|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gunpowder was around in 9th Century China, seems like it fits quite nicely really all things considered.Ok you "proved" it could "fit."
Now prove to me (the GM) it should fit. (and it better be more than cause the books say so. Because that just brings us back to: I do not see it fitting the thematic feel I am after; so NO.)Actually, though ...
note that it would take extreme charity to call those ninth century gunpowder weapons of china 'guns" in the gunslinger sense.
He can be a Tengu. Firework salesman.
With the magical nature of Alchemy in the world, I see no reason a skilled enough "Alchemist" (ie. Gunslinger) couldn't have a very basic gun. Many things are older then we give them credit for and lots of knowledge is lost over centuries. So a Tengu gunslinger would definitely not break verisimilitude for me.
A skilled player can come up with a character concept that will work within the GM's setting and preferences.
An unskilled player fixates on "the one true character concept" and lacks the imagination to deviate from it.
Two can play at that game.
No I'm pretty much the only one who can play this particular game, since the creativity/skill/imagination argument pretty much works entirely in my positions favor.
You'll note I used my skill and creativity to provide a Tengu Gunslinger who did fit in fanasty Solomon's Israel.
Your move Dandy Man.
Honestly, I'm not quite sure why anyone is taking you seriously anymore. Claiming that your position is right doesn't actually make your position right. Claiming you are the only one with any creativity doesn't actually make you the only one with creativity. These are the kinds of arguments an eight year old uses.Because it makes sense and would be interesting character. Also its what the player wants to play and he's used his skills and creativity to make it for the campaign.
"Yes" and "Yes, but..." are really the way to roll.
Really, that's your side. Do you really not believe that a good story teller could make it work? Because I do. But maybe I've met better storytellers then you.
And I'm aware 9th Century China is later then Solomon's Israel, the point was that Gunpowder is mighty old. I see no reason the far Eastern traveler couldn't be using a gun of his own invention back then. Hell, maybe Chinese Alchemists discover the notes from his journey years later. Seems plausible to me.
Your entire line of reasoning revolves around the concept that could = must and should = will. There seems to be a gap in your reasoning ability where you can't quite grasp that "sure I COULD do that" doesn't necessitate "yes I WILL do that." It appears that you suffer from some kind of "I'm the smartest guy in the room" delusion and if people don't agree with you it's solely because they're too dumb to understand your point. Really, at this point it's not entirely out of the question for people to just believe you're trolling and not really trying to make an honest point.
If you can make it work for the player and you don't what does that say about you?
This is very simple argument, you are making it needlessly complex.
My point is terribly simple. I have no delusions. I simply agree with my very simple point.
And yes if I could Fly, I totally would.
That's not a narrativist point - I just want the characters to have a reason to care either about what they are doing or each other for some form of reason for there to BE a group.I'm ok with neither, but I don't try to run epic stories either, so I see your point. I just try to make an interesting tale about why the BBEG is planning to destroy said place, and why monsters are flocking to his banner. I used to run games with the whole "narrative-first" thing but I just like running different aspects of the game and meta-narrative isn't a big deal. I'm not saying anything about your style though, just pointing at the difference in approach as to why we run different ways.Ok, I again misspoke, sorry; buy my point was missed I think; I was saying that in my game, it's the players prerogative to fit into the story (the chelish teifling was my example), and if not, then hey it cool. I got a game now running that is a mixed bag, players being intimately tied to the story and a dwarf who heard there was goblins in them thar hills. Nobody (even the player I think) know where he comes from or even cares other than to joke about it. Sometimes (but admittedly out front not always) it's ok to just play something unrelated to the story was my point. I however don't think it's ok for a person to try to play a different game than the one planned (such as trying to figure out where all the D*** Tengus went), they should be willing to participate in the game the GM has made for them.That, I do not have issue with.
But I do tend to say that they should be tied to EITHER the story or at least one of the other payers, somehow
In my experience, the players all come to the table with that intent. The characters will all get there eventually, but they don't have to start that way (probably not for you either). Sometimes it happens at a bar they just so happen to be at, sometimes they all knew that school teacher was evil and yup, now he's raising an undead army on his severance package. I just look at that as a player responsibility I don't control, they usually have some interesting encounters too. I've also had players start the game and wanting to know each other, but I don't press the issue, it's up to them. I love the you all are at the same inn trope, it's just awesome; maybe not appropriate for every game, but for most.
