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

Guy Kilmore's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 425 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character.


RSS

1 to 50 of 425 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

I as well tend to do an "Oh S$$*" after a scenario and let people do a rebuild.

Over all, I tend to be pretty flexible about rebuilding, especially if I don't get the sense of someone gaming the system.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If you are looking for more of a personality type than historical parrallel, someone like Booth from Bones has a personality type and value system that could work. Captain America always struck me as someone who was paladinish as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Whenever there is dead air and no one is making a decision (or are taking way toooo long to make a decision), something that always works is....Ninjas. Nothing gets people's attention like a random Ninja attack.

For bonus points after the attack is, hopefully, defeated and people search for loot; roll 1d3 (varies depending on adventure options) whatever number comes up is the adventure option that is responsible for the ninjas.

PCs care a lot more about an adventure option when it is sending Ninjas at them.

Or you could talk to the group if this is a constant issue as something is not clicking right and it is good to find out what.


While more for running a game. Obsidian Portal is free and lets you make your own Wikis and stuff, you can put this information there and organize it as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

23. You should be having fun

24. Your fun should be increasing everyone's fun

25. If someone's actions are impacting your ability to enjoy the game, you should have an upfront, honest communication about it.

26. When you GM, you are responsible for stating what kind of game you like to play. When you play, you should find GMs whose game play taste mesh with yours.

27. If game play issues arise, please talk to the other person.

28. It is ok to walk away from the table if game play preferences do not mesh. We can still be friends.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I hear this argument about people dieing and just, hey get a cleric and bring them back to life, but I think it ignores the reality of Golarion or the world Pathfinder is created in. It is taken for a fact that these souls go somewhere else and when you die you go to a place that is in harmony with your soul. To be removed from that would be painful and traumatic event (Buffy the Vampire Slayer really played this out well), I would say most people would not chose to come back to a world of pain and uncertainty. The PCs do, because, well, the PCs are special.

Me, when I GM, death is more of a problem for the "playing" aspect. When someone dies they are no longer playing and participating, I find that to be a huge barrier for engagement. When people are of low levels not as much of an issue, because character creation is typically quicker. When they are higher not as much, so having someone sit out and make a new character becomes a very unattractive proposition.


I have a d20 that I call my chaos die. For whatever reason, it likes "1s" and "20s" leading to some craziness. I just keep it with my other d20s, so when I grab one, I can grab that one at random. Good times.


One of my new players is stepping up to GM and to GM a system I never played. I am pretty thankful for that, I'm usually GMing and it is nice to play, so I don't lose that perspective. Plus it is nice to see other styles, so I can see how to improve mine.


Odraude,

Thank you for your story. I am sorry to hear about your brother and for your loss.


Kryzbyn wrote:
Guy Kilmore wrote:
helpful advice, except...
I'm not the GM in this game, just a frustrated player.

Bad assumption on my part. Sorry.

That is kind of a sticky wicket.

You can still say kind of the same conversation with him, at least the first part. Either just pull him aside and say that you are frustrated that he goes all Role Play stomp through your interactions; or call him on it when he trips all over you.

If he just starts role playing small talk, we have a buddy like that too, the rest of us just leave on the adventure.

Or whenever he starts Role playing small talk or time travel, stare at him intently and periodically interrupt him with the phrase, "Annnnd Thhhhennnnn?"


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Huh, when I GMed Pathfinder I never stated what my creatures did on the initiative turn unless I was resolving a die roll or some such. Never really thought of it as I couldn't see how the characters would see a difference between Total Defense, Readying an Action, Delaying any of that. I played the NPCs not know either.

I wonder what it would be like to have people write their actions down on a piece of paper and only reveal it if it gets triggered. That could be interesting.


Not sure if it is PFS, but you might be happier with a Synthesis Summoner for this idea. Your eidelon is your suit basically. The first few levels will be the experimenting stages.

I haven't played pathfinder in a bit, but I think I had a build somewhere. I am sure people have posted some online though.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Mulet, you are a very confused person.

The head scratcher I have is drinking is a just as much as vice as gambling, and yet you want to punish for engaging in one (gambling) and not the other (encouraging someone to drink, a reward without work).

You are being Harsh and Inconsistent. You are probably better just going live and let live or have the Player roll another character.


Kryzbyn wrote:
Klaus van der Kroft wrote:
My group really enjoys "smalltalk roleplay"; shopping for even the tiniest thing often leads into extended scenes. The fact these guys are also willing to haggle even when giving alms to the poor also adds to the matter.

Ugh. I'm in a group where one (mostly) or two of the players play like this.

The one especially, has to roleplay out every conversation to it's maximum, even when the conversation is clearly over, he'll extend it with small talk. Then, he will use things said or information gained to try to give himself mechanical advantages later, all the while the story does not progress. He also tries to insert himself into other's roleplay after his one on one session with the GM is over, sometimes retconning so he would be there, when clearly his character wasn't. It's incredibly frustrating.
It's caused some issues to the point of causing player conflict.

