DeathQuaker's page

As an adult with ADD, low motivation is a common issue I have to deal with in myself a lot.

Things I do to help myself get past it:
- Set up reward systems. If I do the dishes, then I get 20 minutes video game time. If I finish going through my box of crap that needs sorting, I get buy myself a Doctor Who DVD. Etc. (This last I just thought of and it goes into affect immediately.... :) )

- Ask people to help me or keep an eye on me. One time I really needed to clean out my kitchen, throw away stuff I wasn't using any more, organize my shelves, etc. This was a lot of routine stuff that I'd easily distract myself in the process of doing, so I had a friend come over to be with me while I did it. I just needed him to chat with me and remind me what I was supposed to be working on, and it really helped me get it done and much faster than had I been alone. With some of the things you want to do -- it strikes me in particular with the learn Portuguese goal, if you ask your husband to help you out, this not only helps you achieve what you want but it should be fun time spent with your spouse. With the programming, maybe seek out some like-minded people and form a group around app creation?

- Generally just try to structure time. This is hard because I NEED structure but I simultaneously by my own nature want to reject it. But even just guidelines like, "Monday is laundry night, Tuesday is grocery shopping night, Wednesday is writing or Rosetta Stone night..." can help me be mindful of what I SHOULD be doing, not just what I WANT to be doing at that moment.

- Really bear in mind the results of what it is you want/need to do. Throw up post it notes and lists of why it is important to you to accomplish the things you want to accomplish. Don't just constantly remind yourself of the things you need to complete, remind yourself of the rewards that are awaiting you once you finish.

- Turn stuff into a game. Or get apps/devices/tools that help make them into a game. I am hell about getting myself to exercise, but I downloaded Zombies Run on my phone and suddenly I am chomping at the bit to go out and power-walk/jog (I am NOT fit so that's about as extreme cardio as I can accomplish at the moment), not because I want to exercise but because I want to play the Zombies Run game. The fact that the "game" is me power walking/jogging while listening to a story about zombies works just great.

- In the wise words of My Drunk Kitchen mistress Hannah Hart, make yourself a "To Done" list. While you may keep a to do list, also write down the stuff you accomplish on a separate list. When you acknowledge the stuff you actually get done, it makes it much more gratifying and helps you realize how much you are really capable of accomplishing, which then provides additional mental energy to keep going with the other stuff you need to do.

I HATE Golarion Goblins, hate hate hate hate them. They look like a cross between footballs and troll dolls, and I hate their random superstitiousness and their sort of weird "cute sadism." More to the point I hate that they seem to be sort of the world's mascots and more attention appears to be spent on them (a la We Be Goblins) than on other "savage races."

There, I feel better now.

I can tell you what I liked about the Forgotten Realms (as of 3rd edition; I wouldn't go near 4e's, I was too pissed off they blew half of it up, and wished they had just let the setting die with the edition):

- Heavy involvement of the gods in the plot and the importance of religion. While on one hand, I don't ever want to see a world with as many gods as FR had, I still somehow really enjoyed learning of all the gods and how they influenced and interacted with the world.

- A decent amount of development of politics and culture of each region. This is not to say other settings don't have this, but it doesn't make it less of a benefit.

- Interesting racial variants and class options; in 3e I liked a lot of their organization based Prestige Classes, which I thought was a good use of the prestige class concept; likewise some of the setting-based kits in 2e, like the specialty priests of various gods.

- Because it was fairly high power setting (even if you were playing low power characters), there was a very strong "anything can happen" feel to it, which I liked. You never went, "but that doesn't make any sense, even with magic that couldn't possibly..." you just went, "well, it's Faerun, so better roll with it..."

- The 3e setting book is really well designed, IMO.

Some things to note:
- I first became familiar with it via various video games set in it (the Gold Box games, later the Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights series). They were fun worlds to explore in that context; can't put my finger on why, but it was a really fun way to learn what the setting was about.

- I did not read much of the fiction, and what fiction of it I have read, the vast majority of it was fairly recently, long after I developed an interest in it.

- My GMs who ran FR games did not run off of modules and did not use a lot of the background NPCs/characters from the fiction in the stories save as brief cameos or mentions. The most complaints I've heard about FR tend to be that the setting's canon heroes overshadowed everything, and that GMs and/or modules would just deus ex machina one of the canon characters and thus remove the PCs from possibly being the "real" heroes of the story. That to me is more of a game (module) design issue--or in the case of a GM, someone who is obsessed with a favorite character and wants to make them the star rather than the PCs, which can happen in any setting or system--but apparently FR enabled this to happen often. But as I never experienced that, I didn't have that sort of negative experience with it.

As it compares to Golarion... I can't say too much except yes, they both seem to be of the kitchen sink variety. I've only played in a few Golarion-set games now and am still learning it. By the time I was aware of Golarion, I had already been working on developing my homebrew setting, so had no interest in running a game in someone else's, and it was awhile before I found a GM who wanted to run in Golarion.

But as it is, I don't see it as "which setting is best" or "which should I play in"? There should be no competition here. If you like multiple settings, play in them. If you have one you prefer over others, play in that. No big deal. Me, I'm in one Forgotten Realms campaign (3e setting with Pathfinder rules), one Golarion-based campaign, and I'm running a game set in my own world. Enjoying all three just fine, don't feel there has to be a reason why I shouldn't.

J.A.Kempton wrote:

while I completely understand the need to ignore a troll, or just a small minded idiot, you guys do realize that getting on "ignore" lists, is why most of the trolls do what they do, the object is to sow chaos, and push peoples buttons.

No, trolls aim to get responses. If I never see a troll's post, he doesn't get the satisfaction of having annoyed me.

Exactly. If we can make their posts invisible, they have absolutely zero chance of getting the opportunity to press our buttons. They therefore will be, in fact, ignored, and will not get the REACTION they are craving. Trolls exist only because they have an audience. If you remove the audience (by making yourself literally unable to read their posts) they don't get what they want.

While many people are good at just skipping past a poster who they know will drive them crazy, some have trouble resisting temptation, kind of like staring at a train wreck or something. That's why it's nice to have such a feature--getting rid of all temptation to look and thus respond and fall into the troll's trap.

This is one of those crazy, "I am going to twist RAW and ignore common sense to get my way" things, isn't it?

If the NPC fair and square had see invisibility up, then sensibly, the target is not invisible to him and he would just be trying to notice him with a normal Perception check against his Stealth roll. He rolled 20 and presumably had a minimum +3 to his Perception modifier. Sucks to be the guy sneaking. End of story.

If I had a player being this pedantic about the rules, they would no longer be welcome in my gaming group.

Yes, I am sure this means I am a terrible person. I can live with that.

I set myself on ignore a long time ago.

I accidentally did once. :) (Set myself on ignore, that is.)

The point is Girard's Illusions are active and enormously powerful.

"Kickstarter is not a preorder system."

If more people bothered to understand this, crowdsourcing would be in a much better state.

Mind, I trust Reaper. I backed them because I've been buying their products for years, and I thought their proposal as noted on the Kickstarter was well written. The only problem they had with their date was that they severely underestimated the number of backers they were going to get--or that they were going to hit so many stretch goals they were going to have to keep out-topping themselves with number of minis produced. And that's just a lesson to take to the future... probably with Kickstarters, better to give a generous estimate of time rather than a conservative one. If you say, "We'll get everything shipped out by next year," and then it turns out you manage to get everything shipped out in three months, people are impressed by your ability to beat deadlines and deliver. Do the opposite however, and people will just be disappointed and less likely to support the next venture.

But yes, people who think Kickstarter is just another way of preoordering products do not understand it at all.

I think a lot of us wonder if we're on someone's "list." :) (Patrick rest assured you are not on mine.) But I'll second anothermage's script, allows me to read some threads without dealing with trying to have to scroll past nonsense I do not need the temptation of reading. I still wish Paizo would reconsider implementing an official script as those can be a little more fine tuned than the way the GreaseMonkey script does it, but it'll have to do for now.

The only time the Greasemonkey script can confuse things is if someone you've blocked starts a thread. You'll see the thread but not the OP, and perhaps wonder what on earth everyone's talking about.

OTOH with how slow the board's been lately, I reckon Paizo has other concerns with regards to the site.

Also, Rynjin, if there's someone who is accusing others of "trolling" IIRC that is a flaggable offense. While perhaps not as satisfying as clicking a button and making them go away, drawing the admins' attention to that kind of behavior should go far to making them stop.

kmal2t wrote:

Sissyl wrote:

To be honest, I don't understand why rape, even as described above, would be anywhere near as terrible a crime as murder. Is it better to go on a genocidal killing spree in someone's home? I just don't get it.

Unless a whole ethnicity of people is all gathered under one very large roof I don't see how this is possible.

And America has more of a hangup with sex than violence.

Also, forced rape isn't just about sex, it's somewhat akin to torture. There's usually physical trauma in wherever was penetrated, bruises, choke marks etc. Its often meant as a sadistic act of hate to degrade, punish, humiliate, violate etc. the person to make them feel like less of a person.

