Ya, I hear that, but other players not liking kitsune cause "Ugh furry." would under "petty". So yes it won't fit that group, but that sounds like a miserable group in the first place.
My points are pretty irrefutable knightnday; either people have enough experience/imagination and these things aren't problems (which you seem to agree with), or people don't have enough experience/imagination and these things are problems. Its really that simple.
Lastly, I quite disagree, all character concepts hold equal weight, since each is equally valuable to their creator.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ya, I hear that, but other players not liking kitsune cause "Ugh furry." would under "petty". So yes it won't fit that group, but that sounds like a miserable group in the first place.
My points are pretty irrefutable knightnday; either people have enough experience/imagination and these things aren't problems (which you seem to agree with), or people don't have enough experience/imagination and these things are problems. Its really that simple.
Lastly, I quite disagree, all character concepts hold equal weight, since each is equally valuable to their creator.
You seem to be missing the point: the concepts can be wonderful and hold all the weight in the world to their creator. They can all be pretty pretty precious snowflakes, each one a miracle in birth and a beauty for their creator to behold.
But, like children for example, they aren't all as beautiful, talented, witty, cute, or special as their parent may desire.
You can love your character concept with all your heart and that STILL does not mean they will fit into every game run by every GM on every table in the world.
As for your first comment, sure it's petty, but then we all have likes and dislikes. I've heard of very few tables where just anything is allowed 24/7/365 and everyone likes everything with no judgement. It may exist, but I imagine it is fairly rare.
Ya, I hear that, but other players not liking kitsune cause "Ugh furry." would under "petty".
Well, yeah, but we know what they say about the cause of the Trojan War in The Iliad. Everyone has some petty crap they just can't get over and are incapable of thinking rationally about; that's human nature. But in a random sampling, it's unlikely to find four people in a row who all share the same things like that, so going with group preference usually weeds out petty bias. In the off chance that you do find 4 in a row, maybe it's best not to keep pushing that button.
Then again, some people are just so authoritarian that they can't stand dissent. The French used to send those people to Madame La Guillutine, and I sort of don't blame them.
Of course every character will not fit in every game, we already discussed that some games are run by less experienced/imaginative GMs. Clearly these characters won't work in their games.
But at the table of an experienced/imaginative GM, yes every concept absolutely works and will fit into every game run by an imaginative and creative GM.
Also, I'm not sure I would use pettiness as the defense of disallowing stuff... even if people may have likes/dislikes if I can handle Jim playing his drow like a bimbo and Bob playing his dwarf like a racist carciture, I think everyone can handle a intelligent item controlling a golem. Opening yourself to other people's ideas is important after all. If you don't than the entirety of your world well... ends with you. (Seemed appropriate, but for real sequel please?)
You gave up a feat and some gold, which is how the rules work... (Yes, Wizards are really really powerful, this is actually pretty low on the wizard power scale.)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Four people want to watch Die Hard and one person wants to watch My Little Pony
As a solution one of these people takes a copy of die hard and splices Twilight Sparkle into the movie.
No one wins.
Some things just don't fit in certain settings.
- Torger
Of course every character will not fit in every game, we already discussed that some games are run by less experienced/imaginative GMs. Clearly these characters won't work in their games.
But at the table of an experienced/imaginative GM, yes every concept absolutely works and will fit into every game run by an imaginative and creative GM.
Also, I'm not sure I would use pettiness as the defense of disallowing stuff... even if people may have likes/dislikes if I can handle Jim playing his drow like a bimbo and Bob playing his dwarf like a racist carciture, I think everyone can handle a intelligent item controlling a golem. Opening yourself to other people's ideas is important after all. If you don't than the entirety of your world well... ends with you. (Seemed appropriate, but for real sequel please?)
So your point, as near as I can tell, is that everything is always allowed and should it not be, it is because the GM isn't experienced or imaginative enough to allow it? And that individual table dislikes should not have a bearing on if something is allowed?
Sorry, doesn't wash for me. Not allowing things isn't a matter of imagination or experience in many cases but desire. I'm relatively certain I'm imaginative enough and experienced enough to cope with whatever special idea you have up your sleeve. The question is, once again, is the effort worth it? If I have to expend four times the effort on your character that I do on the other players at the table, is it a good use to the other player's time?
