Ixancoatl's page

As I've glanced through the messageboards from time to time and as I've played with many of the gamers at my University, I have noticed an almost dogmatic need to have every action ever taken by a character defined solely by the Rules As Written. Weren't these games originally designed to cater to a group of people with a broadened sense of Imagination? Aren't the rules merely a means of smoothing over the gaps between that Imagination and the "Reality" of a fantasy world?

I have seen many debates about how "if X is not defined in the RAW, then how can X happen?" or "the RAW specifically say that Y works in this way". While I believe that the rules are highly important for the smooth functioning of any game, the fun and pleasure of any game should be drawn from the Imagination involved in Role-Playing out the story before us (hence the moniker "Role-Playing Game").

After all, if we are going to follow the RAW with such dogmatic fervor, shouldn't we pay attention to the earliest pages of the Rulebook:

"Above all, have fun. Playing the Pathfinder RPG is
supposed to be exciting and rewarding for both the Game
Master and the players. Adventure awaits!

The Most Important Rule

The rules in this book are here to help you breathe life into
your characters and the world they explore. While they are
designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might
find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your
gaming group enjoys."

(and please note that almost every single RPG that has ever been produced begins with a similar if not nearly identical statement.)

How about we get back to letting the Imagination guide how our characters do things rather than being led by a leash of RAW to the point were we can no longer make our own decisions. RPG's should grant the mind freedom, not confine it in a cage of "fear of not following the Law".

Our group would like some opinions on the wonderful idea we had during our CoT campaign.

Much to our DM's dismay, we found an innovative way to dispose of the multitude of tiefling Bastard of Erebus bodies. In order to fund our rebellion, we have decided to open our own soap business. Our product: The Suds of Dis. (We also have a few bars or soap made from those horrible stealing gremlins).

We spent perhaps an hour arguing/debating as to how this would work. It helps having a player (Squeakmaan) who has a working knowledge of how soap is made given his biology degree.

Our DM is afraid this will mess up our future in the AP. We players disagree. He also fears that it is too evil for some of the characters (however, some of us are "unconcerned" by this).

What do you think?

I have always been a firm believer in the randomness of character generation throughout all of the editions of D&D I have played. It was once a badge of honor to be willing to risk really crappy rolls for the chance of really outstanding rolls. You'd roll your stats and, since you had an outrageously strong grasp of the system, fit your rolls into a character you were comfortable playing. When did that give way to point buys that merely give you the illusion of control?

I'm just curious how everyone else feels about this topic. Generally, we use the 4d6, drop the lowest, version. It seems to work well enough. How does everyone else handle it?

Frequently on gaming boards (not just these boards), the word "broken" is bandied around. Also, with almost equal frequency, those boards and specific threads turn into flame wars in which the original poster refuses to (and often never intended to) debate or concede any element of their claim. Should we really be using these types of terms in civil discourse? Should we try to find more constructive ways of addressing problems we discover?

Just wondering...what do you think?

Looking back into the 70's and 80's, what were the cheesiest S&S movies you loved? I'm talking Hawk the Slayer, The Sword & the Sorcerer, the Deathstalker series, and all that jazz.

Let's get a nice list going ....

In the past several years, I have noted more and more games starting at higher levels rather than 1st. In fact, I had several players look at me shocked when I told them my DL campaign was starting at 1st level.

I have always enjoyed running and playing at 1st level, but I was wondering what other people think. I started wondering this after noting over and over again the dislike for the fact that spellcasters, namely wizards, are far too powerful at higher levels, and I'm not sure if those PC wizards were forced to survive the opening levels as they should.

Let me know you take on starting levels.

I was just wondering a couple of things:

1) How many people remember gaming during the BADD/Pat Pulling era of D&D and felt like you were gaming in the closet to avoid a book-burning on your parents' newly manicured lawn?

2) Has the absence of BADD/Pat Pulling anti-D&D attitudes led us as a community to attacke each other because we no longer have the "Architects of Fear"-type "common enemy"?

Would we be fighting amongst ourselves less if we had someone outside who was a threat to the industry? I always get the feeling that post 1995-ish gamers have a much different type appreciation for the game because it has become far more mainstreamed and accepted to be a "gamer".

What does everyone else think?

I know this is going to sound like an odd premise for a thread, BUt do wizards really need a d6 instead of a d4 for hp?

One of my favorite things about wizards (ironically) has always been the fact that they suck in the hp dept. If I could get my wussy little mage to make it through the first few levels without dying, I always felt a sense of accomplishment. I always liked the fact that my choice to spend countless hours buried in books rather than improving my physical abilities had consequences.

I can give in on the sorcerer's increase (and had created a class much like the PFRPG class myself) since these casters are less study and more action. I have always thought sorcerers were too similar to wizards with too few advantages. I like the bloodline ideas.

But I believe the fact that wizards suck at low levels is the justification for having them rule at higher levels ... which apparently is at the core of many people's complaints with classes (I just think they're upset that they can never pull of an effective wizard themselves). I also think the 4-sided die gets far too love anyway ... like the 12-sider (keep Barbarians at d12 ... IMHO)

What does everyone else think?

Over the past few years, I have been noticing (with a bit of sadness and disappointment) that fantasy role-playing games have drifted away from their fantasy literature seeds and forebears. As I look about my office (where I have fewer books than at home), I can see Fritz Leiber, Terry Brooks, H.P. Lovecraft, even Dante's Inferno, Mary Shelley's Last Man and Frankenstein, and (of course) Tolkien (including a 26 page gradute paper on the depictions of good and evil in LotR). So my question is: Where did these stories go in the games we play and when did they fall prey to computer game-based design?

I remember picking up D&D in '81 and using the back of the DMG as a guide for books to go check out of the library. I remember feeling closer to the game because I read stories ... not because I played video games. (of course I also remember my nice, sleek, white Pong console ... so I guess that says something too).

So I'd like to hear other people's opinions: when did RPGs move away from books and toward computer games? why? do we need to bring those stories back?