I think the problem is he LARPs alot, so in his head roleplay = real-time exhaustive conversation. The other bits, I have no idea.

Any tips how to handle this would be appreciated.

Have a private conversation,

Hey, Roleplayer McShakespear, I really like your enthusiasm with the campaign and you are really into it. I like the energy and it is pretty awesome. Some of the other players don't have your roleplaying ability and I need to give them some breathing room to try to play out some of their characters. Would you be ok that when I go to one on one time that I enforce that pretty rigidly, I want to give them a chance to shine and I am finding that none of them can compete with your naturally, high charisma.

To the Group,

Hey, Awesome Roleplaying Group Who Has Stupid Adult Responsibilities. I feel like our time to game is shrinking and when I GM, I am having a difficult time getting the stuff that I feel we need to get through to have a satisfying session. I am thinking that I will have to move some scenes along if they are going to long and we are getting to short on time. I figured I would give everyone a heads up. If you have a problem about it, lets talk about it.

The trick. Hold to this boundary, remind Roleplayer McShakespear what you said and go from there.

As to the mechanical bonuses, just say "no" the rules don't support that. Personally, especially if it ain't game breaking and you want the interaction, granting an occasional +2 to a skill check or something is not going to break the bank.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
Guy Kilmore wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Precisely. Aaron does indeed sound too good to be true. I have a hard time seeing anyone tolerating a barf bucket.

well he is useful as trap fodder, send his characters through a minefield, and literally, every mine in the entire minefield will trigger while they cross in their proximity.

he is also useful for repelling unwanted elitist rules lawyers because a lot of them are obsessive about hygeine, but, at the same time, he is bad to deal with.

What!? This guy is making people barf and costing them financially, not to mention inflicting some kind of trauma on others. How does an elitist rules lawyer in any shape equal that? There are easier way of getting away from those types then hanging around with a money sucking, barf inducing, sexually harassing, stink cloud that this guy is. This doesn't make any sense.
i forgot about that. sorry. i have dealt with him so long, that he seems so difficult to remove, and any change in Venue is going to either cost more to rent a room, or cost more for Gas, and we would have the same problems if he stalked us, which i am sure he will.

If this is true and, really my last reply on the subject, as a mental health professional if he is harassing people to the point of throwing up, call the police. If he is sitting there telling you his sexual fantasies and will not stop when you request it, call the police This behavior should not be supported and it is not safe for anyone, and if you are in the United States is a criminal offense. If the owner refuses to remove him, call the city health inspector because I am sure having a barf bucket violates all sorts of health codes.

If you are unwilling to do these things then you are choosing to be in this toxic environment and the only person to hold responsible, at that point, is yourself.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Precisely. Aaron does indeed sound too good to be true. I have a hard time seeing anyone tolerating a barf bucket.

well he is useful as trap fodder, send his characters through a minefield, and literally, every mine in the entire minefield will trigger while they cross in their proximity.

he is also useful for repelling unwanted elitist rules lawyers because a lot of them are obsessive about hygeine, but, at the same time, he is bad to deal with.

What!? This guy is making people barf and costing them financially, not to mention inflicting some kind of trauma on others. How does an elitist rules lawyer in any shape equal that? There are easier way of getting away from those types then hanging around with a money sucking, barf inducing, sexually harassing, stink cloud that this guy is. This doesn't make any sense.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Don't pay for his chairs anymore. He breaks he deals with the store owner. If the store owner says the table is responsible, point out that it his no exclusion rule that keeps this guy coming which results in his broken chairs.

Seriously, if he continues to sexually harass you, tell him to stop. If he continues, call the police and file charges.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
If you really, REALLY, truly hate what he did to you... There is but one recourse. One act so base, so shockingly vile that it will live in infamy in the annals (huhh huh huhh huhh huhh) of gaming. Before you do, be sure you are ready to be a person to do this. You must... I find it hard to write this... DRINK HIS MILK without asking. And then the sun will no longer shine, birds will stop singing, and the stars will go out.

Don't worry internet, I flagged this. There are lines you just don't cross.


Orthos wrote:
I feel like I'm one of very few people who even tries to play Gnomes with a scrap of seriousness.

In one of my games I had a Gnome Alchemist NPC that the party took pretty seriously. He was a key witness to one of the larger mysteries in a campaign I ran.


You sound a lot like how I was feeling at the end of last Summer. The best move for me was to bite the bullet, go to a meet-up (at Meetup.com or some such) and meet some other people and start building a table more to my tastes. It is now a mix of some of my old gamers and new gamers. It has been going pretty well and we have been fun playing a game more to my style. I am looking for someone else who is willing to GM, so that I can take a break or our roleplaying opportunities don't go away if something happens to me.


By back and fourth, I think in a circle. Can't get the editing to work from my phone.


mplindustries wrote:
Guy Kilmore wrote:
I guess I just experience what you experience every time I level up my character or some such, like when I pick a feat, or put ranks in skills.

