| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lolwut
I'm usually not a guy who bans classes (sometimes for balance reasons, which is a good reason to ban or at least restrict a Synthesist) but not allowing Psionics isn't even banning a class. They're not Paizo released, they're 3rd party. Very well made 3rd party, and I like to use them, but they are in no way "part of the lore" (because Paizo has nothing to do with them). So you're not banning them, you're just choosing not to houserule them in.
Your player was either sorely mistaken or trying to pull the wool over your eyes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So this seems like two questions.
A) Is there anything wrong with banning classes?
No.
B) Was there another way to go about dealing with a player who objected?
Yes.
Turning it into a competition to cite sources that way would have turned me off as well, personally.
"I've banned them because I really don't like dealing with them in my games because of (reason)." Something like that would have gone over much more smoothly, at least with me. But I don't know the player, maybe it wouldn't have helped in your situation.
EDIT: As stories change, so do opinions. See below.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a lot of variables at play here, there are no black and white answers.
It's not wrong for a GM to not want certain things in a campaign, but it's not wrong for a player to want them, either.
It sounds like this is the planning stage, which is the correct time for the group to be discussing this type of thing. If you'd announced it after everyone had spent time making characters, then I'd say you were out of line. Saying it up front gives time to get a group reaction, which it appears you did.
Is this a brand new group, or an established one? If the latter, then presumably you know the sort of things your players like and don't like, and I would understand a player's disappointment at being told the next game takes away their favorite toys.
If this is an established group, is the group used to playing with restrictions? If it's a common occurrence, then you're standing on far more solid ground than if you just dropped the news on a group that regularly plays "anything goes".
Again assuming an established group, do you rotate GMs? If so, do the GMs usually decide what's being played? Do you regularly play Pathfinder, or is it just another game in the mix?
Is 3PP material used often in your group? Again, we're in the realms of existing player expectations - did this come as a shock to the group, or is it the kind of thing that everyone's used to?
If this is a brand new group, then I really don't see any real problems here. You said what the game is you want to run, and players can decide to join the game or not join the game. Getting mad because the advertised game isn't to their taste would then point towards this player being a bit of a jerk.
So, most of this is down to preexisting group dynamics and social contracts. Did you break a preexisting social contract, or are you establishing one for a new group?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The player in question has overturned tables when rolling natural 1s and we were considering kicking him out numerous times before this. He's also a bit of an alcoholic (OOC) He tried to argue with me in our last campaign that CoDzilla is a valid build for Pathfinder (lol @ 3.5 DMM being Paizo legal..)
Well that changes the whole story. I'd have told him to kick rocks long before psionics even came up. Sounds like you were being far more patient with him that I would have been.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The player in question has overturned tables when rolling natural 1s and we were considering kicking him out numerous times before this. He's also a bit of an alcoholic (OOC) He tried to argue with me in our last campaign that CoDzilla is a valid build for Pathfinder (lol @ 3.5 DMM being Paizo legal..)Well that changes the whole story. I'd have told him to kick rocks long before psionics even came up. Sounds like you were being far more patient with him that I would have been.
Yeah, this is getting more to the real issue at hand. A problem player is a problem player, and how the game is being run doesn't really figure into it when that's the case.
BTW, are you using "overturned tables" metaphorically or literally? If the latter I'm amazed they were *ever* welcome back.
More the first one, I guess. The player in question is a major league cheeser but gets mad when his PCs die. His NE bad touch Cleric was killed by an extraplanar creature. Turns out that summoning a Bebilith and not speaking Aklo isn't a good idea. What's that you say, summoning a Chaotic Evil outsider and commanding it around arbitrarily doesn't just work?Maybe I'm a strict DM, but ya know I don't cut experienced players a break. Specially not if they are cheesing min-maxers with rotten personalities :p
Table overturned was physical, at a game store. He was a friend of the owner of the store we use, so I chose to diplomatically not say anything. In this case, I'm just not dealing with the guy's immaturity. I mean there's plenty of min-maxy characters that can be played without Summoners
It sounds like the rest of the group were quite happy with the game you were proposing?
