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

Berik's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 886 posts. No reviews. 1 list. 1 wishlist.


RSS

1 to 50 of 886 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

As far as I'm concerned if somebody is consciously deciding to kill a dozen random people in order to prolong their own life then that's evil. The fact that it is on some level understandable doesn't keep it from being cold, calculating and selfish.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Sorry to see you go Sean, but all the best for the next phase of your life and I look forward to hopefully still seeing your work in Paizo's various lines.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I pretty strongly disagree with the idea that Paizo staff should stay out of moderating threads in which they are conversing. For me it's one of the great features of the board that we get to interact with Paizo staff as people and not just in their capacity as Paizo staff members.

I don't even see how limiting the participation of Paizo staff would address the perceived 'problem' anyway. Paizo staff are going to have the same political views whether they're posting in a thread or merely moderating it. By trying to chase staff away from posting and into moderating from the shadows that will only make things worse. I trust the judgement of the Paizo staff to separate personal beliefs from their moderation. If they're ever unsure then certainly it makes sense to double-check with another staff member that their judgement is sound, but I'd be surprised if that doesn't sometimes happen already.

Certainly when I used to moderate forums being involved in a thread made me more cautious about moderating if anything, people could see I was involved so would automatically assume I did any deleting. But if something offensive is posted then it should be removed whether a moderator is participating or not.

And frankly I've participated in and read a number of the hot topic threads and have always found the moderation pretty even handed. There's a lot of confirmation basis going on where one 'side' will complain bitterly about posts being deleted, while missing posts getting deleted from the other 'side' are ignored.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I don't necessarily agree with calling out a specific moderator, but for my part I think Jessica Price is visible, but I don't get the feeling she actually moderates in a different way from most of the other staff. I think she's more inclined to get involved in sensitive subjects than other staff members during the actual discussion which seems to create that impression, but as I said I don't get the impression that she makes very different moderating choices from the staff in general.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

For myself I think the moderators do a pretty good job and I disagree that there's much evident in the way of bias. Certainly there have been decisions that I have agreed with and decisions I have disagreed with, but I find them pretty consistent and when posts start getting deleted it's usually for predictable reasons and often from predictable posters.

In a situation like the first post I think keeping the message in question is always going to be a pretty tricky call. The phrase is pretty offensive, but that's entirely the point, the poster is saying that he's glad that kind of offensive comment is indeed considered offensive. There's no suggestion of the phrase being applied as an insult to anyone in the thread, it's an example of the kind of thing that one would hope most everyone could agree shouldn't happen. It's a judgement call and I'm not certain which way I'd have gone if I was making that decision, but I think it's a grey line and not really something I could put down to bias.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Merry christmas everyone!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

After thinking about it a bit I've got no idea. I know that in the early 80's tv here in NZ regularly replayed Doctor Who episodes in the morning and the first episode that I remember was a Jon Pertwee episode with Daleks. But I'd been watching the episodes earlier without really understanding them since I was too young, so not sure if the 3rd doctor was actually the first I saw.

I do recall being dimly aware that the Doctor I was watching in the mornings wasn't the current Doctor and the current one was the funny fellow in the cricket jumper. But the new episodes were on a bit late so I wasn't watching those very much.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

No trouble at all, hope you enjoy! :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Most things should now be sent out, along with a couple of extras! Hope that everyone enjoys. :D

And on a whinging note my iMac decided to die yesterday! Alas poor iMac. Long live trusty old laptop!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Phew, mad week at work! But just wanted to let everyone know I haven't forgotten, plan on sending things out tomorrow after work.

And somebody try Hero Kids! :o


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Thanks everyone, I really do enjoy doing this. I was planning to make sure I had the finances again after last time and hope I can do my 12 days of Christmas again next year. Helps to get me into the Christmas spirit and I like getting to spread around the enjoyment of some books and publishers that I enjoy. :)

Thinking about a couple of surprises, but in the meantime there's still Hero Kids and something from Raging Swan up for grabs. Have at it!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

No need to send me email addresses. The website has a pretty nifty gifting system so I should be able to do it all with forum names.

This time with fewer links, due to laziness!

