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

Arnwyn's page

1,855 posts. 3 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist.

1 to 50 of 140 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Do Your Players Expect Treasure?

Well... yes. It's sort of one of the points of playing. ;)

But apparently, they don't "expect" it to the degree that your players do... Do they expect treasure? Yes. Do they expect it every encounter? No. Do they expect it every session? No, not even that.

As to your problem... you could talk to them about it. Explain - as specifically as possible - why you give out treasure they way you do, and why giving it out other way(s) will cause problems (and how it will cause problems). Again - specific.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
What purpose do the Iconics serve?

To get in the way of otherwise good art.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
How about banning a book, or possibly many books, based on not wanting to go through each book in a massive library (that you may not even own) and analyze each option in combination with every other possible option?

Exactly so.

I'm glad other people are made of time, I guess. *shrug*

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diffan wrote:

So what I really don't understand is why people wouldn't at least try the free rules? I mean I completely understand not putting money into another system that might be invalidated or preceded by another edition a few years down the road but from the looks of the way things are going, Basic is all free with options to play characters to 20th level with monsters and ways for people to make up their own adventures.

So there is not cost investment with the Basic rules, no subscription, or signing of forms, or any of that stuff. It's free and usable and a "complete" game from all portrayals. That way NONE of it interferes or supersedes someone's financial desires to continue to support Paizo. And, really, who can't decide to switch the game just once to give it a go from their normal Pathfinder campaigns? Even for a beer/soda and pretzels kind of game?

Time is an investment. My friends and I have precious little time as it is - we have it nicely set up to meet once every 2 weeks and play in our long-running campaign that we enjoy, using a system that fits this campaign perfectly - a system that we really like and know well.

And as others have said - to what end? We're not interested in learning a new system (in fact, that's the LAST thing any of us want to do, it's the antithesis of fun), we're already having loads of fun playing something that is suited very well for us... with a new system, could we have "more" fun? What is "more"? It is measurable, or even relevant or material? (Very likely not.)

Why not try it? Why would we even bother, given the above? Time is a real investment... and it's a HUGE one.

(I find your "don't really understand" pretty strange, when it's pretty obvious AFAIC - I don't think you've thought about it as hard as you should have.)

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Can't pick one. My favorites:

- Final Fantasy VI
- Chrono Trigger
- Final Fantasy VII
- Xenogears
- Final Fantasy Tactics

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sprain Ogre wrote:
Why wouldn't you modify the tactics for both to deal with your party?

Then why waste precious space in the adventure by including them at all?

Mythic is EASY to deal with.

Yes, it's very easy to deal with thing by ignoring the rules.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tormsskull wrote:
I've never understood the hate for the SW prequels.

Hey - it's great that you liked the prequels. I'm sure lots of people do.

But... are you really sure you don't 'understand' the hate/dislike of the prequels? Really? I find that somewhat hard to believe.

Because I'll be honest here - it's really not that hard to at least understand the dislike for the prequels, even if you don't share it.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
roguerouge wrote:
Unfortunately, since Hollywood will never ever kill a kid in these kinds of movies, those scenes have no dramatic tension whatsoever.

Fortunately, of course. I'm good with no dramatic tension by not killing children.

I feel sorry for those who aren't.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
knightnday wrote:
I find this an interesting comment. To me, you're essentially doing what you'd like them not to do: hold something hostage. Your statement seems to be "if you don't do it this way, then not only will I not buy it I'll actively try to get others not to as well."

Just as a brief aside:

In a consumption-based economy driven by consumers (which is what "we" are all in), the above statement is impossible (i.e. in such an economic system, consumers simply can't "hold something hostage". Alternately, if someone insists on defining such a thing in such a way, then doing so is right and proper. That's how consumers actually work, and how they should work).

Carry on.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kolokotroni wrote:
The simple fact is that only a portion of paizo's customer base will buy pure setting material. Most of those are GMs. Players (which in general outnumber gms) want things to use for their characters. Option books sell better. Period.

Turns out this is false. And this line of thinking is years out of date. (Yikes!)

The AP line is the flagship line at Paizo, and started ramping up even in the Dungeon magazine era.

Your post is old WotC thinking - long since debunked.

To answer the thread title:

Of course "bloat" is coming back. To snerk at 3.5 and then turn around and laud Pathfinder is inexplicable, delusional, and hypocritical, AFAIC.

