I buy a lot of third party items for my gaming happiness. But things aren't as happy in Caltown as I'd like them to be. You see, I love variety and such in gaming. Lots of classes, feats, etc. And I really try to get my players excited about experimenting with new stuff, but they just ain't interested. I have one guy who plays a Dreamscarred Press psionicist.
The flip side of the coin is that when I get to be on the players' side of the screen, the GM doesn't allow third party material. I just bought Ultimate Psionics and Deep Magic, and I'm afraid they'll never see any use, except from me.
What's a GM to do?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bribe the other GM with food?
Bribe the other GM with food?
I just had a conversation with one of the guys who'll be GMing a new PF game soon. No third party material and not even the beta versions of the Advanced Class Guide. I offered to make spaghetti, but he scoffed at my culinary skills (he's a really, really good amateur chef). Sigh..
|
Most of the people I play with tend to be conservative like that. One of them isn't; he runs 3.5 and has said that basically anything goes as long as it's published and available for him to read over. And it hasn't exploded into a sickening munchkinfest, although the laid-back players deserve some credit for that.
I think a lot of people just aren't looking forward to the "difficult chore" of looking through all the 3PP material, figuring out if it's balanced and so forth. They're often afraid that if you give in just a little bit, next thing players will be demanding that anything from any 3PP must be allowed. It looks overwhelming.
Of course this fear isn't entirely reasonable (but not entirely without any basis either; everyone's heard some horror stories). Maybe you should soothe this fear first.
In my game I'll be using something along these lines:
- Some core books are fully available.
- Other stuff may be available, but ask me for permission first. I'll probably say yes, but I want to read it through first. I really don't want to be blindsided with things I didn't even know existed.
- Paizo stuff is very likely to be allowed, but it can't hurt to ask about 3PP PF or 3.5 stuff. I think some areas aren't sufficiently covered by Paizo, like the dearth of touch attack spells for Magi. It's boring that you're basically sentenced to using Shocking Grasp. More choice is good.
- I'll refuse some stuff because it just doesn't fit. Like summoners; I don't like the mechanics, but also my world is kinda locked off from most of the universe, so summon-heavy classes just don't fit well.
- I might allow self-made stuff but this will be the hardest to get approved, because there's an obvious conflict of interest here when it comes to balance. Not saying it's impossible, but the threshold is higher.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey DMCal, I'm always up for a game if you're interested in playing/GMing with someone on the creative side. Granted, that does kinda require you to move to a small town in Western Australia, but any sacrifice for a game, right?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you played 3.5 in the past, point out that Dreamscarred Press stuff is mostly an update of official 3.5 material. That which isn't is balanced around the ranger, paladin, and barbarian. It's really well done.
And try peer pressure. Even if the DM doesn't normally like certain things, if he has enough players asking for those options, he might give in. Come on... you know you want to.
I feel you buddy. I got to be a player a little while ago, and it was even gestalt since there were only 2 of us, but all core and APG. It was really frustrating.
I've noticed that GMs that I've played under and don't allow 3pp stuff seem to think that if it's not core it's not balanced. That may very well be the case too. But here's my counter to those GMs: what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
The players want to play something out of Dreamscarred Press? Fine; let me just grab some of these Frog God Games books... wait, where are you all going? :)
As for advice, well, I don't know your GM Cal. I do know ME as a GM though, and things that consistently work on me are:
1. Praise
2. Food (also beer)
3. Interaction in the narrative
On point 3 there what I mean is if a player wants to be, say, a psionicist and my game world typically doesn't have them, I leave it to the PC to explain his character into the game. Then when people start hating and fearing what they don't understand, I expect the player to roll with it. If they come and just say "I want this cuz" and leave me to do all the work I get grumpy.
Buy more 3pp adventures and not crunch. ;-)
Highlight the 3pp options with NPCs (adversaries or not) when you DM, strange spells and class abilities to either keep the players guessing or wow them or both.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bribe the other GM with food?
Copious alcohol!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bribe the other GM with food?I just had a conversation with one of the guys who'll be GMing a new PF game soon. No third party material and not even the beta versions of the Advanced Class Guide. I offered to make spaghetti, but he scoffed at my culinary skills (he's a really, really good amateur chef). Sigh..
Did the GM say WHY he isnt interested in allowing 3rd party material? If quality is of concern, one might point out that paizo themselves endorse the quality of alot of 3rd party publishers directly and indirectly.
Owen Stephens of Rogue Genius (formerly of Super Genius) Games was HIRED by paizo. Pretty solid endorsement that the stuff he has written (and theres a ton of it) for his 3rd party companies is quality stuff.
Kobold Press' Wolfgang Baur has repeatedly been asked by paizo to judge RPG superstar, a contest where he needs to evaluate the skill and quality of people that are potential future writers for paizo (and one of them definately is). I think thats a ringing endorsement.
Look at the cover of the slumbering tsar adventure from frog god games (and other products of theirs). Then look at the cover of 9 separate AP issues. You will see a common name there in the form of Greg Vaughan.
