|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
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),"
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.
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).
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.
Brain in a Jar wrote:
my snowflake idea
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.
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".
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.)
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.)
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.)
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.)
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.)
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).
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.
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.)
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).
Fake Healer wrote:
Did someone piss in your cornflakes? What's up with the hostile response to a rather innocuous post that can be easily passed over?
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.
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?!"
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.
Josh M. wrote:
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.
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).
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?
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.)
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.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
1) Yes. (Theoretically - such a situation would be very rare.)2) No.
4) No. (Again, theoretically. I've never seen this, and likely never will.)
5) Hell, no. I love XP.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
No, simply because you used the word "demand".
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.)
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).
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.
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.
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.]
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!)
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.
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.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
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?"
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:
So, due to our good fortune, it works out for us.
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".)
So... does anyone from FGG have an update re: the Rappan Athuk additional levels subscription? (Not to mention the Cyclopian Deeps sub...)
I got it some time ago, and 2 have come out, and then... nothing. (Same with Cyclopean Deeps, of which 3 have come out, and there's supposed to be a lot more of those...)
I understand the Frogs are pretty busy right now, but that's cold comfort for those of us with the sub. :(