Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Ameiko

Aranna's page

2,553 posts. Alias of Min2007.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,553 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

ElterAgo wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Hama wrote:
I think that making emotional judgements based on prior bad experiences and reading too much into what someone wrote aren't good things.

But very, very human things.

Extrapolating from past experience and guessing at what people mean when they might not be saying the exact truth is a big part of what we do.

Especially when it comes to avoiding bad experiences. I'm sure most of the GMs that led to those bad experiences weren't up front about how bad they were going to be.

Hama, I can agree with you in the abstract. That's part of why I didn't want to start throwing accusations.

Consider. If what someone says/writes agrees almost precisely with your 'prior bad experiences,' how likely are you to decide join their group? Or might you just decide to pass on them and find a different group who says things the match up with prior good experiences?

As I said, a few words along this line are not enough by themselves to cause me to get up and leave a table. But it is a red flag that does get me thinking along that line and watching carefully how things are going to proceed.

I can absolutely guarantee you that not one of those 'prior bad experiences' said they were going to try see how miserable they could make my gaming experience. However, that's pretty much what happened.

I personally have a moderately limited amount of time that I am able/willing to devote to this hobby especially face-to-face gaming sessions. They aren't always easy to work into my schedule.
Therefore I will put that time into a situation that seems most likely to be fun rather than not fun. How do I go about making that decision? The only way I know of to make an evaluation like that is based on what I have experienced in my life.

I have had one GM say she was going to see just how horrible she could make the game for me... Such upfront honesty was indeed a unique experience however.


ElterAgo wrote:
Mark Hoover wrote:

TheJeff: yes, you're right. This is why I've stipulated over and over that the GM

1. Not be a jerk about it
2. Work with the player

...

My point is that sometimes GMs modify backstories. Sometimes these modifications are a beautiful thing. For this reason I am ok with a GM working with me on mine and I hope that my players will let me work with theirs.

I think the parts I bolded are the really important parts. I would have no problem with a GM that was even attempting to follow those.

Many of us have experiences with GM's that won't even consider those to be a valid points or even a think to even be thought about.

One or two of those up thread certainly sound like they wouldn't consider those valid points.

May I ask, which posters gave you that impression?


It doesn't sound like a done deal yet. It is quite likely that Disney will say no considering their own push into TV.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Trigger Loaded wrote:

Along this theme:

158: Jump off hundred foot cliffs onto sharp rocks because they can't be bothered to find another route down, and it'd take too long to climb down anyways.

I can honestly say I have never encountered this. Usually by the time they can survive a 100 foot fall onto sharp rocks they have easy access to magic that lets them reach the bottom without harm.


Thunder Strike? What was this?


As far as the movies are concerned I agree completely; just recast the role and keep going forward. So maybe on one level thejeff is right. If you are NOT going to care about continuity in your shows or books anyway then neither rebooting or retiring seem like good ideas. I love continuity... and so I hope they NEVER do a reboot with the MCU. A big part of the MCU's charm for me IS the continuity on display not just in one movie and its sequels but rather all the way across the entire line of super hero films. Because of that continuity I would be horrified by a reboot. If the actor gets too old either retire them in the show and let a new person inherit the role OR recast them; but PLEASE never reboot.

Oh and this goes for Thor and Ms Marvel as well, I hope they never reboot those books. I had never heard of an inhuman before Ms Marvel so when they did the inhuman thing on Marvel Agents of SHIELD I suddenly was excited "Hey this is like Kamala, I can't wait to see more". Someone above mentioned Thor being included in the new reboot... I really hope they are wrong or I will be very disappointed in the comic industry as a whole.


LazarX wrote:
Aranna wrote:

thejeff your arguing that they don't get rid of big name heroes... I get that, but if superman is retired and a grown up superboy takes the name and uniform then who would really care? It would still sell under the superman title. Are you really suggesting that the ONLY superman fans will buy is the original Kal-El? And if so then how irritated will those fans be when they reboot him and wipe out every story they ever loved reading in one shot?

