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

1,781 posts. 3 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist.

1 to 50 of 126 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

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).

2 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.)

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 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

1)Do you track experience points separately depending on who's involved in what fights?

2) Do you divide equally, even among those who weren't helping?

3) Do you divide only among those who helped, but give those that weren't helping a regular amount to keep things 'even'?

4) Do you have a maximum level gap where even those who almost never contribute to battles don't go beyond, say, 2 levels beneath the rest?

5) Or do you just do away with XP altogether and level everyone up when you think they've earned it?

1) Yes. (Theoretically - such a situation would be very rare.)

2) No.
3) No.
4) No. (Again, theoretically. I've never seen this, and likely never will.)
5) Hell, no. I love XP.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Another hypothetical:

GM is running a game and is completely flexible, to the point that anything a player wants is acceptable. Want to play an intelligent stalk of poison ivy? Done. Want to play a sentient mud geyser? No problem.

Now, the GM sets up the campaign and all the players agree to play by the (lack of) restrictions and they all bring their characters to the table.

But the sentient mud geyser player is filling the role of battlefield control and another player has chosen to play a hive mind swarm of mayflies that is ALSO in the role of battlefield controller. Not wanting to overbalance the party, the mayfly hive mind player demands that the sentient mud geyser player adopt the role of healer or they won't play.

Acceptable behavior? If not, why not?

No, simply because you used the word "demand".

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MrSin wrote:
Calybos1 wrote:

Wait... is someone suggesting that putting ANY sentient species on the forbidden list (aka 'not allowed as a PC race') makes them villains by default?

That's hilarious.

Only if they don't ever show up as heroes.

And still utter nonsense. It's not binary. Obviously.

(The statement - even the idea - is hilarious, and shows how far downhill the thread has gone.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xzaral wrote:

Having read through this thread, the one thing I'm not seeing is an agreed upon definition of what a special snowflake is. It seems to vary from "Playing something outside the established mechanical and fluff character creation guidelines as set forth by the GM (and possibly agreed to by the players)" to "A character attempting to disrupt the game by creating a character who, by nature of their own uniqueness, causes said disruption".

I think coming up with an idea of what special snowflake is supposed to mean and agreeing upon a definition might help the discussion out.

I don't think anyone will be successful in that, because it's too subjective. Everyone has a different level of tolerance, so what's a special snowflake for one group is perfectly fine in another.

I suppose both of the definitions you used in your post would apply, really.

So for example, an elven bard named Velligostrombosovitravios. He always demands people use his full name, becoming irate if they choose not to (including NPCs). Has an intense hatred of gnomes and refuses to interact with them diplomatically despite being the party face. Refuses to touch dead bodies yet demands a full share of the loot found. Would you classify this as a special snowflake?

As I note above, everyone has a different level of tolerance. My question here would be "how irate"? Is it 'cute' irate (e.g. whenever his name is shortened, you get a "HEY!" from the background) or is it 'annoying' irate (going on and on and on about it and seemingly mad all the time)?

Given the base information, for us, that probably wouldn't qualify as a special snowflake.

But an awakened pony? #1, that's not in our character creation guidelines, and #2) my players would bodily throw the git out of the house. So... yeah. Special snowflake in that instance for us (but not others).

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Terquem wrote:
And that is my point. If you create a special snowflake, and then through the course of play every interaction your character has is no different from other player’s character interactions (shop keepers, barmaids, local constables, farmers, children in the streets all treat your character the same way they treat the Halfling Rogue) then where is the harm? If the player is allowed to feel good about the game because their choice was respected, then that is great in my opinion, but if the player has as a goal the attitude of being a point of disruption every time there is an interaction with their character, then the concept of the special snowflake isn’t the problem, the player’s understanding of what the game is supposed to mean to everyone involved is the problem.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
You still don't play his character, though. You see and smell his food, you don't eat it.

I think these two items above bring up good points that may not have been examined enough in these 'special snowflake' discussions. What, really, is the expectations of the player that brings in something that is, for lack of a better word, 'weird'?

