Lesser of two evils. One presents a scenario where the player in question decides if he is going to play by your rules or if he is going to go somewhere else, while the other option kicks him out of the game.One presents a scenario where the group becomes toxic, and the other excises the toxic elements from the group instead of letting them fester.
Yes, but one is, "We don't have enough to really play (most players don't want to just play with two players and 1 GM) so the group effectively becomes: "Hey, why don't we go play Tera, instead?" The other allows the group to exist, and more than likely the moment someone else joins, our jolly little troublemaker is going to be kicked out of the group ASAP.
It is to play or not to play (vomits Shakespeare). If the other players really REALLY want to play pathfinder, but want at least three players, I'll work with them to make it happen. The moment I can cull the jerk(s), I will with a vengeance.
That isn't following the rules then. The point is this, there is no reason the cohort wouldn't do whatever the PC asked him to do. He idolizes and fully supports the PC's goals. To this end he'd more or less do anything the PC asked him to do so long as he can see and understand why he is doing things. If a PC tells him to do something that would cause undue or pointless suffering on the cohort he is likely to refuse.
I'm not sure how that doesn't follow the rules when the rule is left up to the GM:
Controlling Companions
How a companion works depends on the campaign as well as the companion's nature, intelligence, and abilities. In some cases, the rules do not specify whether you or the GM controls the companion. If you're entirely in control, the companion acts like a subsidiary PC, doing exactly what you want just like a true PC. If the GM is control, you can make suggestions or attempt to influence the companion, but the GM determines whether the creature is willing or able to attempt what you want.
In my games, I have decided that I control them. Now, if the PC gains a beast or monster cohort, that might be a different story.
However, in the rare chance that my games do not have 6+ people wanting in (I run them at colleges and game stores, there are usually tons of people wanting in), but instead are struggling to get even three players I have to be nicer about it. I remind the person three times that the feature is on the ban list, and then I just kill the person's character over and over until he or she gets it.
So somebody talks to you before the game and says that they want to play with Feat X. You tell them no. They say that they then aren't interested in playing. You say ok, Feat X is in. Then you fudge the game behind the scenes to destroy their character as much as possible?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, but one is, "We don't have enough to really play (most players don't want to just play with two players and 1 GM) so the group effectively becomes: "Hey, why don't we go play Tera, instead?" The other allows the group to exist, and more than likely the moment someone else joins, our jolly little troublemaker is going to be kicked out of the group ASAP.
It is to play or not to play (vomits Shakespeare). If the other players really REALLY want to play pathfinder, but want at least three players, I'll work with them to make it happen. The moment I can cull the jerk(s), I will with a vengeance.
You've added additional constraints about the size of the group to make your argument better. And even then, no gaming is better than s+#~ty gaming.
Well, I can at least play partial devil's advocate for Taku Ooka Nin, because I recall exactly how my college games went:
GM: "OK. x is banned."
Player: "OK. No problemo."
---
GM: "I don't understand. I told you x was banned, but you took it anyway."
Player: "Oh, sorry about that. Should I fix it now?"
GM: "No. Everyone else is here. Let's just run the game for now, but please have it fixed for next session. I don't want to waste everyone else's time."
---
There's a reason I won't allow people to show up at my table without PCs I've pre-vetted.
And the absolute *worst* is attempts to compromise.
I still remember our Runequest games:
---
GM: "OK, by the rules, all creatures of 3d6 or greater Intelligence are playable. Just keep in mind that if you're non-human, you're going to face major issues, as this is a very xenophobic, primitive world."
Player: "So I can play anything, even a griffon?"
GM: "Yes, technically you could play a griffon. But keep in mind what that would be like. You couldn't have any gear. If you tried to enter a town you would be shot on sight. In any human-sized ruins you wouldn't be able to enter. If you do that, you're going to spend a lot of time just sitting at the table while the other players go into town or into dungeons. I'm not going to out-and-out ban it, but I'd strongly recommend against it."
Player: "Ooooh! I'm going to play a griffon!"
GM: "OK. Just keep in mind that most humans will shoot you on sight, so start thinking about just how you're going to manage to join the party without getting killed.
Player: "No problem! I can roleplay that!"
----
GM: "OK, you're all travelers who have come to this town for . Player, where would you like to be, and what do you want to be doing?"
Player: "Oh, this is easy! I fly over the town, slowly circle it three times, and then land in the middle of town square."
GM: "..."
----
She never forgave me for having the town guard fill her full of crossbow bolts, but there's only so much you can do for a player utterly determined to ignore everything you say.
