| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion a drider is a non-level appropriate character.For any level? Interesting.Since the response was deleted.
It's not so much a level thing as it is a drider thing. A drider as a PC in general seems silly in concept and execution. In the books I've read driders are more or less mindless brutes that can follow simple orders. So for me a Drizzt style drider just doesn't work for me, similar to a tarrasque PC, a silly idea.
The only time I think I'd allow a drider PC would be in a game where that made sense, such as the drow invasion of mitral hall. In that instance I'd gleeful work with my player to develop a self aware drider.
If I'm running Rise of the Runelords, just won't happen. The town of Sandpoint would have a terrible day killing a drider then being attacked by goblins.
But if the player really wanted a drider I'd help out in hunting down a dm that welcomed a drider player.
Just to point out that driders have had and still have amazingly above average mental and physical stats. To treat them as mindless creatures without seriously modifying their stats is pretty silly IMO.
Driders tend to actually make a good candidate for a player race. In D&D, they were fleshed-warped individuals who "failed" a test by the spider goddess and were driven out of society. CE society turns on you, maybe you might be more willing to team up with people looking to take harm that society. In PF they are fleshed-warped individuals that treated as shock troops. Maybe one of them with their superior intellect decides this isn't the life for me. I don't know like ...
As for Sandpoint fighting one. Sandpoint had enough trouble dealing with CR 1/3 goblins. They aren't going to mess with a CR 7 drider unless they absolutely have to. Most likely they would shut their doors and hide and hope the spider beastie isn't too hungry. Of course why a party would consider a CR 7 creature an appropriate level for a Level 1 party is beyond me. Poor GMing I would imagine.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me, even in home brews there are somethings I like to stay true on. It is usually a list of monsters that, again for me, should stay monsters. Also, I don't really like spiders, so keeping driders as a "cursed race" feels good.
There is definitely a place for monster or evil campaigns.
But it isn't every place.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the books I've read driders are more or less mindless brutes that can follow simple orders.
I'm curious, what books have you been reading?
Driders in the PFRPG Bestiary have an INT of 15, just as they did in D&D 3.5... And in 2nd edition AD&D, they had an INT anywhere from 13-20.
I meant the fantasy novels, particularly by Salvatore. Not source books.
I should have clarified the types of books, especially given the nature of the hobby is in books themselves :)
The bottom line here is as a DM I can do what I want no matter how badly it may irritate someone, but the other side to that is people can always say no to my games and walk away.
I have the right to present a specific campaign that I want to run and you, as player's, have the right to refuse it.
What you don't have the right to do is strong arm me into changing the campaign around in order to fit in what "you" want. If I agree to the change is one thing but you can't make me do it if I don't want to.
Yes, I agree!
That is how it goes, and can work. If players aren't on board, then of course they can move on. If it is too different, wacky, unusual, not what they are going for, they will pass.
As I am worldbuilding at the moment, another dm is advising me. One of the old guard, and a great fellow. He probably won't play in my games based in this new setting, it isn't his cup of tea, but we can certainly pass ideas and talk about what we are making. If a player wanted to come in and play something that doesn't fit/work for a range of reasons (theme--awakened pony, class or race not in the setting) that is all fine.
Good we can be mature about this. The deleted pages look cool btw.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me, even in home brews there are somethings I like to stay true on. It is usually a list of monsters that, again for me, should stay monsters. Also, I don't really like spiders, so keeping driders as a "cursed race" feels good.There is definitely a place for monster or evil campaigns.
But it isn't every place.
Indeed. For me, driders and others creatures are not something I'd readily allow for a starting party, and likely not for even a more advanced party unless we were playing some sort of anything goes monsters are us party. They are the sort of thing that the average town person is less likely to mistake for a shapechanged druid and more of "AAAAAAHHHH Monster!!!!"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While a GM can do a lot of things, the real question is what is appropriate when dealing with other people you respect in a social setting. A true leader, and the GM being first among equals should be the leader of their group of people, doesn't have to rely solely on a claim to his/her position, but instead inspires others to follow the path they are blazing.
As soon as some starts pulling a Dexter as a GM, "You dare defy my whims? I am the game master. You are my pawns. I have created the world you see before you. I CONTROL YOUR FATE!" You know they have proven that they are a poor leader.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While a GM can do a lot of things, the real question is what is appropriate when dealing with other people you respect in a social setting. A true leader, and the GM being first among equals should be the leader of their group of people, doesn't have to rely solely on a claim to his/her position, but instead inspires others to follow the path they are blazing.
