Eur512
 member, 838 posts
Tue 8 Dec 2020
at 03:35
Re: All Options Allowed
Rogue Leader:
That doesn't mean I'm obliged to allow page 358 of The Wankdoodle Guide to Slaphappy just because WotC floated it on DM's Guild.


I don't know, there's some good stuff in there, but yes, Wall of Psychic Salmon is overpowered to the point of being unbalancing.
NowhereMan
 member, 403 posts
Tue 8 Dec 2020
at 03:48
Re: All Options Allowed
quote:
Wall of Psychic Salmon is overpowered to the point of being unbalancing.


What're you talking about? Okay, yeah, it's pretty good under certain circumstances, but can you really say it's any more powerful than Wail of the Hungry Hippo, which I might add is a full spell level lower than WPS??
JxJxA
 member, 226 posts
Tue 8 Dec 2020
at 03:59
Re: All Options Allowed
People have different visions, and that's okay. What I allow when running the game depends on my comfortability with the system, my vision of the game world, and the medium I'm running on.

If the game you want to play isn't out there, be the change you want to see and run it. Odds are you'll find a player who is happy to pay the good deed forward.
Sir Swindle
 member, 273 posts
Tue 8 Dec 2020
at 04:00
Re: All Options Allowed
So in all seriousness the PrC in BoeF that let you take stat damage to power meta magic is pretty solid.
Rogue Leader
 member, 17 posts
 Standing by.
Tue 8 Dec 2020
at 16:32
Re: All Options Allowed
quote:
Wall of Psychic Salmon


quote:
Wail of the Hungry Hippo


That fact that neither of you mention the Brown Note 4th level Bard Feature (NO SAVING THROW if target CON is less than 12?) goes to show how much this thing was in need of an editor.

This message was last edited by the user at 17:45, Tue 08 Dec 2020.

Sith_Happens
 member, 42 posts
Wed 9 Dec 2020
at 03:07
Re: All Options Allowed
Is this thread about D&D 3.5? Because this thread sounds a lot like itís about D&D 3.5, and the least balanced book in D&D 3.5 is the Playerís Handbook 1. None of the rest even come close.
Ezri
 member, 346 posts
Wed 9 Dec 2020
at 03:15
Re: All Options Allowed
I think D&D 3.5 is where the issue is more prevalent/obvious - and where it seems the discussion has devolved to - however it is applicable to almost any game system with more than one book. Though it could still apply to rule systems that only have one book, with a GM not using/permitting a chapter, mechanic, race, etc.
engine
 member, 810 posts
 There's a brain alright
 but it's made out of meat
Wed 9 Dec 2020
at 15:43
Re: All Options Allowed
In reply to Sith_Happens (msg # 33):

In message 18, the issue seems to be about being allowed to use poor options. Now, from what I remember, the 3.5 PHB contained a lot of what many considered to be "poor" options, some of which were core classes and races that were, perplexing, presented as being on equal footing with all the others. But I don't recall ever hearing of GMs who didn't allow such options. The focus as I've seen it has always been on limiting stronger options.

In my response to message 18 I asked what this thread is really about, but I didn't see an answer.
steelsmiter
 member, 2117 posts
 BESM, Fate, Indies, PBTA
 NO FREEFORM! NO d20!
Wed 9 Dec 2020
at 16:42
Re: All Options Allowed
Ezri:
I think D&D 3.5 is where the issue is more prevalent/obvious - and where it seems the discussion has devolved to - however it is applicable to almost any game system with more than one book. Though it could still apply to rule systems that only have one book, with a GM not using/permitting a chapter, mechanic, race, etc.

I wrote 2 books and a little pamphlet for one of the systems I wrote, and it's actually applicable within the first book so having secondary and tertiary sources isn't the only factor.
evileeyore
 member, 425 posts
 GURPS GM and Player
 Joined August 2015
Wed 9 Dec 2020
at 18:25
Re: All Options Allowed
steelsmiter:
I wrote 2 books and a little pamphlet for one of the systems I wrote, and it's actually applicable within the first book so having secondary and tertiary sources isn't the only factor.

Exactly.  A little more 'famously' (or infamously) GURPS is well known for having a stupid number of options, rules that are presented for the GM to use or not in their games as they wish, within the Core rules.  Likewise GURPS is stupidly easy to build an absolutely unbalanced (under/over powered) Character in without even trying so it's almost mandatory that GMs be firm in guiding Players during chargen.