Some people have suggested that good DMs try to work a concept into the game, even if the DM and/or some (or all) players find the concept 'distasteful' (for whatever reasons). What are the expectations of the player who gets to play said character?

If the players find that character distasteful, they will simply ignore said character, only interacting with him in asking what his next combat action will be, and outside of combat treating the character either as if he wasn't there, or just as another human. Is the player playing the 'weird' character okay with that?

Same goes for the DM - if the DM finds the character distasteful, the DM will simply ignore the character and just treat him by all NPCs and the world as just another human. Is the player okay with that? That, essentially, the only uniqueness that exists is the race name written on the player's character sheet and what is going on just inside his head, because it's not coming out during the game (since one/some/all people find it distasteful).

Or, does the player with the weird character want to foist it on the other players and/or DM, and say "you have to interact with me as well!"?

What is the player really expecting? Because even if the players are all fine with it, the DM is under no obligation to put up with something he doesn't like. At best, if the DM finds it distasteful and allows it anyways, is the player okay with being treated by the NPCs/world as just another human? If so, then there aren't any problems. If not, then the player is a problem.

Though this:

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Seems like your fun is pretty fragile.

continues to be complete an utter nonsense. People's preferences are people's preferences, and what's fun for them is not up for debate. The above has no context and is meaningless drivel. Avoid that stuff, please. It's unhelpful.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Staying in a relatively focused area in an AP is a good thing.

Travel APs suck. The less travel, the better. (Yes, there are some exceptions, blah blah blah... Savage Tide and uh... uh... [not Kingmaker, since I consider that 'focused in one area']... still thinking...)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Confessions that will get be shunned by all gamers? Okay... it's time for me to be a pariah:

I think Game of Thrones is among the worst drek on TV today. And I certainly don't want to go anywhere near GRRM's novels.

I have zero interest in Wheel of Time.

I think Tolkien is/was the greatest fantasy writer who ever lived, and that the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings as a whole is a masterpiece that will never be bested. All fantasy writers wish they were even half as good as Tolkien.

Character restrictions are better than options. Race/class restrictions are AWESOME.

Lost and the new BSG were among the worst shows on TV.

Gaming cons are truly, truly awful places.

I believe there is very much a thing called wrongbadfun, and some people are having it. And they're wrong to do so.

Star Wars (the whole thing) is only - at best - meh. The whole 'extended universe' is an embarrassment.

I'm only interested in gaming with one set of rules, and a limited number of settings. Rules and setting matter.

I don't care for comics, and never did.

[Some hyperbole above, but that was a lot of fun.]

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Paizo is a company that makes adventure paths, modules and campaign setting material as their primary products and source of income and rules as their secondary product. WotC got that the other way round. So as long as Paizo is operating under that paradigm, you'll never see them churning rules options at the same ratio as WotC did. That also means you'll see a new edition of the game far later (if at all), because the business model is not dependent on having people re-buy stuff every X years.

Of which I am very very thankful for.

I think 3.5 blows Pathfinder out of the water in almost every way, but, in the end, it's the adventures and APs I love the most - and that's all Paizo.

And that's why Paizo has the best chance at getting any of my money - adventures, adventures, adventures.

(And I just use them in our 3.5 game - AFAIC, I win both ways!)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

OneBookShelf, I believe.

(The guys who run DriveThruRPG, RPGNow, etc.)

Edit: And I walk away from my computer for a short time... Ninja SLICE!

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Hm. Quite the fascinating thread. It's also completely pointless - a joke thread with a joke premise.

Really - what does "retiring" boob plate armor really mean? How? For who? How much? How often? Or, is this nothing more than a laughable call to wipe it out from existence - "I don't like boob plate armor, so no one gets to see it." Wow... that's going to get you far.