This isnt the age of Wizards writing all the 'good' stuff and 3rd party stuff being a crapshoot. There are alot of quality 3rd party companies out there, and many of them have people who also do work for the paizo books your dm does allow.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For a lot of GM's (and I include myself in this group) it is simply the amount of material to be read, understood, remembered, and owned.
Not too long ago one of the guys made a PC that used (in addition to the 12 books I already have) 6 different books that I didn't own and 2 kobold magazine articles. It really wasn't a stupidly munchkined up character. In fact I might say it was a bit underpowered. But it fit his kool/fun concept.
But that added 8 sources that I have to buy or constantly borrow and study any time I want to check how something works with everything else.
What our group has been discussing (but we haven't made a decision). Is different source sets rather than additional source sets.
Example: Ok this campaign is CRB, Bestiary 1, and DSP Psionics books.
Dunno, it seemed like it might help in some ways.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The more rulebooks you allow, the more stuff you have to read and prepare for. Everyone has their own comfort level.
For me, it's absolutely this ^^. That's why I don't specifically "allow" anything, I ask people to throw it past me in advance so I can check it over, and ensure there's not too much complexity involved in the upcoming game session.
My table rules generally only allow Paizo material, but if a player comes to me with a specific 3rd party feat, spell, class or rules section I'll happily look it over and if it looks like it won't cause problems I'll probably allow it.
I'd suggest bringing the GM specific (and limited) material and ask him to look it over and give it the OK on a case-by-case basis instead of asking if you can use books and material he's probably never read and possibly never even heard of.
I'd also explain to him that you really want to try some of this new material, that you'll work hard not to create problematic combinations, and that he can reserve the right to recall or ban aspects he finds troubling - as long as you in turn get a free respec, of course.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I used to do the same thing and made crazy restrictions, mostly out of fear that the average player is comparable to a forum optimizer.
Now, I'm pretty much anything and everything that dosen't spoil anybody's fun. And if it's a non-standard option, make me a rules reference card similar to spell cards.
I still reserve the right to approve characters and ask about basic ideas, plans, and tactics, and if something was blatantly kept from me in order to exploit it during the game, it simply won't work by fiat. (hasn't happened yet, players are generally nicer than GMs fear)
This boils down to simple "rules cards"; when you start at low levels there aren't that many options, and as the game progresses when more cards are added the previous cards should be fairly familiar. And the burden of learning new rules is limited to what is actually used. Rather than an entire shelf of books.
For higher starting levels or shorter games, I would probably limit the material to what I know, and allow new material only in the same gradual way as above, ie. leveling/retraining.
"I don't have that much experience. But I make up for it by being very opinionated."
- me, just now
|
|
Yeah, I hear you all about the workload of reading lots of 3PP stuff. Reading lots of Paizo books, even. Once upon a time downloading books was hard, books were expensive and I was small and had only a little bit of money. Back then I read everything I could get my greedy little hands on.
Nowadays there's a total overload of available products. Paizo alone makes more books than I truly care to read. I generally don't bother until the book generates a buzz about the hot feat of the week (or Evangelist PrC, or what have you...), or if the book is very on-topic for something I want to do with my campaign.
However, I have mild control freak tendencies, and I definitely don't want to be blindsided by someone taking feats from a book I haven't even heard of. Given how many 3PP products there are, that's a lot.
On the other hand, 3PP pick up the slack where Paizo leaves off. If a player wanted to play a rogue, but not the lame core rogue, I'd be okay with the player doing research and eventually bringing a 3PP alternative to my attention.
In general, I think players will only be cherrypicking from 3PP (and non-core Paizo) material. It's easy enough for them to print/photocopy the specific pages (or just copy-paste the text) for use at the table. So allowing things on a per-item (not per-book) basis is quite doable.
---
TL;DR - maybe you should start by telling the GM what you want to accomplish ("I want to make a dude who fights with the power of his MIND! That'd be awesome!"), and then saying "I've been looking for stuff like that in Paizo core but they don't really do that. However, there's this highly regarded 3PP house that's made a product that gets very good reviews. Can I show it to you sometime?"
By focusing on the end goal, the GM gets an idea of where all this is going. I think that'll soothe some nerves. Often players do stuff the other way around; trying to get the GM to agree to using a source before telling what exactly they want to use it for. To a GM that often smells like players trying to trick you into something.
Being upfront about your goals will help build trust.
Thanks, everyone. It's just a burden I'll have to live with. Having all these neat toys and not being able to share them. But, as I do have them, I can and do throw 3PP stuff in the games *I* GM. Crazy thing is, they seldom know this fact.
Hey DMCal, I'm always up for a game if you're interested in playing/GMing with someone on the creative side. Granted, that does kinda require you to move to a small town in Western Australia, but any sacrifice for a game, right?
It's tempting, but I'm a bit on the poor side and I'm terrified of flying. So how about you move to a small town in central Arkansas, USA? LOL
And try peer pressure. Even if the DM doesn't normally like certain things, if he has enough players asking for those options, he might give in. Come on... you know you want to.