I understand perfectly well that rape is a terrible crime, one often used as an "enhanced interrogation technique". What I don't understand is why it would hold a candle to the wickedness that is murder. "A fate worse than death" is only a stupid phrase. There is a reason that the threat of death often works to pacify a victim during a rape.

If we can play games where the alleged heroes enter a communal living space for an underprivileged ethnicity, say, goblins, and murder every living thing there, well, rape seems like pretty close to par for the course.

You know, I probably can't answer your question to your question to your satisfaction, but I can tell you I would much rather be killed than raped. Take that for what you will.

Celia.

Given take 10/take 20 have built in limitations, his houseruling the length of time they take really does nothing but frustrate players AND creates more work for him, because he's got to determine what's going on in those 10-20 minutes, etc. It also means, presuming he is a fair GM, that all his NPCs need to take this time to do such things. Take 10/20 is meant to be not just a convenience for players, it is also a convenience for GMs.

If he doesn't like taking 10 or 20 on searching for traps SPECIFICALLY, it would be more reasonable for him to houserule that you cannot take 10 or 20 to search for traps. The in-the-rules backing for this houserule would that he considers being near a trap significantly dangerous enough to qualify for "being faced with danger, threats, or distractions" and thus taking 10 or 20 would not qualify.

Otherwise I think he would serve himself better by leaving the take 10/20 rules as written--making sure he's read them, as their limitations are pretty clear and I wonder if he's aware of them--for his own convenience.

Also, a character who prioritizes Perception, especially if they've got high Wis and Keen Senses or similar--or in fact, the class bonuses from Trapfinding--will, as they level, become likely detect most appropriate CR traps even just making a normal die roll. In a high level game I ran (I don't know how high he plans to go), the party rogue could pretty much auto-detect any trap using its as-written detect DC, using a plain old die roll. So ultimately, if someone sets out to be amazing at finding traps, he's not going to be able to stop them even with house rules.

If he truly likes trap design, there are ways he can be clever with them without worrying about auto detection. Like, say you auto detect a trap with take 10/20. Fine. But then, you note the trigger is moving anywhere within the vicinity of a sensor implanted in the ceiling. The challenge becomes not just can you make the Disable Device check, but how do you get to the ceiling or otherwise get to the trigger to disarm it? If he's good at traps and enjoys them, he should be creative and clever enough to make them fun and exciting even if they can be auto detected. He could also even design some "Fake traps" to make the party think there's a trap they have to bypass even if it does nothing, making them delay their actions and give the bad guys time to prep an ambush or whatever.

I'm starting to get a sense that the more you are a fan of a comic, the more you will find to hate about a movie adaptation of said comic. I loved the Iron Man films, but I don't think I've ever read a single Iron Man comic book ever.

On the other hand, I actually hope and pray they never make a Wonder Woman movie because I'm certain they'd get it wrong and oh, the nerdrage...

Why it is that way has been explained several times.

I do think probably putting a brief explanation of how the .pdf security works in the FAQ would be a good idea -- while anyone should expect encrypted .pdfs from an officially published company, a little disclaimer wouldn't hurt. The suggestion to copy with the photo capture could also be included.

Since it's actually IMO much easier to photo capture than otherwise extract and edit the image anyway, I've no problem with how the .pdfs work, personally. And I'm not going to begrudge Paizo a few simple security measures.

I don't play PFS or read their forums, but I know I'm damn tired of seeing posts that ask questions within a PFS context that are posted in and get moved to Advice, Rules Questions, or Suggestions/Homebrew. One of the biggest problems is that people then read those, miss the PFS context, and further derail the discussion.

If the thread is going off topic, that's a signal to the moderator to ask the posters to stop going off topic, not to move the whole thread.

I can see how the film one would have been moved to the last and maybe some other specific instances where things go off topic, but otherwise I feel sorry for both PFS players who seem to have trouble having a conversation amongst themselves and for non-PFS players who get sucked into a PFS discussion and then don't know why the OP gets mad when they're posting what they think is a perfectly reasonable response (but has nothing to do with the PFS context in which the question was asked).

Maybe one think we can do is if we see a post that brings up PFS that is NOT in a PFS forum--even if it was originally--is to flag it for being in the wrong forum.

So boobplate is bad but boobleather is good?

At the risk of going ridiculously off topic about my personal aesthetics... I like things that look organic and flowing, and emphasize the beauty of the entire body. Because plate armor is hard and rigid, it does not compliment the softness of the female breast even if it is modeled to look like one. They often have weird necklines or other lines along them that I find disrupt the flow of the human form as well. And finally, of course, it draws the eye too much to just one part of the body, when I want to appreciate the entire form, not just one (albeit attractive) part of it. I don't mind the "sensible plate" as depicted in the original post because the example pictures in fact follow what my personal sense of aesthetics a more natural line along the body, without outlining its details in an exaggerated, hard, and garish way. Even if you can't see explicit details about the body underneath the armor (which for me is not a necessity to admire a beautifully drawn image of a woman--or any human being), it works as a single piece still to show a whole, beautiful woman.

Leather or cloth or whatever can also look awful or excellent just as metal armor can, but in the particular examples of Paizo's iconic art, for the most part the ones not wearing boob-shaped metal follow the more "flowing" aesthetic I prefer (although Amiri actually doesn't much either).

While we're here and discussing what I like in clothing designs for sexy ladies, I also hate halter tops because I don't like how it bisects the human torso. For example, Jim Lee's Huntress costume is IMO one of the ugliest superheroine costumes that didn't come out of the 80s.

And that's all I have to say on that, and I'm sorry for helping derail the conversation.

I loved it. Felt it started a little slow, and the main villain was a little cliched, but I still loved it, and would go see it again.

Really just had a ton of fun watching it, absolutely what a superhero movie should be in my personal opinion.

Forget realism. I think boob armor is ugly. I mean, it really looks pants on head dumb, funny looking. Also, only my personal aesthetics are correct, because I say so, and Paizo's art direction should follow only my personal aesthetics. (I feel like I can say this because that seems to be everyone else's assumption about their own personal aesthetics as well.)

Or we could just trust them to make the best judgements they can about such things on a case by case basis, but that would be silly.

What bothers me about the use of "rape" as slang is the joy with which it is often used (note the word "often," and do not conflate it with the word "always," please), and I have noticed this especially in the gaming community (though more often amongst video gamers than tabletop gamers).

"Aw man, we R__PED that dragon on our guild raid, it was SO AWESOME."
"I'm gonna play Zombie Kill with Bob and I am just going to r____ him so hard, it'll be great."
"By the time we finished, everything in the stronghold was r___d. We won!"

(The censorship is an attempt at respect for Paizo's rules regarding the usage of the word, I apologize if I went the wrong way about it.)

The issue is not just the use of the word out of its apparent context, it is that it is often used as a victory cry. People using that word in that way intimate that to "rape" something is to defeat an enemy in a glorious way. It suggests that "raping" someone is not only okay, it is a good thing to do, something to be celebrated.

This is a toxic, dangerous attitude for anyone to have. ANYONE can be a victim of sexual assault. More people than you think are actual victims of sexual assault. Because 1 in 5 women are raped, and 1 in 3 are sexually assaulted or abused in some way, yes, a woman might be more likely to be sensitive to the issue than a man, BUT given any man is potentially also a victim of rape and sexual assault and many men ARE victims of rape and/or sexual assault (AND they are often socially pressured even MORE to keep quiet about it and not do anything about it when it happens), this is and should be the concern of any and all human beings who has any scrap of respect for themselves, let alone for other people. A person who thinks throwing around references to sexual assault like they're nothing, let alone like they are good things that should be encouraged, is not only insensitive to ALL people around them, but also insensitive to and ignorant of the potential tragedies that could befall him or her, and quite easily so.

(((Of course that we celebrate violent victory at all, even imagined or simulated ones, is its own issue, but one deeply rooted in our collective psyche and to be explored another time, and preferably somewhere other than here and by people much smarter than I.)))

But I feel somehow we as a society, can and should strive toward avoiding associating a word we use to describe one of the most horrible and violatory acts of sexual assault with glory in battle, especially glory in pretendy funtimes battle. And I really don't feel that is an unreasonable or unrealistic expectation.

Eh. No good reason to hate. It's not as silly as high heels for fighting. It's still a layer of steel. And the 'which way weapons slide' argument only holds if the person in the armor is also wearing a gorget, etc. Boob-bump armor is as ridiculous as an overlarge codpiece, and that's how I tend to see it. Artists and writers take note, I don't see 'stacked armored babe', I see 'needs to advertise'. Which is about as flattering on a female as on a male. (However true it may be for either).

Read the article. A codpiece won't kill you if you fall face forward, even a quite large one; boob armor will, by shattering your sternum.

The author fails to take into account the one benefit of the design: distracting the opponent.