If he's suggesting that, you only have to look at Batman on how right he is. There have been lots of Batman's including Dick Grayson wearing the hood and cape. They're all overshadowed by the original, Bruce Wayne who IS Batman. That's what carries forward from reboot to reboot, Bruce Wayne as Batman, Clark Kent as Superman, Princess Diana as Wonderwoman, Green Lantern is a bit more pliable, but that's because at best, he's a second stringer in the DC Pantheon compared to the Trinity.

Maybe that's why I am failing here. I don't know most of these heroes outside of TV or movies. It just seemed like common sense.


Lemmy wrote:
You mean the younger generations who haven't grown tired of the stories because they haven't seen them yet?

I am new to comics... the two I am following with interest are Ms Marvel (the new one, Kamala Khan) and Thor (the new Thor, the woman). I don't want to read about the dusty old heroes who held those names before, they don't matter... well Thor might later when he eventually reclaims the hammer, but for now this is her book. I may not be tired of the old stories, I am just not interested in most of them. I want a new hero. Someone I can read about as they grow into the role. It's people like me that will grow or kill the comic industry; we the new readers, the old readers are a shrinking group clinging to an ever smaller set of old fashioned heroes. This is why they want to reboot everything yet again. They want us to fall in love with the old heroes, so they are wiping the slate clean. Cleaning away their histories and restarting them anew. But I think that would only accelerate the alienation of old readers. I know some of you think my idea of just retiring the old to clear room for the new is a bad one. And I wonder, do you really prefer your old heroes to be reset? I mean you old fans should probably be the ones to decide the fate of your heroes reset or retired? Either way it seems the comic companies will give me my new stories. Which way is easier on you guys?


thejeff your arguing that they don't get rid of big name heroes... I get that, but if superman is retired and a grown up superboy takes the name and uniform then who would really care? It would still sell under the superman title. Are you really suggesting that the ONLY superman fans will buy is the original Kal-El? And if so then how irritated will those fans be when they reboot him and wipe out every story they ever loved reading in one shot?


Tormsskull wrote:

When a player creates a background for their PC, how much control or manipulation should the GM have over it?

I'm assuming that the PC background fits with the campaign world, and the GM has reviewed it and accepted it.

After those steps are completed, should the GM have free reign to affect a PC's background, alter events that the player wrote about, or should the GM get the player's consent before doing so?

Example, a player writes in their back ground that their character has a wife and children. If the GM thinks its a good idea for the wife or children to be killed or kidnapped, is that fair game, or should the GM ask the player first?

As far as past events are concerned... NO the GM shouldn't change what they both already agreed on without getting permission from the player first. This is harmful to the player's creative process and I consider it bad GMing. If you as a GM want to go a different direction in a PCs background then the time to discuss it is during character creation.

However it is a GOOD thing to use elements of a characters background going forward. Stating up enemies and allies from the background can make them an ongoing driving force in the campaign and really really make the player feel involved in the story, his creative energies were well spent. That said there is a wrong way to do this... turning all a PCs loved ones into victims and all the PCs rivals into major bad guys with an unhealthy obsession against the PC is way way off course and probably just as damaging to a PCs creative process as any altering of past events. Sometimes it is best as a GM to step back and look at the story you want to tell using the PCs background, and if it is something you would be either bored or disgusted by then maybe you should get outside creative help... maybe the player will have excellent insight into the sort of ongoing story they were hoping for from their back story; it is the place I would start.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
phantom1592 wrote:
Aranna wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Aranna wrote:

Here is a thought. Why not let these heroes age?

Spiderman was introduced in 1962... 53 years ago. The amazing spiderman should be in his early 70s. We should be reading about his amazing grand children. This way the stories stay fresh without constantly having to alter the universe.

Because writing out popular characters due to old age isn't good business. You wouldn't get really cool new generations of characters, you'd get new universe reboots whenever characters started getting to old to fill their roles.

Well, except for Thor. He'd still be around. :)

But you don't have to write them out... they can just pass the title on to a new generation. Heck you could even have specials where the old timers come out of retirement now and then for some epic event.