Sadly, as I said, no one seems interested in using the 3PP stuff except me. So peer pressure wouldn't work. Plus, he'd just quit GMing if hassled. I've known and gamed with this guy since 1989 and know how he thinks.
Did the GM say WHY he isnt interested in allowing 3rd party material? If quality is of concern, one might point out that paizo themselves endorse the quality of alot of 3rd party publishers directly and indirectly.
He said he didn't like it. Plain and simple. A few years ago he let me play a soulknife in a game he ran. When I used autohypnosis to stabilize myself and prevent myself from dying he flipped out and said that was not a fair action. Character died soon after.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey DMCal, I'm always up for a game if you're interested in playing/GMing with someone on the creative side. Granted, that does kinda require you to move to a small town in Western Australia, but any sacrifice for a game, right?It's tempting, but I'm a bit on the poor side and I'm terrified of flying. So how about you move to a small town in central Arkansas, USA? LOL
Would love to but would be difficult to transplant my entire gaming group. Will let you know if I'm ever in America so we can tee up a one-shot or something (Not entirely impossible, the first publisher to bite for my book is American so hopefully I'll end up getting brought over for a promotional thing or something and I'll be able to swing by. Fingers crossed!)
Did the GM say WHY he isnt interested in allowing 3rd party material? If quality is of concern, one might point out that paizo themselves endorse the quality of alot of 3rd party publishers directly and indirectly.He said he didn't like it. Plain and simple. A few years ago he let me play a soulknife in a game he ran. When I used autohypnosis to stabilize myself and prevent myself from dying he flipped out and said that was not a fair action. Character died soon after.
Stabilizing is an unfair action? I'm pretty sure that the Diehard feat (AKA a CORE feat) not only auto-stabilizes you but also lets you keep acting. He must hate the core rulebook and its broken feats!
Hey Cal: Cut the difference - I'll head halfway to Arkansas, you had halfway to Minnesota. We'll meet in Northern Missouri. What's that; about a 10 hour drive for both of us?
Anyway, I definitely feel your pain but all we can do is endure right? I just think its funny that we're old skool gamers you and I and probably many of the forumites out there and we're s'posed to be these curmudgeons of the gaming world & all, but we're the ones asking OTHER folks to be open to other sources, new ideas and such.
This too shall pass D-Cal, keep the faith. In the meantime, see if you can rustle up some different players for a one shot? Local gaming store, online, heck; play-by-mail if they still have that.
Thanks, everyone. It's just a burden I'll have to live with. Having all these neat toys and not being able to share them. But, as I do have them, I can and do throw 3PP stuff in the games *I* GM. Crazy thing is, they seldom know this fact.
Well then point it out. If you're worried about spoiling something, wait until after the game to point out the 3rd party stuff introduced that you thought was nifty. See if you can get them interested. And tailor it to them. I have a guy that likes sneaky. In 3.5 I pointed out the psionic rogue, the lurk, and the mind spy. In Pathfinder, I showed him Dreamscarred's cryptic, the marksman, and some of the lightly armored aegis options. One of my players likes the idea of giving orders and tanks. I mentioned the tactician, the updated warmind, and a psychic warrior trick or two for generating more hit points and using them offensively. Play to their interests.
Even better... run a 'classic' setting that makes heavy use of other classes, like Dark Sun, or certain spots in Faerun.
Stabilizing is an unfair action? I'm pretty sure that the Diehard feat (AKA a CORE feat) not only auto-stabilizes you but also lets you keep acting. He must hate the core rulebook and its broken feats!Did the GM say WHY he isnt interested in allowing 3rd party material? If quality is of concern, one might point out that paizo themselves endorse the quality of alot of 3rd party publishers directly and indirectly.He said he didn't like it. Plain and simple. A few years ago he let me play a soulknife in a game he ran. When I used autohypnosis to stabilize myself and prevent myself from dying he flipped out and said that was not a fair action. Character died soon after.
That's what I was thinking. It gives you a better chance to not die. That's it.
It doesn't break anything. A cantrip removes the need for a save in pathfinder. A heal check will now get you some hit points back. And if it was far enough back that you were using the 3.5 soulknife instead of the Pathfinder updated soulknife, it was a really weak class for its role. The autohypnosis skill is meant to shore up a weak constitution score, but it in no way replaces having a good constitution score.
Hey Cal: Cut the difference - I'll head halfway to Arkansas, you had halfway to Minnesota. We'll meet in Northern Missouri. What's that; about a 10 hour drive for both of us?. . . .
Make it even easier. Use something like Skype.
We had a player that moved to Arizona for few months. He gamed with us regularly by skype. It worked ok. I've used it since to keep up with a relative that's moved to the New England states area and the picture and sound has improved. It might not be for everybody, but it can work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you mainly run long term campaigns? Ask about doing an "anything goes" one shot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Did the GM say WHY he isnt interested in allowing 3rd party material? If quality is of concern, one might point out that paizo themselves endorse the quality of alot of 3rd party publishers directly and indirectly.He said he didn't like it. Plain and simple. A few years ago he let me play a soulknife in a game he ran. When I used autohypnosis to stabilize myself and prevent myself from dying he flipped out and said that was not a fair action. Character died soon after.