And that's fine, because that stuff is done in between sessions.

Guy Kilmore wrote:
For instance, I have a player who has a character that "Allen Irons Must Die" as an Aspect. They are in a situation where diplomacy is key, and there is Allen Irons at the bar, sipping a martini with a cocky smile. The player takes a compel and begins a hostile confrontation with Allen Irons. This is the harder and more destructive path in all likely hood. The Fail Option. However, this is the logical conclusion of this character. (He also has the aspect of "Violence Solves Everything.) The Player gets rewarded for playing his character....well in character with a FATE point...while the character pursues his motivation. (After this adventure, the Allen Irons Aspect changed based upon events that occurred in the Ballroom)

Just for reference, I understand how the system works--I've played it and I totally get it. I just don't like it. The compel thing is the worst to me. If my character wants Allen Irons to Die, I'm going to go after Allen Irons, FATE points or not. The meta-reward muddies the water for me and taints the motivation. I should want him to die because he deserves death, and I should pursue that because I want it to happen. Pursuing it should definitely not make me any better at handling other, totally unrelated situations later (i.e. I got a FATE point by hating on Allen Irons, so later, when I face off with some thugs in an alley, I'll be able to spend more resources to beat them).

Guy Kilmore wrote:
I think the FATE point mechanic can be really tricky to use and requires a certain kind of mindfulness that people would not want to engage in. For some players that mindfulness isn't as difficult. (Maybe it is because of my background in psychology and being a social worker, along with players of like
...

I really should stop posting from my phone, so I can break up these quotes better for you to read. My apologies in advance.

A couple of quick thoughts, but this will be my last post on this as I think we will just start going back and fourth. Thanks for the discussion (Feel free for the last word if you want it.)

1. Aspect changes, like the leveling up happens between sessions; I just don't see the difference

2. Your comment regarding FATE points. In Pathfinder, for instance, people get XP, treasure, hero points, magic items, etc., etc. for accomplishing certain objectives. FATE just narrows that down to a point. I don't see much difference between both of those either. Adventurers complicate their lives just by being, Adventurers. These are both game systems, inherent in a game system is a reward and punishment system. Pathfinder rewards system mastery, they do it through those aforementioned treasures. I would argue that FATE is attempting to award interactions (I think Pathfinder is as well, but I think System Mastery is still a priority). You can use that point for anything or nothing....same as the treasure or whatnot you get for beating an encounter in Pathfinder.

3. I wasn't attempting to apply that you didn't understand, my apologies if that was how it came off. I would agree with you, if the system is breaking your immersion than it is not using the appropriate carrot or stick and to stay with one that does. The Fluidity of a FATE character speaks very well to me. I like it. The Rigidity of the Class Abstraction in Pathfinder I find to be more jarring. (Not for me personally, I can keep that abstraction, but for people I play with. They see it more concrete and that seems like a common perception, so instead of screaming at the ocean to get off my beach; I ended up swimming with the tide for a bit.)

4. At our table we speak as our characters. Except for one person, but he is pretty shy, so getting him to talk is pretty awesome.

5. My players seem to enjoy the tagging system for that meta gaming success, for whatever reason tags and maneuvers seems to be the go to over FATE points on our table.

6. I phrased my not suitable line because I didn't want to put words in your mouth or imply anything. I would agree, use the game system that works best for your roleplaying needs. For whatever reason, what you find as flaws, I find as benefits that seem motivate my roleplaying than hindering it. (I think that was my only concern, I know that you were speaking from experience, but it felt like an overall indictment rather than an indictment from your perspective. Probably not your intention, but that was what motivated my response.)

7. At the end of the day, if we agreed on the system, I think you would find we would game together fine. As I too want a game that has me immersed in my character interacting with the world about him and I try to run games that encourage that.


Oh and, mplindustries, no rudeness for answering. No one is required to like what I like. Usually on forums I assume there are a ton of people like me who just lurk and read. When I discuss it is to learn something and to ensure a certain point of view gets shared with these other lurkers.


mplindustries wrote:
Guy Kilmore wrote:
I guess my table has had a different experience, the utilization of FATE points seems to make things more focused on the characters and what they are doing.

I see this issue come up a lot when I talk about roleplaying, especially on other forums. I wish I knew how to instantly clear up the confusion, but I don't, so just bear with my explanation.

The very fact that you're talking about the players being focused on the characters and what they are doing is exactly what I'm talking about that creates distance between the player and character. That is the very thing that severs the immersion and creates "dissonance" for me.

I don't want to think about the character as separate from myself. I don't want to think about what they would do, I want to think about what I would do.

Guy Kilmore wrote:
They make the choice where drama and failure occur.

And again, that's a problem--nobody in real life chooses to fail. Harry Dresden never decides, "ok, well, it'd be really cool if I failed now because I'm hot headed, and besides, it will fuel me later when it really counts!"

That kind of thinking is disassociative--it involves a choice that the character would never make, that is not associated with that character. Only the player would make that choice on behalf of their character, and only because it provides more fuel (FATE points) for later actions. The decision is steeped entirely in the metagame.

