|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I'd go with the boring one. I can get inspired by the respect, and fix the boring.
Would you rather play hard Sci-fi or hard fantasy?
That erinyes-kitten was super-adorable. I want one.
I am reminded of a certain ancient red dragon in an old AD&D campaign that was polymorphed into a puppy. It retained its intelligence and its ability to speak. Listening to a puppy roar "I am Krishnaragh the Red and you will all pay with your lives!" at the top of its squeaky puppy lungs was a hoot. And, of course, our druid wouldn't let us kill it. She wanted to raise it as a pet, and teach it the error of its ways.
So inevitably, our ranger woke up to find the puppy trying to chew up his boots of the winterlands. (Krishnaragh had the mistaken belief that consuming magic items would fuel his dragon nature and break the polymorph.)
That was the same campaign wherein a succubus, unable to enter our Daern's instant Fortress, placed a symbol of death right outside the door so that when we emerged the next morning everybody passed over it safely (too many HP) while the lowly 2nd edition bard dropped dead on the spot.
He died a lot in that campaign. :)
The point of this is that I support the occasional PC death, but I don't care much for the old "save or die" stuff. Fudging a bit is not going to destroy the game, if a PC's death would result in the player being out of the game for most of the session.
(And a fudged roll would have let the %@*#ing dragon have a low enough intelligence that it would eventually lose itself to full-on puppytude.)
I have had bad experiences with people running prewritten stuff, as it often resulted in severe railroading. I may have spoken hastily however, as I'm sure a good GM could make them enjoyable.
And a truly good GM can direct you along the path without you ever realizing he's doing it. :)
Vincent Takeda wrote:
Quite! And these "guests" will be just a devious and obtuse as they have been in the past.... *evil chuckle*
I didn't stick out my tongue, but she got an earful after the game. :)
Throwback Mountain Dew, with real sugar. *drools*.
And cheesy poofs. With extra orange powder. So your character sheet gets the stains that makes it a real character sheet.
Vincent Takeda wrote:
Easier to lose, though. I have a box of them from my last campaign, but a few are missing. (That just happened to be the characters I wanted to use as guest stars/NPCs in a new campaign.:\)
You have excellent taste in systems...
Except maybe Cyberpunk, but I think my negative reaction to it had more to do with a GM who insisted that only evil people live in that reality, rather than the game itself.
*nods approvingly* As long as there's no restriction in the gaming... :)
My roommate's mother always wanted to play bloodthirsty hobbits carrying their body weight in daggers. :D
I'm really too old to be doing so myself. I'm lucky to have someone who'll support me as I work through a difficult time. I don't deserve them. :)
John Kretzer wrote:
This, for me is a no-brainer. AD&D is my favorite system, even if the Cavalier isn't my favorite character.
As far as air ships are concerned... They are a staple in my campaigns. My players treat them as the plague. Only one or two of them want to have anything to do with them.
Would you rather be taken prisoner by orcs or by an Ogre Mage?
On DriveThruRPG there's a product from The Other Game Company called the "Blank Card Collection". It includes:
- Character Cards
The download is currently free (as in 0.00 cost).
In a similar vein, also on DriveThruRPG, from The Game Mechanics are "Blank Initiative Cards".
It also is free (0.00).
These things are generic D20, but they should work with Pathfinder.
I don't know if these things will help. I downloaded the Initiative Cards PDF long ago and used them in my d20 games. Instead of printing them on 3" x 5" cards, I used 4" x 6", which made the fields bigger, and gave me room for notes.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Same, and I have been impressed with side notes in adventures like Runelords where it provides some advice if the party decide to join the bad guys or take a bribe to cease the fight against evil.
I like the idea of incorporating into the adventure write-up those things the players are going to do anyway. :)
Combat Monster wrote:
I fail to see how running an adventure path removes the players' ability to do what they want to do.
<Edited for clarity>
Would you rather play games with electronic devices allowed, or without?
I'll go ahead and say with, although it truly depends greatly as to the purpose for which those devices are used. If all they are is a way to access the game books, and maybe Herolab or some other bookkeeping program, great. But texting and distracting is a no-no.
Would you rather play a campaign set entirely at sea or one set entirely on land (or, as a bonus, one set entirely in the air in flying ships or the like.)
I think this one was sort of asked, with teens and grogs, but...
I'll say the grizzled elderly. It's been a long time since I played with my peers :D.
Would you rather be plunked into a fantasy world in the body of a human or of what we used to call a demi-human (elf, dwarf, halfling, etc.), and if so, which type?
By worst enemy, I just meant a person who would make a choice that definitely wouldn't be for your benefit. Didn't get specific because I don't known what sort of Fantasy World nightmare you'd dislike.