That sounds like the type of attitude that's hard to break through. Sorry, Cal, but you've got a real dud on your hands there. I'd go with the previous suggestions of continuing to use 3PP material in your own games and allow the dazzle and the shine to hurt his myopic eyes.
I don't even see how people combine 3.5e and Paizo material... stuff is so substantially different. Sure Pathfinder RPG was built upon 3.5e foundations but the way I see it, they're not compatible at all.
I think it's very understandable that pretty much no GM wants to use 3rd party stuff and 3.5e stuff.
They do this for the following reasons:
1. Major differences in power. Not saying that Pathfinder RPG is perfectly balanced or anything, but adding in 3.5e stuff is just saying: "Screw the entire concept of power balance among players."
2. As a result of reason number 1, you can only do this with players who are not munchkins/powerplayers/younameit, and nearly every party has one of these guys among them.
3. Some classes/prestige classes entirely stop working. Some feats just don't work anymore in PFRPG. The combat and skill rules are just too different. Other stuff might be mega-super-overpowered. As I mentioned before, it's a hassle making stuff compatible.
4. Adding in extra stuff also usually involves adding in setting-specific stuff and adding completely new standard magic systems (Psionics for instance) I can imagine it being kind of awkward to introduce psionics in a game where the players are not remotely interested in delving into psionics. Even if there is only one player in the party who is interested in psionics, how reasonable is it to shower the party with psionic monsters when the party sorcerer actually wanted to fight other mages? If you're playing homebrew this stuff can be controlled but it's still a hassle and a lot of GMs just like stuff being setting-related.
5. Ask yourself the following question: "Do I really NEED all this other stuff to have a fun time playing this game? Do I really NEED my players to become weird-ass non-coherent impossible characters? Do I really want this because I feel the standard Pathfinder game provides too little, or is it just to satisfy my personal nostalgic feelings?"
6. It involves a lot of stuff to read into, you can't expect every GM to want this.
I feel point 5 is the most important one.
I think you can read my mind by now, that I would never want this, not as a player and especially not as a GM.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't even see how people combine 3.5e and Paizo material... stuff is so substantially different. Sure Pathfinder RPG was built upon 3.5e foundations but the way I see it, they're not compatible at all.
I think it's very understandable that pretty much no GM wants to use 3rd party stuff and 3.5e stuff.
They do this for the following reasons:
I understand that these are common reasons given by GMs; I'm not questioning the accuracy of that. However, I don't think all of them are good arguments.
1. Major differences in power. Not saying that Pathfinder RPG is perfectly balanced or anything, but adding in 3.5e stuff is just saying: "Screw the entire concept of power balance among players."
By now 3.5 and PF have grown apart quite a bit, that's true. But there are a lot of 3.5 things that aren't actually stronger than PF stuff, like Monkey Grip, that do fill a missing spot in PF.
2. As a result of reason number 1, you can only do this with players who are not munchkins/powerplayers/younameit, and nearly every party has one of these guys among them.
This is only true if you allow books wholesale. If you say that you will consider allowing things on a per-item basis you can control what comes in and what doesn't. You can keep out the OP stuff while letting the cute stuff in.
3. Some classes/prestige classes entirely stop working. Some feats just don't work anymore in PFRPG. The combat and skill rules are just too different. Other stuff might be mega-super-overpowered. As I mentioned before, it's a hassle making stuff compatible.
Don't import everything, only the stuff you really want.
4. Adding in extra stuff also usually involves adding in setting-specific stuff and adding completely new standard magic systems (Psionics for instance) I can imagine it being kind of awkward to introduce psionics in a game where the players are not remotely interested in delving into psionics. Even if there is only one player in the party who is interested in psionics, how reasonable is it to shower the party with psionic monsters when the party sorcerer actually wanted to fight other mages? If you're playing homebrew this stuff can be controlled but it's still a hassle and a lot of GMs just like stuff being setting-related.
There are many many things a player might want that have nothing to do with setting. Like the aforementioned Monkey Grip.
Just because some material causes trouble doesn't mean all material causes trouble.
5. Ask yourself the following question: "Do I really NEED all this other stuff to have a fun time playing this game? Do I really NEED my players to become weird-ass non-coherent impossible characters? Do I really want this because I feel the standard Pathfinder game provides too little, or is it just to satisfy my personal nostalgic feelings?"
This argument can be extended to strip out almost anything. You can also say that players don't really need druids, clerics, wizards, paladins, fighters and so on, that they should enjoy playing a rogue.
Because you can enjoy playing a rogue you don't need anything else and, therefore you shouldn't have anything else.
I think it's better to weigh costs and benefits.
Will there be a large benefit (player having a lot of fun), compared to a small cost (a weirder party)? In that case you should do it. If the benefit is small (the player would enjoy a conjuration-wizard nearly as much as the summoner he asked for) while the cost is high (that summoner the player wants slows down combat a LOT and you absolute hate eidolons) then it should probably not be allowed.
