Bans for good reasons? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

KillianHawkeye

2014-10-16, 07:17 PM

Additionally, I ban psionics, not balance reasons or anything like that. I simply do not own the book(s) and don't have any kind of understanding of their rule-sets or how they behave. Do you consider that... a good reason?

This is actually one of the few reasons that I actually respect. I know that almost nobody has the time to be familiar with every book and sub-system produced for D&D. I myself spend more time on that subject that is healthy and there are still many things I haven't gotten to or I'm just not interested in.

My normal bans involve setting-specific materials (because I run my own semi-generic setting), all 3rd-party stuff, and anything from Dragon and Dungeon magazines (simply because I don't have ready access to it). I allow pretty much anything from the vast array of general D&D 3.5 books, and to be honest I am pretty willing to negotiate on making an exception for something from a Forgotten Realms or Eberron book if I feel like it fits into my setting.

The kind of bans that I dislike are the ones where the person has gotten some false idea of the material being over-powered or something, and they've decided to ban it without bothering to do any research on the topic.

In particular, I have this pet peeve with people who ban psionics, because a) it is highly misunderstood, and b) it is THE most supported non-core sub-system out of anything introduced in D&D 3e and 3.5's entire lifetime. In other words, while it has some kinda weird bad reputation, it's the most widespread sub-system and therefore the one that makes the most sense to try to understand properly. I will totally let it go if somebody says they don't want to include Tome of Battle or Incarnum or anything else that pretty much just exists in one book. But psionics? That gets me. It's not even that DIFFERENT from spellcasting, and tons of books keep mentioning it and adding options for it.

Sorry for the rant. And of course that is all supposing that the person could access the XPH if they wanted to, and just don't, but I've had a lot of DMs like that who could and just wouldn't.

Zanos

2014-10-16, 07:19 PM

I "ban" pretty much everything the BoED or BoVD have to say about morality. I don't really ban anything specifically in my home game since it's all my friends, and we have a general stipulation that you shouldn't overshadow other folks in the party. I've had warblades next to incantatrixes and haven't really had any problems.

And not banning systems you don't know or own is perfectly valid. Not knowing what your players are doing is a really bad thing.

Psyren

2014-10-16, 07:26 PM

Additionally, I ban psionics, not balance reasons or anything like that. I simply do not own the book(s) and don't have any kind of understanding of their rule-sets or how they behave. Do you consider that... a good reason?

While it's a good reason for many subsystems, psionics is available (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/psionicPowersOverview.htm) free (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/psionicRacesClassesSkillsSpells.htm) online (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/psionicPowers.htm). So my personal answer is no, I don't really consider that a good reason.

I ban psionics because I just don't think it fits in a fantasy setting. It's a sci-fi thing. In fantasy settings, magic keeps things plenty complicated enough.

This is definitely not a reason I would agree with either.

Rhunder

2014-10-16, 07:33 PM

I typically wont ban something. Ill modify it or work with the PC in general. Unfortunately there is always someone who just wants to outshine the rest of the party, but Ill just tell that player no in general. As for optimizers, I go with Kaveman's group approach. You optimize, so do I. that typically keeps a party from going crazy.

Raven777

2014-10-16, 07:34 PM

Another good reason to ban something is because you think its overpowered, or because you know the player(s) are going to abuse this specific thing to break the campaign.

I respectfully disagree. This is a reason, sure, but not necessarily a "good" one. Everyone has different opinions on where the threshold to overpowered lies, which is bound to create frustration, especially if imposed mid campaign. A better way to handle this corner case, I find, is to ask the players to stay reasonable when playing with their toys. We're all civilized gentlemen (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?267097-The-Gentlemen-s-Agreement-making-it-more-precise), after all.

Psyren

2014-10-16, 07:37 PM

Sometimes imposing restrictions midstream is warranted though. As imperfect beings, our communication and understanding are imperfect too, and so the player may not realize something is okay (or the DM may not realize what the player is going for) until it shows up mid-campaign. The intent may not even have been to cause trouble.

TheIronGolem

2014-10-16, 07:58 PM

While it's a good reason for many subsystems, psionics is available (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/psionicPowersOverview.htm) free (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/psionicRacesClassesSkillsSpells.htm) online (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/psionicPowers.htm). So my personal answer is no, I don't really consider that a good reason.

Well, just because a particular subsystem's set of rules happens to be online doesn't mean that everyone should be expected to be familiar with them, though. If a GM feels that he should know the psionics rules pretty well before allowing it in play (a perfectly reasonable position) but doesn't have the time or the inclination to learn them (a perfectly reasonable circumstance), then disallowing psionics is the right thing to do for his game.

Raven777

2014-10-16, 08:03 PM

Isn't a campaign player wanting to use the system a good enough reason and opportunity to learn it, though? I find it hard to argue against learning new things, even if it is just surface, functional knowledge.

EisenKreutzer

2014-10-16, 08:05 PM

Well, just because a particular subsystem's set of rules happens to be online doesn't mean that everyone should be expected to be familiar with them, though. If a GM feels that he should know the psionics rules pretty well before allowing it in play (a perfectly reasonable position) but doesn't have the time or the inclination to learn them (a perfectly reasonable circumstance), then disallowing psionics is the right thing to do for his game.

I don't think so, actually. I think it is the GMs obligation to familiarize himself with the material before making a judgement call like that. If a player comes to me with a book I haven't heard of before and asks if he can create a character using those rules, then I damn well have to sit down and read atleast enough parts of it that I know whether I want to allow it or not. Maybe it's not a perfect fit with my campaign setting, but unless it actively goes against something already established I will take the time and effort to include it to accommodate the players wishes. I don't think any GM should ban anything "just because."

Saying "I won't allow it because I'm not familiar with it, and I'm not going to familiarize myself with it because I'm lazy" is never a good reason for anything.

Threadnaught

2014-10-16, 08:12 PM

If a player comes to me with a book I haven't heard of before and asks if he can create a character using those rules, then I damn well have to sit down and read atleast enough parts of it that I know whether I want to allow it or not.

So you take the time to learn and understand stuff outside of Core?

Okay, now put yourself in the shoes of a DM who doesn't have much time outside of the game to prepare stuff and has players who just, want to get to the action. Is it okay to not allow content until you find the time to familiarize yourself with it?

EisenKreutzer

2014-10-16, 08:23 PM

So you take the time to learn and understand stuff outside of Core?

Okay, now put yourself in the shoes of a DM who doesn't have much time outside of the game to prepare stuff and has players who just, want to get to the action. Is it okay to not allow content until you find the time to familiarize yourself with it?

Yes, I do.

I am that GM, and I still find time to read material my players bring me to see whether I will allow it or not. Seriously, it takes maybe an hour to read up on a new subsystem to gain a passing familiarity with it, which is enough for most situations.
Let's say I'm running a game of Pathfinder, and one f my players comes to me and says "hey, I want to switch characters. I found this book from a third party publisher that has the Cheesemaster. The Cheesemaster uses the Fondue system from the Book of Cheeses, and I think that looks cool and would like to try it."

"Ok, I say, let me borrow the book for a few days."

And I take the book with me, and read the first two chapters after dinner, while my SO is watching reruns of Nip/Tuck or something, and the next day I send him a message on Facebook saying "ok dude, I went over the Cheese system and I'm ok with you making a CHeesemaster for your next character. Send me an email his backstory and I'll write him in!"

And next week, we play and everything is golden. Maybe after a month or two I'm familiar enough with Cheese-magic that I introduce a villain or NPC using the system.

SO thats one hour out of my Nip/Tuck rerun-time gone while looking over a book. Which is hardly enough of a drain to ever claim you don't have the time to do it.

Hiro Protagonest

2014-10-16, 08:32 PM

I ban psionics because I just don't think it fits in a fantasy setting. It's a sci-fi thing. In fantasy settings, magic keeps things plenty complicated enough.

Kenobi is more of a sorcerer than a psion.

What about psionics is sci-fi? Hell, what about psychics is sci-fi? Psychic is basically a 20th century term for divination or spirit-talking powers, or the ability to manipulate things without touching them (and the broom sweeping the floor by itself is a staple of witches).

Zanos

2014-10-16, 08:36 PM

This is definitely not a reason I would agree with either.
"The fluff doesn't fit the world I want to make" is a perfectly valid reason.

And so is "I don't have enough time to learn the inner workings of an entire new sub-system to cater to a single character." I'm familiar with most 3.5 systems, but if someone had the audacity to be offended I wouldn't take the time out of my day to read a book so they could play a single character with all the options already available I'd tell them to go soak their heads.

TheIronGolem

2014-10-16, 08:45 PM

I don't think so, actually. I think it is the GMs obligation to familiarize himself with the material before making a judgement call like that. If a player comes to me with a book I haven't heard of before and asks if he can create a character using those rules, then I damn well have to sit down and read atleast enough parts of it that I know whether I want to allow it or not. Maybe it's not a perfect fit with my campaign setting, but unless it actively goes against something already established I will take the time and effort to include it to accommodate the players wishes. I don't think any GM should ban anything "just because."

Saying "I won't allow it because I'm not familiar with it, and I'm not going to familiarize myself with it because I'm lazy" is never a good reason for anything.

Don't assume it's "because I'm lazy", please. It could just as easily be "because my leisure time is limited and I don't currently feel like spending a significant chunk of it learning this new subsystem on top of all the other stuff I already juggle in my GMing duties, especially if only one character is going to be using it".

Now I, personally, will generally try to make that effort. But neither I nor any other GM have any kind of ethical obligation to do so. We don't have to read every splatbook that gets pushed at us.

Coidzor

2014-10-16, 08:48 PM

Playground,

What do you consider good reasons for bans?

Availability. Actual setting issues rather than completely imagined ones. Reasons which can be explained at some level of actual detail rather than a surface treatment without being construed as the DM being either a jerk or lazy.

Additionally, I ban psionics, not balance reasons or anything like that. I simply do not own the book(s) and don't have any kind of understanding of their rule-sets or how they behave. Do you consider that... a good reason?

In general? Sure.

This particular example? Not so much. There's enough resources and the bulk of the psionics rules are freely and legally available to you though, as has been mentioned. Further, even for more difficult to obtain subsystems that are a bit more esoteric, there exist resources that break things down for both players and DMs in a big way. More Tome of Battle and Incarnum due to the people complaining about ToB and the amount of attention that's generated and the sheer necessity in the case of Incarnum due to the great idea + poor editing of the book situation. Pretty good in general, for first party stuff, anyway, aside from Tome of Magic, that's been less well covered from what I can recall.

Jacob.Tyr

2014-10-16, 08:54 PM

"Familiar" is an odd word, here. My first psionics character in 3.5 was in a game where someone handed me a random book from a huge pile, and I made a character out of that book in about 30 minutes. Psionics isn't a horribly complex subsystem. Most of the time it results in far less head-scratching than someone playing a full caster from a core book if they have access to even a few splats.

I'm not a setting purist, either. Sure, the DM may not think XYZ fits in the world, but it is a cooperative story telling experience. If a player wants that as part of the story, I err on the side of inclusiveness.

I like optimization escalation as well, though that can get out of hand. Especially when playing with a new group, bans can be incredibly useful. Some people play to "win" over all else, and will honestly sit down at a new table with 30 character sheets for their animated creatures, cohorts, enhanced familiars, and typically bound celestials/fiends. Though I love summoners, and I love characters with a companion focus, if you are going to be taking three times as many turns as everyone else that isn't okay. So I guess I ban action economy shenanigans. If I really trusted a player to be able to make quick tactical decisions and have their dice pre-sorted for their rolls each turn, I'd lift that ban. But I'm not going to make a table of people sit for 10 minutes while you move your pile of animals around.

I also blanket ban Dragon, just because that source is so wonky that you can't know what to expect from things from it. This can be lifted on an item-by-item basis, though.

I should make an Incarnum character, because I still have never looked into that system.

Jack_Simth

2014-10-16, 09:12 PM

What do you consider good reasons for bans?
1) I don't think I can adequately adjudicate it (specific reason irrelevant).
2) It doesn't match the flavour I want for the campaign world.
3) It doesn't seem well-written and/or doesn't look like it had any playtesting (for instance: Lost Empires of Faerun: The Nishruu says you randomly lose a prepared spell or a spell slot under certain circumstances. There's no indication of how to go about selecting which one... which is something that'd come up THE FIRST TIME THE MONSTER DID - that's a very glaring omission)
4) I can see too many ways to abuse the material (although this is not, generally speaking, a good reason to blanket-ban Core, much as it would apply...).

Talakeal

2014-10-16, 09:14 PM

If there is one thing that I have learned from my years as a GM and a game designer is that loss aversion is a very real thing.

Players HATE to have anything taken away from them, so before I allow any new option into a game I need to be absolutely sure it won't cause problems later, because a nerf or a ban after the fact is going to be met with a kicking and screaming tantrum on the part of the player whose toys you are taking away.

Yael

2014-10-16, 09:30 PM

EisenKreutzer

2014-10-16, 09:33 PM

Don't assume it's "because I'm lazy", please. It could just as easily be "because my leisure time is limited and I don't currently feel like spending a significant chunk of it learning this new subsystem on top of all the other stuff I already juggle in my GMing duties, especially if only one character is going to be using it".

Now I, personally, will generally try to make that effort. But neither I nor any other GM have any kind of ethical obligation to do so. We don't have to read every splatbook that gets pushed at us.

One hour, dude. Not even that, half an hour. You can't expect me to believe that you have such a busy schedule that you can't squeeze in half an hour to flip through a book.

Yael

2014-10-16, 09:37 PM

One hour, dude. Not even that, half an hour. You can't expect me to believe that you have such a busy schedule that you can't squeeze in half an hour to flip through a book.

I agree, there's dead time everytime. Being extreme, in the bathroom maybe? Before going to sleep? In... the bathroom maybe?

EisenKreutzer

2014-10-16, 09:38 PM

I agree, there's dead time everytime. Being extreme, in the bathroom maybe? Before going to sleep? In... the bathroom maybe?

I do most of my rpg-related reading on the toilet.

Oko and Qailee

2014-10-16, 09:38 PM

I really haven't ever done hard bans, I've nearly always tried to learn the mechanics for stuff instead. Regardless I have:

-Banned "half" races (half-elves for example); but as a soft ban, some of them are still ok and the rest I allow players to use the race except reflavored fluff. The reason is because of the setting. If a player wanted to play a half orc I'd just discuss with them how we can reflavor it, if the specific reason they wanted it was for the half-orc flavor I would cave (though it hasn't come up).

-Lightly banned shapesand... I had a player who was super inventive about it and making rules for its millions of uses was annoying (esp since rulings were asked for).

Kazyan

2014-10-16, 10:22 PM

I try to be reasonable with my players in letting them do what they want, but ultimately, I'm the DM and thus have the final word. If you get stubborn because you think I'm lazy that I won't learn shadowcasting (the one remaining major subsystem I still can't make heads or tails of) or whatever, go find another DM. I don't have to align myself perfectly with what the players want in order to be a passable DM.

cobaltstarfire

2014-10-16, 10:40 PM

I'll accept for fluff reasons, availability, and lack of knowledge all as reasons to ban something. I'll also accept "because it's op" if the GM can adequately explain why.

I feel like it'd be extremely rude/imposing of me to expect a DM to learn a new sub system, regardless of its availability. If I was DMing, I'd be reluctant unless the player was willing to help me out with the learning process some. I learn and retain best by talking/watching/doing, and worst via reading. And I'm not about to waste everyone elses game time trying to learn a subsystem while also DMing a game.

TheIronGolem

2014-10-16, 11:28 PM

One hour, dude. Not even that, half an hour. You can't expect me to believe that you have such a busy schedule that you can't squeeze in half an hour to flip through a book.

If, as your GM, I tell you that I don't have time to do something, then I damn well don't have the time. Whether you believe me or not makes not a whit of difference. Don't presume to tell me how much time I have, or how much of that time I need to spend on learning your splatbook on top of the time I'm already spending to make a game for you. Consideration of new material for inclusion in the campaign is a favor - and not one that you are owed.

Roxxy

2014-10-16, 11:35 PM

What do you consider good reasons for bans?If something just does not fit the flavor of the setting, if something is just too powerful or too powerful when other 3PP/house rules are taken into consideration, if something is from a book I do not have, or if something is from a ruleset I have trouble understanding.

Roxxy

2014-10-16, 11:41 PM

One hour, dude. Not even that, half an hour. You can't expect me to believe that you have such a busy schedule that you can't squeeze in half an hour to flip through a book.Depends on what you want the GM to look at. I severely doubt I could pick up something like PoW or Psionics in half an hour. If you bring me something like an archetype or a feat or a spell, sure, I can probably judge that on the spot. A class? depends on the class. A whole new rule system? Sorry, but I have other things besides gaming I need to be working on.

Also, half an hour actually is a lot of time to me. I'm in procrastinate/multitask mode constantly as it is.

OldTrees1

2014-10-16, 11:43 PM

A good reason for a Ban is:
I am currently unable to DM for that material at this time. I strive for continual improvement, but I remain unable to DM for that material at this time. (best if followed with more detail as to the nature of the present inability)

All good reasons for Banning can be reduced to this form. Some acceptable reasons might not be reducible to this form.

bekeleven

2014-10-16, 11:45 PM

When I play with groups I don't know well (AKA most PbP groups), I ban (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?361894) most things that can cause balance problems, and try to comb character sheets to catch the rest. My houserules also cover things like in-party fighting (it can come up naturally in play, but don't build a character that seems likely to do it).

When I play with IRL friends, we generally use a gentleman's agreement: If you're using a tier 1 class, build and play it poorly.

Coidzor

2014-10-16, 11:56 PM

If, as your GM, I tell you that I don't have time to do something, then I damn well don't have the time. Whether you believe me or not makes not a whit of difference. Don't presume to tell me how much time I have, or how much of that time I need to spend on learning your splatbook on top of the time I'm already spending to make a game for you. Consideration of new material for inclusion in the campaign is a favor - and not one that you are owed.

Nah, you're just another poster on the boards right now.

And if you were my GM, unless I was wandering into a wholly new group, I'd have some idea of whether you were giving me the runaround or if you actually meant it, but just being the GM doesn't mean you're automatically being straight with me.

Being the GM doesn't mean they get a free pass on lying if they are, in fact, lying. Especially in a context where we haven't even bloody well started playing yet.

I really haven't ever done hard bans, I've nearly always tried to learn the mechanics for stuff instead. Regardless I have:

-Banned "half" races (half-elves for example); but as a soft ban, some of them are still ok and the rest I allow players to use the race except reflavored fluff. The reason is because of the setting. If a player wanted to play a half orc I'd just discuss with them how we can reflavor it, if the specific reason they wanted it was for the half-orc flavor I would cave (though it hasn't come up).

-Lightly banned shapesand... I had a player who was super inventive about it and making rules for its millions of uses was annoying (esp since rulings were asked for).

Oh, right, yeah, things with too many fiddly bits that can't be simplified and would just take up too much time, especially if they'd mostly/solely come up in game and need more than a simple off-the-cuff decision or would require them ad nauseum.

I could see some form of limitation on minionmancy in a fairly large group, for instance.

Tar Palantir

2014-10-17, 12:06 AM

Oh, right, yeah, things with too many fiddly bits that can't be simplified and would just take up too much time, especially if they'd mostly/solely come up in game and need more than a simple off-the-cuff decision or would require them ad nauseum.

I could see some form of limitation on minionmancy in a fairly large group, for instance.

Or that Pathfinder numerology thing, I forget what it's called, but the one with all the obnoxious dice rolling and arithmetic for bonuses.

LTwerewolf

2014-10-17, 12:32 AM

I'd agree the time argument doesn't really work. Unless in a new group, the group should know what everyone is comfortable with, and know what things to push and what not to. If someone wants to break your game, there are plenty of ways to do it in core, they don't need the (far weaker) subsystems to accomplish the task. Not only that, the subsystems aren't even that difficult. ToB is pretty close to standard casting with a few differences. Learn the differences, and when they pick things just look over the things they pick. If say a maneuver said "destroy all creatures and objects you deem hostile in a 400 ft radius" then it's pretty easy to say no to it. There doesn't need to be massive support, and the player should know that until you learn it, there probably won't be, so it's on them to create their own support for it.

People always get the impression that if you don't understand A-ZZZ of a subsystem that they can't include it. The best way to learn it is by doing. Tell them up front "You can play it, but don't be surprised that if while we go something ends up wonky, we're going to change it." It might cause a halt or two at first, but it doesn't take long when doing so to learn it. It's how I learned psionics, ToB, and incarnum. Players just went ahead and played them.

BWR

2014-10-17, 12:52 AM

Divide by Zero

2014-10-17, 12:55 AM

- I don't have the material
- I don't have time to figure out how the mechanics work, or how they will interact with other mechanics
- it doesn't fit the setting
- I don't like it. (I try not to go overboard with this one but you aren't going to get e.g. ToB in my games because I detest the mechanics)

I can agree with all of those except the last one. Telling a player that THEY can't play something because YOU don't like it seems kind of ridiculous.

Coidzor

2014-10-17, 12:56 AM

Or that Pathfinder numerology thing, I forget what it's called, but the one with all the obnoxious dice rolling and arithmetic for bonuses.

Oh gods. Yeah. That was horrible. Managed to spawn a lot of discussion though, that Arithmancy and/or Sacred Geometries or whatever.

OldTrees1

2014-10-17, 12:58 AM

I can agree with all of those except the last one. Telling a player that THEY can't play something because YOU don't like it seems kind of ridiculous.

Um, every player is playing the same game. The DM is playing with everything the player is playing with. If the DM detests dealing with kenders/Sacred Geometry, then a player playing a kender/Sacred Geometry is forcing the DM to deal with kenders/Scared Geometry. This is a valid reason to ban something (even if it is not a great reason). The same goes for a DM banning PvP or squick.

PS:
This might be a result of the difference between "I don't like playing with X" and "I don't like personally using X".

Psyren

2014-10-17, 01:00 AM

"The fluff doesn't fit the world I want to make" is a perfectly valid reason.

Right, but "this fluff that I have decided to conjure up out of the ether for these mechanics is the only possible fluff for them" or even "this fluff that I have decided to conjure up out of the ether for these mechanics is clearly what the designers intended" are not.

