Really starting to bug me about Scholars

[Scorpion13]

The GM is an absolute creator-god/goddess of their own small universe. What they say goes. Otherwise, find another world.

Yes. And unless they gave me a good reason for not allowing me to do something, thats exactly what Im gonig to do.

 

[argo]

I wouldn't take the power away, I'd just arbitrate when and how it happens for players like that until they see, from example, what the power is there for.
-=Grim=-

And what exactly is the difference between this and taking the power away? If the player can only use their power when you say then its not really theirs is it?

If you ask me a much better use of your GM fiat would be to spontaneously add a wave of reinforcements (with bows! ) or to challenge you player in different ways such as with enemies who use loose formations and hit-and-run tacticts (reach weapons + fight on the run) or assasins with poisioned weapons (target that weak Fort save).

Focus on what you do best. Control the game world, let the players control their characters.

 

[argo]

The GM is an absolute creator-god/goddess of their own small universe. What they say goes. Otherwise, find another world.

It gets afwul lonely being a GM with no players. Games are supposed to be fun for everybody, not just some of the people playing.

Yes the GM is the god of his own little universe. And being a capricous diety in search of entertainment he has deigned to grant some of his subjects the limited ability to affect change in their surroundings so that he may delight as they strugle (mahaps strugle in vain :wink: ) against the challenges he lays before them.

I just don't think its any fun otherwise. YMMV

Later.

 

[Raven Blackwell]

I do control the game world. Thus if I say DB doesn't work then it doesn't work- for anyone PC or NPC. If I say Lovecrafian horrors exist, they do. If I don't like the Sorcery system I build my own. Such is the power of a god. 8) Life and creation are about adaptation, not absolute obedience to a single system of thought. That way as history shows lies extinction; personal, societal or racial.

I never feel I have to be imprisoned by an absolute conservative reading of any gaming system and thus change the rules to suit my need. I am not a organic gaming platform that performs on the players' demand- I am living sentient being and frankly I decide my actions and desires, not the opinion of others. Plus I want to have fun as well as the players. Straightjacketing myself doesn't do that. Playing around a bit with the rules- and my players- does. 8)

I am also the absolute authority on the gameplay in RL. If a player isn't working out and I feel the game is best served by removing them I do so. If a group doesn't like my playing style I disband it, let them find a GM that better suits their needs and find other players. And as for being 'alone' in the gaming community both virtual and RL I have waiting list that some people have been on for months and they eagerly take up any displaced seats that come about. And frankly I can take or leave RPGing as I have a lot of other creative/social outputs. I went years without any serious RPGing after college on only returned to it at the last years of the nineties. While there is no danger of me growing bored now, if I ever do I will end the game as I don't want to get burned out and still feel like I am bring forced to play by my player's demands. Since my dreamworlds don't exist without me, the players have no choice in this matter. What are they going to do- force me to GM at gunpoint? :lol:

 

[Scorpion13]

You know, you really could have just replaced that enitre rant with this....


"I have an M.D. from Harvard, I am board certified in cardio-thoracic medicine and trauma surgery, I have been awarded citations from seven different medical boards in New England, and I am never, ever sick at sea. So I ask you; when someone goes into that chapel and they fall on their knees and they pray to God that their wife doesn't miscarry or that their daughter doesn't bleed to death or that their mother doesn't suffer acute neural trama from postoperative shock, who do you think they're praying to? Now, go ahead and read your Bible, Dennis, and you go to your church, and, with any luck, you might win the annual raffle, but if you're looking for God, he was in operating room number two on November seventeen, and he doesn't like to be second guessed. You ask me if I have a God complex. Let me tell you something: I am God."

...And had the same effect.


And thats fine for you, but not all of us want to go that route. Certainly, you are free to do whatever, and we're not trying to convince you otherwise, we just feel that directly interfereing in the actions the players take because you dont like them is sort of not cool. I certainly would need a good explaination for it if I exeperienced it as a player.

 

[Mark Dunder]

Easy you two! Scorpion13 you better watch out! Raven has some wickedly good spells and I don't just mean the ethereal ones. But not all of us have Raven's ability to bind and to hold players, or have many to pick from either. I'm a little limited in my area.

I usually let players win. Some games like Paranoia, only one player usually wins, not always.

