Ok, people are taking ridiculous extremes and applying that to what others aren’t really saying.
I don’t think very many people really mean the GM must allow everything no matter what sight unseen. At least I don’t.
I don’t think very many of us really mean they will never allow anything that isn’t standard into their games. At least I don’t. (Although I have been in a couple of CRB only games that I thought were a lot of fun. It was known going in that they were CRB only.)
Some examples of when it hasn’t worked out or it has been a problem for me. For those that keep saying it isn’t any extra work…
I almost always say I would prefer not to have something in a book I don’t own, but if there is something you really want, let me know and we’ll discuss it on an individual basis. (I actually say ‘no’ less than a 1/3 of the time. I have slightly modified about 1/5 of the time.)
When the ARG first came out, I did not have it for a while and hadn’t planned to get it for awhile since there were a couple other books I wanted to get first. One player had it and really wanted to use it. I looked it over for awhile and said the first 2 chapters are ok. (There are 2 races that wouldn’t work, but I was pretty sure he wouldn’t pick those.) I didn’t really like chapter 3 for that particular campaign since those really weird races would be hard to work into the plot but some of them might work. Let me know if you really want one and I can tell you if it would work. (The whole premise of the campaign was that the characters knew nothing about the place they were traveling to. So there was a limit to how much I could tell them.) Chapter 4 would only be ok if he worked with me to make sure it would fit in and if it was no more than a 1 level adjustment (20 race points) and he made a full race background entry like the sections in the players handbook. It would be silly to have them be the only member of their race in the entire world. So I need to know more about them (where they are from, how they act, what do the like to do, how numerous are they, how other people react to them, what they look like, etc…) in order to add them into the world. I thought that was reasonably accommodating.
What actually happened was:
With no further communication, on game day 3 out of 5 players brought weird monstrosities cherry picked together out of chapter 4. The abilities picked did not fit together into any kind of believable race (but it worked well for their exact class). No race background information. No description. No history. No location. No nothing. When I really started looking at them. Not one of them even followed the rules in the actual book. Then I was the bad guy for ruining their characters after the campaign started.
So yes, I tried to approve on a case by case basis and have them do some of the work for what they wanted. I still had to get the book, spend enough time to learn it, audit all their characters, figure out full backgrounds for 3 new races, modify the adventure loop for new races, etc… It was a huge amount of unexpected work only for me and still generated quite a bunch of ill will.
I almost always say I would prefer not to have something in a book I don’t own, but if there is something you really want, let me know and we’ll discuss it on an individual basis. (I actually say ‘no’ less than a 1/3 of the time. I have slightly modified about 1/5 of the time.)
The players had asked me to run an anti-undead campaign. I was tired of undead, but they really wanted it. All the players agreed to it. They picked the module they wanted me to run. It consisted of stopping undead incursions and traitors in a land that has been repeatedly decimated by undead hordes. They hate and fear undead and necromancers. That was most of the opposition.
Player A: Brings a mind wizard (fluff is similar but mechanics are different than DSP Psionics). He wants to be the only mind wizard in the world brought over from some dimensional mishap. I won’t have to learn anything about it because he knows it forward and backward has used it a lot and it is seamless. Don’t have to do anything special since he is the only one around. Etc…
Player B: Insists he is going to run a White Necromancer from some other 3pp source book. There is no rules modification needed it fits perfectly with PF. From a city on the edge of survival that uses undead and necromancy for good purposes to survive and fight evil undead. I told him that everyone one here is terrified and hates necromancers and undead. They won’t believe in a good necromancer. He says that is ok, he won’t bring any undead where they can be seen and he will only use non-necromantic magic around any locals so they can’t tell he is a necromancer and after they solve everything he can tell them what he is to try and change their attitude about White Necromancers.
Halfway through the module, Player A is upset because his mind magic mostly doesn’t work on undead. I should tailor the module to the PC’s and be putting more opponents in that he can fight. He is also disappointed that there is none of the mind wizard specific magic items available. Player B proceeded to tell virtually every single NPC encountered that he was a necromancer (even if not asked). But the good kind. Then was upset that he was getting run out of down, arrested, chased, attacked, or at least had a big social penalty everyplace. He was also upset that most of his best necromancy spells didn’t do much to undead.