1) The Dragons Demand from Paizo. - DM Beckett? (Is "I've been thinking about picking up Dragon's Demand" meant as a request for it?)
2) The Sinking Season One - necromental
3) Up to $4 of selections from Super/Rogue Genius games - Oceanshieldwolf
4) Hero Kids Fantasy Roleplaying game
5) Indigo Ice from Cerulean Seas - Tinkergoth
6) In the Company of Fey - Mystically Inclined
7) Advanced Races - Kobolds - Justin Sluder
8) Path of War - Ongoing - DungeonmasterCal
9) The Azure Abyss from Cerulean Seas - Drejk
10) Towns of the Inner Sea - DaWay
11) Up to $4 of anything from Raging Swan
12) The Kobold Guide to Game Design - Oladon
12a) Any one product from Christina Stiles Presents - Treppa
13th Age Core Rulebook

Still available:
Hero Kids Fantasy RPG - I actually don't know anything about this except that its a fun looking RPG for kids to play. It's Ennie winning and what I've seen of it looks charming though. Ideal for somebody with little ones! Probably!
Raging Swan things - Surprised this one is still here, Raging Swan do lots of great things. I especially enjoy and recommend the Tribes series myself.
13th Age - A new D20 RPG from Jonathan Tweet and Rob Heinsoo that looks to combine elements of 3.5 and 4e. I must admit that I haven't played it yet, but I have the core rulebook and think it looks a fun system.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Okay, trying to catch up on everything here! I'll probably send things out once everything is selected, or early this week if there are a few stragglers. :)

Apologies Rune, but Path of War and Dragon's Demand were already claimed. If DM Beckett wasn't actually asking for it I'll pencil you in as next in line there though. Otherwise anything unclaimed in the updated list is still available!

Raging Swan goodies, Oone adventure, SuperRogue Genius, charming looking HeroKids RPG for kids, 13th age core rulebook all still available!

1) The Dragons Demand from Paizo. - DM Beckett? (Is "I've been thinking about picking up Dragon's Demand" meant as a request for it?)
2) The Sinking Season One
3) Up to $4 of selections from Super/Rogue Genius games
4) Hero Kids Fantasy Roleplaying game
5) Indigo Ice from Cerulean Seas - Tinkergoth
6) In the Company of Fey - Mystically Inclined
7) Advanced Races - Kobolds - Justin Sluder
8) Path of War - Ongoing - DungeonmasterCal
9) The Azure Abyss from Cerulean Seas - Drejk
10) Towns of the Inner Sea - DaWay
11) Up to $4 of anything from Raging Swan
12) The Kobold Guide to Game Design - Oladon
12a) Any one product from Christina Stiles Presents - Treppa

Super secret last thing - 13th Age Core Rulebook. (okay, secret might be pushing it since I said what it was in the same sentence...)


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

A couple of years ago I was the lucky recipient of Mikaze's first (I think?) run of Christmas generosity on these boards. It really made my day during a tough period that year so I paid back the favour when I could and then followed in Mikaze's coattails again last year.

It's becoming very unoriginal now, but doing the same again this year. There's one pdf of each of my 12-ish Days of Christmas gifts up for grabs. First in first served! Everything on the list is either something I got this year and think is great, or something I plan on getting shortly and think looks great. :)

1) The Dragons Demand from Paizo.
2) The Sinking Season One
3) Up to $4 of selections from Super/Rogue Genius games.
4) Hero Kids Fantasy Roleplaying game
5) Indigo Ice from Cerulean Seas
6) In the Company of Fey
7) Advanced Races - Kobolds
8) Path of War - Ongoing
9) The Azure Abyss from Cerulean Seas
10) Towns of the Inner Sea
11) Up to $4 of anything from Raging Swan
12) The Kobold Guide to Game Design
12a) Any one product from Christina Stiles Presents

Super secret last thing - 13th Age Core Rulebook. (okay, secret might be pushing it since I said what it was in the same sentence...)

But anyway, one of each available. Limit of one per person. Merry Christmas!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

This is so awesome, I do love this time of year. :D


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Really awesome to see this happening again Mikaze, an inspiration as always. :D

I may or may not have been spending the last few days trying to decide what form my own Mikaze inspired giving may take this year too... ;)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Now I don't play PFS, but it seems to me that this is just a matter of players needing to compromise.

Look, if you're going to play a Paladin in Society play then you should think a little about compromises you could make to justify working with characters you might prefer not to work with. Equally if you're playing a Necromancer you should be thinking about compromises that can be offered when working with characters that don't like your methods.