You can continue to try to defect towards how inexperienced or unimaginative others are, but it's more about communication and the good of the game for everyone, not just one person. Not just your concept, not just the GM's setting.
Four people want to watch Die Hard and one person wants to watch My Little Pony
As a solution one of these people takes a copy of die hard and splices Twilight Sparkle into the movie.
No one wins.
Some things just don't fit in certain settings.
- Torger
No, those two things fit perfectly well together, you just need more experience/imagination to see it. Clearly, the awakened pony is a top secret government experiment, who has been dispatched to punch out terrorists. The benefit of having a magical caster supporting a team of hardened mercenaries is obvious and an awakened pony provides the perfect cover.
knightnday: One player having fun and all other players not having fun is a flaw of the other players. If someone else choices in a game differ from yours you need to look at it as a chance to broaden your horizons, because what one other player is playing should not affect your fun.
No, those two things fit perfectly well together, you just need more experience/imagination to see it. Clearly, the awakened pony is a top secret government experiment, who has been dispatched to punch out terrorists. The benefit of having a magical caster supporting a team of hardened mercenaries is obvious and an awakened pony provides the perfect cover.
You can force a movie out of that pair up but it's not the movie that anyone present wanted to watch.
*edit* and it's certainly not likely to be a good movie *edit*
- Torger
Ravingdork, for example, is incredibly intelligent and imaginative, so I could not ever believe he wouldn't be able to come up with twelve new concepts or ideas to have fun with.
Some days are better than others. I've been known to come up with several brilliant ideas in under a minute, and also to spend several days agonizing over the conception of a single character idea (a hell-state akin to writer's block).
The construct in the build was not nearly as troubling as the lesser astral projection contingency stuff...
Oh my gosh! I totally forgot about that. I thought that I had only put that on other, higher-level characters, not this one.
That definitely qualifies as an "iffy" character aspect that I would clear with a GM first, since I've seen several different interpretations of that spell on this board--one of which basically makes this character unkillable.
Don't take this the wrong way, but I think that you find using the rules as intended too limiting. By which I mean that you see the obvious rules combinations that the writers put there to be used together and you think "That's obvious. Everyone will do that." You don't feel like you're using your system mastery to make a Druid with Natural Spell, for instance.
You feel that you need to blaze new ground and use things together that were not meant to work together or in some cases were meant to not work together. You see this as making unique, one of a kind characters. Other people sometimes see this as munchkining, deliberately misreading the rules, or some kind of madness. And you get defensive when someone challenges what you've found, either by contradicting your reading of a rule, or when errata is issued to change the way a rules works. This makes people think you're trying to 'win' (the game or the conversation) instead of trying to find the best way to make the character you're envisioning.
And you do this over and over again. Either you're playing WAY more than the average gamer, you're discarding your characters after a few sessions, or you're not actually playing most of these characters in a game at all. To me, this suggests that you get bored easily and always want to move on to the next cool thing.
I think you get a bad rap. People are harsher than they need to be, but that doesn't make their conclusions wrong. And if you take some time to think about how people work, as opposed to the way the...
Well said! That all sounds pretty accurate to me, for the most part. (I do play a lot, our games often have a revolving door of characters, and I've long since generated far more characters/ideas than I could ever realistically play.)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well that's fine and all Kirth, but I can't think of a good non-petty reason that player's character can't be made to work in virtually any Pathfinder setting by an experienced or imaginative GM. While the "GM decides what is fun" is obviously a pretty poor and petty position.
Because no one else likes your idea and they think you will make it less fun if you play that idea?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One player having fun and all other players not having fun is a flaw of the other players.
See, now we need a GM to come in and say something equally asinine.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
One player having fun and all other players not having fun is a flaw of the other players.See, now we need a GM to come in and say something equally asinine.
Nah. I just need to make sure I keep a link to that to use in future threads when people say there is no such thing as player entitlement.
Because other people not being able to have fun with my idea = Them failing.
Me not being able to have fun with an idea that other people also like...
So you think wizards and magi aren't worth playing? They both rely on their spellbooks, which have the exact vulnerabilities you described. I'm sure you don't actually think that wizards and magi are unplayable, so please explain why you think spellbooks and Ravingdork's artifact aren't exactly as vulnerable.
