Advertising a public game for random strangers to show up to? Sure, rules systems are probably pretty high on the list of what I'd want to know.
Talking to friends about a homebrew campaign that's lasted through multiple editions or even switched rules systems entirely? I'm not going to argue that it's a different game when it's the same people sitting down to continue the adventures of the same characters.
A homebrew campaign that isn't Pathfinder evidently? I mean you can talk about it sure, but I question how much value talking about your personal rules that have evidently lasted since OD&D has to such a general topic. Care to explain?
Campaign setting reasons? In Golarion, for example, guns are from Alkenstar. If the game is set in the Realm of the Mammoth Lords, I'm going to want something about how and why your character is there and has guns - especially if he isn't from Alkenstar. If you've been playing for a few levels and decide to take a level of gunslinger, it's going to have to be pretty convincing, if it already hasn't come up in game. "It's a legal component" isn't going to cut it.Because my character was trained by someone from that region. Or was trained by someone from their region who follows that regions trends. Or...
This is so easy you might as well just let them have it.
Seriously, "My character is a gunslinger, therefore I want to play him as a gunslinger." should be enough.
No. Give me something.
"I want to play a gunslinger and I don't want to bother with any reason I've come to this godforsaken corner of the world or why someone from half the world away shared their country's military secrets with me" just doesn't cut it for me. I'm not saying there can't be a justification. I'm not saying you can't play a gunslinger.But if it's just "I want to play a gunslinger and I've given no thought to what one would be doing here or how he'll fit in", that's a sign we shouldn't be gaming together.
As, I suspect, me asking is a sign that you don't want me to run a game for you.
My character is someone who is skilled in the use of firearms. Why don't *you* come up with how that fits in your world if "I was trained by someone who was skilled at it." isn't good enough? Or why don't you just ban gunslingers if you don't them so people who hear that can accurately assess the value of your campaign.
Oh boy, I get to hit 2 posts with one st... response.
Actually we played one that shifted from 3.0 to 3.5. That's less of a change of course, but if it's still the same campaign, I wouldn't say it's a different game. Changing campaigns or GMs can be a bigger change than rules sets.
It is the same *campaign*. It is also a different game. Please don't confuse the two.
What I really hear in such cases is "I'm more interested in my build than I am in the campaign you've offered to run." That's a big red flag for me.
Of course I am more interested in my character, its the only thing in the campaign that is *mine*.
And I gave you a perfectly passable answer. My character was trained by a wanderer who was proficient with them. So I've given you an answer, you just don't like it.
Because I don't want to ban gunslingers. I want you to have a cool reason for there being a gunslinger in such a weird place. I'd love to hear it. Maybe I could come up with something, but such things usually work better...My character is someone who is skilled in the use of firearms. Why don't *you* come up with how that fits in your world if "I was trained by someone who was skilled at it." isn't good enough? Or why don't you just ban gunslingers if you don't them so people who hear that can accurately assess the value of your campaign.Campaign setting reasons? In Golarion, for example, guns are from Alkenstar. If the game is set in the Realm of the Mammoth Lords, I'm going to want something about how and why your character is there and has guns - especially if he isn't from Alkenstar. If you've been playing for a few levels and decide to take a level of gunslinger, it's going to have to be pretty convincing, if it already hasn't come up in game. "It's a legal component" isn't going to cut it.Because my character was trained by someone from that region. Or was trained by someone from their region who follows that regions trends. Or...
This is so easy you might as well just let them have it.
Seriously, "My character is a gunslinger, therefore I want to play him as a gunslinger." should be enough.
No. Give me something.
"I want to play a gunslinger and I don't want to bother with any reason I've come to this godforsaken corner of the world or why someone from half the world away shared their country's military secrets with me" just doesn't cut it for me. I'm not saying there can't be a justification. I'm not saying you can't play a gunslinger.But if it's just "I want to play a gunslinger and I've given no thought to what one would be doing here or how he'll fit in", that's a sign we shouldn't be gaming together.
As, I suspect, me asking is a sign that you don't want me to run a game for you.
Gunslingers aren't necessarily any more bizarre than, for example, Alchemists. Would you expect someone who wants to play an Alchemist to come up with a reason why their alchemist exists that fits your arbitrary definition of valid?
...Because I don't want to ban gunslingers. I want you to have a cool reason for there being a gunslinger in such a weird place. I'd love to hear it. Maybe I could come up with something, but suchMy character is someone who is skilled in the use of firearms. Why don't *you* come up with how that fits in your world if "I was trained by someone who was skilled at it." isn't good enough? Or why don't you just ban gunslingers if you don't them so people who hear that can accurately assess the value of your campaign.Campaign setting reasons? In Golarion, for example, guns are from Alkenstar. If the game is set in the Realm of the Mammoth Lords, I'm going to want something about how and why your character is there and has guns - especially if he isn't from Alkenstar. If you've been playing for a few levels and decide to take a level of gunslinger, it's going to have to be pretty convincing, if it already hasn't come up in game. "It's a legal component" isn't going to cut it.Because my character was trained by someone from that region. Or was trained by someone from their region who follows that regions trends. Or...
This is so easy you might as well just let them have it.
Seriously, "My character is a gunslinger, therefore I want to play him as a gunslinger." should be enough.
No. Give me something.