An organisation like the Society is broad enough that most every character should be prepared for the fact that there are other members of that society that they would object to, and others that would object to them. Players in turn should have some ideas of how their character can justify working with people they object to and ideally have some areas they can compromise if the situation comes up.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Congrats guys! I haven't been playing PFS here, but really happy to see Pathfinder growing here in NZ. :D


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'm going to join in on saying that my preference is for things to not all be balanced. I've enjoyed a lot of characters over the years that were intentionally made to use a suboptimal weapon and it's a fun challenge to build those characters. To my mind the game is much more interesting if there are actual meaningful differences between weapons and classes and the like. I don't want weapons to all come to the same average damage per round on an optimised build.

Having said that I think most weapons/characters/abilities should be viable for at level play, but I'm happy for some to be suboptimal choices compared to others. Viable doesn't have to mean the best at all. If Sword A and Sword B are identical, except one does 1d8 damage and the other does 1d6 damage then that's fine. It's obvious which weapon is weaker and if somebody wants to use the weaker weapon for whatever reason that's fine.

Now trap options are certainly a concern and I'd prefer not to see those, but something being mechanically inferior isn't a trap in itself. It doesn't take rules mastery to realise that a longbow is better for a specialist than a crossbow for instance.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I started out reading his short story collections Zima Blue and Galactic North, both of which I really enjoyed. I'd recommend starting with Zima Blue, as the stories aren't part of the Revelation Space universe so it can be an easier way to ease into his work. Though I read Galactic North before reading any of the main Revelation Space novels and enjoyed it a lot as well.

I'm pretty behind on reading through the novels to be honest since I seem to gravitate towards more 'bite-sized' reads like the short stories these days. But I've enjoyed his work a great deal so far.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Is the argument really (as some people seem to be making) that so many movies fail the Bechdel test because women are happy to see either males or females as the lead character, but men really need the story to revolve around a man or they just can't get into it?

I mean, as a guy I personally find that pretty insulting if the implication is that movie executives make movies guy-focused because they don't think I could cope with a female lead who has some other females to talk to. For other guys here, do you feel that your ability to enjoy a movie focused on a female is less than the ability women have to enjoy a movie focused on a male? Or is the argument that this kind of thing needs to be done to appeal to a nebulous group of 'other men'?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Darn it... Last night I was going to get this, but I'm a bit tight on finances leading up to Christmas so decided to wait and let fate decide in the morning by seeing if it was still available or not. Now I have relying-on-fate remorse. :(


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I don't think I'd have run the details of the encounter in quite the same way. I think the grappling should have woken the PC, and I'd have given the players a round of actions before the grapple was maintained and they jumped off together. I'd have given the PCs a round to fire missile weapons or spells at the BBEG after she cast Feather Fall, and I'd have considered letting the fighter have a reflex save to grab on (or maybe ready an action to hold on if they could).

But I don't really think the rules details are important in this situation. Some of the areas are fuzzy and I don't think your interpretations were blatantly wrong anywhere, I think the real problem is that the group is dysfunctional. If things break down into screaming matches and people storming out over the rules then that's a big problem regardless of who was right on the rules interpretation.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Well the sword fight between Inigo and Westley in The Princess Bride was a classic. I don't know how easy it would be to capture in an RPG, but somehow getting that level of energy and humour into an in-game duel would be great.

Though to be honest the first thing I thought of here was the Great Crunchie Train Robbery. Which is admittedly an ad, but it made a big impression on me as a child in the 80's. And hey, it's basically a big bar brawl on a train, how can you go wrong?

And my last thought is towards the end in Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. The time when all of the various plot threads just all come together and you end up with chaos. The PCs would maybe need to be more active than the main group of guys were there, but having the group suddenly start to find out how various seemingly disparate factions were getting involved could be a fun moment.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

And the Kickstarter is now over. Roll on 2015!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Sure you can. For somebody highly invested in a character losing your friends or loved ones can be worse than having your own character die, let alone worse than losing some items. Look, most people here have said they're okay with 'meaningful' death, and I'm pretty sure most would consider dying to save friends and family in-game to be meaningful (maybe depending on the circumstance). For myself I'd say that having friends and family in danger would be a much larger motivator for most of my characters than having the character in danger.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

um, he said that he doesn't want a game where the GM has to fudge the dice to make the party survive. He just wants a game which is less lethal than what some other people enjoy.