Guy Kilmore wrote:
I do think that with SotC and Dresden suffered from the fact that they had too many aspects and FATE points. The later version of FATE really slims it down so FATE points are much more limited, meaning that you, as the player had to be involved in the drama to get mechanical impact. I also think that there is more player responsibility in evolving your character. If you don't adjust your aspects during play then, yes, you can hit that disconnect.
No, the disconnect for me and those I play with occurs because...

Thanks for answering. I can see where you are coming from. I guess I just experience what you experience every time I level up my character or some such, like when I pick a feat, or put ranks in skills.

I don't see that distance because you give control to the player to direct their character. I think the words, "choosing to fail" is the wrong way to express it for the character. That is what the player is doing. It is the character choosing the "complicate option" based on their motivations.

For instance, I have a player who has a character that "Allen Irons Must Die" as an Aspect. They are in a situation where diplomacy is key, and there is Allen Irons at the bar, sipping a martini with a cocky smile. The player takes a compel and begins a hostile confrontation with Allen Irons. This is the harder and more destructive path in all likely hood. The Fail Option. However, this is the logical conclusion of this character. (He also has the aspect of "Violence Solves Everything.) The Player gets rewarded for playing his character....well in character with a FATE point...while the character pursues his motivation. (After this adventure, the Allen Irons Aspect changed based upon events that occurred in the Ballroom)

I think the FATE point mechanic can be really tricky to use and requires a certain kind of mindfulness that people would not want to engage in. For some players that mindfulness isn't as difficult. (Maybe it is because of my background in psychology and being a social worker, along with players of like backgrounds, that we take to this mindfulness easy.)

As for adjusting aspects between sessions based upon the events in the story, I don't see how that is different than when one picks a class, skills, or abilities when they level up. Except the Aspect is probably more flexible.

At the end of the day, I think FATE, like any RPG system, lends itself to certain play styles better than others.


Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
Guy Kilmore wrote:
I thought the Murderhobo issue is related to your last point. "Tabletop games are seen as weird/nerdy." The argument being that the meme of Murderhobo can give an off putting reputation to the hobby that it really doesn't need.
Cool. Video games, which used to be much more niche than they are today, used to be seen as weird/nerdy too. The one-two punch of weird/nerdy and promoting violence/satanism didn't destroy video games. Why are tabletop games different?

I am not really prepared to speak intelligently on this topic. I just noticed that being "weird/nerdy" was on your list of issues on why it is hard to get people into table top gaming and that this particular issue fits in that umbrella.

So why is being weird or nerdy make it difficult for people to get into tabletop gaming?


Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Right. What I'm saying is that it is poor form to deride someone else's concerns and then want equal or more time for yours. It isn't a matter of degree of seriousness or importance.

The problem is that not all concerns are valid. The concern that people saying "murderhobo" will lead to people thinking Pathfinder encourages violence and witchcraft which will lead to Pathfinder being unable to attract new players is not a valid concern. This can be seen by comparing a similar medium, namely video games. Accusations have been thrown at video games, saying that they promote violence and satanism. Consider the video game Doom. You even see this sort of accusation in the present/recent path, though it is much more fringe. See e.g. here, here, here, or here.

A similar medium has survived and even thrived under the same sort of accusations of violence and satanism that have been thrown at tabletop roleplaying games. If someone thinks that these accusations scare a significant number of people off from roleplaying games, they have to explain why the same hasn't happened to video games. Why are such accusations a threat to tabletop games but not video games?

It's certainly true that tabletop games are a niche medium. However, I think this can be easily explained by perfectly mundane reasons. It's hard to get people into tabletop games because, for example,

  • monetary costs (buying books, miniatures, gamemats, etc.)
  • spending the time upfront to learn the rules (it doesn't help that for a lot of tabletop games, the rulebooks
...

I thought the Murderhobo issue is related to your last point. "Tabletop games are seen as weird/nerdy." The argument being that the meme of Murderhobo can give an off putting reputation to the hobby that it really doesn't need.


Muad'Dib wrote:

I have at times found inspiration from artwork (self made or found) and/or a figurine and design a character around that. This way when I look at that figurine or that artwork I know at a glance my characters appearance, motivation, and his personality.

I try to make heroes so I expect a reasonable amount of optimization but nothing over the top and nothing contrary to the character.

My preference is to have the GM help in designing the background while I focus on the personality. This way the GM can plant story seeds in the character back story if he/she so chooses.

Arssanguinus mention Quote mining. This is an awesome way of finding your characters "voice". Great suggestion.

-MD

I do the same thing.

