Hmm, let's see...
Ah, here we go:
Game Master (GM): A Game Master is the person who adjudicates the rules and controls all of the elements of the story and world that the players explore. A GM's duty is to provide a fair and fun game.Note that they contrast GM with player in the definition, Anzyr, which means they're not the same.
You are wrong. Accept it. Everyone here knows it but you, Ramses.
That's right: King of Denial.
He is a player with a different role, but a player nonetheless. And while his role is different from the other players, that does not change this fact.
Merely contrasting the two is not sufficient to prove your point. It merely means one has additional features. Your are trying to claim that merely because one is a quarterback, they are not also a football player. Its very shoddy logic.
|
No it is literally by definition correct. The GM is merely another player. His role is different but it grants him no additional authority or even "power".
The non-GM players each control only a single individual in the campaign.
The GM controls literally everything that is not those few individuals. If that isn't more power, I don't know what is.
No it is literally by definition correct. The GM is merely another player. His role is different but it grants him no additional authority or even "power".The non-GM players each control only a single individual in the campaign.
The GM controls literally everything that is not those few individuals. If that isn't more power, I don't know what is.
That's an odd way to determine power. How does controlling a number of individuals in the campaign give the GM any additional "power"?
Also I didn't see your comment before my last post knightnday so let me address that here. First, without players the GM is merely writing a novel all alone, though I agree that the reverse is true. But in my group there are two frequent GMs, one of which being myself. Thus, to me "running" a campaign is nothing special. If I don't the other GM will, or vice versa. It's nothing special and it in no way makes my contributions any better then anyone elses. It's a different role certainly and its obviously important, but to carry my football metaphor, just because your the Quarterback doesn't make your contribution more important then any other member of the team.
That is certainly one opinion, although I'd say that the GM is a little more than the quarterback. He's also the coaches, the opposing team, the fans in the stand, the weather going on in the stadium, the colour commentator and more.
It isn't a matter of power or control. The GM is not a player. The GM is everything that isn't a player. This is why people tend to get hostile about GMPCs.
No it is literally by definition correct. The GM is merely another player. His role is different but it grants him no additional authority or even "power".The non-GM players each control only a single individual in the campaign.
The GM controls literally everything that is not those few individuals. If that isn't more power, I don't know what is.
That's an odd way to determine power. How does controlling a number of individuals in the campaign give the GM any additional "power"?
Also I didn't see your comment before my last post knightnday so let me address that here. First, without players the GM is merely writing a novel all alone, though I agree that the reverse is true. But in my group there are two frequent GMs, one of which being myself. Thus, to me "running" a campaign is nothing special. If I don't the other GM will, or vice versa. It's nothing special and it in no way makes my contributions any better then anyone elses. It's a different role certainly and its obviously important, but to carry my football metaphor, just because your the Quarterback doesn't make your contribution more important then any other member of the team.
no one player has as much power as the gm.
If you walk from the table there are 5 more waiting for a seat.If the gm walks? Good luck finding another GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No it is literally by definition correct. The GM is merely another player. His role is different but it grants him no additional authority or even "power".The non-GM players each control only a single individual in the campaign.
The GM controls literally everything that is not those few individuals. If that isn't more power, I don't know what is.
That's an odd way to determine power. How does controlling a number of individuals in the campaign give the GM any additional "power"?
Also I didn't see your comment before my last post knightnday so let me address that here. First, without players the GM is merely writing a novel all alone, though I agree that the reverse is true. But in my group there are two frequent GMs, one of which being myself. Thus, to me "running" a campaign is nothing special. If I don't the other GM will, or vice versa. It's nothing special and it in no way makes my contributions any better then anyone elses. It's a different role certainly and its obviously important, but to carry my football metaphor, just because your the Quarterback doesn't make your contribution more important then any other member of the team.
no one player has as much power as the gm.
If you walk from the table there are 5 more waiting for a seat.
If the gm walks? Good luck finding another GM.