A woman doesn't need boob shaped armor to attract the kind of guy who thinks with his codpiece. Really, the options are fairly endless. :)

In fact, "look, boobs!" often works even when there aren't any. I know, I've tried. On the same person. Innumerable times. Hasn't failed yet.

Now, if you want historical boobage, I'm pretty sure I read in a book of historical costumes that some female blacksmiths (yes, they existed) worked topless, for the same reason male blacksmiths did--they got hot, and risked taking off aprons and shirts to not sweat to death. SO: there, you can have history, practicality, and partial nudity all in one. You just gotta look in the right places.

I like beautiful, full figured women in armor, but I do not need them to have boob-shaped armor for me to enjoy them. First of all, boob shaped armor still doesn't look like boobs (IMO it in fact looks ugly and dumb), and second of all if I want to look at boobs (other than my own) I'll just look at porn and not fantasy art (I mean, really, that is what the Internet is for), and third of all, while I love boobies, women turn out to have beautiful features all over their body, and having the very occasional art piece that draws the eye to somewhere other than the chest... let's be daring and nonconventional and suggest a body part like, oh, the face... that would be nice once in awhile.

And although she's more slender than full figured, I could look at Leelee Sobieski as Joan of Arc (one of the examples posted in the link) all day... hells yeah.

And the last picture, the fantasy drawing, that woman is damn sexy. That's the kind of fantasy artwork I'd love to see more often.

Do your players pull this kind of crap on you?

No. I am able to avoid relationships like that; as soon as I see one like that potentially developing, I avoid that toxic person entirely and certainly do not invite them to play games with me.

(And now I don't know if Turin's is a placeholder or I should start with his number or his puts it into place; am assuming the latter and if I screw it up, I am sorry. Also, late to this so apologies if I accidentally repeat one, read through as best I could but might have missed some.)

396. Because that one guy all done us wrong, and together we'll get our revenge.

397. You all belong to the same organization and are assigned to a mission.

398. You're the only ones left and there's no way you'll survive unless you work together.

399. Because your planet's just been destroyed, and they're the only ones who'll give you a lift out of the solar system. Also, they gave you a towel.

400. He looked like a trustworthy adventurer.

401. I kidnapped some schoolteachers once for stalking my granddaughter, and then decided I liked traveling with a group after all.

402. They're the only ones who know your secret.

403. We all woke up with these cursed tattoos on and now have to do what the evil tattoo artists say.

404. We all know the world will end if THING doesn't happen, and no one else believes us, so we have to go out and do that THING, because we like the world, it's where we keep our stuff.

405. Turns out my godparents were Harpers, and now they won't leave me the hell alone.

406. 'Cause the prophesy said so.

407. All of us won a Golden Ticket.

408. It was join them or die.

409. Because we're big damn heroes.

410. Because the GM won't start the campaign until we all come up with how we know each other.

411. We were once a crack commando unit sent to prison by a military court for a crime we didn't commit. We promptly escaped from a maximum-security stockade to the underground. Today, still wanted by the government, we survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem... if no one else can help... and if you can find us... maybe you can hire...

Good point. There was also Mal Young alongside Julie on Series 1, and Piers Wenger and Beth Willis in between Julie and Caroline. Also, Phil Collinson, a producer under Russell and Julie, was credited as Executive Producer for some of the episodes he didn't directly produce, and I gather he had about as big a role as Julie or anyone else apart from Russell.

I personally think that the show has been the most successful, creatively speaking, when the main producer is also an experienced writer... (With Verity Lambert being an exception...)

Thanks, I knew there were some others with somewhat briefer tenures, but the crew list I was looking at was confusing so I pulled out the key players. And yes, Phil Collinson was a huge part of getting the new series going, I forgot about him so thanks for bringing him up.

I think the thing about Verity Lambert was that she might not have been a writer per se, but she was a creative person with strong vision who was able to push her way past the BBC's tendency to nix anything nonstandard. It's a quality shared with those who also tend to make good writers.

The Eccleston through Tennant years were led dually, by a showrunner/head writer/producer, Russell T. Davies, and a primary producer and executive producer, Julie Gardner. While RTD as head writer was paid greater attention to than Julie Gardner, she still contributed majorly to the show's direction. (There is a lovely tribute to the important role BOTH people played in forming the new Doctor Who series, here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giaMRyn47Xg, performed by three people who should look vaguely familiar.)

The Smith years, these roles are filled by Stephen Moffat and Caroline Skinner, respectively.

I point this out because whether you dislike or love the new series, these ladies deserve at least some credit for a lot of what you love or hate, whether the focus is on them or not. :)

The difference is simply that the head writer has now been given more credit/authority. It's now head writer>producer, where it used to be producer>script editor. The real question, then, is which do you think works better?

My own answer to that is, I really don't know. I think it depends upon WHO it is and how well they do. It also depends upon their skill at hiring other creative folks to round out their team. In the case of all teams discussed, they all have their strengths and weaknesses. They have done things I've loved, and things I've hated (for old who, I particularly am NOT much of a fan of Eric Saward, even though I generally love the 5th Doctor era, but I more preferred the more philosophical elements in episodes like "Kinda" and "Enlightenment" which Eric Saward had less influence on, IIRC).

I do think you need a team of people, but as Doctor Who has always had that and as far as I can tell, always will, so that's well and good.

Because most of us would rather indirectly make ourselves look like idiots than admit we're wrong or at least that we overlooked something.

Human beings are not rational.

I agree talking is the best solution, but I think far to often it is approached as "You are causing me a problem" rather than "I have a problem I would like addressed, please."

This is a good point. I don't know who'll pay attention to this, but here's DQ's unsolicited advice on effective communication (this is coming from my training in conflict resolution, mediation, and active listening):

There are four (basic) styles of communicating or dealing with conflict:

Aggressive: "YOU are MAKING me SO MAD!" The focus is on the other person's behavior; the person is made to be "responsible" for the communicator's feelings (even if, due to misunderstanding, they are actually not). Aggressive person vents frustration but does not identify real causes or solutions, and deflects his own participation entirely. Extreme aggression can also go to violence. Ciretose's example of "you're the one causing the problem" is a (mild) example of an aggressive statement.

Passive: Not doing anything. Sucking it up and being miserable, or even trying over-hard to be accommodating. While this can be fine for the other party in a conflict, it means that someone is miserable (and will become increasingly so) and that will influence their behavior. In games, the passive person is upset but never tells anyone, but both they and their character just slowly starts to withdraw from interacting with the group, and nobody understands why. A passive person who is confronted about it who does not want to communicate asserively will likely respond passive-aggressively.

Passive-Aggressive: "No really *sigh*, do whatever you want *roll eyes*, I'm fine." Passive-aggressive person never actually communicates frustration, but expects his anger to be read from body language, which may be overlooked or interpreted. Passive-aggressive people kind of want others to be telepathic, and even expect others to know how they feel without ever clearly communicating it. Passive-aggressive people also "take out" their frustration on others indirectly; in gaming, good examples are GMs unfairly attacking or trying to kill PCs of players who are annoying them, or players unfairly trying to bend or break rules or find ways to "destroy" the campaign--without ever either side directly communicating what's really bothering them. Passive-aggression can actually be one of the most infuriating and blocking ways of dealing with conflict, because nothing is ever actually communicated but all sides kind of expect the other to understand hwo they feel, and methods of "problem solving" create more problems and cause more anger (e.g., PC killing).

Assertive: "I feel overwhelmed and frustrated because you are talking over other people during combat, which is both unfair to the others because they can't be heard over you, and makes running the game very distracting when everyone is talking at once." The prior is an example of an "I statement" (I feel (emotion) because you are (description of behavior) and (concrete explanation of why the behavior is influencing the emotion described). You don't always have to word it that way exactly (it can feel awkward) but it includes important elements:

- By saying "I feel" - you are OWNING your reaction. You're also making yourself instantly part of the process of resolving the conflict, which is very important. You are not putting the weight of your own feelings or the responsibility of resolving your feelings on the other person.

- By explicitly describing the emotion you feel, people know exactly what's going on with you, you aren't forcing them to guess, a la passive aggression. This allows them to help respond in a more constructive way.

- By identifying the BEHAVIOR the person is doing, this separates "you" from the _activity_ that is being frustrating. "You" might be the guy who is usually a nice person who brings donuts to every game--he just also happens to be disruptive during combat. Statements like "you make me mad" attack the whole person, both their good traits and bad--they boil down to "YOU ARE A BAD PERSON." Saying "you are doing X wrong" implies not "YOU ARE BAD" but "this BEHAVIOR is bad." This is a majorly important distinction. Addressing the behavior, not attacking the person, is key.

- Addressing the behavior also makes the person clearly identify what exactly they are doing wrong. It is entirely possible they have no idea. Some things that may be obvious to you are not obvious to others. In the example of being disruptive, the person may simply be so excited about the game he is not recognizing that others are talking or that they might be hurt by his interrupting them. The additional qualifiers offered -- "unfair" and "distracting" -- helps explain exactly what is wrong with the behavior and why he is going to be asked to change it.