As soon as some starts pulling a Dexter as a GM, "You dare defy my whims? I am the game master. You are my pawns. I have created the world you see before you. I CONTROL YOUR FATE!" You know they have proven that they are a poor leader.
Yes if the GM takes that approach then I agree they are a poor GM. However having a specific idea for a setting and wanting to explore that with your players is not the same thing as believing your players are pawns.
Of course the DM should work with the players to incorporate their ideas, but the players also need to work with the GM. If the GM comes to his players with a specific idea and pitches it to them they should endeavor to work with that idea so that everyone can have fun. Not every idea will work and as the GM is the editor of the setting in the end the GM will have the final say.
This doesn't make the players the GMs slaves, it makes them contributors. Once the game starts the players get to control how they interact with the setting. Prior to the start of the game the GM controls the design of the setting. Since everyone is there to have fun the GM needs to design something the players will have fun interacting with and the players need to interact with the setting in a way that is fun for the GM. It is a symbiotic relationship and both sides benefit from cooperation in the form of having fun.
|
|
The real question is why is the player going to pick the GM, agree to the setting, then once that is done, not actually produce something that fits the setting.
If the player doesn't like the GM or the setting, or the concept, they can say they don't want to play in it. They have the right of "no".
Apparently some people feel the GM does not have the right of "no" in some people's mind.
Well what I want to know is what does that person do when the democratic table vote to play the game?
Depends on the person, doesn't it. I mean we are apparently back to talking about what a person can do and not what they probably should do.
|
Well what I want to know is what does that person do when the democratic table vote to play the game?Depends on the person, doesn't it. I mean we are apparently back to talking about what a person can do and not what they probably should do.
Seems to me there are only two options.
1: Don't play.
2: Play.
Well what I want to know is what does that person do when the democratic table vote to play the game?
Personally, I'm not a big fan of democracy at a table. Despite liking it when you all talk it out, democracy can leave 49% of you horrendously unhappy and bitter because it doesn't really take in things like 'I would play' or emotions. You need something everyone would play or not everyone will play, not 51% will. Also can turn into bullying(but what can't, eh?)
Well what I want to know is what does that person do when the democratic table vote to play the game?Depends on the person, doesn't it. I mean we are apparently back to talking about what a person can do and not what they probably should do.Seems to me there are only two options.
1: Don't play.
2: Play.
3. Discuss.
|
|
3. Discuss.Well what I want to know is what does that person do when the democratic table vote to play the game?Depends on the person, doesn't it. I mean we are apparently back to talking about what a person can do and not what they probably should do.Seems to me there are only two options.
1: Don't play.
2: Play.
Why? There has already been a vote and the winner is the majority wish to play the game as presented. There is nothing more to discuss.
That is the fair way to do it.
Why? There has already been a vote and the winner is the majority wish to play the game as presented. There is nothing more to discuss.
That is the fair way to do it.
Only works if the majority is enough to play though. You also might leave out friends you actually wanted to spend your weekends with.
|
|
Well what I want to know is what does that person do when the democratic table vote to play the game?Personally, I'm not a big fan of democracy at a table. Despite liking it when you all talk it out, democracy can leave 49% of you horrendously unhappy and bitter because it doesn't really take in things like 'I would play' or emotions. You need something everyone would play or not everyone will play, not 51% will. Also can turn into bullying(but what can't, eh?)
You aren't always going to get a table that is 100% on board with everything that's going on. There will always be disagreements about this or that but it's usually not enough that everyone is going to quit. You may have that one person who doesn't like it but 9 times out of 10 he will play because the next game that comes around he may be a huge fan while someone else at the table felt the same way he did.
|
|
Only works if the majority is enough to play though. You also might leave out friends you actually wanted to spend your weekends with.Why? There has already been a vote and the winner is the majority wish to play the game as presented. There is nothing more to discuss.
That is the fair way to do it.
One DM and two players is all you need to run a campaign.
Why? There has already been a vote and the winner is the majority wish to play the game as presented. There is nothing more to discuss.3. Discuss.
Seems to me there are only two options.1: Don't play.
2: Play.
Frankly? Because it often works.
|
|
3. Discuss.Well what I want to know is what does that person do when the democratic table vote to play the game?Depends on the person, doesn't it. I mean we are apparently back to talking about what a person can do and not what they probably should do.Seems to me there are only two options.
1: Don't play.
2: Play.
Or in my case.
1. Discuss
2. Play or don't play.
Frankly? Because it often works.
Talking about your problems solves them? Crazy talk!