In short, the tired "it's sci-fi" meme has been repeatedly discredited. Mind flayers are the closest you get to it, and even they don't have that fluff in every setting where they appear, or it's easily mutable, or you can simply leave them out without harming the subsystem as a whole if you wish.

Well, just because a particular subsystem's set of rules happens to be online doesn't mean that everyone should be expected to be familiar with them, though. If a GM feels that he should know the psionics rules pretty well before allowing it in play (a perfectly reasonable position) but doesn't have the time or the inclination to learn them (a perfectly reasonable circumstance), then disallowing psionics is the right thing to do for his game.

I'm of the opinion that if there is no practical barrier to knowledge, that it should be embraced. None of us came out of the womb being familiar with psionics - at some point, everyone who likes that system made a conscious decision to read up on it. It's one thing if your pocketbook stands in the way, it's quite another if it doesn't.

Now, if the player comes to you with it 6 hours before the campaign is supposed to start, that's one thing. But if he expressed that desire a week in advance, well, reading a few passages of something you haven't read before is not going to make your life any worse, you know? Especially something that you can clearly see other sectors of the community are raving about, just by slightly peeking your head over your internet picket fence.

Anlashok

2014-10-17, 01:02 AM

Not having access to the material is a good one.

Something causing bookkeeping problems is another decent one, but only in extreme moderation.

Generally most everything else I see smells of "can't be bothered" or spite more than anything else.

Coidzor

2014-10-17, 01:05 AM

Um, every player is playing the same game. The DM is playing with everything the player is playing with. If the DM detests dealing with kenders/Sacred Geometry, then a player playing a kender/Sacred Geometry is forcing the DM to deal with kenders/Scared Geometry. This is a valid reason to ban something (even if it is not a great reason). The same goes for a DM banning PvP or squick.

Yes, but if there's no actual reason for the dislike then it's just random bigotry and/or capriciousness, now isn't it?

And if they don't dislike it with good reason then it's not exactly a good reason, now is it?

Also, every reason to hate Kender that people actually hate Kender for is pretty much a good one. I mean, if it was because of a personal hatred of whatever their names were, maybe, sure, that'd be a reason to run away from them and the game very quickly.

Diachronos

2014-10-17, 01:05 AM

Roxxy

2014-10-17, 01:10 AM

Yes, but if there's no actual reason for the dislike then it's just random bigotry and/or capriciousness, now isn't it?

And if they don't dislike it with good reason then it's not exactly a good reason, now is it?Define good reason. For example, I don't like Warforged because they are basically androids. Is that good enough? Do I have to explain why I don't like androids? It basically boils down to me just not liking androids. Since I don't like them, I have not written a place for them in my setting. In fact, nobody in the setting has ever created any form of intelligent construct. Since they have no place in my setting, a player cannot be one. Is this unreasonable?

OldTrees1

2014-10-17, 01:11 AM

Yes, but if there's no actual reason for the dislike then it's just random bigotry and/or capriciousness, now isn't it?

And if they don't dislike it with good reason then it's not exactly a good reason, now is it?

Depends, if the DM is human then they are burdened with the irrational human dislikes. These dislikes are no less real and no less severe merely because Modrons can't derive these dislikes from pure logic.

For example:
I don't like being exposed to squick when playing. I don't have a rational reason for my dislike it is merely a result of my brain state. I am perfectly within my rights to not play a game that contains squick. As a player, I am perfectly within my rights to not play with anyone that wants to introduce squick to the game. As a player that is the DM, not playing with that person for that reason is equivalent to banning squick from my game.

Now go back and replace squick with any similar dislike(aka a sufficiently strong* dislike of exposure to/dealing with X).

*The definition of sufficiently strong is debated but not relevant to my point.

LTwerewolf

2014-10-17, 01:13 AM

A fair point, but at the same time it's kind of irrelevant if your table setup doesn't give you a way to go online every time a player wants to do something you're not familiar with using their psionic abilities.

You can always have them either print or copy what they want to be using out. Make it their responsibility to get the information to you. Pretty much a nonissue since if people ant to use something they need to know what it does.

Um, every player is playing the same game. The DM is playing with everything the player is playing with. If the DM detests dealing with kenders/Sacred Geometry, then a player playing a kender/Sacred Geometry is forcing the DM to deal with kenders/Scared Geometry. This is a valid reason to ban something (even if it is not a great reason). The same goes for a DM banning PvP or squick.

PS:
This might be a result of the difference between "I don't like playing with X" and "I don't like personally using X".

The big difference being that especially with books like ToB the book keeping is on the part of the player, not the dm. "I can use this once per encounter" is the same as "I am a wizard and prepared this spell once per day" as far as book keeping goes. Things like kender force themselves upon everyone involved and should not by any means be considered the same thing.

Psyren

2014-10-17, 01:15 AM

A fair point, but at the same time it's kind of irrelevant if your table setup doesn't give you a way to go online every time a player wants to do something you're not familiar with using their psionic abilities.

That's an accessibility concern though, which I would consider a good reason. But what the OP said was "I don't have the books so I can't ever understand it," which is not quite the same thing.

(Though to be perfectly frank - gaming tables where nobody can get to the internet are becoming quite a rarity in this day and age. Also, the important thing is that the content is OGL, so it is included in many free offline compilations like apps.)

Troacctid

2014-10-17, 01:19 AM

Yes, but if there's no actual reason for the dislike then it's just random bigotry and/or capriciousness, now isn't it?

And if they don't dislike it with good reason then it's not exactly a good reason, now is it?

Why are you assuming there's no reason for the dislike? Because they can't explain it? Being unable to eloquently articulate the reason you dislike something is not the same as random bigotry or capriciousness.

LTwerewolf

2014-10-17, 01:25 AM

That's an accessibility concern though, which I would consider a good reason. But what the OP said was "I don't have the books so I can't ever understand it," which is not quite the same thing.

(Though to be perfectly frank - gaming tables where nobody can get to the internet are becoming quite a rarity in this day and age. Also, the important thing is that the content is OGL, so it is included in many free offline compilations like apps.)

There are also free phone apps that have the entire SRD and more on them.

TheIronGolem

2014-10-17, 01:27 AM

I'm of the opinion that if there is no practical barrier to knowledge, that it should be embraced. None of us came out of the womb being familiar with psionics - at some point, everyone who likes that system made a conscious decision to read up on it. It's one thing if your pocketbook stands in the way, it's quite another if it doesn't.
Even if your pocketbook doesn't stand in the way in the case of psionics (or whatever), your appointment book still might.

Now, if the player comes to you with it 6 hours before the campaign is supposed to start, that's one thing. But if he expressed that desire a week in advance, well, reading a few passages of something you haven't read before is not going to make your life any worse, you know? Especially something that you can clearly see other sectors of the community are raving about, just by slightly peeking your head over your internet picket fence.
Okay, but unless you have an eidetic memory, you're not going to pick up a new subsystem by "reading a few passages". You almost certainly need a significant chunk of time - time that you may only be able to gain by sacrificing other things you want to to. This is on top of the sacrifice you've already made for the sake of your players. Further such sacrifices should be appreciated, but not expected and certainly not considered to be obligations.

draken50

2014-10-17, 01:28 AM

You can always have them either print or copy what they want to be using out. Make it their responsibility to get the information to you. Pretty much a nonissue since if people ant to use something they need to know what it does.

Actually this has been the issue, and the reason for the current ban. I have had a standing rule in regards to psionics in my games that boils down to. "If you get me the book, you can play a psionic character." Suffice to say, I still don't own the book. Additionally, none of the players I've had want to play a psionic character own the book. I also do not use a computer for my games, and do not own a printer. Referencing the SRD is right out, additionally I consider "fluff" to be important in my campaigns and I expect there to be more detail in that regard in the books than the SRD. I'm not going to cobble together a bunch of crap for a player that thinks psionics sound "neat." That player may think Vampire the Masquerade sounds "neat" doesn't mean I'm going to learn that whole system so they can play it.

Psyren

2014-10-17, 01:32 AM

Even if your pocketbook doesn't stand in the way in the case of psionics (or whatever), your appointment book still might.

Okay, but unless you have an eidetic memory, you're not going to pick up a new subsystem by "reading a few passages". You almost certainly need a significant chunk of time - time that you may only be able to gain by sacrificing other things you want to to. This is on top of the sacrifice you've already made for the sake of your players. Further such sacrifices should be appreciated, but not expected and certainly not considered to be obligations.

Hence the "when did your player bring this to your attention?" consideration, which I mentioned. In fact, the efforts of the player himself are not mentioned at all in the OP; if a player wants to use something new, then I absolutely agree that he should be the driving force behind getting you invested in it - but if he is indeed making reasonable and timely efforts to do so (with respect to your schedule) and you are simply rebuffing him or have already made up your mind, that is not something I agree with.

There are also free phone apps that have the entire SRD and more on them.

Yep, which means tablets too. Somebody in your group surely has one.

LTwerewolf

2014-10-17, 01:37 AM

Actually this has been the issue, and the reason for the current ban. I have had a standing rule in regards to psionics in my games that boils down to. "If you get me the book, you can play a psionic character." Suffice to say, I still don't own the book. Additionally, none of the players I've had want to play a psionic character own the book. I also do not use a computer for my games, and do not own a printer. Referencing the SRD is right out, additionally I consider "fluff" to be important in my campaigns and I expect there to be more detail in that regard in the books than the SRD. I'm not going to cobble together a bunch of crap for a player that thinks psionics sound "neat." That player may think Vampire the Masquerade sounds "neat" doesn't mean I'm going to learn that whole system so they can play it.

Entire system =/= subsystem. If you want people to help you understand the psionic system there are plenty of people here you can ask. Psyren here happens to be one of the board's most versed experts on the subject. As far as fluff goes, you can easily refluff it. In my games Psions are refluffed as sorcerers, since they're basically sorcerers with better mechanics.

dascarletm

2014-10-17, 01:42 AM

Good reason for a ban.

If it would cause the game to be less enjoyable for anyone involved for whatever reason.

Roxxy

2014-10-17, 01:43 AM

Hence the "when did your player bring this to your attention?" consideration, which I mentioned. In fact, the efforts of the player himself are not mentioned at all in the OP; if a player wants to use something new, then I absolutely agree that he should be the driving force behind getting you invested in it - but if he is indeed making reasonable and timely efforts to do so (with respect to your schedule) and you are simply rebuffing him or have already made up your mind, that is not something I agree with.I have other things in my life to be doing than catering to the players. If you want me to introduce something on the level of DP Psionics or Path of War, that's at least three or four hours of reading before I am going to attempt to run it. I've got a busy enough life that I am not going to devote that much time so I can allow one character. The player can go build a different character, and if they don't like that they can find a different GM.

Entire system =/= subsystem. If you want people to help you understand the psionic system there are plenty of people here you can ask. Psyren here happens to be one of the board's most versed experts on the subject.Which is a fair amount of work on my part. I'm already doing all the worldbuilding and adventure design, plus 18.5 credit hours of college and a job, and my own need for relaxation time. I'm not doing it. Am I going to allow Psionics and Path of War eventually? Yes. I own them, and I like what I see so far. I haven't read through them yet, and I'll do so when I have some free time during a time when I'm not burned out.

Coidzor

2014-10-17, 01:44 AM

Why are you assuming there's no reason for the dislike? Because they can't explain it? Being unable to eloquently articulate the reason you dislike something is not the same as random bigotry or capriciousness.

Because if there's a reason for the dislike they can say so, rather than just say "dislike" and just leave it at that, like that actually explains anything rather than simply raising more questions. Disliking something when we're talking about reasons for banning something is a deflection or the equivalent of the scab over the actual wound which is the real reason.

Also, if you mean more mundanely in terms of the meta-narrative and conversation of this thread, well, the construction of the post itself suggested it to me by leaving it at dislike rather than any actual reason for said dislike.

If they'd given a reason rather than stopping halfway through by saying dislike in this thread we wouldn't even be having this conversation which rather illustrates the matter, I'd think. Instead of going on about something as ephemeral as dislike we'd either have something meatier to harangue one another about or we'd be able to look at the reason and decide for ourselves "Yep, I think that's a good reason" or "Nope, that's a silly/bad/X reason."

And when did I said anything about eloquence? Semi-coherence I'll settle for if I really have to, though it rather raises a red flag about a person's ability to present and manage a story and play a game with me if they're not able to talk to me. If it can't even be semi-coherent, then the burden lies on you to show how someone can be unable to be even partially coherent and it somehow counting as a good reason, because that's a pretty outlandish and counter-intutive claim

draken50

2014-10-17, 01:46 AM

Entire system =/= subsystem. If you want people to help you understand the psionic system there are plenty of people here you can ask. Psyren here happens to be one of the board's most versed experts on the subject. As far as fluff goes, you can easily refluff it. In my games Psions are refluffed as sorcerers, since they're basically sorcerers with better mechanics.

Okay, still not a book, still not a player in my game able to provide the information I'd need to run it. I don't think it's unfair of me to require my players spend a small amount of the time learning about what they think should be added, and being able to provide comprehensive information on it. Especially as my players have been just fine with sorcerers.

I do not allow phone use or tablets in my game, additionally I work hard to understand the rules of the systems I run and rarely have to look things up. I value that. For those I do need to reference I include book names and page numbers in my notes. As a quick reader that suffices. I am not stepping away to my computer to reference rules and breaking the flow of my game. I have allowed splatbooks I do not own, and in those cases I simply had the player write down the page number of the class/feat/ability being used so that it could be quickly referenced if I need a reminder. No book, no reference. I do not like electronics use during my games. It is a simple preference and the reason I own 3 PHB's.

To clarify: Phone use = Anything beyond checking messages/voicemails to ensure not an emergency/work related. A break can be called to answer Mom's call as she's your mom and just because your and adult with your own job and suit doesn't mean you she isn't your mom (also she'd only call once a game at most). Text checking is fine, text responding is not... no I don't care how cute he/she is. We have regular breaks, do it then.

Psyren

2014-10-17, 01:50 AM

I have other things in my life to be doing than catering to the players. If you want me to introduce something on the level of DP Psionics or Path of War, that's at least three or four hours of reading before I am going to attempt to run it. I've got a busy enough life that I am not going to devote that much time so I can allow one character. The player can go build a different character, and if they don't like that they can find a different GM.

"All the other characters are first-party and familiar" is a perfectly legitimate reason. If third-party is allowed for one player it should be open to all, and so there can be balance concerns there that need to be explored at length. So I'm not against this.

What I am against, however, is "I will never even read this ever for the rest of our natural lives."

LTwerewolf

2014-10-17, 01:52 AM

Okay, still not a book, still not a player in my game able to provide the information I'd need to run it. I don't think it's unfair of me to require my players spend a small amount of the time learning about what they think should be added, and being able to provide comprehensive information on it. Especially as my players have been just fine with sorcerers.

This I can agree with wholeheartedly (and in fact said pretty much exactly this a few posts ago, that they should print things out and provide them for you).

I do not allow phone use or tablets in my game, additionally I work hard to understand the rules of the systems I run and rarely have to look things up. I value that. For those I do need to reference I include book names and page numbers in my notes. As a quick reader that suffices. I am not stepping away to my computer to reference rules and breaking the flow of my game. I have allowed splatbooks I do not own, and in those cases I simply had the player write down the page number of the class/feat/ability being used so that it could be quickly referenced if I need a reminder. No book, no reference. I do not like electronics use during my games. It is a simple preference and the reason I own 3 PHB's.

Again, things can be printed out by your players and made into hardcopies. If they wanted to go so far as to get a pdf, they could get a book bound at kinko's for about 10 dollars, though I don't condone the use of pdfs when you don't actually own the book (and therefore recommend using the srd version).

As far as the phone/tablet thing, I allow phone and tablet solely for application lookup (and I ensure that we're all using the same application). Ringers off, no texting, no tablet/phone games. It makes it the same as referencing a book. Give it a try for one session and see how it is. I've found that it actually speeds gameplay over using straight books (which I also used to do).

Roxxy

2014-10-17, 01:56 AM

"All the other characters are first-party and familiar" is a perfectly legitimate reason. If third-party is allowed for one player it should be open to all, and so there can be balance concerns there that need to be explored at length. So I'm not against this.Third party is allowed to all (I use it myself. Machinesmith is handy for my magitech setting, Heroes of the West works well with it's American flavor, various small PDFs give more Alchemist options, which meshes well with the Alchemist being the most common magic user in the world and what most NPCs think of when they hear the word magic), but it's restricted to stuff I'm familiar with or that is only a few paragraphs long (like an archetype).

What I am against, however, is "I will never even read this ever for the rest of our natural lives."Oh, I'll read it. Hell, I own two DP Psionics softcovers, the Augmented PDF, and the PoW PDF. I just haven't gotten around to actually reading them, and it may not be soon that I have enough uninterrupted hours to do so. Once I do, they'll be allowed, though Psionics is getting reflavored. Until then, I am not going to allow them, and I am not going to push my schoolwork, my job, what recreation time school and work allow, and my other GMing tasks to the wayside to read them sooner.

draken50

2014-10-17, 02:00 AM

As far as the phone/tablet thing, I allow phone and tablet solely for application lookup (and I ensure that we're all using the same application). Ringers off, no texting, no tablet/phone games. It makes it the same as referencing a book. Give it a try for one session and see how it is. I've found that it actually speeds gameplay over using straight books (which I also used to do).

I have had... bad experiences with that, sadly. I have one player who has sometimes used a tablet as reference but only when a book was unavailable, which meant downtime anyway as people leveled/shopped. A big reason for me as well is that I use the books for campaign/encounter/adventure ideas and tablets/computers don't really work for that, thumbing through sudden inspiration thing, and I've felt that if I can't integrate a system well, its sticks out in a manner that grates on me.

Psyren

2014-10-17, 02:06 AM

Third party is allowed to all (I use it myself. Machinesmith is handy for my magitech setting, Heroes of the West works well with it's American flavor, various small PDFs give more Alchemist options, with Alchemist being the most common magic user in the world by far), but it's restricted to stuff I'm familiar with or that is only a few paragraphs long (like an archetype).

Oh, I'll read it. Hell, I own two DP Psionics softcovers, the Augmented PDF, and the PoW PDF. I just haven't gotten around to actually reading them, and it may not be soon that I have enough uninterrupted hours to do so. Once I do, they'll be allowed, though Psionics is getting reflavored. Until then, I am not going to allow them, and I am not going to push my schoolwork, my job, what recreation time school and work allow, and my other GMing tasks to the wayside to read them sooner.

So if you're open to reading them, but have limited time in your schedule to do so, then the obvious solution is the one I proposed - the player has to make his desires known far enough in advance to give you that time. It sounds like we're not really in disagreement.

Jeff the Green

2014-10-17, 02:11 AM

I ban for a few reasons:

It has incompatible fluff (though most can be refluffed)
It creates metaproblems (e.g. minionmancers take forever to complete a turn).
To restrict game-breaking or plot-breaking abilities (e.g. in my Ravenloft game, no tier 1 or 2).
It's the Book of Erotic Fantasy and I don't want to subject my eyeballs to that godawful soft-core porn again.
It's a new player and the proposed stuff would create PvP or obsolete an existing character (e.g. an unsubtle Disciple of Dispater in a party with a Paladin, the mailman in a party with mundane damage dealers).

I also understand and support banning because you're unfamiliar with something's capabilities, but for most things you should be able to read through a handbook in 15 minutes and get a good enough grasp to let a player run it. Assuming you trust your player to understand the rules of their class, you shouldn't really have to understand exactly how their class works, just what kind of effects it's capable of so you can plan encounters accordingly (e.g. you only need to know the general categories of utterance effects and the likelihood of success, not every little bit of how the player's getting their Truenaming check high enough to be relevant).

LTwerewolf

2014-10-17, 02:11 AM

I have had... bad experiences with that, sadly. I have one player who has sometimes used a tablet as reference but only when a book was unavailable, which meant downtime anyway as people leveled/shopped. A big reason for me as well is that I use the books for campaign/encounter/adventure ideas and tablets/computers don't really work for that, thumbing through sudden inspiration thing, and I've felt that if I can't integrate a system well, its sticks out in a manner that grates on me.

For psionics as a system, what I did the first time was implement it as magic, which a complete transparency and no fluff difference from magic until I learned the mechanics. After that I was better able to implement it and with understanding of the mechanics I was able to provide a much better integration because I had already seen it in action. As far as planning a campaign, I completely agree that nothing beats a hardcopy book, until you're so familiar with the system that you don't need a book to parrot it back to people. That being said the way you got that familiarity wasn't by readin ti cover to cover 800 times, but playing and learning by doing. You'll be surprised how fast you can implement things once you've played a few levels. The mechanics don't really change between levels, and most of the game breaking tricks with psionics are the same ones from magic, with one or two differences. It really only takes a cursory look-over of the powers they take to see what they're after. Metamorphosis is polymorph. Greater metamorphosis is shapechange. A few new ones are shared pain+vigor (think false life+shield other without the ac bonus).

Psionics is the easiest of the subsystems to implement, as its similarities to magic are so close that mundanes can't tell the difference. Some dude does stuff, things explode, and I don't understand how. ToB is the next easiest to implement, as it's basically just special moves that fighters do with a few magic things thrown in. Next is probably shadow magic, from ToM, as it's pretty similar to warlock. Incarnum will be the one that requires the most reading as its mechanics are pretty unlike the rest of them (incredibly rough description being you put points you get from classes into not quite magic items).

If you feel you need more time to look over what the player specifically chooses, just ask them to submit things to you a little before anyone else. Players will generally be pretty accommodating when it comes to this. If they aren't willing to put forth the effort, then it's unreasonable to expect you to do it for them, but that's not specific to learning a new subsystem, that's the same with anything ever.

BWR

2014-10-17, 02:16 AM

I can agree with all of those except the last one. Telling a player that THEY can't play something because YOU don't like it seems kind of ridiculous.

To make rather exaggerated example to prove my point:
Say someone finds some source that has the Rapeomancer, a class that gains magical powers by raping various sentient beings, and wants to play this class. Even if this could theoretically work in whatever setting I'm running, the chances of me allowing this in my games is vanishingly small, and all because I don't like it.
There's a whole bunch of stuff I will tolerate even if I am not too fond of it, but there's also a whole bunch of stuff I will ban outright because I don't like it, and not everything in the latter category has to be as extreme as the (hopefully non-existent) Rapeomancer. .