"I want to play a gunslinger and I don't want to bother with any reason I've come to this godforsaken corner of the world or why someone from half the world away shared their country's military secrets with me" just doesn't cut it for me. I'm not saying there can't be a justification. I'm not saying you can't play a gunslinger.But if it's just "I want to play a gunslinger and I've given no thought to what one would be doing here or how he'll fit in", that's a sign we shouldn't be gaming together.
As, I suspect, me asking is a sign that you don't want me to run a game for you.
Starting to miss the point. This is not about "Is gunslinger weird enough to warrant banning?", it's about wether or not a GM can and shoudl influence character backstory. I think we're all getting hung up on the specifics of class/race examples.
I do not ban any classes or races, I ban thing that do not fit in the story I am telling
that is to say,
Gunslingers are not banned, but I may or may not ban your gunslinger's backstory.
THAT is what I've been trying to talk about. It's not about wether or not Brian gets to play a gunslinger, it's about wether or not Brian gets to play a gunslinger the exact way he wants to, and how much say the GM should have over that.
...
My friend Rez decided recently that he wanted to bring in a half or scarred witch doctor after we finished Fires of Creation and retire hi original PC. I said that was okay, but I decided that the only way that would make narrative sense would be if his witch was an enemy that the PCs converted to their cause. He gets to play what he wants and it satisfies by need for a consistant, believable sequence of events. The way I see it, everyone wins.
Starting to miss the point. This is not about "Is gunslinger weird enough to warrant banning?", it's about wether or not a GM can and shoudl influence character backstory. I think we're all getting hung up on the specifics of class/race examples.
I do not ban any classes or races, I ban thing that do not fit in the story I am telling
that is to say,
Gunslingers are not banned, but I may or may not ban your gunslinger's backstory.THAT is what I've been trying to talk about. It's not about wether or not Brian gets to play a gunslinger, it's about wether or not Brian gets to play a gunslinger the exact way he wants to, and how much say the GM should have over that.
...
My friend Rez decided recently that he wanted to bring in a half or scarred witch doctor after we finished Fires of Creation and retire hi original PC. I said that was okay, but I decided that the only way that would make narrative sense would be if his witch was an enemy that the PCs converted to their cause. He gets to play what he wants and it satisfies by need for a consistant, believable sequence of events. The way I see it, everyone wins.
Depending in what Rez had in mind... if it had been me, I would have been a bit annoyed about that. I do not play Evil characters. So if the DM said 'Oh you have to be the bad guy that switches over...' that could change the very basis of my character. Were they in the habit of letting enemies join up? or was he the only one? I would find that a bit immersion-breaking too...
Still, it's tricky when new people show up in the middle of an adventure. What we HAVE done from time to time... is that the player was a prisoner or slave of an enemy or found in the dungeon, potential sacrifice... SOMETHING. Usually that screws the new pc over a bit in starting gear... but that's worked around too.
That way his backstory/personality is still intact AND there's a legitimate reason why he was on sub-basement 27 of the forgotten castle...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And those are called different games. If your game doesn't change much despite the editions changing either you are still playing OD&D, not being honest with your players about the system you are playing, or have been playing magical tea party all this time. There may be another explanation, but these are the only three I can come up with.
Because you see it turns out the rules are important. If you advertise playing Pathfinder, then I show up to play Pathfinder. If it turns out you aren't playing that but are instead playing phantom1592 non-specific RPG system rules, then we are going to have a problem. And that problem is undoubtedly with how you advertise your game.
Do you use ALL the rules for Pathfinder? Words of Power? Wounds and Vigor? Called shots?
Do you let people use the old 3.5 Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting, with the feats and abilities limited to the characters nations?
Does every player who shows up know all the Errata and religiously log onto the website here for rulings... or do they take things like Crane Wing 'as they are written.'
Because those are the rules that are so important... And it sounds like you're saying if you don't use every rule listed in a pathfinder book... (possibly even the ones that contradict each other) then you're not being honest with your players...
I just don't see it that way. I've never played in a game yet that didn't have SOME form of rule 0 or House rules going on.
I have a very high tolerance for DM fiat - I'm happy being handed a background to go with my character and am even happy being handed both a background AND the PC.
Nonetheless, this would bother me. Control of the in game actions of the PC seems like the whole point of playing to me. Maybe I won't come up with "good enough" explanations for my PC's actions as judged by the DM or the other players, but that's just tough I'm afraid. I'll do my best, but I don't promise to always meet their expectations of reasonable motivations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nobody asked about YOU. The topic is about GM's in general.When someone who is older than 12 says 'it's not fair', I tend to stop listening.
It is fair for a DM to set the terms of engagement of a game they are running. It is fair for the player to choose not to take part in the game based on those terms.
There are 7 players in my homebrew sandbox. They regularly split the party and go and do different things, and not every avenue and NPC is fully nuanced. I doubt 6 of them would be overly happy if I stopped the game for an hour while I rolled up the NPC and their whole backstory so that 1 person can try to bluff them out of some specified potion they may or may not have about their person. So yeah, sometimes I'll say I'd rather you didn't pursue that this week, but I'll sort it for you for next time.
I set up the table. Buy the rule books and minis, and build the terrain. I populate the sandbox, invite the people to my home, feed them and facilitate the game. Damn right it's fair I have a veto on what your character has as a back story and abilities. I try to be fair, and give clear reasons why certain things may not be allowed, and am amenable to most ideas, but if I say I don't want- oh, I dunno, let's say gunslingers- I don't expect it's not fair stompyfoot pet lip. A polite 'No thanks Mike, I'll sit this game out.' will suffice.
