Mark Hoover wrote:
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.
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.
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.
Josh M. wrote:
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.
Matt Thomason wrote:
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.
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.)
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.
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.
My Short hand Alignment Breakdown.
Good = Altruistic, concerned for others, values life
Lawful = The Means is just as important as the End. They like to codify how to get it done.
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.
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.)
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 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.)
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.
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.
Helen B. Narbon wrote:
Nothing's wrong with Science, infact I find your doubt about Science unsettling.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
So it is just a bunch of bots posting back and fourth......
Oh, and for Science!
I find it a strength and it hooks people in. Something about that Character from literature or what have you is a draw to that person. I help them with the system to find the way to express that character and thing about that character that draws them. I mean, they interact with the table, so those interactions are going to be unique and individual.
My wife wanted to try out Spirit of the Century and made a Lara Croft clone. If I told her to go away and make a true character, she would never have found out that she kind of liked Roleplaying.
Guy Kilmore wrote:
Whoops, I screwed this up.
It should be
Thinking and Feeling (T/F) - Basically Logic vs Empathy
I should have read my own link, that is what I get when I do it from memory
@AD: I have never been super sold on all the applications of personality theory and I think there is too much "pop-psychology" in the way.
Oh, I also end up as an INFP and under stress I become an INFJ. My P/J tend to be very close.
You haveIntroversion and Extroversion (I/E)
Intuition and Feeling (N/F) - Basically Logic vs Empathy
Sensing and Thinking (S/T) - Basically Facts vs Theory
Perceiving and Judging (P/J) - Basically in extroverts your preferred way of relating to the world. This one gets complicated with Introverts.
Wikipedia on more.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Heh, my background is physics, programming and (perhaps notably) management....
Good times. I had a computer science teacher tell me when I took a programming course that Psychology and Computer Science can make strange bedfellows. (She also stated that she noticed that a lot of Psych Majors seemed to get Computer Science quickly.)
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Oh I am not disagreeing with the totality of your statement, I just think that there is more to it than just that (Maslov's Hierarchy and all that. The sports stuff is fascinating to read, especially comparisons between the NFL Players and Roman Gladiators. The new concussion stuff, mixed with other behavioral patterns in professional athletes is also pretty interesting. My background is in Psychology and Sociology.)
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
I would agree with most of this. I do think there are complex variables that come into play when determining how an individual will respond in a given situation; when we look at group dynamics over a diverse population you will find universal truths. (Humans are Humans pretty much everywhere.)
I am not sure if I agree that with the rational that the complexity and sophistication that cultures have developed is to HIDE the simple dynamics of social groups to provide justification for our baser instincts. I can see how this is apart of that, but I also thing that the human experience has grown more complicated because the environment around us has changed in some dramatic ways. This would have a profound affect on our society and our needs in maneuvering through. In some ways, there are social rules that exist to inhibit our baser instincts or to channel them in different ways (I do suppose that the latter of my statement would be in agreement with what you wrote).
(I apologize for any writing errors or whatnot, I am also typing up client case notes which....sucks.)
Jessica Price wrote:
I agree with you wholeheartedly, which was why I was being as specific as I could with the type of introversion I was talking about.
Introversion and Extraversion are definitely over a spectrum, but I think just using that spectrum to as the measurement is limiting. I would add another dimension, which is really anxiety verses calmness (I wish I had a better word than calmness, but there you go.) So I am really looking at general quadrants, where one could be an anxious introvert, an anxious extravert, a calm extravert and a calm introvert. Those who exhibit the Anxious trait are people who we might think of as "shy". A calm introvert and a shy introvert would need different things in a group.
AD: I broadly agree with that statement, however I would also say that you have a greater percentage of bumping into certain flavors of people in certain groups and environments. This means that needs, mores, and leadership types might very well vary.