Wouldn't work. And really nobody would want that. If people REALLY wanted that, then Nightwing would have outsold Batman. They would not be rebooting Batman in the movies, we would get Joseph-Gordon levitt's version of nightwing or Batman.

Bruce Wayne = Batman. The lonely rich kid who saw his parents murdered and trained himself to be the best in the world using his brains and his tech... Not Bruce Wayne the 3rd who follows his granddaddy's footsteps...

Same with Spider-man and Superman and Captain America... The CORE of the charcters personality is iconic backstory attached to the Secret ID, NOT just the costume. ANYONE can where a Batman costume... but it doesn't mean they are 'Batman'.

Comics have teased this idea a few times over the decades. We get replacements, but they don't last. We get brand new characters that are 'like' spider-man or superman... but they don't sell because they are 'just knock-offs.'

If people were REALLY bored reading the main character, then they would stop buying the book. Which happens sometimes. People really seem bored with Wonder Woman... The book goes away for awhile.

Here's why I consider the idea...

Others above have pointed out cases where it has worked, just as you have point to cases where it doesn't. So it isn't as guaranteed a failure as you want it to be. And in the face of shrinking comic sales I would think it would be worth at least a test run.


But thejeff they basically DO replace all their heroes with ones that people don't recognize every time they do a reboot. At least by aging them those iconic stories remain forever canon. Newer readers can just open a digital copy of the old stuff to catch up on the epic events of the past that the grognards are talking about. While at the same time newer readers can enjoy a new hero from their start, even if they have an old name.


thejeff wrote:
Aranna wrote:

Here is a thought. Why not let these heroes age?

Spiderman was introduced in 1962... 53 years ago. The amazing spiderman should be in his early 70s. We should be reading about his amazing grand children. This way the stories stay fresh without constantly having to alter the universe.

Because writing out popular characters due to old age isn't good business. You wouldn't get really cool new generations of characters, you'd get new universe reboots whenever characters started getting to old to fill their roles.

Well, except for Thor. He'd still be around. :)

But you don't have to write them out... they can just pass the title on to a new generation. Heck you could even have specials where the old timers come out of retirement now and then for some epic event.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Here is a thought. Why not let these heroes age?
Spiderman was introduced in 1962... 53 years ago. The amazing spiderman should be in his early 70s. We should be reading about his amazing grand children. This way the stories stay fresh without constantly having to alter the universe.


Freehold DM wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:

Okay...phone lost my post.

Long story short, antagonistic girlfriend aranna, please watch Kinos journey and tell me what you think. I think you might enjoy it, and I recommend it strongly. I may put it on my watch list for the year.

I only caught bits of that when my roommates were watching it in college. It looked really interesting. I should find a copy.
a warning that it is an incredibly dry series. I wouldn't suggest watching it late at night. But it is very deep in parts.

If your sure I would like it and you aren't just trying to trick me into watching it, then I will add it to my watch list.


Lemmy wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Is all this talk of banning in reference to my posts, or someone else's?

It wasn't a reply to anyone in particular, just my view on the subject. And the idea that something should be removed form media because it doesn't fit someone's personal tastes. You (general you) don't like a certain type of media? Don't consume it.

Don't like violent games? Don't play them.
Don't like rock music? Don't listen to it.
Don't like anime with fanservice? Don't watch them.

But don't try to stop others from doing it if they want. And yes, censorship is exactly what some people are advocating here.

Oh there is a place for the type of fan service that objectifies women, under the hentai label. Where there is no question at all about what your going to see when you play it.


Caineach wrote:
As my female friends like to say Just Ship It

I haven't read any fanfics since university... Is there a good site for them? It would be fun reading.


Ahhh Rifts the most unbalanced system ever built.
Well good for you on getting out. Once someone has it in for you that is really the only real option left.


Freehold... play nice.

Awesome Blayde, that prank reminds me of the LG prank.
Armageddon Prank


thejeff wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Alzrius wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Alzrius wrote:
Moreover, you have yet to demonstrate why this is at all worthy of moral outrage.
I can see why Aranna pegged you for a troll.
The irony is that, without expounding on that, your statement here is trolling in and of itself.