That's mighty easy in my group. Maybe you should stop relying on entitled GMs?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or maybe we can back down from trying to be insulting by using entitled as an insult or slur before the thread gets closed, again,
Say it again, say it loud: There is no One True Way. Your Way is not the only Way.
Entitled gms? Lol.
News flash.
you and your group are not the norm.
on average there is one gm for every 8 to 10 players. If the average gm only accepts 5 to 6 players at the table then you are looking at a player surplus.
In that environment the gm has more power than any ONE player.
And trust me if you take exception to how a gm runs a game at the table; you are probably alone
so please stop acting like you speak for everyone at the table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like most statistics on the internet... I'm going to assume you made them up. I can however speak for all the groups that have multiple non-entitled GMs and since this is the internet... lets just say that we make up... oh 90% of all gaming groups. That sounds about right. Which means my group isn't just the norm, its the overwhelming majority! Hooray internet statistics.
@ knightnday - This is not a "one true way" issue. IF your GM feels that if they refuse to run a game, the other players are out of luck, that GM is mighty entitled.
Sure why not, he's still not any more valuable then other player.
How useful is the QB if the defensive line doesn't do their job? Answer: Useless. I think its pretty good metaphor to be perfectly honest.
All you do is appeal to emotion without actually presenting an argument other than "No you." Perhaps if you provided some reasoning for your opinions this would be a more productive discussion. Because if you seriously don't think the GM is well playing PF or that he is but is paradoxically "not playing it", I'm not sure your argument will stand.
Did I mean offensive line? Sure go with that my ranks in Knowledge (Sports) are literally 0.
Just because things do different things and have different responsibilities does not make them unequal. The GM is not a general. The GM is a motor, the players are the wheels. Which is more important to making a car run?
The answer of course is neither. Both are required to have a running car and both can be categorized as "car parts". This is really as basic as this metaphor shows.
That does not mean the DM is not a player. It simply means that those characters are not players, which is accurate.
Its very shoddy logic.Yeah. You keep thinking that.
When you begin to actually employ reasoned argumentation rather than ingrained obduracy and the pseudo-logic of pushing your agenda to the exclusion of objectivity, I'll give your comments some credence.
I'm not holding my breath.
Gentlemen, he's all yours.
nah... I am done with him as well... watching his mental acrobatics to maintain an untenable position is amusing but ultimately pointless.
One of the things D&D really screwed up IMO was calling people who play PCs Players (proper noun) when everyone who is playing D&D is a player (common noun) of the role-playing game. It continually causes an Abbot and Costello-type situation.
Who's on first?
A Player.
Why yes I'm the DM and I am playing the game.
No! A PLAYER! ...
I do not think any one is arguing that the gm is not a player.
We are objecting to the phrase "just another player."
That does not mean the DM is not a player. It simply means that those characters are not players, which is accurate.
Here's why your football analogy is wrong.
Let's say, for a moment, that the GM is just the quarterback. If this was the case, the GM would be directing the other players explicitly what they are to do on each play. As applied to any RPG, that would be the most horrible railroad of a campaign.
Now here's why the GM is not the quarterback (just another player). If the quarterback walks off the football field, a backup QB comes in and runs the offense and the game continues. If the GM walks away from the table the players go from playing football to playing baseball (or any other sport) because the next GM isn't running the same game as the first was. Unless, of course, you have two GMs that are sharing duty running one campaign.
If you are analogizing that football = Pathfinder then you must be trying to make the point that a GM is a GM is a GM and every one of them is running essentially the same campaign anyway. Which is kind of silly on its face. The Pathfinder rule set is not the football game, it's the world that the game is played in.
EDIT:
Did I mean offensive line? Sure go with that my ranks in Knowledge (Sports) are literally 0.
Given this fact, it's probably a bad idea to try analogizing a tabletop RPG with any kind of sport.
That does not mean the DM is not a player. It simply means that those characters are not players, which is accurate.Here's why your football analogy is wrong.