A lot of times, just communicating this way can end an argument before it even starts. In distracting guy's example, he might say, "Oh my god, I had no idea I was stepping on other people's toes. I just get really excited. I'll try to hold it back. Can you give me a nudge if I start doing it?"

Now, someone might react very negatively still--there's no way you can guarantee how someone will respond. But this opens things up a hell of a lot more for dialogue AND resolution than simply attacking, ignoring, or trying to circumvent the problem without dealing it. And the person as above might even offer solutions.

When seeking solutions, you can involve the other person. "What can we do to try and make this less of an issue?" Offering yourself and the person makes this a team effort rather than a "versus" situation--which is the real crux of dealing with arguments. Often people are really on the same side--or at least find some points of agreement. Turning "you versus me" into "us" can negate an awful lot of bad vibes.

Another key factor in communication is acknowledging how other people feel. Whether you're initiating a discussion with a problem person, or you are being addressed as a "problem person" -- it doesn't matter. An easy thing to do is to repeat back and summarize what the person said. If something's not clear, ask questions.

"Okay, you said I made you mad. What did I do that made you mad?" That can turn a verbal attack into an opportunity for someone to start communicating more assertively rather than aggressively.

Sometimes just acknowledging how someone feels can be ridiculously HUGE in turning an argument or tense situation into one that's resolved. Doing some customer service for a magazine I worked for, I got an irate customer on the phone, who was receiving magazines on behalf of his father, who recently passed away, and his requests for canceling the subscription had not been processed. While I apologized for the problem and told him it would be handled, he stayed on the phone and kept yelling at me--and he really was yelling. I realized this was not yet resolved. All I said was, "Sir, I understand you must be going through a very difficult time with your father's death, and I can understand why you're so angry, that not only did we not process your subscription cancellation, as long as you keep getting these, you're reminded of him. I'd absolutely be angry too!" "Oh," was his first response, in which his tone of voice COMPLETELY changed. "I-I'm sorry if I was yelling, yes, this really is a difficult time. Thanks so much for your help." The last sentence spoken almost sounded like an entirely different person--his anger, his yelling, his giving me a hard time was gone in a flash. The keys were that I didn't take it personally, and thus started to fight with him, and that once he realized he had been heard and understood, he was done with the anger, and the call ended successfully.

All most of us want is to be understood. It is amazing and sad how often we don't feel that we are. Showing someone we do understand them--or are trying to--can go extremely far in resolving a situation. It is really crazy how well it works.

The final key in good listening--which is essential in good communication--is listening completely before speaking. Never ever ever interrupt. This is hard because a lot of local cultures at least tend to encourage talking but not listening, and we're essentially trained to interrupt to "Get our word in." Just watch pundits talk on the news--it's just a mess of people talking over each other, and nothing actually being heard. But it's really important to be mindful of what other people are saying, and not just try to react right away if they're not done. And if you do this, it's more likely someone will respond in kind---and it gives you the ground to ask to be treated the way you treated them if they don't. I had a conversation fairly recently with someone who was mad at me over a situation; I listened to her all the way through without interruption, and then I summarized what she said to make sure she understood. Then I started to respond, and she immediately started to talk over me. I straightened and asserted, "Did I ever interrupt you when you were talking just now?" "No," she had to admit. "Could you please do me the same courtesy?" "Sorry. Yes, I'll do my best."

The harder part when dealing with a difficult person is staying calm yourself. The less combative you are, and kindly assertive you remain, the less ground they have to remain combative themselves. And if you are really being attacked, it is really hard not to just fight back. In extreme situations, it might be all you're left with. But in a lot of cases, if you can try to stay calm, and try not to take what's said personally, it's a heck of a lot easier to find a way out without fighting.

Now, in the end, some people are going to be asshats no matter what you do or say. And in that case, f@@*'em. But until you've clearly communicated assertively your issues and done your best to get them to do the same, it's absolutely worth trying that. Fighting, forcing someone to leave, etc. should always be the last resort, the last alternative. You should always give a person a chance to be a decent human being, and that starts with behaving as respectfully and assertively as you can yourself.

TL;DR: Speak up, own your own feelings, resolve behaviors not attack people, and listen listen listen listen.

Back to your regularly scheduled gaming.

A great big "+1" to almost everything on your list, ciretose (and a +99 to a few items). I do have one disagreement, though:

ciretose wrote:

12. If you think the GM stinks, run your own game to show how you think it should be run. If the rest of the group agrees with you then changes will come. If not, you'll learn how hard it is to be on the other side of the table and be more likely to...well...STFU.

Perhaps it wasn't your intent, but this one makes it sound like if I've got a grievance with how my GM does things, my only two options are to do it myself or shut up. But what if I'm new to the game and wouldn't know the first thing about GMing, but I know it's not fun that the only time my GM rolls behind a screen is when attacking my high-AC character (who subsequently gets hit more consistently than any other party member)? If I'm not better at GMing than him, then I can't protest unfair treatment?

Newbies aside, some people just aren't cut out for GMing. What if I'm such a person? Am I therefore not allowed to take issue with anything the GM might do? What if my GM and I are BOTH the type of person who isn't cut out for GMing?

What if every player at the table hates that the GM uses (or doesn't use) a crit/fumble deck, but none of the players has the time needed to GM in their stead (perhaps the GM is only the GM because he's the only unemployed person in the group)?

There are lots of reasons that a player with a very legitimate grievance might be unable to do a better job, or even GM at all. "Do it yourself or shut the f*** up" means that such a player's concerns are always automatically invalid. That doesn't seem right to me.

Though I understand the intent, I agree that the wording of the item is troubling. I also just don't like the idea of "become a GM just to show someone how to do it right" as a motivation for becoming a GM.

For dealing with GM vs player issues, this is what I'd offer as advice/guidelines:

* If you are unhappy with how a GM or player is handling something, TALK TO HIM/HER ABOUT IT, civilly, courteously. Assert your feelings on the matter clearly, but also acknowledge and be mindful of the others' point of view and feelings. When the other person responds, listen without interruption (and ask them to do the same for you), and acknowledge what they say and how they feel, whether you are about to agree or disagree. Try to work out conflicts like this. Be willing to compromise within reason, and be willing to take no for an answer when a clear and rational reason is given.

* If you are a player and having trouble with a fellow player, talk to the player about it, using the guidelines above. If that doesn't work, go to the GM and ask for help mediating the issue. If the problem player is agreed to be a problem player by everyone in the group, have a group chat with the problem player.

* As a last resort, if you are unhappy with a game and are unable to find a mature solution through discussion and compromise, then leave and find another group. Or, if you feel inclined, start your own group as a GM. Different people have different playstyles and sometimes unfortunately they just don't mesh well; and moreover, some personalities were not designed to work well with others. Sometimes it's better for all concerned to cut loose and find people you work together better with. Likewise if there is someone else who is just not being willing to work at all with the group, sometimes you just have to ask them to leave.

* Remember above all what you are doing is playing a cooperative game whose chief purpose is for all involved to have fun. If you or someone else is not having fun, something is wrong. Do your best not only to have fun and assert what you need to have fun, but also to ensure that all around you are having fun as well.

((I know some of the second to last is covered by the "you are replaceable" items, but I felt it warranted revisiting in another light.))

God there are so many things wrong with giving men a +2 to Str but all I'll say is this:

Do you really want to make the tabletop gaming scene even less appealing to women than it already is? Then go ahead, introduce sexual dimorphism where all men are stronger and all women are more charismatic (or as someone else put it, more 'manipulative'. Wonderful.)

And that's what this all comes down to: following "realism" or whatever the hell you want to call it (although I could argue for days about the validity of that)...crap like this just pushes whole sections of people away. Women, gays, trans* folk, PoC, whatever... It's not cool.

(And as an fyi, I think the 'men are stronger on average' thing is covered by making most average, commoner men have 11 Str and women have 10 Str. The difference is really that small and irrelevant.)

Not to mention for character creation, you are creating heroes who are unusual and above or below average in various ways, so it doesn't often matter, on average what someone's physical strengths and weaknesses are.

And more to the point as you say, trying to translate the differences in physical difference between the average male and female (and where there are a VASTLY broad set of outliers for both) into D&D style stats comes to a negligible difference. You can say, on the average, men have more upper body strength than women, but when it comes to the abstractification in this particular game system, the differences are largely irrelevant and all the more so when you are creating characters who are meant to be extraordinary, outlier types anyway.

Why there are people who thinks it's so IMPORTANT to put in a difference mechanically, especially when ultimately what they are urging is EXAGGERATING the differences between the average male and the average female, I really do not understand, and I am not sure I ever will. I mean, I have seen people argue about this matter with life-or-death vehemence, which I'm sorry, is just really messed up. It's a game, one where people's health is listed as points and that a person is perfectly well until suddenly all those points are lost, one where our ability to defend ourselves lumps both damage absorption and ability to dodge into one score, one where statistically a fight between a housecat and a peasant will result in the housecat winning... you want to complain about how the abstract numbers in the game fail to simulate "real life," there are better and more valid targets.

