd like to invite them to have the courage of their convictions, and come right out and say so. If so, I think you'll see that you're incorrect in saying "it's only if it's one player bucking the trend." I think, if a player wants something, and the other players agree, many DMs will still ban it if they can do so without driving off the players.
1: No
2: No and Maybe. If you can come up with a way to make it fit in that doesn't change the fundamental nature of the setting. Of course, in that case, you aren't inserting something that doesn't fit you are putting in the work to make it fit in. Otherwise, we can play something ... its just not going to be that setting.And 'But they all agreed" is an immutable part of the equation for me. The blurbs are put out there, with restrictions listed. You don't want the restrictions, you can pick one of the others. Or ask for something new. But you don't get to insert something that doesn't fit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
this being a message board, we have to assume that there are groups where this sort of thing takes place.And if I were to go out to my local gaming store tomorrow and run a "pick-up" game (something I never do), I would not run that game any differently than I run my "normal" games - to do otherwise would be to sacrifice my enjoyment, so what would be the point?
Like I said, I know my gaming style is in the minority by today's standards, but I am okay with that...
Pretty much. This is why pick up games and not screening players can be detrimental to the fun you have. It's a fine line to walk; I've managed to stay out of public games recently so it hasn't come up.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a question for Kirth. Have you done any world building?
if you had read any of his posts on these boards, you would know for fact: Kirth does no world building whatsoever; I just hate the dude for all the world building he doesn't do! :P
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have found that the best way to handle a situation like this is to make it a closed conversation. What I mean by that is to leave no room for argument. "These are the races and classes I am going to allow so do not come to me asking to play something else." The more you stick to your guns, the less likely you are going to have people trying to convince you to allow something different.
I have found that the best way to handle a situation like this is to make it a closed conversation. What I mean by that is to leave no room for argument. "These are the races and classes I am going to allow so do not come to me asking to play something else." The more you stick to your guns, the less likely you are going to have people trying to convince you to allow something different.
sounds highly restrictive
i'd rather have a small list of banned racial options than a small list of allowed racial options.
more options for exotic races allows players more options for concepts
None of the Exotic races go anywhere near a human, elf, or dwarf except in niche builds
Elves are the best intelligence based offensively oriented spellcasters, whether wizard, witch, sage sorcerer, or psion, they also make good dervish dance magi
Dwarves are the best core defensive race, whom with the right investments, can get +4-+5 on 80% of every saving throw they make. their massive saving throw bonuses are better than what most races get
humans have the best favored class bonuses for barbarians, spontaneous casters, and a variety of other classes, and some amazing skill based racial feats, oh wait, they also have a bonus feat and the skilled ability, which is the good portion of an intelligence bonus for most classes.
half elves make the best spontaneous casters, getting access to the human favored class bonus, and paragon surge
nothing competes with the big 4, which are all core
the closest competitors are niche builds of
Samsaran wizards with the mystic past life option to cherry pick spells
Tieflings or Aasimaars who exploit the variant heritages to get the proper bonuses for their class, such as Onispawn monks or Angelkin melee oracles
merfolk spontaneous casters with the strong tail alternate racial and a means to make up for their speed
strix arial archers
orc glass cannon fighters built around maximizing nodachi damage
goblin rogues built to exploit stealth
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have found that the best way to handle a situation like this is to make it a closed conversation. What I mean by that is to leave no room for argument. "These are the races and classes I am going to allow so do not come to me asking to play something else." The more you stick to your guns, the less likely you are going to have people trying to convince you to allow something different.sounds highly restrictive
i'd rather have a small list of banned racial options than a small list of allowed racial options.
more options for exotic races allows players more options for concepts
None of the Exotic races go anywhere near a human, elf, or dwarf except in niche builds
Elves are the best intelligence based offensively oriented spellcasters, whether wizard, witch, sage sorcerer, or psion, they also make good dervish dance magi
Dwarves are the best core defensive race, whom with the right investments, can get +4-+5 on 80% of every saving throw they make. their massive saving throw bonuses are better than what most races get
humans have the best favored class bonuses for barbarians, spontaneous casters, and a variety of other classes, and some amazing skill based racial feats, oh wait, they also have a bonus feat and the skilled ability, which is the good portion of an intelligence bonus for most classes.
half elves make the best spontaneous casters, getting access to the human favored class bonus, and paragon surge
nothing competes with the big 4, which are all core
the closest competitors are niche builds of
Samsaran wizards with the mystic past life option to cherry pick spells
Tieflings or Aasimaars who exploit the variant heritages to get the proper bonuses for their class, such as Onispawn monks or Angelkin melee oracles
merfolk spontaneous casters with the strong tail alternate racial and a means to make up for their speed
strix arial archers
orc glass cannon fighters built around maximizing nodachi damage
goblin rogues built to...