I actually edited this comment but I guess it did not take. My point was that not all GM's host, pay for food, and do everything you do so what YOU do is not really a factor for allowances with regard to GM's as a whole.
In addition spending money and hosting does not increase your right to infringe on player agency. By that logic a player that bought his own food dice and books could ignore you while another player could not. That really is not fair for someone to get more freedom because they have more money.
And those are called different games. If your game doesn't change much despite the editions changing either you are still playing OD&D, not being honest with your players about the system you are playing, or have been playing magical tea party all this time. There may be another explanation, but these are the only three I can come up with.
Because you see it turns out the rules are important. If you advertise playing Pathfinder, then I show up to play Pathfinder. If it turns out you aren't playing that but are instead playing phantom1592 non-specific RPG system rules, then we are going to have a problem. And that problem is undoubtedly with how you advertise your game.
And it sounds like you're saying if you don't use every rule listed in a pathfinder book... (possibly even the ones that contradict each other) then you're not being honest with your players...
That is not even close to what he said. Read it again with less emotion.
And those are called different games. If your game doesn't change much despite the editions changing either you are still playing OD&D, not being honest with your players about the system you are playing, or have been playing magical tea party all this time. There may be another explanation, but these are the only three I can come up with.
Because you see it turns out the rules are important. If you advertise playing Pathfinder, then I show up to play Pathfinder. If it turns out you aren't playing that but are instead playing phantom1592 non-specific RPG system rules, then we are going to have a problem. And that problem is undoubtedly with how you advertise your game.
Do you use ALL the rules for Pathfinder? Words of Power? Wounds and Vigor? Called shots?
Do you let people use the old 3.5 Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting, with the feats and abilities limited to the characters nations?
Does every player who shows up know all the Errata and religiously log onto the website here for rulings... or do they take things like Crane Wing 'as they are written.'
Because those are the rules that are so important... And it sounds like you're saying if you don't use every rule listed in a pathfinder book... (possibly even the ones that contradict each other) then you're not being honest with your players...
I just don't see it that way. I've never played in a game yet that didn't have SOME form of rule 0 or House rules going on.
You don't have to use all the Pathfinder rules to be playing Pathfinder. But all the rules you are using do have to be Pathfinder.
And yes we do use all the FAQ rulings, and yes we are informed about these (anyone who isn't is by me). The only thing we play with is a gentlemen's agreement.
Campaign setting reasons? In Golarion, for example, guns are from Alkenstar. If the game is set in the Realm of the Mammoth Lords, I'm going to want something about how and why your character is there and has guns - especially if he isn't from Alkenstar. If you've been playing for a few levels and decide to take a level of gunslinger, it's going to have to be pretty convincing, if it already hasn't come up in game. "It's a legal component" isn't going to cut it.Because my character was trained by someone from that region. Or was trained by someone from their region who follows that regions trends. Or...
This is so easy you might as well just let them have it.
Seriously, "My character is a gunslinger, therefore I want to play him as a gunslinger." should be enough.
No. Give me something.
"I want to play a gunslinger and I don't want to bother with any reason I've come to this godforsaken corner of the world or why someone from half the world away shared their country's military secrets with me" just doesn't cut it for me. I'm not saying there can't be a justification. I'm not saying you can't play a gunslinger.But if it's just "I want to play a gunslinger and I've given no thought to what one would be doing here or how he'll fit in", that's a sign we shouldn't be gaming together.
As, I suspect, me asking is a sign that you don't want me to run a game for you.
So my wife is dyslexic. She doesn't read any of the rule books. She often has no idea what the rules are or how to play in anyway beyond rolling a d20 for skills and to attack, and then the damage dice. She has a very poor creative imagination and has an extremely difficult time coming up with character concepts, especially backgrounds for characters. But she wants to play because she wants to be involved with my hobbies and she enjoys spending time with me and our friends.
Are you saying she wouldn't be allowed at your table? Because from what you're typing, it really feels like you're discriminating against people with poor imaginations and against people who are simply unable to come up with a creative story to your liking.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A GM directly controlling what a character may or may not do is wrong, I think we can all agree:
Yes, 110%.
"No, you can't take that side-strret", "No, you cannot visit the witch first and the dungeon second", etc. Many also feel that "excessive restrictions" on character options also makes a bad GM, i.e. "You cannot play a dwarf wizard because I decided dwarves can't be wizards", and the countless myriad of variations.
OK, none of these examples look bad, per se. Situational, probably. But not inherently wrong.
My question, though, is: Is it acceptable for a GM to veto a decision based on the in-character reasons the player has come up with?
Only if what the player has come up with is blatantly against the world, campaign, play style, agreed rules, or else the GM and the other players have previously agreed upon.
Aka: a player has no right to wreck a game, because "that's his thing".-Is it unfair to restrict player options if the story does not warrant them? (i.e. does Story trump Rules?)
-Is PC backstory sacred and purely the domain of the player? Does the GM have a right to decide what may or may not be in the PCs backstory?
-Should the fluff not matter as long as the rules are followed?
Not unfair as long as it's common knowledge at the table.