As much as I love GURPS, it is not a 'starting player' friendly system (not without the GM or a book author doing a lot of up front work).
NowhereMan
 member, 405 posts
Wed 9 Dec 2020
at 20:06
Re: All Options Allowed
That's going to be true of any generic system, as they're not intended to be used with all possible options. However, it certainly is true of D&D and similar as well, depending on setting. Not every d20 modern game, for instance, is going to allow spellcasters, even though they're in the core rulebook.
Draegnoth
 member, 26 posts
 Been playing for 25 years
 Can fill any role
Thu 10 Dec 2020
at 14:13
Re: All Options Allowed
In reply to engine (msg # 25):

Oh nothing specific. I was just thinking about after looking at several games on here. They all had various things they ban or restrict. One specifically wanted someone who was good with traps/disabling devices then went on to ban the class and race that would be best suited to doing so in their campaign. It was like they were demanding someone play the character THEY wanted them to play. That's not how this works. Or you continue to play without said trap springer.

Other examples are to ban certain books, psionics entirely (that one is surprisingly common), and the use of certain items.

By all means if you want to play a certain way then go for it. There are all kinds of groups and each player has different motivations.

I've always looked at the GM as a storyteller though. Even when its me. Its not up to me to decide what is fun and what is bad wrong fun. I craft the story and let the players run with it. Unfortunately every time I have tried to DM irl the party was composed of idiots who blundered forth like they were invincible just because they were the players in the story. I laughed and changed nothing. I simply watched as they tpk'd. Sometimes to obvious traps, sometimes to monsters they were warned were beyond their power level, sometimes by NPCs.

Point is if you wanna play Pun Pun in my game then go for it. I'll make a challenge appropriate for your lizardy behind.
Sir Swindle
 member, 274 posts
Thu 10 Dec 2020
at 15:12
Re: All Options Allowed
The ban on psionics is always infuriating "oh regular magic just slightly more balanced and easier for players to understand? A system that would have been implemented as the core magic system had Gygax not read a single book no one else ever has? Ya, I don't like it because crystals and stuff." that's what y'all sound like.
engine
 member, 811 posts
 There's a brain alright
 but it's made out of meat
Thu 10 Dec 2020
at 15:44
Re: All Options Allowed
Draegnoth:
Or you continue to play without said trap springer.

Or someone else comes along with a character more in line with a group's expectations.

Draegnoth:
By all means if you want to play a certain way then go for it. There are all kinds of groups and each player has different motivations.

I've always looked at the GM as a storyteller though. Even when its me. Its not up to me to decide what is fun and what is bad wrong fun. I craft the story and let the players run with it. Unfortunately every time I have tried to DM irl the party was composed of idiots who blundered forth like they were invincible just because they were the players in the story. I laughed and changed nothing. I simply watched as they tpk'd. Sometimes to obvious traps, sometimes to monsters they were warned were beyond their power level, sometimes by NPCs.
I'm no master of internal consistency myself, but it sounds like you're saying that it's not up to you to determine what is fun, but certain people are idiots because of what they thought might be fun.

Draegnoth:
Point is if you wanna play Pun Pun in my game then go for it. I'll make a challenge appropriate for your lizardy behind.
I've had it pointed out to me that not everyone wants a challenge. They make game breaking characters to break the game. That's what's fun for them.

I've never seen anyone say that they decide what is fun for others, so there's nothing groundbreaking there. Literally no one is saying that here, except you sort of are, if I understand your attitude toward the "idiots" in your game. But part of people deciding what's fun for themselves is DMs deciding the kind of game they want, which doesn't always (or even often) include allowing every option. Ideally they're upfront about this, so that the people who join their game are in it because that's the kind of game they enjoy, but clearly not everyone is, and conflicts arise.
Draegnoth
 member, 28 posts
 Been playing for 25 years
 Can fill any role
Thu 10 Dec 2020
at 15:58
Re: All Options Allowed
In reply to engine (msg # 41):

No. I'm not saying they thought running headlong into everything was fun for them and necessary for them to have a good time. They actively got mad when their very poor decisions got them killed. I don't care if you do roll a natural 20 with great bonuses, the dragon is not gonna hand you its hoard. I've literally had that happen. Then they got mad at me because they weren't reasonable. I have played with good groups but they seem to be few and far between.
borderline_dnd
 member, 416 posts
Thu 10 Dec 2020
at 16:13
Re: All Options Allowed
In reply to Draegnoth (msg # 42):

Think we're off-topic.