6. It involves a lot of stuff to read into, you can't expect every GM to want this.
This is easily solved by putting the burden of research on the player. If the player wants to wield a huge weapon, it's his responsibility to find out about the Monkey Grip feat, and show it to you. As a GM you only have to read one feat. That's not a lot of work and it may make the player very happy.
I feel point 5 is the most important one.I think you can read my mind by now, that I would never want this, not as a player and especially not as a GM.
As I said before, I prefer to be much more permissive, but in a lazy way; let players do 95% of the work. I'm more likely to allow a feat than a new magic system.
As I said before, I prefer to be much more permissive, but in a lazy way; let players do 95% of the work. I'm more likely to allow a feat than a new magic system.
It's still extra effort you have to put in as a GM because a player, essentially, suffers from snowflake syndrome. I know the game isn't necessarily about 'being coherent with the system' and it's about having fun and if something external helps a player have fun then sure it's not bad. All I'm saying that I can perfectly understand people not being comfortable doing so. The main problem is that you can't 'just do it', it will always involve making up rules about what you accept and what you will not accept. You basically stimulate your player to keep looking elsewhere when he may find other interesting things he/she might also want in the core rulebooks, or at least Paizo material.
I challenge you to find something in 3.0 or 3.5 which I could not translate into PF with less than 2 minutes of effort for a feat/spell/item or 10 minutes for a class.
It's fortunate you included the 'pretty much' in there, because I know that as a GM I have zero hesitation towards 3.0/3.5/3rd-party d20 (hell I've even adapted material from Star Wars Saga) material
You seem to be taking this very personal. I'm obviously not speaking for everyone, but I'm pointing out a whole bunch of reasons why people do not want to do this. If you are a very experienced player who has played 3.0e and onwards and have been following basically every splatbook ever, and your players have been too, then by all means go for it.
But you forget that not every GM is of that skill or experience level, and GMs who kindheartedly allow players to use external sources often fall into the aforementioned pitfalls.
Also, I really don't care about your time-attack records for finding solutions for problems you shouldn't be solving in the first place.
And... Yes, I said 'pretty much' for that specific reason, I don't quite understand your seemingly offended reaction.
|
|
@Diminutive Titan: I would avoid the "special snowflake syndrome" argument, because it's been dangerously overused and misused.
We're playing a fantasy game. PCs are supposed to be extraordinary. There's a vague boundary somewhere, where PCs are special enough to be fun (as opposed to boring cliche adventurers), but not so strange that they stop jiving with the campaign mood. This boundary is extremely subjective.
I picked Monkey Grip for my previous post because it's a good example. Protagonists with ridiculously big swords are so common in fiction that it's hardly a unique snowflake; more like a "regular snowflake". A lot of players seem to like it. You might say that a broad fantasy RPG like PF should be able to accommodate that, but it doesn't. (The Titan Mauler archetype suffers from some obscure rule mishap.)
So to fulfil what I think is a pretty legitimate desire, why not look elsewhere?
You say that the player should instead go looking for something else in Paizo material. Why?
If it was a matter of "Paizo Core" material vs. "Fringe Paizo + 3PP" that would be one thing, but why is obscure Paizo material still preferable to 3PP material?
Paizo makes lots of nice things, but not everything is equally good. Some 3PP material is better than some Paizo material that aims at the same niche. Why not pick the better product for the job?
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
5. Ask yourself the following question: "Do I really NEED all this other stuff to have a fun time playing this game? Do I really NEED my players to become weird-ass non-coherent impossible characters? Do I really want this because I feel the standard Pathfinder game provides too little, or is it just to satisfy my personal nostalgic feelings?"
Some concepts aren't supported by official options. Some concepts aren't supported well by official options.
For example, if I want to play a heroic, good necromancer that works alongside or helps the dead rather than enslaves them, I have no official options. Kobold Press provides one.
If I want to play someone with psychic powers, I don't have official options. Dreamscarred Press provides them.
And so on.
And there is some gross assumption going on with the "weird-ass non-coherent impossible characters" crack. Just because it isn't to your taste doesn't make it weird-ass. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean the players and GMs using that material haven't put a lot of coherent thought into it to make them make sense. And "impossible" in a fantasy game is a very dodgy criticism to throw out there.
As for your last loaded question, many people do find that the official rules don't provide every option we want for our fantasy settings and characters. And that always comes down to personal preference. And that is completely, 100%, no-exceptions okay.
No one should be targeted with some bizarre guilt-trip about their preferences being...man what..."satisfying their personal nostalgic feelings". That's quite the non-sequitur.
People who use 3PP are not having badwrongfun. Nor are people who want to. Nor are people who don't. But let's not elevate one over the other in some sort of "purer than thou" nonsense, where people are seen as "lessening" their games by implementing 3PP.
"Special snowflake syndrome" is a phrase that needs to be retired for a while.
5. Ask yourself the following question: "Do I really NEED all this other stuff to have a fun time playing this game? Do I really NEED my players to become weird-ass non-coherent impossible characters? Do I really want this because I feel the standard Pathfinder game provides too little, or is it just to satisfy my personal nostalgic feelings?"Some concepts aren't supported by official options. Some concepts aren't supported well by official options.
