|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Apparently my company's IT department can't get their s#!# together enough to even follow simple instructions, and so I've spent about three hours in an already busy day helping to clean up their mess. And I'll be devoting more time to it tomorrow as well. Because it's not like I had my own work to do, right?
The first time, DrDeth wrote:
In Pathfinder, at least according to JJ, your party is the only group of adventurers. Adventuring is not only rare but unique.
Once called out, DrDeth wrote:
...adventurers are so rare your party is the only one they [bandits] have ever encountered.
Those are pretty different statements, DrDeth.
It was someone with a connection to game design, so the overlap shouldn't really surprise me. Even so, I was all like "HEY I KNOW WHO THAT IS".
But I didn't friend request you because we don't actually know each other IRL so that might be creepy, but I still wanted to give you an internet hi-five, so to speak. :)
I enjoy roleplaying in non-RPGs. For example, I really love imagining how my creatures react to things (especially bizarre things) in games of Magic: the Gathering. I like narrating scenes based on dramatic successes/failures in board games. Stuff like that. I can't seem to not have a narrative in my gaming.
Making a statement about what's true in Pathfinder is not the same as claiming it's only true about Pathfinder. Limiting one's scope so as not to make claims about things outside the scope of one's experience, is perhaps a foreign concept to you...? Or perhaps you were just skimming really fast (twice, since you went back for citations) and mis-read the text? Or something? I'm trying to figure out how you managed to read "X is true in Pathfinder" and retain "X is only true in Pathfinder".
I know you dont like Pathfinder, you dont play Pathfinder, but perhaps maybe you could scale down your constant attacks on the Pathfinder game in the Pathfinder forums?
Talking shop about Pathfinder-related game design is not "attacking", and is completely appropriate for these forums. (I do try to keep it relevant to the sub-forum and thread I'm posting in, too.)
If you don't play the game, how can you give honest appraisals?
You don't suddenly lose all knowledge of a game when you stop playing. Whatever qualification to comment that I had when I was still playing, GMing, researching, and publishing; I still have now that I quit. It didn't go away. Obviously I would have less expertise in regard to newer content, but I also avoid commenting on that content for that exact reason.
Init +1 | AC 17 | HP 28/28 | S+5/D+1/C+4/I+1/W+3/C+0 | Perc +3 | 2Wnd: [X] | Surge: [X] | Sup: (DC 13, d8) 4/4 | HD: (d10) 3/3 | Insp: [ ]
"Glue, eh?" Ander muses. "That probably means the 'dracolich' is a trick to inspire panic in the victims and make them easier to overcome. Probably a costume worn by some chubby guy in a wheelbarrow with a holocaust cloak."
To be fair, you've got to put the post you're replying to in context: the general flow of the discussion wasn't about banning a class or choosing not to use an optional or modular subsystem. Maybe that's what YOU meant, but that wasn't previously clear.
I mean, the main topic of the thread is magic items. "Magic items as character progression" is not a quick-and-easy ban, or a subsystem to be discarded without consequence. It's a fundamental pillar of how Pathfinder is structured. Using your "just don't use it" suggestion (which in this case translates to the same "just don't give out as much loot" advice others have given) isn't like banning a class or leaving out Retraining; it's more like cutting everyone's good saves down to bad saves, bad saves down to zero, full BAB down to 3/4 BAB, and 3/4 BAB down to half BAB; and then expecting there to be no consequences.
Banning the Leadership feat or the Gunslinger class doesn't alter the rest of the game. But a change like the above means you now have to either modify every monster you pull out of a Bestiary (and moreso as levels rise) or start homebrewing all your monsters yourself.
Cutting out wealth-as-progression from Pathfinder isn't like banning a feat, it's like banning the entire mechanic of having feats at all. There's a big difference between what you're apparently talking about and what Chess Pwn was commenting on.
tony gent wrote:
I share your preference for magic items as points of wonder rather than mere equipment. Unfortunately, as others have noted, those who designed the 3.X paradigm didn't feel the same way.
There are multiple solutions. My own was 5E. Brought the magic back to magic items, in my opinion. :)
Oh, oh, I actually already did this once, except it was CRB-only.
It was 7th level, fighter versus wizard. Starting positions were known to both parties, and were within charging range for a fighter. Both sides got three rounds to buff. The fighter was built solely and expressly for this fight, and nothing else. It was expected that the wizard would be built the same way.
Instead, the wizard was secretly built with some extra constraints:
So there was a 7th-level fighter built for the sole purpose of wizard-slaying and carrying a perfect assortment of magic items who can freely blow every resource he's got on this one fight,
A generalist wizard from an ordinary adventuring party taking time out of an otherwise normal adventuring day to fight somebody he's not specifically prepared for, using only what magic items he could make himself and while still reserving enough resources for the rest of the day.