I hear you and agree and I maybe reading something to far in the lines, but an introvert will continue to be introverted even when in a comfortable and accepting environment. Shy =! introversion and are really two different things. Shyness is an anxiety response derived from social interaction. On the other hand, Introverts find interactions tiring. They tend to be hyper-sensitive to their environment which causes them to use more energy in a social interaction; they tend to crave quality in their interactions and not quantity. I bring this up because Shy Extroverts and Calm Introverts can look the same, but have totally different things going on. If you keep working to try and get the "calm" introvert to open up, you are just going to piss off the introvert, because they are opened up to where they want to be; whereas the Shy Extrovert, when you get them to drop the Shy part will show their Extroversion pretty well.
And you are probably already doing this :P, so I will get off my soap box. (My family, extended and close, were all extroverts growing up. They kept calling me Shy and I was far from it; I just needed my space.)
@Ruggs: Great comic! I yoinked it.
Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop TalkingAuthor: Susan Cain
I don't usually go for this kind of book, but I am finding it to be a good read. (It was recommended by two other introverts in my life, independently of each other, so I'd figure I would give it a shot.)
You might enjoy the book Quiet which is about the strength of being an introvert in an extroverted valuing culture. I am finding it to be a very interesting read.
This topic kind of reared its head in my life, which resulted in me looking for a new gaming group, but one of the things that I found surprising was how many of my group felt that inappropriate social behaviors were considered the norm for engaging in this hobby. (For instance, canceling at the last minute with little to no reason.) This kind of boggled my mind a little bit as in the other group activities I have participated, behaviors such as the mentioned, would not have been acceptable. (This was one of the group norms that people wanted and I did not, so I decided to move on.)
I also think that this particular activity draws towards those who are inclined to more solitary pursuits, but can find it as an easy jumping off point to engage in social activities.
I used to think it was just a run of various introverts, but, as in with my last gaming group; I learned that there is something more to it. I have been reading some literature on extroversion and introversion and that while they exist on the spectrum there is another measure to consider. Anxious vs. Calmness. A person who ranks high on the Anxiety scale is most likely the person who is Shy. (My words are heavy handed here as there is a ton more nuance to Anxiety, but the short hand makes it easier to move forward. I am open to a different word.) Basically I think gaming groups are made up of Calm Introverts and Shy Extroverts. (You have calm Extroverts and Shy Introverts as well, but just smaller numbers.) Calm Introverts and Shy Extroverts can look the same, but what is going on under the hood is really different.
For instance. I know I am an introvert, I do like talking to people, just in small groups and in small doses. I know that after awhile it tires me out and I do gain stress from that interactions. The Shy Extrovert also wants to talk with people and gets energy from it. However a ton of anxiety gets in the way, so certain maladaptive behaviors can emerge making that interaction more difficult. For both groups of people having a code for how the interaction is supposed to exist can be calming.
My clash with my former gaming group came from that fundamental difference between Extraversion and Introversion. Introverts desire quality and depth in their relationships (Not saying that Extraverts don't, just that it is a fundamental need for an Introvert.) When my group was entering into certain social taboos that ran counter to my need, this began to cause anguish. When I confronted this issue, I ran afoul of the extraverts. Extraverts were no where near as interested in I in exploring the reason of the issue and were upset with me for threatening the cohesion of the group. Even more so in this case, because over half of the people in the group are those I would now consider Shy Extraverts. This activity was where they felt comfortable getting their Extraversion on and they were comfortable permitting a level of social taboos to achieve that end, that I was not.
Sorry for the long way round, I really think that the social awkwardness perceived in gaming is really around a mistake understanding about what Introversion and Extroversion is, a non inclusion of an Anxiety/Calmness scale when examining Introversion and Extroversion, and then a miscommunication between these groups. (I also think our society, US that is, has an unhealthy obsession with Extraversion and activities seen as more Shy or Introverted get conflated and devalued.)
I am usually on your side of the argument in these things, but it also feels that you are tilting a little strongly at Windmills here.