So apparently, even though they said they didn’t, they really did want me to learn all about both their completely new systems then re-write the module very differently specifically to allow their PC’s to prosper and shine.
I own 12 of the PF books and the number is constantly on the slow increase. I have found very few concepts that we can’t come up with a reasonable build within those 12 books that comes pretty damn close. (Well, except for the concepts that just don’t fit the whole d20 class system at all.)
Having said that, I feel I am fairly open to a lot of other stuff.
You want a better rogue? I think you can almost certainly make whatever concept you want with those 12 books but it may not have the rogue class in it. But, I will probably allow one of the house ruled rogue revisited. Find a reasonable one and bring it to me. Don’t necessarily expect me to re-write it all just for you. Don’t bring one of the stupid ones that is obviously more powerful at everything than every other class already existing.
You like the Ebberon Warforged? Why don’t you just build it with the ARG rules? But if you want to use a home conversion, I’m ok with it. Find a reasonable one and bring it to me. Don’t necessarily expect me to re-write it all just for you. Don’t bring one of the stupid ones that is obviously more powerful than every other PC race already existing.
You want an anime PC using an 8 foot blade? Sure we can bring in the Monkey Grip feat. It really isn’t that horribly OP. But carrying around an 8 ft blade will have problems, it will attract attention, it will cost more, it won’t be easy to use in a 5’ tunnel, etc…
You want the 3pp rog/sorc spell point hybrid, 3.5 orb spells, the PF arcane trickster, with the 3.0 ninja for almost perfect ranged death attacks at no risk? Forget it. That isn’t a concept. That is trying to break the system and screw with me and the rest of the party.
If some particular ‘thing’ is desired and will really help your concept (not just your ability to one-shot everything) then I am more than happy to consider it. If you are in love with some new book that won’t really tremendously increase my workload and/or expense. Then it is probably ok.
But in my experience... Most of the time…
It has been only desired for a huge increase in power with no downside, requires me to buy and learn a relatively large amount of new stuff, and/or relies on a huge amount of my time-effort to incorporate into the existing campaign.
... if they don't want to put out the effort, why are they DMing? ...
I hope it wasn't intended. But phrasing like this reads as pretty nasty and insulting for people you've never met and know nothing about.
I am really not all that lazy. I have a life, career, family, and other hobbies. I do not enjoy being a GM as much as I enjoy being a player. But I don't hate it and I agree the other GM deserves a break and the chance to be player character. I am careful about when I agree to GM to be certain I really can devote the time required.
Being a GM for even just a CRB-only game is still quite a bit of time and effort to prep and run. With the 12 books I have it is a lot more. Every new thing is another thing to learn and keep track of.
If the other players really feel I am being too lazy in not allowing whatever they want, maybe they should put forth a bit more effort and pick up the GM mantle every once in a while. It is a heck of a lot more commitment than being a player.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thoughts:
1) switch games for a while, a one shot or a month. It's one of the best ways to show people 'this could be otherwise'
2) suggest a wacky day. Way back when the miniatures handbook campaign came out in 3.5, my friend Ron suggested a campaign using ONLY the new classes, to see if they were balanced. We learned a lot, quickly. Same works for a shorter timescale.
3) this is the important one. Find out what these people think the game should be like. Try something like 'the same page tool'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
You and I likely have very different GMing styles then. When I GM, I need to understand how everything the players are using works. I don't want to set up an encounter just to find out it's trivially easy due to some obscure rule a player is using.
My point was to illustrate that just because player A extends something they consider a courtesy, it doesn't automatically follow that player B also considers it one (and may, in fact, consider it a real annoyance). Some people consider it a very bad practice to follow a "I did, so should you" model because that way you can get anything you want just by offering it to others and bringing that fact up when they say no to you.
