D&D General The 3.5 Binder was a really cool class

[jmartkdr2]

Sure, but the way to solve the problems of mismatches of expectations between players and GMs is by an honest dialogue. At best, you can write advice about that into the sections on GMing, but even then that's just that: advice. At the proverbial end of the day, the player(s) and GM need to talk to each other. Attempting to hard-code a rule about the GM not being able to do X, Y, or Z is not only a fool's errand, it's counter-productive, since it simply takes the much-decried state of "tyrannical GMs" and tries to create a check by empowering tyrannical players.

That's not a counterbalance, it's detante, and only leads to things being worse rather than better. The books cannot make the social contract binding; only the people at the table can do that.

I don’t know what you think I’m suggesting beyond “we should give specific, detailed advice.”

Obviously we can’t make people listen. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t speak to those who are listening.

 

[Alzrius]

You can decide not to take it seriously if you like. I know people to whom it has happened, and I know at least one GM who has specifically spoken about putting people in this position because he liked doing it to people. It really does happen!

There's a vast world of difference between "it really does happen" and "it's a major problem that's been crying out for a solution for a long time now." That's worth remembering, because you seem to be trying to suggest that the former is the latter, despite the latter not being a thing at all (and even the former being a notable rarity).

I have no problem with GMs-in-general. (I'd have to have a problem with myself if I did, and Hussar, who has been nothing but supportive, amongst others.) I have a problem with rules which create trap situations and then don't lift a finger to address those traps....especially when they clearly end up encouraging GMs to do crappy things at least some of the time. Because I've seen it encourage GMs to do crappy things some of the time. Thankfully, almost never at tables I'm personally playing.

I'll start by saying that I don't think you've ever seen the rules encouraging GMs to do crappy things, just things which you interpret in that manner. That said, the solution for this is to have better advice rather than hard-coding in restrictions into the rules, which can't be enforced anyway and would only serve to make the problem of player entitlement (which is much more prevalent than jerk GMs) even worse.

Ex-clerics. It's literally right there, in the book. You lose everything except proficiencies and skill points, IIRC. All your powers. Every single one.

Ah, so now you're admitting that there are exceptions to what's lost, rather than up to and including your levels and magic items. Oh, and you're rather conveniently ignoring how the book also says that a single atonement spell fixes things.

And guess who gets to decide whether your deity took your powers away?

Or who decides if rocks fall, or what random encounter you run into, or any other a thousand other ways the GM runs things. Your problem isn't with divine spellcasters, in other words, but with the GM having the potential for being a jerk. Which is your prerogative to worry about, but doesn't seem to necessitate the radical solutions you seem to be in favor of.

I had said that GMs were always able to remove levels and magic items--but that's a total other thing. I know for a fact you have heard of the "you were thrown in jail and all your items were taken away" story and how much players HATE that sort of thing most of the time. So don't act like this is some bizarro weird nobody-ever-does-this thing. It happens.

Notice the subtle-yet-inaccurate shading of my own position here, where you're wrongfully characterizing my position as "it never happens at all ever" despite that not being what I've said. It's things like this which make it hard to discuss this with you. Only Sith deal in absolutes.

I was--and am--talking about loss of divine powers. I won't respond to your statements about things I didn't actually say.

You're very clearly using that as an example of what you think is a much larger issue, which is why literally just cited another scenario ("the players are locked up and have their gear taken away") in the paragraph above this one. If you want to bring up divine spellcasters as an example of that issue, that's fine, but let's call it what it is: an example. We can discuss the underlying topic without necessarily having to use that specific example all the time.

And yes, of course I'm choosing to look at it in terms of potential abuse. That's what you have to do when you examine the design of something. You have to look for its points of failure. Or do you think we should design, say, our laws against fraud under the idea that nobody would ever abuse such laws?

I think that's a rather poor analogy, since TTRPGs aren''t laws. Moreover, I don't think you can make laws, rules, or any other code of conduct that can enforce understanding and good behavior between people engaged in a recreational pastime. Advice, certainly, but some sort of rules constraints? That doesn't work in a game whose central premise is "anything can be attempted."

I am specifically looking at it from the most catastrophic perspective because that's when the rule is breaking down. You don't judge a rule by its best-use cases. You judge it by its worst-use cases, and you try to address and mitigate them as best you can. You won't be perfect. You won't prevent everything. But you'll prevent a lot just by putting in a modicum of effort.

Which doesn't work in the context of "someone might be an overbearing jerk." You are, from what I can tell, trying to apply principles of game balance to mitigating the negative aspects of human interaction, and that's not going to work. At best you can restrict ways of playing the game, but that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Yes, there is. The books explicitly give the GM direct permission to remove almost all class features of Clerics, Paladins, and a few other characters, for "Gods work in mysterious ways~" reasons. In other words, for any reason or no reason at all.

And yet you're citing 3.X as being unique in that regard, despite the fact that it wasn't. If anything, 3.X having a built-in remedy in the form of the atonement spell should be something that you hold up as a solution, rather than overlooking it the way you have.

No no no, you misunderstand. I absolutely 100% believe that the GM role comes with ENORMOUS responsibilities.