Mostly yes. Usually a few blank spots are left floating about for the GM and the player to expand and work on as needed. If the new stuff doesn't contradict previously agreed material, no problem (Aka: a GM has no right to wreck a character because "that's his campaign").No.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to say I am with thejeff on this. If you can't be bothered to explore the why of your more unusual choices in your build it only advertises the fact that you don't want to play a "role" playing game, instead you want to play a wargame with a unit size of one. Which while it may be fun for some people, it isn't what I want to play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A GM directly controlling what a character may or may not do is wrong, I think we can all agree:Yes, 110%.
"No, you can't take that side-strret", "No, you cannot visit the witch first and the dungeon second", etc. Many also feel that "excessive restrictions" on character options also makes a bad GM, i.e. "You cannot play a dwarf wizard because I decided dwarves can't be wizards", and the countless myriad of variations.OK, none of these examples look bad, per se. Situational, probably. But not inherently wrong.
My question, though, is: Is it acceptable for a GM to veto a decision based on the in-character reasons the player has come up with?Only if what the player has come up with is blatantly against the world, campaign, play style, agreed rules, or else the GM and the other players have previously agreed upon.
Aka: a player has no right to wreck a game, because "that's his thing".-Is it unfair to restrict player options if the story does not warrant them? (i.e. does Story trump Rules?)
-Is PC backstory sacred and purely the domain of the player? Does the GM have a right to decide what may or may not be in the PCs backstory?
-Should the fluff not matter as long as the rules are followed?
Not unfair as long as it's common knowledge at the table.
Mostly yes. Usually a few blank spots are left floating about for the GM and the player to expand and work on as needed. If the new stuff doesn't contradict previously agreed material, no problem (Aka: a GM has no right to wreck a character because "that's his campaign").
No.
This. All of this.
I have noticed a lot of fighting, and GM can do this, and GM can't do this, and This would hurt this player's story, That would hurt the Gm's campaign...
But a lot of that is just talking about the way that people try to explain their side of the /ARGUMENT/
Players should respect their GM and accept "No" as a legitimate answer when they ask, "can I do this?"
Game Masters should allow their players Creative Freedom and understand that since this is a creative group setting, things may fall outside of what they expect, and if it does not overtly harm the campaign, they should allow this to happen.
Mostly what should happen is a group agreement. PCs, try to make your GM happy, because the GM is being the one keeping all the plates spinning in this circus act.
GMs, don't be too strongarmed when trying to keep your campaign on the rails, and if all else fails, explain your stance. "Sorry guys, but I don't have anything planned out for this area so nothing interesting happens." or the belovedly honest "I have no idea, let me get back to you" but don't let your PCs bully you with "rules state, arguments" as a GM you can say, "the rules state that you can do that, but I am not going to allow this because... x, y, and z."
This is a cooperative game, and people should COOPERATE.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is it acceptable for a GM to veto a decision based on the in-character reasons the player has come up with?
Yes, but only under extreme circumstances. ("When it's my turn to take watch, I murder the rest of the party in their sleep. If you read between the lines of my backstory, you'll see this is perfectly in character.")
Is it unfair to restrict player options if the story does not warrant them? (i.e. does Story trump Rules?)
No, but be careful because it's easy to ruin a player's fun by taking away their ability to play the character they most want to play.
Is PC backstory sacred and purely the domain of the player?
If you want to explore the PC's backstory and make it part of the campaign, you usually have to make up bits and pieces because the player always leaves gaps. But try not to do anything that would change they very nature of the character they're trying to play. "The grandfather who taught you magic and mysteriously disappeared was later corrupted by power and became a lich," might be OK, while "Your grandfather you never met was actually an orc," might not be. I was once taken aback when my PC ran into someone he went to wizard school with, given that as far as I was concerned my PC never went to wizard school.
Does the GM have a right to decide what may or may not be in the PCs backstory?
Up to a point. A GM has the right to veto anything stupid.
Should the fluff not matter as long as the rules are followed?
Fluff should be mutable, as long as the result makes sense. If I want to flavor my Inquisitor as an itinerant fortune teller who just happens to have certain mystical abilities, then you can probably make that work. If I want to say my Wizard is psychic alien, that's probably going too far.
Contributor
|
Campaign setting reasons? In Golarion, for example, guns are from Alkenstar. If the game is set in the Realm of the Mammoth Lords, I'm going to want something about how and why your character is there and has guns - especially if he isn't from Alkenstar. If you've been playing for a few levels and decide to take a level of gunslinger, it's going to have to be pretty convincing, if it already hasn't come up in game. "It's a legal component" isn't going to cut it.Because my character was trained by someone from that region. Or was trained by someone from their region who follows that regions trends. Or...
This is so easy you might as well just let them have it.
Seriously, "My character is a gunslinger, therefore I want to play him as a gunslinger." should be enough.
No. Give me something.
"I want to play a gunslinger and I don't want to bother with any reason I've come to this godforsaken corner of the world or why someone from half the world away shared their country's military secrets with me" just doesn't cut it for me. I'm not saying there can't be a justification. I'm not saying you can't play a gunslinger.But if it's just "I want to play a gunslinger and I've given no thought to what one would be doing here or how he'll fit in", that's a sign we shouldn't be gaming together.
As, I suspect, me asking is a sign that you don't want me to run a game for you.
So my wife is dyslexic. She doesn't read any of the rule books. She often has no idea what the rules are or how to play in anyway beyond rolling a d20 for skills and to attack, and then the damage dice. She has a very poor creative imagination and has an extremely difficult time coming up with character concepts, especially backgrounds for characters. But she wants to play because she wants to be involved with my hobbies and she enjoys spending time with me and our friends.