Question: Why should the sexes allowed to be married by the state be restricted to one or several religions' sacrament, when marriage can and does occur without the involvement of the church?

This one bothers me, with the correlating question: my church marries both opposite sex and same sex couples. Why is only one union considered legally valid? (In my state, as of January, both unions are now considered legal, but that doesn't help federal issues. And it didn't help my friend several years ago when his husband died and the state could not recognize him as a valid next of kin [my friend who died left a will, but his parents contested it, which was a nasty awful legal battle that didn't need to happen and only could have happened because their marriage in our church was not acknowledged as legal]).

It seems that if the government is going to acknowledge church marriage as a legal means of recognizing domestic partnership, then it should acknowledge ANY and ALL marriages. Otherwise in the U.S. anyway this violates our purported separation of church and state, not only because it is letting religious views influence legislation, but also because they are favoring one religious view over another (favoring the religions who condemn homosexuality over the religions which marry same sex couples).

Alternately, NO church marriages whatsoever should be considered legal and all adults wishing legal domestic partner status with another consenting adult will have to seek civil unions in a court of law. They can get married by their church if they have one as a separate but not legally acknowledged ceremony. This might even be the best solution. Unfortunately, while technically we are a secular nation, the actions and beliefs of our representatives often prove themselves to the contrary.

Of course no law should force any church to perform a marriage they do not wish to perform--but I've never seen any proponents of same sex marriage or unions suggest such a thing, personally, and would think it ridiculous if someone did. After all, a church can refuse to marry anyone based on any number of reasons--for example, we usually only marry a couple if at least one is a member of the meeting. But the government acknowledging some church marriages and not others, that's just unfair and, IMO, unconstitutional.

And the U.S. needs to acknowledge same sex marriages. A friend's South African wife was deported when her work visa expired, and she had no path to applying for citizenship especially as she was not considered legally married to my friend. Even if our state now acknowledges same sex marriage, that doesn't stop stuff like that from happening.

To the OP: Players can choose whatever sexuality for their characters they like. I choose a variety of sexualities for my NPCs. Largely it's just a matter of flavor and personal preference, as the game tends to focus on adventuring and not romance.

In terms of romance itself, regardless of who is involved with whom, any intimacy is considered handwaved as an off-scene event. Flirtation and whatnot as fine.

In my campaign world, the god of community feels the reason there are some people inclined to partner with members of the same sex is to provide a basis for families who can take in orphans and abandoned children; since they would not procreate naturally on their own, they are an excellent choice to provide a loving family for parentless children. Therefore, some pious folk believe same sex couples should be strongly encouraged to marry and adopt children should the opportunity arise. :)

As to RL matters, I'd prefer to chat about it in the TLGB gamers thread. But if a GM tells me that I as a queer person am not welcome or gives me a hard time because I say a character of mine is queer, then I will not play with that GM. I certainly, in line with my religious community's beliefs, will pray for him/her and hope she/he can some day open her heart to be more tolerant and compassionate, but there's no point in trying to force anyone to change what they believe or who they are--just as there is no point in my trying to foster a relationship (even if it's just that of GM/player) with someone I know in some respect is hateful/intolerant of something that is a part of me, something that I know God made part of me on purpose.

Planescape? Don't get me wrong, I liked the game (haven't finished it yet),

Then get back to us when you do. Seriously, you need to see the whole thing to the end before you start passing judgment--true for any game, thrice so for Torment. I can understand parts making you not want to see to the end... but do it. Keep going.

Then let us know what you think. And, you might hate it. But it is absolutely worth seeing.

All the games you discuss are good, and I agree on Arcanum... there's a lot of potential there but much of it fell flat for me personally.

'Cause gamers.

And 'cause people take stuff said personally when it wasn't meant that way.

And 'cause people don't read carefully and take stuff out of context and then a fight starts over the stuff out of context.

In conclusion, we should probably all improve our reading comprehension and get therapy. And probably also get laid.

Not gonna happen though.

To the origins of drow, that actually goes back to Nordic mythology (the Prose Edda in particular), describing fair elves who lived above ground (in Alfheim), and black-skinned elves who lived underground. Now, these dark elves (svartalfar) might also have been synonymous with or equated to dwarves (dvergar) but were given a separate name.

So if you want to debate the black elves' origins and why they are the way they are, you'll have to go back in time and have a chat with Snorri Sturlason.

I can understand really wanting to badly try a build, but at least with me, I've got half a dozen "want to try" concepts in my head at once, so if one isn't allowed, certainly one of the others are---or the GM's campaign parameters inspires a new idea. Maybe some people only have one idea at a time? I don't know.

I think it depends on degree of character requested too, about whether a player is behaving reasonably. Most experiences I've had with players asking for something outside the boundaries laid are usually REALLY specific and to support a solid, campaign friendly concept, like, "You said core only, but can I have this feat from Ultimate Combat so I don't provoke AOOs when I shoot in melee? Otherwise I'm afraid my archer's going to get screwed in close quarters."

That's actually okay, I think--at least okay to ask! And usually if it makes sense and is reasonable, I'll allow it.

But if you're going, "Core only please," and THEN, after that's been established, somebody says, "Okay, here's my vishkanya magus, and that first level spell is from a Golarion setting book even though your game isn't set in Golarion, and that first level feat he has is from a 3rd party book you've never heard of before, and I won't play unless you let me play this exact character or I'll scream and scream and scream, " then that kind of player isn't looking to have fun playing a cooperative game. That kind of player is looking to have fun playing a power and control struggle with the GM, and trying to see how much s&+@ he can get away with before the rest of the group snaps and kicks him out. And that's where I'm like, "Okay, scream away, but I guess you won't be playing with this group."

(Now, if I got together with a small group of players and we all said, "hey let's play an RPG. And in that RPG, I want to play a vishkanya magus. If you're willing to run, would you let me play that?" That's a different conversation entirely.)

I think the problem with discussions like this is people assume extremes (the GMs with the gnome only campaign and the players with the 3rd party vishkanya magi presented to the core game), but most requests in my experience anyway are more reasonable than that, on both sides of the table.

If we can agree that we both wouldn't enjoy the extremes... well, we'd probably not have much else to talk about.

You know the more I think on this... this is less to do with entitlement--on the players' or the GMs' parts--and more to do with trust.

If you're in a group where the GM trusts the players to design characters well and within the parameters of the campaign (and push at the boundaries only with good reason), and the players trust the GM to make fair decisions about what is and isn't allowed--that even if they wouldn't run their own game in the same way, but they trust the GM is doing what they're doing for good reason---that group will have fun. It won't matter if they're playing the all gnome cleric campaign or are using every rulebook ever (possibly from multiple systems). If the players and GM trust each other and their main goal is not only to ensure their own fun but everyone else's, things will work out. Some situations might require compromise, negotiation, and all in all generally good communication, but it'll all work out.

If you don't trust your GM to be fair, it doesn't matter what he is or isn't allowing. If you don't trust a player to build well, appreciate the campaign setting, or play well with others, it doesn't matter what character he's building with what rules. It's not going to end well.

And if you can't find a GM or players you trust, then it's time to find a better group. Or play online more. Or maybe even just take some time to make some more friends.

Kirth Gersen wrote:

ciretose wrote:

Or as a GM, I have a story idea I want to run.

Without asking the players what they're interested in, or soliciting their input? You just say, "this is the game I'm going to run, take it or leave it"?

Here is how the last few campaigns I have been a part of have run.

GM Emails all of us: "I want to run a Viking Campaign. If you are interested e-mail me."

GM Emails all of us: "I want to run a Pirate Campaign. If you are interested e-mail me."

GM Emails all of us: "I want to run "X" Adventure Path (vary to flavor). If you are interested, email me." ((Snip))

This is how the gamers I know do it too. For example, I usually email anywhere from 6-20 people describing

1. What system I am running
2. What books I am using
3. The setting it takes place in
4. How many players I'm looking for
5. How often and when the game will take place

I then ask them to respond to me to let me know whether they are interested and available.

The people uninterested and unavailable simply say so. And given there's a huge group of us who are all gamers, they aren't short on finding other games or running their own, if they don't want to play in mine or their schedule doesn't suit mine.

I almost always get enough people interested and willing to work with the parameters I've set to get going. The only time I haven't gotten enough people is when the time I've set for the game doesn't work with people's work/family/other gaming schedules. Hell, negotiating time to play in our groups is the real difficulty, not negotiating setting and campaign restrictions.

Works very well for us, no drama.

Now, sometimes a group of players will do the other way around, approach a GM and ask him to run a campaign they'd like to play in--but normally the GM they'd ask is someone they've run with before and are asking him specifically because they like the way he runs, thinks he would be best suited to run the campaign, and trust him to make fair decisions about what is and isn't allowed, so there wouldn't be restriction drama there either.