The other thing to bear in mind is that group dynamics are different in different groups (and often with different people within the same group) - it's rarely possible for a group of people on am internet forum to decide what the right thing to do is for a group of people they've never met. We can make suggestions, but at the end of the day only those players affected can decide whether or not it's a workable solution for them.
For some groups, meeting in the middle is the solution they're most comfortable with. For others, they see that as a "nobody wins" scenario and prefer to use a rotating "you decide the rules when you're GMing, I decide them when I am." Others have different methods altogether. None of them are more or less valid than any other, each group needs to work out what works best for them. It's also always worth bearing in mind that sometimes the answer is "I guess we can't coexist in the same group, then."
...
@ Kydeem: as much as I'd like to unconditionally trust players to bring appropriate characters to the game... I do not.One of my big things when putting together a group is reviewing all the characters well in advance and collaborating with the player on any final adjustments.
If you'd previewed the character 2 weeks before the campaign, I'm of a mind that you could have prevented that bland abuse of the ARG before it became a problem.
I agree. That was kinda my point.
A bunch of other people are saying it doesn't take any effort or learning on the GM's part to add much of anything since he can just tell the players to take care of it. I tried that. It was pretty much a disaster.
So it did take expense, effort, and learning time on my side of the screen.
Another point that I'm not sure if anybody has brought up is the "ooh SHINY! wait wut?" -factor.
to give an example, I have several players that love cool artwork, have tons of ideas and will get interested in other classes before they're past 2nd level. Some of these have a quite low grasp of the rules:
"wait, what's the difference between attack and babb, do I add them together?",
"saves, what are those? I can't find it on my sheet",
"so I get how many skill points? oh, is that a new thing for this level?"
And sometimes when they start going on about some character idea they have or when they start begging me for retraining, I listen to them, and sometimes I kindly tell them to grow up and STFU.
Storytime:
one player retrained and restatted his character twice during a campaign, with only a level between the changes.
I eventually found out he had started reading guides and I had Treants controller bard to blame for the fact that his character was a mess and he was thouroghly confused.
At same time he was jealous over the good job the wizard was doing, and was obviously trying to keep up with him somehow ... with a bard.
Actually, when I think of it, he was a bard/cavalier, and he kept forgetting to use any of his inspirations/comands/spells/combat tricks/common sense.
Some people you just have to save from themselves.
Great roleplayer though, just keep him away from "TeH SH1NY!"
I don't allow a product in a game i run that i don't have/have access to.
That being said, i am happy to sit down and read ones my players bring up that interest them.
If it just came out and they say it's awesome, it's still not being used til i sit down between sessions and have a nice read of it and process what is in there.
@Kydeem: it does sound like your players are... untrustworthy...
I guess I have the luxury of actually being able to trust my players.
I don't think any of it was intentional. The background stuff I asked them to do didn't seem important to their character and over the intervening weeks they simply forgot about it. When they started reading the book, I can guarantee the skimmed the boring parts and focus on the "oh hey shiny button!" parts.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel for the origional poster. I also encourage people to play outside the Paizo material with stuff like Psionics, Incarnum, Book of 9 swords but I find most players these days either don't know about them and have no interest in doing the research to learn about them or they were biased against them from witnessing cheaters use the material wrong and they never learned the right use if the material.
I have to emphasize you continue to use 3pp in your GM games. Hope something looks cool enough it grabs their attention. Offer to loan a book out so people can review it at their own pace. People might not want to learn a subsystem in a week but with a month to look over material, they may ask to play such in the next campaign.
Asking to play a class/race/subsystem Paizo has never published is not the same thing as asking to play a snowflake. Other players could have looked over the material and asked toplay it themselves, or ask to multickass after learning how cool it is. Only if you asked the GN to not let anyone else plat with the sane toy would it then be a unique snowflake.Paizomay nit yet have releashed the Psychic magic system, aybe it may go a long time before even announcing it but you can be sure Vudra has plenty of Psychics/Psionic users walking around. I wrote it like that because they have written into their campaign setting that Psionics dies exist on Golarion, they have also written it is more prevalent on the second, green planet with the significant jungles and Amazons. Maybe they wil concentrate on the term psychic more often as they mention they want a system that is neither arcane nor devine. They stated respect for the Dreamscared Press Psionics work.
