Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
In gaming terms -14 evil Wizards used the spell Dominate Person on a few thousand commoners. They then had these commoners lay siege to the Monetary Keep on the Borderland. After some time the siege was broken, and intrepid adventures who work for the crown used divining magic to see that the commoners were being controlled by these 14 evil wizards. The wizards were angry that the Monetary Keep - which remains neutral in most of the realms business transactions - decided that it do not want the gold coins the wizards were sending to aid an ally. An ally that was despised by the kindom that Governed over the Monetary Keep on the Borderlands.
Being a Goblin though, you may not think the wizards or their actions to be evil - but all the people in the land of Prospero did, since the attack disrupted their lives.
The attack on the Monetary Keep was just a minor setback for the throne, but it so infuriated the Watchers at the Gilded Citadel that they were going to treat these 14 wizards as an example least one of their real fortresses should get attacked in the future.
I think the Benghazi deal is really two issues (at least to me). The way the security was handled, who had intel about what and what happened during and after the attack (securing the site) is different from how the administration presented it.
The first part can be described as best as a cluster#$&%, but things happen. During all the chaos the chain of communication could have broken as the situation escalated. Without more detailed proof/information it would be hard to hold the administration directly responsible for what amounts to a risky operation in a dangerous and unstable part of the world. Was the response to the attack handled poorly – yes, scandal – some people should get fired/branded as incompetent but not scandal worthy. How it was managed afterwards was a scandal though.
The problem I see here is the way the administration tried extremely hard to downplay what happened, what they knew when it happened and who the principal aggressors were. The altered talking points and multiple revisions to the story amounts to nothing less than a cover-up. And that is this administrations responsibility on the matter. Obama was trying to sell people on how he vanquished OBL and terrorism in an attempt to paint a fantastic (and fantasy based) picture of the situation. To win an election.
Embassies get attacked - it happens.
How this was pitched during the election and debates was a white washed cover-up perpetrated on the American citizenry. Had they (he) come clean the day after and he said "we were attacked by a terrorist group/this was a planned orchestrated attack" he would have taken his lumps and probably still won. But supra-genius Biden was spouting their "Bin Ladens Dead and GMs Alive!" drivel, and a new terrorist attack (which was the first US Ambassador to die in attack since 1979) didn’t fit into their security narrative. So they downplayed it, lied, bought time till the election was over - pretty much everything that you would need to frame this as a cover-up and scandal.
Skeletal Steve wrote:
What is presented here are quick strikes by small groups that almost all end with the perpetrators killed immediately. We're still rather short of that 54 number. Where did that come from, by the way?
Seen this list floating around on Democratic Underground.
No, it hasn't been done before - not like this.You are comparing a gun designer who made his own weapon design that went into mass production (supported by the state) to a technology that allows precision design and development without the need for factories and mass production or even technical proficiency.
Attempting to dismiss this as something less than big because you miss the point only illustrates that you miss the point.
The issue here - detractors or not - is that weapons and magazine features which are currently illegal or are about to become illegal in many places by law are going to be 100% unenforceable.
Being able to easily make a reliable extended magazine (disposable or not) off another persons design with limited technical knowledge means magazine restrictions laws are pointless. They assume mass production and scarcity - both which can be controlled and both of which are circumvented by this technology.
The last page of arguments is akin to comparing being able to record and album with a tape recorder in the room or attached to a turntable (all the Saturday night special/zip gun/gin made in the bathtub for the last 1000 years, etc) to being able to rip a cd off your computer. This isn't at the 1980's level of music duplication when it comes to weapons manufacture - we now have technology that has us heading towards ripping music and sharing music to cranking out your own cd in minutes with minimal knowledge, just with guns.
The ones who will suffer the most will be the gun manufactures as the need for a "nice" gun with their exorbitant prices based off of production limitation or artificial scarcity will be bypassed and the cost of weapons will go down - also as their designs are stolen and duped and placed on a 3d printer to make reliable clone weapons. The winners will be the ones who want weapons (for whatever reason - 2nd amendment rights to people who can't get weapons).
I know this scares gun control advocates - but this is the reality of technology.
I bolded some points and added some commentary in a few entries.
Thanks for posting some clarity on this - personally I would dismantle the group - maybe you can salvage a few of the players but your play styles and expectation are not meshing which is going to leave people dissatisfied (you or your players).
Since this goes beyond being opposed to simply being level drained I wonder what the entitlement side of the argument will come up with to deride your position? Expect some bad DM comments to come your way cmastah, or "give the players what they want to be happy, since this game is about having fun". To the second point you have to decide if this kind of compromise is what you want to run.
A few points on playstyle advice - since they are used to the fixed role of 4e threats and encounter set up, have you considered shifting your encounter set ups to accommodate this? Custom build archer skeletons with roles vs generic stated ones, dramatic big monster encounters with terrain and props to keep them involved and immersed in combat?
In your players defense I think part, (I still think they are immature) of the problem is system shock and change in expectations of play. Did they want to play PFRPG or did you push it to switch from 4th ed? People have a tendency to favor their first game system - you might want to run a hybrid 4e pfrpg style game (in setup, not mechanics) to slowly transition them - give them pointers on how to deal with adversities in the new game vs. having them try 4e tricks and PC design against PFRPG encounters.
Roberta Yang wrote:
Your players objected to having their characters permanently crippled in a way that was so horrible even in first edition's version (which was easier to recover from via XP) that the rules were changed between editions specifically to prevent that sort of problem? They are obviously immature entitled babbies who should leave your table and go play Chutes and Ladders until they learn to grow up.
uh-oh - the queen of binary solutions has spoken.
Too bad he also mentioned that the group was against any detrimental effect or restrictions placed upon them - from the inconvenience of not being allowed weapons in certain parts of town, to taking a -4 to use non-lethal attacks on children, etc.
BTW, the energy drain thing was changed when Wotc took the reins in 3.0 in 2000 - for the most part energy drain worked the same between 1st and 2nd ed of the game (+25 years). Energy Drain was so bad that they kept it in 2nd edition functionally the same as 1st.
But by all all means, focus on the level draining thing as the point of your support for the players attitude towards the game.
Ah, so it isn't what I'm saying but in effect how I'm saying it that is offending you?
No counter argument to my post was presented besides an appeal to authority, and even then that wasn't explained.
I can call something moronic, crap, etc - because that is what I think it is ..to me. It's going to take some pretty good convincing to make an argument against someone with that kind view on an subject. In every case/response an argument wasn't presented.
He could have said - 0 level spells keep low level casters relevant and casting spells instead of having to use their light crossbow. Low level casters should always be able to cast magic, etc, etc - the usual arguments presented to support 0 level unlimited casting.
That wasn't done.