Well where we differ is that I'm not about which race goes best with a certain class mechanically. When I create a campaign and I only allow certain races or classes then there is a reason with in the campaign itself.
Whats wrong with using what is available and being creative with that? More options do not equal more or better creativity.
Automatically paint better pictures? No. But you will be working with a wider spectrum. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I sort of get the feeling that you're just talking to yourself at this point . . .
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Look at it this way.
Do you automatically paint better pictures when you have more colours?
i merely can't stand most of the core races
humans? if i wanted to play a human, i'd just go to the local stores and go shopping
dwarves? can't stand the axebeard steriotype associated with them, i don't mind playing alongside them, but playing a raging alchoholic with an axe and beard is not my playstyle. the only way i can stomach a dwarf, is if i get the urge to subvert every major dwarven steriotype and completely defecate on dwarven culture by being such a freakish outcast, i draw the hatred of the race
halflings? Elijiah Wood ruined halflings for me, don't like the actor, Frodo was way too whiny, every time i see a halfling or gnome, i suddenly remember Elijah Wood. if a group can allow me to witness an actually appealing halfling NPC, i might base a character upon them, only because i liked that completely non-tolken halfling. there was only one halfling NPC i met that i liked. an Earthbreaker wielding insane berserker named "Jinx" in an everquest d20 game
Gnomes? hate the darn lawn ornaments, hates the various sub cultures, such as clinically insane tinkers, smaller dwarves or whatever, they aren't sufficiently different from halflings to make me play them. if i see a gnome whom drastically subverts any group of stock gnomish cultures and makes it look cool, i might bend over and play one. so far, i haven't
Elves? i might bend over, Kowtow, and play an elf only because they are one of my least hated races of the Tolkein core. sometimes, i may have an odd concept that uses an elf or half elf for mechanics, expect me to make them very anti elven
Half-Elves? i might used the mechanics for variant human half-breeds such as a Half-Nymph, Half-Yokai, Half-Samsaran or Similar setup. don't expect me to use the mechanics for a full on Half-Elf, i use these reskins for niche concepts if homebrewing isn't allowed. it's very rare i play a Half-Elf of truly Elven heritage. might be wishing the Character was an Aasimaar, Samsaran, or Dhampir and blatantly telling the DM
Half-Orcs? it bothers me that this half-breed, is a playable race, but it's fantastic component, was a race designed as little more than a fodder target for practicing murder. i like tribal races of cannabilistic hunters, but orcs and half orcs are too "Hulk-Smash" for me, i like the hulk, but it's the other factors of Doctor Bruce/David Banner i like. the outcast vibe, the loneliness and the struggle with his inner monster. most Orc Half-Orcs focus on one Aspect of the Hulk, Smashing things. i might use them to represent a Half-Oni or Half-Giant or something like that when tiefling isn't allowed. but i'd be complaining about how this character would be a better fit as a tiefling
Orcs? see Half-Orcs. too one dimensional for me
Drow? can't stand the things, i like the social structure of their culture, but every time i play one, people tell me "you need a pair of scimitars" "you need to be ranger with a panther companion" or "there's not enough apostrophes in your name." Hate Drizz't, and when you play a Drow, everybody expects you to play Drizz't
Races i do like
the 4 elementals? Sylph? Ifrit? Oread? and Undine? i like the elemental mysticism to these races, i could attach a variety of human cultures, but they are fantastic enough that they stand out to me, ordinary humans just don't feel the same
Aasimaar and Tiefling? Demons and Angels, and their cousins, are 2 of my favorite races to mine bloodlines from. i also like how easily i can add gothic lolita elements to the design of characters from these races. bat wings and a prehensile tail do wonders to seperate their humanity for me
Fetchlings? i know the fan art of them is awkward, but i like the ties to the plane of shadow, shadow is one of my favorite JRPG elements and the Shadowcaster is one of my favorite 3.5 classes. i like tying Shadows to stuff like illusions, the mind, and stealth Shadowcaster style
Suli? Sounds like Last Airbender kinda, good show though, i love Genies, and i love Genie crossbreeds
Changelings? i like the fey blooded flavor of this race, not my ideal fairy, but it works
Dhampir? i loved the Hellsing Anime, Trinity Blood, Blade Movies with Wesley Snipes, and Moon Phase. i don't even think of a Certain popular book series when i think of Vampires, i am too busy Thinking of Either Alucard, Karin Marker. or Hazuki/Luna
Samsaran? a self reincarnating race of quasi immortals whom are constantly reborn, forever bound to the cycle of death and rebirth, i wouldn't have initially found much interest in such a race till i watched full metal alchemist, and saw all the circle of life references, Samsaran evoke that kind of feel.
i think i mentioned which 11 races i like in pathfinder. the only 11 i will willingly touch without requiring a heavy reskinning.