I think that the building of trust over just having it to begin with is fun, but risky too sometimes. Players encountering each other as strangers can sometimes be fun, not entirely trusting the mage to not be part of the egg-head school teacher's gang of necromancers is hilarious, but can also lead to conflict admittedly. I do have rules against PvP and party bullying, but its rarely got out of hand.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tank driving dwarf you say?
No no, silly. Dwarf in a TANK!
So maybe I missed the answer to my questions in there. Will you buy the books for me and my players? Will you figure out a way to transfer the knowledge of the rules directly into our brains immediately?
Let me be more clear: Are you telling me that even though my players and I all have intimate knowledge of the Pathfinder system we shouldn't be using it because it's an all or nothing system?
I can't believe some people still need to be reminded of this.
turns GMing and we don't always run the same style of campaign.
Next, I'd like to know who was the first person to bring up "low magic settings." I do believe it was you, nobody else mentioned anything like that. If you take no tengu, no gunslingers to mean low magic I'm not really sure what to say to that.
by low magic, i meant to say low magic creatures, which is a subcategory of low magic. thing is. i don't really understand how one couldn't reskin the tengu into an egyptian bird man blessed by Set or Thoth or something whom traveled to Solomon's Israel. it doesn't even have to be a gunslinger, it could simply be an archer class that uses a substitution upon the gunslinger's mechanics.
another Person several pages before me brought up "Realistic" "Low Magic" "Low Fantasy" Campaign and i first tried to respond to that. i'm sorry for the recommendations you didn't want.
Tank driving dwarf you say?No no, silly. Dwarf in a TANK!
If only tank riding dwarves were in the bible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
by low magic, i meant to say low magic creatures, which is a subcategory of low magic. thing is. i don't really understand how one couldn't reskin the tengu into an egyptian bird man blessed by Set or Thoth or something whom traveled to Solomon's Israel. it doesn't even have to be a gunslinger, it could simply be an archer class that uses a substitution upon the gunslinger's mechanics.
another Person several pages before me brought up "Realistic" "Low Magic" "Low Fantasy" Campaign and i first tried to respond to that. i'm sorry for the recommendations you didn't want.
And, aside from introducing Egyptian mythology into an Israeli campaign, I don't really understand how a person couldn't just choose a different race/class combination from the expansive selection of things that aren't excluded from this particular campaign.
Yeah... honestly a Dwarf would stand out at least as much as a Tengu would, to be honest.
Tengu at least resemble a spirit/creature out of the local/neighboring mythology and seems 'in theme' so to speak. Super stocky... well... dwarfs 2/3rds the height and 2-3 times the girth of a man... now that would be freaky to them.
Who cares? If I recall the Israelite army was defeated by an iron chariot, their trousers would darken at the sight of dwarves in tanks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Egypt and Israel are practically neighbors, a bird man god thing or genie blooded semi human thing would freak them out a lot less than a Half-Orc, Elf, or a Dwarf Would.
in fact, the only thing separating Egypt and Isreal besides a diminuitive sea you could take rowboats across in a matter of days, is the country of Jordan, which didn't exist back then.
Just a bit snarky but still a serious question: Anzyr are you seriously suggesting that you would make a single character's backstory more heroic than possibly the rest of the entire campaign (traveled 2,000 miles with technology no one has ever seen before or from another plane) just so they can be a tengu gunslinger?
Pssst, Jordan is on the other side of Israel from Egypt, not between them.
Also, I figure Elves and Half-Orcs could probably mingle fairly well if they bothered to try. Dwarves though... yeah that would be trouble waiting to happen.
Geography Fail 101, blame a certain transformers movie where they went through Egypt to go to Jordan to find an artifact in Israel. as if Jordan were between them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread got kind of stupid.
My understanding of what's going on is that there is an argument of whether or not a GM should set class/race restrictions for particular campaigns for the purpose of invoking a specific flavor in the setting.
