for Pathfinder to be a 'realistic' 'low magic' low fantasy campaign' run an E4 World with no monsters higher than CR 8.
expecting D&D or Pathfinder to be anything vaguely resembling "realistic" past level 4 is kinda impossible.
if you want "Low Magic" "Low Fantasy" "Low Power Scale" let me point you out to Savage Worlds by pinnacle entertainment, where a single arrow between the eyes is bound to kill you. it is by Pinnacle Entertainment, and well, doesn't have anything resembling the supermen of Pathfinder/D&D. Savage Worlds has a variety of Genres it can accomplish, with the exceptions of Mythic Wuxia, Mythic Shonen Anime and Mythic Superheros.
Will you buy all the books for me? Will you find a way to transfer a working knowledge of those rules directly into my brain and the brains of all of the players?
The first step to changing is admitting you have a problem.
Any time you're ready to share, I promise I'll accept you no matter what.
The rest of your post is just you putting words in my mouth not drawn from anything I have posted on this or any other thread.
I admit, that was poor form on my part and I apologize. That being said, I do not, and will not, accept the position that the GM must make a place for a character concept that he/she doesn't want to allow into the game no matter the back story or argumentation of the player bringing it.
I don't object to a hypothetical half-demon character, in fantasy Israel or most other settings, having to overcome appropriate social challenges related to their heritage.
That's great, when you run a game feel free to let in any character you want. Do not, and this applies to everyone not just you, try to tell me that I must allow the character you want if I've already told you that the concept will not work. If someone brought a tiefling to Israel and was told that the character was not allowed to enter any settlement for fear of upsetting the natives, how do you think that player would react?
Will you buy all the books for me? Will you find a way to transfer a working knowledge of those rules directly into my brain and the brains of all of the players?
all you need for savage worlds is the explorers edition, which is like ten dollars plus shipping and all you need to run like 10 Genres. or you can download the test drive rules for free at their website
Pathfinder is Great for Mythic Supers beneath a fantasy skin
but Savage Worlds is the opposite, where characters are highly fragile and extremely easy to wound or incapacitate, but hard to keep permanently dead.
but the System leaves all the fluff to the player, allowing the player to describe it as they please.
Will you buy all the books for me? Will you find a way to transfer a working knowledge of those rules directly into my brain and the brains of all of the players?
all you need for savage worlds is the explorers edition, which is like ten dollars plus shipping and all you need to run like 10 Genres. or you can download the test drive rules for free at their website
Pathfinder is Great for Mythic Supers beneath a fantasy skin
but Savage Worlds is the opposite, where characters are highly fragile and extremely easy to wound or incapacitate, but hard to keep permanently dead.
but the System leaves all the fluff to the player, allowing the player to describe it as they please.
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.
The Most Important Rule
The rules presented are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
GMs are actually within their rights to run a game with only human fighters as the available options. I don't even know why it needs to be said. You don't have to play if you don't like the game that is being run.
No one is (or should be) talking about what can happen. What is under discussion is what is the ideal.
It seems ridiculous to assume that the ideal is player dictation. It's not dismissive to say that DMs put in 10x the work a player of the same caliber and commitment level does, easy. It's factual.
It seems equally ridiculous to suggest that the ideal is the GM refusing to communicate to see where compromise is an option and where it is not.
It does say a lot about the games you people come from though, if the examples both sides are giving are real, and not just ridiculously inflated hyperbole.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not dismissive to say that DMs put in 10x the work a player of the same caliber and commitment level does, easy. It's factual.It's not always factual. What happens in cases where the DM runs an AP right out of the box? No work goes into that. Or when the group builds their setting collaboratively? The DM puts together extremely vague parameters about the world, and each PC defines the part of the setting they're from, and sometimes even major details about the part of the setting they're about to visit. In this case, a player might go above and beyond the call of duty and create more detail about his character's country and its pantheon of gods than the DM has created for the rest of the setting altogether.
So, no. It's not necessarily "factual" to say that DMs put in ten times the work a player of the same level of caliber and commitment level does. It might be exactly the same, but in different areas. Maybe the DM is really good at making dungeons, but less good at writing setting details. If he leaves the particulars of that to one or more of the players, are any of them really doing "less" work than each other?
Even running a AP right out of the box is a much more substantial time investment for the GM than for the players. They have to read though it, preferably multiple times. They have to look for possible areas where the PCs might go off the rails. They have to try to keep track of a bunch of NPCs the PCs might never bother to interact with, etc, etc, etc.
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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Whether or not you can construct a rationale on why something could be allowed is meaningless if the campaign does not allow it. Whee, you've used your creativity and skill to say "look, this could be allowed!"
If the GM says "I do not allow guns in this campaign" and you say "But look at these 50 ways you could do it", that doesn't mean that the GM will go "Oh gee, I didn't think of those go right ahead." Maybe they don't allow or don't want it.