I think of some idea and sometimes I type it into the Google search bar and see what pops up. (Do this at your own risk as at times I see things that I later can't unsee.) I find an image I like and I try to think of the story of that picture; then I start plugging in mechanics to make it work.


mplindustries wrote:
Guy Kilmore wrote:
mplindustries wrote:


I hate FATE with a burning passion--it is the enemy of character immersion. The whole system is specifically designed to create a feedback loop and influence you, the player to manipulate your character in a specific fashion. It's a disassociative paradise. Yes, I realize people like that kind of gaming and that's ok. But I hate it.
Huh odd, my table and I actually think the opposite and find ourselves more easily immersed and intuitive. I also find GMing it, it is easier to have the Players impact the world/have choices matter.

It is easier to immerse in the setting but the FATE feedback loop literally makes it impossible to immerse in your character since FATE points are a completely out-of-character resource with no association whatsoever to the game world.

It is easier to feel like you're in a pulpy adventure game or in the Dresden Universe, but you can't feel like Harry Dresden or The Shadow or Indiana Jones because you are too busy directly manipulating the story about those characters instead of just being those characters.

GMing is easier when the PC's choices matter. However, when a player directly manipulates the world without using their character as an intermediary, character immersion (again, not setting immersion) dies.

Again, not a bad thing for everything, but nearly the worst thing for me.

I guess my table has had a different experience, the utilization of FATE points seems to make things more focused on the characters and what they are doing. They make the choice where drama and failure occur. I do think that with SotC and Dresden suffered from the fact that they had too many aspects and FATE points. The later version of FATE really slims it down so FATE points are much more limited, meaning that you, as the player had to be involved in the drama to get mechanical impact. I also think that there is more player responsibility in evolving your character. If you don't adjust your aspects during play then, yes, you can hit that disconnect.

I guess I just don't see how FATE points get disconnected from your character when it is your character aspects (motivations and descriptors) that generate them and justify their use.

I do think FATE based systems make a paradigm shift in thinking about how we roleplay, because in FATE failing is not bad. This is because failure is interesting and FATE likes to reward the interesting actions. Our table found it hard at first to have your character choose to fail something.

(If I am coming across as argumentative, I apologize, not really trying to pick a fight; just trying to see where the feedback loop comes into play. The only real way I can see it is if someone gets real metagamey, but to be honest that can be an issue in any roleplaying setting.)


I like seeding potential replacement characters in my character's background, so if my character dies; I have a replacement all ready rolled up.

My favorite, I had a character who was searching for his lost twin sister. My character met a fate that involved an owl bear, a forest fire and a cliff which ended in his death. My next character, the sister, who he as looking for. Good times.


The murder hobo thing is really about the "why" we do things. There are two "why's" to define, player motivation and character motivation. Players want to see their characters evolve, sometimes it is through the "story"; other times through character advancement, such as XP and Treasure. In the structure of the rules it is easy to divorce "story" rewards from the more concrete rewards of XP and Treasure; which can create a tendency to have more, objectively, sociopathic characters in an attempt to express a legitimate player desire, advancement.

To get away from that, my approach is to, early in the character's careers let them earn something of value; such as land, a mine, shares in a shipping consortium, get titles, etc., etc. Adventuring usually revolves around this central value thing which dovetails into the conflicts that exist in the campaign. I skip XP and just have people level when the table feels ready. Treasure is given as profits through the venture they have invested in, usually based upon the appropriate tables in the rule book.

There are times when there are longer adventures when they can't get back to their base of operations, so they will end up using an enemies gear. At the end of the day, when they get back they usually invest in their venture and get the cash rewards for a more personal development of their character. Some odds and ends get kept because it is a trophy or has a personal sense of value too it; others, like AD has shared, get returned to the appropriate owners.

When I approach it like that, I find that the characters tend to act more like people and it is hard to be a hobo when you are defending and cultivating something outside of yourself.


Mark Hoover wrote:

Hey AD, know what I've seen? I've seen that some people are jerks from time to time. I'm including myself in this category. Sometimes I'm a jerk.

I've also seen that many humans get sucked into herd mentalities and fall in line w/a peer group. Again, I'm including myself here. Sometimes I have picked on and been a jerk to others because that's what we were all doing.

Now for a little admission: I still feel guilty for it.

We had a player in HS who always played dwarf fighters. Said player was in RL a little more sheltered than some of us and therefore he was sweet and naive where the rest of us swore and drank and acted like jerks. Sometimes I kind of made fun of him and one time we kicked him out of our game.

It wasn't nice. It wasn't fair. Just because my friends thought it was hilarious, that doesn't justify my going along with it. I feel genuinely sorry for doing it, even after all these years.

But that's just it isn't it? Human beings make errors in judgement all the time. We can be selfish, and cruel, and if enough of us put our own needs ahead of others then gang up on someone, we can be truly frightening.

I don't want to be like that anymore.

I'm not perfect, but I'm trying to put others' fun before mine. I'd encourage ANYONE on these boards posting issues w/their gaming group to talk it out and do the same. But yes sometimes groups gang up on an individual - I'm living proof.

Ironically I also believe in karma because of the same player.