Personally I think they should because every game I've been in where they didn't I hated and dropped out due to the loony tunes feel of the entire adventure. Part I ularly with my experiences with indie RPGs that were drastically more abstract forms of storytelling and world construction.
Obviously the existence of those games and this thread shows that this feeling is not universal but I do feel that it is disingenuous to say that people who are in favor of flavor restrictions by the GM (disregarding whether or not specific ones are negotiable or reasonable.) Are less skilled GMs or storytellers because most of the time its not about imagination or capability its about being responsible for facilitating a feel that was asked of them or trying to represent the world in their head you are exploring.
But the most important thing is what the rest of the table is doing. Are you exploring someone else's world? Are you collectively trying to produce a world? Collectively produce a story? Are you just dicking around eating pizza and killing stuff? Are you effectively making fanfiction out of a situation? Narratively are you even capable of dying as a PC? In terms of how the setting, perameters and plot is generated there are several different ways this can go about.
Just a bit snarky but still a serious question: Anzyr are you seriously suggesting that you would make a single character's backstory more heroic than possibly the rest of the entire campaign (traveled 2,000 miles with technology no one has ever seen before or from another plane) just so they can be a tengu gunslinger?
Well anyone CAN be Howard the Duck. But the bigger question would be whether or not the rest of the table will tolerate it in a given setting, including the GM.
Egypt and Israel are practically neighbors, a bird man god thing or genie blooded semi human thing would freak them out a lot less than a Half-Orc, Elf, or a Dwarf Would.
in fact, the only thing separating Egypt and Isreal besides a diminuitive sea you could take rowboats across in a matter of days, is the country of Jordan, which didn't exist back then.
The relatively miniscule travel distance between the two is nothing compared to the giant gaping chasm of mythological distance. If you want to create a world where all mythologies are active at the same time, known to all, and accepted by every person in every country then that's certainly your prerogative. Since Israel is kinda centrally located, why not just have Zeus, Vishnu, Markduk, Set, and Yahweh be the gods there.
This thread got kind of stupid.
My understanding of what's going on is that there is an argument of whether or not a GM should set class/race restrictions for particular campaigns for the purpose of invoking a specific flavor in the setting.
Personally I think they should because every game I've been in where they didn't I hated and dropped out due to the loony tunes feel of the entire adventure. Part I ularly with my experiences with indie RPGs that were drastically more abstract forms of storytelling and world construction.
Obviously the existence of those games and this thread shows that this feeling is not universal but I do feel that it is disingenuous to say that people who are in favor of flavor restrictions by the GM (disregarding whether or not specific ones are negotiable or reasonable.) Are less skilled GMs or storytellers because most of the time its not about imagination or capability its about being responsible for facilitating a feel that was asked of them or trying to represent the world in their head you are exploring.
But the most important thing is what the rest of the table is doing. Are you exploring someone else's world? Are you collectively trying to produce a world? Collectively produce a story? Are you just dicking around eating pizza and killing stuff? Are you effectively making fanfiction out of a situation? Narratively are you even capable of dying as a PC? In terms of how the setting, perameters and plot is generated there are several different ways this can go about.
Yeah we totally hijacked your thread and then spent several pages talking past each other making statements that the opponents will never agree to. Happens all the time on the Internet.
The relatively miniscule travel distance between the two is nothing compared to the giant gaping chasm of mythological distance. If you want to create a world where all mythologies are active at the same time, known to all, and accepted by every person in every country then that's certainly your prerogative. Since Israel is kinda centrally located, why not just have Zeus, Vishnu, Markduk, Set, and Yahweh be the gods there.Egypt and Israel are practically neighbors, a bird man god thing or genie blooded semi human thing would freak them out a lot less than a Half-Orc, Elf, or a Dwarf Would.
in fact, the only thing separating Egypt and Isreal besides a diminuitive sea you could take rowboats across in a matter of days, is the country of Jordan, which didn't exist back then.
they don't have to be formally accepted, but they would be likely to acknowledge the cultures of their neighbors and would likely trade with them, i mean, an isolated country is a dead country.
i'm not saying all the gods have to be worshipped equally their
but there might be a citizen or few from some of the neighboring countries whom still venerates their home pantheons.
like an Isrealite of Greek Descent whom worships the Greek Pantheon or one Egyptian Descent that worships Set.
it's not quite a whole hodgepodge country
the Israeli mythos would be the dominantly accepted, but 30% of the population would be divided among say the other Mythologies.
there were Greeks whom Worshipped Egyptian Gods and Turkish whom followed Greek Gods.