Look, every game based on randomness is going to have an element of chance to it. But in a game where there's a trap every 5 feet there are going to be more deaths than a game where there are no traps anywhere. Both of those groups are playing within the rules, but one game is more lethal than the other.

A similar argument can be made for monster encounters, where the chance of success or failure is going to be influenced by how those encounters are set up.

There's always an amount of chance, but in simple terms some people want a game where they're 99% likely to succeed all the way down to some people wanting a game where they have a 1% chance to succeed. None of those people are wrong, they just want a more or less potentially lethal experience.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Fergurg wrote:

Doesn't the very fact that this and similar threads exist prove that perhaps Paizo advocating on behalf of LGBTQX.etc might not be the best decision for them as a company to take?

It appears to be the view of this community that supporting "homosexual marriage" is a requirement for being part of it. Is that accurate, and does Paizo feel that way as well? Because it sure looks that way. I want to know this before I decide whether to run my PBP game here or elsewhere.

I'd much prefer Paizo write what they believe in rather than worrying that some people may be offended by the lifestyles of some characters in some of their adventures. Certainly all of the Paizo staff that I've seen comment seem to be in support of homosexual marriage, I don't see any reason why they should ignore that in their writing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
shallowsoul wrote:

Oh here we go with the "badwrongfun" card.

I will state this again one more time. Why do you continue to use a certain game system that you hand wave away?

The badwrongfun card only gets played because you keep saying people are having fun wrong.

To re-iterate from my last post though, I've said very little about how I personally run a game, you seem to have just decided I handwave a lot because I think people should play the way they most enjoy. What handwaving do you think I've actually said that I do out of interest? And regardless, how much of the system do you think directly revolves around death? Even if I played Pathfinder with all normal rules, except the PCs literally couldn't die then there are a whole lot of rules to still use.

I've played upwards of 20 different game systems. Frankly I play Pathfinder because I enjoy Pathfinder.

Couldn't I just as easily say that you should be playing Dungeon Crawl Classics, or Hackmaster, or a retro clone if you want a more lethal game than I play? But I wouldn't say that, because I know Pathfinder works well for a variety of game styles.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
shallowsoul wrote:
Berik wrote:

And apart from the strawman you want to rail against who has said that death should be 100% ignored? And it would still be within the rules to allow a PC to die but also have means available to the party to bring them back.

And the point at which one would ask if it makes sense to keep using a system is obviously going to be different for different people. Some people think that any amount of handwaving is wrong. Some think a little is fine, some think a lot is fine. Why are you wanting to tell people what level is 'right'?

I'm not asking what is right.

What I am asking is why you are still using a system that you have ignored and or hand waved most of what makes the game what it is.

Quite right, you're not asking at all. You're telling people that they're having badwrongfun.

And you seem to have a lot of ideas about the detail of how I run a game that I haven't mentioned. But I run the system because I enjoy the system. Enjoying different parts and focusing on different things from you doesn't mean I'm doing it wrong. And you're not doing it wrong by playing however your group wants too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
shallowsoul wrote:

Let me stop you right there.

Player's dying by the rules of the game is not "DM's killing the players". If I said "bang you die", then you would have an argument but that's not what I am talking about. People need to stop this attitude of saying DMs are killing them if they die in the course of the game in any way but the way they want to die. It does suck to die but "everyone" will get over it. If you can't get over it then maybe you don't need to be playing games in the first place.

People also need to lose the attitude of holding a DM hostage to the jive about being a "killer" or "bad DM" if they allow the players to die during the course of a campaign. I'm not here to coddle people and pretend that s@$$e smells of roses. There are rewards and there are consequences built into the game by default and it is the DMs job to bring "both" of those into the game. I mean for god sakes, you already have multiple ways of being brought back from the dead, saves, healing, etc.. What more do you want?

It's perfectly within the rules of the game to play a less lethal version of the game. Certainly in a home game a DM is perfectly able to tailor encounters for his group so that the chance of death is very low even playing 100% by the rules. It's fine for you to not enjoy that style, but people doing things differently from you aren't automatically breaking the rules, doing it wrong, or playing the wrong game.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
ciretose wrote:

My issue with the position of the other side comes when you call death by anything you don't like "arbitrary".

Traps exist in most games in modules. If a trap (not your GM, a trap) kills you, that is not "the GM" killing you "arbitrarily"

That is the game happening.