Let's say, for a moment, that the GM is just the quarterback. If this was the case, the GM would be directing the other players explicitly what they are to do on each play. As applied to any RPG, that would be the most horrible railroad of a campaign.
Now here's why the GM is not the quarterback (just another player). If the quarterback walks off the football field, a backup QB comes in and runs the offense and the game continues. If the GM walks away from the table the players go from playing football to playing baseball (or any other sport) because the next GM isn't running the same game as the first was. Unless, of course, you have two GMs that are sharing duty running one campaign.
If you are analogizing that football = Pathfinder then you must be trying to make the point that a GM is a GM is a GM and every one of them is running essentially the same campaign anyway. Which is kind of silly on its face. The Pathfinder rule set is not the football game, it's the world that the game is played in.
EDIT:
Did I mean offensive line? Sure go with that my ranks in Knowledge (Sports) are literally 0.Given this fact, it's probably a bad idea to try analogizing a tabletop RPG with any kind of sport.
Please feel free to use the car metaphor, its simpler. (Though my ranks in Knowledge (Vehicles) is also 0.) And before you raise the "GM sameness" thing, no not all quarterbacks are the same even if their role is the same and no not all motors are not the same, even if their role is the same.
Please feel free to use the car metaphor, its simpler. (Though my ranks in Knowledge (Vehicles) is also 0.) And before you raise the "GM sameness" thing, no not all quarterbacks are the same even if their role is the same and no not all motors are not the same, even if their role is the same.That does not mean the DM is not a player. It simply means that those characters are not players, which is accurate.Here's why your football analogy is wrong.
Let's say, for a moment, that the GM is just the quarterback. If this was the case, the GM would be directing the other players explicitly what they are to do on each play. As applied to any RPG, that would be the most horrible railroad of a campaign.
Now here's why the GM is not the quarterback (just another player). If the quarterback walks off the football field, a backup QB comes in and runs the offense and the game continues. If the GM walks away from the table the players go from playing football to playing baseball (or any other sport) because the next GM isn't running the same game as the first was. Unless, of course, you have two GMs that are sharing duty running one campaign.
If you are analogizing that football = Pathfinder then you must be trying to make the point that a GM is a GM is a GM and every one of them is running essentially the same campaign anyway. Which is kind of silly on its face. The Pathfinder rule set is not the football game, it's the world that the game is played in.
EDIT:
Did I mean offensive line? Sure go with that my ranks in Knowledge (Sports) are literally 0.Given this fact, it's probably a bad idea to try analogizing a tabletop RPG with any kind of sport.
I'm not familiar with "the car metaphor", but I suspect that it's as objectively false as the football metaphor.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As GM I do not use Magic shops or allow PCs to exchange loot of other things they want except in extreme circumstances that fit the game narrative. However:
- I try to give out personalized loot. If there's an archer in the party, they will find magic arrows and bows. Wizards will see wands, scrolls, and spellbooks. Characters will see magical versions of the weapons and armor they favor. If I see a player struggling with his character's low armor class, I will include a magical armor or protective item appropriate to that character in the loot somewhere.
- If a player really wants a particular item, I will make a quest out of it, allowing them to research the item's location and history, etc so that they can go out and find it.
- I give out "upgrade" items. For example: a magical gem which can give a sword or armor a +1 bonus (or improve an existing bonus) when affixed to an existing piece of equipment. I use this a lot with armors, as people tend to be picky about armor.
- I don't set any obstacles to the players crafting what they want.
Basically, I allow the PCs to be high-magic anomalies in my low-magic worlds.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's why the football analogy didn't work for me. Because back when I WAS watching in the 80's, I never saw Jim McMahon walk on the field, wave a hand, and change the snow falling on Soldier's Field into streaks of multi-colored lightning and a rain of frogs.