The devs are smarter than you is not an argument, so IT WILL BE DISMISSED FLAT OUT in a thread that is discussing the bad rules those same devs put into the game.
If the fact that I said it was "moronic" vs "I dislike it" offended you, too bad. That's the language I chose to use to reflect how strongly I feel about these BAD changes made to the game.
If you feel that the term moronic is insulting to the devs then you are pretty thin skinned, but as a good eboard defender you should just "flag it and move on" instead of troll piling on a subject and argument to which you have contributed nothing to.
Especially if you have nothing (as you have shown) to add to the actual argument. If you feel that being critical of the rules (or the devs for making them) is offensive to your delicate sensibilities than don't post in a thread that is critical of the rules (or the devs for making them). Or at least defend those rules with a valid argument vs. flailing your hands in feigned offense.
So I'm not going to play your game where I a state that "anything you don't agree with me is not a valid argument", you don't get to frame that position for me or set my argument for me.
It isn't a case of me dismissing something outright/don't bother debating me on the subject.
Lol, spare me the Roberta Yang nonsense.
Try to defend your argument and position with your own reason, not by channeling the bilge or thought process of some forum poster I don't care about.
The spammable 0-level spells are moronic - your appeal to authority by citing the devs of a game that I am not a particular fan of is a fail and a wholly unconvincing argument to put them back in my game, especially in a "Dysfunctional or Silly rules" thread.
I go by what works for me and my group, not what someone else tells me is right. Especially if that someone has a play style, design consideration and objectives that are wildly different than my own.
I got rid of spammable spell entirely, just too moronic IMO.
So 0 level spells are 3/day + casting stat modifier in uses - you get to cast anything you want from your orison or cantrip list without prep long as you do not go over the limit. makes them utility spells and you get to see more of them put into play.
Also removed mending (and a few others) from the 0 list. Works good so far.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Disclaimer: I don't hit on women anyway, as I'm very happily married, so this isn't about me. It's about the other people who aren't sure what to do. And I'm not trying to be obnoxious here; I'm actually curious. Does opening the hobby to women more mean that it's important to maintain a rigid "no chatting up" rule? Or a "no gender-related issues can ever come up in game" rule? Or some permutation? Or something else entirely?
If you have a creepy smelly weirdo guy in your group, he is still a creepy smelly weirdo guy to the rest of the group of guys - so gender isn't an issue - tolerance is.
You want some advice - don't game with these clowns.
If they can't get a grasp of 5th grade hygiene and social norms then they shouldn't be gaming. Period. Gaming should not serve as an encounter group to process deep rooted developmental issues for morons - it's a shared activity that people engage in, and since most games deal with gratuitous violence and issues that are (for the most part) unattractive to women it's mostly going to attract and retain men.
I do think that if you are gaming with immature a+*~&+$s you don't need a woman at the table to see that. Men just generally tolerate that kind of nonsense more - if you don't like it, make those players grow up or purge them from the table.
As to behavior and interaction with women, again - I don't seek to utilize my gaming hobby to find a mate. If a guy at the table can't take a cue on how to move with regard to the opposite sex, or is aggressive with women at the table (in or out of actual RPing) then that goes to him just not knowing how to interact with women. Again, if it's a problem or distraction for the gaming group one or both parties need to go.
I don't game with my fiance, but I know many people here game with their wives or girlfriends and seem to have fun. I have no idea why, to me gaming night is like poker night - ah well. Obviously there can be issues with favoritism (DM/Player relation) but they must be doing something right if they can keep up a weekly game. I would guess that if one of the players is a significant other then the solution would be to establish a level of personal respect for all parties and to check any kind of jerkiness at the door. If it works for couples I would assume that a strong DM and group could keep it going for public games.
All that being said - I don't think that content should be adjusted or censored for anyone at the table. If I am running a grown-up games for grown ups then it will have the content that I feel is relevant to story that is unfolding. That means everything is on the table - all the ugliness. If someone cannot or does not want to be exposed then they need not play the game. I don't think that there should be ratings or that the issue of rape or other horrific events should be purged to protect one potential demographics sensitivity while retaining brutality, murder, war, killing and violence are retained in the same game. That imo, would just be moronic.
Sadly, this thread was doomed to idiotic left-right pandering. Didn't even get off the first page.
Yes, doomed from the start.
Excellent and yet so obvious!
I'd rather go the route of making the 3rd edition of AD&D that should have been created - not what Wotc offered in 2000 and not some retro clone.
For me it would be easier to rewrite the base game to a true 3rd edition, convert my existing material and get it right instead of a half-measure by picking up a system that may offer only 75% of a fix of what I am looking for.
I'm at the point that it's a re-write of just quit D&D based gaming and focus on other game systems.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
And if you lost that mule, say while you are crossing a stone bridge over a raging underground river - then you lose your backpack (sleep time affected) food (more spell resources now needed to create food) camping/exploration gear, lights (heat) and your spellbooks because you don't carry those on you either - I guess you forgot about those or just LOL'd the need to have them away.
You are right though, the mule discussion is pointless exercise. PFRPG is what it is and does not support immersive or resource managed play, so carrying on about it is without merit (unless we are discussing ways to return immersion and resource management back into the game).
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
There are other resources that were more difficult to manage. As I recall the main thing the mule carried for us was ammunition, extra weapons and camping stuff. If we could live off the land, we did. If not we used "create food and water." Yeah, it used up a spell slot, but that became less and less of an issue as we leveled up.
You must have had some pretty high level play in AD&D - Create Food and Water was a 3rd level spell, not something a 5th level cleric would normally prepare as his spell of ultimate power. Even at 7th or 9th level of play it would still be a huge resource hit. I'm not saying it would never be prepared or that I'm calling you a liar but the need to cast it would arise if you were stuck somewhere or travelling in hostile territory usually a day after the situation would arise when you needed it (having no food). But that would also imply that while you were stuck somewhere/travelling that the CF&W was picked over another spell 3rd level spell for a 5th level caster - while what, dealing with potential wandering encounters, module encounters (as you progressed without normal food), hazards, etc?It just doesn't seem like a solid pick unless you were pretty high level (9th or higher). It's not really coming together for me unless there was some major hand waving on the part of the DM. And unless you could buy specific gear (which wasn't in the rules) rings of sustenence, Iouns stones, etc, were not a player option by choice or easy to come by.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Instead of continuing to argue about food and water, I think it would be more profitable to discuss what other resource management issues might allow a GM to challenge the party.
In PFRPG, just make "magic X" hits your party in this environment (flaming bats, flamming daggers, flamming offal) randomly.
Otherwise, who cares? The game isn't about resource control and with every book release it moves it further away as a consideration, so why fake it as a concern? Also, now you are advocating creating an artificial (meta) resource control when you had perfectly realistic, plausible and immersive ones that you 0-level spell'd away when the game came out?