When I moved from Illinois to MN a few years ago I was still gaming w/all those guys from HS, except 2 - one was the guy I was mean to and the other was a mutual friend between us. I moved, tried to stay in touch w/my old group, and didn't hear from anyone for a year. Turns out that after I moved said mutual friend stirred up all kinds of bad feelings toward me on behalf of the guy I'd been cruel to years ago. The irony is that the mutual friend had ALSO been mean and was a driving force in that regard.

So be nice to your gaming group...

Great story. If the dwarf fighter dude came to me with that issue, I was kicked out and all that stuff, I would tell him to go find new friends. You are better than this, go play with people who are nicer to you.

Those other people want to be bullying jerks, trying to fight back or change them isn't going to happen or be all that really satisfying.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why does it matter if the group is wrong? If your goal is to harmonize to the group to achieve a certain outcome, that stances matters very little. If your goal is harmonizing then it is better to examine your behaviors and change what is appropriate. The only behavior one can really exert control over is one's own. Trying to change another person is incredibly difficult, trying to change four in this kind of group setting is probably impossible.

These conversations should really be directed towards helping the person understand how to work better with a group and if they feel it is worth their time to do so. If it is not, encouraging to find a group with characteristics they enjoy.


mplindustries wrote:


I hate FATE with a burning passion--it is the enemy of character immersion. The whole system is specifically designed to create a feedback loop and influence you, the player to manipulate your character in a specific fashion. It's a disassociative paradise. Yes, I realize people like that kind of gaming and that's ok. But I hate it.

Huh odd, my table and I actually think the opposite and find ourselves more easily immersed and intuitive. I also find GMing it, it is easier to have the Players impact the world/have choices matter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Josh M. wrote:

I've pondered the OP too. I'm a morning person; I'm up and awake before 5am, despite my actual alarm being set for 5:15am. On the weekends, I sleep in until 7am, maybe 8am if it was a late night before. I've wanted, for years, to have a late morning/early afternoon RPG session on the weekends, instead of the latest possible time in the evenings, and I've found amongst my fellow gamers, I am alone in this.

When we game, for some odd reason, we game as late as we possibly can. We also start as late as we possibly can that will still allow enough time to play a session. If we're "supposed" to start at 7pm, it's going to be 7:30-ish, or even later(despite us all actually showing up at 6-ish), depending on what the DM has prepared. As a time-obsessed early bird, this annoys me to no end.

Thing is, nobody is busy during the weekend afternoons. There's literally no reason we could not meet up around noon on a Sunday and game until the early evening, breaking off for dinner and such. No reason at all, except our habit of doing every single doable thing in the course of the day, and putting gaming dead-last, causing sessions to run late every single time.

I take that back a little bit; we did an early game once. We were supposed to meet up around 10am, people actually showed up between 11am-noon, and we gamed into the early evening. It was awesome! We got way more play time in(almost a full 7 hour session), than the usual 2.5 hour rushed late evening game, and everyone agreed it was great. But, for whatever reason, we've just never done it since. My friends just flat out refuse to be productive before the afternoon, even if it's supposed to be fun.

I had the same issue with Friday nights. It hurt staying up to 1 or 2am. I reformed a new group and we meet every other Sunday at 10am and go until 3 or so. It is pretty great! I feel awake, we get some focused gaming in, make a little snack thingy for people to eat. Its a really good time. I find then I can get some errands or projects in the afternoon done as well.


These threads are funny.


Matt Thomason wrote:
Josh M. wrote:


Also, if you're playing a PF game, and your character happens to die to a trap or random encounter, that is the default of the game. That is not a playstyle, that's the game as written. Traps are supposed to hurt/kill. Monsters are trying to kill/capture/etc your PC. The degree of lethality is dependent on several factors(group class make up, level variances, current HP/resources, etc), but in the default of Pathfinder, this is how the game is played. All I'm saying is that I try to play the game at a base, default level.

I think the problem with wording it quite that way is that people are going to read your saying "default" as "correct" (and just because you don't intend it that way, it doesn't mean someone else will not read it that way) and see it as you trying to tell them they're doing it wrong. Using "RAW" or "strictly by the rulebook" might be a better term to use to avoid conflict. Otherwise it can be read to imply there's only one valid style of playing, and anything else is somehow less than Pathfinder. However, I do get the point you're making :)

By the way, there's only one RPG I've ever bought where the manufacturer informed me I ought to play it strictly by the rules in the rulebook and not to houserule things that felt wrong for my group because they (the manufacturer) felt it far better if everyone across the world played it the same way. It's one of the reasons that particular game earned a check in the "no" column from me, as I don't spend money on an RPG just to be told how I have to play it by the very people I just paid ;) It was kinda like how people get on the forums when they feel another player is telling them how to play, but turned up by a factor of ten as I just paid them for the privilege.

Did the game come with Ninja Lawyers to enforce that rule or what? Because that just seems really silly.