If you want a game that is more story focused with lots of plot armor, great. Enjoy and be happy.

I want my GM to look at every situation and say "What would be here" and then put it there.

That way when, as a player, I think "What would be here." I am getting a fair shake.

If the place would likely have traps, I expect traps. If it wouldn't, I expect a reason the GM decided there were traps to appear at some point.

Same with monsters. If I go to a "haunted" place, I'm not going to go "Why are there undead?!?!"

What I want my GM to do is follow whatever seems logical to happen. And sometimes, players roll poorly, fall off cliffs, and didn't have a feather fall/fly potion...despite us planning on going into the mountains...

One person's arbitrary is another persons "Logical outcome of piss poor planning"

Arbitrary isn't a synonym for a bad thing. If my character goes into a combat that I should win, but my dice completely fail me and I die then I've been killed by the arbitrary whims of fate. Whether that possibility is a good or a bad thing obviously depends on the people involved, but it's not inherently pejorative to say that a death was arbitrary.

The 'game happening' includes a lot of arbitrary things. That's not a bad thing in and of itself, that's the outcome of working with a system that uses an element of randomness to determine results.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:

I don't see how that is a difference in anything except your perception of the scores.

Mechanically - my rolled 14 cons & 7 wis is that same as my point buy 14 con & 7 wis.

In use - I will play my 7 wisdom the same whether I roll it or choose it.

I will agree there can be a perception of difference. I won't be looked down on by some players if I have a rolled 7 instead of a chosen 7 in a stat. But that is a fairly petty and minor advantage compared to all the disadvantages that I've seen with rolled stats.

Well perception can matter, but for me the difference goes deeper than that. Yes, if I'm playing a character with 14 con and 7 wis then (all other things being equal) I'll likely play the character in a similar fashion whether regardless of how he was generated. But since I don't like dump stats very much the reality is that the 14 & 7 is more likely for me with rolling, if I was doing point buy I'd probably go for 12 & 9 in a lot of cases.

Rolling forces me into choosing from whatever I've rolled for my stats, and I find that a fun way to do things. With points buy I usually end up with a more balanced spread, which is fun as well but not as much to my tastes.

Edit: To explain further point buy tends to put me in the mindset of minimising weaknesses with my stats. With rolling character creation ends up instead coming down to working with whatever stats I rolled. Since I usually go into character creation with only a vague idea of my character in mind before rolling that works for me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
ciretose wrote:

That is why Shallowsoul started this thread. That is what started all of this discussion.

This isn't a discussion of over or under doing it. This all started because of the above assertion of it being "disrespectful" if a trap kills of players.

The added bit that I really take offense to, that has come up in this thread, is that the GM "killed" the PC with a trap.

The implication it seems, being the GM not using Fiat to save the player from death is "killing" a PC, rather than the PC activating a trap that was placed beforehand with no knowledge of who would trip it, or if they would trip it, which has an effect adjudicated by dice.

The next step in this logic train is the GM "Killed" the PC because the party was unable to defeat a monster, or chose to attack one player over the other.

If the only value of this thread is to discuss points from another thread that were not even included in the OP then this thread probably doesn't have a reason to exist.

But there have been plenty of points here that relate to points that were made in this thread, not the other thread and I've been responding to what is said here.

ciretose wrote:

This is what I have a problem with. Because you don't want bad outcomes, you feel bad outcomes are "disrespectful" or "mean" when in fact they are just the game playing out and the dice gods doing what they will.

That is what bothers me.

Why would you respond directly to me and phrase things like that? I've made some comments about preferred playstyles and enjoying a relatively low lethality game, but I haven't made any statements about what is 'disrespectful' or 'mean'. Beyond the fact that I agree with the person who apparently said that on other matters in this thread, why have you started off assuming I have a position from a thread I haven't even been involved in?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'm not going to go back to what was said on some other thread about trap death or not without reading it. I never commented on that thread and haven't been talking about that. No interest in being dragged into that discussion and I'm not going to make a conclusion from one quote that may or may not be in context.

Broadly I'm not a huge fan of overdoing it on traps because they're a tricky thing to balance, but it has little bearing to the point I was making.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
ciretose wrote:
Berik wrote:

Except part of my scenario was explicitly 'and John doesn't mind Bill not facing death'. My argument is that if these people are okay with these things, it's fine to try and give both what they want.

If different people aren't okay with these things, then you need another solution. I'm just saying that when people are okay with different players working under different assumptions then that's okay.