I think my problem with what this thread has become is that at first people went through great lengths to say "different strokes for different folks" but its all out the window now. I partially Anzyr for carrying it on for this long, but only because while he's not philosophically wrong its a way that a lot of people don't play and more than once Ive seen it bring down entire campaigns by burning out the gm rather than play with like-minded people.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Um, Malwing? I still think it takes different strokes to change the world.
I was that GM; the one who said "I have restrictions in my world" and the player said "but...creativity" and I relented. I paid for that decision with my campaign and ended up flaming out for like 4 months.
The reality ended up that the player pushed so hard to get the "unique character" he wanted in the game basically because this player wanted to be center stage. I didn't recognize that at the beginning, felt guilty, and worked his PC into the cannon of the setting. This involved a bit of shoehorning right up front.
As the campaign went on each session devolved into the 3 other players and this other one fighting for stage time. When the one player with the unique character wasn't center of attention they'd sulk.
First I dismissed it, then when my other players complained I talked to the offender. We talked privately, then I tried some solo email gameplay but nothing would assuage. Finally the whole group chatted and vented to one another; both the offender and the other players got their chance to explain. Even after that the problem persisted. I got so fed up with trying to work in places for this player to shine that I just burned out right at the table. My campaign of over a year ended at level 6 and I didn't RPG for 4 months.
I don't game w/that player any more. I have nothing against them personally and they've continued playing with other, like-minded gamers. But at the end of the day I should've recognized the mindset BEHIND the unique character request. That mindset, put bluntly was "I want to be unique and special."
Even after all that though, I'm willing to say to each their own. If this is the way you want to game, bless you and great gaming! Its just now how I want to play.
I very much resent anyone telling me I'm not a creative GM for running my games this way. It disgusts me that in THIS hobby of all places someone could be that rude. The folks who play these games are drawn from every walk of life and have an extremely diverse culture. This invariably leads to more than one play style.
This diversity is not the antithesis of creativity but the crucible!
Some GMs will have different styles, different methods and their games will feel different as a result. This is a GOOD thing! This fulfills the original intent of the creators of the first RPG: no 2 games should EVER be exactly the same. This was one of the founding principles of D&D.
It is not a lack of creativity to restrict classes, equipment, magic levels or anything else in a game. It is merely the setting. If this isn't to your liking, don't accuse the creator of not being creative - that's rude. Instead, either begin your own setting, find a game that suits your needs or flex your own creativity adapting your vision to the setting at hand.
You have choices. Namecalling and inflammatory remarks should never be one of them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Um, Malwing? I still think it takes different strokes to change the world.
I was that GM; the one who said "I have restrictions in my world" and the player said "but...creativity" and I relented. I paid for that decision with my campaign and ended up flaming out for like 4 months.
The reality ended up that the player pushed so hard to get the "unique character" he wanted in the game basically because this player wanted to be center stage. I didn't recognize that at the beginning, felt guilty, and worked his PC into the cannon of the setting. This involved a bit of shoehorning right up front.
As the campaign went on each session devolved into the 3 other players and this other one fighting for stage time. When the one player with the unique character wasn't center of attention they'd sulk.
First I dismissed it, then when my other players complained I talked to the offender. We talked privately, then I tried some solo email gameplay but nothing would assuage. Finally the whole group chatted and vented to one another; both the offender and the other players got their chance to explain. Even after that the problem persisted. I got so fed up with trying to work in places for this player to shine that I just burned out right at the table. My campaign of over a year ended at level 6 and I didn't RPG for 4 months.
I don't game w/that player any more. I have nothing against them personally and they've continued playing with other, like-minded gamers. But at the end of the day I should've recognized the mindset BEHIND the unique character request. That mindset, put bluntly was "I want to be unique and special."
Even after all that though, I'm willing to say to each their own. If this is the way you want to game, bless you and great gaming! Its just now how I want to play.