(I make no comments on whether the "bloat" is good or bad - only on the comparative reaction between 3.5 and PF. I also make no comment on the issue of power creep.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It'll suffer the same fate as Almost Human.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've never heard of most of them...

And I consider that a good thing.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm really glad you talked about the Tulita in your review, Endzeitgeist (and, unrelated, that you stated your biases up front). Only one other review did that, which pretty much made all those other reviews valueless (IMNSHO) - and possibly even misleading.

IMO, the Tulita (and, more accurately, how they were portrayed in the text) is the biggest issue surrounding this book - so much so that it could be a flat-out deal-breaker.

(It was pretty much a deal-breaker for me - getting through the Tulita sections was a struggle. It's still salvageable - if one is good enough to work around the complexities of Razor Coast, one is good enough to excise a lot of the Tulita portrayals.)

And also, you provided some of the absolute BEST advice possible when dealing with Razor Coast - IGNORE THE GIVEN PREMISES. Those things are the second-biggest issue with Razor Coast... they could potentially cripple the entire value of this book if followed or even given too much credence.

Great stuff, Endzeitgeist (even if I deeply disagree with your final star rating and 'seal'!).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jaelithe wrote:

GMs, how carefully do you screen players joining your group? Is there a pre-game interview? Are they on probation for a time after acceptance? Will you excise someone who's otherwise a great player and good person, but has a personality conflict with you or a long-standing player? Have you expelled someone from your game? If so, why?

Players, do you join any game with the idea that "it could be fun," or are you choosier, looking instead for a group and play style that meshes well with your own, and people that you like outside of the gaming environment? Do you pack it in for minor reasons, or would it take an act of God (or the DM) to get you out once you're in?

I only play with long-time, close friends.

"Guys night out", so to speak.

(So this would fall under picky to the extreme.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Manimal wrote:
If I used the term "Toon" rather than PC, what would you say?

"What the f#*$ are you talking about?"

What arguments would you use for or against it?

Against. It would slow and/or inhibit communication for us - we, honestly, would have no idea what the person is talking about (I've only heard "toon"... here. Right now.) and we'd have to spend time and energy always figuring out and remembering what this now-becoming-annoying person was saying. It also detracts from the "feel" - and "feel" (as subjective as it is), is very important to the particular group I'm part of. We prefer appropriate terms for whatever setting we're in - and "toon" is not appropriate.

It'd be like Fran Drescher or Gilbert Gottfried in their always-most-over-the-top as members of our group. Wouldn't work for us. Annoying.


Thus far, one of the more convincing arguments I've heard is that using lingo from a different type of game (in this case, MMOs) could cause confusion; however, this particular word doesn't seem all that egregious—most people, even having not played an MMO, could pick up from the surrounding context that "Toon"=PC.


Context? Well, hell - one of my players could mime as his/her communication, and we'd figure out "from the surrounding context" what they were talking about.

"You're injured and need healing? Okay, we're coming!"

"Oh, you're stuck in a forcecage? Okay, we'll help you out!"

"Bob... why the hell are you always getting stuck in a forcecage?"

Context or not, still doesn't make it appropriate.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jaelithe wrote:
I've read a number of comments, in various threads both here and in other fora, with a common theme, implying if not explicitly stating that a DM's responsibility is to facilitate fun for the players—even if such requires that he or she has little to none of his or her own.

A mystifying and inexplicable position indeed, though I can't say I've seen it all that explicitly (and only subtly hinted-at, I think).

Needless to say, I consider the above opinion, if truly held, to be the height of wrongness and stupidity.

I've always found the best method of deciding on a campaign is to present the players with a handful of possibilities—say, five or six, of which a couple they themselves contribute—and letting them narrow it down to a few, then making the final selection from those three. This way, everyone's involved with the decision-making process.

That's generally how we do it (mostly). The DM presents a few options of what he/she wants to run, and the players come to a consensus from the options presented.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:
And why the hell were they barking at people in FR novels and games...

Because of this:

"and their language (which sounds like small dogs yapping),"

Set wrote:
3) An admission that one's own creations are somehow 'not good enough' to stand beside old classics.

Even if it might be true. (And is absolutely true, AFAIC.)

But then, I still play 3.5, so I still have all these monsters (and every one listed on this thread so far) in 3.5 format.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jacob Saltband wrote:
If a players wants to seduce you farmers daughter/son, barmaid/bartender, merchants daughter/son, etc how do you like to handle it? How/what game mechanics do you allow/use for this type of thing? Is it strictly a RP thing in your games?