That's literally not what you said one post ago.

I'm talking about what these specific rules do and say. And what they do and say is that the GM can functionally delete everything your divine character can actually do, without any limits. No advice. No explanations. No discussion. Just incredibly vague and often EXTREMELY unhelpful so-called "guidance" and single throwaway lines like, as you yourself quoted, "gross violation". Who decides what is a "gross violation"? The GM--exclusively. The player does not and cannot argue about that, because it's up to the GM.

Which is an argument for better advice being given, absolutely. I've been saying that for a while now myself. It's not an argument for trying to write more-stringent rules in an attempt to enforce the social contract.

When the exact same person is both the dispenser of--let's be real here--punishment, and also the person who decides whether or not a behavior is worthy of punishment, what is that usually called in English? The phrase I'm familiar with is "judge, jury, and executioner".

The word you're looking for is "referee" and it goes back to the heart of this hobby. If you don't want to play a game with a referee, then you certainly don't have to--there are a lot of referee-free games out there!--but that you can have bad referees doesn't invalidate the entire concept, nor does it mean that they have to be straitjacketed.

Nope, because again you think I care about fighting inherently butthole-y people. I don't. Well, only limitedly. When someone's a butthole and you can point to the rules where they've done so, it's much, MUCH, MUCH easier to call them out for their bad behavior. Orders of magnitude easier. Why do you think forums like ENWorld have a codified set of rules which includes things like "be civil"? Because when you have a codified rule that says what someone has done is wrong, it's much easier to deal with their behavior, whether or not they are acting in good faith.

And also people who enforce them, and who make final decisions based on their own interpretations of the application of those rules. In other words, you're describing the very thing that you're decrying here as a good thing. Which is sort of the point, since it goes to show that you can't bind the referee with a set of rules when they're the ones nominally charged with enforcing them.

Will it stop buttholes? No. Nothing can. I've never said otherwise and even in the posts you're quoting I said as much. Instead, it gives players the ability to call out bad behavior FAR more easily, and to clearly articulate why that bad behavior is, in fact, bad. With jerk GMs, it smooths and accelerates the escape of players from said situation--doesn't mean they all will, but far more will, and that's worth seeking. Further, with the huge huge huge excluded middle here, where we recognize that most GMs are neither supervillains nor saints, but rather most GMs are mediocre, or of patchwork quality (amazing at A, dog poop at B, etc.), or deeply misinformed, or well-meaning but wrongheaded, or grossly misjudging the situation, etc. Rules that help players to address such situations are good and useful tools to have, not some insane tyrannical imposition on poor helpless GMs.

Except that players can already call out jerk GMs. I'm honestly not sure why you seem to think that being able to point to a specific passage will somehow act as a panacea to this, as though it would somehow become some sort of trump card by which to curtail jerk behavior. It wouldn't; even if you could hard-code that sort of thing into everything, that same bad behavior would manifest elsewhere. You can't fix bad habits, poor attitudes, and personality problems with a line in the rules. Moreover, it's absolutely not worth attempting to do so, because it punishes literally everyone else for what a handful of bad people might do, while empowering bad players by the legion, which are already a more pervasive problem.

And here we part ways. I won't engage with anyone who seriously uses the phrase "player entitlement". Sorry.

I accept your apology.

We live in an age of GM entitlement and I'm tired of pretending we don't.

Nope, not even close. This is the era of player entitlement, and it deserves to be called out when it happens.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Nope, not even close. This is the era of player entitlement, and it deserves to be called out when it happens.

It is in absolutely no way such a thing, when this edition's launch was defined by answering EVERY question with "ask your GM". Up to and including "do my class features work this way?" and "is this what the rules say?" Up to and including telling that to numerous people who then responded with, "I am the GM, I'm trying to figure this out", which would then be met with "You're the GM! Do whatever you want!"

But please, continue being incredibly rude and dismissive. I'm sure you'll win lots of support that way.

 

[Alzrius]

I don’t know what you think I’m suggesting beyond “we should give specific, detailed advice.”

Obviously we can’t make people listen. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t speak to those who are listening.

Sure, I also recommended having more sections of advice for GMs; I think that's a good thing. I'm just against trying to hard-code rules around things that GMs can't do, is all. That way lies little benefit and much potential for problems.

You know also RPGs can evolve and adapt better more modern gamedesign.

The idea that "evolution = improvement" isn't necessarily true.

"RPGs are not boardgames" and similar thinking just keeps RPGs from evolving and getting better. RPGs and boardgames are games you play together with other people, so its naturally to learn from one another.

No, that ignores their salient differences. Treating RPGs like boardgames runs the risk of compromising what makes the former different from the latter, e.g. that anything can be attempted.

See these kind of reactions from GSs is exactly why the "just talk" does often not work in practice and why having instead fixed rules in practice about what a GS is allowed to do and what not.

You literally characterized the state of detente--of everyone having atomic bombs--as being an improvement. I disagree strongly with that premise, as well as that characterization, so yes I look askance on there being the basic premises necessary for the subsequent discussion.

This also gives the opportunity to take burdens away from GMs. You can have a player being the "rules engineer" who knows the rules. So the GM does not need to take over this responsibility if he does not have the power to change the rules any longer.