I understand GMs cannot get bombarded with too many options at once but it would be a nice compromise to do somtjinf like let 2 players suggest a class for review this campaign, 2 different players can suggest a class each next campaign. Same RBI.g for something like a player can propose a single feat/magic item or spell each level, but nit for e the GN ti look at 10 options from each player each level.
Hey, there. I'm going to ramble on for a little bit, and then present a specific approach based on that ramble, so please forgive me. This is a pretty cool topic.
When dealing with a large amount of data, the human mind tends to create categories. So if it sees a series of different objects, it will attempt to classify them.
What I'm going to propose is that instead of presenting these books and options to a DM all at once or even a few at a time, you help him or her create these classifications and then use this as a selling point. In this way, the amount of data (which is what many have suggested is a barrier, here), seems less overwhelming and more familiar. Therefore, it appears less burdensome.
This is what I would do:
1. Promote one book...just one. It's much easier to build your case for The Idyll Treetops Supplement than Kobold #235, Kobold #651, Idyll, and then Thorinbreak Mountain Underdark all at once.
2. Through conversation, and without being pushy, talk with the DM about different 3pps or product groups (whichever you feel works). Be honest and thoughtful, but not pushy. Explain that players have tended to find Treant Slayers productions (making up a name, here) to tend to produce OP material. OTOH, Lantern Sea Gods has been in 3.x since before Paizo, and has won a lot of respect for producing balanced material. Or, perhaps cover where Lantern Sea Gods tends to get their ideas, "they always go back to CRB material during development, and balance around the ranger, barbarian, etc."
The purpose of this is to help your DM feel as though s/he "knows" the products, at least in general. This way, if you present five Lantern Sea Gods books at once, he or she has a means of approaching them and comparing them to, say, Treant Slayers.
It also helps illustrate the thought you've given towards these products.
Plus, understanding builds trust.
Remember, you'd selected each of these items individually, and your collection grew with you. Therefore, it feels familiar. However, when presenting a flood of data to someone else, we need to "pre-sort" as it were.
And, sometimes "pre-sorting" can help us make our argument in the long run, and can even be turned into a selling point.
...
This is what I would do:1. Promote one book...just one. It's much easier to build your case for The Idyll Treetops Supplement than Kobold #235, Kobold #651, Idyll, and then Thorinbreak Mountain Underdark all at once.
2. Through conversation, and without being pushy, talk with the DM about different 3pps or product groups (whichever you feel works). Be honest and thoughtful, but not pushy. Explain that players have tended to find Treant Slayers productions (making up a name, here) to tend to produce OP material. OTOH, Lantern Sea Gods has been in 3.x since before Paizo, and has won a lot of respect for producing balanced material. Or, perhaps cover where Lantern Sea Gods tends to get their ideas, "they always go back to CRB material during development, and balance around the ranger, barbarian, etc."
The purpose of this is to help your DM feel as though s/he "knows" the products, at least in general. This way, if you present five Lantern Sea Gods books at once, he or she has a means of approaching them and comparing them to, say, Treant Slayers.
It also helps illustrate the thought you've given towards these products.
Plus, understanding builds trust. ...
This would almost certainly work on me.
As long as you weren't constantly at me trying to get my list of 12 books to include all the other 35 you own.
If nothing else, it shows you have thought about it. It wasn't just "Oh shiny! gimee gimee gimee now now now..."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the other hand I usually just walk up to my GM shirtless, slap them and demand they allow me to play anything I want, all the time.
...
I don't really understand why I never get asked back to new games. I'm adorable.
Seriously though, 3pp materials whether I'm the GM or the player, are a matter of trust: trust in the 3pp, trust in the player and trust in the GM. Build these, materials will likely follow.
Thanks, all!