Y'see, QBs are just guys in tight pants that throw well. They are more akin to players. The GM is more likely ALL of the things just on the outskirts of the plays. The GM is:
The distracting cheerleader on the sidelines
The snow coming down
The astroturf when you were expecting grass
The stress-induced heart attack the coach has
The league bosses who put the schedule together for that day
The air
All of these are the GM. Do they affect game play and thus might be considered players? Sure. But they are not exactly the same as the contributions of the other players, therefore the GM (IN MY OPINION) is not "just another player."
But there it is folks: opinion. This thread is about opinion, not fact, so everyone's right and no one is. Some people can think that GM = Player. Others may disagree with that opinion, and that's ok too.
Opinions are not fact. They should not be treated as such.
Personally I feel that the GM comes up with a game concept or chooses to run an AP. Then he sits down to play with his Players. Together they weave out the game with everyone contributing. But at the end of the day the GM decides the particulars such as what is available in the setting, what loot to give out, and what random encounters to drop. For this reason the Players should never demand any of these things from the GM, but should instead expect a reasonable amount of tolerance and consideration from the GM when making their decisions.
I would never as a player go up to my GM and say "I demand to fight a goblin tonight" anymore than I would say "I demand a +2 strength belt tonight." I would however have NO qualms saying "Y'know what'd be awesome? If we got to just completely WAIL on some goblins! It's been a long, stressful week and it'd be nice to flex a little in fiction! And hey; if said goblins just HAPPENED to have a +2 strength belt laying around, I wouldn't be sad..."
Now some GMs would drop a troll witch 6 riding an adult green dragon. Another GM would have a cave full of goblins guarding a +2 strength belt. Still another GM would have the goblins fight, then relent, bargaining with the PCs to go after the troll witch and his dragon and doing so with a +2 strength belt. Each style has their own merits.
If my player said this stuff to me, I'd ask why they're looking for the +2 strength belt, then decide if it would be game-breaking to just have some weird energy-gas that infuses power into the PC and gives him a 6/day use "strength surge" that grants him a +2 Adrenaline bonus to Strength for 1 minute/level. Then I'd throw in the goblins just to be nice. After all; he's had a hard day and all.
Thank you for that, Mark. As you said, there's no wrong way to play the game.
I am curious to see how frontliners can keep up in AC at higher levels without magic items. It's notable that of the classic "Big Six" magic items fully half of them are AC boosters, (Amulet of Natural Armor, Ring of Protection, Magic Armor). Stat-boosting items can also fill that role, if it's adding to a stat that goes to AC.
As it stands, the only way I can see to get viable AC against an Adult Black Dragon (Which is at +21 to hit) is by focusing on some combination of defensive fighting/combat expertise that would tank the character's offensive ability. If pre-errate Crane Wing was part of the mix, that would help a lot.
Thinking about it, you could do it, but it would pretty much require you to have not one but at least two casting slaves. All of those things could be replaced by a cleric / wizard / druid casting shield of faith, magic vestment, greater magic weapon, and barkskin on the character. Then toss some a few animal affinity spells onto them and it's like having magic items...for a little while.
Unfortunately this has the negative side effect of not encouraging teamwork but instead forces you to have X class on your team to avoid missing out on normal stuff. It shows why full casters rule the school in low-magic worlds (because they have magic and others don't). You suddenly couldn't consider playing any non-casting martial unless you have a party of primary casters or at the very least a buff-slave from Leadership.
Thank you for that, Mark. As you said, there's no wrong way to play the game.
I am curious to see how frontliners can keep up in AC at higher levels without magic items. It's notable that of the classic "Big Six" magic items fully half of them are AC boosters, (Amulet of Natural Armor, Ring of Protection, Magic Armor). Stat-boosting items can also fill that role, if it's adding to a stat that goes to AC.
As it stands, the only way I can see to get viable AC against an Adult Black Dragon (Which is at +21 to hit) is by focusing on some combination of defensive fighting/combat expertise that would tank the character's offensive ability. If pre-errate Crane Wing was part of the mix, that would help a lot.