And the tragedy is that a role player such as yourself needs more expound-ment to see a problem with fanservice. Maybe the next time you watch a fanservice-heavy anime, role play an impressionable teenage girl with low self-esteem. And then imagine that you always have been and always will be that female anime fan until the day you die.

That'll be much more enlightening than spending hours and hours throwing every conceivable argument at some anonymous internet posters you feel compelled to argue with.

Another impassioned plea for protecting the IMPRESSIONABLE people with LOW SELF-ESTEEM. There is a similar problem with every single activity that shows ANYONE being good at anything, being praised, being in good shape, doing anything that might be a problem in any situation, and so on. Is it okay to show elite sports?

What does that have to do with anything?

Showing girls that, regardless of their other accomplishments, they have to be sexy and show off for men, has nothing at all to with "ANYONE being good at anything, being praised, being in good shape, doing anything that might be a problem in any situation, and so on. Is it okay to show elite sports?" Other than you jumping on the Low Self-esteem buzzword.

Exactly.


TOZ wrote:
Relevant to the tangent.

Thank you TOZ. I wish more fathers were like that, it fills my heart with hope.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

As for X card... why not? It sounds like a safe word they use in LGBT. Sure it stops things, that IS kind of the point. If someone crosses a boundary sometimes it's easier to hold up a card then having to say in front of everyone that you find (situation X) disturbing. This is a good thing.

As for the Horror analogy... not relevant and I will explain why. When you go to a horror film you are expecting to be frightened and horrified by the experience. It brings up something primal inside us. Thrilling and obviously a good date choice with someone you are already comfortable with. BUT it causes trauma to see that stuff or experience it in real life... and unless the GM is running a horror game then some people are deeply bothered by having such things done in a regular game it reminds them TOO MUCH of it happening in real life.


Caineach wrote:
Joynt Jezebel wrote:
And women are not anywhere near the most excluded group. I have known a grand total of 3 openly gay or bisexual men [as opposed to openly fey, that is quite common] to attend roleplaying in all my decades of playing. And no transgender people. It is not even that common for people to practice bestiality at gaming clubs.
This may be a very regional thing, but in my experience the LBGT is more openly represented in the gaming community than in the general population.

I think this may be true in my area as well. I went with my friend to a nearby gaming club in a big university city and of the twenty or so people there only myself and a few MTG players were not LBGT.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think Jessica makes some excellent points, and I can really only add one thing. When I find something objectionable I point out that fact. I don't let the inevitable group of men who will become irate and defend at all costs their right to do any darn thing they please deter me. Why? Because if people don't talk about this stuff then it will only get worse not better.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Wow I finished SAO II I think I only now just stopped crying... and that's because I have my friend complaining about MMORPGs to me on the phone as I type. This second season does a lot to redeem the failed second half of the first season.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
So they have to adapt a little to make sense in the new language.
Observe!

Totally awesome this says it all.


I may be a bit late to this but you NEED to plan your character ahead in this game or you will miss your opportunities to take some of the really good options that have prerequisites. The person that plans nothing will probably end up very very vanilla and weak by high level. Now that being said you are just making extra work for yourself by planning all the way to level 20 and possibly coming in with a weaker character than you could have if for example the game is going to end around level 12-14. Also it can be very rewarding to leave wiggle room in your build for exactly the sort of situations mentioned earlier. Don't allocate ALL your feats and abilities but just the ones you need for the build and leave the rest for situational campaign specific stuff you couldn't have predicted at the start. That way you get the best of both worlds.


Aranna wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Dubs and subs! At the same time.

Just to be amused by the differences in translation.

I have done this before and it is a blast. Seeing the often wildly different translations being given are hilarious.

How many of you speak any Japanese? I know a few phrases and words. It is fun to note when I am doing anime watching and I hear a phrase I understand but it doesn't get translated at all or more commonly gets turned into some lame English phrase they apparently thought was equivalent.


Grimmy wrote:
If you could only afford Netflix or Hulu subscription and had to choose, which would you choose for anime?