Anyways, usually does help, but not always. Ideally your with sane and civil people. Ideally...
|
|
Only works if the majority is enough to play though. You also might leave out friends you actually wanted to spend your weekends with.Why? There has already been a vote and the winner is the majority wish to play the game as presented. There is nothing more to discuss.
That is the fair way to do it.
And vice versa. Although if I want to play a game they don't want to play, the only way both of us get what we want is if they do something else.
I went on a 3 day camping bike trip with a buddy. I would have loved to have more people come, but my buddy and I are the only ones who think bike 50+ miles a day to sleep in the woods sounds like fun in our circle of friends.
I suppose I could choose not to do something I think is fun. Or, I could do it and wish anyone who isn't interested well in whatever they decide to do.
|
|
Frankly? Because it often works.Why? There has already been a vote and the winner is the majority wish to play the game as presented. There is nothing more to discuss.3. Discuss.
Seems to me there are only two options.1: Don't play.
2: Play.
Often works for your group you mean.
I have already had the discussion. I discussed what my campaign is all about and what is allowed. The group discussed it with each other and the majority decided they wanted to play it. Anyone who didn't can decide to either play or don't play.
No more to discuss.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have already had the discussion. I discussed what my campaign is all about and what is allowed. The group discussed it with each other and the majority decided they wanted to play it. Anyone who didn't can decide to either play or don't play.
No more to discuss.
There's still plenty you could discuss. Its that you've chosen to take the stance that you won't change or move anything. Which isn't a bad thing at all, but its not how I'd do it. I'm usually trying to allow everyone in though, so its different goal and probably why I do things differently.
3. Discuss.
Seems to me there are only two options.1: Don't play.
2: Play.
Or in my case.
1. Discuss
2. Play or don't play.
Sure, the order of operations is likely not too critical here and talking something through can likely happen at any point, or in pieces throughout. (in my own case for example I often like to let ideas steep in my head a bit, so I might well talk through an idea, sleep on it, read a book, Google a bit, and generally just try to enrich my idea some, then later discuss some more).
Often works for your group you mean.
Indeed, but if I didn't think a communicative approach had some merits or benefits to offer, even possibly for groups other than my own, I wouldn't be here discussing it. ;)
Order of operations is entirely critical.
The whole issue is a player who agreed to play in a setting showing up with something that doesn't fit in the setting.
An unpleasant surprise that might well be avoided if communication is allowed to continue at any time rather than being cut off after the initial vote/declaration/whatever - no?
|
|
There's still plenty you could discuss. Its that you've chosen to take the stance that you won't change or move anything. Which isn't a bad thing at all, but its not how I'd do it. I'm usually trying to allow everyone in though, so its different goal and probably why I do things differently.I have already had the discussion. I discussed what my campaign is all about and what is allowed. The group discussed it with each other and the majority decided they wanted to play it. Anyone who didn't can decide to either play or don't play.
No more to discuss.
There isn't any more to discuss unless it's about getting started with the campaign that has been agreed to. Most people, well in our group anyway, want to get their characters made and they want to play.
Democracy wins when deciding if the group wants to play in the campaign or not. There is no discussion after the vote has been taken and decided.
After that you are just wasting time a lot of us don't have.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After that you are just wasting time a lot of us don't have.
I tend to make time for my friends. I don't play for the game just to play it, I play because its something to do with friends. The game without friends is kinda' lame imo.
I'm not sure if its okay to refer to your friends as wasting your time or to say they aren't a part of your group if they disagree, and that you shouldn't discuss things with them. That doesn't sound very friendly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Often works for your group you mean.
I have already had the discussion. I discussed what my campaign is all about and what is allowed. The group discussed it with each other and the majority decided they wanted to play it. Anyone who didn't can decide to either play or don't play.
No more to discuss.
I am not sure that you are using that bolded word in the way it is most commonly used.
I am not sure that you are using that bolded word in the way it is most commonly used.Often works for your group you mean.
I have already had the discussion. I discussed what my campaign is all about and what is allowed. The group discussed it with each other and the majority decided they wanted to play it. Anyone who didn't can decide to either play or don't play.
No more to discuss.
Well there's this quote too. Democracy doesn't win anything really, it never got a vote.
Democracy wins when deciding if the group wants to play in the campaign or not. There is no discussion after the vote has been taken and decided.
|
|
An unpleasant surprise that might well be avoided if communication is allowed to continue at any time rather than being cut off after the initial vote/declaration/whatever - no?Order of operations is entirely critical.