Are you saying she wouldn't be allowed at your table? Because from what...
D:
Did... did you just compare one person's "I don't feel like it" with what sounds like a severe disability on the part of your wife? That seems... excessive.
Have you considered that thejeff might make an exception for someone whose circumstances are more extreme than "can't be bothered"? The way you're using her condition to attack someone in an Internet argument about roleplaying games is deeply uncomfortable to read.
I would appreciate it if you would reconsider your line of attack. :(
|
|
I'll go back to what I implied above.
All of this is individual group game contract stuff. What you and most others here are describing is a sort of default implied game contract. That's fine. Talking about what default expectations are is good.
But describing them as absolutes isn't a good idea. If a group wants to change those defaults and play in a different style, that's fine.
Absolutely (no pun intended) yes.
But I can't honestly see how what I've said contradicts your statements.
Quite the contrary.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't mind sometimes explaining everything I put into a build. Sometimes only sometimes. I'm playing D&D. Not answering a questionnaire or applying for a job. Even then only if I ask to play something that the DM might possibly ban. Or if I want to take some rule or class that is not from the core or 3pp. I can understand say if it's a Gunslinger or a rare class in Golarion. If I want to take a two weapon ranger I don't see the need to give a long dissertation or essay for every single choice. Beyond "i'm in the mood to play a character with two weapons". One of my players wanted to play a Gunslinger. Another a Aasimar. Both freely gave background elements without being asked. They would have simply walked out if I asked for a reason for every choice made on the character sheet.
While their is a limit to what one can ask from a DM realize their is also a limit to what a DM can reasonably ask from players. If I asked for a long dissertation or essay on every player choice when I run games. Or if someone else ran a game. They and myself would rapidly no longer have players. Possibly even blacklisted. I can tell you this if I'm forced to give a dissertation or essay on a character choice as a player I'm doing to same to you as a DM. Fair is fair. Give me a anti-gunslinger rant as a DM then want to take one as a player you can bet I'm going to ask why.
To say that someone who refuses to do so is not a roleplayer. Is not only a galaxy sized cop-out it's also insulting. Some on this forum either have some very forgiving players. Or they are simply the only one willing to run games. I can guarantee in my neck of the woods accusing someone of not being a roleplayer without a very good reason. Is not going to be invited to any games.
Did... did you just compare one person's "I don't feel like it" with what sounds like a severe disability on the part of your wife? That seems... excessive.
Have you considered that thejeff might make an exception for someone whose circumstances are more extreme than "can't be bothered"? The way you're using her condition to attack someone in an Internet argument about roleplaying games is deeply uncomfortable to read.
I would appreciate it if you would reconsider your line of attack. :(
If she doesn't want to come up with a creative reason for having a character that doesn't easily fit the campaign premise, she could play a more traditional character who does. It doesn't sound like she'd care much.
It would appear that the answer to your consideration is an absolute no.
rant
Memorax, calm down for a second. Nobody said anything about an essay, or anything like that.
I believe the initial /EXAMPLE/ was a player who was a wizard or some such and then wanted to crossclass into Gunslinger at the drop of a hat.
I, me personally, as a DM would ask for an explanation. If the character was halfway down a dungeon and goes 'the rules say I can multi-class into whatever I want' I would put on my best DM shoes and say. No. Simple as that.
If the character has expressed no interest in what they suddenly are now crossing into... like a totally magic-hating barbarian suddenly gaining a level in wizard... I would say no.
HOWEVER. If my character is level 2, and tells me they are 'seeking out a person who wields a gun' so that they can 'learn from him'... and then they want to take a level in gunslinger. That is fine, that is roleplaying.... Maybe they never find him and have to keep looking... But just saying BOOM I'm a wizard, behold my glory... where did my spellbook come from? Oh IDK, LOLZ I'm a wizard now.
That would be the cop-out. Quit taking blanket statements and getting angry at them, its just adding to the argument.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If she doesn't want to come up with a creative reason for having a character that doesn't easily fit the campaign premise, she could play a more traditional character who does. It doesn't sound like she'd care much.
If you aren't banning Gunslinger from your campaign, then how is it any different from a "traditional" character. Please do tell. Because it still sounds like you want to ban gunslinger, you just don't want to put that out there for people to accurately assess the value of your campaign.
rantMemorax, calm down for a second. Nobody said anything about an essay, or anything like that.
I believe the initial /EXAMPLE/ was a player who was a wizard or some such and then wanted to crossclass into Gunslinger at the drop of a hat.
I, me personally, as a DM would ask for an explanation. If the character was halfway down a dungeon and goes 'the rules say I can multi-class into whatever I want' I would put on my best DM shoes and say. No. Simple as that.
If the character has expressed no interest in what they suddenly are now crossing into... like a totally magic-hating barbarian suddenly gaining a level in wizard... I would say no.
The training came in their background. Their Wizard was always aiming for improved gunslinging skills and level 2 just happens to be when they had their breakthrough. Remember levels are just building blocks that make up an overall character. It makes sense for that Wizard to take Gunslinger *at any time* because it is one of the foundations of who that character is overall. The GM should have no say over that beyond "We are using only X classes in this game."
rantMemorax, calm down for a second. Nobody said anything about an essay, or anything like that.
I believe the initial /EXAMPLE/ was a player who was a wizard or some such and then wanted to crossclass into Gunslinger at the drop of a hat.