Again, it isn't a matter of creativity or skill or imagination or rules knowledge or whatever other construct you'd like to assemble. There are parts of the game that some GMs -- and some players for that matter -- are not keen on. "Eastern" things (ninjas, samurai, katana, etc), guns, dinosaurs, Great Old Ones, etc etc.
This is not wrong. This is a choice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You actually didn't. There is very little in your description that justifies why all these xenophobic ancient Israelis wouldn't put a man with a bird head and a strange sword that explodes and kills people from a distance on their "kill on sight" list.
It's not dismissive to say that DMs put in 10x the work a player of the same caliber and commitment level does, easy. It's factual.It's not always factual. What happens in cases where the DM runs an AP right out of the box? No work goes into that. Or when the group builds their setting collaboratively? The DM puts together extremely vague parameters about the world, and each PC defines the part of the setting they're from, and sometimes even major details about the part of the setting they're about to visit. In this case, a player might go above and beyond the call of duty and create more detail about his character's country and its pantheon of gods than the DM has created for the rest of the setting altogether.
So, no. It's not necessarily "factual" to say that DMs put in ten times the work a player of the same level of caliber and commitment level does. It might be exactly the same, but in different areas. Maybe the DM is really good at making dungeons, but less good at writing setting details. If he leaves the particulars of that to one or more of the players, are any of them really doing "less" work than each other?
I think you might be drastically unaware of exactly how much work goes into running a game; have you ever heard of player prep work? yeah, me neither. Every time a GM runs a game, especially an AP or something published, it's like taking a test; and how that test is performed is how well you studied the material that will be on the test. The players PLAY, the GM creates. What Kain Said wasn't controversial at all, I've never encountered a game that was ran differently.
Wow, I must really be the exception here. I do gamesystem design, encounters, npc builds, and story line ideas for every game i play in and several I don't for the GM's around here. I look at the pregens built for their conventions and such things.
Just right now my gm is running traveller and has had me designing
1. All of the ships, ours or not, including floor plans.
2. Reworking the fuel system.
3. Evaluating the ship building system and reworking it.
4. Going through the core and 2-3 splat books and redoing all of the armor values.
5. All of the original PC's other than mine were pregens, and everyone has been less than pleased with their performance so the GM is having me rework everyone's characters.
6. Doing all of the trade for our group, tracking all rolls and money made.Edit: Oh I also track our ships movement, all world backgrounds, the space around us, and most of the combat rules, as well as paying attention to what the other players are doing since he tends to miss sometimes when players are upset or feeling left out.
You are a bit of an exception, yes, or at least unusual. The role you play is one of an assistant GM and a role that many GMs appreciate.
Back in the old days, several of our players were responsible for tracking genealogy and campaign history, entire folders full of notes as we played for years and years. They kept our GM on track and helped map out how the political landscape changed and grew.
That said, there are a goodly number of players who are less involved in the backside of the game and concentrate on what is going on with their own PC.
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.
no, i won't buy the books for you and your players, and i won't find a way to transfer the knowledge of the rules directly into your brains either
i'm not saying you shouldn't be using pathfinder
i'm merely recommending an alternate system that could capture the proposed idea of a "low magic setting" much more easily without excessive houseruling beyond homebrewing a few desired races or edges.
actually, it is very easy to balance a homebrew in savage worlds because creating a new edge, hindrance, race or weapon, is such an easy system to work with, and there isn't much you can't create with enough XP. because unlike PF. overspecialization is often penalized and diversity is often rewarded.
hell, with Savage Worlds, if the players buy the explorer's edition for themselves and read it, i can trust them to design their own balanced, and possibly specialized homebrew creations. because to gain in one area, sacrifice must be made in others.
You'll note I used my skill and creativity to provide a Tengu Gunslinger who did fit in fanasty [sic] Solomon's Israel.No, you most certainly did not. A tengu might be conceivable, but a gunslinger? You did nothing substantive enough to justify that. It didn't fly. It didn't even get off the ground.
Again, the fact that you assert, "It fits!" does not mean it fits to others' satisfaction ... and it's the DM you have to satisfy.
I note with interest, Thomas Long 175, that you said, "...my GM...has had me designing..." In other words, he or she is in charge, and you're performing tasks at his or her direction—for his or her game.
