I always use whitelists rather than blacklist. It would be too troublesome to ban pretty much every source there is.
Players can select from the races that are appropriate to the game we play, select from the classes that exist in the world (4 CRB classes, two custom), the weapons and armor available in the world, and chose from all the skills and feats in the CRB.
That's much more than anyone would ever need.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I ban books, dice, and character sheets in my games.
I also ban out of character talk or any references to the real world. I expect all players to show up in costume that must be met by strict standards as according to my 300 page three ring binder of house rules (subject to change).
Conflict resolution is handled via free style poetry battle on the front lawn.
Combat, violence, and bad words are also banned things at my table.
Tables and chairs are also banned we sit in a close circle on comfortable feather pillows.
|
I ban books, dice, and character sheets in my games.
I also ban out of character talk or any references to the real world. I expect all players to show up in costume that must be met by strict standards as according to my 300 page three ring binder of house rules (subject to change).
Conflict resolution is handled via free style poetry battle on the front lawn.
Combat, violence, and bad words are also banned things at my table.
Tables and chairs are also banned we sit in a close circle on comfortable feather pillows.
I can live with most of that just don't ban pizza, code red and cheetos puhleez!
Guns. Summoners.
Munchkins.
Immature players.
Smokers.
Smokers.
Smokers? I know they aren't very bright but I don't know that I would ban them.
Smokers? I know they aren't very bright but I don't know that I would ban them.Smokers.
They stink, and bring their stink with them.
They stink, and bring their stink with them.Smokers? I know they aren't very bright but I don't know that I would ban them.Smokers.
So why not just ban stinky people instead of singling out smokers? After all there are smokers that dont stink, and there are stinky people who dont smoke.
So why not just ban stinky people instead of singling out smokers? After all there are smokers that dont stink, and there are stinky people who dont smoke.They stink, and bring their stink with them.Smokers? I know they aren't very bright but I don't know that I would ban them.Smokers.
We do. Mind you honest 'after the game" BO is one thing- "haven't bothered to shower in a week" is another.
But all smokers stink, just that they can't smell themselves.
I mean, I suppose if you take a shower, use mouthwash and change closthes rigth before, then don't light up until after, maybe. Or if you're like one gamer who has two cigars a year...
Is this because you enjoy killing gnomes or because you find them fragile? If it's the latter that would be an interesting challenge as a player...Gnomes are usually banned as I have a hard time NOT killing them and I don't want the players or myself to waste a lot of time on them.
Gnome hatred, not fragility. Especially Svirfneblin.
-TimD
I remember that time I used d20pfsrd to persuade my GM that he was dangerously insane and get him institutionalized.
If he was your GM, he'd have to be!
waggles 'Groucho' cigar
I use most PFS rules and if someone wants anything out of they have to tell me why. If I find it unfair I work with the player to have it.
Generally I play mostly PFS so I know those rules best.
I make the game for the group as a whole. The only reason to ban something is if you have a being a jerk. I do not make home games for jerks.
Its a short list.
1) Master Summoner. Leaning toward banning synthesist due to lack of clarity.
2)Unilateral use of the race builder by a player.
I run two kinds of game:
One kind that is heavily prepared for and story intensive where I stick to Paizo stuff only.
The other kind involves flat approval of all Paizo and WotC 3.5 stuff, where I min/max the monsters as well and encourage munchkinism.
I ban everything in the CRB. You can use anything Paizo has published as long as it isn't listed in the CRB.
Seriously,
Gunslingers,
Monks
Ninja
Samurai
Eastern weapons and armor and equipment
3rd party stuff (but no one I play with has any)
party poopers.
Banned:
Drow Noble, Dhampir, Summoner, Gunslinger, 3pp stuff (exceptions might be made for 3pp)
Restricted:
Leadership (I would only allow it for weaker classes and only with a limited choice of cohorts)
CN alignment (because it is too often used to disrupt gameplay and to excuse evil actions. If you want evil - play evil.)
It makes me sad that so many DMs do not trust their players to the extent that they outright ban things without discussion.
Why are you even playing, if you feel that way?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It makes me sad that so many DMs do not trust their players to the extent that they outright ban things without discussion.
Why are you even playing, if you feel that way?
Because some things are not about trusting your players, sometimes it is about the theme of the game you are running or the extra paperwork or time involved in research and balance of a particular thing... be it class, archetype, race, feat, spell, etc.
No need to go off on the notion it is a mob of player distrusting GMs.
And really, just because something is printed, doesn't mean it is fitting for everyone's campaign.
It makes me sad that so many DMs do not trust their players to the extent that they outright ban things without discussion.
Why are you even playing, if you feel that way?
Some things are just broken, or only show up in cheesy ways that don't add to the game, better to ban them preemptively than have a player build a character, become emotionally invested in the concept, and then be hit with the nerfbat when they show up to play.