Thinking about it, you could do it, but it would pretty much require you to have not one but at least two casting slaves. All of those things could be replaced by a cleric / wizard / druid casting shield of faith, magic vestment, greater magic weapon, and barkskin on the character. Then toss some a few animal affinity spells onto them and it's like having magic items...for a little while.
Unfortunately this has the negative side effect of not encouraging teamwork but instead forces you to have X class on your team to avoid missing out on normal stuff. It shows why full casters rule the school in low-magic worlds (because they have magic and others don't). You suddenly couldn't consider playing any non-casting martial unless you have a party of primary casters or at the very least a buff-slave from Leadership.
It can be done with out relying on magic at all.
Critical and tactical thinking are key to the success of such a party however. You cannot allow the "numbers" to decide the out come before making the attempt.As the story from my statistics instructor illustrates... Numbers do not tell the full story.
Thank you for that, Mark. As you said, there's no wrong way to play the game.
I am curious to see how frontliners can keep up in AC at higher levels without magic items. It's notable that of the classic "Big Six" magic items fully half of them are AC boosters, (Amulet of Natural Armor, Ring of Protection, Magic Armor). Stat-boosting items can also fill that role, if it's adding to a stat that goes to AC.
As it stands, the only way I can see to get viable AC against an Adult Black Dragon (Which is at +21 to hit) is by focusing on some combination of defensive fighting/combat expertise that would tank the character's offensive ability. If pre-errate Crane Wing was part of the mix, that would help a lot.
Thinking about it, you could do it, but it would pretty much require you to have not one but at least two casting slaves. All of those things could be replaced by a cleric / wizard / druid casting shield of faith, magic vestment, greater magic weapon, and barkskin on the character. Then toss some a few animal affinity spells onto them and it's like having magic items...for a little while.
Unfortunately this has the negative side effect of not encouraging teamwork but instead forces you to have X class on your team to avoid missing out on normal stuff. It shows why full casters rule the school in low-magic worlds (because they have magic and others don't). You suddenly couldn't consider playing any non-casting martial unless you have a party of primary casters or at the very least a buff-slave from Leadership.
It can be done with out relying on magic at all.
Critical and tactical thinking are key to the success of such a party however. You cannot allow the "numbers" to decide the out come before making the attempt.
As the story from my statistics instructor illustrates... Numbers do not tell the full story.
Can we get anything beyond a constant refrain of "tactics" and "numbers don't matter?"
Can we get anything beyond a constant refrain of "tactics" and...Thank you for that, Mark. As you said, there's no wrong way to play the game.
I am curious to see how frontliners can keep up in AC at higher levels without magic items. It's notable that of the classic "Big Six" magic items fully half of them are AC boosters, (Amulet of Natural Armor, Ring of Protection, Magic Armor). Stat-boosting items can also fill that role, if it's adding to a stat that goes to AC.
As it stands, the only way I can see to get viable AC against an Adult Black Dragon (Which is at +21 to hit) is by focusing on some combination of defensive fighting/combat expertise that would tank the character's offensive ability. If pre-errate Crane Wing was part of the mix, that would help a lot.
Thinking about it, you could do it, but it would pretty much require you to have not one but at least two casting slaves. All of those things could be replaced by a cleric / wizard / druid casting shield of faith, magic vestment, greater magic weapon, and barkskin on the character. Then toss some a few animal affinity spells onto them and it's like having magic items...for a little while.
Unfortunately this has the negative side effect of not encouraging teamwork but instead forces you to have X class on your team to avoid missing out on normal stuff. It shows why full casters rule the school in low-magic worlds (because they have magic and others don't). You suddenly couldn't consider playing any non-casting martial unless you have a party of primary casters or at the very least a buff-slave from Leadership.
It can be done with out relying on magic at all.
Critical and tactical thinking are key to the success of such a party however. You cannot allow the "numbers" to decide the out come before making the attempt.
As the story from my statistics instructor illustrates... Numbers do not tell the full story.
Sure... How about "think" and stop assuming it is impossible?
When I have time this weekend I will type up how we handled the dragon with out using magic.Until then why not try and see if you can come with a set of tactics that would work?