...any build that relies on a niche artifact or highly specific intelligent item or specific sourcebook weapon enhancement is one that isn't worth playing.Would you please elaborate on why you think this is so?
the "Gimmick" could be easily stripped once the defining piece of equipment is
Sundered and Destroyed
Stolen
Denied and or Banned
Nerfed
or
Used against you by a more powerful opponent by an adversarial DM
i rarely ever play Wizards or Magi without some means of functioning without a spellbook, even minimally. and when i do play them, it's concept specific.
i'll take a sorcerer, ranger, barbarian, bard, summoner, or oracle, over a cleric, wizard, paladin, Fighter, or magus
other people may enjoy their Wizards and Magi, but both are screwed by loss of their spellbooks, and magi are screwed against anything with a level appropriate resistance to electricity.
You feel that you need to blaze new ground and use things together that were not meant to work together or in some cases were meant to not work together. You see this as making unique, one of a kind characters. Other people sometimes see this as munchkining, deliberately misreading the rules, or some kind of madness. And you get defensive when someone challenges what you've found, either by contradicting your reading of a rule, or when errata is issued to change the way a rules works. This makes people think you're trying to 'win' (the game or the conversation) instead of trying to find the best way to make the character you're envisioning.Well said! That all sounds pretty accurate to me, for the most part.
I'm glad we're on the same page. Thus, to present a super-simplified analogy, and answer the question you posed in the first post:
You think putting the square peg in the square hole and the round peg in the round hole kind of boring. (Please note this is not bad in and of itself - Anyone over the age of 7 would be bored with the literal version of this toy.) So you decide to put the square peg in the round hole and vice verse. (Perhaps this particular toy is made of rubber, so with enough determination/abuse, you can succeed.)
Some people stop by and say 'good for you.' and move on. Some people say "You're not supposed to put the round peg in the square hole." Some of these add "You're doing it wrong." or "You're going to break it." When you stop to debate/argue with them, they respond and become the loudest voices, and the ones you remember.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
One player having fun and all other players not having fun is a flaw of the other players.
I cannot articulate the number of ways in which this is a false statement. But I'll try.
When a player wants to be the Wolverine (the loner who doesn't play well with others but is in a group anyway), and three players get to sit there being bored while the loner runs off and plays a solo game with the GM, that's apparently the three players' fault.
When I've made a Diplomacy-using enchanter, but the barbarian simply starts murdering people in social encounters, that's apparently my fault!
When a min-max player shows up with AM BARBARIAN or the Pun Pun of the week, and ends every combat before anyone else can take an action, that's my fault!
When a player builds a pacifist cleric in a game built around murdering things and taking their stuff, and refuses to help in combat or heal people afterwards, that's everyone else's fault.
When a player makes a CE Rogue and robs the other PCs blind, it's their fault for not just murdering him first (So that he can show up with his next CE character?)
If we're playing Dark Heresy and a player insists on playing a Xeno, Daemon, or Heretic, it's everyone else's fault.
When a fireball loving wizard keeps friendly-firing the barbarian, and the barbarian keeps charging into melee before the wizard can cast fireball, they're both at fault! Or neither at fault! Or a logical paradox is created!
Man, psychological displacement is AWESOME. It can do anything.
Damn, who'd have thought that a team-based game might require teamwork and compromise?
Player entitlement? Uh... I'm actually mostly a GM. Hate to break it you chaps, but my views are from a GM stand point.
One player having fun and all other players not having fun is a flaw of the other players. This comment is only dealing with the type of a character the person wants to play. If three people are mad that Steve is playing an awakened megaraptor, that is a flaw with them not Steve. If Steve is a barbarian awakened megaraptor who kills npcs when the group wants to talk to them, then Steve is being a jerk. Players shouldn't be jerks, but wanting to play an awakened megaraptor is never being a jerk.
Pretty simple really.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Player entitlement? Uh... I'm actually mostly a GM.
One player having fun and all other players not having fun is a flaw of the other players. This comment is only dealing with the type of a character the person wants to play. If three people are mad that Steve is playing an awakened megaraptor, that is a flaw with them not Steve. If Steve is a barbarian awakened megaraptor who kills npcs when the group wants to talk to them, then Steve is being a jerk. Players shouldn't be jerks, but wanting to play an awakened megaraptor is never being a jerk.
Character you play is not equivalent to how play. Pretty simple really.
No. Just no.