Unless it's supposed to be a surprise, I usually let the players know just what will happen if they chose a certain action. I've had players get real mad because I let them do something stupid that their PC would not have done. So I help them role-play those actions that may cause more trouble for their PC than it should have. Players are there for the ride, I give them a ride. I like to see how they react when I spring the real test at them. I encourage cleverness as opposed to just going in and attacking. That is why DB is not something I would encourage, it means the player has failed, and that I have failed also as a GM. As Argo pointed out, you should have ways to get the players out of their predicament, you put them into it afterall!

 

[GrimJesta]

I wouldn't take the power away, I'd just arbitrate when and how it happens for players like that until they see, from example, what the power is there for.
-=Grim=-

And what exactly is the difference between this and taking the power away? If the player can only use their power when you say then its not really theirs is it?

It's actually quite different. One they still get the power and it still triggers when they're in danger. The other they lose out on the power completely.

-=Grim=-

 

[Raven Blackwell]

Scorpion13, you are getting a little personal in responce to my belief that if I don't like a rule such as Defensive Blast, I don't use in my game. That's what it boils down to. You might see it as interference but I see it as my right. My efforts create and maintain my gameworld, thus I have final say on it. I for one do not appriciate the idea of Scholars running around and blowing themselves like brainwashed Islamic religious students. A bit curde and non-genre for my tastes. And enyone who familiar with my backstory as it were can imagine why the ability and power to say "no' is rather important to me.

And I happen to agree with Mr. Baldwin's character. Skill should be respected. If I need something done, I don't rely on a mythical father figure with a bad track record to do it for me- I either learn to do it myself or find someone more tangible who's work I respect and make arrangements for them to do it for me for fair compensation. And considering I just sent you the result of several hours of my labor in converting Lovecrfatian material into the Conan system without the request for compensation, I'd hope you'd at least respect me to some degree for doing so.

You have my e-mail address Scorpion. If you have something off-topic to say, say it that way and spare the others the bandwidth please.

 

[Scorpion13]

Scorpion13, you are getting a little personal in responce to my belief that if I don't like a rule such as Defensive Blast, I don't use in my game. That's what it boils down to. You might see it as interference but I see it as my right. My efforts create and maintain my gameworld, thus I have final say on it. I for one do not appriciate the idea of Scholars running around and blowing themselves like brainwashed Islamic religious students. A bit curde and non-genre for my tastes. And enyone who familiar with my backstory as it were can imagine why the ability and power to say "no' is rather important to me.

And I happen to agree with Mr. Baldwin's character. Skill should be respected. If I need something done, I don't rely on a mythical father figure with a bad track record to do it for me- I either learn to do it myself or find someone more tangible who's work I respect and make arrangements for them to do it for me for fair compensation. And considering I just sent you the result of several hours of my labor in converting Lovecrfatian material into the Conan system without the request for compensation, I'd hope you'd at least respect me to some degree for doing so.

You have my e-mail address Scorpion. If you have something off-topic to say, say it that way and spare the others the bandwidth please.

You all realize that was a little joke, dont you?

 

[argo]

I wouldn't take the power away, I'd just arbitrate when and how it happens for players like that until they see, from example, what the power is there for.
-=Grim=-

And what exactly is the difference between this and taking the power away? If the player can only use their power when you say then its not really theirs is it?

It's actually quite different. One they still get the power and it still triggers when they're in danger. The other they lose out on the power completely.

-=Grim=-

We appear to be at an impass. As stated previously, I think that if a player has to say "GM may I" every time he wants to use his ability with no clear idea weither or not he is going to be permitted to do so then it isn't really his ability. I don't like that as a player and as a GM I don't feel good about doing that to my players.

YMMV

 

[GrimJesta]

If a player is intelligent enough to grasp what it's used for then they don't have to. But some twink who wants to get a free fireball by rushing into groups of armed enemies to self-detonate gets his hand held until he's mature enough to ride without training wheels. It's better than taking away the ability, since then a person has to make an ability up to replace it.

-=Grim=-

 

[argo]

Using your abilities effectively isn't a sign of immaturity in and of itself. And I don't want to have to lead my players by the hand all the time either, that just makes them actors in my stage production and that isn't fun. Fun is giving them a challenge I've created and watching how they deal with it.

Whats with all the GM arrogance in this thread anyway? :?

 

[GrimJesta]

Using your abilities effectively isn't a sign of immaturity in and of itself.

The Sorcerer nuke isn't an effective use of an ability, it's an exploit.