Yeah, this has always been something that made me wary of specialization and things like exotic weapon feats.
Greatswords, longswords, daggers, bows, spears, and other such common martial and simple weapons? Sure, those will be common enough that it is believable people enhance them, and then they die horribly and add to a dragon's hoard. But a flying blade build? That might be a bit odd that you keep on finding better and better magical versions of those as you go on your journeys.
We tried something to fix this, weapons cannot be enchanted in our game, "Mana Stones" are made and can be placed in any masterwork weapon, only one stone per weapon (double weapons can have one for both ends)
Player only have to arrange themselves to get a masterwork version of the weapon they enjoy and then buy a "Mana Stone" that correspond to what they need, a "Frost Keen + 2 mana stone" for exemple.
We use the same logic for armor and shields.
Incompatible abilities simply does not work but you can use for instance a "Vorpal +5 Mana stone" on a trident and get yourself a +5 trident.
We even allowed to deplete a "Mana stone" to enchant 50 pieces of ammunition, or deplete 50 pieces of magical ammunition with the same enchantment to create one "Mana stone" 25 +1 crossbow bolts and 25 +1 arrows can be transformed into a +1 "Mana stone" and a pile of 25 masterwork bolts and masterwork arrow.
We ruled that the process take 1 hour per +1.
...How is a finesse fighter a "Frankenstein's monster"? This is a very basic and archetypal build. Outside of tabletops the good guy is usually the finesse fighter and the two-handed power attacker is his big stupid antagonist. Paizo has given us exactly two ways to play the finesse fighter: you can Dervish Dance (and have to explain why your character is using a scimitar in a new and interesting way every friggin time) or you can use the Agile enchantment. I'm praying for a generic dex-to-damage feat so I don't have to deal with this crap anymore but until then I have to appeal to the GM if I want to play my kind of character.I would probably invent such a feat. And possibly port a version of deadly aim as a feat usable with melee weapons that are finessed.
Piranha Strike replaces Power Attack. I recall seeing a 3rd part feat (Improved Weapon Finesse?) that would allow Dex for damage bonus.
Hey guys, what's going on in this thread?
How's that discussion about magic item availability going?
Hey guys, what's going on in this thread?
How's that discussion about magic item availability going?
Well it seems to have meandered a tad... but it is still in the same general area.
to help get things back on track how about we take another look at the Original Post that started this whole mess?I noticed a trend when it comes to theorycrafting in preparation to play a character or advice given for character creation.
Only the one trend? I have noticed a large double handful of (IMO detrimental) trends... But that does not address your questions. Moving on...
It is generally assumed that you will have certain equipment or that your best equipment will be the type of equipment you specialize in.
For example, if you're planning to play a monk, it's assumed that you'll eventually get an Amulet of Mighty fist. If you're a fighter, you're assumed to get a Gloves of Dueling or that you're definitely going to get you are going to be using a greatsword from lvl 1-20.
Now enhancement bonuses and minor crafting are a given but does anyone else see it as odd that nobody really assumes that loot is going to be very random and/or what you want to buy isn't available? I guess you could craft what you want but the need for stuff is usually relegated to the people who are the worst at it, so if you want it you have to spend some feats to do that rather than doing anything else you could be doing.
No; I do not find it odd that players just assume they will get Magic Macguffin X at level Y because they designed the character to have it.
I find it to be arrogant and presumptive.Do most GMs just hand out what their players want out of loot/shops?
no, I do not. Magic shops (when they can be found) typically only sell consumables. On rare occasions one may find the odd Item or two but it is purely random as to what the bloody thing may be.
If the player truly wants Item XYZ then they will probably have to quest for it. Or commission it(Crafting feats are banned at my table) and even then the artisan may not take cash for it but rather trade in services (IE: Quest for it).Fighters get 4 tiers of weapon training, does 2-4 ever even get used?
They do when I run Fighters, and when Fighters see play in my settings.