To answer your original question since you've asked for "advice", find a game where you and the GM are aligned to have the best experience. As a GM, I'm open to discussion but I will have my reasons that I may not disclose fully at the time.

Plot elements and storyline is my thing. My best games when I look back on DnD5e is where I've only allowed the players to use the PHB for character creation. And everything else was GM materials.

Hope this helps you understand the reasoning behind one GM's point of view.
Draegnoth
 member, 29 posts
 Been playing for 25 years
 Can fill any role
Thu 10 Dec 2020
at 16:28
Re: All Options Allowed
You do you man. I wasn't asking for advice. I was seeking justification from others as to why they limit things.

To me all options being allowed makes it more realistic. We don't get to pick how people behave in real life. They can do whatever they want no matter how ill advised. People shouldn't smoke crack and beat their kids but they do. There are consequences but they do. In a game if you pick certain things during character creation then you could be making either a Pun Pun dragon eater or a useless lol character who can't do anything well.

Leaving everything on the table makes the game more real for me. More realistic. That's just me though. I've gotten what I was looking for from this thread and I now leave it to you good people.
evileeyore
 member, 426 posts
 GURPS GM and Player
 Joined August 2015
Thu 10 Dec 2020
at 16:31
Re: All Options Allowed
Draegnoth:
It was like they were demanding someone play the character THEY wanted them to play. That's not how this works.
See, what you're missing is, that's exactly how it works.

You are even doing it yourself.  You want Players that are cautious and properly 'read the wind' and manage every risk, so you TPK your group when they fail to play to the style you think is fun.

You just aren't being upfront about it.  I mean, your group probably knows now, but before...


Draegnoth:
No. I'm not saying they thought running headlong into everything was fun for them and necessary for them to have a good time.
Slow up.  Think about what you just said.

People don't do things "lol because they are idiots".  They do things because, wait for it, it is what they think is the right, fun, or necessary way to do things.

quote:
They actively got mad when their very poor decisions got them killed.
So what I'm reading here is "They got mad when they were punished for trying to have to fun".

Now, it's clear their idea of fun and yours were at odds.  So maybe ease back on the "lol everyone but me are idiots" line and maybe reassess the "but I wanna play the [WHATEVER], but these idiot GMs don't know how to have fun" angle you're grinding.
borderline_dnd
 member, 417 posts
Thu 10 Dec 2020
at 16:58
Re: All Options Allowed
Draegnoth:
You do you man. I wasn't asking for advice. I was seeking justification from others as to why they limit things.


Again, this particular forum is for Game Proposals, Input, and Advice.

As a GM, my justification is the storyline and campaign world. It takes a lot to run my games so my parameters for character creation is to limit my players to the PHB. They know it when I give them the outline of the campaign setting before they start building their characters.

Hope this helps.
tmagann
 member, 681 posts
Thu 10 Dec 2020
at 17:12
Re: All Options Allowed
In reply to Draegnoth (msg # 44):

Actually  leaving everything on the table isn't always that realistic. Sandy deserts don't have snow trained rangers and druids, for instance. On the other hand, there ARE deserts above the snowline. I live in one, currently.

Some things just do not fit. I run a setting based on Earth Myth and Legend. Elves are from Northern and Western Europe. They aren't found in Japan or Africa in myth or legend (t least that I've seen). Dwarves are both more and less restrictive, but the ones found in D&D are Norse based. The oriental based dwarves need heavy rewrites, so I don't deal with them at present.

Halflings aren't even from Myth, they're from Tolkien. I DID manage to find a place for them, but only barely, and they don't get around much.

Sometimes a restriction is about being realistic according to the setting. That makes  ignoring restrictions the very "not realistic" you're complaining about.

There are a LOT of reasons for limitations, from "realism", to a GM (understandably) not creating a game he won't enjoy running, to a GM's lack of applicable reference materials, to just not liking the way most 3rd party materials seem to boost their classes and spells a bit above canon publications.

If there is something specific you want and you're having a problem finding someone to allow it, try a GM Wanted ad.

But your original complaint has been addressed repeatedly, and from multiple directions and reasonings (because there really are many reasons to disallow something). If you don't have your answer now, it's because you don't want to acknowledge (or accept) it.

This message was last edited by the user at 17:13, Thu 10 Dec 2020.