Evil with wishes. At least I'd be happy in that scenario (and with the wishes, eventually the scenario would change!)
Would you rather play in a low-magic, low-level game set in a real historical past (your choice) or play in a high-magic, high-level game set in a magical fantasy world of your worst enemy's choice?
And I was complaining the other day about gaming two nights a week. You're making me feel old...
The Harpy The players set out to kill a monster, but through the course of the combat, end up capturing it, and turning it into a pet/dependent NPC. This NPC accompanies them throughout the rest of the campaign, getting them into trouble, forcing them to rescue it, provide for it, even buy items for it, and the GM is grinning to himself throughout it all.
I admit I am very guilty of this. But they fall for it every time.
(Note: this is called "the Harpy" because that was the species of the first two DNPCs the PCs picked up in my campaign. They have yet to figure out how it keeps happening.)
BOOKS. It has to be shouted. I own lots of PDFs, especially of things I can't find in print, but I print out what I need.
Play with low powers (minimal damage and barely-there spells) or over-the-top power levels (maxed CON and HP, maxed weapon damages, spells of vast cosmic power, etc.).
I'll admit the game I described was intriguing. Immersion was near-total, especially since all we had to go on about how wounded we were were the DM's descriptions. But the uncertainty for some of the players was almost pathological. One of the guys who was known as a cut-up and a constant chatterbox was silent most of the time, clutching his note-sheet and staring at it as if he could make his stats appear on it.
As a GM, I wouldn't want the hassle. Keeping track of hit points, spells, and conditions, etc. for a bunch of monsters is bad enough. Trying to keep track of the PCs as well would split my skull.
As a player... I'd be afraid of the kind of person who could GM that way, since there's so much more to keep track of these days. The best movie serial killers are people like that... :o
Message board troll wrote:
I had a DM in OD&D who not only rolled every roll for us, he kept our character sheets. All we had was an equipment list of what we were carrying, and a sheet to write information on. If we went into our mulepacks, he'd hand us that sheet to make changes on, and then took it back. We didn't even know how many hit points we had.
I only played in three sessions with that guy. They were fun, but I can't imagine that same sort of thing flying these days.
Unexpected and strange strategies are always cool. Especially if I have to fly by the seat of my pants to deal with them!
Play an in-depth, challenging game in a system you really hate or play a loved and familiar system that devolves into the trivial and hum-drum?
Not a zombie/virus infected mouth-breather fan, but Resident Evil, definitely. I'd enjoy destroying that bratty little computer!
Game at home (or equivalent) or at a FLGS?
Vincent Takeda wrote:
Hand-in-hand with this is the question of perception. Are they doing what they appear to be doing, or something just being misunderstood? As has been noted, communication seems to be key.
General statements about the trend of gaming have been made, but many of those who respond to the comments seem to be taking them as if they were personally attacked in broad statements about modern gaming.
The questions and statements (at least from me) are about gaming trends, not about specific gamers. And those trends are expressed in the systems being used, not in the people praising them.
The attacks on Takeda were very personal and not at all in response to his comments. They were attacking him. My comments were made in commiseration and sympathy, not intended to be "passive/aggressive". In retrospect I realize I should have made the post a private message.
The reference to the lion and the cubs was to me and similar attacks on my views. Sorry it wasn't clear.
Maybe I shouldn't have added the comment at all. It came to me when I was reading posts earlier on in the thread and the writer in me wanted to use it. I apologize for giving in to impulse. :)
Usual Suspect wrote:
183. Put on a belt that somebody has told them is magical, then immediately check their bust size to make sure nothing changed.
A player in my old AD&D game had the gender reversal thing happen to his character(s) three times before he learned to get items identified first.
Wow. I go do something else for a while and... wow.
Takeda, I think there are people on this thread who are going to dissect your statements for any negativity they can find, and attack you for it. If I was capable of apologizing for the community, I would.
I agree with some things you have said. I think there's a trend in modern gaming that diverges from the old school, and that makes my style of GMing clash with players of later versions of the game. But I still GM in my own style. And I still have players who play my games.
As far as the insults thrown your way are concerned... Well, I don't think being called a Grognard is really an insult, since it underlines literally decades of experience at gaming that younger players have not yet achieved. I am reminded of a lion basking in the sun while cubs chew on his tail. Eventually they'll get big enough to know better.
Everybody has a gaming style, and everybody thinks that style is the best way to play. Learning to agree to disagree is a big step forward. I wish more people would take it.
Qakisst Vishtani wrote:
I salute you, oh unpronounceable one.
How should you act when you're being oppressed by evil munchkins?
