That's why I said compromise, refluff, house rule, etc. An uncompromising GM is a problem GM. An uncompromising player is a problem player. Neither deserves a place at the table.But an inappropriate race/class can be a disruptive character, depending on the setting. In Athas, a normal mage without the preserver/defiler mechanic would be disruptive. Disruptive can absolutely be specific material, and a player shoehorning in that specific material is being ... Disruptive.I don't ban disruptive content. I ban disruptive players.
I can compromise. I can refluff inappropriate material. I can house rule fixes for imbalanced or broken content. But if I cannot trust a player enough to make non-disruptive character, then that player does not belong at my table.
The thing is, some stuff just doesn't fit flavor wise. That's a problem for me, because I like themed settings where everything has a place and history. Gnomes have neither in my setting, because they don't exist. Trying to help a player make a character with the same flavor as a gnome isn't going to work, because my dislike of the flavor is why I didn't write them into the setting. As a general rule, I try to give more options, rather than less. I have a setting in Not America, where Not Europeans and Not Asians are both present in huge numbers. So, Asian and European character concepts are both thematically appropriate, as are Native American concepts. Lots of intermarriage, so multicultural concepts work, too. The setting is magitech, so Gunslingers are allowed and we have a 3pp Machinesmith class. Order are now a Pc race, the Asian races like kitsune and tengu are allowed, planetouched are allowed and can be elves and dwarves and such instead of humans, halflings are just barely medium sized so I can allow them, Carroll have a place in the setting, and I can work with half elf half order or some idea like that. I just don't do gnomes or summoner's. Is that so uncompromising?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then you find out why the player wants to play a dwarf and work with him such that he can still play his character concept in a way non-disruptive to your campaign such that he is technically not a dwarf.There are, however, restrictions that aren't possible to compromise. If dwarves don't exist, then there is a binary state: they do or they do not, there is no "try". If you reflect a dwarfs stats as a non dwarf, it isn't a dwarf. You can't be "sorta" pregnant; you are or you are not. And if you are coming into a campaign that has preset limits on it, the onus of compromise lies upon the person trying to go against them.
In which case ... The ban on dwarves is still there. I still said "no dwarves" and lo, there were verily no dwarves.
Finding a different thing that gives you what you are looking for is not actually playing something which is banned; nor really is it even compromising - because in that case if they had come around with this non dwarven thing with some dwarf like characteristics which already were available to him anyway, then I would have had no objection whatsoever anyway.
You're arguing semantics here, which doesn't contribute anything to the conversation. My point is that a GM and a player can work together to create the character concept that the player wants to play while not disrupting the campaign. Additionally, content can be refluffed or houseruled to work. For this reason, I don't just issue a blanket ban.
I use a majority of paizo material so just about every class minus the magus and summoner are allowed at my tables. As for races I look at where my campaign will take place and pick races from those regions. For example for Skull & Shackles which I run I go with core + 2 variety of skinwalker, tengu, and vanara. I haven't had any complaints especially since I have a few more house rules that I apply.Out of curiosity, why the magus? I haven't had much problems with them aside from the bladebound getting a free scaling weapon.
I can't speak for the poster but I ban the magus because of PFS. This class is so overplayed and I'm so done with it. Whats even worse is unlike at least some classes, you can hardly tell them apart. They are probably dex+dervish based and are Core, Kensai, Hex Crafter, Black Blade or some combo there of specializing in shocking grasp or frost bite. I've been at tables where we have three Magus running around, and its hard for me to remember a table without at least 1. I feel the class was poorly designed and is boring when pretty much everyone has to follow the same cookie cutter build, and I'm pretty much done with the class.
Now if someone came to me and wanted to play the card throwing archetype I may make an exception.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is everyone picking on dwarves:(
I whitelist, I don't blacklist. I set up a campaign, and I make sure to include enough options for decent variety. Everything among those options has a place in the world, provided by me. Everything else is right out. No weirdo ARG races, and ESPECIALLY no "race of one" super special snowflakes. If a player makes a good case for including something and it fits (no classic gnolls in a court intrigue campaign), I will work with the player to include it setting-wide. With classes it is easier, but I often want to change things up like replacing arcane magic with psionics and the classics may not be there. No gunslingers or witches, both are horribly designed classes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A compromise that isn't a compromise isn't a compromise.
