|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
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.
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.)
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.
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).
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.
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.)
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'!).
I only play with long-time, close friends.
"Guys night out", so to speak.
(So this would fall under picky to the extreme.)
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.
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.
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.
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.