How otherwise would it even work? Do people tie would-be players to chairs and say YOU MUST BE IN MY CAMPAIGN OR ELSE BWA HA HA?

This I can understand. Though I have seen new GMs allow outside of core content and a fairly good job at it. Though either they had a good players who knew the rules and/or have been a player before hand. Also eventualy a new GM is not so new anymore. So why hold on to "Core Only"?

Well, you appear to have a very specific GM in your mind that maybe is more experienced than I am assuming?

A) I was talking about different reasons I have done core only in past, and B) otherwise, all I know about the otherwise hypothetical GM we are discussing is that he only allows core. I don't know how experienced the hypothetical GM is or all the things hypothetical GM could be thinking. So I assume that one possibility is the hypothetical core-only GM could be inexperienced.

If an experienced GM chooses core-only, then there can be a bevy of other reasons, including the inexperienced players bit, the "fits my setting best bit," the "I don't have time to read or test more materials" bit, and so on.

And frankly, I think "because I damn well feel like it" is also a valid answer to "why." You may disagree or dislike that response, but it's a valid response regardless. Most human beings are generally anything but rational.

In general when dealing with a new player I limit them to core for creating their characters. Though as the characters level up they are free to pick options from other books. Now here the odd thing I noticed most the core only characters end up a lot more powerful than those characters who have other options.

A player talented at character building will actually often do well with limited options, because he or she is challenged to take few options and work with them in the best possible combinations.

While talented players can also manipulate supplemental rules to find unexpected power combos (depending on what's available in the source material), it is also easy for many players to get distracted by additional rules, and cherry pick from the broader array without much benefit--creating jacks of all trades, master of none. Which in fact is another argument toward sticking with core only. :)

NOW, that said, if the only RPG you've ever played is Pathfinder, I can also see why you may think that. Core Pathfinder is pretty powerful, and many splat archetypes are actually weaker than the classes they alter. That's a phenomenon I've very specifically seen in this game, but few others.

Also with new players because I encourage the idea of character concept is I ask them what they want to do...than guide them in making their characters.

That's a good idea regardless of how many sourcebooks you're using.

As for spending money...Pazio does have all the Rulebooks online for free.

That's great for Pathfinder, but I was talking in general about RPGs; for example I mentioned 3.5 which definitely did not have many books available in the SRD (in fact, my 3.5 games were often "SRD only" in part so everyone had access for free--but it was a lot less than the book line available).

And the statement about time to read the rules still stands, and is I think the more salient issue.

Also, for Pathfinder, only the RPG line books are in the Pathfinder Reference Document. I know the third party d20pfsrd.org has a lot of the setting books, but I had a vague memory they have decided not to add additional materials from those lines at Paizo's request. I could have dreamt that though.

As for the "competeing...this is where my experience just differs I guess...I have created characters using Core Only in campaigns that allow all the other books and felt I was just as powerful...if not more so than those PCs. While I understand this perception I just find it untrue and really try to show my players that.

I think this depends a lot on personal experience. I've definitely have had the experience I've discussed, it's not just something I've heard on the message boards. I think more often in my earlier years than now, but my experiences tell me it's something to be wary of, even if ultimately my wariness can be set aside once I know what kind of players I am working with and what their concerns and desires are.

I understand the time thing....but you do realize I also have a busy life with work(hopefuly more busy sooner), family, other interest, friends that don't game. It is not like I am one of those gaming trolls that breath...eat...sleep RPGs. When a new books comes out...I set aside the current novel I am reading or while watching a TV show that does not require my full attention read through it. Now I do enjoy reading books of new options and rules because of the ideas both as a GM and player that can grow from it.

Wasn't saying you were, so don't take it personally. Some people still have varying time that they are not willing to spend reading new game books. They don't want to or feel they can't set aside that novel or TV show or playing with their kids or going shopping or visiting their sick father in the hospital or whatever. There is absolutely nothing that should obligate a person to read every game book ever that comes out just because it exists. If you like to and make the time to in your busy life, great. Not everyone can or wants to, however.

That's personal preference. It is what it is, and you can't change somebody's gaming preferences any more than you could change their favorite color or flavor of ice cream (or whether they even like ice cream at all).

Though also I am not required to read anything till a player wants it for his PC...than it is a couple of pages?

Depends on what it is--and it depends on how much research you need to do to see how the abilities you combine with other stuff. Just depends.

And lastly the issue the "brokeness"...my policy is simple nothing is broken till I see it happen during a actual game. I really don't care what happened in GM Bob's game...or the reams of paper somebody does to figure out the odds.

First, in ANY RPG I run, I always run core only first to be sure I know what the essence of the game feels like as the developers intended. THEN I decide whether I want to add on or not. That way anything that is thrown my way, I have the core baseline to compare it to.

Secondly, while agree it's always worth testing something before deciding what to do with it--if YOU DON'T HAVE TIME TO TEST IT, then it's safer--maybe not better or preferable, but safer--to just not use it.

Again, time. Time time time.

Also, there is a problem I have experienced where a rule is allowed in game, and then midway through the game, its brokenness is discovered. Depending on the game, it may be very difficult to change that rule mid-game. Especially if a player has built his entire character around that mechanic--you change the rule, you bork the PC and how it works. Ideally, you talk to the players and agree on a way to fix it, but depending on the rule you're changing it can cause a lot of problems which moreover waste gameplay time figuring it out. If the problem is anticipated, and the rule changed or not used from the get go, you avoid wasting that time later.

I also consider that if I have actively played in a game where I have seen something broken, I have personally experienced it and consider that valid enough to ban it in my game.

A interst side note...the best way I cam up with 'fixing' 3.5 was to ban most of the stuff from core.

Given I had a thoroughly pleasurable and easy time running core only 3.5 games, I never felt a need to "fix" it.

Quote:

5. Some of the splat material doesn't work with my world. I've got a world I've spent 10 years working on, some splats fit in fine, others have parts or wholes that don't at all. For example, a core part of the concept of the world is there is no such thing as firearms, so obviously, all the gunny bits of Ultimate Combat are out.

Agreed but this is not about a core only game.

But if a GM said, "I am running core only because only core works with my world," then that's a reason to run core only.

Again, maybe not a reason you like or agree with, but a reason.

Quote:

I am sure they do..I would probably also. But you can always have more fun. Also I can say the inverse is true...more rule can lead to having more fun.

Sure (although I personally have fun with a slightly lighter rules approach, that's just my druthers). But it depends on the players and GMs and what they want to do and what works for them. You asked why some people prefer core only. I did my best to explain why I myself have restricted splats, with branching out to further hypotheticals as to why others may do the same, and that's all I can do. All I can hope is that I answered your questions. My answers may not be what you wanted to hear, but this isn't a multiple choice quiz with one right answer. It's all about preference and POV.

And really either way, whether it's core only or with a billion splats, if you're enjoying yourself, who cares how other people do it? I mean, I guess that just means I wasted my time trying to answer your inquiry, but in the end, if people find a group that they play well with whatever rules are or aren't allowed, then that's all you can hope for, and the whys of it really don't matter as long they do what works for them.

Agreed never said I show up with x character...typicaly we generate characters during the first session...so typicaly no one shows up with a character made...I just love asking them why they are banning entire books of options. It is also a good test. If a GM says he is banning everything outside of 'Core' because he founds everything broken...chances he is not a skilled GM able to roll with a players action.

I've run several "core only" or "core + limited additional material" campaigns for the following reasons:

1. I was an inexperienced GM still learning the rules, and I didn't want more rules to have to learn on top of the basic ones. I wouldn't say I was unskilled, but I was inexperienced. And the only way you become an experienced--and skilled, for that matter--GM is starting somewhere. In fact, most of my experiences where a new GM starts out using ALL the books, those campaigns get ridiculously messed up quickly, as the GM starts getting confused about what is where. It's also hard if you are an inexperienced GM working with experienced players--while this can also be a boon, if the players know the splats better than you do simply because they've been playing longer, it can lead to difficulties.

And let me reiterate: GMs have to start somewhere. They don't burst fully formed from Zeus's skull with a d20 in their hand. And a BETTER GM is going to absolutely learn the core rules inside and out before they move on to the supplements.

2. I was running a game for inexperienced players who did not own or have access to the supplementary books. I did not want to use material they would either find overwhelming or hard to access or make them feel like they had to spend money to "compete." There's a also the "option paralysis" issue thejeff mentions. In fact I'm setting up a new campaign IRL and am allowing more than core, and some new players told me they felt overwhelmed.

3. I didn't have time to "screen" supplementary books. I often ran 3.5 "core only" because there was such a HUGE amount of material out there, and often in a given book there would be a mix of things, some of which were fine and others were way broken. If I spent all my time reading through books learning what worked and what didn't work I wouldn't have any time to prepare or write the adventure. (And where the "brokenness" comes in isn't, "all of it is broken," it's "I know some of this is broken and I don't have time to fix it, so let's stick to what we know works"). Other times I would simply have players run by me whatever supplementary material they wanted to use, and I would okay it on a case by case basis.