I'm willing to meet a player (or GM if I am ever in the situation) halfway. I'm even willing to bump that up to sixty percent some days. But if the conversation is just a continuing variation on "give me what I want regardless of what we've decided for starting classes/races/thingies" with little to no give then we've hit an impasse.
You are welcome to color within the lines or meet me part of the way for something outside the box, but I am not obligated to just give you want you want because it will be "fun" for you.
I find that an overused term and excuse. We're ALL here for fun. But if you can only play X and your fun is diminished because you aren't given 100% your way, then we're going to have problems down the line I can already tell; I've experienced this enough with players and GMs over the years that the warning signs are like billboards on the highway of "this is going to suck."
The vast majority of the time I work out the house rules with my players before we sit down. The 0 session gives us a chance to make sure that everyone is on the same page and no one is overly disgruntled or making something to spite me or the table.
On the rare occasions that I am GMing for a new group then I either play a "generic" setting where most things go, or I let them know what the rules are and where the lines are and indicate just how much or little I am going to negotiate on this. If we cannot come to an agreement, someone else can GM, we can play a board game or another setting, or the person that is unwilling to be part of the game is welcome to watch.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have the same question as always.
People say, "But those pushy, entitled players show up with stuff they know is banned and demand that I let them play it and throw tantrums and threaten to kill my kitten if I don't comply..."
My question is: Why are you playing with people like that?
I screen my players in advance. I'd prefer not to play, rather than play with a bunch of people I don't like and can't get along with. As a result, I've never had to ban anything.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pretty much what Kirth said. There's a lot of people here who probably run amazing games, but for one reason or another just from this thread alone I can tell we wouldn't get along, and the game would be less fun for both of us if we were at the same table.
It's really a matter of finding a group that jives along the same lines.
I don't ban disruptive content. I ban disruptive players.
I can compromise. I can refluff inappropriate material. I can house rule fixes for imbalanced or broken content. But if I cannot trust a player enough to make non-disruptive character, then that player does not belong at my table.
You CAN refluff anything, but why should you? If I'm running a setting there is probably a reason for it.
I ran dark sun several years back. Yup there were no gnomes. The core races look vastly different than they do now. If a player didn't like it they didn't have to play. I spent dozens of hours building the campaign world and finding 3.5 material for a 2e setting and updating rules. Bards and a few other classes looked completely different than core classes. Not a single player i recruited asked to play something that didn't exist (not even banned, just wasn't there.
I'm currently running an elder scrolls game. There are 10 races (none of them are paizo or pf races), most with two stat arrays. Several classes are not allowed (gunslingers and summoners) mostly for thematic reasons. Of the classes that were left, most have thematic build restrictions. Not a single player has asked to play a race outside the 10 that are built into the world. One player brought up a combo he wanted which fit thematically so I allowed it. If it didn't I wouldn't have.
I also have a homebrew. It has 16 player races and each one is tied heavily into the history and politics of the world. The planes don't exist at all, and there is no interplanetary teleportation, so if someone wants to play an Aasimar or Tiefling it makes no sense. Additionally, as I have built out an extensive back history of the world why wouldn't someone 0 lay with what they have? Why rewrite history because one player can't play something that fits the setting?
Now if I run Golarion, outside magus it's open season. And I just ban magus because of boredom, way too overplayed for my taste.
See knightnday and Kirth? They get what I'm talking about!
I can't speak for the poster but I ban the magus because of PFS. This class is so overplayed and I'm so done with it. Whats even worse is unlike at least some classes, you can hardly tell them apart. They are probably dex+dervish based and are Core, Kensai, Hex Crafter, Black Blade or some combo there of specializing in shocking grasp or frost bite. I've been at tables where we have three Magus running around, and its hard for me to remember a table without at least 1. I feel the class was poorly designed and is boring when pretty much everyone has to follow the same cookie cutter build, and I'm pretty much done with the class.