This is a group setting. If you put your needs (which some call 'fun') totally ahead of everyone else at the table by your character choice, you are being a jerk. If your need to force the theoretical awakened megaraptor barbarian on the table is more pressing than playing something that might fit in better, then your behavior is the problem.
The character you play is not how you play. But spotlight hogging and being troublesome is your problem, not the other folks.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Player entitlement? Uh... I'm actually mostly a GM. Hate to break it you chaps, but my views are from a GM stand point.
One player having fun and all other players not having fun is a flaw of the other players. This comment is only dealing with the type of a character the person wants to play. If three people are mad that Steve is playing an awakened megaraptor, that is a flaw with them not Steve. If Steve is a barbarian awakened megaraptor who kills npcs when the group wants to talk to them, then Steve is being a jerk. Players shouldn't be jerks, but wanting to play an awakened megaraptor is never being a jerk.
Pretty simple really.
Or the GM is the problem because he let one person ruin everyone else's fun.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ravingdork was asking why the devs/GMs get a separate set of rules or boundaries than the players.That's still a valid question. Personally, speaking as a developer and as a DM, I don't think that they should -- or at least, I think the boundaries should be a lot closer together than what most people seem to think is proper. Most people of course differ on that. But that's a personal opinion thing, not a game rules interpretation thing.
I've never been a fan, on either side of the player/GM divide, of 'one set of rules for thee, another set for me.' It seems... un-American. :)
But seriously, I don't like intentionally unbalanced rules systems. If a GM can't challenge a party of adventurers with the same spells, feats, magic items, etc. that they have access to, then maybe that person is not the one who should be behind the GM screen. Whenever I see things in an adventure that are stamped 'NPC only' or that mysteriously don't work or get broken before the PCs get their hot little hands on them, I see that as a design flaw. If it exists in the game, then a GM should darn well expect a PC to be able to 'get their hands on it.'
If Shadows can destroy creatures three times their CR rating with no fear of reprisal, and destroy entire towns in a night, and the world, in a month or so (limited only by their movement rate, which isn't great), then it's not a PC being a munchkin if he rebukes one or commands one and uses it to do these very things. It's a flaw with the design of the shadow (wraith, specter, etc.) who should never have been able to do this crap. Ditto oozes splitting or Efreeti granting wishes or various other things that the game has *dozens* of ways (some of them not even magical, like Diplomacy or Leadership or optional stuff like Monsters-as-PCs) for a PC to turn to their (game-wrecking / setting-destroying) advantage, and therefore shouldn't exist at all.
As for the specific example, Shield Golems, and, in my experience, Golems in general, are a fantastic waste of resources. You might get to steamroller a few specific encounters, but GMs will find ways to destroy them tout suite (rust monsters seem to appear with greater frequency, for instance, or metal-corroding oozes), and your wizard is out a crazy amount of gold that he could have spent on a Magic Book of Being More Smarter or researching a new spell that does something shiny and cool, like a fifth level version of magic missile that creates a bunch more missiles or something.
Player entitlement? Uh... I'm actually mostly a GM.
One player having fun and all other players not having fun is a flaw of the other players. This comment is only dealing with the type of a character the person wants to play. If three people are mad that Steve is playing an awakened megaraptor, that is a flaw with them not Steve. If Steve is a barbarian awakened megaraptor who kills npcs when the group wants to talk to them, then Steve is being a jerk. Players shouldn't be jerks, but wanting to play an awakened megaraptor is never being a jerk.
Character you play is not equivalent to how play. Pretty simple really.
No. Just no.
This is a group setting. If you put your needs (which some call 'fun') totally ahead of everyone else at the table by your character choice, you are being a jerk. If your need to force the theoretical awakened megaraptor barbarian on the table is more pressing than playing something that might fit in better, then your behavior is the problem.
The character you play is not how you play. But spotlight hogging and being troublesome is your problem, not the other folks.
A player that feels the need to micromanage what another player is playing is not someone I would want at my table, since such a controlling nature is detrimental to the game at best. Characters are an individual players choice and they should feel free to bring what they want to the table. I expect all players to be at least mature enough that Steve playing an awakened megaraptor doesn't ruin their fun with playing racism caricature dwarf ranger (or whatever it is they are playing).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A player that feels the need to micromanage what another character is playing is not someone I would want at my table, since such a controlling nature is detrimental to the game at best. Characters are an individual players choice and they should feel free to bring what they want to the table.Player entitlement? Uh... I'm actually mostly a GM.