Now you want to create substitute ones? Pointless.
And no, this thread is still very much on topic - it's about magic options (not just for wizards) and how too many of them turns the game into crap for other classes.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
And now who is making assumptions here? That my sole purpose for wanting resource management is because I am trying to "screw up" the players?When you say you "didn't even carry a backpack" in the context of having a discussion about resources and equipment you are being both deceptive and disingenuous when all that stuff was needed by your PC and carried by someone/something else. So you said that as a deliberate lie to support your resource argument.
That's like saying that you didn't even eat lunch today -when in fact you had brunch and an afternoon meal. So why the hell did you bring up the fact that you didn't even wear a backpack - oh yes, it was to imply and carry on your argument that you didn't even need gear at 5th level - and then you state in your next post that in fact you did need gear. You just didn’t carry it.
So by your own admission (after you attempted to deride by omission) you needed gear to play the game. You needed to manage finite resources - even create food and water is a finite resource when you get X amount of spells a day in a dangerous environment. So I don't care if you had a damn mule to carry your gear/food on, that isn't the point and in fact increases immersion - it doesn't decrease it. The mule is not the resource "counter" to the DM, that is some sad thinking.
So get the notion out of your head that resource management exists solely f-up players, it isn't. For some groups resource management is part of immersion process and immersion is getting the player in to the PCs situation by placing him whereh is PC is at, which in my experience leads to greater play enjoyment. Some groups can't be bothered with it, PFRPG is accommodating in that way, but it is a break from previous editions and should not have been a default assumption in design.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
You are missing the point. The problem that I think rocketman is addressing is the default level of power and complications it makes in trying to run the game he wants to run, i.e. having unlimited water in a resource based game. I personally think that this was a bad default assumption and I have house ruled the orisons/cantrips to reflect that. I think that a game where both item repair and water creation are unlimited and yet the ramifications of those are abilities are not reflected in world is a badly designed game.
So for the type of game he wants to run, he either needs to:
-Filter who he lets in
I think they made the 0 level abilities spammable just to quiet the wizard players who always "want something magical to do" at low levels after they blow their spells. They didn't think ANY of these changes through on how it would impact a persistent campaign world. The standard cover around here is: you are a poor DM because you want water to be a concern in your game. Or "why can't you figure out a way to challenge your party within the confines of the game" - neither point being the issue of concern. It's a desired playstyle/challenge/feel issue, not that the DM in question is not smart or creative enough to run his world through the PFRPG game assumption.
So the challenge part isn't the issue, it's the default in-game "0-level spammable spells breaks any kind of relatable consistancy and kills the world" issue. This was a VERY BAD default design consideration unless you are assuming default high magic game is what everyone wants to play - this is a PFRPG invention. It wasn't the case with the 1st two editions of the game, and even 3rd ed didn't have spammable consistency breakers - unlimited item repair, water creation, etc, available to level 1 noob characters. Later on there was plenty of stupid in 3rd ed, but not at level 1.
You didn't even address (or maybe notice) the hardware comment. He doesn't feel that there should be a need to deck out foes with magic junk just to make the numbers work. Maybe give them one item, but be able to make threats that are not laden with so much garbage (which the party gets) just to make the numbers game.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
And this is a problem unless you are catering to one type of player or DM - one that likes high powered magic and play.Your answer is also a cop-out along the lines of - "that isn't the level of challenge in this game, come up with a new one". Or, "PFRPG doesn't not support single foe encounters like older editions - don't make those kinds of encounters". Or my absolute favorite - maybe you shouldn't be playing PFRPG, there are plenty of other games out there, you should look into E6".
Evil Lincoln wrote:
I agree that you can fix things on the back end vs. the front end (challenges, creature stats and DC vs. lowering mod values of PCs). Again though we are talking about modification and now we are assuming a good understanding of system mechanics and expectations (and a few other things). I can make a troll with DR 10/- or a scaling damage absorption system based on percentage (what I use for certain encounters Ex 50% less damage from +0 weapons, 25% less from +1, and 0% less from +2 or greater weapons), greater hp (to challenge the incoming vs. outgoing damage, and how many rounds I want the fight to last) while keeping its save values in a good range where a level appropriate (for the sake of this argument) challenge has an expected success/failure rate on saves. I can do all that and the troll may go up and down in CR value (when compared to the current system) - but like you said, who cares? The point is an eyeballed, level and risk appropriate challenge for the PCs.
The issue with this approach is that it also requires some major tweaking - it's just done on the back end. So you would still need a new range of DCs for skill checks (challenges) and new creature values (challenges). This would also go for any hazard/traps in the game - part of their values still need to be in accessible range for the PCs to deal with, while other values may vary wildly because you are adjusting things based on these new considerations.
Personally, with that kind of re-write I would rather just change the stat values across the board - see what comes out of that (lower ACs, lower hps, less stat manipulations since the ranges for bonus value are greater). That is the approach I am taking, if I am going to go with my re-write of the game: Auxmaulous' Dungeons & Dragons - (aka, AD&D, see how brilliant I am?) then I am going to really re-write the game and reduce the variables, damage stackers, etc. If I want to make it super powered I can tack on those values later - but I am going for a lower baseline in actual numeric values as a start.
I think your approach (preserve the core values, just adjust the interactions and challenges) is very viable, valid and as a fix would probably be easier and appeal to sane people. It would require dealing with everything on a case by case level (creature/hazard/trap/challenge), but it's probably the most practical approach to a workable fix.
Evil Lincoln wrote:
Very few of the issues around a low-magic game are unique. They all crop up in the prison scenario even in high magic games, where the players lose all their gear!
My sympathy meter for non-functional 3rd ed/PFRPG characters without gear is on empty.These scenarios show exactly how limited the system is in facilitating challenges beyond the assumed (and imo, hand held) function of the game. Someone who complains about this is akin to a guy who drives a very big car, talks about how great his big car is, doesn't have money for the gas it takes and then is stuck on the side of the road when his big car is out of fuel. Equipment dependency is a symptom and side-effect of bad math required to play the game. I shouldn't say bad, I should say high and swingy. The devs should have looked at this in 2000, 2003 and 2008 with their respective games. My point is, make the numbers mostly internal, make outside variables smaller and you have fixed a large number of problems in the game. Of course after a ton of re-stating everything. I guess that's what game companies are for? IDK anymore.
Evil Lincoln wrote:
Personally, I think it's cool to do a game that way, but a lot of people seem to think of CR as the game, instead of a GM-aid.
I wish the devs for the various incarnations of the game had your design philosophy.