Now if someone came to me and wanted to play the card throwing archetype I may make an exception.
I completely understand where you're coming from. At the same time, I'm completely baffled why people play the same cookie cutter magi when I always think of fun snokeflake builds. I played multiple-armed magus that cast buffs on herself while fighting with three weapons. I also played a magus that performed stealth attacks with a Large-sized bastard sword. And yet, I still want to play a whip magus, bladed-scarf wielder with swashbuckler deeds, a fist-fighter magus, a magus with a sentient dagger pistol, a hexcrafter caster, a storm-themed samurai, a teleportation fighter...
I've never had a DM ban anything for me, but I've also never had a DM run much of a "theme game."
The closest I've ever come was a port-version of Eberron, and after the initial rush of "Ohmygod, can I be a warforged?!" (I was as guilty as everyone else), we all picked things that actually existed in-setting without really trying too hard to add things that weren't there.
I was half-interested in looking over the "wandslinger" archetype someone put together to compensate for the obvious lack of in-setting firearms, but that ended up not happening.
I guess, so long as it's a matter of "That wouldn't really fit in this setting. Would you like to try X and Y that might give you something similar?" rather than some attempt to impose orthodoxy from on high or breaking theme for theme-breaking's sake alone, I don't see any real problem here. Just so long as we treat one another as human effin' beings and not straw-stuffed stereotypes to vent at, things'd probably run just fine.
I continually talk about reskinning, finding alternate means to get what you want, etcetera ... But all you get as a response is 'mean gm unwilling to compromise' in response. Perfectly willing to help the player arrive at something they enjoy playing as close to their vision as possible within the constrains of the setting. But if the setting has no dwarves and all they will accept is 100% straight from the package dwarves, they are likely out of luck. There seem to be groups of people that think any restriction - at least on the gm side of the screen - that dies not move is a sign of a Lovecaftian 'thing that should not be'. As long as their idea isn't something that cannonly and ever be suported by andwarf, anwhole dwarf, and nothing but a swarf there is almost dead certain to be a way to accomodate it.
And on the opposite side of the coin: why are you joining the games of a GM who's game you don't like? Maybe it's the fact that I play online where there's a big crowd and you could be spoiled for choice if you're open enough, but why is it such a big deal that every GM has to be willing to compromise? Let gamer selection take care of it: people will join what will get them what they want, and if no one joins the uncompromising GM's games they either have to adapt or not GM.
I mean I'm getting very confused: How can one, as a GM putting together a setting, decide when something is disallowed? You compromise-encouragers make it sound as if there is no point in disallowing anything because anything can be re-flavored to fit. But then how can there be unique flavor if every part of the standard flavor is on-limits?
You do not HAVE to compromise as a GM or player; that said, it often helps to keep people's feelings in mind when you are setting up your game.
In face to face games as opposed to online there are often less choices in who can or will GM. In those cases it is often a fine line to walk to get a non-standard build or idea, either as a world or a character, into play. Gamers can be a prickly bunch with what can seem to be irrational likes and dislikes -- for instance, I am not a big fan of dinosaurs for monsters and especially not for animal companions; there is nothing wrong with them -- I just don't care for them.
So, if you came to me and wanted to play Joe the Dinosaur Rider I may be reluctant to allow that. Others dislike gunfighers, ninja, furry-types, playing a different gender than your own, punny names, crafters and so on. This can be hard on players that are dying to play X and no one will ever let them.
So, circling back to your last paragraph, as a world building GM who enjoys creating new and exciting backdrops for players to play in and often without player input you have to be willing to admit that not every corner may be filled in and that there could be room for a compromise. What is over on that island right there? Well heck, dunno, never thought about it. Well then, can my turtle person mage be from there, a lost race of turtle people?