LTwerewolf

2014-10-17, 02:22 AM

To make rather exaggerated example to prove my point:
Say someone finds some source that has the Rapeomancer, a class that gains magical powers by raping various sentient beings, and wants to play this class. Even if this could theoretically work in whatever setting I'm running, the chances of me allowing this in my games is vanishingly small, and all because I don't like it.
There's a whole bunch of stuff I will tolerate even if I am not too fond of it, but there's also a whole bunch of stuff I will ban outright because I don't like it, and not everything in the latter category has to be as extreme as the (hopefully non-existent) Rapeomancer. .

Extreme examples aside (which other than torture rules I'm not aware of any that exist), I think this is entirely a table issue. If there's a player that super wants something and you don't like it, well their opinion is every bit as valid as yours is. If you don't like it in the world you've created, say they came from somewhere else. Not exactly elegant, but hey it gets the job done and everyone can be happy.

Coidzor

2014-10-17, 02:23 AM

Define good reason.

Well, that's what we're trying to do in this thread as a whole, it wouldn't be fair if I just stole all the glory for myself by ending the thread right here. :smallwink:

Like pornography and obscenity, you know it when you see it and you also know it when you don't. And, well, irrational human things have never really been a good reason for much of anything, really. Other than coming up with names for them and ways to deal with and control them to minimize the messiness that is people.

For example, I don't like Warforged because they are basically androids. Is that good enough? Do I have to explain why I don't like androids? It basically boils down to me just not liking androids. Since I don't like them, I have not written a place for them in my setting. In fact, nobody in the setting has ever created any form of intelligent construct. Since they have no place in my setting, a player cannot be one. Is this unreasonable?

So, what, you're ok with robots but not androids? If so, then, yes, that's pretty clearly not a good reason.

If not, then, well, there's some nuance here that you're not revealing or don't understand yourself, even if it's just "I don't like robots in my fantasy because there's actual reasons to associate them with sci-fi," though there's all sorts of things that'd need adjusting and axing on top of Warforged, like, well, Inevitables and most Modrons for that matter along with a fair number of homunculi and other constructs, though I suppose at least the core of golems is more or less intact, I suppose

If I have to play armchair psychologist for more than 5 minutes to get at the root of a DM's deep-seated problems with something, then yeah, that's probably not a good reason, though at the end of the day it might be understandable or occasionally even acceptable.

It's not like it's a given that every reason for banning something will be a good one. :smallconfused:

Depends, if the DM is human then they are burdened with the irrational human dislikes. These dislikes are no less real and no less severe merely because Modrons can't derive these dislikes from pure logic.

Oh, sure, they exist, no one's denying that, though they're going to be comparatively more rare for things people have to read than, say, clowns, which are a cultural touchstone of fear and loathing. And a phobia's not exactly a good reason, still, at the end of the day. It's not even really something one can make sense of or really understand like, say, someone having a skewed understanding due to being presented the material in entirely the wrong light and filtered through a third party and unreliable narrator.

It's basically an area where we can just say, well, here there be dragons, but at least we actually know there's dragons

I don't like being exposed to squick when playing. I don't have a rational reason for my dislike it is merely a result of my brain state. I am perfectly within my rights to not play a game that contains squick. As a player, I am perfectly within my rights to not play with anyone that wants to introduce squick to the game. As a player that is the DM, not playing with that person for that reason is equivalent to banning squick from my game.

Now go back and replace squick with any similar dislike(aka a sufficiently strong* dislike of exposure to/dealing with X).

Eh.(or perhaps "Err....") Being made uncomfortable by people actively trying to be gross and reprehensible is actually fairly understandable. :smallconfused:

It doesn't really apply to all that many other things, and it still wouldn't make most things into good reasons, since squick is sort of definitionally a good reason, it causes an intense feeling of discomfort, often by design, for shock or to cheaply press the buttons on our primitive monkey hindbrains to get us to dance for the amusement of others.

Yael

2014-10-17, 02:29 AM

... has to be as extreme as the (hopefully non-existent) Rapeomancer. .

It's called Wizard.

Anyway, I agree with this.
The "I don't like" button should have its evidence to back up your reasons, for example using core classes from the already mentioned Book of Erotic Fantasy, while they work, they are balanced and any argument you might give, they would be not approved, even if those classes might not conflict with the setting, or its system could be easier than core. I'll just thumb up here.

This post Blue means sarcasm.

Jeff the Green

2014-10-17, 02:30 AM

Extreme examples aside (which other than torture rules I'm not aware of any that exist), I think this is entirely a table issue. If there's a player that super wants something and you don't like it, well their opinion is every bit as valid as yours is. If you don't like it in the world you've created, say they came from somewhere else. Not exactly elegant, but hey it gets the job done and everyone can be happy.

I think it's more a matter of not wanting that sort of thing at the table, not the fictional world. And for extreme stuff I actually think every player, including the DM, should have veto power over everyone else. If I want to play a torturer and someone at the table is extremely uncomfortable with that, they have a right to expect me to find another concept. Exactly where the line for this veto is will necessarily have to vary between groups and individuals, since some are more willing or able to endure or adapt to things that are particularly discomfiting, but no player should be allowed to take away another's fun with their character.

(And before someone says that vetoing a character is taking away someone's fun, I find it highly unlikely that the only character someone would have fun playing would be unacceptable to the other players, and if that is the case I don't think I'd want to play with them anyway.)

Roxxy

2014-10-17, 02:38 AM

So, what, you're ok with robots but not androids? If so, then, yes, that's pretty clearly not a good reason.

If not, then, well, there's some nuance here that you're not revealing or don't understand yourself, even if it's just "I don't like robots in my fantasy because there's actual reasons to associate them with sci-fi," though there's all sorts of things that'd need adjusting and axing on top of Warforged, like, well, Inevitables and most Modrons for that matter along with a fair number of homunculi and other constructs, though I suppose at least the core of golems is more or less intact, I suppose I don't like androids in my sci-fi, either. I also don't like races that were created by a wizard, or the Awaken spell. It is not for people to create a soul, and without soul there cannot be rational thought.

I don't remember if Inevitables are in Pathfinder (I suspect not do to IP), but they are not creatures I ever liked the idea of. Same with Modrons. The homunculi thing doesn't seem an issue, and golems are something I use heavily. They just don't have the capacity for rational thought or self realization. Some degree of derangedness? Yes. Rage connected to pain? Yes. More complex emotion? No.

OldTrees1

2014-10-17, 02:53 AM

Oh, sure, they exist, no one's denying that, though they're going to be comparatively more rare for things people have to read than, say, clowns, which are a cultural touchstone of fear and loathing. And a phobia's not exactly a good reason, still, at the end of the day. It's not even really something one can make sense of or really understand like, say, someone having a skewed understanding due to being presented the material in entirely the wrong light and filtered through a third party and unreliable narrator.

It's basically an area where we can just say, well, here there be dragons, but at least we actually know there's dragons
In this part I was talking about dislike in general although what I said does definitely apply to fear and loathing.

You seemed to be dismissive of unreasoned dislike despite all reasons against something are at their core based on some unreasoned dislike or another. I was pointing out that unreasoned dislike is a fundementally human characteristic(preferences are subjective not derived from pure logic).

Eh.(or perhaps "Err....") Being made uncomfortable by people actively trying to be gross and reprehensible is actually fairly understandable. :smallconfused:

It doesn't really apply to all that many other things, and it still wouldn't make most things into good reasons, since squick is sort of definitionally a good reason, it causes an intense feeling of discomfort, often by design, for shock or to cheaply press the buttons on our primitive monkey hindbrains to get us to dance for the amusement of others.
[Point of Order]Squick isn't necessarily intentional. Causing it intentionally would be Trolling or some other word. I was talking about banning Squick because I don't like seeing Squick. This covers unintentional Squick as well.[End Point of Order]

So you agree that for exposure dislike there is some threshold at which the dislike is a good reason for banning despite the dislike not having a reason for existing other than the dislike existing?

Does this mean "I don't like it" can be a valid reason for banning something?

Psyren

2014-10-17, 02:54 AM

I don't think Awaken creates a soul, per se. After all, the resulting creature has its own personality and ideas. It starts out friendly to you, which we can chalk up to gratitude, but like any other NPC it can change its mind if you offend it enough.

Rather I think Awaken merely creates the right conditions for a soul to develop or inhabit a living being - which is not much different than simple procreation.

BWR

2014-10-17, 03:21 AM

Extreme examples aside (which other than torture rules I'm not aware of any that exist), I think this is entirely a table issue. If there's a player that super wants something and you don't like it, well their opinion is every bit as valid as yours is. If you don't like it in the world you've created, say they came from somewhere else. Not exactly elegant, but hey it gets the job done and everyone can be happy.

Except not everyone is happy. If I make a setting where there is only one world and it has a bunch of stuff, and hasn't a bunch of stuff, I should throw in something that doesn't fit just because some player throws a hissy fit and can't play by the setting? I want to run L5R but should allow a neogi psion just because one player can't get with the program?
Anyway, setting issues aside - most of us have already agreed that setting limtis are perfectly valid reasons for bans - why should I be forced to be annoyed every time one PC acts just because one player is so pissy he insists on playing something he knows annoys the hell out of me? Is there really no other option that he can take?
I've already said I will tolerate some stuff I'm not overly fond of because a game is a matter of give and take. I will tolerate even more in games I don't run because it isn't my game, and the GM has the final word on what is allowed (most DM's I know are fine with ToB so I'm not going to try to tell other players they can't use it). You can't always do everything in such a way that everyone is happy with absolutely everything, but there are limits to how unhappy you need to be.
Making a game fun for players doesn't necessarily mean accepting everything they could conceivably want to do. Some limits will be set on what a GM likes or doesn't, and that is fine in itself.

Yondu

2014-10-17, 04:40 AM

I do not ban anything in my games, the only things I said to my players is "You take the responsability of the build if you choice is to optimize like a crazy, you will face hyper - GM -optimized - Monster in every twisted way, if you choose to play a fun character, you will face funny situations..."
I try to balance the game with the players and their choice, as we are "most of the time" adults, why banning something, you want to play Psionics, OK I take a look a the rules, you want to play a swordsage, let's understand the manoeuvers...
If something is OP, there is always a way to circumvent it ( even Pun Pun can be circuvemt by the GM...)

Threadnaught

2014-10-17, 06:20 AM

Kesnit

2014-10-17, 07:14 AM

I have other things in my life to be doing than catering to the players. If you want me to introduce something on the level of DP Psionics or Path of War, that's at least three or four hours of reading before I am going to attempt to run it. I've got a busy enough life that I am not going to devote that much time so I can allow one character. The player can go build a different character, and if they don't like that they can find a different GM.

You AREN'T running it. The player is. The player is the one who is taking the time to pick maneuvers/powers/etc, figure out how they work together, and put it into action. If questions come up, you can take a minute for clarification (and, of course, the player had better be able to explain their PC's actions). But you don't have to be intimately familiar with a system in order to allow it in a game you run.

(I'm running a non-d20 game where a player asked to take a power set that I knew about but had never read. A quick skim - maybe 5 minutes - over the powers and I told him yes.)

LTwerewolf

2014-10-17, 07:19 AM

Except not everyone is happy. If I make a setting where there is only one world and it has a bunch of stuff, and hasn't a bunch of stuff, I should throw in something that doesn't fit just because some player throws a hissy fit and can't play by the setting? I want to run L5R but should allow a neogi psion just because one player can't get with the program?

This just seems like the other side of the coin. As a player they can't play something they want because the DM throws a hissy fit and refuses to allow them to play something that's not unreasonable? The DM doesn't understand that's it's cooperative storytelling and can't get with the program? You're acting like the player chose what they wanted to play based solely on what would annoy YOU the most, regardless of anything else and that they're only looking to ruin YOUR fun. Egocentricity aside, I've never had someone even approach that in any game I've ever DM'd or been a part of at all.

Psyren

2014-10-17, 07:57 AM

Don't dead animals inhabit Arborea or the Beastlands?

There are animals in those places. Whether they crossed over from the Material, and how, is another matter.

Though I didn't mean to imply that non-sapient beings don't have some form of soul, just that Roxxy's statement about "Druids creating souls" is not accurate.

(And before someone says that vetoing a character is taking away someone's fun, I find it highly unlikely that the only character someone would have fun playing would be unacceptable to the other players, and if that is the case I don't think I'd want to play with them anyway.)

I can get behind this - if I wanted to play a concept and others found it objectionable, and I was unable to sway them, well there are dozens of concepts knocking around in my cranium at any given time. I would simply pop back over to the archive, so to speak.

Omnisandro

2014-10-17, 08:24 AM

In my current table, i have examples of both good and bad bans.

The good one, in my opinion, is one of the best reasons: He bans books that are not translated to our language. Some of us know enough English, but not the whole group. So he think that would be unfair advantage. But he lets us slip some things here in there, if we translate to a piece of paper ourselfs.

The bad one for me is how he's handling balancing.
You see...he considers casters OP.
And even being a 3.5 newbie, i know he is right. But the way he is doing bugs me.
He made up a ''tier list'', where the class which acess to high caster level get acess to less books.

For example, as a Cleric, i can only use the core books, the forgotten realms ones ( but not all of them ) and only 1 of the Complete series.

pyrese

2014-10-17, 08:32 AM

Not having access to or understanding material is probably the very best reason to ban it from your campaign.

I've also seen fit to ban, or to give stern warnings about, particular feats or builds if I find a my players using them for their paper doll power instead of reflecting their character. (See: Knowledge Devotion).

Taveena

2014-10-17, 09:49 AM

Currently in the games I'm in, there're a few bans - I'm not entirely sure how reasonable they are, though I agree with most of them. Wizards are - while not banned outright - nerfed to Bard casting progression, and psionic characters are restricted to naturally psionic races. (It's 3.PF. Arcanist is banned, Sha'ir hasn't been discussed much due to the only character with that class being an NPC.)

In both cases it's a thematic thing - psionics are, in universe, not something anyone can train themselves to do, while Wizards... aren't meant to be gods. Powerful, sure, but not THAT powerful. It's a bit awkward because I'm not entirely sure what power level Wizards /are/ meant to be, and how much of it is a balance decision and how much is a fluff decision. I think it's partly the predictability of the other T1s and 2s - Clerics and Druids can smash things up wonderfully and utterly dominate a campaign, but they're not outright reality warpers. Sorcerors are, but their options are limited and thus can be planned around. Artificers have to deal with crafting times and the significant expenses. (I'm pretty sure Fast Time Genesis is banned - not sure though.)

Mind, it MIGHT be a kneejerk reaction to Wizard's obvious overwhelming power, but Sha'ir is pretty much on the same level.

Speaking of, I've had the Psionics limitations criticized elsewhere, though they don't bother me all that much. I think it might be because of the adherence to the fluff - in general while the fluff is mutable, the fluff is also... rather universal? It's hard to explain. A Spontaneous Cleric has to have a /reason/ that they cast spells differently from other clerics, would be the main example, but a Ruby Knight Vindicator could worship a different death god.

Anyway, I'm... not particularly set in my opinions and don't really know when it'd be reasonable, but hey, bans from a game I'm in that I'm not sure what to think about. Yay?

Sylthia

2014-10-17, 11:08 AM

I'll make an effort to include most things my players want, but I mostly ban things that slow down the game. Leadership is banned, because each PC having his own crew of NPC followers really slows down combat.

Elkad

2014-10-17, 11:21 AM

I had all content from Tome of Battle banned for the longest time....

....As soon as I do get the book, I will make an informed decision about how hard I should ban two Maneuvers."

Being rather new to ToB myself, White Raven Tactics and ????

As far as the phone/tablet thing, I allow phone and tablet solely for application lookup (and I ensure that we're all using the same application). Ringers off, no texting, no tablet/phone games. It makes it the same as referencing a book. Give it a try for one session and see how it is. I've found that it actually speeds gameplay over using straight books (which I also used to do).

No electronics wouldn't work at my table at all. Besides everyone having a copy of the SRD up (and one laptop that can throw it up on the bigscreen on the wall), all but one of us use Mythweavers sheets live (the last player uses it, but prints a paper sheet). The other DM and I both keep all our info on laptops, including handouts (those get copied to the campaign facebook group after the reveal).

Do people peek at FB occasionally? Sure. Play Candy Crush? Nppe

Besides, 2 of us are on-call 24/7. Play has stopped on occasion so one of us could fire up a bunch of tech tools and/or remote into a client's computer to fix something.

137beth

2014-10-17, 11:35 AM

Jayabalard

2014-10-17, 11:54 AM

Kenobi is more of a sorcerer than a psion.And star wars is more fantasy than sci-fi

What about psionics is sci-fi? Psionics is "engineering of the mind." They've been firmly part of the sci-fi genre since the pulps. The psi is from greek psyche, meaning mind; the onics part comes from electronics; the implication is that it's science based, and works consistently/scientifically.

I seem to recall that the term was coined by John Campbell; Campbell was a science fiction author and incredibly influential to the sci-fi genre as the editor of Astounding; he was a fan of fringe science.

So the "psionics = sci-fi" is a pretty understandable attitude.

Psyren

2014-10-17, 12:00 PM

Psionics is simply based on greek roots and those sound more "science-y." That's really all there is to it. (e.g. psionics, metamorphosis, psychometabolism etc.)

The actual mechanics are much closer to magic in most fantasy than Vancian is. (And Vancian casting itself has its roots in sci-fi, not fantasy.)

LTwerewolf

2014-10-17, 12:11 PM

dascarletm

2014-10-17, 12:13 PM

Vancian casting itself has its roots in sci-fi, not fantasy.)

really? Interesting

What roots if you don't mind me asking. I'm curious.

Troacctid

2014-10-17, 12:13 PM

Psionics lack the resonant fantasy flavor of traditional magic. Everyone knows what a Wizard is, what they look like, and what they do. An outsider with no knowledge of D&D will instantly grok the concept you're trying to get across as soon as you say "Wizard", and if there's confusion for some reason, all you need to add is "pointy hat".

Nobody knows what the heck a Xeph Wilder is. That's gibberish. Sounds like an alien from a cheesy B-movie.

dascarletm

2014-10-17, 12:18 PM

LTwerewolf

2014-10-17, 12:21 PM

really? Interesting

What roots if you don't mind me asking. I'm curious.

Jack Vance, science fiction writer's dying earth series. Although it's argued it's fantasy, it's pretty clearly sci-fi, because no distinction is really made between technology and magic, lending one to believe that it's magic through science. In fact it all but says the two are the same thing.

Hamste

2014-10-17, 12:21 PM

really? Interesting

What roots if you don't mind me asking. I'm curious.

The idea was created by Jack Vance for their dying earth novel (a novel that take places many years from now under a dying sun where everyone lives in the ruins of pars civilizations)

Jayabalard

2014-10-17, 12:22 PM

really? Interesting

What roots if you don't mind me asking. I'm curious.Vancian magic is referring to Vance's dying earth; it's set in the future, with magic alongside technology, when the laws of science start to fail. Vance was generally more well known as a sci-fi author than a fantasy author.

I'd generally consider it science fantasy rather than straight science fiction ... it's certainly a fair ways away from hard science-fiction, in some ways even softer than stuff like Pern.

Jack Vance, science fiction writer's dying earth series. Although it's argued it's fantasy, it's pretty clearly sci-fi, because no distinction is really made between technology and magic, lending one to believe that it's magic through science. In fact it all but says the two are the same thing.The implication is more that the laws of science are breaking down, rather than magic = technology.

draken50

2014-10-17, 12:22 PM

I have a "pending approval" on anything I don't have books for, and have yet to tell a player no... for a class, spell, feat or skill.

Psionics is probably the subsystem I am least interested in. If a character wanted to play something from ToB, despite my not having that book, I'd probably let them do it, again, if they provided printouts for everything. I consider martial fluff to be pretty easy to keep consistent.

That being said, I do think the argument I do think the argument of "But a player wants it!" is a not worthwhile.

I have run FR games, and had a player really want Spellfire... you know that ability barely mentioned in the book with no LA or any negative what-so-ever. Oh and my player wanted it without any negative too, because hey... doesn't say anything about it in the book. So because my player "wants" a free super useful ability do I then "need" to give it to him?

The wants of the players matter, and a fair amount. Any individual player want does need to be weighed against other wants/needs of both the game, the group and outside things. What I can see happening is a defensiveness of gms where they are hearing players on here saying "Well if your running a game I'm in, and I want this, you are obligated to learn about it and incorporate it." It may not be what is said, but it's what is heard, and as a result we end up thinking. "I run a damn fine game as it is, and I've got other things I use my time for. So you're going to tell me I HAVE to take time away from other things I want to do to cater to your whims? I can get other players, I don't need you, so don't tell me what I HAVE TO DO."

This may also come from a mindset of GMs who don't play with strangers often. I have rarely run for people I don't know. One time I did, I had a player get really pissy at me that I don't like PVP in my games, when I said it upfront like I was infringing on his rights as a player. I don't care, you can talk about fairness all you goddamn want.. I am not a kindergartner... I don't give a damn about fair.

My perspective... perhaps a bit unfairly... is that if you can't fun playing a core race/class combo... you wouldn't have fun in my game anyway. That isn't all that's allowed by any means, but if you can't have fun with core, you're not going to have fun with everything. Character creation is fun. I get that. There's a joy to theory crafting and combo building, and making characters that perfectly fit and idea you're going for. If you can't play and have fun without that "perfect" mechanical fit, or that one specific character you made. You won't like my games.

I create and run challenges my players at specifically because they're poorly equipped to deal with them. I've got swordmaster, a blind archer, and fireball slinging pixie having to unravel a royal assassination plot. They dropped monsters in 2 rounds, now they are really wishing they had a thief or illusionist or something more suited to the task at hand. They know they're expected to work to resolve this though, and I fully anticipate they will. In my games as in life, you don't always have the best tools for the job you've got, and sometimes you've got to make do. Watching them come up with ways to use what their good at to get access to, or replace what they aren't is fun to see. That being said I'm sure they'll be quite happy to unleash on some hapless monster once the whole thing is done.

Psyren

2014-10-17, 12:31 PM

Nobody knows what the heck a Xeph Wilder is. That's gibberish. Sounds like an alien from a cheesy B-movie.

Nobody knows what the heck an Deep Imaskari Duskblade is. That's gibberish. Sounds like some emo teenager trying too hard to be cool.