I honestly thought she was going to be a good enough player/roleplayer to try to make it work. Instead, she totally ignored everything I said and dared me to kill her.
Sometimes, it just works out that way...
On the other hand, as I've mentioned, the best PC I've ever run for was a drow paladin who took immense pains to disguise herself whenever she went into dwarven or elven territory, and accepted all the random attacks as part of her character. Depends on how the player chooses to interact with the GM: Cooperation or conflict.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I can at least play partial devil's advocate for Taku Ooka Nin, because I recall exactly how my college games went:
GM: "OK. x is banned."
Player: "OK. No problemo."
---
GM: "I don't understand. I told you x was banned, but you took it anyway."
Player: "Oh, sorry about that. Should I fix it now?"
GM: "No. Everyone else is here. Let's just run the game for now, but please have it fixed for next session. I don't want to waste everyone else's time."
---
I'm with you so far. Now, how about the part where the GM says "On second thought, X is allowed (but I'll secretly hate you forever)"?
At the end of the day, if the player refuses, but I don't want to lose the player, I abuse the feature the player refuses to lose until everyone at the table agrees that it is bullcrap. At this point the player either cedes the point under the pressure of the GM and the other players or I target the PC for assassination. One way or another, the feature is not going to be used sooner or later.
If the PCs refuse the hard ban, then anyone who chooses something from the ban list is targeted for assassination. They have a permanent AOE (unlimited range) taunt that is always on.
The point is: if your GM says, "Don't use this," then you shouldn't use it. Full stop.
Yeah, we had a DM who did this. We hated it.
You cant solve a OOC issue IC. Killing the PC for the Players issues is a Bad Idea.
Just say NO!. Dont be passive-aggressive.
If the GM says, "I don't want this in my game, so I'm banning it. Here's a free character rebuild", and the player says, "Screw yourself, I'm using it or I'm not playing," and the GM needs the player then congratulations: the PC's character is targeted for death.
It isn't passive aggressive if the other option is kicking the player squarely in the ass out your front door.
Nope, that's what you need to do. Say "Bye- thanks for playing! "
How would you even take half the special abilities of pit fiend?
You can reduce the power of monsters using a section of the bestiary:
The rules for increasing a creature’s Hit Dice can be used to reduce them as well, creating a weak or infant version of the
creature. While the process is the same as for increasing a
creature’s Hit Dice, each individual step is reversed, with the
creature taking a reduction in Hit Dice, hit points, and other
statistics based on these values. When using Table 2–1, use
the Lower CR column when adding up the average reductions
to its statistics. As a general rule, if a creature loses 50% of its
original Hit Dice, it should probably reduce in size as well.
However, in the rare chance that my games do not have 6+ people wanting in (I run them at colleges and game stores, there are usually tons of people wanting in), but instead are struggling to get even three players I have to be nicer about it. I remind the person three times that the feature is on the ban list, and then I just kill the person's character over and over until he or she gets it.So somebody talks to you before the game and says that they want to play with Feat X. You tell them no. They say that they then aren't interested in playing. You say ok, Feat X is in. Then you fudge the game behind the scenes to destroy their character as much as possible?
Incorrect. It is quite simple: 3 strikes and you're out.
I say, "these features are banned," and then the player shows up with these features. I tell him,(Strike 1) "Yo, didn't you hear me? Maybe you forgot. You can't use these features, I'll let you use it for this session only in good faith that you didn't understand me or this wasn't clear enough, but after that it is not allowed in any way shape or form."
Strike 2 is another reminder, and from this point on the banned features do not work in any way shape or form.
Strike 3 is GTFO, unless I absolutely need you in order for the other Players to want play. At which point I murder your characters until you stop using stuff on the ban list. The features still do not work in any way shape or form.
Simple. The moment you comply, and quit being an asshat, is the moment I stop targeting you. The features are not working either way.
The primary problem here is that some people will try to sneak things under the radar that are not active effects. Thereby gaining some sort of illegal advantage due to the feature being in the ban list. It is incredibly simple.
As I said, I don't usually have to deal with this crap at my games. Someone shows up, they get warned twice and kicked. If they apologize then they get another chance, if they get another warning they're out permanently at all of my games. I have a blacklist of names I keep on my comp. So far there are 8 people on it, and from what I'm told by other GMs in my area: they wish they had never let these people into their game to begin with.
Don't get me wrong, ban list material is open to debate before and after games (if you help me pack up and maybe over coffee), but you're quite unlikely to win me over. The only reason I decided to unban Guns and the Gunslinger class was because I realized they were not that bad overall.