I very much resent anyone telling me I'm not a creative GM for running my games this way. It disgusts me that in THIS hobby of all places someone could be that rude. The folks who play these games are drawn from...
Exactly!
In the end, to circle back to the magic item business, it's a choice of how you want to run your game. The same goes for limiting or changing expectations of anything -- as an example, I removed various methods for Raise and Reincarnation and Resurrection in one game. I told the players beforehand what to expect and people were fine with it.
And that may be the biggest deal there -- talking to people and letting them know the hows and whys of what is being changed. Maybe you think a spell is broken or don't care for the Magic Shop idea or really dislike tengu or drow or halflings. So tell people up front "I hate bird people, so no offense, but we aren't having those in this game. Maybe next time or when Biff GMs."
There may be a person to whom tengu are the bestest thing ever and they will be sad. Hopefully there is enough other good stuff going on that they'll still have fun regardless and maybe they'll find a new favorite thing. And maybe the GM will learn to love bird people after watching Rio and decide to open them up at a later date.
No doesn't always mean forever, but just not right now.
Anyway, changing the way players get magical items or asking them to alter their expectations isn't a big deal. It just requires communication. Heck, they may not even care one way or the other after you talk to them about it and there won't be the drama you see on the boards!
|
|
Could you give us a link to that thread ? I would be very interested in reading itThe ideal solution, as seen by most posters IMO, is a compromise. Which means that both the player AND the GM will need to change their stance.
Of course, if you believe that any compromise on the GM's part is in itself a defeat for the GM, then all hope is lost.
Like I said, in the topic I'm talking about, the poster essentially defined compromise as "The GM gives the player absolutely everything they want, with no conditions".
If that's the definition of compromise we're using, then yeah, I don't think that "compromise" is always the best solution.
It was this thread. Sorry, I don't really feel like searching through almost 1200 posts to find the exact one I was referring to. :P
|
|
Anzy, since you ignored two questions I asked earlier, I'll ask them again....
1. Is it ever, in your opinion, allowable for a GM to say "no" to ANYTHING that a player requests?
2. Should the GM's preferences EVERY be taken into consideration? Or should he just STFU and roll the dice for the monsters?
1. Ever? Absolutely! If your doing an a campaign for new players and don't want to confuse them, by all means restrict the books to core options. But for a regular game? Anything published should be fine. Tengu Gunslingers, Fleshwalker Alchemists, Awakened Pony Wizards, and of course Rizz'dt the totally not a clone should all be A-Ok.
2.Preference for what the player wants to play? No, you should never let another player's preference determine what you want to play. That's just silly. And entitled of whoever thinks they should get preference on your character.
Anything can be made to work in a Pathfinder setting. Anything. Your setting is no exception.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
wait what is a regular game
If I want something specific I assume I won't just find it, and if it's specific enough I may not even be able to buy it. But in that case I factor in someone in the party having to get item creation feats to be able to get just what I want. Since I'm an arcane caster at the moment, I'm the one taking the bullet for the party and getting several crafting feats. The cleric and bard have one feat each.
Of course, some DMs will restrict or even ban crafting, so in some game worlds you may not be able to design a build that hinges on specific items that may not be accessible to you.
Anzyr ... the DM is not just another player.Except when he is. (Whether those should be the norm or the exception is something that can be debated.)
I have to agree there. Every group can organize themselves however they see fit. That's the best way to ensure this hobby accommodates the most people - by providing table variance on every part of the game so there's (hopefully) something out there for everyone. There's nothing overall better or worse about any particular way to do it.
Some people prefer the GM recognized as the person "running the game", others want a more co-operative approach. There's no reason we can't have both the same way we have groups with different preferences in the areas of roleplaying, tactical combat, adherence to the rulebook, and optimization.
I find the best way to settle the argument over the norm is to accept there just shouldn't be an accepted norm at all. Make the default expectation for everyone that they should check out how the group plays for themselves and not make any assumptions.
I have to agree there.Anzyr ... the DM is not just another player.Except when he is.You're both quite right. "Except when he is."
I stand corrected ... but the manner I employed it in response to Anzyr is valid.
Yup, it works both ways :)