A mix of Diplomacy and maybe a "yeah, sure, whatever", since we're not really all that interested in that in our games.

Some people may call that "unsatisfying". Our group is thankful.

How about just making friends and contacts?

This is almost always through long-term RPing, with Diplomacy checks at certain 'appropriate' times (which we won't know until they come up - it always varies).

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Really? Huh. I thought that I heard you sing.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Now THAT'S the way to make a season finale. No craptastic cliffhanger nonsense - and actual ending that's upbeat. That's more like it.

(Might make sense if it isn't renewed, but still.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Trying again with Heroes, huh? That's brave of them.

With that said, Heroes season 1 was one of the best shows (if not the best show) on TV at the time.

Every other season was basically unwatchable. (Well, Season 4 was... tolerable.)

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Indeed. In fact, refer to Kirth's own post, seen previously in this thread:

Kirth Gersen wrote:
In fairness, I have noticed that when the conversation veers to "Reeking-of-Privilege Barbaric Men should cross the street to avoid women on the sidewalk, and bow their heads so as not to subject Perfect Women to their Evil Lustful Gazes" (generally posited by a sycophantic male participant), we do get the rest of the White Knight cheering squad full-on telling everyone to STFU if they believe gender-neutral sidewalks could potentially be a thing. And they're supported in that. But -- so what? With no sarcasm -- totally seriously -- that's OK. Because, as noted many times, Paizo is under absolutely no obligation whatsoever to "present both sides" of ANYTHING. If people don't like that, there are plenty of other threads to debate things in, if that's what one is after -- so why make oneself look like even more of a boor by complaining?

Paizo does indeed have "stealth rules" on top of their normal messageboard rules, and it would do people best if they try to figure them out as fast as possible to avoid future pain for everyone.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Brain in a Jar wrote:
my snowflake idea

Your what?

If this encounter is "trash" (your word, no one else's, and too strong), then it's because it's an unfun encounter (bordering on obnoxious) - and I can confidently say would be unfun to the vast VAST majority of players.

And, if it's true that the vast majority of players 'wouldn't be affected by it', then it's a "trash" (again - your word and no one else's, and still too strong) encounter because far too much wordcount was used on something that most people supposedly won't experience (when it could have been used on setting the scene and helping the DM portray, you know, a god).

In the end, it was comparatively poor encounter design that likely wouldn't have survived a Dungeon magazine submission.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wiggz wrote:
Cheapy wrote:
A few people didn't agree with this decision, and have been fairly vocal about their displeasure.
A few? Heh - not hard to see which side of the argument you fall on, my friend.

Actually, a count of unique posters in one of those threads showed that there weren't that many people at all.

So... yeah. "A few".

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Buri wrote:
Arnwyn wrote:
It isn't. (Though, as noted by others, good communication - as illustrated in your post - is key.)
I honestly fail to comprehend why a simple 'no' isn't sufficient. Why do I have to provide details about my story that could easily be spoilers in order to justify a decision? If pressed for a reason a mere "it won't work for this campaign" should be sufficient.

Me too, TBH. You're preaching to the converted. I've discovered, however, that different groups have wildly different styles and methods with how they communicate with each other - so communication is really important in those particular groups.

(It also makes me very very glad that I'm not in those groups, and the only [thankfully passing] contact I have with them is through this messageboard when I'm taking a breather at the office. This isn't even a player-GM issue, AFAIC, because even the players in my group are flabbergasted at this thread and some of the comments found herein. Alien to all of us.)

2 people marked this as a favorite.
R_Chance wrote:
Arnwyn wrote:

Not only do I entirely doubt any of that would occur on Paizo's boards, I don't even know how you are possibly coming to that conclusion. I don't think your prediction is even remotely realistic. *shrug*

(They could even participate in 'heated' threads - well, all but 1 could, theoretically. They just couldn't moderate anyone else in there with them. The one(s) who aren't in there, could moderate as usual.)

How many employees do you think Paizo has?

Not very many. Though I have seen a rather surprising number of Paizo employees taking part in various thread - way more than I thought there would be, and more than I though would have time and/or be available. Hence my measured comment above.

They have jobs to do, of which moderation is only one. Probably not their most important one either. If the involved staffer doesn't moderate there is a longer delay in moderation. Maybe much longer. More replies get eliminated as a result, the thread becomes less coherent (many posts contain a lot of information beyond replying to something in another post that initially gets moderated). More information lost due to delaying moderation.