Sounds like you're his highly capable X-O. :)
a lot of the Biblical Device Descriptions in the old testament, strongly resemble the concept of a primitive man viewing the tools of a highly advanced Alien Race.
there are tribes in smaller pacific Islands that call "Iron Birds" the giant vessels whose bellies carry the spirits of their ancestors. a reference to modern airplanes and some of the ones we gifted with food, say "our ancestors have graced us with food, thank the Iron Birds"
the same could be said about the Angels, Djinn, Rhakshasa and the like, really being highly advanced alien species with technology a thousand or more years ahead of our own, percieved through the eyes of a less educated culture of primitive natives.
so if in the Biblical Era of Solomon, the Hindu Culture had Stories of Massive Colony Class Space Cruisers; i'm sure Isreal could have had an "Angelic Culture" that wielded something similar to a revolver.
Okay, so your PC is a god now. I'm sure that is going to go over well with your GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gunpowder was around in 9th Century China, seems like it fits quite nicely really all things considered.
Okay, so your PC is a god now. I'm sure that is going to go over well with your GM.
not a god in true divine power, but revered as something akin to an angel by the common people due to their highly advanced technology and nonhuman blood.
it's pretty much the same as playing an Elf in a core only group. humans tend to revere them, whitewash their faults, and don't understand that they aren't as superior as Perceived due to seeing Elven stories through rose colored glasses and being oblivious to Elven faults
Wow, I must really be the exception here. I do gamesystem design, encounters, npc builds, and story line ideas for every game i play in and several I don't for the GM's around here. I look at the pregens built for their conventions and such things.
Just right now my gm is running traveller and has had me designing
1. All of the ships, ours or not, including floor plans.
2. Reworking the fuel system.
3. Evaluating the ship building system and reworking it.
4. Going through the core and 2-3 splat books and redoing all of the armor values.
5. All of the original PC's other than mine were pregens, and everyone has been less than pleased with their performance so the GM is having me rework everyone's characters.
6. Doing all of the trade for our group, tracking all rolls and money made.Edit: Oh I also track our ships movement, all world backgrounds, the space around us, and most of the combat rules, as well as paying attention to what the other players are doing since he tends to miss sometimes when players are upset or feeling left out.
I have never encountered anything like this in all my experience (15 years) of playing RPG's; as a GM, I'm not entirely sure if that would be a blessing or a curse. It seems like almost running the game and having a proxy narrate. I'm not at all saying that's what happens, you're a professional at this and I'm just a gamer; I'm sure you have a drawing line. But this example is so rare that you might be the first person I've ever encountered to say this, so it still leaves the point that most games are entirely prepped by GM's; sure I can get my players to rule-lawyer or keep initiative tracked but that's about it.
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.)
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.
I think you might be drastically unaware of exactly how much work goes into running a game; have you ever heard of player prep work? yeah, me neither. Every time a GM runs a game, especially an AP or something published, it's like taking a test; and how that test is performed is how well you studied the material that will be on the test. The players PLAY, the GM creates. What Kain Said wasn't controversial at all, I've never encountered a game that was ran differently.Actually, I am quite aware of how much work goes into a running a game. When I run games, I put a certain amount of that work in the hands of the players. The campaign belongs to all of us, so it's only fair that we split up the work it takes it make that campaign work. As for the actual running of the campaign: the amount of prep work I need to do is pretty close to zero. Usually what happens is that I'll put together (at most) a page of notes before a session, and I just wing the rest. After a little while, the party will have a direction where they'd like to steer the campaign, and then I have a more solid idea of what to put in my notes. Even then, it usually isn't that much.
NPCs? I've got so many characters bouncing around from previous games or just my own discarded writing projects that I have no problem recycling a few. Enemies? I never stat them. I make up their HP, saves and damage dice the instant the party runs into them. Dungeons? I make the part map them as they progress. They don't get to see the real map because there isn't one. And when we get to a place or encounter an NPC that a PC has a reason to know about? That's when the player in question gets to put their mark on the setting and invent something that I probably couldn't even imagine.
I'm sorry if that sounds completely unrealistic to you, but that's just how we do things. My group and I have known each other long enough that we trust each other to take up part of the work of making the setting, even if it's still being made...
Another rare exception; I don't and can't just wing an entire game let alone campaign, without a solid backbone of everything I might need. After all the prep work, I can change things easily or make up certain encounters recycling mooks or whatnot; but my games are really well prepped. Even in AP's I modify entire dungeons, NPC's, to fit my play-style. Usually, if a small side-quest or encounter pops up or is modified, you can bet I wrote the entire thing out with probable developments and anything else I can think of. I cannot wing a game so maybe that's just me; but I put a whole lot of work into any game I run.
i might homebrew things for my own personal use or for the use of a fellow player without access to books for homebrew, based on the concept they desire. in a way that evokes the feel, even if it is a subrace. usually a race or feat or something.
but i will generally avoid Homebrewing a full classes, i mean i might make a small archetype designed to make the concept work. such as a street magician archetype for wizards whom want more roguish stuff and less arcaney stuff while still being wizards
generally, i take a character's concept into account when i homebrew, sometimes reskinning as appropriate
but i don't create the world beyond my character's family trees, friends, enemies, and their general community. but i encourage other players to create their own families, friends, enemies, and general home communities. even if everyone creates a nation for themselves.
even if i'm not DM, i'd rather the players have some input into the setting, and that the DM take some of the players' ideas into account, even if not the majority, and allow a collaboration that produces a setting everybody likes and wants to be a part of, rather than the DM's pet world full of his own restrictions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gunpowder was around in 9th Century China, seems like it fits quite nicely really all things considered.No, it doesn't. It's an 1,800 year gap between Solomonic Israel and Chinese gunpowder ... and though I have read Erik Von Daniken, I find the "aliens are gods" perspective suspect on a number of levels.
