i guess that also means the 3.5 is videogamey, since some like the sorceror could do that very same "learn then forget", ie: he could cast fireball one day, then when he levels up he forgets it.
then again, nothing in 4th ed forced you to swap out your powers. remember that one of the most borked wizard builds in 4th ed history, the classic orbizard, used the first level "Sleep" to great effect at high levels, where you probably would have normally traded out your 1st level dailies.
I hated that Sorcerers could swap out their powers. I hated when D&D online allowed it. So I'm consistent in my dislike of losing low level powers.
Never hold 3.5e or Pathfinder up as perfect games.
I hated that Sorcerers could swap out their powers. I hated when D&D online allowed it. So I'm consistent in my dislike of losing low level powers.
Never hold 3.5e or Pathfinder up as perfect games.
Yeah, because it's better to punish a player for a bad choice over his entire career ... and I'm sure that getting stuck those spells that have Hit Dice caps on what they can affect, like Sleep and Color Spray, remain useful after about 5th level.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
trust me, i wouldn't touch 3.5 or pathfinder with a 10ft pole. those games do nothing for me but setup a precedence of "you could swap out abilities".
more then a few games outside D&D allow characters to retrain things once the initial choice has been done. sometimes it doesn't work as intended and sometimes a player or character's preferences change.
for the most part, the swapping of powers could often be seen as thematic... there are usually "better" versions of the previous tier's powers, or it can be seen as a character revising their combat style or simply trying to focus on something different.
"All right, I've been thinking. When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back. GET MAD! I DON'T WANT YOUR **** LEMONS! WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO WITH THESE?! DEMAND TO SEE LIFE'S MANAGER! Make life RUE the day it thought it could give CAVE JOHNSON LEMONS! DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?! I'M THE MAN WHO'S GONNA BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN! WITH THE LEMONS! I'm gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that's gonna BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN!" -Cave Johnson, Portal 2
I hated that Sorcerers could swap out their powers. I hated when D&D online allowed it. So I'm consistent in my dislike of losing low level powers.
Never hold 3.5e or Pathfinder up as perfect games.
Yeah, because it's better to punish a player for a bad choice over his entire career ... and I'm sure that getting stuck those spells that have Hit Dice caps on what they can affect, like Sleep and Color Spray, remain useful after about 5th level.
I'm against it as a standard rule. If a DM felt that he was dealing with a person totally new to the game he could use rule 0. One of the disadvantages of being a sorcerer is having to decide on spells at low level based on short term verses long term usefulness.
And thus the villain faction, "Knights of Purity" were born! Yes, they were bad metaplot to erase certain creatures and characters from my games. Dark days, my friends, dark days. Yes it was an excuse to banish content I didn't like to the depths of the demiplane of nihil... It kinda worked with my new crew and they bought it within Suspension of Disbelief... At least now, I ask for reflavoring so it's something else that fits into my mad creation, without wandering away from the player's choice too much.
The Knights of Genetic Purity from Gamma World were kick ass.
As for excluding things, it can add flavour and nuance to a campaign setting, like the no divine action in Dark Sun; you could have a campaign that excludes all things Fey or what have you, fine, as long as the players know what their options are going in.
And thus the villain faction, "Knights of Purity" were born! Yes, they were bad metaplot to erase certain creatures and characters from my games. Dark days, my friends, dark days. Yes it was an excuse to banish content I didn't like to the depths of the demiplane of nihil... It kinda worked with my new crew and they bought it within Suspension of Disbelief... At least now, I ask for reflavoring so it's something else that fits into my mad creation, without wandering away from the player's choice too much.
The Knights of Genetic Purity from Gamma World were kick ass.
As for excluding things, it can add flavour and nuance to a campaign setting, like the no divine action in Dark Sun; you could have a campaign that excludes all things Fey or what have you, fine, as long as the players know what their options are going in.
I didn't know about the KoGP back then. I found out about them after doing some research after 7th version Gamma World came out. And yes, they are kick ass.
As for kicking out things, even if I do that now, I provide tons of alternatives to make up for it. For example, in a post-apocalyptic Cthulhu-esque game, I only permitted starlocks (or "Star Cultist") for warlock (and other lock classes) and refluffed the swordmage and bladesinger into a magical "Star Cultist" hunting/slaying group. Other Warlocks required refluffing as a separate entity (which ended up in a Sorcerer from a totalitarian dystopia being sent off with the team in hopes of stopping the Cultists. Seeing as he was a SK-Pact, it wasn't that much change.) plus Minotaur, Aasimors (from a bit of homebrew dabbling), Kobolds & Goblins (Pre-Into the Unknown versions), Changelings, Tieflings, and Genasi weren't just allowed, they were encouraged as common creatures loaming the lands and close cosmos.