Evil Lincoln wrote:
I agree with your argument, but disagree with the actual course and outcome of events during the 1st ed AD&D/basic all the way up to 1999. Let me explain: You are right, this is a legacy game with it's own weird, inconstant and game specific bizarre rules. Here's the thing though - older editions were open enough that you could add things to facilitate play. Some of the class or race specific restrictions (ex: clerics and edged weapons) were semi-fluff if mechanical, in all cases they were not hard coded into THACO, Saves, etc. THACO was hard coded and saves were hard coded - but you could get by with low modifiers on all accounts. 3rd edition doesn't work that way unless you make changes on the back end (Save DCs, etc).
Second point: Pathfinder and 3rd ed were not the logical next step for for 2nd edition AD&D.
And to the point of nostalgia - yeah, I'll admit it (we're all being honest here, I have checked my ego at the door) that's a HUGE part of what drives me. It can also be that some aspect that we (I) am nostalgic for what actually worked. Like the potion miscibility table, or non-spell specific descriptions of magic items in the DMG (not a wand of Fireballs but a wand of Fire). I do miss that stuff, but alot of what I miss, while not perfect and a bit archaic by game standards today (mechanically) still worked. They worked well. I said earlier that I think the bare bones of d20 is a good system for fantasy gaming, I think it's better than the mechanics that existed in earlier editions - but that's where I draw the line. The earlier editions had a better grasp on the magical, mysterious and more dangerous feel that this game should provide. To me 3rd ed and PFRPG are not really part of the D&D legacy (re: to me), it took me a few years to figure that out about 3rd edition, and then a few years about PFRPG.
Warning – Crazy Talk:
I'm going to go out on a crazy limb here, and if it gets too scary you guys can chop it off.
I think that if a OGL d20 version of 2nd ed was written, that is a true d20 version of AD&D - using the streamlined system advances while keeping the detail of older editions - I think that version of the game would crush PFRPG, 3rd ed, 4th and D&DNEXT.
Because the last 4 I mentioned all deviate so much from the source material that something closer to the original, yet using a more innovative mechanic would win out. From a purist gaming standpoint of course - not talking money spent on marketing, etc, just talking about what would be the better, if not best game using the d20 system.
I wanted 3rd to be it, I really wanted PFRPG to be it – but they are not. I know there are a ton of old school games out there – what I would like to see is AD&D3. Take the good system stuff of 3rd ed and even some good ideas from PFRPG, and chuck the rest. Check the stat modifier system as it exists and subsequently reduce the baseline numbers game.
Your reaction tells me that this is in fact a perfect fix.Use the mount for transportation - not for food, saddle/revenue generator or a magic trap setter and you won't have problems.
See, the fact that my write up would cause you to react in such a fashion is a strong indicator that this is the right way to go; no abuse, no loopholes - just function based on design intent -it provides a temporary riding animal. If you can't keep a temporarily summoned horse alive for a few hours while it gets you from point A to B then you are doing it wrong. If you abuse the spell (use the summoned horses as catapult ammo) then you lose access to it. Also I would keep the (D) component of the spell - if the animals are in immediate danger of being killed then you can dismiss a few or all of them.
And of course reading comp does come into play - I stated you gain 1 horse per level. So if you are 3rd level = 3 different horses in total, you do not need to summon all of them at once, and should you get them all killed you will still be able to summon another new horse once you gain a level (4 horses - 3 permanently removed = 1 new horse). Stop killing your horses/playing like a dumbass and you get the function out of the spell that it was intended for, i.e. a mount. Use it for other purposes and the spell will fail as an exploit as you waste your resources. Spontaneous casters can still use this spell and if they run it like your typical caster poster here (carelessly and thoughtlessly) they can always swap the spell out for something else later.
Pretty simple really.
Teleport, Flight spells, and other such things obsolete Mount by a fair bit, so all this does is take it from "Obsolete and hardly worth using" to "Useless waste of word count".
No, it wouldn't - mount would still be a good way to gain some transportation at low levels (up to 7th) and my version provides multiple mounts for the whole party and even provide combat assistance at higher casting levels (as I stated a few of the mounts stats and equipment would improve for a higher level caster) so it would always have a purpose.
And what makes you think I wouldn't nerf the f+#$ out of Teleport and Flight? I would return tremendous risk and limits to teleport and flight would have renewed risk - no Mary Poppins/Pathfinder/Easy mode freefall if dispelled. The days of pick the "right spell for the right occasion" to solve in-game problems days are over for me.
I'm open to hearing your fix for the spell Rynjin - makes sure it doesn't include a loophole that allows for a saddle shop.
It only breaks the game if you assume "take 10" or "take 20" are your control mechanics to facilitate all actions - walking and chewing bubblegum at the same time. But since 3rd ed/Pathfinder is one of the worst games to apply this simulationist approach I do not think putting in auto-success or fails will break the game - if you make skill check "EVENT APPLICABLE".
This is not a computer game - and if it was - the applied math used is garbage as a control for balance and function.
The standard design philosophy is to create an action, and then a series of rules that govern that action and then forget about about any inconsistencies or stupidity associated with implementation of those rules. This is the 3rd edition mantra, poor rules as cover for actions vs. common sense.
Skill checks should be event based, Players and DMs can use a mean average to cover their non-critical use (say take 10 or 20) while playing, that way you can get the walking and chew bubble gum at the same time effect covered. But when the PC needs to make a roll in and ADVENTURE or STORY CRITICAL situation, there SHOULD ALWAYS BE A CHANCE OF FAILURE. During the adventure there should ALWAYS BE A ROLL WITH A CHANCE OF FAILURE.
Don't be hamstrung by a badly set of rules made by designers seeking to eliminate the need for the DM to step in. These rules were designed to remove a thought process of how skill use is applied, when is it critical use, etc - they did this to make things easier for players and to eliminate another area of DM adjudication (which they felt was a weakness of the game). So easier for DMs and Players but not better, keep that in mind.
And a design consideration would be to -
Increase the ability and value of that niche / while concurrently restricting the abilities of other classes who step on the role.
You would need to do both for this to work – so expanded abilities and functions of skill importance in the game (at all levels), while concurrently restrict the amount of toe stomping casters inflict on non-casters.
The last part is tricky – you don't want the reverse to happen where spellcasting becomes a crap option, but swinging it back to middle in functionality and effectiveness is a start (at least for me it is).
”one of my fighter fixes”:
With regard to advanced roles I did something similar in my game Kirth. All fighters start to get abilities and bonuses based upon secondary role groups. Command/Leadership, Tactician and Trade/Craft.
So you can gain benefits of increased leadership as you level up and have tactician and craft be secondary or tertiary, or any combination or be middle of the road with all three – spreading out numbers as your level up. Bonuses stack much like the weapon grouping system for fighters (primary, secondary, etc), plus some specific abilities that go beyond increasing numbers as you level up. So in effect a mid level fighter will have varying degrees of abilities with regard to Command/Leadership, Tactics and Trade/Craft.