I couldn't imagine such a horror. Having a boyfriend with close ties to the Japanese fan base has WAY too many advantages in availability of watching the stuff. Not that I suggest dumping the one your with over something so shallow.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Ah, El Hazard. Love that one.

I loved El-Hazard as well. It reminds me of my newbie days in the 90's. I never did see the sequels are they any good?

Another interesting experience from the old days. Watching Ranma 1/2 in the original Japanese with NO Dubs OR Subs. Just a script translation printed off on paper. Talk about hard to both watch and read, ouch. Anyone ever try this?


thejeff wrote:

Dubs and subs! At the same time.

Just to be amused by the differences in translation.

I have done this before and it is a blast. Seeing the often wildly different translations being given are hilarious.


Grimmy wrote:

Do you guys prefers subs or dubs for anime?

I greatly prefer subs unless I'm so tired I can barely read.

I clearly prefer Subs.

That said, there ARE good Dubs available. Some like Naruto and Cowbow Beebop are better than the Subs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
Will always love fanservice and cheesecake. I look forward to defeating Aranna by shoving her escape pod into the asteroid she made careen towards earth and making her watch as I save the day all by my lonesome. Again.

Should I be flattered or horrified that you see me as Char?

I mean I hate masks for one. :p
And it was BOTH their newtype energies combined that saved Earth.


TOZ wrote:
Aranna wrote:
PS: I am past the GGO arc in SAO II now, wow what a sad story, I actually cried. Awesome so far!
Don't put away the tissues.

~laughs~

I shall keep the tissues close.


Grimmy wrote:

It does have me wondering how my nieces are effected by media they watch, like disney heroines ... They seem to be a little less 1-dimensional than when I was a kid I guess... I still have yet to see one that doesn't adhere to pretty much that same overblown concept of what is feminine.

Yeah Mulan is an empowering story but I wonder what mulan really looked like if she did live. It kind of robs the story of some of it's power to give her the usual disney heroine look.

I've been playing Super Smash Bros with them on WII. The younger niece definitely gravitates towards the "princess" characters like peach, zelda, rosalina... The older of the two plays female warrior characters, lucina, sheik, samas. I think across the board they are the usual kind of girly depictions, not overly sexualized except for Samas but all kind of samey in that idealized "perfect" "pretty" way.

I did notice when they watch my little pony and they talk about which one's their favorite they both mention the one that does hair and make-up or whatever, you know the white one with purple hair? Even when another pony has done something really heroic or brave in the episode and charity or vanity or whatever her name is has just acted kind of shallow really.

Anyway way off topic, sorry guys. Back to anime.

I actually love Mulan. It kind of shows typical Disney style acceptance of her after her secret is out... which might not be realistic but that's Disney. It IS however one of those rare shows that give you a female protagonist who isn't rendered hyper sexified to make the story instead about everyone else and not her. It is definitely HER story.

I haven't seen My Little Pony... I tried to watch one as an adult... but it just felt too awkward like subconsciously I knew it was for like 6 year olds, not me.


Grimmy wrote:

Well I am also considering it as an art issue not just a female issue. For example the wayne reynolds/pathfinder art style has the same effect of disconnecting me from the world and characters depicted by making them appear sort of like action figures and arsenals of abilities.

The 2e art had it's chain mail bikinis and perfect hairdo's in the middle of a swamp but it still made the scenes come alive in my mind in a way the PF action shots don't... It's probably different for each individual I guess. Interesting to me though.

I have spoken out against objectifying fantasy art too... I am sure that doesn't surprise anyone here. It was used to lure young boys into the hobby. "Hey look kid you could be adventuring next to that hottie!" And unless I am mistaken somehow... it worked. The same sort of art now is used to lure young boys toward video games.


Sissyl wrote:
To be perfectly honest, the commedia del'arte style personality archetypes infecting much of manga and anime is a pretty good reason why characters don't feel real or relatable.