4. Let me reiterate: time factor. It takes time--and money--to read through supplements. Some people have the time to collect and read EVERYTHING. It's all they do and it's their only or primary hobby. Others game as once in awhile, and have work, family, other obligations, and other hobbies. Sitting down and reading through half a dozen supplements doesn't get worked into their routine. And the more books you add to a game, that also increases GM prep time, because when you're creating NPCs and monsters, that's that many more books you're looking through to do so (and if the supplements do introduce power creep, which some of them do, you pretty much have to use them to keep up with/challenge the players who are using the same materials).

I will say since I switched to Pathfinder I use more of the supplementary materials since there are fewer of them (from the game line only) and they come out in broader intervals, meaning I have more time to look through them.

5. Some of the splat material doesn't work with my world. I've got a world I've spent 10 years working on, some splats fit in fine, others have parts or wholes that don't at all. For example, a core part of the concept of the world is there is no such thing as firearms, so obviously, all the gunny bits of Ultimate Combat are out.

I've also had one (1) (I.) person out of a pool of dozens of players who complained I was running a core only game, and he simply opted out of joining the game with no hard feelings. That was nearly ten years ago. I've had some players present me splat stuff they want to use I hadn't explicitly okayed. Sometimes I said yes. Sometimes I said no. Either way, there was no drama, just moving on to play the damn game.

I will also say people have had fun playing the games where I used limited or no splats, and people having fun is all that matters. You should be able to have fun with a pick up game with notepaper and pencil as much as you can have fun with a game with nine dozen supplements -- the fun shouldn't be in how much money you spent on the game or how many rules there are, but in the playing and the imagination of it. And if limiting the number of books makes it more fun for the GM because it frees up time and money and prep work for him or her, all the better, because generally if the GM isn't having fun, the players definitely will not be.

1) When making a new character, should a player beforehand, tell the GM what class he wants to run and ask what materials he's allowed to use? Or should a player create the character he wants and the GM should figure out a way to accomodate him?

Yes. Although the way I would order it is the GM setting up the campaign says what source materials and such are available, and THEN the player presents his/her character concept bearing what the GM says in mind. It can end in frustration for both GM and player to create a character first and then hope it works with an upcoming campaign that you know nothing about--and can even be downright frustrating for the player if they can't get what they thought out of the build because of the parameters of the campaign. Better to design a character (or tweak an existing build if it works) FOR the campaign, where it will be more satisfying to play and easier for the GM to work with.

Now, the player can always ask the GM to make an exception and present a case for such, but the GM has of course the right to say no and for both their sakes the player should respect that. It's not just about "GM authority" but also making sure the player is going to have fun with a character that's actually going to work in the world/story.

And if the campaign's restrictions doesn't suit the player, then the player is best off finding another campaign. Some GMs and players just aren't going to get along no matter what anyway.

2) When it comes to optional materials: Is the burden on the Player to prove why he should be allowed to use certain optional spells/classes/feats etc. or on the DM to show why these materials should NOT be used?

Again, ideally at least the way our groups do things, it's the GM who steps forward and says, "I am doing a campaign, it is set in X world, it is about, X, and I am using X books. X, X, and X are not allowed because X doesn't work with the setting/campaign/story concept or X isn't well known by all players [or whatever]."

So there, the GM can explain why some materials are restricted. I would say less it's the "burden" and more just an opportunity for clarity and starting things fresh with everyone on the same page.

If players, knowing the parameters the GM has set, THEN insists on breaking those parameters but still on playing the game, then YES they need to explain why, especially if the GM was clear why the disallowed thing was in fact disallowed. After all, the player was invited to the game, with the parameters laid out clearly. If they want to accept the invitation but establish their own rules, that can veer into some serious problems, so best that's all worked out from the beginning.

I'll note that when I invite my players into a game, I do establish what is and isn't available clearly. I've had potential players, good friends in fact, say to me, "Well, I don't want to play unless we're allowed X, so I'll opt out of joining this one." And they opt out, and there's no hard feelings, and we play again some other times. Other times they might say, "I know you said no X, but if I do it this way which fits into your world like this..." then I might hear them out. I am also clear that if I do make an exception for one player, then I have to then make the exception for all players and make clear what has now become available. And if it's something allowed that the other players are uncomfortable with ("aw, I don't want X class in the game, it's broken"), then that is also something that needs to be worked out--after all, it's not just about being fair to one player, it's about making sure things are fair and happy-making for everyone.

"Dwarfism" is the name of an actual medical condition, and people who suffer from it--particularly the ones who suffer from "disproportionate dwarfism"--are known as "dwarves," and yes, they're named after the folklore, and yes, that's problematic, but it's still the medical term for now.

This is some grammary nitpickyness, but for what it's worth, "dwarves" is a Tolkienism now used standardly for the fantasy race (tales of which indeed go back millennia before Tolkien). People with dwarfism are "dwarfs."

Regardless of what they are called, our own mythlore is FULL of references to very small people -- gnomes, kobolds, leprechauns, dwarves, manikins, menehune, etc. etc. I think it is clear in context the "small races" in fantasy gaming are based upon these mythical beings. I don't think these myths are offensive, nor our references to them, as long as we don't apply a context where we compare such mythical beings to real life humans. Likewise, I hope people with giantism do not consider themselves targeted by Nordic tales of the Jotun, etc.

I think Dinklage's concerns come from an issue that hits the subject at a slightly different angle -- it's not so much that we shouldn't mention fantasy races that are of small stature, including dwarves -- but that we should not regard real human beings like Dinklage as mythical creatures. Given that little people, dwarfs, and others of small stature tend to be cast most often AS dwarves, elves, goblins, and halflings (and ewoks...) that is where the problem lies. It's a visibility problem for little people.

We can have our fantasy races, we just have to make very clear that they are fantasy races, NOT human beings of small (or large) stature--and also make efforts to make sure real life little people and dwarfs are portrayed in arenas other than as representing fantasy creatures.

God I hope that made sense.

Out of curiosity... does anyone have any insight why 'Little Person' is NOT considered offensive??

To the best of my knowledge, it was a name some persons of small stature chose for themselves. It was a name they took and owned it, that's all there is to it. If you want to know more, I suggest contacting Little People of America.

Respect is something that needs to be earned. However, it is not something that should be denied without cause.

I treat respect kind of like "innocent until proven guilty"; I presume people deserve respect until they prove to me they do not.

If you don't offer respect first, however, you're unlikely to receive it. If you offer respect, you may not receive it in kind, but you're a hell of a lot more likely to than otherwise.

I've learned this lesson multiple and myriad times in my life, from personal relationships to customer service to serving as a conflict mediator. You have to start with respect, or you have almost zero chance of ending with it.

From the other point of view, how come so many people are self-entitled jerks who think they should be able to just say anything and get away with it, regardless of how it affects other people?

Let me also clarify, as someone can misread above as that I am personally offended by Hama's post, I am not personally offended by Hama's post. Just spinning things around a bit, for the purpose of discussion.

I DO however believe there IS a culture of self-entitlement and just plain disrespectfulness that is growing in prevalence in many, especially Western societies, and the people who follow this culture then get offended when other people take offense to them--even though, in fact, their behavior is worth taking offense to.

Also, since when is taking offense, in and of itself a bad or horrible thing?

I mean, I get where in part the complaint is coming from is that yes, sometimes there are people who take personally any and everything, when very often the case is that whatever it is they're upset by actually has nothing to do with them. There's a cultural prevalence to that to... it's kind of the flipside of self-entitlement... "everything must be about me, so therefore anything said must be directed toward me"--even when that's clearly not the case.

The best thing to do in a case where someone is taking offense to something that is not actually intended to be offensive, toward them or anyone is to say, "Hey, sorry you're upset, but this isn't about you and it wasn't meant to be hurtful." They can choose to remain upset and you can't do anything about that, but you have at least tried to clarify what's going on and can go about your day.

But sometimes... it's not that.

Sometimes... people take offense... because people are being offensive.

And all the better people stand up for themselves against offensive people, so that they know they ain't gonna get away with being asshats.

But you REALLY want to stop the cycle of the offensive and the offended trading blows with each other? Treat other people with courtesy and civility. Take responsibility and apologize when you are truly in the wrong (even if unknowingly until someone pointed it out). Acknowledge other people's feelings even if you personally disagree with them (it's okay and possible to disagree with someone and still credit their viewpoint). Be aware that when someone says they are offended, they are in pain, and even if the event which causes them to say they are offended isn't actually (in your opinion) a big deal, clearly it has triggered something, perhaps from a past, legitimately painful experience. Acknowledge that trying to reason with a being that is in pain is kind of like trying to reason with a tree or a storm, and let it drop till you can talk about it with them when they've calmed down and figure out what really happen. Above all and in short, BE RESPECTFUL.