The end of the line is that he needs to find another group of people to play with and advise on how to go about that is the logical conclusion regardless of the series of events and motivations of those involved. Chances are Jerk behavior occurred, who caused it is really a moot point to the issue at hand.
I have also flagged.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Can't we all just agree that however you're playing, you're doing it wrong?
At his next session, he should rip up his character sheet, throw it into the air and fall to his knees weeping. He should beg the other players, the GM, passersby, the Paizo Development team, the Ghost of Gygax and the Universe for forgiveness while flailing himself with a dice bag full of broken glass.
That is a little too late. The earlier the better, as eating habits can get ingrained at a pretty early age.
But yes, discplining your child is a good idea.
I agree with Pupsocket, except I could make a case for going Gunslinger 5 and the rest Oracle. He gets his Charisma modifier to ignore misfires.
There is also the Pistolero thing (RAW, but not RAI), that at 5th level he would be able to add his dex to damage with "handguns" and his Charisma modifier as well. (This is most likely a misprint, but it still works at the momment and since you are the DM, it is your call.)
How does he see his character? This would help with suggestions.
A good option to use with Hero Lab is that they have a free ios app for a character sheet that you can use at the table if you have an iPad. It is very easy to add bonuses while in play and update your info on the app and not have to have a laptop at the table.
I have a friend who has it and I second that. Not good with custom content, but anything that is published by Lone Wolf, it works really, really well. It almost makes me want an Ipad.
I know that when I preplan a character, it is setting goals that they want to achieve and I RP those goals. I am kind of making this Gunslinger/Inquistor multiclass. I started in Gunslinger, but to simulate the monster lore that I will eventually pick up; my gunslinger is a bit of a naturalist and is always taking samples of stuff they encounter. He gets into religous debates with the party Paladin, all of it.
I will also say that my plan is more of an outline and I am open to change as the campaign and my fellow players develop. I find it helps me in cutting down on the Paradox of Choice and making sure I hold to a theme for the character (Good RP).
I found Hero Lab to be a worthwhile purchase as both a GM and a Player. It is nice seeing your options layed out and browsing through when I am making a character. When I GM, I tend to have a laptop around, so I can use it to help me keep track of things. When I play, I print my character sheet out, write out the bonuses, double check that with Hero Lab and I am good to go.
I am there with you. I find that I look forward to leveling to a certain point. Like, I have this idea of a character and certain abilities provide a nice framework for the idea I have, so I look forward to that point. Once I hit that point, I am feeling pretty good.
An example: I was goofing off and wanted to make Iron Man and actually made a concept that I would like to try sometime. For it to be near what I wanted the character is going to have to be at least 5th level, but once I get there....I am good to go. (I was using the Summoner and to get the flight option, I have to wait to 5th level)
I promise to be home at a reasonable time each night.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
I have DMed a few PFS modules and have attempted to keep to the spirit of PFS, so that any of my group that decides to use their character elsewhere, can.
How you approach the encounter, play with the temperment of the characters, tactics and options they choose allow for great flexibility in the difficulty of the encounter. I do know that the book outlines tactics that they attempt, but even then it gives you a ton of leeway.
The Module outlines the NPCs, the GM breathes life into them, you can decide how they take shape.
It is easy to get stuck in a paradigm of thinking. I had to learn that because my group is pretty evenly divide between face smashers and talkers, we were running the PFS stuff when we couldn't get the whole group together in the main campaign. I ran the same module for the two different types. They both had an opportunity to overhear some monsters arguing. The module essentially said they could be won over by diplomacy, but they could also be a combat encounter. With the talky group, I focused on one aspect and had that apparent in the monster's conversation; with the face smasher group I took a more menacing approach. Both had fun, both had different outcomes, both faced challengs that they had characters built for.
Or the DM likes, you know, scaling challengs to fit the level of the group he DMs.