I, me personally, as a DM would ask for an explanation. If the character was halfway down a dungeon and goes 'the rules say I can multi-class into whatever I want' I would put on my best DM shoes and say. No. Simple as that.
If the character has expressed no interest in what they suddenly are now crossing into... like a totally magic-hating barbarian suddenly gaining a level in wizard... I would say no.
HOWEVER. If my character is level 2, and tells me they are 'seeking out a person who wields a gun' so that they can 'learn from him'... and then they want to take a level in gunslinger. That is fine, that is roleplaying.... Maybe they never find him and have to keep looking... But just saying BOOM I'm a wizard, behold my glory... where did my spellbook come from? Oh IDK, LOLZ I'm a wizard now.
That would be the cop-out. Quit taking blanket statements and getting angry at them, its just adding to the argument.
First off, neither of these things are actually going to happen because they're both terrible ideas and are a net negative for the character.
Secondly, any optimizer worth his/her salt is going to have the build planned out far enough ahead that they will know if they intend to multiclass. If they know that you expect them to justify every aspect of their character (which, as a GM who is not going by rules as written, YOU are obligated to tell them before hand) then they will have an explanation prepared.
The DM has the right to ban anything he wants (outside of PFS). If the players don't like it they have the option to not play under that DM.
Once the DM has allowed something into his game. The player has control over his character and should be able to act as he pleases.
The environment and NPC's may react poorly to crazy PC actions,but the DM has no right to take over your character unless the character has been dominated by an NPC or something.
I would never "come down from Heaven" to stop PVP or anything else.
I think it's funner that way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The training came in their background. Their Wizard was always aiming for improved gunslinging skills and level 2 just happens to be when they had their breakthrough. Remember levels are just building blocks that make up an overall character. It makes sense for that Wizard to take Gunslinger *at any time* because it is one of the foundations of who that character is overall. The GM should have no say over that beyond "We are using only X classes in this game."
Is this a RP situation? I Stated... "If the character has expressed no interest in what they suddenly are now crossing into... like a totally magic-hating barbarian suddenly gaining a level in wizard... I would say no."
Because the above is RP clashing with Rules. Rules state that Yes, I can take my magic-hating barbarian and take a level in wizard at the drop of a hat, but it completely breaks the RP of the character... Now if my character RP'd the gaining of trust of magic and interest in it. there is no problem, he can now become a wizard...
So lets put it in the terms you require... a wizard becoming a gunslinger...
A wizard who has done NO Roleplaying of any type in the direction of wanting to become a gunslinger. No looking for mysterious men who wield guns. No asking gunsmiths how a gun work, No talking to alchemists or scholars on what makes a gun work. Just all of a sudden. "BAM! I am a gunslinger now." I, as a DM, would say... where have YOU, as a character, ever shown any inclination to becoming a gunslinger? and they would not have an answer for me... I'm not asking for an essay, I'm not requiring anything more than for them to role-play.
I see no problem in requiring a person to Role-play... in a Role-Playing Game.
|
|
I, me personally, as a DM would ask for an explanation. If the character was halfway down a dungeon and goes 'the rules say I can multi-class into whatever I want' I would put on my best DM shoes and say. No. Simple as that.
That I can understand as I too don't simply allow someone to multiclass in a dungeon. At the very least when they get a chance to rest. I don't see the need to explain or give a reason for every choice on a character sheet. Or rarely. Only when I or a a player are roleplaying out of character. If a player to use your barbarian hating magician suddenly decides to become a wizard. Then I will either say no. Or if I allow it expect the player to roleplay a very confused individual.
HOWEVER. If my character is level 2, and tells me they are 'seeking out a person who wields a gun' so that they can 'learn from him'... and then they want to take a level in gunslinger. That is fine, that is roleplaying.... Maybe they never find him and have to keep looking... But just saying BOOM I'm a wizard, behold my glory... where did my spellbook come from? Oh IDK, LOLZ I'm a wizard now.
Then I suggest no allowing anyone to multiclass then. If I start as Rogue then want to become a Wizard. I can't very be one without a spellbook. At the very least I would let them find a spellbook down the line. Sure it may not be realistic in terms of roleplaying but it's allowed by the rules. In the same way if a character playing a Rogue wants to multiclass being a Fighter. I would not allow a the player to suddenly get a suit of full plate. I would allow him to get it eventually. no one going to multiclass if every instance is penalized simply because one can't roleplay it imo.
First off, neither of these things are actually going to happen because they're both terrible ideas and are a net negative for the character.
Secondly, any optimizer worth his/her salt is going to have the build planned out far enough ahead that they will know if they intend to multiclass. If they know that you expect them to justify every aspect of their character (which, as a GM who is not going by rules as written, YOU are obligated to tell them before hand) then they will have an explanation prepared.
Arachnofiend,
First reply,
Roleplay trumps character building... I had a barbarian gain an interest in wizardry, and he became quite a good wizard, he could not cast above second level spells and could benchpress any other wizard, but the roleplay of the situation was wonderful. People who are dedicated to Roleplaying sometimes don't really care if it makes their character slightly weaker in the long run...
Second reply,
This is an RPG, not a character optimizer generator. Fine, if you want to multiclass as a bard/thaumaturgist/cleric/stewardess, I will not stop you. IF YOU ROLE-PLAY IT. I require you to practice for what you want. I don't care if the rulebook states "It is assumed that you practice all necessary interest, skills, fashion sense, abilities, stereotypes, and studies offscreen" I want you, as a player, To SHOW ME.