Indeed, a possible trade-off. (Though nothing close to what Deanoth suggested, which was what my comment above was specifically addressing.)

(Please be aware that nowhere did I say they have terrible - or even poor - moderation. I do think, however, that there is definitely room for improvement.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Arnwyn wrote:
AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote:
But in the end, is there really any situation where cussing at the GM or another player about a game decision is justified?

No, regardless of what certain people in this thread erroneously think.

If they don't like the style or restrictions, they're free not to play. But they don't curse at someone else, regardless. And they're wrong to do so (and so are the apologists for this type of behavior).

I agree, disruptive outbursts don't make a game better and they should be avoided.

Do you consider it to be an apologist when someone tries to look at a situation and understand why something happened?

No. (Quite the strange question, given the context above. Are you apologizing for the deeply inappropriate - and indefensible - outburst? I certainly hope not. Further, note that managing to successfully determine the "why" may still mean that even the thought of an outburst, of any sort, is not justifiable; and the problem still lies entirely with person who made the outburst.)

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Not only do I entirely doubt any of that would occur on Paizo's boards, I don't even know how you are possibly coming to that conclusion. I don't think your prediction is even remotely realistic. *shrug*

(They could even participate in 'heated' threads - well, all but 1 could, theoretically. They just couldn't moderate anyone else in there with them. The one(s) who aren't in there, could moderate as usual.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:
I'm not seeing what's wrong with telling a player "That character idea won't work for this campaign. I have an NPC later that will be closely related to that concept, and it might cause some issues story wise." How is that a dick move?

It isn't. (Though, as noted by others, good communication - as illustrated in your post - is key.)

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deanoth wrote:
So lets not go down the slippery slope of preventing someone from modding a thread they are participating in.

A "slope" that I would love to see occur (though understand and accept won't happen on the Paizo boards... as unfortunate as that is).

6 people marked this as a favorite.
AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote:
But in the end, is there really any situation where cussing at the GM or another player about a game decision is justified?

No, regardless of what certain people in this thread erroneously think.

If they don't like the style or restrictions, they're free not to play. But they don't curse at someone else, regardless. And they're wrong to do so (and so are the apologists for this type of behavior).

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deanoth wrote:
How is it inappropriate?


Conflict of interest, of course. But that's patently obvious. Moderators are only human, after all. They run the risk of "moderating" posts (and worse, users) that they don't agree with. If they are taking part in a discussion (especially a "heated" discussion), it would be wise if they did not also moderate that particular discussion.

You will find that most staffers and or mods even from different sites take place in conversations and such in most threads.

That's great! But then those taking part shouldn't moderate those particular threads.

If they were to excuse themselves from moderating simply because they are taking part in the thread they would not be much of a moderator then.

Interesting. But not even remotely true, AFAIC. I'm not even sure what you mean. Not only would they be "much of a moderator", they'd be among the best moderators there are.

If you have a problem with a moderator and their discussion and or moderation actions you have the report link in their post. Many mods and staffers have brought this up.


Indeed they have. I'm not sure why you are.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
It might also be a good idea for staff not to moderate discussions they're taking part in. Pass it on to someone else.

Holy cow - this, so much this.

In fact, I'm shocked this even needs to be brought up.

Moderating a thread in which you're also taking part is deeply inappropriate. (There's at least one Paizo staffer who does this far too often, and probably a couple more.)

Very inappropriate.

9 people marked this as a favorite.

There have - unquestionably - been moderating consistency issues in the past little while.

(And that's coming from someone who's very much okay with "left" views.)

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cory Stafford 29 wrote:
My party of 6 ... Plus, it is the GM's responsibility to adjust challenges and treasure for larger groups.

Indeed, and one method is to have the strength of a party of 6 and give lower wealth; and then not have to adjust any opponents.

That's legitimate too (though some on the Paizo boards seem to forget that).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Spook205 wrote:
Most APs, by Paizo's own admission, aren't built for gunslingers.

Then the flaw lies with the gunslinger.

If an adventure/AP works (i.e. is "built for") almost every other class, then the problem lies in the badly-designed class.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fake Healer wrote:
Hama wrote:
Because people are lazy and entitled and want anything in a digest version. Pro tip, some of the long stuff are really worth reading.

