|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
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.
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.
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.
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?"
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.
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.
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.
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
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.
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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:
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.
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.
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:
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.