If so, especially given what we've learned of this particular player's attitude, I don't think you did anything wrong at all. Except perhaps the part about letting the guy keep playing and bringing unwanted stress and hassle into the group... :)
I tend to block Samurai, Ninja, and Gunslingers (Gunslingers slightly less so, but still). And archetypes that have been proven OP. That said, I also work with players to help them with their character concept. One guy in an AP I'm running is playing an Alchemist. We're homebrewing some things so that his character loses bombs, but gains some monk like abilities. Basically, he drink his elixir, goes all Hyde, then proceeds to fisticuffs enemies. Currently trying to figure out how his lore on bomb mechanics can be worked into his punches, but that's the fun of it n_n
So uh, I take it your player didn't look closely enough at the Alchemist's archetypes? =p
Though it certainly doesn't invalidate any homebrew archetype you have, since you seem to be going a lot further with the Monk stuff.
As for how it can be worked in, perhaps let him add Xd6 Elemental damage to his fists X times a day? Perhaps half progression of normal Bombs, but more overall uses?
Default is Fire but if he takes Discoveries that change the Elemental type he can do so to his Flaming Fists.
Contributor
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you are inclusive of all Golarion material, including pre-Pathfinder RPG releases, then sure, psionics is part of the lore.
But that doesn't matter.
You are running a game. You need to have fun too. If you don't enjoy some specific class, race, spell, feat, or any other element, and you tell players in advance it's not an option, you're not doing anything "wrong." The players should feel free to make a short, polite argument for the inclusion of something they'd like to use, but after that if they want a different game, they can run it themselves.
If you drop a ban on something relevant to a character build later on, a player might have a legitimate case to be annoyed -- if you informed the person playing the evocation wizard that you don't use fireball in your game, but only when he reaches 5th level, that's a real lack of proper communication.
Laying out your house rules at the beginning is the *right* way to handle it, and certainly no one should *expect* anything beyond the core rules is in use just because its in print.
Even as a 3pp, I absolutely see no sign of you using "bad form."
In this case, it sounds like there are more serious issues with the player in any case.
I ban the monk more often than not so na it is fine.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you are the DM, you establish the parameters for the game world. Period. This includes any and all classes, races or abilities you will allow or disallow. Just maintain consistency in your decisions.
Also, there is never an acceptable time or excuse for the bad behavior from a participant in a game as described. People that behave like children and throw tantrums, need to be treated like children and be given a time out. Certainly not coddled or catered to.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
The DM has every right to ban, limit or change any class, race or other element used in a campaign. The players have every right not to play it. Simple as that.
You could say this is an all NPC class game and some people will still play it.
Branning stuff is fine.
Killing a cleric with a monster he summoned up because he cannot speak its lingu is not ok.
But it sounds like the player need a time out or a kick to the rear, any way.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Title says it all. I'm running a campaign and planning on banning Synthesist Summoners, Psionics and ACG play test classes. One player is claiming "psionics is part of lore"
I asked him to point out psionics in the inner sea world guide or any PFS module or how ACG classes are part of the game beyond playtest. Player got pretty hostile then dropped. Am I out of line here or is the player?
I have no problems with a GM banning Classes, Races, Feats, Spells, Weapons, the word Humongous, or anything else that doesn't fit with the campaign.
You were well within your right to ban material that doesn't have a place in your campaign, and the player was well within his right to drop, so he can find a campaign with the content he desires. Sounds like a win-win to me.
Edit: After reading your follow up posts on the players conduct, I have one word of warning: He'll be back. Table-flipper guy always comes back....
|
I think that the GM has the right to restrict his/her game to the source material he/she has. The reason is that the GM can't be expected to know/remember/have the consistent ability to reference rules they do not have access to (in AND out of game).
I think anything past that has to be negotiated. Honestly, I'm tired of seeing responses from people who indicate that GM has the right to do whatever they want and the players just have to deal with it. (In all fairness I am equally tired if not a little bit disgusted at threads about GMs letting players pretty much do whatever and then complaining that the characters are impossible to counter OR even a player's thread which just automatically assumes that the GM will let them do whatever they want).
I think that when you are playing a group game a lot of things have to be a group decision. I think that the player should have a lot of say in what their character is and can do, specifically at character creation. I think that what happens in the story is a cooperative measure with the GM presenting certain things and the players responding to it which can impact and change future events. I think the GM has the right to determine what encounters will be thrown at the party. That’s the divide and split of who has what rights as I see it.