The trade/craft is more the focus on military weapons and adventuring gear but can be expanded to all sorts of trade and mercantile services and operations. Not the most popular option (PCs tend to like tactician or leadership more), but still great for NPC guild lords and good for PCs who want to craft their own equipment and magic gear - under current PF houserules. Ultimately I would like to just eliminate 90% of PC crafting ability or radically rework the available power from crafting.
Ciretose - I agree with what you are presenting here as the games working design philosophy, but that it isn't the case in practice.
It isn't even a case of handwaving, it really comes down to the strength of casting vs. all other actions undertaken in the game. Spells are single-use actions that are superior to other character actions at level (generally), so what is the balancing factor when it comes to their power and effectiveness? Use per day? Pre-prep? Those are non-factors or weak controls imo, especially when you get to mid level or higher.
Martial actions currently need rolls to succeed, a casters core actions do not (lest you count saves). Balance by frequency of use might as well be no balance at all once you get out of the early levels, and I'm not talking about "perfect spell for each occasion" bit which is bandied around here to prop up casters. I'm talking about core action type for a class, with casting > everything else.
Wizards may not be the most economical damage dealers but they have the greatest impact and control of their environment - with little to no risk of failure and harm to themselves. That is under this current rule set - I don't expect you will agree with me on all the spells, but even you would have to acknowledge that some are OP for their level or very poorly written.
I prefer re-balancing to the act of casting and all the spells as a fix - making them all hand-wave proof and having spell casting and spells adhere to the risk/reward paradigm that all the other actions in the game currently do: roll to succeed to attack, make a climb skill check - failure may lead to damage, etc. One mechanic would be to make DC checks to cast all spells to follow this model but I think that would be a strong deviation of the game.
Edit: Seeing some good, honest commentary on edition changes and challenges here without attacks. Good posts.
I would say the biggest problem is that in the rulebook is says "The defender’s spell resistance is like an Armor Class against magical attacks."
Even though it's a caster check it does reference
I don't think a 1 would be a fail, but from reading the poorly written passage I could see how it could be interpreted as such. Easily.
They could have dropped "like an armor class" and just said you need to make a caster check against the SR which is like a DC.
Risk is poor balance in a roleplaying game. Works great in a rollplaying game though. For character development to happen all classes need to have an expected lifetime equal to the length of the game. Each character should have at least a 50% chance of surviving doing their job until the climax of the campaign.
No, magic worked considerably better in older editions and risk only failed when they started slipping in spells with no drawbacks or when DM started handwaving negative risks aside. Risks serve as an excellent limiter of use and abuse. Spells would be used less, which in turn would reduce the "I win" button mechanic which is part of 3rd edition casting.
Casters would still be powerful, but they would be paying for their power. What we have had for the last 16 years or so (this garbage mostly started when wotc took over) is a no-risk, caster entitlement environment. What I am selling is a very bitter pill so I would expect people to attack it, the reality though is as such: the caster vs. mundane paradigm is very broken, PF tried to fix it (not really) and every new spell or splat that comes out starts to roll things back because of spell design philosophy. Namely - no risk casting.
All the over-powered spell nonsense that caster cheerleaders have listed in this thread is not because of the pure power of the spells - but the lack of impediment to use them at will to make some idiotic (yet plausible) scenarios. So you have some very ridiculous combinations, enslaved demons and armies of monster, defense redundancies, summon monster jokes, etc that break the game. The spells - pretty much all of them - need to have a negative hook or cost to mitigate their power from ABUSE.
Also I have to laugh at your role playing vs rollplaying swipe.
Disagree - now you are creating another dimension or catch-up mechanic for the mundane classes just to keep up. Magic should be self regulating.
I don't think that after a decade and a half of abuse and overpowered spells that proponents of casters would want magic to return to a risk paradigm, but if you want the game to survive in at least a vague image of its genesis and not mutate into something unrecognizable then magic risk needs to return. That or all the mundanes will be strapped and saddled with half-way fixes and items and will still be playing catch-up with casters. That way WILL NOT and HAS NOT worked when it's been implemented via anti-magic feats or abilities. A dispel magic bomb doesn't compete with time stop - risk of irreversible aging (against a set death age) when you cast the spell does.
Then you need to flatten it out.The caster should be at X(v) +4 or 5, with the v part representing the variable suckage and gimps that NEED to be placed back on spells. You want to teleport - risk death, citadel in pocket dimension - cool, you get to make it with a cumulative chance that the dimension gets folded over onto itself after a period of time. Happens in all the stories right???
The biggest mistake (and the pro-caster, power-tripper types will say they were a boon) is when they took the built-in controls off the spells.
101 basics that should be in play but were dropped:
Seriously - approaching it from giving every class X + 1 extra facet to keep up with casters is not going to work unless you turn all classes into casters. Casters have gotten out of control and spell casting and spells need to be smashed down and smashed down hard.
It also wouldn't hurt if they designed martial's outside of the current magic vacuum they occupy. Instead of crappy Bo9S fail quasi-spells use the fighters/martials abilities in their currency - hps, and their to-hit bonuses to generate limited at-will maneuvers.
Anyway, it's an idea. Personally I think this game as written is beyond saving.
My greater point is that things that are "mundane" in Pathfinder are not "mundane" in the real world. Falling from great heights and surviving is something regular people do in Golarion. You don't need to be magic to do stuff nobody in the real world can do--commoners can--so, why do people want high level Fighters to be bound by the real world?
Sorry, this is just silly. Now you are justifying bad falling damage rules because Golarion and every other campaign world using the PF rules is super-world by default?.
Where is that stated in either the core rule set or in the campaign world write up that mundane (and I mean really mundane - bums and hobos mundane with npc class levels) npcs are anything more than what would be a normal human?
I think this is all just cover and posturing to explain poorly designed rules. Just seems lazy and it's presuming concepts that have not presented in any of the material.
Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
This thread went from battling the moronic to full-on creepy.
I think if you focus on manipulating people into playing a "healbot" based on this criteria you have bigger issues than healbots and CLWW (in and out of the game).
Roberta Yang wrote:
False comparison, a Wizard suffers under the same restrictions because he also uses hit points. A fighter who is badly wounded can still take the risk of a conventional fight since he has the best AC and still has more hp than the party wizard, that same wizard if already wounded and without healing is paralyzed. Even if he hides in the back - once you go within "one hit" range your tactics and level of courage adjust accordingly. Unless of course you have a softball DM who doesn't like to go after the softer targets in the back.
So while a fighter trades in hp as currency the other characters do also, and they have a worse rate of exchange.