As an example for me one item was the 1 level crossblooded sorcerer dip that every third wizard took to juice his AOE damage. I nerfed that because those sorts of exploits don't feel like the intent of the rules, and they don't add anything to the story or the game. Besides, wizards don't need help being broken.
It makes me sad that so many DMs do not trust their players to the extent that they outright ban things without discussion.
Why are you even playing, if you feel that way?
Because some things are not about trusting your players, sometimes it is about the theme of the game you are running or the extra paperwork or time involved in research and balance of a particular thing... be it class, archetype, race, feat, spell, etc.
No need to go off on the notion it is a mob of player distrusting GMs.
And really, just because something is printed, doesn't mean it is fitting for everyone's campaign.
Yes, and sometimes that is legit. But I really, really dont believe everyone on here has that notion. Especially whenever they say something is "overpowered". I think someone earlier in this thread (or perhaps another one) said that rogues were op because they could get more than one sneak attacks. Everyone thinks everything is overpowered and it comes down to "only human fighters are allowed".
It's silly that people ban a archetype so interesting as synthesist for being "overpowered" when in reality they are no worse than a fighter dual-wielding shields, and in fact less powerful than the actual summoner. It's just off the cuff banning because they don't trust their players and because it's not the exact same as everything else.
Not to mention I think the "it doesnt fit my setting" argument is almost always john bumpkis, but that should be saved for another time.
Does anyone else find it interesting that the great majority of the things folks are listing as banned are the same across the board?
There have been quite a few different reasons for removing each of the items from the game but oddly enough for the most part it's the same things over and over.
It makes me sad that so many DMs do not trust their players to the extent that they outright ban things without discussion.
Why are you even playing, if you feel that way?
Some things are just broken, or only show up in cheesy ways that don't add to the game, better to ban them preemptively than have a player build a character, become emotionally invested in the concept, and then be hit with the nerfbat when they show up to play.
As an example for me one item was the 1 level crossblooded sorcerer dip that every third wizard took to juice his AOE damage. I nerfed that because those sorts of exploits don't feel like the intent of the rules, and they don't add anything to the story or the game. Besides, wizards don't need help being broken.
If a player becomes emotionally invested in something, how does it not add to the game?
It makes me sad that so many DMs do not trust their players to the extent that they outright ban things without discussion.
Why are you even playing, if you feel that way?
Well, we had a long discussion about Summoners, and we still have one grandfathered in. Guns? Guns simply don’t fit in our milieu. Do you allow blasters and spaceships in your game?
It makes me sad that so many DMs do not trust their players to the extent that they outright ban things without discussion.
Why are you even playing, if you feel that way?
Well, we had a long discussion about Summoners, and we still have one grandfathered in. Guns? Guns simply don’t fit in our milieu. Do you allow blasters and spaceships in your game?
Well you dont count, silly! You talked with your players and reached a agreement, from the looks of things
It's silly that people ban a archetype so interesting as synthesist for being "overpowered" when in reality they are no worse than a fighter dual-wielding shields, and in fact less powerful than the actual summoner.
Not “overpowered”- broken. There’s a difference. Synthesist is broken as it doesn’t work right, it causes HUGE argle-bargle, you have to check re-check and check again the build every single level, and there’s more threads posts and FAQ about that archetype than any other- by a long shot. Not to mention is can be over-powered on top of all that. It slows down the game tremendously.
Also , when the Creative Director of a game sez that the Summoner per RAW doesn't really fit Golarion and was poorly done, then you hafta listen to him.
It's silly that people ban a archetype so interesting as synthesist for being "overpowered" when in reality they are no worse than a fighter dual-wielding shields, and in fact less powerful than the actual summoner.
Also , when the Creative Director of a game sez that the Summoner per RAW doesn't really fit Golarion and was poorly done, then you hafta listen to him.
Not really. In fact, he said I dont! And if he says I dont have to listen to him, then I HAVE it listen to hi--...waiiit
And i kinda get the broken argument, but still, it could be said that just about damn near everything is broken. Pathfinder is a mess of good ideas and poorly worded abilities, after all!
|
It makes me sad that so many DMs do not trust their players to the extent that they outright ban things without discussion.
Why are you even playing, if you feel that way?
Well, we had a long discussion about Summoners, and we still have one grandfathered in. Guns? Guns simply don’t fit in our milieu. Do you allow blasters and spaceships in your game?
Well... Most people tend to be okay with lasers shot by men in iron suits of armor flying around.
I don't disallow anything in my games. I add things to make players more unique and more powerful. I scale everything to match their power curve, and yes, sometimes i get myself into trouble, like allowing a player to be a full blood ogre... think he had like 40+ str and level 6...but i ALWAYS find a way to make the encounters challenging, the story tricky, puzzles puzzling. There is ALWAYS as a DM, a way to counter something. If you can't, you haven't looked hard enough or don't have enough imagination. The ONLY THING i have EVER EVER EVER had trouble with has been druids. That being said, i would NEVER ban them from my table.