I've been building worlds for going on 35ish years now. Some are notes on the back of a napkin. Some are multiple 3 ring binders filled with political notes, character sheets, economies and so on. None of them are so filled in that I couldn't shoe horn in something if I really really tried.
The question becomes, however, is the character's idea one that will reshape the world in ways that are detrimental to everyone's fun? Will they break the premise the world is created around?
Example: Generica is based around humans and their allies in the never-ending battle against goblins and their ilk. "Monster" races like goblins, kobolds, orcs and so on are not allowed. Could a player play one? Well, maybe. If this were a real campaign I'd have to think long and hard to allow that, given that nearly every "civilized" place in Generica will basically attack the character on sight, and the party with them. They'll be outlaws in a land that desperately hates that race. Is the player's need to play a goblin worth everyone being possibly miserable for the whole game?
There are always arguments for corner cases and what ifs. What if there was a Gate? What if the character was summoned? What if a magician made them from scratch? What if it was just one gun and the player was the only one who knew the secret of gun powder? What if?
It isn't a question that has a set answer. You have to be willing to put aside your pride as a GM to compromise a bit on your world. You have to be willing to put aside your passion as a player to compromise a bit on your idea. Not every world gets played every time, and not every idea gets a seat at the table just because you like it.
And on the opposite side of the coin: why are you joining the games of a GM who's game you don't like?
Answer: I'm not.
Or were you simply being rhetorical?To elaborate, I'm typically the DM. Thirty years of gaming across six states, and I have had zero of these problem players that people like you are whining about. The reason for that is as stated: I screen my players. It's not just a happy coincidence.
So if problem players are such an issue for you, I gave you the solution. You're welcome.
There are cases when I want to find a game, but everyone is playing something I don't like. So I decide to run my own done up in a way I like, but then get told on this thread that I may have to give that up. I'm not adverse to allowing in things players want, but I'm not going to put in the effort to define the world when I could just sit back and make it up as I go. But then I run in to the problem of posters who say they don't want the same old tropes used, so I end up between a squeeze of trying to make something reasonably original and something that pleases all the players. I'm not the sort that can manage both, so I have to figure out where my ground lies if indeed it exists at all in the Pathfinder community.There may be cases where I like a particular GM and I like enough of his campaign premise but the thing I'm interested in playing doesn't quite fit the rules.
That's when I try to negotiate.
The "pathfinder community" is a pretty big place with tons of people -- you have folks at your local (for a given value of local) game store that play pick up games or Society games, people that play by post, that play home games, and more.
I'm sure that there is a group for everyone; there almost has to be, given the wildly divergent ideas on the game we see posted here.
The thing is, sometimes you have to play a game that may not interest you in order to network and find players and games. Sometimes you have to put aside your likes and dislikes to make something to attract people.
You cannot please everyone all the time, or even some people any of the time. Advice I was given once was to run something and then do a survey, if you will, with the people at the table and see what they liked and didn't like, what they wanted to do and what they actually got done. More than what character they got to play or if they got the +whatever thingy they wanted is a more important question: did they have fun? Would they want to play with you again? Why or why not?
Some days it can be a chore to be a player or GM if you are not happy, I know this. But you often have to put yourself out there to be seen and so people know that SilvercanMoonpaw plays like so or GMs like this. That way the community of players can make an informed decision on you, and you on them.
Good luck!
I use a majority of paizo material so just about every class minus the magus and summoner are allowed at my tables. As for races I look at where my campaign will take place and pick races from those regions. For example for Skull & Shackles which I run I go with core + 2 variety of skinwalker, tengu, and vanara. I haven't had any complaints especially since I have a few more house rules that I apply.Out of curiosity, why the magus? I haven't had much problems with them aside from the bladebound getting a free scaling weapon.
I haven't been able to get to a proper computer since Friday so I'll answer this now. I personally dislike how the magus works within a party. I love the idea behind the class (back in 2e I played a lot of elven fighter/mages), but I do not like how it was implemented.