For example, if I want to play a heroic, good necromancer that works alongside or helps the dead rather than enslaves them, I have no official options. Kobold Press provides one.
If I want to play someone with psychic powers, I don't have official options. Dreamscarred Press provides them.
And so on.
And there is some gross assumption going on with the "weird-ass non-coherent impossible characters" crack. Just because it isn't to your taste doesn't make it werid-ass. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean the players and GMs using that material haven't put a lot of coherent thought into it to make them make sense. And "impossible" in a fantasy game is a very dodgy criticism to throw out there.
As for your last loaded question, many people do find that the official rules don't provide every option we want for our fantasy settings and characters. And that always comes down to personal preference. And that is completely, 100%, no-exceptions okay.
No one should be targeted with some bizarre guilt-trip about their preferences being...man what..."satisfying their personal nostalgic feelings". That's quite the non-sequitur.
People who use 3PP are not having badwrongfun. Nor are people who want to. Nor are people who don't. But let's not elevate one over the other in some sort of "purer than thou" nonsense, where people are seen as "lessening" their games by implementing 3PP.
"Special snowflake syndrome" is a phrase that needs to be retired for a while.
Would you say that's at least as bad as saying some GMs are "afraid" of new and/or unknown material? Disallowing material doesn't make a GM a poor, dumb, conservative luddite who just fears and hates new things.
Perhaps I can clarify that I am less suspicious of third party material than I am of 3.5e. At least third-party stuff is made with the Pathfinder rules in mind, and that helps a big deal.
@ Mikaze, I can imagine it solves problems on such (very rare) occasions, but we are derailing from what the OP initially wanted his players to delve into. He's basically saying 'anything goes' and asking why that would be a problem to his players.
@ Ascalaphus, I find Monkey Grip a curious example actually, because in Pathfinder you can actually wield oversized weapons at a -2 penalty for each size increment. That's a Huge weapon at a -4 penalty. A level 1 fighter could wield that with a +0 on the attack roll. You may not be able to wield it in one hand, or without penalty, but there are limits to what I would allow as a GM.
EDIT: Okay, I just realized that the OP has not referred to 3.5e material whatsoever. I think most of my arguments are more anti-3.5e than anti-3rdparty.
Basically, I would argue that you could allow your players to do this but they're free to play what they want, and if the 3rdparty/psionics stuff doesn't appeal then it's just not for them. I think you should be happy one of your players decided to do it though, and that's probably enough, right? You can still implement psionic NPC's and other 3rd party stuff for your own encounters. It'll feel less like the players just shoved your suggestions aside then, I think.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
. . . but we are derailing from what the OP initially wanted his players to delve into. He's basically saying 'anything goes' and asking why that would be a problem to his players. . . .
I got the impression it was this. He allows Pathfinder and 3rd Party material made for Pathfinder when he runs, but he is not allowed to use 3rd Party material made for Pathfinder when he gets to play. I can't blame him if he's spent money to game with friends, and some of that goes to waste. And it is somewhat unfair when you give someone an option that they won't give you.
I don't even see how people combine 3.5e and Paizo material... stuff is so substantially different. Sure Pathfinder RPG was built upon 3.5e foundations but the way I see it, they're not compatible at all. . . .
Then you're not thinking about it hard enough. Many of the feats and spells are almost exactly the same. Where it's not, it's pretty easy to convert.
Then again, kyrt-ryder already made that point.
Take into account there were things that could not be immediately converted by Paizo in print because of ownership issues. Are you telling me that people suddenly didn't like the duskblade and hexblade anymore? Or the favored soul? That's why we got the magus and the oracle... later. If another company takes a stab at converting classes like warblade and totemist and manages to do so fairly and legally, I will buy that product. (Yes... those examples were done on purpose.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
. . . but we are derailing from what the OP initially wanted his players to delve into. He's basically saying 'anything goes' and asking why that would be a problem to his players. . . .I got the impression it was this. He allows Pathfinder and 3rd Party material made for Pathfinder when he runs, but he is not allowed to use 3rd Party material made for Pathfinder when he gets to play. I can't blame him if he's spent money to game with friends, and some of that goes to waste. And it is somewhat unfair when you give someone an option that they won't give you.
Nobody told him to spend his money on new gaming materials. Buying new stuff in no way obligates people you play with to use that stuff, unfairness doesn't even enter into it. Some people don't feel like they're getting a full gaming experience unless they have a crap ton of options to choose from. Others are happy to get what they want out of a limited selection. Neither of those groups is in the wrong.
Nobody told him to spend his money on new gaming materials. Buying new stuff in no way obligates people you play with to use that stuff, unfairness doesn't even enter into it. Some people don't feel like they're getting a full gaming experience unless they have a crap ton of options to choose from. Others are happy to get what they want out of a limited selection. Neither of those groups is in the wrong.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that's the point of advertising.