I am running a Spirit of the Century game on it. I like the Character organization a little better, but miss the split between players and NPCs. The color scheme actually works as it hits the colors I was using with the "old timey" 1920s adventure feel with the yellow. I am miffed that the banner I used is screwed up, that is really annoying. Overall it is still working for me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This is why I always like dropping in the name of the person who will pick up my torch should my character die in the backstory. Good times. (I have no fear of death for my characters, just gives me a chance to try another concept. If it was a concept I didn't fully flesh out that died, I can always recycle it.)

I know from a mechanical standpoint, as a GM, I find myself wondering if I want to deal with a dead character. In Pathfinder, death can feel like a punishment because the way the game is designed. Someone not playing is someone not as engaged as they were. I sometimes do flinch if a character would have died right out of the gate with a couple of hours roleplaying afterwards.

At the same time, I do like character death as it prevents a certain sense of absurdity that can come about. I wish their were some mechanical benefits to a death that would make it feel like less of a punishment. (For instance in FATE, if you concede, you get FATE points which lets you be more awesome in the next encounter, despite losing in the previous.)


Rynjin wrote:
ciretose wrote:

Limited time and limited interest.

If given the choice between investing time and effort in something I think I will enjoy doing and investing time and effort in something I don't think I will enjoy...

How is "I don't like doing it" or "I don't want to do it" not a valid reason to ask someone to not make me do something?

Because you offered and asked someone what their preference was.

If you don't care what their preference is, don't ask them.

Basically what I'm saying is if you don't want someone to pick something you don't like, don't ask them "So what do you want?" give them a list of options that are palatable to you and ask them to pick the one they like best out of that list.

The problem that some people are having is there is an argument being made that picking something off that list you offered is the GM's problem and the player is perfectly right in doing so.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:

Again why is it assumed that a player wanting to play a special snowflake automatically means that it's going to ruin a story. Most of us in this thread come to a consensus that it's give and take on both sides. Yet imo it's always the player that seems to be screwed.

Or to use ciretose example.

DM: Sure you can have sushi just not this time around I'm cooking italian.

Player: (more realistic response instead of the worst case scenarios I'm seeing used here all the time).

Sure okay sushi next time.

I wonder how some would handle vegans or those who can't eat wheat products at their dinners/ Just not invite them while accusing them of being bad people for having such different eating habits or a food intolerence. All because the cook has to break a sweat.

Why are the players always assumed as being the ones who want to play their special snowflakes no matter what. If I was new to this hobby I would have to ask why posters who are DMs keep playing and recruiitng such terrible people as players. We never see ressonable players in these threads. Always the sterotype of the player out to screw the DM. With the DM of course always being shown as the poor martyr having to put up with such players.

The Not coming because you don't like something isn't a bad thing. I was gaming with a group of people who, for whatever reason, thought it was ok scrubbing and canceling out at the last second. It led to many of cancelled sessions. I got tired of it, spoke with the group, they felt this was the norm; so I left the group. Made my own group, much better attendance.

In your Vegan or Vegetarian example there are plenty of options for Italian dishes that work with that, so I don't see a problem.

Now if you were inviting people over to partake in your Meat Worship, Pig Roast, and Carnivorous Orgy; I would truly wonder why the Vegan/Vegetarian would want to come to that. I would also say that it would be up to the Vegan or Vegetarian to make himself fit into that situation if he decides to come.

I would say the same to my Pig Roasting, Meat Worshiping, Carnivorous Loving Friend if he was invited to the Vegan's Non-Face Eating, Bountiful Vegetable Bonanza.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My Short hand Alignment Breakdown.

Good = Altruistic, concerned for others, values life
Evil = Self-Centered, Values Self, does not value life
Neutral (Most People) = Concerned for others, but not necessarily willing to risk self unless their is extreme value. Self is the main drive, but not at the extreme risk of harm to someone else.

Lawful = The Means is just as important as the End. They like to codify how to get it done.
Chaotic = The Means Justifies the End. How it gets done does not matter, what matters is it is the desired result.
Neutral = Usually likes some kind of pattern, rules, or some kind of paradigm for day to day living, but the End is pretty important and they will color outside of the lines if they cannot achieve it the standard way.

The End in the above is usually determined from the Good/Evil/Neutral axis.

In the end I see the Lawful/Chaos axis is about How someone goes about doing something; whereas the Good/Evil axis is about What they are trying to achieve. Both are also motive based.


Totally off topic, but does anyone know how a Gunslinger works using crossbows instead of guns? Actually, that is what I might ask to do if I was on a world where Guns are off kilter, but I want that Gunslinger feel.


MrSin wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:

After waffling back and forth for the previous day.

At the time I was driving an hour to DM at our friends house.

When people don't confirm I've learned to just say they aren't showing up. A lot of the time, I feel lucky if someone even confirms they aren't going to show at all.

I participate in a bunch of different activities and it only seems like in my tabletop role playing groups that this is ok. It really bugs me. I have gotten to the point that if the person can't take the time to confirm something, I mention something, if it continues; then I can't take the time to send the invitation.