Sorry, but ... tengu gunslinger in that period is a no go, and continues to be so. You're not even close to making your case.
What if......ALIENS? O_o
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
AaaannnnnD fail.
I have set boundaries that all the other players have worked within.
You want to be the one person to whom those boundaries do not apply.
Justify why you should be an exception.
Claiming creativity does not work.
The other players were just as creative and still managed to follow the guidelines.
Ditto for skill.
If anything claiming this (also viewed as showcasing system mastery) only makes you look like an even bigger @$$. (no one likes a know-it-all)
Why do the rules, guidelines, and boundaries as presented long before the game ever started not apply to you but do to Steve, Jan, and Roger? That is what you have to overcome not my "power tripping" GM as GAWD attitude.
You want me to use my "Yes" & "Yes; but" tools? Fine give me an incentive to do so. So far All I am hearing is "because I want to"; and "the other players do not matter."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that this is the main reason I play my games in Golarion; because it incorporates the Pathfinder game material in an inclusive way. If you found it in a PF book, then it exists in Golarion. I totally get that other stories can be had using the PF "engine" to facilitate it; and that is, was and will always be a valid option for a GM looking to tell a story; I'm not saying Golarion is in any way better than any concept a GM has. I am saying that players can come into my game and expect (to the extent of my knowledge) that they know what game they're playing; heck they can read up on it and bring new questions and campaign gold into the game. They already know the options, they already have a ton of info on the world, they don't always have to fit exactly what the GM is looking for. We might be playing a Cheliax intrigue game with an Ulfen Barbarian, a person from Nidal who only saw the sun right before the game starts, and a teifling outcast who picked regional feats, has a few contacts, knows his way around, and NPC's would have a certain reaction (ewww a teifling), on top of a Tengu gunslinger from earth, time-travelling from Palestine lol.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
no, i won't buy the books for you and your players, and i won't find a way to transfer the knowledge of the rules directly into your brains either
i'm not saying you shouldn't be using pathfinder
i'm merely recommending an alternate system that could capture the proposed idea of a "low magic setting" much more easily without excessive houseruling beyond homebrewing a few desired races or edges.
actually, it is very easy to balance a homebrew in savage worlds because creating a new edge, hindrance, race or weapon, is such an easy system to work with, and there isn't much you can't create with enough XP. because unlike PF. overspecialization is often penalized and diversity is often rewarded.
hell, with Savage Worlds, if the players buy the explorer's edition for themselves and read it, i can trust them to design their own balanced, and possibly specialized homebrew creations. because to gain in one area, sacrifice must be made in others.
Great, we can keep using Pathfinder. Please drop the "Go use a different system if you aren't going to use ALL of Pathfinder" line of argumentation. We use Pathfinder because we take 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. Heck, if someone said characters all have to be human even THAT does not in anyway imply low magic.
Finally, your recommendation is noted but we don't have the time, money, or inclination to learn a new system. We're not going to system hop every time we change campaign settings. When the next person offers to GM and gives the outline and restrictions for his campaign, the rest of the group has enough respect to honor those.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
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.
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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if......ALIENS? O_oGunpowder was around in 9th Century China, seems like it fits quite nicely really all things considered.No, it doesn't. It's an 1,800 year gap between Solomonic Israel and Chinese gunpowder ... and though I have read Erik Von Daniken, I find the "aliens are gods" perspective suspect on a number of levels.
Sorry, but ... tengu gunslinger in that period is a no go, and continues to be so. You're not even close to making your case.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd be willing to turn the Gunslinger into a slinger class. That actually sounds pretty interesting, especially since slings are kind of awful in regular Pathfinder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Aliens?What if......ALIENS? O_oGunpowder was around in 9th Century China, seems like it fits quite nicely really all things considered.No, it doesn't. It's an 1,800 year gap between Solomonic Israel and Chinese gunpowder ... and though I have read Erik Von Daniken, I find the "aliens are gods" perspective suspect on a number of levels.
Sorry, but ... tengu gunslinger in that period is a no go, and continues to be so. You're not even close to making your case.
You know exactly where I'm coming from :)
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.