Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Shaman" data-source="post: 2583453" data-attributes="member: 26473">I'm not sure if this is what you intended to say or not, but what I'm reading here is that the GM created an Arthurian romance game with setting-consistent limits on classes and races, and you think that's an example of selfishness and poor GMing.I can understand a player not necessarily wanting to play in a game where the PCs all play knights and squires and (non-spellcasting) priests and such, but that doesn't make it a bad setting or the GM a poor GM - it simply means that what the GM created is not to the players' tastes in this instance.Presumably no one is holding a gun to the players' heads in this example, so they can say that they're more interested in playing a more traditional D&D game - either the GM will compromise or s/he won't, and the gamers involved can either play or not. In any case I don't see how the GM is obligated to create something for the players. I think the example of the GM-as-shopkeeper example is apt in this case: the GM offers a game, the players can choose to accept or not - if the GM won't compromise s/he has no players, if the players won't compromise they have no game.In this instance I think it would be best for both sides to look for a middle ground, such as permitting clerics and perhaps druids but keeping wizards as NPC 'monsters' in the setting. However, if the GM is not willing to compromise the setting, the players are not injured in any sense: they simply vote with their feet, and the both the GM and the players can look for more compatible folks with whom to play.(Personally I'd enjoy an Arthurian romance like the one you described...)Yes, immature GMs are bad, raildroading GMs are bad, killer GMs are bad, but is this really a newsflash for gamers?What you're describing is really the most extreme examples of poor GMing, and IMX (and of course my experience may be different from yours) they are really a small proportion of the overall pool of gamers - some GMs are mediocre, a few are really great, but the juvenile behavior you describe above is usually self-correcting: either the GM matures or s/he can't find anyone to play with after awhile.Talking about the most extreme behavior doesn't really answer the questions that have been asked several times on this board already, such as...So far all of the examples that have been presented have been the most extreme examples of poor GMing, IMX gaming skills reside along a continuum, and for me that's what's really at the heart of this thread: where is the balance point? So far the rules-lawyers haven' answered that question to my satisfaction, nor apparently to Raven Crowking's.I'll repeat my earlier example, and hopefully Kamikaze Midget or Majoru Oakheart or Patryn of Elvenshae will reply: The PHB and the DMG (both 3.0 - my 3.5 books are in a box in the garage) indicate that the most complex mechanical trap is DC 25 to disable - does this preclude the GM from creating a DC 27 or 28 trap? What about DC 30?Let's be clear about something here as well - I'm not talking about upping the DC just to beat the party rogue's stats, or changing it on the fly to hose a character who made a good roll. Those would be extreme examples of poor GMing. I'd like to hear a response from the perspective addresses whether or not you consider creating something like this to reasonably challenge the party in the normal course of adventure writing is "breaking the rules."I agree with this - players should have goals.And this I can't agree with at all.Let's be clear on something:GMing is not my job.It's something I do for recreation, to exercise my imagination, to enjoy time with friends.When I sit down to homebrew a setting, my first question is, "What kinds of adventures do I want to run?" This determines many of the setting details, influencing races (both character and non-), classes, geography, transportation, economics, political institutions and so on. The setting is built to accommodate the adventures - it's also designed to be internally consistent so that enhances the suspension of disbelief for the players, to give the setting verisimilitude and offer a more immersive gaming experience for everyone.My second question is, "What options are available to the players?" As a GM I want to give the players a range of options - it's in my best interest as a GM to offer a goodly number of races and class choices so that the players have interesting choices to make with respect to their characters, in the same way that it's in my best interest to create exciting adventures set in an engaging game-world. That's not the same as giving them unlimited options, however: if I choose to remove outsiders and core-class paladins from the setting, then no, you can't play an aasimar paladin.I imagine that right there I've raised the hackles of some gamers: "Why ban outsiders? Why ban paladins? That's not D&D!" If my goal is to run swords-and-sorcery adventures with a dark ages feel, if I want to create a cosmology in which there are no other planes, if I want to make the paladin a prestige class (or even exclude it altogether), that is my perogative as a GM. If I wanted to run the setting by the straight core rules, I could, but those same core rules give me the liberty to make those choices, to offer the players other options instead. Anyone who claims that the core rules preclude these sorts of choices is ignoring the core rules...Again, we're talking about the extreme of poor GMing here, which doesn't get us anywere toward finding the middle ground where most gamers play.In the example of my living wall earth elemental, I described it to the players roughly like this: "About thirty feet off the ground you suddenly feel the rough surface of the wall grow smooth as a river-polished stone. The rock itself seems to shift under your grip, your hand and toe holds feel as if they are receding into the wall, and you fall to the ground...taking eleven hit points damage." (No, I didn't just decide the thief fell - she failed her skill check.)Again, I think we all agree that saying, "You just can't climb it," or, "You fall regardless of what you roll," is just poor GMing. For me at least there remains the larger question, based on the following:Here's another question that I hope someone will answer for me: Who decides what the "darn good reason" is, the GM or the players?</blockquote>

Verification