And why is the thread even here? Paizo is supposedly 'progressive' on this front, so...? Then I see someone bringing up "well, it's DC and DeviantArt." Well - what does that have to do with inclusion in RP games? They're not synonymous (hell, I barely even know what DeviantArt is). So - is it really about "inclusion"? That's a pretty big reach. It's especially a reach when anyone can do what they want in their home games (something that was admitted in this thread, making such a protest even more pointless). If there's a problem with DC and DeviantArt, then give them a ringy-ding.

No, this looks like nothing more than a veiled jab at the 'evil male gaze'. It's especially obvious (and galling) when one is railing against boob plate while at the exact same time ignoring the lack of helmets. "Boob plate is silly! But there's nothing wrong with the male gaze. And I'm saying nothing about the lack of helmets. Take me seriously!" Give me a break.

If you don't like boob plate, ignore them for your home games. But other people are allowed to like boob plate. That's the way things go.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jam412 wrote:
Not sure if you've got a PS3 or 360, but the console version doesn't need to always be online. They also got much better reviews than the PC version.

Indeed. So much so that the PS3/360 version is considered to be the definitive version of Diablo III. Offline, no auction house, better/more loot drops, and up to 4-player couch co-op.

My wife and I will be playing the hell out of this in co-op.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
I think you are just determined to dislike him.

Hmmm... I'm trying to think here... Is it Freehold DM and a certain director that makes the above statement ironic (and not just a little bit inappropriate)? Hmmm...

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:

I'm a little confused, so hopefully one or more of the DM-has-ALL-authority people can help me out. The impression I'm getting is that, when you sit down to start a campaign, the conversation goes something like this:

Request: Can someone who does believe the DM should ban at will edit the above conversation, keeping the players' quotes but changing the DM responses to something that fits your position, if the above does not?

While I'm not exactly a DM-has-"ALL"-authority, I'd be categorized in the "most" authority area... But, in any case, your impression is wrong (AFAIC), so that might be contributing to all your confusion in this thread. As I suspected earlier, your one post shows that (again, AFAIC) you and your group are almost wholly unique, which contributes to the confusion (and, bluntly, unhelpfulness - unhelpful in that you seem to think that there are other groups out there like yourselves in any meaningful number, and are willing to label what a 'bad DM' might be based on your unique group's attributes).

Like pres man, I've never had a situation in which the prospective players essentially say (paraphrased) "I want you to run X for us". My friends and I would consider that tacky, weird, and inappropriate.

Of course, my players also are smart and conscientious enough to know the work involved in preparing and DMing a campaign.

But, I'll bite with your completely hypothetical conversation:

Player 1: "Can we play a pirate campaign?"
Player 2: "Dude, that would be awesome!"
Player 3: "As long as I can play a kitsune, I'm fine with anything."
DM: "I'm not really interested in running/prepared to run a pirate campaign, and I don't know anything about kitsune. I'm not sure I'd do them any justice since everyone would just treat you as a human. I'm only interested in running/prepared for A, B, or C, if you want me to DM."
Player 3: "Well, here's this cool Razor Coast thing..."
DM: "That's cool. Who'll DM?"

To continue the conversation, for us it would go:

Player 1, 2, & 3: "We're not DMing, it's too much work."

The good thing for our particular group is:
1) We're all good friends on the same page with likes and dislikes,
2) We are fully aware how much work/effort/time is required to prepare and run a campaign.
3) The person willing to DM does give a shortlist of what he's willing to run within X timeframe. (Depending on that timeframe involved, it could really be just one option, take it or leave it or somebody else can DM which we know isn't happening as outlined above.)

So, due to our good fortune, it works out for us.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:

Hmm, I wonder if my wife would roleplay a half-nymph... *cracks open the ARG*

Arnwyn wrote:
Zorajit Zorajit wrote:
Please, talk me down.
Heck, no. All your concerns are legitimate.
This thread hasn't been about the OP for a long time.

I know. But I'm still commenting. (To be honest, what it became was less interesting than the OP. Just the same ol' same ol' "well you sound like you're a mean nasty DM who never listens to his/her players! blah blah blah".)

1 to 50 of 126 << 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.