One player having fun and all other players not having fun is a flaw of the other players. This comment is only dealing with the type of a character the person wants to play. If three people are mad that Steve is playing an awakened megaraptor, that is a flaw with them not Steve. If Steve is a barbarian awakened megaraptor who kills npcs when the group wants to talk to them, then Steve is being a jerk. Players shouldn't be jerks, but wanting to play an awakened megaraptor is never being a jerk.
Character you play is not equivalent to how play. Pretty simple really.
No. Just no.
This is a group setting. If you put your needs (which some call 'fun') totally ahead of everyone else at the table by your character choice, you are being a jerk. If your need to force the theoretical awakened megaraptor barbarian on the table is more pressing than playing something that might fit in better, then your behavior is the problem.
The character you play is not how you play. But spotlight hogging and being troublesome is your problem, not the other folks.
Wouldn't worry about if I were you, if you're the only one having fun you'll be all by yourself eventually.
I am fortunate I guess that I have a group of mature players to play with that don't have their fun ruined just because Steve is playing an awakened megaraptor. Truthfully, I must confess the importance that some people on this thread put on what other people are playing quite distresses me and I consider myself blessed to have not encountered such a player at my table yet.
A player that feels the need to micromanage what another player is playing is not someone I would want at my table, since such a controlling nature is detrimental to the game at best. Characters are an individual players choice and they should feel free to bring what they want to the table. I expect all players to be at least mature enough that Steve playing an awakened megaraptor doesn't ruin their fun with playing racism caricature dwarf ranger (or whatever it is they are playing).
It isn't micromanaging, it is, as Ross Byers mentioned above, a team activity. While an anarchy do what you want game might be fine at some tables, others have differing requirements. This is where some of that experience and imagination comes into play: knowing when the weird stuff will work and when you need to turn to the more tame section of your designs.
Ross Byers comment has little to do with what a character is playing and more with how a character acts. A weird concept will always work in the game of an experienced/imaginative GM. A normal character concept run by a jerk will not work in any game.
Easy no?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
To further the Die Hard/MLP Mashup analogy
A Die Hard/MLP mashup has no choice but to be a silly movie. Animated Twilight Sparkle is running around with live action John McLean. It's ridiculous from the get go.
I for one don't really like watching silly movies. I very rarely find them entertaining. Mostly I find them stupid.
I also don't much care for silly games.
Remove Twilight Sparkle from the movie and it's back to being the sweet action movie we all know and love.
This of course goes both ways. Live action John McLean is ridiculous in colorful animated ponyville.
John McLhooves, hard boiled street clomping Manehattan police pony on the other hand fits right in.
To summarize, just because something can be wedged into a setting by way of brute force doesn't mean it's a positive addition.
- Torger
I can see where players who are playing a game of stats and killing things wouldn't care what the other characters are. Those who care more for the narrative are likely going to want to ensure their game isn't ruined by characters that just don't fit in. That's why it's important at the beginning for a group to define what their expectations are before putting too much effort into the campaign.
The best way I know of doing that is for the GM to decide on the setting and general flavor, and to ask who wants to come and play in it. If they get enough players, then the idea was a good one. There's enough other games out there for everyone who wasn't interested in that idea to hopefully find one they like.
Obviously that approach doesn't suit everyone, sometimes you have a group that have already decided they want to play together and it needs to be a more co-operative approach.
Personally, the aforementioned awakened megaraptor will have me leaving the table if it's anything more than a one-shot. I don't see that as being a problem for anyone - if the game allows that type of thing, I don't play in it, find a game I'd rather be in, and everyone ends up happy. If it doesn't, then the megaraptor player gets to either fit in or go elsewhere, and again everyone ends up happy. Nobody gets to decide for any of us that we have to enjoy it. On the other hand, for the sake of enjoying a game with friends, I'll happily play and enjoy pretty much anything as a one-shot.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Relevant link: 11 ways to be a better roleplayer
I can see where players who are playing a game of stats and killing things wouldn't care what the other characters are. Those who care more for the narrative are likely going to want to ensure their game isn't ruined by characters that just don't fit in. That's why it's important at the beginning for a group to define what their expectations are before putting too much effort into the campaign.