I have mentioned it in this thread before, but I tend to dislike playing "evil" campaigns or GMing Evil PCs. I know that I forbid that alignment and request that my players play good aligned or stay on the good side of neutral. If someone goes to far into Evil land and I usually let them know after the game or, if needed, during the game just to give them a heads up. (I don't stop people from "being" evil, but if their character is bad enough that they slip into an evil alignment then it is to NPC land they go.)


137ben wrote:
Digitalelf wrote:
Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
If you say that all drow are evil without exception, then as a DM, you cannot introduce a non-evil drow NPC

If it is an absolute rule, with absolutely positively no exceptions ever, then yeah, you'd be right. However, an exception made by the GM here and there, does not mean that the race automatically opens up for a player to use simply because the GM made an exception or two. Chances are, the GM made an exception because he felt it added a cool new twist to the campaign. And depending upon why the exception happened, it does not necessarily mean that the race has changed from all evil to "mostly" evil...

Also, just because we here in the real world have free will to choose how we view right and wrong, good and evil, does not mean that this is true of races in a world were magic is a tangible force. It might just be a case of you can't change a leopard's spots because on a genetic level (if magic isn't enough of an explanation for you), the race (while humanoid) is not human, and unlike us in the real world, does not have a choice like we do and thus IS pure evil; and nothing short of powerful magic can change that...

Not your style? Fine... The awesome thing is, you like your style, and I like mine, and we are both happy indulging ourselves within it.

Why is it so hard to accept that different people have different views AND expectations of the game? And if you have accepted that, why can't you just move on and enjoy your play-style and let others enjoy theirs?

This, again, comes back to communication. In Pathfinder, the default rule about creature alignments is
Quote:
Alignment, Size, and Type: While a monster's size and type remain constant (unless changed by the application of templates or other unusual modifiers), alignment is far more fluid. The alignments listed for each monster in this book represent the norm for those monsters—they can vary as you require them to in order to serve the needs of your campaign. Only
...

If we go that route, aren't Drow considered a monster race and require GM approval to play because of balance concerns?


Well, before reading this thread I was kind of proud how I had my Drow race being brewed up for a campaign world that I have been working for a bit.

In essence Drow are Elves affected by a demonic curse which alters their biology and mindset (I.E. always chaotic evil, part of that insanity). Any elf, or those with elvish blood, can be affected by this curse, gradually becoming a Drow elf. Removing the curse causing them to change back to their elvish heritage.

I would be hard pressed to see a "Good" Drow in this setting.


I would, in most situations, end up saying "no" to a home brew race. There are just too many variables in Pathfinder for me to go adding new ones when trying to design encounters. I can have only so many balls in the air.

Of course, I would probably talk about it and come to that.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't let my players play any alignment they desire. It is not from a lack of imagination, I can imagine an evil game. I know how to run a working evil game. I just have zero interest in DMing one, or evil PCs for that matter. I like seeing good triumphing over evil. I deal with icky crud every day of the week, being a social worker, and I don't need to experience it in my fantasy roleplaying.

I am pretty up front about this, I have a friend who is only about evil roleplaying games and we learned our gaming doesn't mesh; so we don't play table top roleplaying games together.

We instead BS about table top gaming and go play pool instead.


I GM a ton, so playing female or male PCs are no real taboo for me. The quote from Gaimen that AD posted is pretty much on point. I know I come up with a broad concept, I browse the internet and find some kind of picture that I think represents the concept even more. I then hone the character in around the picture, adding my own flare and there we go. (In the end the picture tends to determine the Sex of the PC.)


buddahcjcc wrote:
Guy Kilmore wrote:
phantom1592 wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:

I don't think I've ever played a carbon copy character before. I've played a few that were CC's of CC's until you only have a vague impression of the original there.

The thing I've noticed in life is that you run into the same people the longer you live. They have different faces and names, but they're still the same person inside. So it is with characters, when you see one brutish barbarian you've seen them all. I don't begrudge a player running a copy character, unless he wants to play Thanos with the Infinity Gauntlet and all that power at 1st level.

This.

Point of fact, there really arent' THAT many 'original' characters. Most of the archtypes were obviously written with a literary character in mind... and many of the bonuses and penalties of core classes are terribly clichéd.

It seems like almost every character I hear can in 'some way' however tangentially be connected to some major well-known character. Sometimes the players WANT to go that route? Sometimes they don't even realize it till you bring their attention.

Sometimes players FIGHT the stereotype so often... the 'non-stereotype' actually starts to seem repetitive.

It all depends on how long you play the game... and how much 'other media' you immerse yourself in.

As a massive comic fan for two-three decades... Playing a 'marvel RPG' could be hilarious listening to what people thought were 'original ideas' ;)

If you take a wide enough lens to anything it starts looking the same.

We all have points of commonality, which can make us similar, but not the same.

Yes, which is why I said theres a difference between taking a theme and running with it and full out plagarizing all the important info :p

Er...I am not sure how my post relates to yours as it is a response to someone else's statement, but I wouldn't disagree with what you just wrote.

1 to 50 of 425 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

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