Yeah, read too much crap before that ends up being somebody's "my opinion is awesome, here's why in 4000+ words" that really isn't worth it. If you can't give a decent outline of an opinion in a fairly brief manner then my opinion is that you really aren't as good of a writer as you think you are. I have wasted too much time reading people's ego-stroking musing in my life and unless your forum name is some famous writer's name then I will pass on reading when I have 4 screens filled with text.

My opinion.

Did someone piss in your cornflakes? What's up with the hostile response to a rather innocuous post that can be easily passed over?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Anyway, re: BSG: I already used this line a couple of years ago in a FAWTL thread but, if I ever get a chance to go back in time and visit my younger self, I will tell him to stop watching BSG and Lost at the end of Season Two.

Truer words have never been spoken.

For both shows.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
I'm just still stoked that Todd Stewart favorited my post.

Not that impressive when you got in there "Todd does some absolutely amazing work. I'm always impressed when I read his stuff."

/joking :D

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
Begging your pardon... Mage in the Iron Mask and Around the Realms in 80 days. Ummm... Neither is all that good, admittedly.

Oy. Understatement of the year.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

AFAIC, it's the best show on TV. And that's just after 2 episodes.

(It's my new replacement for Fringe, the previous best show on TV.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What the hell thread did I just click on?!

"I'm mostly angry that I didn't think of it first" sounded so... innocuous.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

This is the kind of artwork that is BY FAR the best in any PF/D&D book.

This is the most evocative, and most helpful, to my players (and me). Not the ones with the annoying iconics front-and-center that get in the way of what could otherwise be useful artwork for our games.

My players hate the iconics. "Who are these idiots that get in the way of the picture?!"

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
How many of you have gamed for months and months without the slightest problem, argument or string of personal insults being flung back and forth across your table?

Years. And years. And years. (Well, apart from the personal insults, which are part-and-parcel of this particular group of friends. They are flung with gusto!)

Good friends, smooth-running game, and our preferences all align. I don't even remember the last time we even had a hint of trouble. And never, in all our years of playing, has there even been a single instance of anger, much less a ragequit.

Our group is currently in our 21st year.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Josh M. wrote:
Bruunwald wrote:
Aren't there several "bad GM" threads from the past month or so? Or at least one big one?

Yeah, I'm curious as to why whenever there is a new topic of discussion, it has to explode into multiple threads at a time.

This forum is a mess.

The "stay on topic" police (Paizo's moderators) have been a little overzealous the last little while, so the messy forum is a logical result of that type of moderating.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:

What if the GM just doesn't want to make sushi ever. It isn't something they are interested in cooking.

Why must the GM run something they don't want to run.

Exactly so.

If I don't like sushi (and believe me, I don't), and people want me to cook, I am not going to make sushi. EVER. No matter how much my friends like sushi. They will never, ever, see it from me.

In such circumstances, I will wonder why they want me to cook for them (unless they're fine with - WAIT FOR IT! - other things I make, and like making).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
I wonder how some would handle vegans or those who can't eat wheat products at their dinners/ Just not invite them

Possibly, depending on existing relationship, cooking skills, other nearby food options.

while accusing them of being bad people for having such different eating habits or a food intolerence.

Strawman. Nobody's done this, anywhere. Stop it.

All because the cook has to break a sweat.

How much cooking experience does he/she have? How much time does he/she have? What are his/her other options? How much interest does he/she have in cooking?

Having to "break a sweat" isn't necessarily a good thing. In fact, given time constraints, other responsibilities, other options, etc. it is often a bad thing. (Generally, when we're talking about entertainment time - of which there are a lot of competing options - having to "break a sweat" is almost always a bad thing.)

Why are the players always assumed as being the ones who want to play their special snowflakes no matter what. If I was new to this hobby I would have to ask why posters who are DMs keep playing and recruiitng such terrible people as players. We never see ressonable players in these threads. Always the sterotype of the player out to screw the DM. With the DM of course always being shown as the poor martyr having to put up with such players.

Dunno. The players are free to not play. They are free to get a different DM that will cater to their desires and/or DM those types of things themselves. Why aren't the players doing that?

But: "I would have to ask why posters who are DMs keep playing and recruiitng such terrible people as players."

Gotta totally agree with that. For the love of pete, if you don't like half-oozes or 'homebrew races', why did you recruit such a player? And player: if you love half-oozes and the DM hates them, why in the name of all that is holy are you playing under that DM?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fun read.