The best way I know of doing that is for the GM to decide on the setting and general flavor, and to ask who wants to come and play in it. If they get enough players, then the idea was a good one. There's enough other games out there for everyone who wasn't interested in that idea to hopefully find one they like.
Obviously that approach doesn't suit everyone, sometimes you have a group that have already decided they want to play together and it needs to be a more co-operative approach.
Personally, the aforementioned awakened megaraptor will have me leaving the table if it's anything more than a one-shot. I don't see that as being a problem for anyone - if the game allows that type of thing, I don't play in it, find a game I'd rather be in, and everyone ends up happy. If it doesn't, then the megaraptor player gets to either fit in or go elsewhere, and again everyone ends up happy. Nobody gets to decide for any of us that we have to enjoy it. On the other hand, for the sake of enjoying a game with friends, I'll happily play and enjoy pretty much anything as a one-shot.
Huh, I would think a good roleplayer would see all sorts of opportunity in an awakened megaraptor whether they were the one playing it or playing along side it. I question how much fun you would have in a game with giant flying talking dinosaurs as a major element if a talking non-flying dinosaur as a fellow adventurer would be such a serious concern for you. Have you considered trying a different system that caters to a less fantasy oriented game?
I am quite serious. There are a number of Tabletop RPG systems that cater towards less fantasy based roleplaying experiences. Since Matt doesn't seem like he likes fantasy elements like talking dinosaurs, he might wish to consider one that is more suited to such a thing. If being helpful is trolling to you Torger, you must be a hard individual to help.
|
When a player wants to be the Wolverine (the loner who doesn't play well with others but is in a group anyway), and three players get to sit there being bored while the loner runs off and plays a solo game with the GM, that's apparently the three players' fault.
If he's playing Wolverine, the GM should one-shot him in the first round to establish that the villain is a credible threat, then the rest of the team pulls together to defeat said villain.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ross Byers comment has little to do with what a character is playing and more with how a character acts. A weird concept will always work in the game of an experienced/imaginative GM. A normal character concept run by a jerk will not work in any game.
Easy no?
Pray tell, how does my catgirl Space Marine with Thor's superpowers fit into an Semi-realistic campaign based on King Arthur?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pray tell, how does my catgirl Space Marine with Thor's superpowers fit into an Semi-realistic campaign based on King Arthur?Ross Byers comment has little to do with what a character is playing and more with how a character acts. A weird concept will always work in the game of an experienced/imaginative GM. A normal character concept run by a jerk will not work in any game.
Easy no?
Probably with a lot of torches, pitchforks, and cries of "DEMON!"
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My points are pretty irrefutable knightnday; either people have enough experience/imagination and these things aren't problems (which you seem to agree with), or people don't have enough experience/imagination and these things are problems. Its really that simple.
I've been reading you stating this in post after post, and your point is absolutely refutable. It's ridiculous and kind of juvenile.
You keep implying that a GM is unworthy of his title if he doesn't allow a thing in his game because all it proves is that he lacks the imagination and experience to incorporate them. Sort of a dare to GMs to just simply allow anything, no matter whether it fits the story or makes sense, by shaming them into doing it.
I can drive a fairly big truck. But I wouldn't rip the driver out of the seat of every truck that passes by just because some dude somewhere tells me I lack initiative if I don't take over and get it done.
Sometimes a thing is appropriate. Sometimes it is not. Sometimes a thing fits. Sometimes it doesn't. YOU don't get to decide for everybody. And trying to shame people into playing the way you want is really silly.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am quite serious. There are a number of Tabletop RPG systems that cater towards less fantasy based roleplaying experiences. Since Matt doesn't seem like he likes fantasy elements like talking dinosaurs, he might wish to consider one that is more suited to such a thing. If being helpful is trolling to you Torger, you must be a hard individual to help.
Telling people they're using the system wrong so go try a different one is in no way helpful. It's rude. Being purposefully rude, that to me is trolling.
Pathfinder is capable of modeling various levels of fantasy depending on what is allowed or disallowed. But in order for that to work you have to accept that certain characters won't fit into certain games which is the point we've all been trying to make this entire time. From what I've gather though that is unacceptable to you.