A lot of people will say that the GM has this or that right and that rule books back up his/her rights to determine and restrict and blah blah blah. This may be a valid point but so is a bunch of players walking out on your game or losing interest and constantly sabotaging your game because you were a douche monger from the start and thought yourself queen bee instead of acting human for half a second in a group activity and figuring out what it is the group actually wants to do.
A GM can restrict or alter or whatever all they want but players can also refuse to play with a douche GM (a power I don't think many player realize they have). Because what's a GM sitting at a table without players? The lonely loser in the corner who thought he was better than everyone else.
Is the GM your friend? ask why the restrictions are being placed on the game
GM say he doesn't have to explain because it is HIS/HER game? Tell them that you don't think the game will be something you consider to be enjoyable based on what you think is fun and how the game has been restricted. Because the game has been restricted you do not feel like adding the time sink to your schedule right now but when they consider running a different game with a little bit more options to let you know.
GM instead says explains why they don't certain things in their game but indicates they are willing to discuss it and come up with a happy middle ground? Then talk and reach that compromise, don't be a douche.
You will be surprised how many times a power tripping GM is put in their place by just one player dissenting in front of other players…
But to the OP, I would kick the guy mainly based on his attitude. My expectation of anything involving a group is that everyone involved acts with civility. The GM better mind their Ps and Qs but so had the players……Also my monthly group is still recovering from a very upsetting incident involving an alcoholic member from nearly two years ago.
Core Only FTW :)
You're good dude. Take a breathe and forget him.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
-If the GM is unhappy and the players are happy, the GM is crazy
-If the GM is happy and the players are unhappy, he won't have a group pretty soon....
The player in question has overturned tables when rolling natural 1s
Wow, I didn't know this actually happened to people. I thought it was comic exaggeration, from KoDT.
That would get an automatic ban at my games.
Exactly. Class is still not the whole character...race, gender, equipment, skills, description, backstory, clothing, character, are all part that the DM doesn't ban.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Title says it all. I'm running a campaign and planning on banning Synthesist Summoners, Psionics and ACG play test classes. One player is claiming "psionics is part of lore"
If he's really claiming the 'lore' angle, then tell him you'll let him do psionics like the original 1st edition D&D rules permitted psionics.
Tell him to pick a different class, and hand him some percentile dice. If he rolls an an 00, you'll allow him to take some powers.
The DM has every right to ban, limit or change any class, race or other element used in a campaign. The players have every right not to play it. Simple as that.
I couldn't have said it any better.
As for the table flipper which you've mentioned this guy before in another post. If I'm not mistaken he's also the hangover guy too you've talked about.
First of all why dm a game with a person who acts like this. The thing to do is pack up your gaming material/books and explain to the players that your here to have fun by dm'ing a game not dealing with a idiot.
Let the shop owner and players deal with him.
I ran a game that had a lot of classes and races missing, players who normally wouldn't have liked that accepted it for 3 reasons.
1 I was upfront at the beginning of the campaign that they couldn't play Clerics, Inquisitors, Magi, Monks, Paladins or Wizards. They couldn't play Elves, Orcs, Dwarves, Halflings or Half Breeds of any type (this was what they liked the least, Half-Elf, Half-Orc, Aasimar, Tiefling and the rest are really popular.)
2 The things they couldn't play DID NOT EXIST. There is nothing more frustrating to me as a player than being told that the concept is cool and fits in with the world but that it is reserved for NPCs.
3 Anything I didn't restrict beforehand they could have (leadership feat, advanced firearms, custom magic items) and it worked out fine.
Oddly nobody played a Summoner.
I ban things for balance purposes and restrict access to things for story purposes. Third party material is generally banned, though my players may petition me for an exception but I am still unlikely to permit it.
None of these things are bad if it is known and stated in advance before the game begins. Players can choose not to play if they do not find the terms acceptable. But everyone should try to behave rationally and maturely. Upending tables is not acceptable behavior.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting sidenote: I will CONSIDER (no guarantee) 3pp stuff IF the players buys me the book (other GMs I know have the same policy). I've yet to hear of anybody taking up the offer.
Unless I am mistaken, aren't basically all psionics third-party?
Mechanically? Yes.
In terms of Lore? 95% or so, Yes. There are some creatures who would be using "psychic magic" if given the opportunity, and others have pointed out that Paizo hinted at there psionics in previous settings.