But silliness aside, it is unfair to be part of a group and they consistently have you take on a Role in the group dynamic that Requires you to Put Forth Effort, and they rarely extend the same courtesy. As part of a group, part of a relationship, there should be a certain amount of give an take, of compromise. My group has tried other systems because other members found them intriguing. Our Friend asked us to Try Something so We Did on the basis of Friendship.
If it doesn't imbalance the game, and it gives a player the experience they want, and it's no skin off your nose as the DM to do it... I will go as far as to say, he should allow it.
Of course, that's my opinion. I could be wrong.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, I'm pretty sure that's the point of advertising.But silliness aside, it is unfair to be part of a group and they consistently have you take on a Role in the group dynamic that Requires you to Put Forth Effort, and they rarely extend the same courtesy. As part of a group, part of a relationship, there should be a certain amount of give an take, of compromise. My group has tried other systems because other members found them intriguing. Our Friend asked us to Try Something so We Did on the basis of Friendship.
If it doesn't imbalance the game, and it gives a player the experience they want, and it's no skin off your nose as the DM to do it... I will go as far as to say, he should allow it.
Of course, that's my opinion. I could be wrong.
Here's the other side of the coin on that one:
Alice prefers games with very little in the way of extra rules, Brad likes games with the works.
When Brad is GM, he allows the works, and then uses the fact he did so on Alice to try to pressure her into doing the same, resulting in Brad getting his preferred type of game in both games, and Alice in neither.
Or to put it another way: Alice extended the courtesy of allowing Brad to run his game the way he wanted, and would like the same courtesy extended in return ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Didn't mean to kick the beehive, here. But thanks to all for your input!!
I just started a game for my son and his friends (all 19-22 years old) and they just don't know any better.. lol.. they should be easy to sway. My son has built me up as some super GM (I'm ok, but c'mon) and they flocked over the other night and begged me to run them on a game. So I winged it. They're coming back this Tuesday.
Here's the other side of the coin on that one:
Alice prefers games with very little in the way of extra rules, Brad likes games with the works.
When Brad is GM, he allows the works, and then uses the fact he did so on Alice to try to pressure her into doing the same, resulting in Brad getting his preferred type of game in both games, and Alice in neither.
Or to put it another way: Alice extended the courtesy of allowing Brad to run his game the way he wanted, and would like the same courtesy extended in return ;)
But again, for Alice in this hypothetical, she doesn't have to deal with the 'extra rules' when she plays, and doesn't have to deal with the 'extra rules' when she DMs... so the only person out in this example is Brad.
A game is a collaborative event on both sides. If Alice just sits there and 'extended the courtesy of allowing Brad to run his game the way he wanted' did she have no goals for her character? Did she not have any input? Did she just show up for storytime? But she turns around and runs... and what? She doesn't consider her audience? She doesn't talk to her group to get an idea what themes would work for them and which won't? She narrows mechanical options until, even with refluffing, it's hard the players to achieve a character they are happy with?
If you want simple rules, d20 probably isn't your thing. You might prefer a tri-stat system, or maybe even actual LARPing since they play rock-paper-scissors to determine the outcome and continue magical tea party from there.
Much like psychology, it's a continuum, with the 'best' probably hanging out in a middle area. You can go too far either way. But many posters above gave many plausible suggestions for making it easy to incorporate new stuff, like have the player make a thorough cheat sheet for their character. Also pointed out, Paizo started out as 3rd party and actively encourages 3rd party publishers. If you have one guy who wants a good necromancer, let him have a good necromancer. It's not going to kill anybody.
I am usually the storyteller in my regular group, so maybe I'm projecting too much. But I try to weave a story that everyone can enjoy and get involved in. On the rare occasions I get to play, I get shut down, railroaded, and disappointed.
Take for example the most recent time I played few months back (because it wasn't my regular group). I had to play a kobold because it was a party of kobolds that fled their home after a dwarven invasion. It sounded cool... until the DM shot down six or so different ideas for my character. I settled on bard, because it seemed the least offensive to the DM, and oddly enough, uninteresting to me... but I was getting to play, right? I explained everything the bard could do, and he nixed a feat that didn't work for him, but I still had the core abilities my buffing bard was built around, and he ok'ed my character. Then, during the game, he said to the entire group that my character would be the first to die because he was too good at his job. What.
I feel for Cal, because in this instance, I am Cal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A game is a collaborative event on both sides. If Alice just sits there and 'extended the courtesy of allowing Brad to run his game the way he wanted' did she have no goals for her character? Did she not have any input? Did she just show up for storytime? But she turns around and runs... and what? She doesn't consider her audience? She doesn't talk to her group to get an idea what themes would work for them and which won't? She narrows mechanical options until, even with refluffing, it's hard the players to achieve a character they are happy with?
You're absolutely right, the game is collaborative on both sides. If person 1 offers to GM and says everything goes, all players should respect that even if they don't intend to use everything. If person 2 offers to GM next and limits material, all players should respect that or bow out of the game if they can't abide by the restrictions.
It's not about fair or unfair. It's not about right or wrong. It's about respect. Don't assume negative feelings where none exist, some people just don't like a crap ton of rules.
Also, here's my mini rant: This whole "if you don't like all the rules maybe you should find something else to play" attitude needs to die in a fire.