Sir Swindle
 member, 275 posts
Thu 10 Dec 2020
at 18:04
Re: All Options Allowed
tmagann:
Some things just do not fit. I run a setting based on Earth Myth and Legend. Elves are from Northern and Western Europe. They aren't found in Japan or Africa in myth or legend (t least that I've seen). Dwarves are both more and less restrictive, but the ones found in D&D are Norse based. The oriental based dwarves need heavy rewrites, so I don't deal with them at present.


Setting limitations are different. So are game conceits. If the setting is that the gods are dead then your cleric is just a fighter and his faith is background. It's categorical not book based.

I ran a Psionic Rokugon game (Psikugon if you will) if you were Samurai caste you were psionic, full stop. That was a decision I made for the setting. I wanted to focus on a specific thing so the ancillary systems were banned.

Only War games you see a lot of them where support specialists are banned. They are in the core book. But if you are running a Catachan Regiment it bothers a lot of GM's that over half+ of this squad of Catachans are not even real members of the regiment. They wanted to focus on being Catachans not a Tech-priest, a Krieger Comissar, and a Priest stumbling through the jungle with borrowed chameoline cloaks.
tmagann
 member, 682 posts
Thu 10 Dec 2020
at 18:29
Re: All Options Allowed
The issue here seems to be that the OP wants to do something that GMs keep refusing to allow. The only real fix for that is GMs Wanted and tell them what you want to do in the ad. If you don't get any GMs willing that's a sure clue that what you are trying to do is too far out there.

As far as Input/Advice goes, that's pretty much it: Try a targeted request for a willing GM.

Rehashing the same old arguments about why GMs do or don't do as they do or don't do belongs in Community Chat, not here, as I think has been mentioned before, more or less.

This message had punctuation tweaked by the user at 21:05, Thu 10 Dec 2020.

Eur512
 member, 840 posts
Thu 10 Dec 2020
at 21:01
Re: All Options Allowed
Draegnoth:
To me all options being allowed makes it more realistic. We don't get to pick how people behave in real life. They can do whatever they want...


First of all... "It's more realistic" is a very questionable argument to use when discussing fantasy games.

Second, we haven't been talking about how characters behave so much as they what they ARE.  And in "Real Life"... a lot of options are not on the table.

You don't get to be a dwarf unless you were born one.  You don't get to have any powers outside of the laws of physics.

And an exotic character like a Dolphin?  Even though they are well within the laws of physics?  Right out.  They don't let you become a dolphin.  You can demand all you want, "Look, here it is, page 56, Dolphins,"... no.  They won't let you be a dolphin.

If you insist on squealing and clicking and eating whole raw fish, you'll still never be accepted into a pod of real dolphins, and you'll probably wind up in the funny farm.

No, if you really want to be a dolphin, the best you can hope for is to find a willing GM and play one in a game.  But if the GM says "No dolphins" then that's that, accept it and move on.

(My sincere apologies if anyone out there actually is a dolphin, just in case.)

This message was last edited by the user at 21:03, Thu 10 Dec 2020.

Cygnia
 member, 301 posts
 Amoral Paladin
Fri 11 Dec 2020
at 14:06
Re: All Options Allowed
quote:
We don't get to pick how people behave in real life. They can do whatever they want...


However, I can then choose to decide if I want to deal with people who may be problematic to me or what I care about.

If I'm running a low-magic, human-only, limited to martial classes 3.5 game and you're insisting on running an aasimar wizard and "whhhhhhhhhhhhhhhy can't you just make an exception for (only) MEEEEEEEE?!?!" instead of looking for a game that may be more open to your wishes, you are not going to be in my game.

And, it wasn't what you wanted to play that turned me off, it was the entitled attitude.
Sir Swindle
 member, 276 posts
Fri 11 Dec 2020
at 15:45
Re: All Options Allowed
Cygnia:
If I'm running a low-magic, human-only, limited to martial classes 3.5 game

But that is a far thing from the misguided "Core Only" assertions a lot of people put forward.

But the point does sort of come around to answering the original question. We play the games here we couldn't get away with in real life. If I told my home group "Low magic, human only, Fighters and Rogues or bust" they would tell me to shove off and we would keep brainstorming for the next game. But there are so many players here starved for the love of a caring GM that I can pitch ANYTHING and get at least a party worth of apps. There's not even a real reason to make my game generally appealing.