Vancian magic is referring to Vance's dying earth; it's set in the future, with magic alongside technology, when the laws of science start to fail. Vance was generally more well known as a sci-fi author than a fantasy author.

I'd generally consider it science fantasy rather than straight science fiction ... it's certainly a fair ways away from hard science-fiction, in some ways even softer than stuff like Pern.

It's soft sci-fi, to be sure, but it's still far closer to "science" than anything in the XPH that isn't mindflayers. (Which, incidentally, are part of D&D whether you ban psionics or not, because they are core.)

sktarq

2014-10-17, 12:50 PM

Aren't we having the same discussion in the "are all DM's control freaks" thread and the banning alignments thread? I feel I'd just get repetitive at this point.

Jayabalard

2014-10-17, 12:57 PM

Nobody knows what the heck an Deep Imaskari Duskblade is. That's gibberish. Sounds like some emo teenager trying too hard to be cool.Deep Imaskari Duskblade = Emo teenager = fantasy.
XPH = Bad B horror movie = sci-fi

Certainly perceptions are subjective... but it's not hard to see how people form them.

It's soft sci-fi, to be sure, but it's still far closer to "science" than anything in the XPH that isn't mindflayers. (Which, incidentally, are part of D&D whether you ban psionics or not, because they are core.)A number of the things in the XPH are more "alien" than "monster"

the Thri-keen are derivative of several insect aliens in sci fi.
Puppeteers are pretty clearly derivative of Heinlein's aliens in the puppet masters

There are others, but those leap to mind as examples of things that are at least as sci-fi derivative as the mindflayers, if not more so.

BWR

2014-10-17, 01:06 PM

The whole SF vs. fantasy argument reminds me of nothing so much as 'that's not metal' arguments.

Psyren

2014-10-17, 01:10 PM

Emo teenager = fantasy.

Yeah, not seeing this particular leap at all.

Certainly perceptions are subjective... but it's not hard to see how people form them.

I explained the source of the psionics = sci-fi meme. It's a reaction to the greek roots used throughout the system rather than any rational connection in the mechanics or fluff.

Also, there are several insectoid monsters in standard fantasy/D&D, and what puppeteers do is just possession with a worm attached.

AmberVael

2014-10-17, 01:16 PM

I explained the source of the psionics = sci-fi meme. It's a reaction to the greek roots used throughout the system rather than any rational connection in the mechanics or fluff.

Putting aside how well you can or cannot use psionics (whether broadly or the specific 3.5 system) in a fantasy setting, I really don't think this is the explanation for people associating psionics with sci-fi. There is a fair history of psychic abilities in sci-fi media, while magic shows up somewhat less frequently, while the opposite is true in fantasy.

I mean, when wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psionics) says this:

Psionic abilities appear frequently in science fiction and provide characters with abilities that are normally seen in the fantasy genre.
I think we're dealing with something a bit more than "greek roots."

Vortenger

2014-10-17, 01:20 PM

I ban psionics because I just don't think it fits in a fantasy setting. It's a sci-fi thing. In fantasy settings, magic keeps things plenty complicated enough.

But... Psionics has been part of D&D since 1e... How can a system that has been part of the game as long as there's been a game not fit in?

Aboleth, Mind Flayer, the Gith races, most other aberrations. Do you similarly have a problem with the flavor of these monsters in D&D since all their powers are from psionic origin? They are somewhat iconic to the series.

edit: Ah, that's what I get for having a snap reaction to a post on the first page without reading the rest, first. Silly emotions.

Psyren

2014-10-17, 01:21 PM

Putting aside how well you can or cannot use psionics (whether broadly or the specific 3.5 system) in a fantasy setting, I really don't think this is the explanation for people associating psionics with sci-fi. There is a fair history of psychic abilities in sci-fi media, while magic shows up somewhat less frequently, while the opposite is true in fantasy.

I mean, when wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psionics) says this:

I think we're dealing with something a bit more than "greek roots."

Yet even with that, mechanically, psionics is much closer to the magic seen in non-D&D fiction and RPGs than D&D magic is. The ability to augment by burning more resources, the ability to Overchannel beyond your safe limits and hurt yourself, the lack of a preparation/precasting mechanic, no component pouches stuffed with corny jokes, metered/point-based resources instead of slots etc. Mechanics are the important part, because the rest is mutable window dressing.

AmberVael

2014-10-17, 01:25 PM

Yet even with that, mechanically, psionics is much closer to the magic seen in non-D&D fiction and RPGs than D&D magic is. The ability to augment by burning more resources, the ability to Overchannel beyond your safe limits and hurt yourself, the lack of a preparation/precasting mechanic, no component pouches stuffed with corny jokes, metered/point-based resources instead of slots etc. Mechanics are the important part, because the rest is mutable window dressing.

When a class calls itself a psion and presents itself heavily as psychic, I'm going to be looking for a psychic. Seeing what's actually beneath it takes some consideration and time.

Just like when someone looks at a class called monk that presents itself as a kung fu warrior, it generally takes time for the realization to set in that they're a glorified mule. :smallamused:

Hand_of_Vecna

2014-10-17, 01:28 PM

You seemed to be dismissive of unreasoned dislike despite all reasons against something are at their core based on some unreasoned dislike or another. I was pointing out that unreasoned dislike is a fundementally human characteristic(preferences are subjective not derived from pure logic).

Most people tend to hold adults to a higher standard of motivation than five year olds, especially when they're justifying denying something to someone else. Sure everyone can be irrational every now and then. You don't need to explain your childhood trauma in depth for me to make an allowance ingame, but you do realize that this expends a kind of social currency and it can't be your go to method of getting your way especially if your gaming group consists of people that aren't friends outside the game.

The actual mechanics are much closer to magic in most fantasy than Vancian is. (And Vancian casting itself has its roots in sci-fi, not fantasy.)

I'm not anti-psionics, but this seems like a better argument for switching the labels on both than allowing one or the other in a game.

Also, psionics can be a bit of an unholy bovine in D&D with lots of baggage based on bad experiences in AD&D and later from goups missing the PP/round cap when they first came out in 3rd ed allowing Psions mid level Psions to burn themselves out casting 2-4 high level Mind Thrusts or Astral Constructs.

Also you'll have to work really hard to go against a cultural feel that Psionics=sci-fi.

If you start describing a new fantasy setting to someone, you'll eventually be asked "what's the magic like?" or "is there magic?".

Psionics can usually be added to sci-fi settings without challenging the status quo, the second magic shows up the genre becomes "sci-fi/fantasy".

You sell your soul=magic=fantasy.

Exposed to radiation and mutate=psionics=sci-fi. Ok this one is a bit weaker magic can steal pretty much every psionics origin with magical X.

Insects-people are a sci-fi staple and in D&D their deeply tied in with Psionics.

Troacctid

2014-10-17, 01:29 PM

Yet even with that, mechanically, psionics is much closer to the magic seen in non-D&D fiction and RPGs than D&D magic is. The ability to augment by burning more resources, the ability to Overchannel beyond your safe limits and hurt yourself, the lack of a preparation/precasting mechanic, no component pouches stuffed with corny jokes, metered/point-based resources instead of slots etc. Mechanics are the important part, because the rest is mutable window dressing.

Yes, ironic, isn't it? The designers deliberately avoided using existing resonant fantasy tropes when creating psionics, even when they would have been a perfect fit. "Mana? What is this 'mana' you speak of? I don't have mana, I have a power point reserve."

Psyren

2014-10-17, 01:30 PM

When a class calls itself a psion and presents itself heavily as psychic, I'm going to be looking for a psychic. Seeing what's actually beneath it takes some consideration and time.

Just like when someone looks at a class called monk that presents itself as a kung fu warrior, it generally takes time for the realization to set in that they're a glorified mule. :smallamused:

Heh.

But the thing is, only two psionic disciplines present themselves that way. The rest might as well be mages by another name. (And still smell as sweet.)

Also, psionics can be a bit of an unholy bovine in D&D with lots of baggage based on bad experiences in AD&D and later from goups missing the PP/round cap when they first came out in 3rd ed allowing Psions mid level Psions to burn themselves out casting 2-4 high level Mind Thrusts or Astral Constructs.

And if the current rules weren't free online I would absolutely consider that to be valid. But they are.

AmberVael

2014-10-17, 01:37 PM

Heh.

But the thing is, only two psionic disciplines present themselves that way. The rest might as well be mages by another name. (And still smell as sweet.)

The whole book presents itself that way from the very beginning. Some parts might be more rooted more deeply than others, but the whole thing is the psionic system of psychic powers. Yeah, its really simple to change the fluff on it all to be your typical mana based spell system, but not everyone wants to do that (I don't really understand why not, but they don't). And some people might not even know enough about it to know that it IS easy to do that, because they heard 'psionics' and went 'eeeh I don't think I really want to mix a commonly sci-fi element in my fantasy' and discarded the idea.

Psyren

2014-10-17, 01:54 PM

The whole book presents itself that way from the very beginning. Some parts might be more rooted more deeply than others, but the whole thing is the psionic system of psychic powers. Yeah, its really simple to change the fluff on it all to be your typical mana based spell system, but not everyone wants to do that (I don't really understand why not, but they don't). And some people might not even know enough about it to know that it IS easy to do that, because they heard 'psionics' and went 'eeeh I don't think I really want to mix a commonly sci-fi element in my fantasy' and discarded the idea.

Well, that goes back to the OP of this thread then. The question was "do you think this is a good reason." My personal judgment to this rationale would be, no, I personally consider it to be kneejerk and lazy, provided the player is not springing this on you the night before character creation or something. We all have our own places to draw lines in the sand.

Jayabalard

2014-10-17, 02:07 PM

But... Psionics has been part of D&D since 1e... How can a system that has been part of the game as long as there's been a game not fit in?D&D existed for quite a while before 1e was release. The game predates psionics, though they've been around for a really long time (35 years or so)

But even in 1e, psionics were an OPTIONAL set of rules. There were likewise optional rules in 1e for incorporating characters from Gamma world, and Boot hill.

Yeah, not seeing this particular leap at all.It's not actually any more of a leap than your original assertion. In fact, it follows directly via the transitive property of "=" from your original assertion.

I explained the source of the psionics = sci-fi meme. It's a reaction to the greek roots used throughout the system rather than any rational connection in the mechanics or fluff. Fluff includes the names. The term "psionics" itself comes from sci-fi; coined by a sci-fi author and the person Asimov said was the most influential man to the science fiction genre. Most of the rest of the terms associated with psionics are from science: J. B. Rhine's research in parapsychology, or Henry Holt's On the cosmic relations (1915), for example.

Psionics = sci-fi because they're based on science (albeit, fringe science). The fluff isn't just connected to sci-fi, it's derivative of sci-fi.

As for the mechanics... looking D&D psionics 1e AD&D to more current editions, it's pretty easy to see how the mechanics line up with and were pulled in from various sci-fi sources.

Also, there are several insectoid monsters in standard fantasy/D&D,Out of curiosity, do you have any examples? I can't think of any off hand that aren't sci-fi derivative other than MAYBE Alan Dean Foster's plated folk and the ones from Feists' Riftwar (Cho-something), which are from the 1980s or 1990s. I can probably name off a dozen sci-fi ones and many of those predate the 2 fantasy examples I can come up with by 40-50 years, or more.

The "bug war" and "bug hunt" tropes are pretty firmly sci-fi.

and what puppeteers do is just possession with a worm attached.They're also a pretty blatant copy of the puppet masters, as I mentioned... not just in name, but in shape, and how they function.

AmberVael

2014-10-17, 02:12 PM

Well, that goes back to the OP of this thread then. The question was "do you think this is a good reason." My personal judgment to this rationale would be, no, I personally consider it to be kneejerk and lazy, provided the player is not springing this on you the night before character creation or something. We all have our own places to draw lines in the sand.

Fair enough. I've been more focused on the tangent of "why would people look at this as a system more suitable to sci-fi" than the main topic.

Sartharina

2014-10-17, 02:27 PM

I don't think banning a system because of unfamiliarity is a good reason - Instead, it's the opportunity to learn that system!

OldTrees1

2014-10-17, 02:41 PM

Most people tend to hold adults to a higher standard of motivation than five year olds, especially when they're justifying denying something to someone else. Sure everyone can be irrational every now and then. You don't need to explain your childhood trauma in depth for me to make an allowance ingame, but you do realize that this expends a kind of social currency and it can't be your go to method of getting your way especially if your gaming group consists of people that aren't friends outside the game.

I wasn't talking about irrational. I was talking about preferences (preferences exist without a logical argument derived from pure reason). It is not irrational for someone that prefers X to prefer X.

However the rest of your post(talking about social currency) is spot on. A strong enough dislike is a valid reason for a ban but your players will only take so much of that.

I don't think banning a system because of unfamiliarity is a good reason - Instead, it's the opportunity to learn that system!

The unfamiliarity reason is usually a symptom of "the opportunity cost for learning the system has been too high up to the present" reason.

BWR

2014-10-17, 02:42 PM

I don't think banning a system because of unfamiliarity is a good reason - Instead, it's the opportunity to learn that system!

Except there is the matter of time. Some people have a rather limited amount of free time and want to use it effectively. Or they feel there is enough going on the game and don't see the need to make it even more complicated than it already is. Or simply have no interest, and learning yet another unnecessary system is just a waste of time.

Sartharina

2014-10-17, 02:44 PM

Except there is the matter of time. Some people have a rather limited amount of free time and want to use it effectively. Or they feel there is enough going on the game and don't see the need to make it even more complicated than it already is. Or simply have no interest, and learning yet another unnecessary system is just a waste of time.

But it's not an unnecessary waste of time if it's integral to a character. Not fitting in with the game world, though, is a reason to ban something.

OldTrees1

2014-10-17, 02:45 PM

But it's not an unnecessary waste of time if it's integral to a character.

Is this an objective claim for all cases? Or did you mean this as a general statement and not a universally true statement?

I mean if I were the DM in my current circumstances then this would be inherently true. However the opportunity cost differs from person to person and circumstance to circumstance.

Psyren

2014-10-17, 02:54 PM

It's not actually any more of a leap than your original assertion. In fact, it follows directly via the transitive property of "=" from your original assertion.

Mine was a tongue-in-cheek reference to (a) the use of "deep" and "dusk" in that particular class combination, and (b) the fact that just from reading it, you would have no more idea what it was, what it could do or even what it would look like than you would with a Xeph Wilder. Yet inscrutability alone does not make something "sci-fi."

Psionics = sci-fi because they're based on science (albeit, fringe science). The fluff isn't just connected to sci-fi, it's derivative of sci-fi.

And "magic" has electricity coming from fur + glass rods, fire coming from sulphurous droppings and salt used to preserve meat. How is that not based on science?

Out of curiosity, do you have any examples?

Rust Monsters, Formians, any giant insect ever...

draken50

2014-10-17, 03:00 PM

But it's not an unnecessary waste of time if it's integral to a character.

That's an interesting idea, but especially given my admitted lack of knowledge in regards to the that particular subsystem. What about it... makes it integral to the character?

Given that very concept of psionics seems to be argued relative to fantasy vs. sci-fi and the like. I don't understand what about this specific set of mechanics would make it something that I should feel any OBLIGATION to learn.

So exactly how, does the use of Psionic ... whatever their business is, remain an integral part of the character? I ask most particularly when most of what I'm seeing is "refluff it however you want." Given that case... what about it prevents the concept from being handled by other rules at my disposal?

Sartharina

2014-10-17, 03:08 PM

That's an interesting idea, but especially given my admitted lack of knowledge in regards to the that particular subsystem. What about it... makes it integral to the character?

Given that very concept of psionics seems to be argued relative to fantasy vs. sci-fi and the like. I don't understand what about this specific set of mechanics would make it something that I should feel any OBLIGATION to learn.

So exactly how, does the use of Psionic ... whatever their business is, remain an integral part of the character? I ask most particularly when most of what I'm seeing is "refluff it however you want." Given that case... what about it prevents the concept from being handled by other rules at my disposal?Because the sorcerer crunch isn't as fun for an 'intuitive magic-stuff-using catgirl' as Wilder fluff is.

And even other subsystems, like Incarnum and Martial Initiators are critical to character concepts as well.

Threadnaught

2014-10-17, 03:17 PM

Being rather new to ToB myself, White Raven Tactics and ????

Probably Iron Heart Surge. If used as 'intended' it's probably a good maneuver. The problem is the editing is bad enough that no one can figure out what is 'intended'.

Yeah, and the ban is really more a case of "No White Raven Tactics on yourself you cheating sack of crap" and "Iron Heart Surge works on what I say it does, if I say it doesn't work, then it doesn't work. Feel free to try it out on whatever you want though, just don't go trying to justify how it kills the BBEG."

draken50

2014-10-17, 03:18 PM

Because the sorcerer crunch isn't as fun for an 'intuitive magic-stuff-using catgirl' as Wilder fluff is.

And even other subsystems, like Incarnum and Martial Initiators are critical to character concepts as well.

So... it can be done... you just don't like it as much. That's fine... but that's preference in my mindset.

I get you may not like the feel of things, and that's fine. But, considering the sorcerer class fluff as written was ... "intuitive magic-stuff using character" you're still not showing how the class is critical to the concept. For something to be critical to a concept you would have to show. "I want to do this... this class does it... this class does not..."

Edit: To be fair this may come from my frustrations at players wanting a mechanic/bonus for every f-ing thing. That I've also had to have the "no you can't secretly be a dragon/demigod with spellfire/hypnotizing gaze/half the x-mens powers, alongside a dwarf fighter and a half-orc monk." conversations a bit to often in my early GMing days. Or "No I'm not making a house-rule about arrow shots doing more damage when shot from higher based on elevation blah blah blah, because you happen to be flying right now. They don't have concealment as a result, shut the hell up and roll the dice." I swear it was so hard not to spontaneously add a "dispel magic" arrow to the best enemy archers quiver.

EisenKreutzer

2014-10-17, 04:45 PM

...

2014-10-17, 05:25 PM

Curmudgeon

2014-10-17, 06:13 PM

I'll ban something if it's written so poorly that I'd need to commit major time to the problems. The Factotum was one such item until I put in the work. As an example, here's the effort I had to put into that one class:
The Factotum's Cunning Breach actually does work in my game, despite the authors not having the slightest idea how spell resistance functions in D&D. Strike the last, nonsensical, sentence of the paragraph.

Ninjas, Scouts, Factotums, and other classes with Trapfinding can use Search (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/search.htm) to find traps with DCs higher than 20 and Disable Device (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/disableDevice.htm) to disarm magic traps, just as Rogues can. However, this does not override explicit limitations stated elsewhere in the rules, including the following spells:

Explosive Runes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/explosiveRunes.htm) can only be found or disabled by a Rogue.
Fire Trap (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fireTrap.htm) can only be found or disabled by a Rogue.
Glyph of Warding (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/glyphOfWarding.htm) can only be found or disabled by a Rogue.
Spike Growth (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/spikeGrowth.htm) can only be found by a Rogue.
Spike Stones (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/spikeStones.htm) can only be found by a Rogue.
Symbol of Death (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/symbolOfDeath.htm) can only be found or disabled by a Rogue.
Symbol of Fear (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/symbolOfFear.htm) can only be found or disabled by a Rogue.
Symbol of Insanity (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/symbolOfInsanity.htm) can only be found or disabled by a Rogue.
Symbol of Pain (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/symbolOfPain.htm) can only be found or disabled by a Rogue.
Symbol of Persuasion (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/symbolOfPersuasion.htm) can only be found or disabled by a Rogue.
Symbol of Sleep (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/symbolOfSleep.htm) can only be found or disabled by a Rogue.
Symbol of Stunning (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/symbolOfStunning.htm) can only be found or disabled by a Rogue.
Symbol of Weakness (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/symbolOfWeakness.htm) can only be found or disabled by a Rogue.
Teleportation Circle (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/teleportationCircle.htm) can only be found or disabled by a Rogue.

Factotum inspiration points aren't gained when an encounter ends, or after a few minutes; they're only gained at the beginning of each encounter (when you roll initiative), exactly as stated. Also, I've decided among the various possible meanings of "gains" to treat it as synonymous with "attains" (rather than "adds") here; IPs thus refresh to the specified total rather than keep accumulating. (The FAQ made up something counter to the RAW.)

House Rule: Bonus damage from the Factotum's Cunning Insight is negative energy damage when used with a spell or effect that deals negative levels or ability damage, making it consistent with the treatment of bonus damage from sneak attack when used with weaponlike spells. (This follows the pattern of a WotC Rules of the Game (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040309a) article, months before Complete Arcane made that Skip Williams house rule official.)

Because Factotums do not cast spells, the metamagic feats they use must be those which affect Spell-like abilities (Empower Spell-Like Ability (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsterFeats.htm#empowerSpellLikeAbility), Quicken Spell-Like Ability (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsterFeats.htm#quickenSpellLikeAbility), and the like). Metamagic feats applicable only to spells do not benefit the Factotum. From Dungeonscape page 16:

By spending 1 inspiration point, you can mimic a spell as a spell-like ability.

The Factotum has a caster level, but not an arcane caster level or a divine caster level. Factotums use SLAs; they are not spellcasters — either arcane or divine. From Complete Arcane page 72:

... requirements for feats and prestige classes based on specific levels of spells cast (“Able to cast 3rd-level arcane spells,” for example) cannot be met by spell-like abilities or invocations—not even spell-like abilities or invocations that allow a character to use a specific arcane spell of the appropriate level or higher.

The Factotum's Cunning Strike is limited to 1 inspiration point for 1d6 sneak attack, as that class feature doesn't stipulate an exception to the stacking rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#stacking). (The FAQ made up something counter to the RAW.)

The Factotum's Cunning Brilliance can't be used to imitate any ability without an explicit (Ex) label. That is, you can't assume an unlabeled class ability is Extraordinary; that's not the default. (The FAQ made up something counter to the RAW.) From Player's Handbook page 180:

Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like.
I don't ban the Factotum any more, but it was a pain in the posterior getting to where all the stupidities had been addressed and the class was usable without regularly bringing the game to a halt.

Coidzor

2014-10-17, 09:01 PM

In this part I was talking about dislike in general although what I said does definitely apply to fear and loathing.

You seemed to be dismissive of unreasoned dislike despite all reasons against something are at their core based on some unreasoned dislike or another. I was pointing out that unreasoned dislike is a fundementally human characteristic(preferences are subjective not derived from pure logic).