If you are a rogue who is studying magic to become a wizard to become a shadowdancer, that is fine by me... throw in a two sentance snippet like "while the others are preparing for bed I draw out the tiny spellbook that I have stolen off of the fallen mage, and begin to study. One day the magics of the world will be at my beck and call." and BAM, I as a DM know that your next level will be something magical, and it would not be coming out of the blue to go BAM! I am a wizard now!
Why can't the GM just work something in when it happens, since evidently their the only one that's bothered by it?
Then I suggest no allowing anyone to multiclass then. If I start as Rogue then want to become a Wizard. I can't very be one without a spellbook. At the very least I would let them find a spellbook down the line. Sure it may not be realistic in terms of roleplaying but it's allowed by the rules. In the same way if a character playing a Rogue wants to multiclass being a Fighter. I would not allow a the player to suddenly get a suit of full plate. I would allow him to get it eventually. no one going to multiclass if every instance is penalized simply because one can't roleplay it imo.
HOWEVER. If my character is level 2, and tells me they are 'seeking out a person who wields a gun' so that they can 'learn from him'... and then they want to take a level in gunslinger. That is fine, that is roleplaying.... Maybe they never find him and have to keep looking... But just saying BOOM I'm a wizard, behold my glory... where did my spellbook come from? Oh IDK, LOLZ I'm a wizard now.
You don't seem to understand my point in that section of the post... I'm not asking for much. For your Rogue to Fighter example... If there is a fighter in the group, or even a ranger, or /SOMEONE/ the captain of the guard of the main town... the barbarian bandit that they befriended... Have the rogue talk to them about, "What is it like to swing around such a massive weapon?" "How do you survive combat when you are being hit that much?"
Have the character Act like a person... People have to learn things. I just think that people should roleplay at least an interest in something before they are bestowed powers from the rulebook...
First off, neither of these things are actually going to happen because they're both terrible ideas and are a net negative for the character.
Secondly, any optimizer worth his/her salt is going to have the build planned out far enough ahead that they will know if they intend to multiclass. If they know that you expect them to justify every aspect of their character (which, as a GM who is not going by rules as written, YOU are obligated to tell them before hand) then they will have an explanation prepared.
Arachnofiend,
First reply,
Roleplay trumps character building... I had a barbarian gain an interest in wizardry, and he became quite a good wizard, he could not cast above second level spells and could benchpress any other wizard, but the roleplay of the situation was wonderful. People who are dedicated to Roleplaying sometimes don't really care if it makes their character slightly weaker in the long run...Second reply,
This is an RPG, not a character optimizer generator. Fine, if you want to multiclass as a bard/thaumaturgist/cleric/stewardess, I will not stop you. IF YOU ROLE-PLAY IT. I require you to practice for what you want. I don't care if the rulebook states "It is assumed that you practice all necessary interest, skills, fashion sense, abilities, stereotypes, and studies offscreen" I want you, as a player, To SHOW ME.If you are a rogue who is studying magic to become a wizard to become a shadowdancer, that is fine by me... throw in a two sentance snippet like "while the others are preparing for bed I draw out the tiny spellbook that I have stolen off of the fallen mage, and begin to study. One day the magics of the world will be at my beck and call." and BAM, I as a DM know that your next level will be something magical, and it would not be coming out of the blue to go BAM! I am a wizard now!
If it doesn't bother the person playing the character it shouldn't bother you. The character is theirs not yours. You can make the whole rest of the campaign fit your sensibilities if you so choose. Their character has always been a Bard/Paladin/Gunslinger/Wizard, they just didn't have the levels to build that until they gain them.
|
|
Frankly, if you're not willing to either make a character who will easily fit in or come up with reasons why your character does fit into the campaign, I question your interest in the campaign. You may want to play Pathfinder, but not have thought at all beyond that to the specifics of the proposed game.
I will if possible try to make a character fit in a DM campaign. Sometimes give a reasons why he would fit or the choices I made. And sometimes I don't. It all depends on the class and the campaign. Sometimes if I'm playing a melee class. Sometimes all I want to do is travel, acquire wealth and crack a few skulls. I may use that to expand on a background. Or I may not. It's not easy to come up with backgrounds imo. Not only that depending on the DM. It can be from a paragraph or two to a a mandatory five page+ backstory. Again sometimes I'm in the mood to write a extensive background sometimes I'm not. I try to work with a DM but if I can and he or she insists on a long essay I may or may not walk from the game.
Like playing Skull and Shackles with a character who's got no interest in pirating. What are you doing there?
That kind of player behavior has not happened to me very often. But even I would not work to hard to incorporate such a player. A few months back I dropped a player who was pretty much the defination of a "lump" playstyle from the GMG. He loved playing Palladium rpgs and when it came to those rpgs he would come up with the best backgrounds. Any other rpgs he was lazy as heck. Simply stating "make me a character". No input or help. After a certain point I had enough.
That being said I do wish posters would stop using such extreme examples. Really how often does a player join a pirate themed campaign with the intention of not playing a pirate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why can't the GM just work something in when it happens, since evidently their the only one that's bothered by it?
Anzyr, are you a GM? A GM works to make a cohesive world which has at least a dozen hidden parts under the surface, that is the GM's Job. The players job is not to play, counterintuitively, it is to create a Character, whom the player controls.