Disgruntled ghost of the Knights of W.T.F. (Keep D&D alive, end the edition wars!)
"And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Disclaimer: Most of my posts are based on opinions (and are sometimes humorous, other times inspirational)
And thus the villain faction, "Knights of Purity" were born! Yes, they were bad metaplot to erase certain creatures and characters from my games. Dark days, my friends, dark days. Yes it was an excuse to banish content I didn't like to the depths of the demiplane of nihil... It kinda worked with my new crew and they bought it within Suspension of Disbelief... At least now, I ask for reflavoring so it's something else that fits into my mad creation, without wandering away from the player's choice too much.
The Knights of Genetic Purity from Gamma World were kick ass.
As for excluding things, it can add flavour and nuance to a campaign setting, like the no divine action in Dark Sun; you could have a campaign that excludes all things Fey or what have you, fine, as long as the players know what their options are going in.
I didn't know about the KoGP back then. I found out about them after doing some research after 7th version Gamma World came out. And yes, they are kick ass.
As for kicking out things, even if I do that now, I provide tons of alternatives to make up for it. For example, in a post-apocalyptic Cthulhu-esque game, I only permitted starlocks (or "Star Cultist") for warlock (and other lock classes) and refluffed the swordmage and bladesinger into a magical "Star Cultist" hunting/slaying group. Other Warlocks required refluffing as a separate entity (which ended up in a Sorcerer from a totalitarian dystopia being sent off with the team in hopes of stopping the Cultists. Seeing as he was a SK-Pact, it wasn't that much change.) plus Minotaur, Aasimors (from a bit of homebrew dabbling), Changelings, Tieflings, and Genasi weren't just allowed, they were encouraged as common creatures loaming the lands and close cosmos.
Right on, and in my Planescape/Sigil campaign, pretty much anything goes.
And thus the villain faction, "Knights of Purity" were born! Yes, they were bad metaplot to erase certain creatures and characters from my games. Dark days, my friends, dark days. Yes it was an excuse to banish content I didn't like to the depths of the demiplane of nihil... It kinda worked with my new crew and they bought it within Suspension of Disbelief... At least now, I ask for reflavoring so it's something else that fits into my mad creation, without wandering away from the player's choice too much.
The Knights of Genetic Purity from Gamma World were kick ass.
As for excluding things, it can add flavour and nuance to a campaign setting, like the no divine action in Dark Sun; you could have a campaign that excludes all things Fey or what have you, fine, as long as the players know what their options are going in.
I didn't know about the KoGP back then. I found out about them after doing some research after 7th version Gamma World came out. And yes, they are kick ass.
As for kicking out things, even if I do that now, I provide tons of alternatives to make up for it. For example, in a post-apocalyptic Cthulhu-esque game, I only permitted starlocks (or "Star Cultist") for warlock (and other lock classes) and refluffed the swordmage and bladesinger into a magical "Star Cultist" hunting/slaying group. Other Warlocks required refluffing as a separate entity (which ended up in a Sorcerer from a totalitarian dystopia being sent off with the team in hopes of stopping the Cultists. Seeing as he was a SK-Pact, it wasn't that much change.) plus Minotaur, Aasimors (from a bit of homebrew dabbling), Changelings, Tieflings, and Genasi weren't just allowed, they were encouraged as common creatures loaming the lands and close cosmos.
Right on, and in my Planescape/Sigil campaign, pretty much anything goes.
Well, Planescape is the multiverse and everything in between (including connection to other settings)
Disgruntled ghost of the Knights of W.T.F. (Keep D&D alive, end the edition wars!)
"And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Disclaimer: Most of my posts are based on opinions (and are sometimes humorous, other times inspirational)
To play the gadfly for a moment. What if he wanted was specifically to play a gnome. Not some aspect of the gnome, but the gnome?
Not possible in human psychology. He may want multiple aspects of the gnome; if he really loves gnomes, he may even want every single aspect of the gnome. But no matter what, there's some combonation of elements of gnomishness that he likes more than others.
Of course it's possible. Wanting the entire package, including the look, the cultural aspects of the race, etc means that you want to play a gnome, specifically.
Not an eladrin or a halfling or something with similar mechanics, but the naturally magical small folk with inquisitive minds and whatever other things make gnomes what they are to that person, in combination.
Anyway, there's a very important point where I think that you think something about the opposing style which isn't true.
"I oppose the idea that a player can overrule the DM on world-building. "
This isn't a thing. At all.
DM "The small kingdom to the south is ruled by harpies, but the majority of the population is minotaurs. [stuff about ecology and politics, etc]
Players "No. No harpy/mino kingdom. That idea blows."
The above does not happen.