Of course I"m dismissive of unreasoned dislike when it's put forward as a good reason for doing anything. Because it's not. It's the antithesis of a good reason. Trying to obfuscate the issue by saying every other reason ever is a post-hoc justification doesn't really help with that problem even if you're right.

I know I don't really have a good reason for my dislike of clowns and I accept and admit to this. I'm still not going to go see clowns unless I've got some pressing external reason to do so.

So if your definition of "good reason" is so flawed as to include any reason that actually gets one to do something, I suppose bigotry would count, but I really don't want to have to include bigotry in my list of good reasons to do things and if I accept all unreasoned dislike as good reasons then I'm going to have to give the green light ot bigotry as well.

So you agree that for exposure dislike there is some threshold at which the dislike is a good reason for banning despite the dislike not having a reason for existing other than the dislike existing?

Does this mean "I don't like it" can be a valid reason for banning something?

No. :smallconfused: Squick is more than dislike or even a degree of dislike, generally speaking. If someone doen't like some material in game and it causes them to want to vomit, then they should probably avoid it, yes. Though that's mostly because it's for the fragile(?) mental health of the DM at that point.

I've yet to encounter any examples wher this was the case, so I'm inclined to believe that it's potentially theoretically possible the same way it's theoretically possible that one of us could have sexual relations with a celebrity, but not really something that we're going to encounter in our humdrum day-to-day lives.

Raven777

2014-10-17, 09:07 PM

I think the problem is that "dislike" is too generic a term and feels like a cop out as far as reasons go. For something you find squicky, go with "it makes me feel uncomfortable" ; for something that doesn't match the setting, go with "it doesn't fit the themes or atmosphere or culture I want to establish in the setting I chose or built for the game". And so on. Basically, the good reason is not that you dislike it, but why you dislike it.

OldTrees1

2014-10-17, 10:17 PM

@Coidzor
I am replying to you with my reply to Raven.

I think the problem is that "dislike" is too generic a term and feels like a cop out as far as reasons go. For something you find squicky, go with "it makes me feel uncomfortable" ; for something that doesn't match the setting, go with "it doesn't fit the themes or atmosphere or culture I want to establish in the setting I chose or built for the game". And so on. Basically, the good reason is not that you dislike it, but why you dislike it.

I agree dislike is too generic a term, but let's look at the examples you gave:
"it makes me feel uncomfortable": Apparently you dislike feeling uncomfortable. You do not have a reason for disliking feeling uncomfortable, you just do dislike feeling uncomfortable.

"it doesn't fit the themes or atmosphere ...": Apparently you dislike thematic discord. You don't have a reason for disliking thematic discord, you just do dislike thematic discord.

This is the inherent nature of preferences, they are not derived from pure logic, eventually you end up staring at an unreasoned preference. Is that wrong? No. That is merely the human condition. It is irrational to hold "I dislike X" and I dislike Y because Y is X and I dislike X" to different standards assuming all else constant. Both are unreasoned and both are valid preferences. The question then comes as to when a dislike becomes a good reason for avoidance(since a good reason for avoidance is equivalent to a good reason for a ban).

Let me put it another way: Is there a threshold such that if a player dislikes a game enough they have a valid reason to leave it? What if that player knew about this before the game, do they have a valid reason not to join the game? What if the player is the DM, do they have a valid reason not to run a game they would dislike? The answer to all of these is equivalent. The DM is not in an inferior/subservient position to the other players, the DM is not obligated to run something they dislike merely because someone else wants them to.

Jeff the Green

2014-10-17, 10:20 PM

@Coidzor
I am replying to you with my reply to Raven.

I agree dislike is too generic a term, but let's look at the examples you gave:
"it makes me feel uncomfortable": Apparently you dislike feeling uncomfortable. You do not have a reason for disliking feeling uncomfortable, you just do dislike feeling uncomfortable.

"it doesn't fit the themes or atmosphere ...": Apparently you dislike thematic discord. You don't have a reason for disliking thematic discord, you just do dislike thematic discord.

This is the inherent nature of preferences, they are not derived from pure logic, eventually you end up staring at an unreasoned preference. Is that wrong? No. That is merely the human condition. It is irrational to hold "I dislike X" and I dislike Y because Y is X and I dislike X" to different standards assuming all else constant. Both are unreasoned and both are valid preferences. The question then comes as to when a dislike becomes a good reason for avoidance(since a good reason for avoidance is equivalent to a good reason for a ban).

I agree. The only standard I can think of is severity. It doesn't matter that a phobia is by definition unreasonable and irrational, you shouldn't get to play a killer clown if one of the players is coulrophobic.

Petrocorus

2014-10-17, 10:21 PM

Additionally, I ban psionics, not balance reasons or anything like that. I simply do not own the book(s) and don't have any kind of understanding of their rule-sets or how they behave. Do you consider that... a good reason?

I ban ToM and MoI for that very reason.

This is definitely not a reason I would agree with either.
I'm with you on that. I hear the Sci-Fi complain a lot and never was convinced.

Saying "I won't allow it because I'm not familiar with it, and I'm not going to familiarize myself with it because I'm lazy" is never a good reason for anything.
Not because i'm lazy, but because i don't want to. And because the game is already rich without that particular stuff.

I think the DM has the right to ban whatever he wants to, for whatever reason he has.

The only thing i don't like to see banned is the ToB, because it's the one things that let BSF being really good at what they are supposed to do, being able to do things outside of fight and not to be irrelevant after lvl 6 in a group with T1 classes.

Hand_of_Vecna

2014-10-17, 11:10 PM

"it makes me feel uncomfortable": Apparently you dislike feeling uncomfortable. You do not have a reason for disliking feeling uncomfortable, you just do dislike feeling uncomfortable.

Uncomfortable has very different connotations than dislike. I dislike Magic of Incarnum fluff. I'm uncomfortable with games where slavery is an acceptable practice for Good aligned characters.

"it doesn't fit the themes or atmosphere ...": Apparently you dislike thematic discord. You don't have a reason for disliking thematic discord, you just do dislike thematic discord.

I'm pretty sure most people do. It may occaisionally be played for laughs, but it's generaly a bad thing.

It is irrational to hold "I dislike X" and I dislike Y because Y is X and I dislike X" to different standards assuming all else constant. Both are unreasoned and both are valid preferences.

No they're actually quiet different,because in the latter case the subject has actually reasoned through their feelings and shared their thought process with you.

Jeff the Green

2014-10-17, 11:26 PM

No they're actually quiet different,because in the latter case the subject has actually reasoned through their feelings and shared their thought process with you.

Why does that matter for whether it's a valid reason to not have something in a game? It is definitely helpful and I'd push such a DM or player to reason through their dislike since that might mean a quick reskin (say, of the fluff of a spell that describes torturous pain but mechanically gives a level-appropriate penalty) or a rewrite (say, cut out a particular part of a character's background that isn't terribly important) would solve the problem, but it doesn't change the fact that letting such a thing in will cause unfun and one shouldn't allow unfun in one's game.

Edit: Also, such a standard would make someone who's really bad at interrogating their own emotions or at explaining them (i.e. someone who has alexithymia) be incapable of having raising a legitimate issue with something in a campaign. This is not a good thing.

OldTrees1

2014-10-17, 11:46 PM

Uncomfortable has very different connotations than dislike. I dislike Magic of Incarnum fluff. I'm uncomfortable with games where slavery is an acceptable practice for Good aligned characters.
I have been using dislike as the generic term to avoid the argument about where precisely the threshold is for a valid reason. Perhaps it would have been wiser to use uncomfortable instead...

I'm pretty sure most people do. It may occaisionally be played for laughs, but it's generaly a bad thing.
:)

No they're actually quiet different,because in the latter case the subject has actually reasoned through their feelings and shared their thought process with you.
You missed something. In both examples the X stood for the bottom of the pile. In both cases they reasonedexamined through their feelings and shared their thought process with you. The only difference is in one case you started closer to the bottom.

Powerdork

2014-10-18, 12:27 AM

As a new gamer, I'm in this experimentation phase where I'll do silly things like ban Core classes and feats (except as prerequisites) in Pathfinder and see what happens.

Hand_of_Vecna

2014-10-18, 01:00 AM

Why does that matter for whether it's a valid reason to not have something in a game? It is definitely helpful and I'd push such a DM or player to reason through their dislike since that might mean a quick reskin (say, of the fluff of a spell that describes torturous pain but mechanically gives a level-appropriate penalty) or a rewrite (say, cut out a particular part of a character's background that isn't terribly important) would solve the problem, but it doesn't change the fact that letting such a thing in will cause unfun and one shouldn't allow unfun in one's game.

Because one is what children do. It's immature to stonewall a conversation at "I don't like it".

If only a single person's preferences mattered in what was banned, then yes of course we would ban books, classes, spells, etc at their slightest whim. A game is a collaborative efort though and everyone's preferences mater. When you eliminate a book to reduce one person's unfun you may be negatively impacting someone else's fun, especially when it's likely at least one or two people dislike arbitrary bans with no explanation based in balance, flavor or verisimilitude.

Edit: Also, such a standard would make someone who's really bad at interrogating their own emotions or at explaining them (i.e. someone who has alexithymia) be incapable of having raising a legitimate issue with something in a campaign. This is not a good thing.

This would bring us back to the point I made earlier about social currency. We know that sometimes people will have irrational feelings that they aren't comfortable talking about; childhood trauma and such I've known people with phobias so bad they had difficulty saying the english word for the object of their phobia. Obviously, once you know someone better you'll know if they need more allowances with this sort of thing. Personally, I'm not going to go around assuming people can't express their preferences when sitting down to a game with a new group.

Sartharina

2014-10-18, 01:16 AM

If you do not own a book with the rules for the object in question, you have every right to ban it.

Even if the rules are on the internet, There are a lot of people who will agree with me when I say that PDFs melt your eyes.You can learn the book as you play the game with someone who uses it!

So... it can be done... you just don't like it as much. That's fine... but that's preference in my mindset.

I get you may not like the feel of things, and that's fine. But, considering the sorcerer class fluff as written was ... "intuitive magic-stuff using character" you're still not showing how the class is critical to the concept. For something to be critical to a concept you would have to show. "I want to do this... this class does it... this class does not..."Wilders are able to freely scale, twist, augment, depower, and otherwise modify a small number of flexible powers, as opposed to Sorcerers being stuck with a nice-sized, evergrowing pile of discrete abilities.

From a Mechanical Fluff Stance - vancian magic represents drawing on external forces to Make Magic, while Psionics are internal magic. Wizards make the world change by learning the arcane rituals that the ambient forces of the world predictably react to and produce the desired effect. Sorcerers are about the same way, except they learn to just intuitively 'speak' with the ambient forces of the world that make magic happen. It's why they need to spend feats and extra time to negotiate the exact effect of a spell (Apply metamagic), and why they have limited amounts of world's favors they can draw upon (spell slots). Psionic characters, on the other hand, draw upon a well of internal power (Power points). Psions manipulate theirs through careful analysis and categorization of their power. Psychic warriors are intuitively aware of the power within them and focus on harnessing their own internal magic through that awareness. Wilders have strong internal magic that they throw around through bloody-mindedness.

Edit: To be fair this may come from my frustrations at players wanting a mechanic/bonus for every f-ing thing. That I've also had to have the "no you can't secretly be a dragon/demigod with spellfire/hypnotizing gaze/half the x-mens powers, alongside a dwarf fighter and a half-orc monk." conversations a bit to often in my early GMing days. Or "No I'm not making a house-rule about arrow shots doing more damage when shot from higher based on elevation blah blah blah, because you happen to be flying right now. They don't have concealment as a result, shut the hell up and roll the dice." I swear it was so hard not to spontaneously add a "dispel magic" arrow to the best enemy archers quiver.And my stance comes from frustrations of trying to make characters that only optional subsystems support because trying to get to that result with the game's system runs into power problems due to the designers making assumptions about how a given class is supposed to play. Trying to twist that into something else causes problems because it's one feat away from being overpowered, at the cost of the character vision.

OldTrees1

2014-10-18, 01:36 AM

You can learn the book as you play the game with someone who uses it!

1) Some DM's want to know material before it is used.
2) Again you are ignoring the opportunity costs.

I have to ask, are you claiming that all DMs in all circumstances have a low enough opportunity cost that it is always worth it for them to learn new D&D systems? (rather than other things they could be doing with their time[the opportunity cost])

PS: The use of a "!" implied something I did not parse. Why are you using it in this context?

Jeff the Green

2014-10-18, 01:55 AM

Because one is what children do. It's immature to stonewall a conversation at "I don't like it".

If only a single person's preferences mattered in what was banned, then yes of course we would ban books, classes, spells, etc at their slightest whim. A game is a collaborative efort though and everyone's preferences mater. When you eliminate a book to reduce one person's unfun you may be negatively impacting someone else's fun, especially when it's likely at least one or two people dislike arbitrary bans with no explanation based in balance, flavor or verisimilitude.

You are—again—conflating banning something because a player has some vague distaste for a book and banning a specific element because it counters or significantly reduces any fun they might have in the game. It is, for example, entirely appropriate to forbid much of the BoVD, priestesses of Loviatar, or serial killer PCs if a player has a weak stomach. It isn't because they think shaping souls into magic items is silly or that crystals and Greek words don't belong in fantasy. (And anyone who says that those will destroy their fun is either lying, has an unhealthy degree of entitlement, or going to be very difficult to play with on other points.)

RoboEmperor

2014-10-18, 02:49 AM

Depends on the player's intentions. If he is an optimizing power gamer who wants to take you off guard and steam roll through your campaign, then yes ban psionics.

If however, he saw some movie/anime/tvshow/game/book and wants to be a psionic character, then no. Learn psionics while playing with him. It shouldn't take you more than 5 minutes to learn the basics of psionics, but unless he pulls up some cheap combo that is winning all the fights single handedly, just let him play psionics.

So basically
Roleplayer? Don't ban, he won't abuse your lack of knowledge
Power Gamer? Yes ban

There's nothing worse than a DM who won't let you play with a non-optimized character by banning books that is essential to the character, no matter the reason, like banning vow of poverty because it's in the book of exalted deeds.

Jeff the Green

2014-10-18, 02:53 AM

Depends on the player's intentions. If he is an optimizing power gamer who wants to take you off guard and steam roll through your campaign, then yes ban psionics.

:smallconfused: In what way would that help? Psionics is no more powerful than spellcasting.

PersonMan

2014-10-18, 03:00 AM

I think his point there is 'if you have to keep someone in line with targeted bans / mechanical knowledge, then letting them use something you can't use those against is a bad idea'.

RoboEmperor

2014-10-18, 03:01 AM

:smallconfused: In what way would that help? Psionics is no more powerful than spellcasting.

No, you're wrong. Spellcasting is incomparably more powerful than psionics, which is why I am also confused against people who think psionics is over powered. Since psionics is weaker than spellcasting, and all DMs seem to have spellcasting under control, I can't think of a reason why anyone would ban psionics, but the original poster said he's banning it because he doesn't know it, so he might be taken off guard and get confused when a power gamer pulls up some combo that doesn't seem legit, or plays really close to RAW stuff, which is why I'm suggesting learn the player's intentions before making a judgment, cause he really might be some innocent guy who wants to be telekinetic.

Jeff the Green

2014-10-18, 03:15 AM

No, you're wrong. Spellcasting is incomparably more powerful than psionics,

...That's basically what I said. I don't think it's incomparably more powerful (psionics is much better at action economy shenanigans), but yes it is more so. The point is that if you don't trust your player to not powergame or be munchkin you can't trust them with spellcasting either; there are enough fiddly bits in either system that even if you know them well a motivated player can find a grossly overpowered combination and blindside you with it (and of course a munchkin can always find something to "misinterpret").

In general, I find the best way to handle this is to say (paraphrasing a DM of mine): "If you're unsure if something is overpowered, ask. If you have to ask whether you can use dust of sneezing and choking, shivering touch, or Item Familiar in a party with an archery-specced ranger who has ranks in Profession (surveyor), something has gone horribly wrong." And then if they pull out something like the (legal) infinite arcane fusion stuff or (illegal) spending more PP than your ML you've given ample notice for an on-the-fly ban (and possible rewrite/retrain between sessions).

Roxxy

2014-10-18, 03:21 AM

You can learn the book as you play the game with someone who uses it!As a GM, I do not do learn as I play. It's a great way to get overwhelmed or blindsided. I also have to learn the system to figure out how it fits into the setting as a whole, because the PC isn't going to be the only psion around.

Curmudgeon

2014-10-18, 05:46 AM

You can learn the book as you play the game with someone who uses it!
That sounds like a very bad idea for most DMs: those who prepare scenarios to offer challenges to the whole party. If you don't know a character's capabilities, you're very likely to come up with something that's either trivial or overwhelming for them, making for a sucky game experience. For the other players you're going to repeatedly bring the game to a halt as you have "discussions" with the player of the unfamiliar content.

This approach really doesn't work for me.

Psyren

2014-10-18, 10:47 AM

Here's an example of what I would consider reasonable: Psionics has legitimate mechanical issues that not every setting can take into account. It's much harder to detect for example, which lets even middling psionic casters operate in public with impunity. It's also far more difficult to "turn off" via mundane or low-magic means. The "nova problem" is also exacerbated in low combat games in a way that spellcasting is not. And psions can trivialize certain styles of campaign without a lot of houseruling - mysteries for example (clairsentience is much, much more poweful at lower levels than regular divinations, deity-provided information aside - e.g. you can scan the crime scene, murder weapon and ask the universe what to do) and survival-style campaigns (psions are extremely self-sufficient, able to go without food and drink indefinitely, heal themselves, and withstand extremes of temperature all from low levels.)

I think the DM has the right to ban whatever he wants to, for whatever reason he has.

Indeed he does. And the player has the right to consider that unreasonable/complain about it, and request a compromise.

Uncomfortable has very different connotations than dislike. I dislike Magic of Incarnum fluff. I'm uncomfortable with games where slavery is an acceptable practice for Good aligned characters.

This is either a massive non sequitur or you're reading something in that book that I clearly missed.

Sartharina

2014-10-18, 11:47 AM

:smallconfused: In what way would that help? Psionics is no more powerful than spellcasting.They're different. Someone familiar with spellcasting can keep it in check, and knows what's powerful and what's not. A new system, however, lacks the knowledge to properly defend against. And, you can't tell if someone's cheating if you don't know the system. A powergaming cheating psion could say "Power lets me do X because it also does Y+Z," even though the text and wording actually says it CAN'T do "X".

1) Some DM's want to know material before it is used.This step is unnecessary, though, as long as it's from a 1st party or reputable 3rd party source and thus there is no "opportunity cost", other than allowing a person to play a character. Of course, you have to trust the player to not be a cheating ass, as outlined above.

OldTrees1

2014-10-18, 12:15 PM

They're different. Someone familiar with spellcasting can keep it in check, and knows what's powerful and what's not. A new system, however, lacks the knowledge to properly defend against. And, you can't tell if someone's cheating if you don't know the system. A powergaming cheating psion could say "Power lets me do X because it also does Y+Z," even though the text and wording actually says it CAN'T do "X".

This step is unnecessary, though, as long as it's from a 1st party or reputable 3rd party source and thus there is no "opportunity cost", other than allowing a person to play a character. Of course, you have to trust the player to not be a cheating ass, as outlined above.

1) Knowing the material before using the material is not an unnecessary step for everyone. Some DMs want all material incorporated into the campaign world. Some DMs need to deal with inexperienced players. Some DMs need to deal with unpredictable players. Some DMs need to deal with poor tacticians. The list goes on and on and on.
2) There is always an opportunity cost(Econ 101). In the case of new material the opportunity cost is whatever else you could have done with that time(improved the campaign, worked, have other hobbies, send time with family ...)

So while you are right for most DMs in most circumstances, as a universal claim you are wrong. (I keep asking, you are making a universal claim rather than a general claim right?)

Roxxy

2014-10-18, 01:23 PM

Here's an example of what I would consider reasonable: Psionics has legitimate mechanical issues that not every setting can take into account. It's much harder to detect for example, which lets even middling psionic casters operate in public with impunity. It's also far more difficult to "turn off" via mundane or low-magic means. The "nova problem" is also exacerbated in low combat games in a way that spellcasting is not. And psions can trivialize certain styles of campaign without a lot of houseruling - mysteries for example (clairsentience is much, much more poweful at lower levels than regular divinations, deity-provided information aside - e.g. you can scan the crime scene, murder weapon and ask the universe what to do) and survival-style campaigns (psions are extremely self-sufficient, able to go without food and drink indefinitely, heal themselves, and withstand extremes of temperature all from low levels.)Oh. Could you elaborate on the issues with mysteries? I'm prepping for a campaign about the Kingdom's professional monster/rogue mage hunters, and I was planning on having some situations where the location or identity of the monster or rogue mage has to be discovered before the hunting can begin. Are they that good at divination? That could be problematic.

sonofzeal

2014-10-18, 04:11 PM

Oh. Could you elaborate on the issues with mysteries? I'm prepping for a campaign about the Kingdom's professional monster/rogue mage hunters, and I was planning on having some situations where the location or identity of the monster or rogue mage has to be discovered before the hunting can begin. Are they that good at divination? That could be problematic.

Each type of Psion (Egoist, Kineticist, Nomad, Seer, Shaper, Telepath) is excellent within its speciality and very poor at the others without blowing feats on it. A Seer is great at unravelling mysteries through clairvoyance, but none of the others will be. A Shaper can conjur beatsticks that make anyone stuck with Summon Monster ### green with jealousy, but isn't likely to be worth two bits at scrying.

Faily

2014-10-18, 05:28 PM

draken50

2014-10-18, 06:41 PM

This step is unnecessary, though, as long as it's from a 1st party or reputable 3rd party source and thus there is no "opportunity cost", other than allowing a person to play a character. Of course, you have to trust the player to not be a cheating ass, as outlined above.

You're making a vast assumption that the player knows the subsystem as well as you would expect yourself to know it. Many players DO NOT. A player doesn't have to be a "filthy cheater" to not know what a power or ability can or can not do. They can be lazy, misinformed, or simply confused on the matter. We all know how well players have their toys altered by the GM even if it's to fit the rules.