Want to guess who won?
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Of course, there's an element of false equivalency there—scantily-clad dudes in fantasy art are often more about male empowerment than fanservice for women and non-straight gamers. With scantily-clad women, I think we all recognize it's the other way around.
There's also the "if they both exist at all, then there must not be an imbalance" issue that's being ignored.
Sure, there are plenty of loincloth-toting male barbarians. These are mirrored by the pelt-bikini female barbarians.
But then there's also the sexy female mages, sexy female archers, sexy female bards, sexy female assassins, sexy female tavern servers, and so forth. Where are the male counterparts for these?
Yeah, sorry, crying "But barbarians!" isn't enough to support a claim that "there's plenty of beefcake as well as cheesecake".
Sadly, FLGS are anything but when you account for forum submissions. All I read are stories about socially awkward people who smell bad at best, at worst violence and sexual assault. I don't doubt these things happen but I've never seen anything like what I am reading. Granted I don't spend a significant amount of time at LGS so maybe I'm just not putting in the time to see these things?
Well, only the bad stories get talked about.
I mean, I was playing Friday Night Magic for a few years, and everyone was unfailingly polite and courteous, week after week after week. And that's with 40-50 people per tournament, with expensive prizes on the line. Then I was out of the game for a few years, and now I'm playing weekend Modern Magic tournaments without a lick of trouble. Also, the events I go to now run parallel to Magic Kids' League, and come right after the local Pokémon CCG tourney, so I get to see a bit of those events, and even with kids everybody's happy and well-behaved and very respectful.
Meanwhile, professional Magic competitions travel the globe, with 1-2 thousand players in many of the events and prizes reaching upwards of 40-50 thousand dollars for 1st place; and yet, even with so many people and so much on the line, stories of poor behavior or cheating or whatever else are so rare as to be huge, shocking news when they do come up.
Well, we dont know what would have happened had he picked another number, maybe there was a tiger behind all the doors....
There was a king who was way too protective of his daughter, the princess. To keep her from getting married and leaving, any suitor had to pass a series of deadly challenges. The final such challenge was a challenge of fate: draw one of two slips of paper from a basket, and if it says "The Lady" you get to marry her, but if it says "The Tiger" you get fed to the kitty.
Several cat-food princes later, a suitor comes along and truly wins the princess's heart. Concerned for his well-being, she secretly tells him:
"You can't face the final challenge; I think my father cheats! I think both papers say 'The Tiger'! Please, run away; I couldn't bear to see you eaten!"
He replies, "Don't worry; I got this."
He arrives to the final challenge as planned, full of confidence.
What does he do?
He draws out a slip of paper, looks at it, then excitedly screams "I won!" for everyone to hear... and then immediately swallows the slip of paper. When proof of his victory is demanded, he says, "Sorry, I got a little carried away there. But don't worry, just look at the paper that's still in the basket; since it says 'The Tiger', that proves I got 'The Lady'. Right, your majesty?"
Not always. (At least, not unless you're using a uselessly-broad definition of "interpretation".)
Sometimes, sure. Sometimes the rules are vague, or absent, thus appearing to need "interpretation". But often the rules only seem vague because of a weak grasp of language on the part of the reader.* Sometimes the rules only seem absent because you didn't look in the right place.** And then it turns out that, when all rules are found and fully read, the answer is clear and doesn't require any real interpretation.
It's been my experience that the vast majority of rules questions/disputes fall into that latter category, where there is a clear, demonstrably-correct answer (though perhaps buried and poorly organized) that can be found and proven. Not all disputes, but most.
*For example, the text for protection from evil opens by saying it grants three effects. The next three paragraphs open with "First, blah blah" and "Second, blah blah" and "Third, blah blah". At the end of the paragraph labeled as "Second," there's a sentence that says "This second effect only functions against spells and effects created by evil creatures or objects, subject to GM discretion." Some folks tried to apply that only to part of that paragraph, ignoring the context of the "first, second, third" structure of the text. Since the error would be the same regardless of whether this was rules text, a baking recipe, a story of my vacation, or sex tips in a magazine; the error has nothing to do with being a rules interpretation. It's purely an issue of reading proficiency.
**For example, potion rules. Two different parts of the Magic Items chapter give details on what a potion can do, but one of those two places omits one of the restrictions (or did; it might have been updated by now). If someone misses the second entry and therefore doesn't see the rule, that's not a difference of interpretation. Once you've read all applicable rules, it's clear as day. There's no "interpreting", in any valid and meaningful sense.