We already have that, in terms of the oft-maligned "rules lawyers." I'm not sure you want to give them more metaphorical "ammo" to work with.

You have 1 player be the rules engineer. Another player be the notetaker, 1 player be in charge of scheduling and the GS is just in charge of running the adventure. (Which as a group together was selected).

I know plenty of groups that already do this, and without having it be mandated in the rules, let alone to the point of everyone having their own atomic bomb that they're threatening everyone else with.

 

[Alzrius]

It is in absolutely no way such a thing, when this edition's launch was defined by answering EVERY question with "ask your GM". Up to and including "do my class features work this way?" and "is this what the rules say?" Up to and including telling that to numerous people who then responded with, "I am the GM, I'm trying to figure this out", which would then be met with "You're the GM! Do whatever you want!"

This grossly mischaracterizes this edition's attitude, which is entirely themed around "you don't need a rule for this, just have your character do it," while telling GMs that they should bend over backwards to accomodate their players, on top of making it even harder for PCs to fail at things to begin with.

But please, continue being incredibly rude and dismissive. I'm sure you'll win lots of support that way.

Leaving aside the pot calling the kettle black, here, it's notable that you're more focused on "winning lots of support" than on having a meaningful exchange.

 

[BrokenTwin]

Hey folks, can we either get back to talking about the Binder or let this thread die? Because I'd love to talk more about the Binder.

Started rereading my copy of Tome of Magic a couple of nights ago, and I'm pleasantly surprised by just how much of my nostalgia of the flavour is not, in fact, rose-coloured glasses. I will say though, that due to said flavour, it's even more tightly bound to a setting than even a cleric is. With clerics, their god can be abstracted (especially since you can "worship" a concept for your power). But with the Binder, each Vestige is a unique character, many of which their backstories and powersets are closely tied into a specific world's history.

I'd love to find other games with similar classes, where your bargaining for power with distinct entities is actually mechanically reinforced. It's almost enough to make me want to play PF1 again.

 

[Umbran]

I accept your apology.

Mod Note:
The snarky, superior tone is not making this discussion better.
If you aren't going to offer real, sincere respect, maybe just stop, before the result is unacceptable.

 

[Tigris]

I'd love to find other games with similar classes, where your bargaining for power with distinct entities is actually mechanically reinforced. It's almost enough to make me want to play PF1 again.

Well not 100% exactly the same but in the PF1 based Final Fantasy D20 one cleric subclass really has to decide on specific deities and get from them specific abilities: Disciple of the Twelve

These gods also each have a description etc: Halone the Fury


And in general the deitic orders have more differences (but only the 12 can mix several different gods similar to vestiges): Deific Orders

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Hey folks, can we either get back to talking about the Binder or let this thread die? Because I'd love to talk more about the Binder.

Started rereading my copy of Tome of Magic a couple of nights ago, and I'm pleasantly surprised by just how much of my nostalgia of the flavour is not, in fact, rose-coloured glasses. I will say though, that due to said flavour, it's even more tightly bound to a setting than even a cleric is. With clerics, their god can be abstracted (especially since you can "worship" a concept for your power). But with the Binder, each Vestige is a unique character, many of which their backstories and powersets are closely tied into a specific world's history.

I'd love to find other games with similar classes, where your bargaining for power with distinct entities is actually mechanically reinforced. It's almost enough to make me want to play PF1 again.

I sincerely apologize for having derailed the thread. I will say nothing more on the previous subject, and will only reply further if I have something productive to say about the Binder. Again, my sincere apologies.

Perhaps as a starting point:

If we want to ensure that some modern form of Binder really stands out against casting and such, what do folks think the thing needs to do? What ways can Vestiges be kept clearly distinct from spells, while still being cool and worthwhile? It's quite possible others have already mentioned stuff in the thread, I haven't been keeping close track.

Edit: Also, 100% agreed on setting-boundedness. Reminds me of the Final Fantasy Summoner. No job in FF has more "this is specific to THIS setting" energy than Summoner. Every game does it differently, sometimes radically so. Sometimes they're functionally White Mages with some powerful flashy spells. Sometimes they're Black Mages! Sometimes they're utility specialists, or DoT-focused, or literally the entire focus of the narrative (e.g. Clive Rosfield in FFXVI), or a variety of other things.

 

[BrokenTwin]

I honestly have no idea how you could make the Binder work in the design language of modern D&D.

PF2 has the Animist, but they're a pure spellcaster, and their equivalent vestiges (called apparitions) only grant spells. Also doesn't seem to have any mechanics for the bargaining. I'd give it a try though.

Shadow of the Demon Lord has the Invocation tradition, which also lack the bargaining, but does hew a lot closer to the concept of the caster being physically and/or mentally changed by the powers they bind.

I'm also a sucker for Final Fantasy summoners in almost all their versions, but I think FFX was probably my favourite insofar as how summoners were handled. In a similar vein, FF Blue/Beast Mages, though they haven't had nearly the same level of care or attention. There's a definite through line of the enjoyment I get from characters who derive their power from distinct setting-specific entities.