Additionally, while I can see the frustration related to want to play a class that requires a particular sub-set of rules. Your particular example being the kind of thing that would at least start me on the road of including said sub-set. What are you willing to do to aid in this case me as a GM in this regard? Knowing of course that I haven't played with you and thus cannot rely on you having the encyclopedic rules mastery that lets me trust that the subset powers abilities ect. are within the rules.

To clarify, I have watched a player roll a d8 when rolling for magic missle, and then go wide eyed and respond with "are you sure?" and check the book. Not all players are good at mechanics.

@Faily
I have a very similar mindset. Hence why it's been interesting to see a number of posters respond with "That's a really good reason." as well as others who seem not to value their dms time.. at all really. I will admit if someone is accusing a GM of laziness, in my head I do immediately think. "You better be a GM because otherwise you are one entitled... goose..."

dascarletm

2014-10-18, 06:56 PM

It sounds like lots of people have very low regard for these hypothetical (or non) DMs. If they say something is banned usually I will assume there is a reason. I don't need to know this reason, and usually it can be extrapolated. I usually can trust that they must consider that thing to be a problem enough to ban it. I would think myself rude if I were to mandate that any DM I play with give me adequate reasoning for anything they decide to ban, and adequate to my liking no less.

Also,

To anyone saying that it is childish to use "I don't like it" as a reason for something like this. This is simply not the case.

A childish response would be to throw a fit when anyone trys to use something they don't like. It's quite mature to say up front that I will not be including X in my games, I do not like it.

There is many other options (as others have said), and if you simply must use X a game where the DM is not fond of it probably wouldn't be the best place to use it. It'll more likely than not be forgotten and glossed over.

De gustibus non est disputandum

Petrocorus

2014-10-18, 06:59 PM

some have banned Divine Metamagic

I'm pretty sure that there is a fair amount of DM who ban DMM outright or heavily limit its uses. I would.
There are so some PrC that are often banned or house ruled. Incantatrix, Io7VF, SCM...

Roxxy

2014-10-18, 07:26 PM

Faily

2014-10-18, 07:46 PM

I'm pretty sure that there is a fair amount of DM who ban DMM outright or heavily limit its uses. I would.
There are so some PrC that are often banned or house ruled. Incantatrix, Io7VF, SCM...

Oh, certainly! Even Abjurant Champion hit the ban-list from one GM I've played with (I weeped a bit because I love gish-builds, but got over it pretty fast and found something else to play instead).

Other popular bans & houserules of spells from various GMshave been:
- Ray of Enfeeblement (too easy to buff up with so many nasty Metamagics to make people completely useless)
- Wind Walk (bypasses too much danger)
- Teleport (houseruled to only being allowed to Teleport to places you have been and observed closely)
- Polymorph
- Forcecage
- Sanctified spells

Petrocorus

2014-10-18, 07:51 PM

Oh, certainly! Even Abjurant Champion hit the ban-list from one GM I've played with (I weeped a bit because I love gish-builds, but got over it pretty fast and found something else to play instead).

Other popular bans & houserules of spells from various GMshave been:
- Ray of Enfeeblement (too easy to buff up with so many nasty Metamagics to make people completely useless)
- Wind Walk (bypasses too much danger)
- Teleport (houseruled to only being allowed to Teleport to places you have been and observed closely)
- Polymorph
- Forcecage
- Sanctified spells

And i'm fairly sure Tainted Scholar is banned on the uttermost of the tables.

GreyBlack

2014-10-18, 08:22 PM

Personally, I only ban when the given option doesn't fit the tone I'm trying to set with the story. For example, if I'm trying to make a game where magic isn't very well researched, I may ban some spellcasting classes. If I'm running a high-OP campaign, then very little will be off limits. It all depends on the tone of the story I'm trying to tell.

Jayabalard

2014-10-19, 05:44 PM

And "magic" has electricity coming from fur + glass rods, fire coming from sulphurous droppings and salt used to preserve meat. How is that not based on scienceThey're in-jokes from early D&D (if you're not familiar with OD&D and 1eAD&D, there's a level of ridiculousness that is noticeably absent from more recent editions, except when they're just blindly copying earlier editions).

Bat guano = potassium nitrate; sulfur is an additional compound added to it, so the droppings themselves aren't sulfurous ... just FYI

Creating a lightning bolt by creating a small static charge isn't based on science
Creating a fireball from some of the raw materials that you use to make gunpowder isn't based on science.
preserving arbitrary food and beverages with a pinch of salt is based on science either.

Rust Monsters, Formians, any giant insect ever...
Rust monsters aren't insectoids; in newer editions they're aberrations, in older editions they were vertebrates.
Formians are a D&D extraplanar species.
Giant insects were sci-fi movie fodder decades before D&D existed. They're insects, not insectoids.

So that's 0 examples of insectoid monsters from "standard fantasy", one example from D&D.... not quite the same thing as several (and nothing like the dozens of example of insectoid aliens that are available from sci-fi)

Wardog

2014-10-19, 05:46 PM

Nah, you're just another poster on the boards right now.
...
Being the GM doesn't mean they get a free pass on lying if they are, in fact, lying. Especially in a context where we haven't even bloody well started playing yet.

I assumed he meant "I am best placed to judge what I have time to do / what is reasonable for me to spend my time on", not that he should have a free pass on lying.

Threadnaught

2014-10-19, 06:22 PM

What I am against, however, is "I will never even read this ever for the rest of our natural lives."

The Immortals Handbook.
The Book of Erotic Fantasy.
From Another Time, Another Land.

Never ever, ever..

Yeah, I know I'm stretching it with the third example, but I couldn't think of anything besides Pathfinder. Booyah!

Psyren

2014-10-20, 12:21 AM

Creating a lightning bolt by creating a small static charge isn't based on science
Creating a fireball from some of the raw materials that you use to make gunpowder isn't based on science.
preserving arbitrary food and beverages with a pinch of salt is based on science either.

You're acting like they chose those components at random. So why can't you make lightning by, say, rubbing cinnamon and cotton together? The parallel they're drawing is obvious, or at least it should be.

Rust monsters aren't insectoids; in newer editions they're aberrations, in older editions they were vertebrates.
Formians are a D&D extraplanar species.

Formians are based heavily on ants, both in name and behavior. Their creature type is irrelevant, just as we call rats "vermin" in real life but they are animals in D&D. And Thri-kreen are not vermin either.

LTwerewolf

2014-10-20, 01:35 AM

It sounds like lots of people have very low regard for these hypothetical (or non) DMs. If they say something is banned usually I will assume there is a reason. I don't need to know this reason, and usually it can be extrapolated. I usually can trust that they must consider that thing to be a problem enough to ban it. I would think myself rude if I were to mandate that any DM I play with give me adequate reasoning for anything they decide to ban, and adequate to my liking no less.

As a DM, I find any DM that point blank refuses to even begin a dialogue on content is a DM that's more interested in telling a story than actually having players play a game. There are systems for that. Every single source that a player wants to play should be discussed between the player and the DM, and if that goes through then the player and the group. "I don't wanna" DMs all give the impression that they're going to stonewall any attempt to change their "super number 1 it's so wonderful campaign world mega best" because no one could possibly make is bester. I am not interested in playing in any world where the players have no say in what happens. Also if all the players are pro something, then even if the DM doesn't think it fits, it should be implemented. They are every bit as important as the DM, and it feels like 99% of DMs forget that. You're there for them as much as they are for you.

Sartharina

2014-10-20, 01:41 AM

They're in-jokes from early D&D (if you're not familiar with OD&D and 1eAD&D, there's a level of ridiculousness that is noticeably absent from more recent editions, except when they're just blindly copying earlier editions). Actually, there is that same level of ridiculousness about it. The developers just got better at maintaining a 'straight face' in presenting it (Inasmuch as one can present a straight face through text and professionally-done images)

Roxxy

2014-10-20, 02:38 AM

As a DM, I find any DM that point blank refuses to even begin a dialogue on content is a DM that's more interested in telling a story than actually having players play a game.If you bring me something reasonable like an archetype, I'll read it. Bring me a whole subsystem? No. I have better things to do with my time than familiarize myself with something that big, then makes a balance judgement and decide if it fits the theme of the campaign. Also, remember that I actually allow 3PP, and generally don't restrict Paizo materiel (except some spells). A ton of GMs won't even look at 3PP.
Every single source that a player wants to play should be discussed between the player and the DM, and if that goes through then the player and the group."That's too long/complicated for me to judge it" is a perfectly reasonable avenue of discussion.
"I don't wanna" DMs all give the impression that they're going to stonewall any attempt to change their "super number 1 it's so wonderful campaign world mega best" because no one could possibly make is bester. I am not interested in playing in any world where the players have no say in what happens.There is a difference between controlling the theme and the rules sources during character creation and not letting players do stuff in the game.
Also if all the players are pro something, then even if the DM doesn't think it fits, it should be implemented.My campaign setting, my veto. That's how it is. Also, if the players are pro and the GM is anti, then the players and GM want to play different things. I would decline to GM, because it is better that the players have a GM more interested in running what they want to play than have a GM who has her heart set on something different.
They are every bit as important as the DM, and it feels like 99% of DMs forget that. You're there for them as much as they are for you.If you lose a player, the game can go on. If you lose the GM, it can't. The GM does pretty much all the work of setting everything up, the players just play. The GM is the lynchpin of the entire game, and if the GM doesn't like the elements the players are bringing, that GM is never going to be inspired enough to write a particularly good game.

I think part of the issue here might be between face to face and PbP GMs. I haven't been able to get time for face to face, so PbP is what I know. In PbP, the GM writes up the themes, the allowed sources, the house rules, and says the players what kind of game it will be. Then people who are interested submit character sheets, and the GM chooses which ones will form the party. Now, I'll look at some 3PP I don't own if it's short, and I might be willing to fudge a minor rule or two to make a concept work, but at the same time I'm recruiting characters to fit a theme, and I'm not going to go around reading dozens of pages of rules. If a prospective player just does not want to hold to those themes or must have Psionics, I can accept somebody else into the game instead of them. If somebody has a more traditional face to face group, this approach probably doesn't work well at all.

BWR

2014-10-20, 02:58 AM

And i'm fairly sure Tainted Scholar is banned on the uttermost of the tables.

If I run games with Taint (only L5R or something heavily inspired by it) the buffed up versions of maho-bujin (one that's actually scary, like it should be) and maho-tsukai (adapted into Tainted Scholar) are allowed. Of course, you will likely become Lost in record time.

Psyren

2014-10-20, 03:02 AM

If you lose a player, the game can go on. If you lose the GM, it can't. The GM does pretty much all the work of setting everything up, the players just play. The GM is the lynchpin of the entire game, and if the GM doesn't like the elements the players are bringing, that GM is never going to be inspired enough to write a particularly good game.

Sure, but this doesn't have to be an ultimatum/impasse situation. Rule 0 lets the DM tweak things to their liking too, like turning "psionics" into "rune magic" and making only the most surface-level alterations to the mechanics. At the end of this brief exercise, the DM includes a caveat that "things I may not have accounted for could arise during play - I reserve the right to make future alterations or ban the new subsystem entirely." The player, who is getting to play something very similar to his desired concept, agrees, and the game goes on with no hurt feelings or frustration on either side.

At least, that's how I would handle something like this with my friends.

BWR

2014-10-20, 03:17 AM

OldTrees1

2014-10-20, 03:23 AM

Sure, but this doesn't have to be an ultimatum/impasse situation. Rule 0 lets the DM tweak things to their liking too, like turning "psionics" into "rune magic" and making only the most surface-level alterations to the mechanics. At the end of this brief exercise, the DM includes a caveat that "things I may not have accounted for could arise during play - I reserve the right to make future alterations or ban the new subsystem entirely." The player, who is getting to play something very similar to his desired concept, agrees, and the game goes on with no hurt feelings or frustration on either side.

At least, that's how I would handle something like this with my friends.

The same holds for "Things might change during play - I reserve the right to add the new subsystem to the game".

Neither the players nor the DM are playing alone. Neither gets to dictate the other must play their game. Just as DM's don't get to chain players into their chairs, Players don't get to demand the DM preform against the DM's will. Both sides have all the right and all the power to say "No we are not playing that way, see you next campaign."

However, while the game can work based on these rights, no game wants to preform at the bare minimum of acceptable. "The Ideal table", "the Realistic table", and "the list of valid reasons for Bans" are different things. If we say "X is not a valid reason", we need to be sure we mean that and are not confused by "X is not an ideal reason" in disguise.

Roxxy

2014-10-20, 03:36 AM

Sure, but this doesn't have to be an ultimatum/impasse situation. Rule 0 lets the DM tweak things to their liking too, like turning "psionics" into "rune magic" and making only the most surface-level alterations to the mechanics. At the end of this brief exercise, the DM includes a caveat that "things I may not have accounted for could arise during play - I reserve the right to make future alterations or ban the new subsystem entirely." The player, who is getting to play something very similar to his desired concept, agrees, and the game goes on with no hurt feelings or frustration on either side.That doesn't address the fact that I don't know the mechanics well, and don't want players using systems I myself do not understand. That is a line that will not be crossed. I'll look at 3PP, but nothing massive or complicated. With something the size of Psionics, building sufficient understanding is not a time investment I am going to make for one player, especially since I can just not recruit that player into the game.

At least, that's how I would handle something like this with my friends.I am a PbP GM. As such, my players are not my friends.

Yahzi

2014-10-20, 06:04 AM

Just about the only really good reason I can think of to outright ban something is if I don't want that particular class or subsystem in my campaign world.
I was going to say "Flavor," but EK said it first.

atemu1234

2014-10-20, 07:20 AM

Playground,

What do you consider good reasons for bans?

Additionally, I ban psionics, not balance reasons or anything like that. I simply do not own the book(s) and don't have any kind of understanding of their rule-sets or how they behave. Do you consider that... a good reason?

Meh. It's not a bad reason; a DM should be familiar enough with any system that will wind up being used, but at the same time it's not like psionics isn't in the SRD.

Basically, I recommend giving it a once-over. There's far more limited material for it as opposed to spellcasting, so it's easier to familiarize yourself with it and know how to stop a player from breaking it.

Absolutely

I've banned magic of incarnum for that reason.

Incarnum I can see the not understanding argument being used. One thing that you shouldn't ask your DM to do is spend more money on the games; if it's simply a matter of time and an internet connection then complaining is halfway warranted.

"The fluff doesn't fit the world I want to make" is a perfectly valid reason.

And so is "I don't have enough time to learn the inner workings of an entire new sub-system to cater to a single character." I'm familiar with most 3.5 systems, but if someone had the audacity to be offended I wouldn't take the time out of my day to read a book so they could play a single character with all the options already available I'd tell them to go soak their heads.

Fluff I don't see as that valid a reason. For starters, fluff is one of the most easily altered things in a game world. For example, using any sun god instead of just pelor for radiant servant of pelor is basically called out in the complete divine.

Also, let's look at this from the DM's and the Player's respective perspectives: The player wants to play a subsystem, be it for flavor reasons, optimization reasons, or just plain preference. The DM is denying this because they don't want to spend the time to learn the system.

The DM is being asked by a player to learn a subsystem so the player can play a character in the game; he doesn't want to spend time to learn it, so he says no.

I personally think the DM should learn it, but I'm in favor of familiarization with all 3e/3.5e/PF and various third party materials. I feel that with most subsystems (especially psionics, as the subject of this thread) have a degree of balance to them. In fact (ironically) the systems that are the most developed (read:magic) are the most broken, despite the wealth of materials available for it. In fact, for the most part, they are broken because of it!

I do most of my rpg-related reading on the toilet.

I as well, but I prefer to sit down and read a good rulebook anywhere, anytime.

If, as your GM, I tell you that I don't have time to do something, then I damn well don't have the time. Whether you believe me or not makes not a whit of difference. Don't presume to tell me how much time I have, or how much of that time I need to spend on learning your splatbook on top of the time I'm already spending to make a game for you. Consideration of new material for inclusion in the campaign is a favor - and not one that you are owed.

Yes, how dare that player ask you to read a book and understand a subsystem so you can make an accurate decision! How dare they assume you are equals at the table!

Your campaign is as much about the players as it is about you. Now, if you don't want to buy a book, that's fine, but don't assume that because you're DM you don't have to listen to a player's argument, and if the argument is pressed, read up on the material in question to make an educated decision.

Depends on what you want the GM to look at. I severely doubt I could pick up something like PoW or Psionics in half an hour. If you bring me something like an archetype or a feat or a spell, sure, I can probably judge that on the spot. A class? depends on the class. A whole new rule system? Sorry, but I have other things besides gaming I need to be working on.

Also, half an hour actually is a lot of time to me. I'm in procrastinate/multitask mode constantly as it is.

What better way to procrastinate than to read a roleplaying book? Seriously, it's a time-kill. Also, both systems are surprisingly simple. I don't think you'd know the ins and outs of it in half an hour, but you'd get a baseline understanding, enough to include it.

And there will wind up being free time; I don't think anyone who could spend time on this forum doesn't have time to read a simple rulebook. Psionics isn't that different a subsystem, and it's easily accessed.

- I don't have the material
- I don't have time to figure out how the mechanics work, or how they will interact with other mechanics
- it doesn't fit the setting
- I don't like it. (I try not to go overboard with this one but you aren't going to get e.g. ToB in my games because I detest the mechanics)

-Time isn't an issue, it's a simple system that you can acquire a baseline knowledge with relatively easily.
-Out-of-box, most settings include psionics. If you're homebrewing your own, you can refluff psionics into simple enough variant spellcasters.
-You and the players are equals, work together to make an informed decision.

Entire system =/= subsystem. If you want people to help you understand the psionic system there are plenty of people here you can ask. Psyren here happens to be one of the board's most versed experts on the subject. As far as fluff goes, you can easily refluff it. In my games Psions are refluffed as sorcerers, since they're basically sorcerers with better mechanics.

Learning a new subsystem for D&D is rarely difficult, and this is a prime way to refluff the system.

That sounds like a very bad idea for most DMs: those who prepare scenarios to offer challenges to the whole party. If you don't know a character's capabilities, you're very likely to come up with something that's either trivial or overwhelming for them, making for a sucky game experience. For the other players you're going to repeatedly bring the game to a halt as you have "discussions" with the player of the unfamiliar content.

This approach really doesn't work for me.

Really? I found it worked for me quite well. Granted, I was the one pressing the matter as DM and getting the players to learn it as well, so I guess my situation is different.

You shouldn't go in completely green, because if you do then you are going to be confused. A basic understanding of the system would probably come in very handy, on the other hand, because from there it's easy to learn.

Psyren

2014-10-20, 07:59 AM

I am a PbP GM. As such, my players are not my friends.

And that's fine, but you have to understand that neither game was really designed for this. The assumption is that you know these people, and that they're not out to "pull a fast one on you" by trying to get you to okay something they can use to shatter your world. (Or that if they are, they're doing so good-naturedly and with the intention of self-nerfing if they start to cause any damage to your story.)

DMG foreword:

You're a member of a select group. Truly, not everyone has the creativity and dedication to be a DM. Dungeon Mastering (DMing) can be challenging, but it's not a chore. You're the lucky one out of your entire circle of friends who play the game. The real fun is in your hands.
...
If you're the sort of person who likes to provide the fun for your friends, or to come up with new ideas, then you're an ideal candidate for DM.

PF CRB, "Gamemastering:"

It’s one thing to play a character on an adventure. It’s quite another to run the adventure as a Game Master. It’s a lot more work, sure, but it can be a lot more rewarding to create an entire world for your friends to explore.

But what exactly is a Game Master?

PF GameMasteryGuide, "Finding Players:"

Once you know how many players you’d like to have, it’s time to organize a group. Start by talking to friends and
family members you’d like to include. Mixing ages is fine so long as there are enough common interests.

If there’s still room at your game table, you can consider people you don’t yet know or know only tangentially. Coworkers and friends of friends are usually the first to be included in this set, especially if your players have sung the praises of your game to other people.

Outside of such personal contacts, there are a number of other ways to find players. Try contacting a local game store about putting up a f lier with your contact information, or see if there’s a gaming club at your school or the local college. The Internet offers instant access to thousands of gamers via free classified ads or message boards, and there are several websites specifically devoted to helping local gamers connect, such as the Gamer Connection forum on paizo.com.

Notice how far down the progression internet players are listed, and then it is to try and recruit them for in-person play. It's not that PbP with strangers is being discouraged per se, but that avenue is not assumed as primary at all.

BWR

2014-10-20, 08:07 AM

-Time isn't an issue, it's a simple system that you can acquire a baseline knowledge with relatively easily.
-Out-of-box, most settings include psionics. If you're homebrewing your own, you can refluff psionics into simple enough variant spellcasters.
-You and the players are equals, work together to make an informed decision.

I think you are misunderstanding things and making a whole bunch of baseless assumptions. My post was reasons to ban things in general, not psionics in particular. I never said a thing about psionics. Or was that merely an example?
What do you know about how much time people have available to learn stuff and make informed decisions about it? Or even how much time they are willing to spend on it? Just because a player finds some shiny toy a GM should be obliged to spend hours reading through to make sure they understand it?
What if I don't want to refluff it? What if I am perfectly fine with the existing system and don't see the need to add anything more? Or I don't like the subsystem? What if it really doesn't fit the setting I'm running?
Players and GMs are not equal in all respects. The GM is the one who does all the real work, all the heavy lifting of the game, all the work in making the game. GMs should try to make the game fun for the players but that =/= allowing any little thing the players want. 'No' can still be an informed decision.

atemu1234

2014-10-20, 09:19 AM

I think you are misunderstanding things and making a whole bunch of baseless assumptions. My post was reasons to ban things in general, not psionics in particular. I never said a thing about psionics. Or was that merely an example?
What do you know about how much time people have available to learn stuff and make informed decisions about it? Or even how much time they are willing to spend on it? Just because a player finds some shiny toy a GM should be obliged to spend hours reading through to make sure they understand it?
What if I don't want to refluff it? What if I am perfectly fine with the existing system and don't see the need to add anything more? Or I don't like the subsystem? What if it really doesn't fit the setting I'm running?
Players and GMs are not equal in all respects. The GM is the one who does all the real work, all the heavy lifting of the game, all the work in making the game. GMs should try to make the game fun for the players but that =/= allowing any little thing the players want. 'No' can still be an informed decision.