Why is it my responsibility to bend backwards to allow character to do something this character would have no way of doing with what they have shown me in an RPG?
|
|
Why can't you roleplay it? Or at least give the GM some indication so he can work something in?
How is a wizard without a spellbook going to roleplay being one. Without a spellbook. Once he cast his spells. He can't re-learn them without spending a hour with a spellbook. Now it's different if a multiclassed Sorcerer. Some class choices can be roleplayed easily. Some not so much. All a Wizard can do is cast spells when he needs to. While fun roleplaying at first not so much because once all the spells cast. Your reduced to firing a ranged weapon or nothing at all. Or at most a skill resource.
|
Contributor
|
Did... did you just compare one person's "I don't feel like it" with what sounds like a severe disability on the part of your wife? That seems... excessive.
Have you considered that thejeff might make an exception for someone whose circumstances are more extreme than "can't be bothered"? The way you're using her condition to attack someone in an Internet argument about roleplaying games is deeply uncomfortable to read.
I would appreciate it if you would reconsider your line of attack. :(
If she doesn't want to come up with a creative reason for having a character that doesn't easily fit the campaign premise, she could play a more traditional character who does. It doesn't sound like she'd care much.It would appear that the answer to your consideration is an absolute no.
:(
Well, I hope he would reconsider too, if the situation arose. I actually started my Carrion Crown campaign for almost exactly this reason. My mother wanted to play in a campaign, and a friend's mother had just gone through an ugly divorce. I had just read the first book and was really excited. Only one of the players knew thing one about Golarion, so I helped them every step of the way. Their characters have come a long way.
My mother in particular is who I thought of when I read that description. She constantly asks things like "what do I roll?", even at level 14. And she really wanted a magic-user. We're building her a Kineticist next time (she's a big fan of Avatar).
What thread am I in again?
I try not to tell the players their business too much. During creation, I work with them to make their concept work both creatively and mechanically. The other mother I mentioned wanted to play a charm-heavy cleric of Shelyn (in Carrion Crown). However, based on her stated personality, knowledge of the campaign, and various other factors, I recommended a cleric of Desna instead. What we ended up with was a (now butterfly-winged) aasimar cleric who curses people, channels whimsically, and leaves butterfly graffiti behind in towns she visits. She came up with all of that. (Describing them makes my campaigns sound really girly...) My mother couldn't come up with much beyond "elf, magic", so I created a backstory (unknown to her character) about her being an activated (but blank) clone of a powerful elf witch and exiled princess who rose to lichdom (and who they are now fighting).
The GM in my Crimson Throne campaign, on the other hand, is the stereotype many of the posters here describe. He runs the Path in his homebrew world, so a bunch of stuff works differently. He'll tell you to your face, "Your character wouldn't do that", and runs the kind of world where everyone hates you but you're expected to save them anyway. Where good characters are expected to let evil villains go because "the society is OK with it and the gods all have alliances so they're OK with it too". He also has a deep hatred of any PC he considers too much of a "special snowflake" and expects everyone to be an average commoner who rises to mediocrity. And he runs the kind of foes who always make their saves and always have the right counter.* We're playing it out because we've put up with it for this long. :/
*(As an aside to this, while I'm not above a little fudging to up the excitement on very limited occasions, I've started rolling saves against save-or-die effects out in the open, and it's really been exciting for everyone. I highly recommend at least trying it).
Anyway, that's where I'm coming from on all this. :) Please be nice, everyone.
|
|
You don't seem to understand my point in that section of the post... I'm not asking for much. For your Rogue to Fighter example... If there is a fighter in the group, or even a ranger, or /SOMEONE/ the captain of the guard of the main town... the barbarian bandit that they befriended... Have the rogue talk to them about, "What is it like to swing around such a massive weapon?" "How do you survive combat when you are being hit that much?"
Understood. I do expect some of the above to happen. One also has to be careful how long one drags out such roleplaying. If I multiclass into a Wizard and roleplay it. I expect to get a spellbook within 3-5 game session. Or simply ask if I could just be a single classed character. There is a fine line between roleplaying and feeling useless at the table. If I multiclassed into a fighter while being a Rogue. Without better armor I'm not going to charge into combat. While roleplaying is all well and good I don't play sucidal characters fro any DM.
Have the character Act like a person... People have to learn things. I just think that people should roleplay at least an interest in something before they are bestowed powers from the rulebook...
While I agree it also depends on the players at the table. If they have a interest in doing that kind of roleplaying I work with them to achieve it. If not I can;t very well force the players to do so. It's a bit of give and take on both parties imo.
How is a wizard without a spellbook going to roleplay being one. Without a spellbook. Once he cast his spells. He can't re-learn them without spending a hour with a spellbook. Now it's different if a multiclassed Sorcerer. Some class choices can be roleplayed easily. Some not so much. All a Wizard can do is cast spells when he needs to. While fun roleplaying at first not so much because once all the spells cast. Your reduced to firing a ranged weapon or nothing at all. Or at most a skill resource.
Why can't you roleplay it? Or at least give the GM some indication so he can work something in?
A wizard without a spellbook is not that bad. roleplaying is roleplaying... Your wizard who is so prideful and powerful and rubbing it in that the others are so far beneath him loses his spellbook... Maybe he will learn some humility... Maybe he will be constantly angry... maybe he accuses everyone of stealing it...
THIS IS ROLEPLAYING! Have your character grow organically rather than pouting because you cannot throw your customary 6d6 fireball every round.