Skaven phantasmal killered (!) the charging dwarf PC when we played. Yes. The dwarf. Horrible, horrible rolling. Everyone was on the floor laughing at the player's terrible luck.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Erick Wilson wrote:
Sometimes it is difficult to avoid being incendiary or insulting on these threads, but I have taken a vow to restrain myself as best I can. I will say, though, that the quotes above...well, they do not show the same restraint. What's more, they represent what seems to me a calcified and narrow-minded point of view that is entirely out of touch with the complexity of modern gaming culture.

*chuckle* Oh? I'm not sure what "restraint" you're talking about. Describing my group's reactions and giving an example isn't really out of line, I'm afraid. And my group's preferences/reactions are not up for debate.

And you say "calcified and narrow-minded point of view", "out of touch", and "complexity of modern gaming" as if it has any relevance and meaning to my group and I.

Arnwyn, who said that anyone is being dishonest?

My group is saying it, of course, within the example I presented. (It was a familiar example, and thus I used it for my own purposes.) If a person previously agrees on playing DL, and then someone tries to bring in an orc or drow, that's being dishonest. They should have just said they weren't interested in playing DL in the first place. What I am not saying is that anyone in your particular situation was necessarily dishonest - I don't know how the information was presented and who agreed to what.

The situation you mentioned regarding the Dragonlance game happened to me, but with some significant differences. The GM in question wanted to run Dragonlance and, out of his five players, two (of which I was one) were seriously underwhelmed by the idea, and the other three were more or less neutral about it. And I DID tell him that I was not especially interested in the Dragonlance setting, but it was all he wanted to run. So I said fine, but work with me regarding character leeway. Needless to say, he was recalcitrant.

*shrug* Whatever process works for your group. If you don't like it, don't play. The DM isn't obligated to run anything he/she doesn't like. If that's all he wanted to run, that's fine for him. If no one likes it choose a different DM. (More people need to come to the realization that no game is better than a bad game/game they won't enjoy. Though I have a hard time believing that that isn't patently obvious.)

It's not as simple as "the GM isn't obligated to run something he doesn't like and the players aren't obligated to play something they don't like."

When it comes to people's free time and how they spend it, yes, it is. It is exactly that.

And it's not "idiocy" to want to play X race, or to be less than thrilled with Y campaign setting, though I agree that players should be honest about their preferences

No, that's not idiocy, but thankfully that's not what I said. Please go back and reacquaint yourself with what I really said.

But I'm glad you at least admit people should be honest with their preferences. That's all I said.

Now, you did say that the GM doesn't need to consider allowing (pick your poison) in an "agreed upon" game. But that is adding a parameter that I, at least, was not previously dealing with.

That's okay. I wasn't responding to you. (I just used the DL example because it seemed to be nice, clean, and concise for my example/illustration.)

2 people marked this as a favorite.
knightnday wrote:
Is it just races that draw this sort of reaction out of people or do other issues gain the same sort of problems in character creation? Things like: /snip/

I suspect all those things would apply, though I do believe there a hierarchy or 'degrees' of importance that gets a different amount of visceral rejection.

Races are a biggie, because it generally requires the introduction of a brand new culture and some sort of integration into existing societies and realms... something that some time-strapped DMs have little desire to bother doing. (Or, alternately, allowing the weird race and then simply treated it entirely in all aspects as a human and/or generally ignoring it.)

Classes less so, then archtypes, feats, etc. Anything that might have a cultural impact I would say is probably bigger than non-cultural impacts (ignoring broken mechanics, of course, which usually tops the list above all else - but I don't think anyone argued otherwise, so we can ignore that for the purposes of this thread).

I know for my group, my players and I are generally pretty picky when it comes to races, as none of us are all that interested in Mos Eisley. There's at least a few people in this thread that would get bodily thrown out of our group by my players (much less before I get my hands on them) if they somehow sneaked by a screening process due to their 'weird' race preferences. (For example, even the idea that a DM is 'obligated' to 'seriously consider' an orc or a drow in an agreed-upon Dragonlance campaign would make my players aghast at such idiocy - instead, simply don't be a dishonest git and actually come out and say you're not interested in a DL campaign, for pete's sake.)

In the end (and this bears repetition), the DM is not in a service position, and is under no obligation to DM anything he/she doesn't like; and a player is under no obligation to play anything that he/she dislikes. End of story. Sometimes a campaign just isn't compatible with certain people.


Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
The end result of this was that this player clearly didn't enjoy playing the character he eventually was allowed.

...who played something they didn't enjoy - and played anyways - is just a dumb person. It's their own fault, no one else's.

1 to 50 of 140 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.