A long discussion amongst all members of the group that enjoy such things about various kingdoms and creatures and cultures and other elements from which the DM eventually puts together and codifies the setting, however, is a common thing in Say Yes groups. And in Say Yes groups, the DM is still the person in charge of that process. You still get "that really doesn't make sense with those elements that have been set in stone." or similar, and the group moves on, possibly adapting the idea into something that does work, or abandoning it.
This is inconsistent with your previous statements on the subject.
If the DM is a Prime Minister, he can be overruled. Whether by one player or by all the players acting together is the same to me. In my PoV, the DM cannot be overruled, period, under any circumstances. He can be convinced; he can be reasoned with; but he cannot be overruled.
What you describe in this post is not the same thing you (and others) have described in previous posts.
No, it is not. A player cannot overrule the DM on things within the DM's grant of authority. The DM cannot overrule the player on things within the player's grant of authority. Both grants of authority are entirely at the sufference of the group as a whole. Every individual at the table can be overruled by the group. The less the individual has control over, the more discretion should be used in the use of that veto power, however.
Final decisions on PCs should be the exclusive power of the player of that character, however, and final decisions concerning the building and actions of NPCs should be the exclusive power of the DM, unless the controlling party grants access to their authoritative domain to someone else, such as a player asking for help building a character, or for tactical guidance, or the DM letting a player provide direct input or even decide traits of a backstory NPC.
At no time can a single player overrule the DM about anything outside their character. At no time can the DM overrule a player concerning their character. If the two come into conflict, a discussion occurs, and either the DM just makes a call as ref/PM, or the group decides as a whole.
For me, my group, and many others out there, the DM is not god, nor king. End of discussion. For you, he is. End of discussion.
Cerilia has a few areas that are not perfectly explored. However, the reason they have not been explored is because they are effectively impossible to reach.
Further, I don't ascribe to the theory that PCs are automatically special just by virtue of being PCs. PCs aren't heroes because they're PCs. They're PCs because they're heroes. A subtle distinction, but one that means if there is one in a trillion chance of a single gnome showing up through some sort of interplanar travel, I'm still not allowing it as a PC choice.
I suppose you're also unwilling to deviate from established canon?
If that's the case, then for you it's impossible, because adding something that hasn't been mentioned one way or the other is technically a deviation from canon. Otherwise, gnomes could be added. It doesn't require planar travel, or "a wizard did it" or anything of the sort. It requires nothing more than imagining for a moment that there could be groups of people who have had no impact meaningful on the history of the setting, with the possibility of that changing in the current age. Like I said, trivial.
Basically, the characters are divine-blooded rulers of a domain with a mystical link to the land. Having a powerful neighboring ruler build within their domain infringes on their character in the same way that a powerful wizard casting a spell on them does. It is something that, were it done in-play, dice would have determined. (Though in this case, he would have succeeded regardless of what the PCs did, so I just saved them the resources they would have fought back with.)
Dice would also have determined whether or not my half elf bard who spent most of his life in Waterdeep or travelling as a Bard could accidentally end up in the Feywild with his Eladrin father and make it out in one piece, having gained an insight into the nature of both song and magic that awoke a spark in him that fuels his bardic magic, and having loved and lost an Eladrin noble's daughter in the Summer Queen's court.
But because it was part of my character's backstory, there now exists in that campaign's FR Feywild an Eladrin noble's daughter who fondly remembers the name Willem Thigair, and the possibility of Willem and his father being remembered in the Summer Queen's court. (we decided that we like the general feywild stuff more than the FR feywild stuff, so in our FR campaigns, that's how it is.)
The only difference is, you would, I imagine, tell me know on some aspects of that, because it creates circumstances within the game world. And while you personally might not say on on principle, even if it has no effect on what you've written/what you've got planned, others of the autocratic bent would.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
To me videogamey means that the system encourages players to forego the benefits of the versatility and imagination of real human beings.
I.e. if a system provides you with a limited set of powers, players will spam them for efficiency instead of thinking "What would a hero have done in this situation".
facepalm.jpg
I mean sure, every wizard ever did only this in every priod edition. They're all totally videogamey. What a videogamey RPG gygax created, pah! Not a true roleplayer, hah!
[/snark]
Wizards werent limited... If you had found enough spells you theoretically could have memorized a different set each day. With sorcerers there is an argument for spellspamming, but many spells were versatile enough to allow different usages based on player imagination.
PS I love the snark, it makes you seem nicer, you should consider using it in public as well.
Every time you abuse the system you enforce limitations. Every time the system is limited we lose options. Breaking an RPG is like cheating in a computer game. As a DM you are the punkbuster of your table. Dare to say no to abusers. Make players build characters, not characters out of builds.