Then I don't care. But if John (and the majority of the group, John isn't special either) is even remotely bothered by it, then Bill needs to adjust to the group norms or move on.

Would you disagree with that?

Sure, I've been saying from the beginning that the group should do what the group as a whole wants to do. If you'd read my posts rather than tried to pull out random elements to attack a point not being made by me you'd have seen that. Bill, John, the DM and any other players should be happy. Most friends I've played with have no trouble organising that even when individuals have different tastes.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
shallowsoul wrote:
Berik wrote:


If different people aren't okay with these things, then you need another solution. I'm just saying that when people are okay with different players working under different assumptions then that's okay.

The DM needs to be okay with it more than the other players unless they want to stop being players and be the DM.

The DM is a person too. I'm not quite sure why you think I'm suggesting they wouldn't be okay with it. Do you not believe that other DM's could be okay with something that you're not okay with?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Except part of my scenario was explicitly 'and John doesn't mind Bill not facing death'. My argument is that if these people are okay with these things, it's fine to try and give both what they want.

If different people aren't okay with these things, then you need another solution. I'm just saying that when people are okay with different players working under different assumptions then that's okay.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
ciretose wrote:
Berik wrote:


It's not about giving people special treatment, it's giving people the treatment that they want.
Read that to yourself and see if you can see the problem.

There isn't a problem, but we'd be much further along in this conversation if you'd actually have a go at saying what you think the problem is. And hey, as long as we're asking questions, if Bill doesn't like to face death, John does like to face death, and John doesn't mind Bill not facing death, why is it any kind of bad thing to run the game in a way that accounts for that? The only complaint seems to be that you wouldn't find it fun, therefore nobody could find it fun.

Giving different people different treatment isn't 'special', it's the normal way of dealing with things. If I have one friend who I always greet with a manly embrace and another friend I always greet with a handshake which one am I giving special treatment to when we meet up? Or am I just giving different treatment based on what I know about them?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
shallowsoul wrote:


How about I run this by you?

Nobody really cares how long someone spends on their character but why should the DM give that person special treatment?

What about John over there who isn't good at creating backstories that take three weeks? Should he be shown any less attention?

If you say no then this will involve showing everyone special treatment etc....

In fairness, I stick to the default rules of the game. If you fail your save vs a Finger of Death then you take a dirt nap. Same goes with losing all of your hit points.

I would suggest finding a like minded group of players.

It's not about giving people special treatment, it's giving people the treatment that they want. If nobody in the group ever wants to die then I'd run a game where nobody dies. They're always miraculously saved, or come back to life, or whatever else the solution becomes. Equally if people want danger around every corner then the game can be set up to reflect things as well.

If one player wants his character to be always in danger of permanently dying, and the other player never wants his character to permanently die, then setting the game up to reflect that isn't giving either person special treatment. They're getting the treatment that they want. Now sure, if John wants to play the game where the whole party is always in danger of permanently dying then that's different. But if John doesn't care whether Bill dies or not, or if he'd prefer Bill doesn't die as well since he knows Bill's preferences, then nobody in the group is likely to be surprised when John dies and Bill escapes. And both people have gotten the treatment they wanted.

Really though, as far as I can tell you're just saying that everybody who doesn't play the way you do is having badwrongfun and playing the wrong system. I've been playing D&D for 20 years now and I've enjoyed both lethal games and times and (more often to be honest) games where death is extremely rare. If you don't think the system works for certain types of things then great, don't use it for those things! But why do you feel the need to tell people who are doing things differently from you, but still enjoying themselves, that they're doing it wrong?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

But why is it a failing as a player? That's just a 'badwrongfun' argument isn't it? If somebody else can only have fun if he's spent three weeks solid thinking about the character and writing about him before the game starts and I've spent an hour why am I right and he wrong? If he isn't monopolising game time and insisting on reading through his long background during the game then why should I say his way is a 'failing'?

Equally, some people like lethality and danger and others want their hero to be the type who always finds a way to overcome, always seeming about to die but always surviving in the end. Neither is a failing, it's just different tastes.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Say that I have a friend named Bill. Bill is a good guy, but for whatever reason it takes him about 3 weeks to come up with a character to play. In play he doesn't demand any more 'screen time' than anybody else, but he gets very attached to the character and I know he'd get pretty upset if his character died.