When i have to DM (i say have because i prefer to play, but constant dming wears people out) i want just as much mental stimulation as when i play. So i consider it an intellectual challenge to flip the script and find ways to do things. I HELP my players PG to become more optimized and better at "what they want to do".
Too hard to hit them? Debuff or surround with minions.
Too much gear making them able to "go around or circumvent a puzzle?", anti magic field.
Too much damage output? Weaken or exhaust them. Easiest way to do so, did they take the time to don their armor after rest?
Too good at bluff for NPC's? Discern Lies ring.
Too good at diplomacy? NPC hates your race...
Able to teleport at will via scrying? 100's of things to block scyring and or magic anchor.
Animals slowing down combat? DR/Empathy/Mass Hold
Their saves to good? Cackling witches.
Their archery skills OP'd? Windwall, rain, Obscuring Mist, Darkness, Arrow Catching shields on minions.
Getting way too much money? Awww... the shield took too much damage, it must have been on its last legs and broken...
These are way i homebrew EVERY campaign. AP's are good, but if you arent comfortable modifying... why DM?
/pontification
I only allow my players to be Wizards, Falcata Fighters, and gunslingers. and one guy has to play the cleric but they draw straws.
It makes me sad that so many DMs do not trust their players to the extent that they outright ban things without discussion.
Why are you even playing, if you feel that way?
Because some things are not about trusting your players, sometimes it is about the theme of the game you are running or the extra paperwork or time involved in research and balance of a particular thing... be it class, archetype, race, feat, spell, etc.
No need to go off on the notion it is a mob of player distrusting GMs.
And really, just because something is printed, doesn't mean it is fitting for everyone's campaign.
Yes, and sometimes that is legit. But I really, really dont believe everyone on here has that notion. Especially whenever they say something is "overpowered". I think someone earlier in this thread (or perhaps another one) said that rogues were op because they could get more than one sneak attacks. Everyone thinks everything is overpowered and it comes down to "only human fighters are allowed".
It's silly that people ban a archetype so interesting as synthesist for being "overpowered" when in reality they are no worse than a fighter dual-wielding shields, and in fact less powerful than the actual summoner. It's just off the cuff banning because they don't trust their players and because it's not the exact same as everything else.
Not to mention I don't think the "it doesnt fit my setting" argument is almost always john bumpkis, but that should be saved for another time.
I can see your point.
Now please understand that player investment is definitively one of my top two items for Pathfinder, directly behind OOC table harmony.
However some things are in my opinion just too vaguely written, too good or are flat damaging to immersion and character based play.
Antagonize - I find this feat to be damaging to play as a whole as it is entirely possible to construct a PC/NPC that can perform this feat with a 100% chance of success, therefore eliminating player agency.
Leadership- I feel this feat is better handled via play and downtime and do not charge my players a feat for it.
Advanced firearms- I find touch AC at any range increment extremely powerful, however I am currently homebrewing some rules for this.
Simulacrum - This spell is so wide open to abuse that I feel it needs to be completely rewritten, and my players feel the same way. We see this spell as the ICBM of Pathfinder and have all agreed that if it existed then there would never be an adventuring community or even a world just endless wishes.
Blood Money - Free wishes and spells = no
Emergency Force Sphere- Very abuse-able and just too powerful.
All of these have been discussed by all of the players at my table and we came to this list via consensus.
I am open to allowing almost anything if a player is desperately attached to it, however my caveat is that this is a group game do not ruin the fun for others.
That is honestly where my banned list has come from.
Now as for banning for setting, I have definitively done that.
One of my most popular games banned divine casters or magics of any type and required arcane casters to be part of a Machiavellian guild due to the entire world being a small island trapped inside of a bubble.
My current game bans teleport and planeshift magics due to them being an un-trusted and undeveloped form of magic.
Players have input before the game begins and I try to be flexible, as for instance I have a teifling and an extra-planar creature as PC's in my current game due to the fact that they were very interested in these characters and also they had reasonable explanations for such, plus were willing to deal with the fact that they would be oddity's.
TL;DR: Sometimes bans are reasonable sometimes not and I feel the best way to do such is to speak with the group as a whole and work out an agreement.
so much quote that Paizo can't even handle it
And if there were such a thing as badwrongfun, I would definitely say that you are not having it.
In other words, I agree with your way of running things
It makes me sad that so many DMs do not trust their players to the extent that they outright ban things without discussion.
Why are you even playing, if you feel that way?
Do you allow blasters and spaceships in your game?
WAAAIT A SECOND! What about the androids? And the uh, the spider people. With the guns and made out of metal and stuff, yeah? I don't know, I'm not the biggest Golarion historian, but aren't there already like, cave men fighting astronauts somewhere in there?