The whole issue is a player who agreed to play in a setting showing up with something that doesn't fit in the setting.
Hence the discussion phase.
If we agree to a setting and a plan, and you then decide that the plan must include the special snowflake, player is wrong.
If you will only play a special snowflake and I don't want to run a setting for your special snowflake, both say no and no one is wrong but game doesn't happen involving those two people.
If the GM says you can run the snowflake and then goes back on it, the GM is wrong.
Hence discussion phase coming first.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does that really happen? Even anecdotally?
What does it matter? These discussions have been hypothetical from the start. Maybe once upon a time they were about specific, real world examples, but now its just people discussing what is 'right' regardless of what actually happens.
|
|
Does that really happen? Even anecdotally?What does it matter? These discussions have been hypothetical from the start. Maybe once upon a time they were about specific, real world examples, but now its just people discussing what is 'right' regardless of what actually happens.
Because the snowflake thing does actually happen.
I could see intercommunication between the GM and the players about the overall theme, but if the GM doesn't deliver the goods, the players will bail quickly.
It is much, much harder to get rid of a player than a GM, in my experience.
Does that really happen? Even anecdotally?What does it matter? These discussions have been hypothetical from the start. Maybe once upon a time they were about specific, real world examples, but now its just people discussing what is 'right' regardless of what actually happens.Because the snowflake thing does actually happen.
I could see intercommunication between the GM and the players about the overall theme, but if the GM doesn't deliver the goods, the players will bail quickly.
It is much, much harder to get rid of a player than a GM, in my experience.
Not if you're up front, and willing to tell an unwelcome player that he is, in fact, unwelcome. That's never a fun conversation, but if it's necessary, it's necessary.
|
|
It is much, much harder to get rid of a player than a GM, in my experience.I find it equally hard in my experience.
We've had different experiences.
When you have more than one GM, the GM who has the coolest idea is the one that gets to run.
If an idea stops being cool...
On the other hand, if the game is good except one player, it's hard to tell your friend "You can't play anymore. We are still playing that thing, but not with you."
Usually, we just stop telling him when the game is.
Ouch... I usually want to discuss things. That's what I'd like done if someone didn't like me around. Also helps to know what you did wrong or if you did anything.
|
|
Usually, we just stop telling him when the game is.
Our group has had to do this, which is always awkward and nothing you ever want to do to a friend.
Which is why I think it is so important to set the boundaries up front so people don't end up accidentally ruining what would otherwise be a fun game.
I don't think snowflakes are malicious. And I don't think my dog is malicious when he s#%*s on the floor.
But it is still a mess I don't want to have to deal with in either case.
An unpleasant surprise that might well be avoided if communication is allowed to continue at any time rather than being cut off after the initial vote/declaration/whatever - no?Order of operations is entirely critical.
The whole issue is a player who agreed to play in a setting showing up with something that doesn't fit in the setting.
Hence the discussion phase.
If we agree to a setting and a plan, and you then decide that the plan must include the special snowflake, player is wrong.
If you will only play a special snowflake and I don't want to run a setting for your special snowflake, both say no and no one is wrong but game doesn't happen involving those two people.
If the GM says you can run the snowflake and then goes back on it, the GM is wrong.
Hence discussion phase coming first.
I'm not saying that the discussion shouldn't start early, just that there need not be a prescribed point after which NO MORE DISCUSSION. (Not even after everyone starts playing).
Character creation is a process, not an event with a set beginning and end. Frequently (for me at least) a process that continues additively well after we've all started the adventure.
So yeah, I might well have a new little snowflakey thing to talk with the GM about long after we've all agreed that next week we'll be starting Way of the Wicked and I'll be the LE witch-priest with the born-into-slavery background and the nasty case of Stockholm.
Discussion is also a process, not an event with a set beginning and end.
Not only do I hardly see a need for a strict order of operations that says that one or the other needs to happen and end before something else can begin, but it's difficult for me to see the possibility for such.
I don't think snowflakes are malicious. And I don't think my dog is malicious when he s!!$s on the floor.
I certainly hope your not comparing people who makes special snowflakes to that.
|
|
After that you are just wasting time a lot of us don't have.I tend to make time for my friends. I don't play for the game just to play it, I play because its something to do with friends. The game without friends is kinda' lame imo.
I'm not sure if its okay to refer to your friends as wasting your time or to say they aren't a part of your group if they disagree, and that you shouldn't discuss things with them. That doesn't sound very friendly.
It's everyone's time that is being wasted because we all have lives outside the game. We aren't kids that only need to worry about school.