Where do people actually see the harm from avoiding killing Bill and setting things up so that if he does die he can come back with the same character? If I was a player who enjoyed the thrill of my character potentially dying I wouldn't be resentful if my character could potentially die but I know that Bill's would always survive in some fashion. That's just the GM trying to accommodate both players in the group.

Sure, if I had somebody in the group who would throw a fit over Bill miraculously surviving then it's a different situation. But we're all friends, if having his character not actually die is what makes him enjoy the game most and it doesn't take attention from everybody else then I'd see no harm in doing that


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I prefer rolling for stats. I like to decide what I'm going to play after rolling, trying to pick what would be fun from a selection of rolls is something that I enjoy. Point buy can be fun too and there are some people in my group who prefer that, but we tend to alternate. We do tend to eyeball things a little and allow small increases if somebody is behind everybody else, but there aren't any hard and fast rules for that.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

And on the initial topic it's totally fine to be happy with arbitrary death, but it's equally fine for somebody else to not be fine with arbitrary death.

For myself I'm perfectly happy with a game where I know that nobody can die and tension is achieved in other ways. The game that Umbral Reaver described is very much the kind of game that I'd be interested in. Even for games where death is possible (permanent death that is, plentiful resurrection magic changes things a little) I prefer it to be exceedingly rare. If a character is played relatively smart I prefer it if death can only come directly from the characters actions. Things like holding back a superior force so the rest of the party can escape or the like.

I don't expect to survive if I play stupidly and do something like charge on into an unnecessary battle when I'm on 1 hp. But in the normal scheme of things I prefer something where the characters face numerous trials and tribulations, seem to be on the brink of defeat or death multiple times, but make it through and triumph. If somebody prefers things grittier there's nothing wrong with it, but it's not my preference.

I'm the kind of person who can happily reread a book I enjoy or rewatch I movie that I like. It's still enjoyable to me even though I know what's going to happen in the storyline. If it's well produced I still feel tense at the appropriate times and still laugh at funny moments. So in a similar vein removing the threat of death from an RPG doesn't make things worse for me and it doesn't make it harder for me to get invested.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I wasn't actually all that bothered by Wash's death, but I didn't think much of the reasoning mentioned for it. My position is that a good writer should be able to build tension for a climactic scene whether somebody has just died or not. You shouldn't need to kill off a major character suddenly just before the big battle to make people believe the other major characters could die in that battle. In a way the death of Wash actually made me feel less tense for the other characters living or dying. I didn't believe it was going to be a bloodbath, so one major character already dying made it seem more like everybody else would get out okay.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The Excalibur project is funded and into the last couple of days now so I thought I'd top this. I highly recommend the first album, it makes for really nice background music on game night and I'm looking forward to the next one.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Yep! Just pledge at the $1 level and add in your pledge for what add ons and expansions you want plus shipping if needed.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I like the beefy dwarves, I think it makes them look more like another race rather than just humans with dwarfism. In Pathfinder they manage to weigh more than humans while being much shorter, so I'm happy with the hugeness. That and I find them easier to paint being so wide, which is a plus. :D


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

i think it's more that Hasbro are happy to keep lines around just ticking over, they seem to realise that not every line is going to make massive profits all the time. But shelving it or scaling it back for a while and accepting steady profits even when it isn't the 'in' thing any more, so they can try to get a second dip at the product being a hit.

Take Transformers. A lot of people have the same idea that Transformers vanished and reappeared with the movie to appeal to parents who were kids in the 80's. But apart from a few years in high school I've collected Transformers on and off since i first got Warpath as a little kid. They were only off the shelves in the US for a couple of years and were still being produced in the UK and Europe then. Even before the movie they peaked again to be a big line around Beast Wars and the Armada series of shows. I'm not a GI Joe fan in the same way, but I don't think that line ever really took an extended break either.

All that said I agree, I don't think it's very likely that Hasbro would sell D&D. It's probably more likely that the entire WotC division could be sold at some point if Hasbro decided it wasn't core business, but I wouldn't expect it. And I don't really think it would be worth the price for Paizo to buy if the option ever came up. They already have a massively successful roleplaying game, I think there would be other potential buyers who had more to gain from the purchase than Paizo even if the brand came up.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
pres man wrote:
Sign you are playing with a bad GM? This guy is the GM.

Wow, that guy was creepy...

1 to 50 of 886 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.