It was, and it works/worked. Of course if you don't need to play that way due to design considerations (CLWW availability) then why do it?So this goes to a play style and feel preference. Some older players (and even some new ones) prefer the challenge of having a more resource starved game where their decisions weight heavily in their success and failure.
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
There are several disconnects here.Old style players had to play more cautiously and carefully because the resources that exist in 3rd ed/PF (aka Easy mode) didn’t exist. This isn’t a deep philosophical debate – they had to play better and smarter if they wanted to survive – so when using your example they:
A) Would not let themselves get that low in hit points and spell resources or be put in a vulnerable position like most 3rd ed PF players do with the assumption of healing, go back to town, etc. Just wasn’t part of their makeup.
B) If they were resource deprived (hp, spells) they would be that much more cautious and use better planning as they went forward from that point (wounded and still on a time table to save the kids). So no suicide if they keep their brains functioning and tried to stick to a plan or strategy.
This isn’t an attempt to be insulting to new school players and if someone is insulted then I apologize.
At this point I don't know if that's what everyone wants (obviously not - from this thread), or if that's the way people now play because the game designers of 3rd ed made it so.
Here's an example I used in my game IT.
An LG fighter in my group has a sword that is designed to kill shape changers and lycanthropes. Both take tremendous damage when hit by it, and it may force shape changers to switch back into their true forms (not lycanthropes though). The sword can also change its size upon command (dagger to two handed sword) and has a few moon magic related powers, etc.
This blade glows a silvery hue when shape shifters or shifted lycanthropes are around, and the character has had a few run ins with lycanthropes.
In one instance he killed a friendly who was a werewolf - actually the guy was not evil yet and he sort of suicided on his sword. The whole experience left the player very shaken - he liked the npc, they suspected that something was wrong with him (not lycanthropy). That situation occurred when they were taking out a cabal of werewolf druids (and getting injured - not bitten), the NPC in question being turned earlier by the druid who ran the cabal.
After all that mayhem and intensity I assigned him a no-benefit trait.
Mark of the Beast (from a bad claw scar on his chest and neck that he received during that scenario). Now lycanthropes can detect him at a distance and they know (in human or other form) that he has a powerful weapon that can hurt him. They will probably go after him first instead of other available targets if possible.
Ok, just to be clear.
It's worse to say you that "I'm going to start killing people if this law passes" than to make a game that advocates assassinating specific people?
I’m just trying to gauge as to what qualifies as proper righteous indignation and hypocrisy around here.
No, I understood you all too well - and while I didn't have to endure it my parents did - under the trusting Gov'ts of the Soviet Union and then the 3rd Reich, so please spare me the sermon. I have heard all the horror stories of trusting Governments and the greater good.
I distrust my Gov't because like every governing power in the past they have done both illegal and reprehensible things (and continue to do so). Governments are comprised of fallible and corruptible people, not magical aristocrats or supernatural parents that can do no wrong. They steal, become corrupt, break or contradict their own laws and trample peoples rights all the time - not in the distant past but today. And if you happen to have one that you do trust and is doing a good job you should still remain a bit pessimistic, questioning and vigilant at all times.
I just wanted to thank Bill and the gang at FGG for getting my order through several weeks ago. Due to rl health issues and other distractions I was never able to thank him in a timely manner. I just wanted to set the record straight since at the time of my last post (from weeks back) on the matter I was one of the few who still had not received their order.
The book, the supplements - everything looks great. Getting the set weeks ago in the mail was a good pick me up when I really needed it. If I can scrounge the money I will pick up the CD sub (those two mods were great - very old school). I am glad I was involved in this Kickstarter and can't wait for the RA sub material to start coming in.
Thanks again Bill and FGG.
Killer DM #460
I have not yet Voted but I will be voting for Mittens plus a yes on 32 (stop forced contributions from public sector union employees in California) once I get out of work.
It would be nice if this would turn out to be a decisive and reasonably clear victory for either side so this BS can finally end tonight and doesn't get dragged out for days.
Jason Nelson wrote:
Actually, I can speak for the outline and purpose of the rest of the book, and what I can tell you is that you are creating a false dichotomy between GM aid and player stuff. The PCs, after all, are supposed to be part of the campaign world. The fact is that in many campaigns... they aren't. They're just these sort of roving free-riding heroes that float around and nothing happens when they're not on screen in the middle of "the adventure."
No, I am not creating a false dichotomy between GM aid and player stuff.
I know you need to jump in to pitch or defend product and your work, and that's fine - but don't try to present this as something I am trying to construct out of a figment of my imagination. This wasn't an attack upon you or any of the contributors of this book, I am just making an observation based on facts presented and the direction that Paizo decided to go with on this product (targeting both DMs and players).
There is campaign design material and there is running campaign support material and rules (as they concern the PCs and world as a whole), and based on the information provided this looks like a whole lot of the latter and only focusing on the PC part (not the world outside of the PCs).
Campaigns actually "do exist" beyond the players - as in starting up a new one with no one having actually played in said campaign?
These would be options and design considerations for the DM, not extended collection of down-time player abilities and class features that didn't fit in the last "ultimate PC" book.
This doesn't look like a DM toolkit - but in any case I will "wait and see" as I stated two times so far in this thread. Not expecting much but a bunch of expanded player-based campaign rules and abilities for players though.
Thanks for your attempt at clarification Jason.
Ultimate Campaign blurb wrote:
This is an APG 2 disguised as the GMG 2.An "Ultimate Campaign" book should be about helping the DM out in his campaign, not a series of rules and subsystems that revolve around the PC or more PC options/feats/abilities.
Again, won't know more till this is out but for me this isn't a DM aid, it's just another player book.
I can appreciate that you were trying to make it feel like they were drawn by the characters, but I guess it's just not what I expect to see in any "professional-grade" gaming book. I hope I didn't come off as an ass-hat, I just expected more. I hope to see some good things in the rest of the PDFs when they are sent out.
Maybe you missed gaming in the late 70's, 80's and 90's but this is what they (players) got - or something similar - if they got anything at all.
I can remember several stand alone modules and a few from Dungeon that had very bad maps available to the players. I remember many an "X" drawn on a vague map (and often inaccurate or deliberately confusing map) with a "here you go".
RA and Slumbering Tsar - pretty much everything from Necromancer and Frog God Games - are both an homage to old school gaming.
These maps look like what my players would draw back in the day when they had a player tasked to make the map in the party (everything off scale). The jerk DM (was often me) not correcting the small mistakes after giving them several narrations as to what they see/how far away, etc.
Cartmanbeck - you will see good things in the module. This adventure (and adventures like it) makes d20 gaming palatable for me.