It isn't a difficult system to learn; banning it because you hate reading is bad. And yes, difficult as it is to contemplate, DMs and Players are meant to be equals. If the DM does all the hard work, then you're doing something wrong; the players and the DM need to work together sometimes. No can be an informed decision, if you have read and understand the material involved.

Petrocorus

2014-10-20, 09:28 AM

If I run games with Taint (only L5R or something heavily inspired by it) the buffed up versions of maho-bujin (one that's actually scary, like it should be) and maho-tsukai (adapted into Tainted Scholar) are allowed. Of course, you will likely become Lost in record time.

When i was running L5R, i was allowing maho-tsukai and bujin. But, of course, players knew they were paving their own way into having their PC become an NPC with this.

I was more referring to players expecting to play a Tainted Scholar with a lot of Taint yet which don't become an NPC. And ask the DM and other players to get along with their 10 bonus spells per level and +40 to save DC and all the other goodies of TS.

atemu1234

2014-10-20, 09:32 AM

When i was running L5R, i was allowing maho-tsukai and bujin. But, of course, players knew they were paving their own way into having their PC become an NPC with this.

I was more referring to players expecting to play a Tainted Scholar with a lot of Taint yet which don't become an NPC. And ask the DM and other players to get along with their 10 bonus spells per level and +40 to save DC and all the other goodies of TS.

I allowed Tainted Sorcerer rather than Tainted Scholar (all the best bits and can be applied to any spellcasting) with alterations made based off of the stuff from Heroes of Horror. It worked out OK, because the players were terrified to acquire taint and spent their WBL on stuff to prevent becoming tainted. I made continuous items of Taint Reduction (think damage reduction but for taint) and armor enhancements that accomplish the same thing, and they wound up being crusaders for the LN church dedicated to slaying all tainted creatures (and never realized they were playing on the villain's side, because they were killing villagers who accidentally acquired one or two points of taint).

BWR

2014-10-20, 10:12 AM

It isn't a difficult system to learn; banning it because you hate reading is bad. And yes, difficult as it is to contemplate, DMs and Players are meant to be equals. If the DM does all the hard work, then you're doing something wrong; the players and the DM need to work together sometimes. No can be an informed decision, if you have read and understand the material involved.

Again, are you assuming the discussion is about psionics specifically rather than about X? Because I never mentioned psionics.
You don't have to hate reading to prioritize your time in ways to read other stuff than yet another ruletbook. If your time is better spent doing something else than reading any old mechanics a player wants to have just because they think it sounds cool, then that player will just have to live without.
Traditional GMing is the GM doing all the hard work. All the hours of making maps, dungeons, NPCs, adventures, making sure encounters are more or less likely to be balanced (whatever you consider blanace to be), plotting, making sure scenes will unfold as you wish and give players the right information you want to give them, etc.
Most games don't assume this is player work, and certainly not D&D. I've spent years on both sides of the screen, I've spoken to many people who also have lots of time on both sides, and I have yet to find anyone, other than you, who thinks that the two jobs are in any way equally difficult or that the GM's job should be shared by players, as a general rule. Yes, there are games where there is more player input than others, but that is hardly the norm nor the goal.
'No' can be an informed decisions if you have read X and dislike it. It is also a perfectly valid and informed decision if you don't want to clutter up your game with even more stuff, regardless if you have read it or not. As hard as it appears to be for some people here to believe, greater complexity of rules is not universally desired nor objectively a good thing.

dascarletm

2014-10-20, 10:18 AM

As a DM, I find any DM that point blank refuses to even begin a dialogue on content is a DM that's more interested in telling a story than actually having players play a game. There are systems for that. Every single source that a player wants to play should be discussed between the player and the DM, and if that goes through then the player and the group. "I don't wanna" DMs all give the impression that they're going to stonewall any attempt to change their "super number 1 it's so wonderful campaign world mega best" because no one could possibly make is bester. I am not interested in playing in any world where the players have no say in what happens. Also if all the players are pro something, then even if the DM doesn't think it fits, it should be implemented. They are every bit as important as the DM, and it feels like 99% of DMs forget that. You're there for them as much as they are for you.

I agree with you for the most part. Though I do disagree that refusing something point blank is equivalent to being "more interested in telling a story than actually having players play a game."

There are exceptions. For example I wrote a campaign setting for my group, that was lacking any type of casting over the power level of a bard. One of my best friends wanted to play a sorcerer, I told him that he should save that for another game. This world doesn't have that, and to change it would be to completely rewrite it. He ended up playing something else, and was fine with it. He had other concepts.

There wasn't any discussion beyond that, because homebrewing a setting takes a good amount of time and allowing a player to be something that doesn't exist would force others to exist, and could very well change the settings theme. I do agree these things should be worked out, but there are times where some things are just not compatible.

OldTrees1

2014-10-20, 12:04 PM

Sartharina

2014-10-20, 12:27 PM

bekeleven

2014-10-20, 12:37 PM

My group often passes around the GM bullet. Currently I'm biting it because I was able to convince other members to test some homebrew I wrote in the game I'm running.

In general, yes, all of us prefer to be players. Which is why when I say I don't wan to run a game with any competent tier 1s or tier 2s, they're cool with that.

Roxxy

2014-10-20, 12:37 PM

What better way to procrastinate than to read a roleplaying book? Seriously, it's a time-kill. Also, both systems are surprisingly simple. I don't think you'd know the ins and outs of it in half an hour, but you'd get a baseline understanding, enough to include it.

And there will wind up being free time; I don't think anyone who could spend time on this forum doesn't have time to read a simple rulebook. Psionics isn't that different a subsystem, and it's easily accessed.This forum is what leisure time I have, and half the time I'm already procrastinating on my school work (like right now, for example). Reading a book I don't want to read right now isn't fun, it's work, and I don't want to do more work.

It isn't a difficult system to learn; banning it because you hate reading is bad.
And yes, difficult as it is to contemplate, DMs and Players are meant to be equals.That depends on how you define equal. Equal status as people? It was never in doubt. Equal importance to the game or equal responsibility? Not by a long shot. The GM holds the power and the responsibility, which precludes equality.
If the DM does all the hard work, then you're doing something wrong; the players and the DM need to work together sometimes.So, are the players supposed to write the adventures and do all the monster challenge rating adjustments with me, then?

mashlagoo1982

2014-10-21, 10:54 AM

I feel that a lot of posters have the attitude that it is their right as a player to have access to whatever they want of material, regardless of the GM's feeling on the matter. Which I think is a poor attitude to have towards a game.

In the end, the GM is the one who puts the most effort into a game. It's the GM who has to balance the world against the players, prepare scenarios, plot out maps, etc... all those things GMs do. If my GM says he doesn't want Tome of Battle in his games, wether it be because he doesn't like it, he doesn't own a copy of the book, or he doesn't know how it works, that's cool. 3.P provides tons of other options for me to try out. I usually put faith in my GMs when they want to ban something.

If the GM calls a flat-out ban against a race, class, some entire subsets like ToB or Psionics, certain spells or feats (some GMs I know ban Reserve-feats our houserule them, some have banned Divine Metamagic), I usually assume that regardless of the reason why it will make some things easier for the GM. If the GM has banned Pixies, I'm not going to be the Special Snowflake that whines about how much I want to play a Pixie.

I cannot agree with this more.

So many posters here seem to think that they can dictate how their DM spends their free time.
I spend hours every week working on the adventure. Nobody in the group has the right to demand I spend more time or allocate my time differently

Players can ask I review a class, feature, feat, whatever. More then likely I will spend at least some time looking the content over.
However, the second a player demands I review something, that player is booted from the game.

Merellis

2014-10-21, 12:21 PM

Hmm.

If I'm running a game and the player wants to add something for their use, I'd make them do some work first before giving them an answer. I mean, they need to make their character before I say yay/nay anyway so it's not like making them get things set for whatever they want to add is going to be that hard.

I'd mainly make them do these four things:

1) Make a couple PC's for me to look over, at differing levels, so I can guage the general power level based on that
2) Give me a copy of the book/PDF/thread to look over with notes included for what I need to look over specifically pertaining to their character.
3) To sit down and explain the basics of the system to me, including weaknesses and strengths.
4) To tell me what they intend to do with the character, which is a pretty basic idea already in the grand scheme of things.

It puts all the pressure on them to organize and get it ready, while giving me a quick look at what they want to add. Also helps me understand what their character can do, as well as what they're looking to do with the campaign and system they want to add.

It's not like I can't take time out of the month to sit down and chat about that for a bit, or message about it, or email about it. The player just needs to accept that they'll need to point out how it works and I'll decide from there.

Deadline

2014-10-21, 12:29 PM

One hour, dude. Not even that, half an hour. You can't expect me to believe that you have such a busy schedule that you can't squeeze in half an hour to flip through a book.

I used to have no problem with this outlook.

Then I had kids.

Happily, I don't have any players who get bent out of shape about it, because they also had kids. It's worth noting that yes, sometimes people have an absolutely crazy real-life schedule and might not get to something.

Also, if you think 30-60 minutes is enough time to come to terms with a subsystem you haven't seen before, integrate it into your campaign world, and have sufficient mastery of it to avoid the inevitable pitfalls, then I'm honestly impressed with your abilities.

Psyren

2014-10-21, 12:45 PM

I used to have no problem with this outlook.

Then I had kids.

Happily, I don't have any players who get bent out of shape about it, because they also had kids. It's worth noting that yes, sometimes people have an absolutely crazy real-life schedule and might not get to something.

Also, if you think 30-60 minutes is enough time to come to terms with a subsystem you haven't seen before, integrate it into your campaign world, and have sufficient mastery of it to avoid the inevitable pitfalls, then I'm honestly impressed with your abilities.

"Rome wasn't built in a day." 30 minutes here, 30 minutes there... if a player I trusted was that passionate about something I would at the very least start to wonder what the fuss is about.

DM Nate

2014-10-21, 12:52 PM

I "ban" pretty much everything the BoED or BoVD have to say about morality.

This, combined with your profile image, is perfect.

OldTrees1

2014-10-21, 02:47 PM

"Rome wasn't built in a day." 30 minutes here, 30 minutes there... if a player I trusted was that passionate about something I would at the very least start to wonder what the fuss is about.

Did I mention Opportunity costs yet? This point seems to keep getting ignored(maybe nobody has had Econ?). Merely finding physical time is not enough to justify the expenditure. The expenditure also has to be more valuable than the most valuable alternative. Spending 30 minutes here and 30 minutes here on reading a splatbook might not be worth more to them than spending that time with their kids or other aspects of their non-D&D life.

Threadnaught

2014-10-21, 03:11 PM

*The DM is not the slave of the Players.

So many posters here seem to think that they can dictate how their DM spends their free time.

100% agree with both of you.

I'm working hard to get a few things ready for my next Campaign and any I run afterward. I'm also hoping they'll be considered for games I'm not the DM for. I've only just got Circa to stop asking me to begin immediately, he understands that it could take a while.

Coidzor

2014-10-21, 03:21 PM

I feel that a lot of posters have the attitude that it is their right as a player to have access to whatever they want of material, regardless of the GM's feeling on the matter. Which I think is a poor attitude to have towards a game.

And the other side seem to think that GMs are completely above any and all scrutiny and should never, ever expand their knowledge or spend time on prep that's not an immediate payoff because they're already perfect unless they're making a big play out of just being super generous and condescending about how magnanimous they are to read anything of any length. Which, needless to say, I think is a poor attitude to have towards a game. Especially when coupled with an espoused view that players are completely irrelevant because the GM has more responsibility for running the game.

Clearly we are at an impasse here and have been for quite a while.

Psyren

2014-10-21, 03:25 PM

Did I mention Opportunity costs yet? This point seems to keep getting ignored(maybe nobody has had Econ?). Merely finding physical time is not enough to justify the expenditure. The expenditure also has to be more valuable than the most valuable alternative. Spending 30 minutes here and 30 minutes here on reading a splatbook might not be worth more to them than spending that time with their kids or other aspects of their non-D&D life.

I've both taken and tutored econ (macro and micro.)

And the opportunity cost is exactly the point I'm getting at. How much does your friend's happiness matter to you vs. 30 minutes of a tv show, for instance? Do you spend time with your kids while you're on the crapper? Things like that.

Not out to judge anyone, but I do find it hard to believe anyone's day could be so crammed with activity and stimulation that they can't spare any time at all to glance at a page a few times.

For DMs like Roxxy who DM exclusively for strangers I can understand the tradeoff not being worthwhile, but I also envision such scenarios as being a rarity compared to the folks who play this game with friends.

OldTrees1

2014-10-21, 03:27 PM

And the other side seem to think that GMs are completely above any and all scrutiny and should never, ever expand their knowledge or spend time on prep that's not an immediate payoff because they're already perfect unless they're making a big play out of just being super generous and condescending about how magnanimous they are to read anything of any length. Which, needless to say, I think is a poor attitude to have towards a game. Especially when coupled with an espoused view that players are completely irrelevant because the GM has more responsibility for running the game.

Clearly we are at an impasse here and have been for quite a while.

False. The other side is saying:
"GMs should consider whether considering the new material is worth their time. If and only If it is not worth their time should they not learn the new material."

Nothing about immediate payoff. Nothing about already being perfect. Nothing about GMs being above scrutiny(it is honest self scrutiny that we are pushing for).

Brookshw

2014-10-21, 03:30 PM

And the opportunity cost is exactly the point I'm getting at. How much does your friend's happiness matter to you vs. 30 minutes of a tv show, for instance? Do you spend time with your kids while you're on the crapper? Things like that.

Not out to judge anyone, but I do find it hard to believe anyone's day could be so crammed with activity and stimulation that they can't spare any time at all to glance at a page a few times. Oh I don't know, last year when I was cranking 80-100 hours a week on work, for months on end, plus commuting, plus however much time is required to actually prep a session (and more often than not there wasn't enough time to do so adequately) I'd definitely be disinclined to tack more on. I'd be more surprised really to think that someones happiness could only be achieved by access to that one special book that somehow was going to leave them in ecstasy while nothing else, whatsoever, among the plethora of alternative content that's out there, could given them even an iota of enjoyment. Since we're talking econ terms that's quite the sustainable advantage the our hypothetical source seems to have achieved.

Psyren

2014-10-21, 03:33 PM

Coidzor

2014-10-21, 03:36 PM

False. The other side is saying:
"GMs should consider whether considering the new material is worth their time. If and only If it is not worth their time should they not learn the new material."

Not quite. You might *think* you're saying that, but you've progressed past that as part of the escalation of the thread. Also, you're completely devaluing the entire context of the players and tables in what you think any GM should take into consideration when making that decision.

Nothing about immediate payoff.

That was just thrown in to differentiate it from prepping an encounter or adventure so that no one tried to play gotcha with that angle.

Nothing about already being perfect.

Well, perfection was implied by the lack of any need to ever look at material they haven't already looked at ever because it would be time they could spend doing anything other than reading.

Nothing about GMs being above scrutiny(it is honest self scrutiny that we are pushing for).

Oh? Then why did I get pushback about "I don't like it," not being a good reason and instead being something suspect and worthy of scrutiny? If you say that only GMs are allowed to scrutinize their own behavior, then we're exactly where I said we are, just with a slight semantic difference.

dascarletm

2014-10-21, 03:38 PM

Right, I'm not saying there aren't alternatives out there, and that will settle up for one campaign. But what about the next, or the one after that, or the one after that? Is our hypothetical DM aiming, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, to never expose himself (or herself) to any new material whatsoever for the rest of his/her natural lifespan?

And if he or she isn't going to open up to new material? If they perhaps enjoy what that have and have no interest in expanding their horizons, then that's their prerogative, it's neither right nor wrong. It's their choice.

OldTrees1

2014-10-21, 03:43 PM

I've both taken and tutored econ (macro and micro.)

And the opportunity cost is exactly the point I'm getting at. How much does your friend's happiness matter to you vs. 30 minutes of a tv show, for instance? Do you spend time with your kids while you're on the crapper? Things like that.

Not out to judge anyone, but I do find it hard to believe anyone's day could be so crammed with activity and stimulation that they can't spare any time at all to glance at a page a few times.

For DMs like Roxxy who DM exclusively for strangers I can understand the tradeoff not being worthwhile, but I also envision such scenarios as being a rarity compared to the folks who play this game with friends.

Good. Thank you for engaging this point. :smallsmile:
1) Utility from events is subjective. Different people get different amounts of it from different things(although the diminishing returns factor is relatively universal)

The specific increased happiness of you + your players for spending an extra 30 minutes a day on D&D prep has some value that diminishes per previous 30 minutes. At time T0 we can assume rational DMs are spending the rational amount of time on D&D before the diminish returns dip below the opportunity cost. At this point it is irrational for the DM to spend an extra 30 minutes a day on D&D.

Fair enough?

To make it concrete, we are not talking about the time on the crapper. The DM is already using that as well as the time in the shower and on the drive to work to plan the campaign. We are talking about the family dinner or the recharge by zoning out or the play with the kids time.

Not quite. You might *think* you're saying that, but you've progressed past that as part of the escalation of the thread. Also, you're completely devaluing the entire context of the players and tables in what you think any GM should take into consideration when making that decision.
No, I think I have been fairly clear in what I have been saying. I have been saying your universal claim in not universally valid.

Well, perfection was implied by the lack of any need to ever look at material they haven't already looked at ever because it would be time they could spend doing anything other than reading.
Nah, just the point where diminishing returns meet the opportunity cost. Nothing about perfection.

Oh? Then why did I get pushback about "I don't like it," not being a good reason and instead being something suspect and worthy of scrutiny? If you say that only GMs are allowed to scrutinize their own behavior, then we're exactly where I said we are, just with a slight semantic difference.
You got pushback because you used a universal claim which is not universally valid. Instead of discussing when dislike was a valid reason(aka something to scrutinize), you pushed for dislike being inherently invalid.

Psyren

2014-10-21, 03:44 PM

And if he or she isn't going to open up to new material? If they perhaps enjoy what that have and have no interest in expanding their horizons, then that's their prerogative, it's neither right nor wrong. It's their choice.

I would find it disappointing, to say the least. Though I suppose it would spur me to DM and include the material in my own campaigns, just so I can show them how it's done, so there's that going for it.

The DM is already using that as well as the time in the shower and on the drive to work to plan the campaign. We are talking about the family dinner or the recharge by zoning out or the play with the kids time.

If s/he is that fully utilized then fine, it's not reasonable to add more. I have not met anyone that fully utilized myself, but I acknowledge they could exist.

LTwerewolf

2014-10-21, 03:51 PM

I agree with you for the most part. Though I do disagree that refusing something point blank is equivalent to being "more interested in telling a story than actually having players play a game."

There are exceptions. For example I wrote a campaign setting for my group, that was lacking any type of casting over the power level of a bard. One of my best friends wanted to play a sorcerer, I told him that he should save that for another game. This world doesn't have that, and to change it would be to completely rewrite it. He ended up playing something else, and was fine with it. He had other concepts.

There wasn't any discussion beyond that, because homebrewing a setting takes a good amount of time and allowing a player to be something that doesn't exist would force others to exist, and could very well change the settings theme. I do agree these things should be worked out, but there are times where some things are just not compatible.

That proves the point though. A dialogue was made. "I want to play this." "Well that doesn't work in this particular campaign, so save it for later." "Ok cool, let me grab one of my other ideas." You didn't point blank refuse to learn something, you made the decision to not include something that you already learned, which is not the same thing.

Any of these DMs that say they don't have the time to learn new systems then should also not have the time to actually be DMs since it involves quite a bit of outside work.

OldTrees1

2014-10-21, 03:52 PM

If s/he is that fully utilized then fine, it's not reasonable to add more. I have not met anyone that fully utilized myself, but I acknowledge they could exist.

I have been someone that spent too much time on D&D prep (due to the fact that I am not perfectly rational). I have also met many people that hit the marginal benefit < opportunity cost point long before me.

But I too acknowledge that many DMs gamers people exist that could benefit from multitasking/multithinking/putting ideas on the backburner to simmer.

So while not having time is a valid reason, saying you don't have time does not equate to not having time.

Psyren

2014-10-21, 04:16 PM

So while not having time is a valid reason, saying you don't have time does not equate to not having time.

Agreed, and I think this is what many folks (including myself) were driving at.

That proves the point though. A dialogue was made. "I want to play this." "Well that doesn't work in this particular campaign, so save it for later." "Ok cool, let me grab one of my other ideas." You didn't point blank refuse to learn something, you made the decision to not include something that you already learned, which is not the same thing.

Any of these DMs that say they don't have the time to learn new systems then should also not have the time to actually be DMs since it involves quite a bit of outside work.

Precisely. Even if you can perfectly calculate your free time such that you have exactly enough to plan the campaign, work, family time and eat/sleep, and not even 30 minutes left over to do anything else - well, I would honestly say being that fully utilized all the time is downright dangerous because if anything unexpected comes up you're going to hanging out in the wind. Probably best to use your time on a less time-intensive hobby altogether.

And even the routine stuff can balloon unexpectedly. Humans are imperfect beings, and so are our estimates.

atemu1234

2014-10-21, 04:39 PM

I cannot agree with this more.

So many posters here seem to think that they can dictate how their DM spends their free time.
I spend hours every week working on the adventure. Nobody in the group has the right to demand I spend more time or allocate my time differently

Players can ask I review a class, feature, feat, whatever. More then likely I will spend at least some time looking the content over.
However, the second a player demands I review something, that player is booted from the game.

I DM. In fact, I primarily DM. I understand that it feels like a vast workload, but quite honestly, I like having players tell me what I should read and include next. It makes them feel involved and more often than not, it's a good read.

Also, if you spend hours a week for adventures, why not read some during that time as well?

Psyren

2014-10-21, 04:42 PM

I DM. In fact, I primarily DM. I understand that it feels like a vast workload, but quite honestly, I like having players tell me what I should read and include next. It makes them feel involved and more often than not, it's a good read.

Also, if you spend hours a week for adventures, why not read some during that time as well?

Applause for you, especially the bold bit.

Threadnaught

2014-10-21, 04:52 PM

Applause for you, especially the bold bit.

Ugh, don't get me started on that. My players insist on using stuff from books I don't own because they found it on the site I use to refer to stuff in books I already own, but can't access.

Now my buy list includes Heroes of Horror, Complete Adventurer, Savage Species and wherever Non-Psionic Thri-kreen are found. I would've bought them all eventually anyway, but they're kinda rushing me.