This isn't the same thing at all though. In commedia dell'arte yes the masks dehumanized you... but at the same time gave you one relatable trait that people could identify with in the real world. So while you might not see actor 1 as "peter" you would instead say "Ha, I know someone kinda like that!" it helped the skits they made appeal. So I fail to see your point with this?


I will say, never let players even have the tiniest chance to get time travel equipment of any sort. Players will smash any plot line to pieces by constantly jumping around in time.


That is part of Moribito's charm... and why I feel it's one of the best anime ever made.

And thank you Grimmy that is exactly the sort of damage fan service does. It makes the girls depicted into "not real people" the rest of the people on a show that aren't targets of fan service get to be relatable and real enough... while the girls with fan service are just objects, not people, they have no real rights. If something bad happens to them on a show you don't feel sorry for them, you feel sorry for the men they belonged to.

PS: I am past the GGO arc in SAO II now, wow what a sad story, I actually cried. Awesome so far!


Creative players can easily get around carrying capacity issues with a crafter in the group. Just craft tiny versions of any equipment the little PC wants and have no real issues.


As thejeff says it was RP not just haggling.

There was a circus in town with all manner of exotic fun. There were three potential sponsors for our expedition to meet with and vendors to buy equipment from. And this was our first time together as PCs, so TONS of interactive role play all around.


wraithstrike wrote:
Aranna wrote:

I see what your saying thejeff, and I will grant you that the most friendly environment for training rules IS sandbox games. But they are often a hassle even there when 'Pete' wants to level up before a big fight while 'Jesse' wants to get it over with. And you don't actually NEED training rules to have good interactions with NPCs. I was in a group that once played three whole sessions simply interacting with vendors and sponsors during a resupply trip before the actual adventure started.

I could not have done it. I don't mind RP'ing, and planning, but it should not take 3 sessions. It should not even take one full session, but some people do like to play like that.

I am the "get it over with" guy. I feel the same way about shopping for magic items. If a GM tries to have a shopkeeper haggle with me about the price I tend to just pay them to get it out of the way.

Actually that group met weekly for 12 hour sessions... so that was like 36 hours of pure role play. And it was amazingly fun. But to be honest even we were ready to kill stuff on the fourth session. And the GM was happy to send plenty of robots and dinosaurs to battle us. Normally we got our role play mixed with battle over the session or in one full session but we were SO into the role play that time that none of us could stop.


Digitalelf wrote:
Aranna wrote:
I hope you didn't see it as an attack on your style.

No, I didn't see it as an attack, that's actually part of the reason why I changed my post before you responded.

And as for trying a game with no training, I did attempt it during 3rd edition, and my players wanted to go back to required training because they felt it broke their suspension of disbelief when they did not have to train (either to gain a new level, or to gain a new class)...

Well then in your case it's best to keep the training rules then. If your players prefer it and clearly your already used to breaking up the adventure for training time... It's always best to please your players especially when it doesn't make any extra effort for you (since you were already doing the extra effort anyway).

Just think of my post as a warning for newer players then.


Well I am starting my run through SAO II. Wish me luck!

I like it so far, and I was honestly worried after the bad second half of SAO I.


Digitalelf wrote:
Aranna wrote:

Why are you using training rules at all? It just adds more work to the GM by forcing you to artificially break up adventures into mini "one level" ones with suitable breaks in between for training while at the same time annoying the players who now have to search high and low for suitable trainers instead of just advancing once they have earned it.

The only benefit I see is for passive aggressive GM styles who want to limit the players choices without coming right out and telling them.

I think you're interposing your views of the rules for training onto myself and the players at my table. As I've said numerous times in this thread, I don't have a a problem with the rules of 2nd edition as they are written, and I have not had any players who thought I was "punishing" them or limiting their choices by using those rules.

Aranna wrote:
Now even in 2e training rules when used were a hassle. While they weren't as big an issue for class builds they still forced you to artificially break up the action into one level bits... which was further complicated by classes leveling at different times such that there was almost always someone needing to head back to town in the middle of the action. This might also be why they unified the XP tables into one.