I realize what I'm suggesting is of course ridiculous and impossible to achieve, but I like to dream impossible things.

Holy crap I'm glad I missed that thread. Far as I can see, only problem with it is it wasn't locked soon enough.

Also, if a moderator says, "Start a new thread" or "look to discuss this in an existing on topic thread" and your (essential) response is "But I want to keep derailing this one!" Then frankly? Get over yourself. How hard is it to do as the mod asked?

Dakota_Strider wrote:

In defense of the GM, his Golarion (if that is actually the setting he is using) does not need to be like every body else's. The rules are just a guideline, unless you are in PFS. If he wants to run some evil races that can be a bit more "human", then he is fully within his rights to do so.

Having made that point, IF that is actually his intention, he needs to let his players know, especially if they have experience playing in a more typical Golarion campaign, that things are not the same. If this is the case, I think the way to resolve what happened, is get the group together, and tell the players to give each other a mulligan, because the setting was not properly explained.

This is not placed in Golarian and is a pathfinderized (rules) version of an old set of D&D modules. But I see peoples point. The bugbears should have probably tried to kill the PC's rather than protect their young. I am not really as "up" on my bugbears as I should be.

Contrary to apparently popular opinion, you are not expected to memorize the entire set of Pathfinder rules before becoming GM. You can only be expected to do your best. Sounds like that's all you tried to do.

Further, if you're running from module and doing your best to interpret the layout of how the characters work from the module -- first, it doesn't matter if the Bestiary (published after the module in your case) describes bugbears in a certain way, one is usually advised to go with the specifics of the module rather than the general of the rulebooks. Certainly as GM you're welcome to alter the module as you see fit.

Now, if the bugbears (or any creatures) in the module are different from bugbears in core, and the players reacted according to their player-knowledge of bugbears in core, then you've actually got a metagaming issue. When my players start assuming what a creature is like (including irrevocably evil and therefore to be killed on sight), I make them roll a standard creature knowledge check (appropriate Knowledge skill DC 10 + CR or 15 + CR if creature is rare; a bugbear would I think be something like a Knowledge (Local) DC 12 check). If they fail, you say, "You don't know whether these creatures are irrevocably evil or not, actually, you've barely heard of them." If they succeed you can provide more information, from the module or whathaveyou as you see fit. Even if the player-knowledge is correct, I still want to check character knowledge and make it clear to the players that player knowledge of creatures and character knowledge are two different things.

Just some advice for next time, to take or leave.

Golarion Dwarves have a long history of genocide.

They would make raids on Orc warrens to slaughter Orc females and children.

Likely, many viewed it necessary act, and failed to see anything evil about it.

While an interesting fact, it is unlikely to change the minds of the other PCs, especially if they're not dwarves.

I should add the fighter also has the option to try and persuade the other PCs to his way of thinking, but I'm gathering that this has already been tried and was unsuccessful.

The issue is really less about the morality/ethics of killing bugbear civilians and more about the interparty conflict. Moreover, it is not about who is right. To attempt to resolve the issue, first, take alignment out of the picture for right now. Pretend nobody has that box on their character sheet.

Everyone is playing their character to the way they believe their character would act, end of story.

It is this roleplay that has led to the conflict. The IC points of view follow, and I would use them to explore resolving the issue ICly.

One character is a fighter who attacked the women and children of an enemy race, believing he was keeping a murderous race from reproducing. He effectively committed genocide, but believes in his heart he was protecting innocents by doing so (even if the people he attacked were, if not innocent, at least--I assume--largely defenseless).

((Aside that has nothing to do with the rest of this discussion: although frankly, as a GM, I'd not play a bugbear mama as defenseless--in fact I'd probably make her ready to fight and pretty damn tough.)).

The other members of the party are committed to fighting their active enemies, but a) do not want to commit genocide, and b) are unlikely to attack the defenseless, even if they are connected to a dangerous society. I am going to assume they are likely the kind who aren't going to attack first unless a threat to them or those they are dedicated to protecting is obvious. They are all agreed on this viewpoint except the fighter.

The party has told the fighter: don't do that again, or leave. It doesn't matter whether he's right or wrong, he's the minority member of the group in this opinion.

I would roleplay it out. He's been given a choice--while he travels with his companions, he agrees to refrain from wiping out enemy camps. He is NOT being told to stop believing what he did was right. He is NOT being told to change his morals. He IS being told to curb his behavior when with the group.

He can submit to the majority, or he can leave. I'd RP this out and see what happens.

The only thing I would do out of character is discuss that you'd like to play this situation out in character, encourage roleplay, but also encourage no hard feelings with the group. I would tell the fighter player his character can leave if that's what he would do but that this is about a story element, not about punishing him for playing his character wrong, and to make sure that he has the option to bring in a new character with as good equipment, etc.

If the IC issue does blow over to OOC then it's time to have a longer talk with the group about in game tensions and try to find solutions together.

It could just be fighter-player's play style doesn't mesh with the group and everyone, including fighter-player, would be better off if he left and found another game.

But it could also be an amazing opportunity for role play, and as long as players' concerns are heard out and communication is wide open, could end up bringing the group together in the long run.

And yet also, at the same time, I absolutely meant everything I said in my first post in this thread. I just want to make that clear. Read that post, every word, I truly would stand behind it.

Perhaps I should run a 'Males Only' table at GenCon so there's a place that men can get introduced to RPG's without feeling threatened. It would also give those poor spouses that were dragged there by their wives something to do.

I by all means encourage you to run such an event, and see how it turns out.

@DeathQuaker: I could have used a mentor like you. It's all so clear now when you explain it. You're right; why am I asking other women what men want when one is sitting right here next to me?

It's a radical idea, I know, and perhaps even untested, but I feel confident in its effectiveness.

Detect Magic wrote:

I wonder if DQ knows this is a joke. Her response was real serious-like.

I don't think the term for her response is so much "serious-like" as "deadpan".

I am always and forever completely serious. I have never understood a joke before, and have never made any jokes, ever. My tongue has never been anywhere near my cheek. In fact, I have never been silly a day in my life.

On "chivalry," manners, and other things:

- Different generations do definitely have their own standards for what is polite and what is creepy. That is a different issue from gender politics, though sometimes they can intersect. Different cultures alone have different rules.

- In my own culture, I've never specifically seen men standing for women, but people will stand up when a new person enters to introduce themselves, and stand again to say goodbye. This is not gendered behavior as far as I can see. It's never been explained to me, but my sense is it's about showing respect for the individual--first, it's to pay attention to them and give proper greetings and farewells (if you stay seated when they leave, it looks like you don't care they're going), and my sense is it's rude to talk to someone when they're standing and you're seated because you are physically in a relaxed mode while they are standing (or alternately, if you are standing, you loom over them and that's kind of creepy).

- I don't care if you, man or woman, open a door for me, hand me my coat, pull out a chair for me--and likely, I will do much of the same for you (though I usually don't pull chairs out for people), and I don't expect you to think much of it. We call this courtesy.

However, if you offer to assist me in some way, and I politely decline your offer of assistance, it is equally courteous and "chivalrous" for you to accept my declination without argument.

We shall illustrate this idea with Example A and Example B:

Example A:
DQ is walking down the hallway heading toward a door.
Bob sees DQ and goes to open the door for her.
DQ says, "Thanks, but I'll get it. I need to [tie my shoelace/practice door opening/jump up and down/whatever] first, so please don't hold it for me."
Bob replies, "Oh, okay, cheers. Enjoy tying your shoelace/practicing door opening/jumping up and down."

Example B:
DQ is walking down the hallway heading toward a door.
Dave sees DQ and goes to open the door for her.
DQ says, "Thanks, but I'll get it. I need to [tie my shoelace/practice door opening/jump up and down/whatever] first, so please don't hold it for me."
Dave replies, "GOD, B%$!*, what is wrong with you, I was just trying to be CHIVALROUS!" He then holds the door open anyway, getting in DQ's way as she does her requisite jumping up and down, and then slams it behind her hard enough for the picture on the wall to fall off afterward.

Bob is a courteous and respectful man.

Dave is a selfish asshat.

Frankly, in my personal every day anecdotal experience, many men who complain that women won't "let them be chivalrous" tend to be more like Dave than Bob. When they say, "I want to be chivalrous," they mean, "I want to show off and impress you with how amazing I am." Fortunately, in my personal every day anecdotal experiences, I also know far more Bobs than I do Daves, so that's all good.

Now, yes, there are women who take offense at men who open doors and the like, and they are the reason even some Bobs may complain about them. Some of these women are high strung b%@*&es who you should ignore and accept that they don't represent all womenkind--just like most Daves should be ignored and be accepted that they don't represent all mankind. Now, some of those women have had to deal with Dave far too often and forget that Bob exists, and if they become exposed to more Bob-like behavior, they might chill out eventually.

TL;DR: treat people with respect, which includes taking no for an answer when it is offered. Decent people will respond to you with decency, and indecent people don't matter anyway.