-=Grim=-

 

[Raven Blackwell]

You all realize that was a little joke, dont you?

If it was, you need to work on your delivery.

 

[Scorpion13]

You all realize that was a little joke, dont you?

If it was, you need to work on your delivery.

I thought I had a good delivery. Everyone's a critic.

I still think Terror checks for spells would be a good thing for Scholars.

 

[argo]

Using your abilities effectively isn't a sign of immaturity in and of itself.

The Sorcerer nuke isn't an effective use of an ability, it's an exploit.

-=Grim=-

Subtle point: DB is not an exploit, it is a pretty balanced mechanic. DB combined with the Opportunistic Sacifice feat is an exploit. If we wish to fix this exploit then logic suggests we attack it directly with minimum colateral damage to the surrounding ruleset.

With that in mind several options present themselves:
House Rules (pick one)
1- rule DB is a Mighty Spell (cuts down on uses of DB per week - my personal rule)
2- rule DB makes the scholar fatigued (cuts doen on uses of DB per day - note that fatigue stacks so on your second DB you are exhausted)
3- use thulsa's rule (not my personal cup of tea but its a good rule)
4- ban the Opportunistic Sacrifice feat (I dislike outright bans but I could bite my tongue for this one as it is one of the more twinkish feats)
5- rule that you can't regain PP from foes killed by DB (I really dislike this as it makes absoluetly no sense at all, but at least its practical)

There, five quick house rules and all of them are orders of magnitude better than forcing the player to ask permission to use his class ability. What do they all have in common? The attack the problem of a scholar using multiple DBs as his main offensive weapon without severly hampering the usefulness of a single DB. This naturally encourages your scholar to play his DB as a more defensive ability but still leaves him with the freedom to choose how he wants to play.

I just feel that it is better to give players options and consequences than to dictate a style of play and force them to follow it.

Later.

 

[Mark Dunder]

I feel that a determined killer is going to attack a sorcerer regardless of his fear of magic or possible repercussions. I also feel that if a sorcerer gets surprised, he is probably going to die. None of the stories I ever read, gave the sorcerer some last second blast. In Hour of the Dragon, the weapons sorcerers used were poisonous striking staffs, the black hand of death, or mundane swords. That is more of what I envision sorcerers using for defense, not some vague telekinetic blast.

 

[Shonuff]

1- rule DB is a Mighty Spell (cuts down on uses of DB per week - my personal rule).

Hey Argo! Long time no see.

I go away from 2 years and the same things are still being argued

Here is an old thread:
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1685&start=0

Here was my suggestion back in March of 2004:

Thinking about this and the many Conan novels I've read, it does sound sort of . . . out of place. Sorcerers running around "blowing themselves up" encounter after encounter.

As a game mechanic - I can see scholars wanting to do this over and over. Attempting to play in a game that tries to keep the feel of the Hyborian world --- not so much.

Looking at the rules, I (as a GM) might be inclined to see the powerful Defensive Blast ability as the use of a Mighty Spell. Under the section Consequences of Magic, a sorcerer can use a Mighty Spell once per week without risk. Any further usage would risk Runaway Magic results and continued usage would only increase this chance.

This might be a way for you to encourage the player to think carefully about over-using the ability, but still giving him the freedom to choose to do it if he really wants to.

It has been working fine in my games too (having DB as a mighty spell). Just thought I would second this option as a suggested fix.

Good luck all.

 

[Mark Dunder]

Yeah, I know. More than one thread about DB.

My contention is not whether DB is workable, but that it is the main reason sorcerers (magic using Scholars I call sorcerers) are feared. I feel they should have more than an atomic bomb to instill fear. Someone using magic, should cause general fear from regular folk. From more hardened veterans, at least some sort of caution that magic may harm them in some deep evil way perhaps. I just don't feel sorcerers should be feared due the fact they might blow up. That's just silly.

Fear can be role-played, unless you are just playing a minitures game.

 

[Crisippo]

Okay, i may be way off here (so please don't bite my head off)

But the way i read "the rule of defence" the damage it does is also applied to the scholar himself.

Any creature within a 10-foot radius of the sorceror will be dealt(...)

So since most scholars has more PP than levels it might kill them. That should keep most players in line i would imagine.

I've never had to handle a Scholar PC in my game yet (since i'm no fan of letting players have access to magic in any of my D20/OGL games; there are simply to many rules, ...and i hate rules..., associated with it)