Again, I don't think of it as a hassle, I even addressed training times and adventures in another post a page back

Aranna wrote:
I know "real lifers" love their realism, but it shouldn't come at the expense of fun. Don't you agree?
But who's fun? Because it's certainly not at my expense or that of the various players I've had over the past three decades. I didn't decide just to go back to using 2nd edition in a vacuum... My current group of players was right there with me in that decision.

I wasn't specifically addressing your particular table, there are exceptions to everything in life. But instead I was using your platform as a spring board to show the issues with training and how it can get in the way of many play styles fun. I hope you didn't see it as an attack on your style. If you got it to work for your group then the best I can offer your case is to just try a campaign without training times once and see if your players like it better. You never really know as a GM if your players love your style of GMing or if they just love YOU. And if it's the later they may well just be ignoring any annoyance over training because they want YOU in the GM seat. YOU let them have fun despite any minor issues they might have over play pacing. If it's the former and they love training then I would be honestly surprised. But I have no right to judge what they find fun, even if it would annoy most people I have played with.


thejeff wrote:
Aranna wrote:
I see what your saying thejeff, and I will grant you that the most friendly environment for training rules IS sandbox games. But they are often a hassle even there when 'Pete' wants to level up before a big fight while 'Jesse' wants to get it over with. And you don't actually NEED training rules to have good interactions with NPCs. I was in a group that once played three whole sessions simply interacting with vendors and sponsors during a resupply trip before the actual adventure started.

Obviously you don't need them. Anymore than you need shopping trips to interact with NPCs.

It's another opportunity to introduce them, that's all.

Fair enough. I thought you were expressing a need for the roleplay tool as a defense of training, clearly that isn't the case. I stand corrected.


I see what your saying thejeff, and I will grant you that the most friendly environment for training rules IS sandbox games. But they are often a hassle even there when 'Pete' wants to level up before a big fight while 'Jesse' wants to get it over with. And you don't actually NEED training rules to have good interactions with NPCs. I was in a group that once played three whole sessions simply interacting with vendors and sponsors during a resupply trip before the actual adventure started.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Artemis Moonstar wrote:
Aranna wrote:
I will say this is one of those many situation where having a character creation session is preferable. SO many incompatibility issues are solved by sitting down together and hashing out what you want to play and how you want to play it as a team.

True, but my last regular group, though they did the char-gen session... Still had the mentality of "This is what I'm going to play, you guys build around me."... Each and every single one of them.

Sometimes, a char-gen session just doesn't work. Or, my personal favorite, is when they agree, then come with entirely different characters.

Ahhh... the ego problem. Unfortunately there is no way to pleasantly fix that one. There is a saying "With pride comes a great fall" Ultimately these people will just alienate everyone till they are either broken of their ego or all alone but right (at least in their own mind). I don't envy you having a whole table full of them. At least you and your fiance can build together as a two person team. That will at least give you a measure more survivability than the others will enjoy as lone wolves.


Why are you using training rules at all? It just adds more work to the GM by forcing you to artificially break up adventures into mini "one level" ones with suitable breaks in between for training while at the same time annoying the players who now have to search high and low for suitable trainers instead of just advancing once they have earned it.

The only benefit I see is for passive aggressive GM styles who want to limit the players choices without coming right out and telling them. For example; a player is building toward arcane archery PrC but the GM doesn't like that so instead of just saying "no" he just has no trainers available so that the player is forced to either advance a different class or fall behind the other players. Since in 3e to PF it pays dividends to preplan your build this can only end in an unpleasant experience for everyone. I highly suspect this IS why the developers removed any training rules for 3e and onward.

Now even in 2e training rules when used were a hassle. While they weren't as big an issue for class builds they still forced you to artificially break up the action into one level bits... which was further complicated by classes leveling at different times such that there was almost always someone needing to head back to town in the middle of the action. This might also be why they unified the XP tables into one.

I know "real lifers" love their realism, but it shouldn't come at the expense of fun. Don't you agree?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I will say this is one of those many situation where having a character creation session is preferable. SO many incompatibility issues are solved by sitting down together and hashing out what you want to play and how you want to play it as a team.

1 to 50 of 2,553 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.