First time I ever heard the term "DPS" was when I was listening to the power-gamer of our group advising a newbie on how to create his ranger. And believe me, the entire conversation was about mechanics. Fortunately, the newbie was a drama major and it all went over his head. He created his ranger based on social and cultural choices, not game mechanics.
EDIT: The ranger was a Cajun-style Elven alligator hunter from a swamp the party was crossing though. He fit right into the GM's world (the GM was a recent graduate of LSU).
It took longer to explain it here than to talk with the GM about it.
Finding the envoys living it up was the GM's way to get Wu to the city where the other PCs were.
The bit with the dragon was just an encounter gone bad.
The sister was the character I replaced Wu with, until he got resurrected.
There wasn't a lot of rp involved in this, honestly.
In all seriousness, though, he was a ditch-digger with incidental fighter levels. We worked it out beforehand. :)
I had a monk in a 3.5 game called "Honorable Street-Washer Wu". He was a drunken fighting master who pushed around a street-cleaner's cart (secretly loaded with brandy). It was his cover as the lord's spy.
He was in the west of the world because his lord sent him to find out what happened to two trade envoys who disappeared (turned out they were living the high life in a coastal city a lot like San Francisco).
He actually died when he was hiding behind his cart from an angry dragon. The dragon breathed, the cartload of brandy (along with some thunderstones and a load of fireworks) exploded and Wu was no more.
Until his sister came out of the east looking for him and found a way to resurrect him from his ashes. He turned out to be one of my all-time favorite characters.
The point is his entire background came out of a very short conversation I had with the GM, and explained how an eastern character that absolutely didn't belong managed to fit in a decidedly western campaign, with in-game reasons for his presence.
he plays a fighter who wields a shovel. Nothing relevant; I just want everyone to envision him slaying the end boss of that campaign... with a shovel.
Now, he did meet a gardener in-game so he can have that shovel, right?
I don't have a link at the moment (sorry, Anzyr) but I believe James Jacobs has said that Golarion is a deliberate patchwork of unmixing cultures - making it easy to cut out Alkenstar, or Numeria, or whichever trope you have no desire for. This way thejeff can have his campaign with no unexplained gunslingers and Anzyr can say "I'm from Alkenstar, NBD" when his GM asks. Something for everyone. :)
It would seem strange if such a patchwork wasn't designed for that.
I understand what you are saying, and that it was a futile attempt but that did not mean the players were not making a real attempt to change the game.
Sorry. Misapprehended your point. I do agree that players were trying to get rulings changed, or were fostering different interpretations of the rules.
It is very probable that the same mechanism I speak about "these days" was operating then; GMs were feeling threatened because it seemed (to them) that players were trying to take over their games.
On reflection, that seems a probable explanation for the "I am God" thing.
<shuffles feet sheepishly, ducks head to hide embarrassment>
Obviously those grodnards don't remember the "I am the DUNGEONMASTER. My way or the highway." routine that was all too common back then.
Much to my shame I do recall telling an argumentative player "I am God. Shut the book and play."
Nobody really expected to bend the DM. Unless he was the wishy-washy type.
Rules clarification did happen from time to time. But for the most part, games went without much argument, once you figured out how a DM was doing things.
I think that game settings with a variety of cultures are there for the GM to cherry-pick his preferences. You use this culture and this culture and this culture, but you discard these others.
The assumption that "it's in the rules, so it is allowed" should be amended to "it's in the rules, so it is an option" and GMs need to say yea or nay to that option.
Players complained and rules-lawyered "back in the day", but they didn't assume that their carping was actually going to change anything. With 1e, differing interpretations of the rules were easy because Gygax had a style of writing that would make legislators envious (he worked in the insurance industry, after all).
2e clarified a lot of things, but made the assumption that everyone who played the game was 12 years old and therefore needed rules in simple language.
3e assumed that everything needed to be spelled out in black and white so there was no room for interpretation. And Pathfinder, improvement over 3e or not, continues that attitude.
The idea that the rules restrict the GM is what's different from the old days. That and the idea that the GM apparently needs restriction.
It is entirely possible this isn't the fault of the system or of the internet or even of the players, but it makes GMs who are used to absolute control over their game-worlds feel threatened. No old-style GM wants to run a game with the players continually correcting rulings, or getting angry when those "corrections" are ignored.
The first question anyone in our group asks a GM starting a new campaign is "Any special creation rules?" The second is, "Are you using any house rules?"
We just assume that the game is going to be unique, and not RAW.
And even if there weren't any house rules, I still can't imagine making assumptions about the game world without asking questions. Even if every GM in the group was using the same setting, I would expect the game-worlds to all be different.