Why do players get to be so demanding of the GM? Several of your flaws are pretty nit picky given that the GM already has vastly more responsibility and work to do than you as a player. Where is your manifesto for players? Is it as long and demanding for them? I doubt it.
Remember where you are posting BiggDawg. This is player entitlement la-la-land.
Op may want to actually run the game for a few years next time before he drops these offal offerings as sound advice to (novice) DMs. While some of these points may be valid, the poor, disjointed and often contradictory presentation makes him just sound bitter and uninformed. Ex: 20) Complaining about goblin loot options which amounts to complaining about the color of the sky.
If you are wondering why goblins are only carrying crap loot then you do not understand:
not getting any of that is a red flag that we are dealing with a bad DM or player.
I really don't get all the hate about "magic item creation being way too easy". Do you prefer magic marts in that case?
No, I would have much preferred a fix to the Xmas tree effect and the numerical in-game assumption and need to have x item/bounus at a given level.
They had a chance to fix that - they didn't.
I think a better term for most D&D/PF games (as I have played them, and seen them played, or conveyed to me from other players/DM) is that the players have a Contributing Narrative instead of the Shared Narrative term that is being tossed around.
Shared Narrative is based on a player controling actions and events beyond his character - from actual situations to describing outcomes, while a Contributing Narrative would be what Brian and others view as the standard in most RPGS. That is, players add to and influence the story based upon their actions as input/results, which is then worked out by the DM. This could be from skill checks, RPing, etc - they contribute their actions, the DM then plays out the cause and effect/description of those actions.
To me - D&D/PF and infact most RPGs I have ever played (or wanted to play) have been structured around a Contributing Narrative playstyle.
Eben TheQuiet wrote:
I'm no historian (by a long shot). How long did it take for the roman empire to fall? Was it hundreds of years?
That's a good question Eben.I would say to the Romans it probably felt like it was a hundred years - but whenever I watch movies concerning the subject, the Roman Empire is usually presented: at its zenith, or is in its decline, or it has already fallen - and most movies run around 90-120 minutes.
So, if you watch three different movies showing three different time periods (back to back) the total time is something like 270-360 (sans breaks for food, bathroom and internet). Total time (plus breaks):7 to 8 hours.
I hope that answers your question Eben.
If the players are doing equal or more work than the DM in writing the scenarios for a D&D/PF style of game then yes, you are doing it all wrong.
Protip - Since it hasn't been a problem in your DM(s) table you should just keep up what you're doing and stop complaing about other DMs who won't answer questions on why they banned something from their table. Just an idea.
I play in a GM-less game - it's called Arkham Horror.
pres man wrote:
stuff about obnoxious players
And that's why those players (obnoxious ones) are not in our gaming circle. Because of incessant and obnoxious questions (with motive to gain and game the system) combined with a lack of imagination or courtesy, they have been shown the door or were merely phased out.
The players input in D&D/PF should be about their character (imo) - all other input is done through the interface of playing the damn game (i.e. actions of the PC as it affects his world). I wasn't complaining about the lack of work players have to put in, but more about all the posturing that goes on about equal roles and effort. It doesn't exist.
This "equal roles" notion is manufactured concept from the 3.5 crowd that wants all players to feel important. Guess what? I can run a campaign without half of my players, it's much more difficult to run that same campaign without that DM. As it stands right now - if one of my players can't make it we can still run our game, if I can't make it then that game doesn't get run that night. This isn't a proposal of hierarchy; this is accepting and acknowledging the reality of that hierarchy that is needed to facilitate a specific game. Under the current system you can always run another module/adventure/whatever but you will still need at least one DM and 1 or more players.
Judging from the amount of work, you are worthy of respect. However, your view on players is less than respectable, given you seem to imply they are not pulling any weight at all in...IN A GROUP GAME, WHICH YOU DO NOT PLAY ALONE BUT WITH A GROUP.
My view of players as a whole is less than respectable because a large number of players I have dealt with were uninspired, childish ingrates. That isn't the view on my current group. If I wasn't playing with these guys I doubt I would be playing or DMing at all. Do I think of most gamers as vermin - not exactly. But it gets very tiring to hear stories "about my character" at cons or the FLGS, which are in fact uninspired rip-offs of characters from novels, movies or comics all rp'ed by people who are bad at rping and have a convenient interpretation of the rules (always in their favor). I've dealt with that for years (and bad DMs) so my view has been tainted.
Also, I find it funny how I've spent more money, time and thought on campaigns than my DM yet I'm usually a player. So I'm apparently a better DM and I should trample my players just to follow your example?
I don't really believe you - unless your DM is 14 and has no money, is new to the hobby or just doesn't give a s*~~ about DMing, he has probably spend more time and effort putting his game together than one of his players.Spending more money doesn't = better, never said that (read my post again). I stated that most DMs spend more money than their players on the game - that is pretty much true in most cases if all parties are non-casual gamers.
Even if your Dm was broke or didn't spend as much money on game materials as you, he sure as hell should be doing more work than you putting his sessions together. That or find another DM that matches your level of commitment to the hobby (since you sound dissatisfied).
I trample players (and people in general) who are asking for it. You act like an entitled jerk at the table and you will be shown the door.
I don't grief my group with hardships for the sake of my own edification and humor - we play a hard game; the stories are not always nice and their character are not ninja/ex-special forces/Wolverine/Drizzt/Raistlin clones or knock offs from films or movies. Do they want to emulate heroes from movies or entertainment that influence them - sure they do. But they are required to try and create something a bit more personal and original at CharGen.
I happen to be pretty lucky and am blessed with a good group - scratch that. These guys were culled from a large group of around 12-15 guys (over the years) so it wasn't all luck. I would like a second group but time and commitments make that near to impossible (a few guys who want to play but can't due to time/family/distance). I don't trample my players and they afford me a decent modicum of respect and it's not because I run a Manson like cult where they worship my DMing skills - no. Because a few have tried running their own games, know that it's hard work and they are respectful of the commitment I have made to our mutually shared hobby. It isn't out of fear or DM hierarchy over players, but out of respect for the job of being the DM.
Quite a few posters don't or will ever get that.
Message to all DMs - don't run TPKs with smiles on your faces or players will blacklist you.
Way too many controlling DMs forgot gaming is a team activity with both sides bring equal.
Newsflash - you do not "bring equal" to the table, at least in every case I have seen or read about - anywhere.I have yet to personally see a "bring equal" exchange, even with groups that were heavily into the shared story/troupe setup of gaming where players help write the actual campaign content, it was never a "bring equal" situation. Even under those conditions the DM/GM always has had to do more work.