Curmudgeon

2014-10-21, 04:57 PM

Now my buy list includes Heroes of Horror, Complete Adventurer, Savage Species and wherever Non-Psionic Thri-kreen are found. I would've bought them all eventually anyway, but they're kinda rushing me.
That would be Shining South, pages 15-17.

Deadline

2014-10-21, 04:59 PM

Precisely. Even if you can perfectly calculate your free time such that you have exactly enough to plan the campaign, work, family time and eat/sleep, and not even 30 minutes left over to do anything else - well, I would honestly say being that fully utilized all the time is downright dangerous because if anything unexpected comes up you're going to hanging out in the wind. Probably best to use your time on a less time-intensive hobby altogether.

And even the routine stuff can balloon unexpectedly. Humans are imperfect beings, and so are our estimates.

Indeed. And who even bothers to try and perfectly plan such things out? Unless you tote that shiny subsystem book around with you every waking moment, then that 30 minutes you unexpectedly had free up won't be used to read it (and even if they are, how good is your reading comprehension going to be)? How about the 20 minutes you suddenly find yourself when your 4 year old decides they need to occupy the bathroom? You could get up and hunt down the book (and then remember you put it up out of reach so that your friend doesn't get mad at you for returning it with pokemon drawn on it). You might remember to snag it so that you can flip through a page or two while waiting to pick them up from school, or pick them up from an extracurricular activity. And then after you get the kids to bed, you can choose to spend the remaining time with your spouse, de-stressing from the day with a little recreation, or reading a book because your friend absolutely must play with this new shiny toy. Sure, they might be a good friend, but if that were the case, they'd understand when you told them you don't have the time to read the book. Because see, it's not that you don't have the time, it's that you don't have the time. :smalltongue:

And running a campaign is actually simultaneously more and less time-consuming, because much of the planning can be done purely in your head. But I have certainly had to lessen my GMing time. We've got 3-4 folks in my group who will run campaigns or short vignettes and rotate through the GMing seat. My last stint (a Mass Effect campaign run using a stripped down version of 4e with an a la carte dynamic keyword system) saw me scrambling to even put forth something each week. I'm not sure I'll have the time to run more than a 1-shot or brief vignette for quite some time. :smallfrown:

Edit - It may be worth noting that the only 3.5 book I'd be inclined to say no to at the moment because of unfamiliarity is the Tome of Magic, Shadowcasters seem unnecessary, Binders are wonky, and Truenamers suck. Although, I have managed to dual-purpose the time I've dedicated to Judging one of the Iron Chef challenges here towards learning that book, so that will no longer be an issue, should I ever run another 3.5 campaign.

Psyren

2014-10-21, 05:14 PM

Ugh, don't get me started on that. My players insist on using stuff from books I don't own because they found it on the site I use to refer to stuff in books I already own, but can't access.

Now my buy list includes Heroes of Horror, Complete Adventurer, Savage Species and wherever Non-Psionic Thri-kreen are found. I would've bought them all eventually anyway, but they're kinda rushing me.

Well that's another issue I'd say - If I were running a campaign and somebody who had a book I didn't have wanted me to use it, they should either buy me a copy or lend me theirs*. I think that's a reasonable ask in return for giving your proposition a fair evaluation.

*Barring a SRD of some kind.

Threadnaught

2014-10-21, 06:00 PM

Well that's another issue I'd say - If I were running a campaign and somebody who had a book I didn't have wanted me to use it, they should either buy me a copy or lend me theirs*. I think that's a reasonable ask in return for giving your proposition a fair evaluation.

*Barring a SRD of some kind.

Yeah, neither of those is as reasonable as you think for MetaMyconid and Circa, my two more experimental players.

I'm in Britain, they're in Australia.

My other player that ******* Druid, has half of the Eberron series and several Dragon related books, including some 4e Draconomicons that were split into two books for no reason, because 4e is weird like that. I don;t count these as D&D books, despite what they claim on the covers.

4e :smalleek:

torrasque666

2014-10-21, 06:25 PM

Yeah, neither of those is as reasonable as you think for MetaMyconid and Circa, my two more experimental players.

I'm in Britain, they're in Australia.

My other player that ******* Druid, has half of the Eberron series and several Dragon related books, including some 4e Draconomicons that were split into two books for no reason, because 4e is weird like that. I don;t count these as D&D books, despite what they claim on the covers.

4e :smalleek:

Wait, you don't count the 4e books and the Eberron ones as D&D, or just the 4e ones?

Because if you're not counting Eberron we may come to fisticuffs my good sir.

Faily

2014-10-22, 10:14 AM

Now I don't know how all gaming groups do it for D&D, but in the ones I play in, we tend to ask the GM "I'd like to play X, is that cool?" and the GM says yay or nay. Sometimes on the spot, sometimes after he has had time to think about it (because we don't expect him to have encyclopedic memory of D&D).
If he says no on the spot, I won't pressure him into looking it over, or argue about it. Firstly because I assume he is already making an informed decision (or that he doesn't like it, we're all there to have fun, so I find it impolite to pressure in something he doesn't like just for my own entertainment). Secondly because he is the GM and I'm cool with him making calls like that. As a GM, I too have banned different player options, because I either didn't like it or I didn't want to have to deal with it in that campaign.

I'm not saying that the GM is infallible, above the rest of the group, or cannot be scrutinized. What I am saying is that if someone is going to take on the GM-mantle, they deserve a certain amount of respect in their decision of what they will and will not allow. I've played under GMs who have said yes to almost everything, and then have been making remarks of how "dumb" that class or prestige class is, and that certainly kills the mood around the table. I'd rather have a GM that says no too many times than yes too many times, because I've been in games with those who say yes to almost everything, only to regret their decision later.

Again, that is my opinion based on the different groups I've played with. Others are free to do how they please, and as long as everyone is having fun with allowing everything printed, then kudos to them.

However, don't belittle the GMs who say they don't have the time to take on more workload. Just because they might have an hour or two of free time every day, they might want to have that for free time and do things they enjoy, rather than to have to pour over a new rules system, or fishbowl a class to check how it corresponds with the campaign. Playing games is supposed to be for fun, and should never ever have to feel like a chore or like a second job.

...

2014-10-22, 10:41 AM

Wait, you don't count the 4e books and the Eberron ones as D&D, or just the 4e ones?

Because if you're not counting Eberron we may come to fisticuffs my good sir.

Okay, I can't not think of South Park.

"**** Canada Eberron!"
"Hey, **** you too, buddy!"

Threadnaught

2014-10-22, 06:03 PM

Wait, you don't count the 4e books and the Eberron ones as D&D, or just the 4e ones?

Because if you're not counting Eberron we may come to fisticuffs my good sir.

The reason I'm taking so long to begin the next Campaign I intend to run, and thus annoying Circa, is because I'm homebrewing a bunch of stuff to use in every Eberron Campaign good sir.
Also I'm getting my own Eberron series, starting with SoX which t*D doesn't have. :smallbiggrin:

4e is not D&D. As I know it.

I must have the Eberron series, those books are gorgeous.

Alex12

2014-10-22, 09:37 PM

There are systems I don't understand well enough to allow (looking at you, Incarnum), at least unless I feel absolutely confident that the player using it a)understands it well enough to manage it himself, b)is trustworthy enough to not abuse my unfamiliarity with the system, and c) won't break the game with it. In the specific instance of my normal gaming group, there's only one player I'd feel comfortable allowing to play an Incarnum user, just because I don't understand the system and I'm not confident in the system mastery of the rest of them.

For all it's maligned, I think psionics is actually really straightforward, not much different from the way most video game magic systems work, and in some ways easier than Vancian. Vancian magic I can handle just fine, and I actively encourage martial maneuvers. I had someone play a Truenamer once, but that was more a self-imposed challenge on his part. I don't understand shadowcasters, but I've never had reason to need to. Binders are pretty sensible and straightforward, and invokers are simplicity itself.

There are things I'll ban because they're too powerful or annoying (Leadership and variants), or because they'll require immense paperwork (Dread Necromancer-scale necromantic armies, Leadership again), but my criteria at least for too powerful is pretty forgiving. I'd have no problem with someone who wanted to play the d2 Crusader, because they still have to get to the level that that ability works, and it's kind of a one-trick pony.

Talakeal

2014-10-25, 07:14 AM

On the subject of Psionic bans:

The other night we were discussing possible classes and the topic of whether psionics were allowed.

One player stated that psionics are the most broken thing in any edition of D&D, and that the only reason someone would play one is if they were a power gamer who only cared about ruining the game for everyone else, and that even requesting to play a psionic character at his table was grounds for a permenant ban (as in the PLAYER is banned, not the character). He also "colored" this statement with a deluge of profanity that would get me banned in an instant if I went for a direct quote rather than a paraphrase.

So yeah, apparently the prejudice against psionics exists alive and well in real life as well as the 'net.

As for my opinions on the subject, yes it is very "sci-fi". No it isn't just because of Greek terms. Lots of Science fiction stories and films involve psychics, very few involve magic, and those that do are usually labeled science fantasy like Star Wars. Heck, plenty of people in real life including Pseudo Scientists believe that psychic powers are real, far fewer believe in magic.

In my opinion psychic powers ARE magic, just given a pseudo scientific justification. Take for example fortune tellers, they claim to be psychic yet use all the old accoutrements of magic like tarot cards, chanting, crystal balls, and invoking spirits. This is why I don't like psionics in my campaign, I don't feel the need to have multiple fully fleshed out spell-casting systems.

I do, however, like the Psionic rules BETTER than magic in 3.X, and if I was really going to spend a lot of time on a campaign or had a player who loved Psionics I would probably keep it in favor of magic and just port over some of the iconic spells and wizard accoutrements to psionics.

Also, while I agree that giant insects are a more sci-fi staple than fantasy for some reason it is hardly an absolute. Tolkien loved his giant spiders and also had giant bees, and ancient middle eastern mythology had plenty of scorpion monsters, and African mythology had tales of Anansi the spider god and Aphshai the mantis god to name a few examples. Even classic D&D has plenty of non psychic insect monsters, the first that come to my mind are the Ankhegs and the Aspis.

Jayabalard

2014-10-28, 04:56 PM

It isn't a difficult system to learn;I don't think anyone said that it was difficult. Just that it was not worth the time investment required (a non-zero number of hours of additional work)

atemu1234

2014-10-28, 05:09 PM

I don't think anyone said that it was difficult. Just that it was not worth the time investment required (a non-zero number of hours of additional work)

I'm not suggesting spending additional time; I'm suggesting you spend the time you would normally be spending (IE the time you spend building campaigns) to learn the new system.

OldTrees1

2014-10-28, 05:14 PM

I'm not suggesting spending additional time; I'm suggesting you spend the time you would normally be spending (IE the time you spend building campaigns) to learn the new system.

Quick question:
Are you asserting that at every gaming table a majority of the players would prefer the addition of that new material at the cost of delaying/postponing their gaming session? (I mean if you are talking about borrowing from game prep time, then you are advocating delays

Personally I found the following assertion to be much better served:
DMs should do what they can to improve the game for all the players(including themselves) unless doing so is irrational as a result of an externality (like the opportunity cost on the DM being higher than the benefit).

atemu1234

2014-10-28, 05:22 PM

Quick question:
Are you asserting that at every gaming table a majority of the players would prefer the addition of that new material at the cost of delaying/postponing their gaming session? (I mean if you are talking about borrowing from game prep time, then you are advocating delays

Personally I found the following assertion to be much better served:
DMs should do what they can to improve the game for all the players(including themselves) unless doing so is irrational as a result of an externality (like the opportunity cost on the DM being higher than the benefit).

I am not asserting that; I am asserting that if one or more player wants the inclusion of the system, one should acquire at least a basic knowledge of that system's workings before including it in the games.

(Un)Inspired

2014-10-28, 05:43 PM

It hard to put your finger on what a "good" reason for a ban is. Clearly as a group we don't share a singular definition of what the word good means. What we need is an idealized gaming-language (save us Wittgenstein!).

I've never actually banned any printed material myself. I play with a pretty easy going group and it's never been necessary. The only thing I've been banned from using was psionics in a 2e game and I feel like I could have talked the GM into letting me use them if I really pressured him.

Instead of focusing bans on different material I always have to focus bans on behavior at my tables.

For instance, in my currently game the common tongue is supposed to sound fluid and melodious but the player kept using their regular, somewhat klunky diction. I was forced to hard-ban players form using hard "k" sounds when speaking in character to better represent the fluff of my game world.

OldTrees1

2014-10-28, 05:49 PM

I am not asserting that; I am asserting that if one or more player wants the inclusion of the system, one should acquire at least a basic knowledge of that system's workings before including it in the games.

So if only the one player wants the new material, and the DM does not have anytime to spend outside of their game prep time, then you think the DM and the other players should have their session delayed/postponed to give the DM time to learn yet another subsystem?

Also are you using "should" in the "do or be bad/wrong" or the "doing so would be ideal" sense?

Petrocorus

2014-10-28, 06:37 PM

So yeah, apparently the prejudice against psionics exists alive and well in real life as well as the 'net.

I never understood what is that prejudice against psionics and where it come from?

As for my opinions on the subject, yes it is very "sci-fi". No it isn't just because of Greek terms.

For me, this thing with Greek term imply sci-fi is funny, as the French translation of the first edition was filled with that kind of things, Polymorph Other for example was Allometamorphose. Shapechange was even worse.

OldTrees1

2014-10-28, 06:46 PM

I never understood what is that prejudice against psionics and where it come from?

I don't know. I mean I can look at how psionics are absent from most of the ancient classical fantasy in Western Society(King Arthur, Grimm's Fairy Tales, ...) that is formative in how people view fantasy. However that does not seem enough of an explanation since new stuff is added to Western Fantasy all the time. Perhaps the prejudice had a random element in it?

nyjastul69

2014-10-28, 07:12 PM

I never understood what is that prejudice against psionics and where it come from?

My guess would be that it stems from how 1st ed. psionics worked. It was a kinda clunky tacked on subsystem that any character might be able to qualify for. It wasn't a subsystem designed for class building, such as ToB and such in 3e. If you qualified, and made the roll to get psionics, it gave an array of powers that were out of scale with the rest of the game.

I recall having a psionic 6th or 7th level Thief in 1st ed. that one-shotted a purple worm with a mind blast due to it having a low wis or int. There's no way the encounter should have been that easy. I'm not sure we could have defeated it otherwise. I think this legacy lives on, either through direct experience, or word of mouth.

There is also the 'it's too sci-fi and not fantasy enough'. I was actually a member of this camp once. I am no longer a member of said camp. It's probably some combination of these two things that primarily drives the bias.

atemu1234

2014-10-28, 07:36 PM

So if only the one player wants the new material, and the DM does not have anytime to spend outside of their game prep time, then you think the DM and the other players should have their session delayed/postponed to give the DM time to learn yet another subsystem?

Also are you using "should" in the "do or be bad/wrong" or the "doing so would be ideal" sense?

Ideal, of course.

If you have time to write a campaign, you ideally have time to figure out a not-that-complex subsystem.

Oko and Qailee

2014-10-28, 07:50 PM

I never understood what is that prejudice against psionics and where it come from?

From my perspective it seems that some people consider it OP. A lot of tables don't frequent GITP. The campaign I'm in now (and considering leaving actually due to semi-related build restriction issues) had players that consider Psionics OP and > spell casting because "free still and silent spell."

Petrocorus

2014-10-28, 08:06 PM

I don't know. I mean I can look at how psionics are absent from most of the ancient classical fantasy in Western Society(King Arthur, Grimm's Fairy Tales, ...) that is formative in how people view fantasy. However that does not seem enough of an explanation since new stuff is added to Western Fantasy all the time. Perhaps the prejudice had a random element in it?

The 5 MM are utterly full of things that are not from classical western fantasy. From the most ridiculous monsters laid down by some writers in lack of inspiration like the Avolakia from MM2 to the Ogre-Mage which was an adaptation from the japanese Oni. And most of people are fine with this.

From my perspective it seems that some people consider it OP. A lot of tables don't frequent GITP. The campaign I'm in now (and considering leaving actually due to semi-related build restriction issues) had players that consider Psionics OP and > spell casting because "free still and silent spell."

And "free eschew material". :smallwink:
Really too powerful indeed. :smallsigh:

OldTrees1

2014-10-28, 08:08 PM

Ideal, of course.

If you have time to write a campaign, you ideally have time to figure out a not-that-complex subsystem.

Ah, the word "should" had been used frequently in the other sense(condemning DMs that are not doing what would be ideal).

The 5 MM are utterly full of things that are not from classical western fantasy. From the most ridiculous monsters laid down by some writers in lack of inspiration like the Avolakia from MM2 to the Ogre-Mage which was an adaptation from the japanese Oni. And most of people are fine with this.

Yeah. It is strange.

Troacctid

2014-10-28, 08:22 PM

For instance, in my currently game the common tongue is supposed to sound fluid and melodious but the player kept using there regular, somewhat klunky diction. I was forced to hard-ban players form using hard "k" sounds when speaking in character to better represent the fluff of my game world.

Wait, what? What kind of ban is that? Are you running a D&D game for your school's linguistics club?

sonofzeal

2014-10-28, 08:27 PM

From my perspective it seems that some people consider it OP. A lot of tables don't frequent GITP. The campaign I'm in now (and considering leaving actually due to semi-related build restriction issues) had players that consider Psionics OP and > spell casting because "free still and silent spell."

Ask them if Divine magic is also OP because "no Arcane Spell Failure, and you can prepare off your full spell list".

Point is, it's less the mechanics, and more what you can actually do with it. Arcane magic is amazing. Psions tend to be great inside their narrow focus, and limited outside. Psi powers are often more flexible than their arcane equivalent, but that's because you get less of them, and because they tend not to have the raw potency. The only thing Psions do better at universally is pump out a lot of damage in a short time, and only by blowing through daily resources in a matter of rounds - and even then, their damage is only slightly better than an average Wizard, and probably inferior to a Wizard who's specialized extensively in making things go boom.

Psions, like Clerics, have notable advantages over Wizards, without being particularly more effective overall. Wizards are Wizards because of the Sor/Wis spell list. The Sor/Wiz list is amazing. Psion power list just can't quite keep up, so they get other little advantages (like free still/silent - but having to pay for damage scaling) to make up.

Deophaun

2014-10-28, 10:56 PM

Psionics is "engineering of the mind." They've been firmly part of the sci-fi genre since the pulps. The psi is from greek psyche, meaning mind; the onics part comes from electronics;
GAHHH! I can't stand it. No.

No no no no no no no.

"-onics" means "in the way/manner of." It is not a suffix invented to make a descriptor for something that runs on electrons. Psi-onics: In the manner of the mind. Elect-ronics: In the manner of electrons. I could drive you insane and invent the word "thaumonics:" In the manner of wonder/miracles. The term "thaumonic item" would be a perfect synonym for a magic item. But you would say that now makes it part of the sci-fi genre, even though the name is the very antithesis of sci-fi.

(Un)Inspired

2014-10-28, 11:05 PM

Wait, what? What kind of ban is that? Are you running a D&D game for your school's linguistics club?

hehe Ok that might not have been an actual ban that I've enacted.

Trunamer

2014-10-29, 09:31 AM

It's not just a good reason, it's the best reason.

Just about the only really good reason I can think of to outright ban something is if I don't want that particular class or subsystem in my campaign world.

I had all content from Tome of Battle banned for the longest time, just because, and I'm quoting myself.

Incarnum and Tome of Magic are banned as well. Complain.

I ban psionics because I just don't think it fits in a fantasy setting. It's a sci-fi thing. In fantasy settings, magic keeps things plenty complicated enough.

"The fluff doesn't fit the world I want to make" is a perfectly valid reason.
This thread makes me thankful for 4th edition. :smallsmile:

Talakeal

2014-10-29, 10:02 AM

GAHHH! I can't stand it. No.

No no no no no no no.

"-onics" means "in the way/manner of." It is not a suffix invented to make a descriptor for something that runs on electrons. Psi-onics: In the manner of the mind. Elect-ronics: In the manner of electrons. I could drive you insane and invent the word "thaumonics:" In the manner of wonder/miracles. The term "thaumonic item" would be a perfect synonym for a magic item. But you would say that now makes it part of the sci-fi genre, even though the name is the very antithesis of sci-fi.

Is this a very common misconception? Because my DM just told me the origin of the word last week (although he ascribed it to Gary Gygax) and after the game I went to look it up. Every online dictionary or encyclopedia I looked it verified that it was in fact a combination of Psychic and Electronic.

Palegreenpants

2014-10-29, 10:18 AM

On the subject of psionics (mind-magic, whatever,) I feel that they are a distinctly debatable subject. Personally, I feel that the source of psionic power is frequently based on infuriatingly bad science (only 10% of the brain used, that sort of shoddiness.) I tend to like "magic" that is both mysterious, and grounded in physics, however (academic magic.) Other people seem to embrace "psionics" as a divergent method of playing a spellcaster, or because they feel that manipulating the world with invisible brain-juice is innately more powerful.

I don't use psionics in my setting, and have concluded that their incorporation is solely dependent of the likes and personality of those playing the game.

Anyway, there's my two cents

The Insanity

2014-10-29, 11:27 AM

We ban only players. We don't ban rules, we houserule. A rule might be temporarily not allowed until houseruled if it's complicated and might take more time.

Nightcanon

2014-10-29, 01:47 PM

I guess to a certain extent, traditional quasi-medieval fantasy calls its metaphysical mind-over-matter-through-secret-knowledge magic/craft/skill, while futuristic SF tends to deal with the same sort of effects as psychic/metapsychic/psionic. What rarely happens, regardless of Arthur C Clarke's dictum on advanced technology, is that both appear in the same setting. So DMs who 'ban'psionics may simply be saying that in their setting, mind-reading, telekinesis, creative mind-bolts and the like come under the heading of magic, rather than (as they see it) re-invent or re-name the wheel. Some of the points in this thread suggest that a psionics-style system might better model a traditional fantasy-style mage-as-conduit for dangerous and unknowable arcane forces than the clean predictability of Vancian magic, and I'd be tempted to play around with a re-skinned version of the psionic mechanic as 'magic', but I'm not sure why I'd want to shoehorn in psionics as 'yet another way of doing non-mundane stuff' into my campaign world, especially if it were a world of my own making.

Talakeal

2014-10-29, 02:24 PM