Interesting sidenote: I will CONSIDER (no guarantee) 3pp stuff IF the players buys me the book (other GMs I know have the same policy). I've yet to hear of anybody taking up the offer.
Does it need to be a hard copy? Are .pdfs acceptable? Or have we moved into the 21st century where publishers make their material available online for free?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ban whatever you want,as long as you can find enough players to play.
I know one DM who runs a game with core book class's and races and banns even paizo's other pathfinder books and options.
Several players will not play in his games but he has more than enough that do.
Title says it all. I'm running a campaign and planning on banning Synthesist Summoners, Psionics and ACG play test classes. One player is claiming "psionics is part of lore"
I asked him to point out psionics in the inner sea world guide or any PFS module or how ACG classes are part of the game beyond playtest. Player got pretty hostile then dropped. Am I out of line here or is the player?
I'd say it depends on how your gaming experience runs.
I've been told that psionics appeared in 1st edition. I wouldn't know. I started with 2nd. The psionics there was wonderfully horrible. It either didn't do enough to feel like one did anything or totally over did things (like disintegrating somebody or yourself!). In 3rd, it was still wonky, better, but still bad in places. 3.5 was well done. And core. WotC even called it out as such even though it appeared in a separate book. Dreamscarred Press has done a wonderful job converting and adding to the Pathfinder version.
If you see Pathfinder as the inheritor of this history, which it tries to do with the backwards compatibility claim (which is a wonderful lie... I mean one can, but the reworking is such that one shouldn't), then psionics IS part of it. Yes, you can not use psionics. I think it's well done enough that you should use it. However, I am biased. I really like the stuff.
Williamoak, I might take you up on that offer. I like psionics enough to possibly get somebody the book. I've most definitely bought persons copies of the TV show Firefly for the same reason, to introduce someone to something I think is awesome.
When I run, which seems the norm lately, I throw it all out there. It may not be common, but it's all there somewhere. If it's in the books, its in the setting, and may make an appearance, even if its just something a player gleans from a knowledge check about some mystic mind mage types or some dwarven black powder invention. Then again, I almost always have the same steel dragon pretending to be human with an adopted human daughter and running the Blue Boar Inn.
Though, as always, your game, your rules. Good call dumping the abusive player. I run most of my games at home, so it's not as hard for me to get rid of a problem player. I've never had to call the police, but I could... that and my significant other is scary.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting sidenote: I will CONSIDER (no guarantee) 3pp stuff IF the players buys me the book (other GMs I know have the same policy). I've yet to hear of anybody taking up the offer.Does it need to be a hard copy? Are .pdfs acceptable? Or have we moved into the 21st century where publishers make their material available online for free?
PDF is good. But if I've got to put the effort to vet it and make sure it isnt silly, I've got to expect them to put a bit too. Plus, if I have the book, I'm more likely to allow it in the future. Better for everyone! I've bought several books for my GMs before (though mostly paizo books). It keeps a GM happy and generally expands the options for all players.
Plus, with most books under 15$ in PDF, the prices are VERY reasonable.
Communication is key and if you know you're not comfortable running something for rules or thematic reasons, best to let people know at the outset before any other discussion occurs, before people invest time and imagination shaping a prospective character, before they get to the 1st session, before they spend money on new books/PDFs etc.
You will save yourself and everyone else so much time and angst by being proactive and communicating with prospective players.
For someone to assume 3rd party stuff is allowed is beyond the pale, but again it is always good to let people know at the outset if 3rd party material is not allowed or subject to DM approval.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly. Class is still not the whole character...race, gender, equipment, skills, description, backstory, clothing, character, are all part that the DM doesn't ban.Though honestly, I'd say all of those are things I might shoot down under some circumstances. Some even more rarely than others, of course.
Usually, I'm looking for characters as a whole that will fit the campaign I've got in mind. That could require changing pretty much anything about a character. Most often that'll be a discussion, explaining what doesn't work and is that fundamental to the player's concept or can it change to something else.
Gender's probably the exception, though I know one player I wouldn't let play a woman in any kind of serious game. I've seen him do it and it just doesn't work.
I disagree, I prefer character driven games, unless you are trying for a specific setting, like all pirates, all oriental classes, or all gun users, I think getting too involved in a character creation process is a bad idea. Granted if a person has a clearly disruptive, chaotic stupid character you should ban it...but other wise I say anything goes.