I submit that the problem isn't with the guy who wants a game without talking dinosaurs but rather with the guy who's insisting that talking dinosaurs are fine in any game regardless.
- Torger
To further the Die Hard/MLP Mashup analogy
A Die Hard/MLP mashup has no choice but to be a silly movie. Animated Twilight Sparkle is running around with live action John McLean. It's ridiculous from the get go.
I for one don't really like watching silly movies. I very rarely find them entertaining. Mostly I find them stupid.
I also don't much care for silly games.
Remove Twilight Sparkle from the movie and it's back to being the sweet action movie we all know and love.
This of course goes both ways. Live action John McLean is ridiculous in colorful animated ponyville.
John McLhooves, hard boiled street clomping Manehattan police pony on the other hand fits right in.
To summarize, just because something can be wedged into a setting by way of brute force doesn't mean it's a positive addition.
- Torger
Well, I would say that some folks really enjoy absurd and silly mash-up games. Heck, my first line of thought at Die Hard With Ponies is that it sounds like it could be awesomely insane. But those sorts of games should only happen when that's what everyone signed up for.
Bottom line, the party and the GM should work together to have a game that everyone enjoys playing. Sometimes that means character concepts need to be adjusted to match what will be fun for the rest of the group, and sometimes you can have a policy of allowing anything and everything. At the end of the day, the most important rule of tabletop RPGs is the Rule of Fun.
Well, I would say that some folks really enjoy absurd and silly mash-up games. Heck, my first line of thought at Die Hard With Ponies is that it sounds like it could be awesomely insane. But those sorts of games should only happen when that's what everyone signed up for.
Bottom line, the party and the GM should work together to have a game that everyone enjoys playing. Sometimes that means character concepts need to be adjusted to match what will be fun for the rest of the group, and sometimes you can have a policy of allowing anything and everything. At the end of the day, the most important rule of tabletop RPGs is the Rule of Fun.
Absolutely some people dig that sort of thing and more power to them. May they continue to game on.
The point I was trying to make was if somebody has said they're running a Die Hard game showing up at that table with Twilight Sparkle is bad form and you probably won't get to play her.
- Torger
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've always been confused why so many players get upset by limitations. I remember an interview with Neil Gaiman where he loved having limitations placed on him because it encouraged him to something he wanted, and felt more creative than having free reign to written whatever he wanted.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The bottom line is we don't always get our way. Now we can come on the boards and gripe about how said DM didn't allow this or that but what some people need to realize is that the DM is well with in his rights to say no to a concept, the books even give this authority.
I want to go back a moment with regards to the Leadership feat because it was mentioned. You can't attract the attention of a golem. That feat doesn't allow you to crack open the beastiary and away you go. You attract a cohort who has awareness.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I would say that some folks really enjoy absurd and silly mash-up games. Heck, my first line of thought at Die Hard With Ponies is that it sounds like it could be awesomely insane. But those sorts of games should only happen when that's what everyone signed up for.
Bottom line, the party and the GM should work together to have a game that everyone enjoys playing. Sometimes that means character concepts need to be adjusted to match what will be fun for the rest of the group, and sometimes you can have a policy of allowing anything and everything. At the end of the day, the most important rule of tabletop RPGs is the Rule of Fun.
Absolutely some people dig that sort of thing and more power to them. May they continue to game on.
The point I was trying to make was if somebody has said they're running a Die Hard game showing up at that table with Twilight Sparkle is bad form and you probably won't get to play her.
- Torger
Very true. Crazy absurd characters only work when everyone at the table is okay with including a crazy absurd character in the campaign.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am quite serious. There are a number of Tabletop RPG systems that cater towards less fantasy based roleplaying experiences. Since Matt doesn't seem like he likes fantasy elements like talking dinosaurs, he might wish to consider one that is more suited to such a thing. If being helpful is trolling to you Torger, you must be a hard individual to help.
You realize that their are different flavours of fantasy right? You realise that A castle topped torr in ghost haunted moor land can be every bit as fantastical as a Talking dinosaur, and that ones choice of system need not be constrained by what a system contains as an option.
Talking dinosaurs may be an option, but they are an option that sit badly with the vast majority of setting. Preserving a groups common sense of verisimilitude by preventing a single player running around in a magical mecha, in the Tolkien inspired setting he has agreed to play in, is not some act of GM tyrany, but part of his job at the table.