Thanks, everyone. It's just a burden I'll have to live with. Having all these neat toys and not being able to share them. But, as I do have them, I can and do throw 3PP stuff in the games *I* GM. Crazy thing is, they seldom know this fact.
If they seemed to like, tell them after the fight is over. "Yeah, that was a tough fight for apl+1 because he had the feats from..."
... I am usually the storyteller in my regular group, so maybe I'm projecting too much. But I try to weave a story that everyone can enjoy and get involved in. On the rare occasions I get to play, I get shut down, railroaded, and disappointed.
Take for example the most recent time I played few months back (because it wasn't my regular group). I had to play a kobold because it was a party of kobolds that fled their home after a dwarven invasion. It sounded cool... until the DM shot down six or so different ideas for my character. I settled on bard, because it seemed the least offensive to the DM, and oddly enough, uninteresting to me... but I was getting to play, right? I explained everything the bard could do, and he nixed a feat that didn't work for him, but I still had the core abilities my buffing bard was built around, and he ok'ed my character. Then, during the game, he said to the entire group that my character would be the first to die because he was too good at his job. What. ...
Ok, that's not even the same subject. This has nothing to do with allowing 3pp material. If a guy is going to be a jack hole, it doesn't matter what rule set is being used. He'ss still going to be a jack hole.
I would and have quit groups or at least campaigns for less than this.If he was otherwise a friend, I woul make some excuse. If not, I would just leave.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, that's not even the same subject. This has nothing to do with allowing 3pp material. If a guy is going to be a jack hole, it doesn't matter what rule set is being used. He'ss still going to be a jack hole.
I would and have quit groups or at least campaigns for less than this.If he was otherwise a friend, I woul make some excuse. If not, I would just leave.
It kind of is... It has all the same requirements for allowing or disallowing 3rd party, because allowing or disallowing material is the dm's job as referee and storyteller. Whether it's 3rd party or not isn't really important.
With this specific example, I made a list of every feat, spell, and class feature, page numbers and books of where I got them. We discussed how the features interacted and what my character's strong points and weak points were. He approved the character, after having all the information.
That's something I advocate. Know your character. If you're playing a conjuration wizard, know how summons work and have the stats ready. If you're playing a summoner, reread the rules about eidolons and build it accordingly. If you're a grappler or tripper, know your shtick.
In Cal's situation, the only other guy who is mentioned as running only runs what he's familiar with. It's not wrong for him to only want the familiar. In many avenues of my life, that's me. But it's like only watching the same four movies all the time, or only reading one or two authors. I would still strongly recommend incorporating one small thing at a time... see how it works. If it doesn't, it's gone. If it does, seeds germinate.
. . . It's not about fair or unfair. It's not about right or wrong. It's about respect. Don't assume negative feelings where none exist, some people just don't like a crap ton of rules.
I don't assume negative feelings. Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Do you really Have to know everything inside and out before you allow it? I guess I'm a permissive dm, because I don't. I don't know every rage power published, nor do I care. But if someone wants to play a barbarian, go for it. I don't know every spell published... nor do I care. But if you wizard wants it, show it to me and we'll talk. I haven't really looked at All the other classes available, so they don't immediately appear in my games, but if a player wants to play one, give me the sales pitch and show me how the engine runs. I'll probably allow it with the provision that if a problem crops up during play, we'll fix it with a temporary ruling in game and permanently, together, after the game.
The effort is on the player to bring it to me and show me why he wants it. It doesn't cost me a lot of extra effort. Allow a player to play something he thinks is fun... and if it's not fun, like a class that under performs, google some fixes and make the class fun.
Also, here's my mini rant: This whole "if you don't like all the rules maybe you should find something else to play" attitude needs to die in a fire.
As a DM, I've always had the power to cut spells from the core rule book, like planar binding, or modify them if I choose when running. It's good form to notify the group up front, though. I can limit races. I can allow classes from other books like Ultimate Magic without having to include the Words of Power subsystem... Or I could cut all magic Except the Words of Power system... I can even screw with casters by eliminating the quicken spell feat, allow sorcerers no penalty with casting metamagic'ed spells, and force everything to roll AC instead of the 'take 10' mechanic already in place. As a dm, I can change anything, add anything, and subtract anything.
But I don't usually think of a race as a rule. Or a spell as a rule. Or a class as a rule. You seem to. I see them first as tools to help craft a story. If a player needs a specific one to feel comfortable with his place in it, I'm all for it. If I can crib a more elegant solution to a game issue by finding it in a 3rd party supplement or from house rules on the boards, I'll do it.
I will suggest, though, that if you get uncomfortable with anything other that the core book, which isn't itself balanced, then maybe you should look for a simpler game framework. So yes, I think you think I should die in a fire for having that view.
Jokes on you. I'll probably stroke out by 50, a bitter, angry old man. So :P
And that's it. I think I'm out on this one. I'm becoming more verbose than normal, which is never a good sign, and my statements are tangental enough to the original discussion.
DungeonmasterCal, I wish you the best of luck and happy gaming.