Also I have one player in my home games that I am less than trusting of. With all the little tid bits and resources to keep track of I've caught him cheating (not miscalculating, he knows better) on more than one occasion. Instead of giving him the benefit of the doubt I'd rather just punish the group for his actions and remove one option, keyword here being OPTION, that has given me problems in the past. If I start another group without the problem player I'd give some thought to allowing players who asked for it.
*delurks to answer OP because*
The things I allow/disallow depend on any combination of
- What suits my campaign
- What won't get me totally overwhelmed
- What the players want (or don't want).
With the last one, I should note, I have had players actually request to stick to core only as much as possible. I think there's an assumption all players want all the toys but some folks get overwhelmed by options and prefer to keep it simple, especially in as complex a game as Pathfinder is--especially if they're new to the system.
My main campaign world is one I built presuming everything in core existed. It's built around that. Anything added on top of core is stuff that makes sense for the world. Beyond core, I usually only allow inquisitor and cavalier for classes. With the ACG out I might allow Brawler and Slayer. I will often allow up to most of the "featured races" in ARG, although which ones may be campaign dependent (if the game takes place in the part of the world where orcs and goblins are prominent citizens, then they may be allowed; they might not be somewhere else). I remind players of unusual races they are going to have to deal with possible prejudices/unusual reactions, etc.
Why I allow so few classes is for a number of reasons -- but mainly it's because most of the new classes are spellcasters and I want the origins and methods of teaching of magic to be somewhat limited---it's not a low magic world, but the sources of magic are more than finite and it just doesn't manifest in people more than in a few certain specific ways. (Sometimes I consider oracles and witches for savage races or folks from the past, as alternate "schools of thought" for approaching magic.) The world does not have firearms (magic is the technology of war and considered more reliable than steel tubes liable to blow up in your face), so gunslingers and alchemists with bombs are out (I've also always felt like bomb was a weird class feature--how come only they can make and throw them? They're bombs. It's weird.). But more to the point, it also just gets overwhelming to me to have to learn all the different classes and what they do and how to adjudicate their abilities beyond a certain saturation point of stuff. My brain is only so capable unfortunately--and I'd rather spend my time writing more adventures than memorizing new mechanics.
But what I'd allow or disallow in another campaign world might be quite different (I've thought of a more steampunky campaign where alchemists and gunslingers are prominent).
And again players--they want to keep it simple, I keep it simple--if it's too overwhelming for them to play, no one's having fun. They want to add stuff, I review it and see if it suits and make sure others are okay with it.
*relurks*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't been able to get to a proper computer since Friday so I'll answer this now. I personally dislike how the magus works within a party. I love the idea behind the class (back in 2e I played a lot of elven fighter/mages), but I do not like how it was implemented.I use a majority of paizo material so just about every class minus the magus and summoner are allowed at my tables. As for races I look at where my campaign will take place and pick races from those regions. For example for Skull & Shackles which I run I go with core + 2 variety of skinwalker, tengu, and vanara. I haven't had any complaints especially since I have a few more house rules that I apply.Out of curiosity, why the magus? I haven't had much problems with them aside from the bladebound getting a free scaling weapon.
I'm rather interested in hearing you elaborate on that (perhaps in an IM). I'm a magus fanboy, but I always like hearing how something can be improved. In terms of roles in a party, I tend to play my magi as a wizard substitute or as a rogue. I scout ahead, examine magical doodads, assassinate priority targets, and assist the fighter.
And I just ban magus because of boredom, way too overplayed for my taste.
I don't ban for that reason, but if I did...
Elves Banned.
Halflings Banned.
Fighters Banned.
Rogues Banned.
Wizards Banned.
Sorcerers Banned.
Black-Blood Oracles Banned. (This actually I am told I banned for real once, though I don't remember doing so. Player went ballistic when I made a BB Oracle NPC cause apparently I'd told him no. But seeing as how I don't ever ban stuff, I am to this day at a loss why I told him no, and it's not his reason he thought, to save it for my "special snowflake" NPC, as I'd not even decided to make her a BB Oracle until 3 months later)
That's about 9/10 times every game I run will include those combinations among the players.