This is general (so try not to troll-pounce-spasm all over this) but for the most part true with a few exceptions:
- DMs tend to buy more product (books, maps, minis, etc)
As a DM I read, watch and buy non-gaming product that serve as both research and inspiration for my game (and for writing). As a DM I am constantly thinking of new ideas for campaigns, characters, locals, etc, pretty much every moment I am not distracted by other things (relationships, work, etc) and even then I use research material as recreational reading. I even work 24/7 as a DM , made a module tied to a base bunker complex I saw in one of my dreams. The amount of actual game work/write-ups I put in before and after the sessions dwarfs and crushes any notion of "bring equal". The only things you bring are the required bodies to play – everything else is pretty much done for the player in advance/on the fly.
Truth time for the thread: My response to inquisitive players really depends on the player.
Luckily for me those obnoxious players have been purged from our gaming circle over the years, with the only reminder of that type ever existing on these boards.
I was admittedly, probably being a bit of a jerk about it on that occasion. But it really bothers me when a DM robs a player of control. That's all a player has. I don't even like taking control of a PC when a player hasn't shown up for the game, even if it's just to remove them from play for a session.
Yeah, you actually were being bit of a jerk.You know what bothers me? When a single player robs me and everyone else of quality gaming time.
If you can't make it to the session in my game, check with me or another player to see if everyone is alive after the session is over.
Sorry, just because you decided to cancel doesn't mean you get to:
For the most part when I am running a game (which is almost always) I try to have an extra current copy of each PC so we can play if there is a no show. If it's a planned no show we decide in advance of the next session if we are going still play and maybe run through the session with some heavy rp, planning and purchases (one of my players loves this stuff) or instead if we are just going to play Arkham Horror, Mansions of Madness or some other board game. Depends on where we're at in the game (slow/down time = play, middle of a fight = wait for player to return).
In the event that we are going to play and we know we are going down a person I usually only proceed with the session if there is light combat/exploration or if they are in town doing some dealing/rp/side stuff.
If it's an unplanned/last minute absence we put it to a vote to see if we are going to carry on without the player. If we do decide to play there usually will be a joke or two about what your character did while they were out (doesn't happen, we just like to rib the missing player) and we carry on - I even give partial xp if his NPC PC was in a fight and he used his stats/abilities/hp out in a fight. But the risk of death is there. I have had total party wipes because the attending players wanted to go on without the missing one (against my advice), and then yeah, post session the absent player gets the call/email/text saying "we all died".
You're a player, show up and play.
If you can't do that then give as much forewarning as possible that you can't. Barring emergencies (for which I will call off the whole session) you probably know you are not going to make it ahead of time - so call.
If it's a repeat occurrence of flakiness you get dropped from the gaming group entirely. I can understand that life is crap sometimes, and sometimes people need to focus on other things, but I don't want your character around from session to session as a special npc.
Player Hater Rant:
And get over the DM opening door issues. There are going to be some assumed narratives because the DM needs to move the game along - if you don't want to open the door then tell the DM that "I'm not going to open the door just yet, just checking everything out first". But if a player of mine is making every question, motion and narration that he about to open the door, I'm reading that as his action and saying "so you open the door". If you can't deal with that then run your own game at a snail's pace with exacting and painful levels of detail or take better medication. The game needs to move forward, and if the players were the ones tasked to set everything in motion they would never get out of their room at the inn, let alone leaving town.
I don't narrate or force actions; I narrate assumed actions to keep things moving. This isn't a question of "trick the player" into opening a trap or doing something stupid, this is a case of facilitating a damn game.
I've dealt with snap case players before - guy's that wanted to start fights, ruin the game, steal stuff (irl) or just break other peoples things (irl) - they usually ended up out on the street with their head/back used as a battering ram on the way out (true story). I'm here to run the game, not to deal with mommy issues or to provide cheap psychiatric care.
Show up, bring your sheet - keep good records, don't cheat and rp you stupid character. Not asking much.
Sorry for the rant...sort of.
3.5 Loyalist wrote:
First 4chan, now fatal, can't we just come together and roll for anal circumference?
I agree, and more than likely this will be covered in the upcoming 2nd quarter release: Ultimate Orifice.
I'm hoping the material isn't just a rehash of the "Complete Orifice" book which came out in 2006.
I have some mixed feelings on this and what I am about to post will probably piss some people off (immunity: Fire)...
I am ok with the whole age of enlightenment style campaigns: multi-racial, gender equality, tolerance for differences in orientation, culture, etc...if there is a proper PREMISE and REASON for this in the game world, as in how did this world get to this modern way of thinking? Was it always this way? Where did these modern rights and views originate from in the campaign worlds history?
Or is this being hand waved so players are not offended or to make people feel empowered in when running their fantasy game?
I tend to run things a little more on the realistic side(as much as you can with fantasy) and as such human nature has a huge impact on the fantasy setting. Foreigners are usually not tolerated well (depending on community/history), most commoners are peasants, magic is rare, and property is held by landed lords and an emerging middle class (merchants/craftsman).
That being said - women can lead bandit groups - if they are more badass and ruthless then the men in their group (and have "overcome" the view that they are not). Open homosexuality is tolerated (to a degree) - if you are someone with pull and power, otherwise like any other difference it could range from ridicule to murder (depending on the society). Same goes with foreigners - you have money, trade influence, etc - you may get left alone while working within the local community or you may get scapegoated once things go bad. As a matter of fact, everyone can get scapegoated based upon their core "difference" once things go bad - even adventurers for being adventurers and stirring things up.
I feel silly running a game world that espouses more individual rights and human compassion then what we have in our current modern age, let alone one that mirrors or is marginally based off a brutal and harsh age of the past (with magic!). I also find that the more things are tied to realism the greater the player immersion, at least for the people I game with.
I have powerful female NPC leaders in my game but they are cut from rare cloth and can have extra issues they need to contend with because of their gender (again, varies from society and races). But in most cases traditional gender roles (for a quasi...I state quasi, late-medieval society) are closer to what they were historically. My players would not be surprised by a female bandit leader - their assumption would be the same as mine - she can hold her own, if not be more brutal then the men in her gang. It wouldn't be a common or expected thing in that game world though. I wouldn’t limit a female character in her stats, nor would I prevent a player from making a "black" human character. There would be some back story and there probably would be some issues that they would content with. All of which would be laid out in front of them at char gen and all surmountable during the course of play.
So I guess what I DON'T like in MY games is unrealistic societies and human behavior catering to modern sensibilities when there is no stated reason for it in the campaign world besides "I say so". I think humans are harsh and brutal, and I think humans in a world where violence is an everyday solution would be worse, and there would be less cause or reason to be enlightened. Especially in a world where different often equals - fear/danger/death. I also think (unless a factor was a cause to change it) that there would be castes and gender roles similar to what we have now or in our distant past.
Not trying to offend with this post, and I'm sorry if anyone was offended.