Completely quiet and uneventful. :)
Look, some PC's are just that a spreadsheet, no background, no "character'. You can have that sort of "toon" even if it is dreadfully underpowered. Noting that someone had not added enough character, verisimilitude or background can & has been done independently of "optimization and roleplay are mutually exclusive"
I wasn't talking about someone noting a lack of character/verisimilitude/background, I was talking about someone assuming it, based purely on the fact that the character was powerful. I am talking about someone literally using a character's high AC as sufficient proof, all by itself, that the character has no personality/depth/etc.
What the Stormwind "fallacy" is that a optimized character CAN'T be well Roleplayed. This is not true. A poorly designed & weak PC also might not be well roleplayed. A optimized PC might be fantastically roleplayed.
The legit complaint comes when a Player has spent what appears to be hours and hours and weeks optimizing- but didnt spend a minute coming up with a backstory or heck- even a name.
I agree that this happens. I also agree that someone pointing out such a case is not automatically a commission of the Stormwind Fallacy. Again, the example I gave above was of someone with no information at all about the character's background/roleplaying, who drew the conclusion that it must be lacking, because the character was powerful.
Is it asking to much that a fair amount of time be spent on both? (Of course there is also a issue if they spend too much time and effort on characterization, but fail to come up with a PC that pulls some weight on the team).
As you imply, this has nothing to do with Stormwind. We're agreed here.
Someone posting that they'd like to see such optimizers spend as much time and effort on backstory and characterization as optimizing is legit, and is not "Stormwind".
Again, that's not the example I gave you. The guy didn't see the high AC and say "I hope you spent as much time and effort on backstory/characterization". They guy saw the high AC and immediately concluded that there had been no such effort at all. No questioning, no looking into it further, no expression of hopes. Just immediate and final judgment, with high AC as the only piece of evidence.
Only if you say such optimized characters cant be or are never ROLEplayed. Or even that "The more you optimize the less you characterize".
That is exactly the example I gave you. An example you said didn't count.
That is extremely uncommon.
So now you've gone from "it doesn't happen" (or more precisely, "to say it happens is a fallacy") to "it's extremely uncommon"? That's a significant change of position. What do you actually believe?
Does anything short of something like "I totally support the Stormwind Fallacy" or "I wholeheartedly believe that optimization and roleplay are mutually exclusive" count?
Because I mean, one example that sprang most quickly to my mind was where somebody mentioned one of their favorite characters having a really high AC, and someone else said—based on literally no other information than the high AC—that "he's not a character, he's a spreadsheet" and would be booted from this GM's table.
I mean, that's a pretty textbook example of "You're too powerful, therefore you're not roleplaying," even though he didn't call it the Stormwind Fallacy (and why would he?).
So does that count? Or does the person need to self-identify as committing the fallacy in order to count as committing the fallacy?
You can understand the mechanics of a class/spell/ability/etc without understanding how it relates to the context of the larger metastructure of the game*. For example, you can understand the casting time, duration, and math of divine favor without understanding what that really means in the context of actual gameplay situations (considering action economy, enemy full-attacks and movement, likelihood of pre-casting, etc).
I've generally not participated in the "sell me" threads myself, but I always assumed that's what was going on.
*See also: "fighters can go all day", "you need a cleric for healing", "rogues are good at skills", etc.
Specifically, the people least in need of help.
Yeah, the D&D/PF-playing subculture has this weird thing where there's a segment of the population that condemns very good things, such as actually being good at the game, the equality of the participants, and everybody reminding each other of things they missed.
Get a group of adults together to play just about any other game (whether competitive or cooperative), and you see people happy about good plays, you see people correct each other and remind each other of rules like it's no big deal, and you see (in the case of a dispute) people defer to whomever is clearly most knowledgeable about the game rules. Everybody's equal, everybody's working together to have a good time.
Bring that same behavior into certain segments of the D&D/PF community, though, and now you're a powergaming rules lawyer who doesn't respect the GM and has (somehow) missed that the point of the game is to have fun. Oh, and you don't know how to roleplay, either.
It is truly fascinating to watch sometimes.
Except that in the logic model you're blaming, the person would also have to support the premise "I can do anything unless it says I can't", and if they can't logically support that premise, they won't make the argument you described.
The issues that you're seeing and labeling as sprouting from "logic" are in truth coming from a lack of logic.
My grievance is when there are two groups of people, one where everyone shares one idea and another where everyone shares a different idea; and someone in the first group says that the only reason the folks in the second group all share one idea is because of simple-minded, sheep-like failure to think; but he himself and all the people in his own group definitely arrived at their own shared belief through careful individual thought; and it couldn't possibly be the other way around, and it couldn't possibly be that one or the other of those two explanations applies to both groups, and it couldn't possibly be that both groups contain a mix of both types, and it DEFINITELY couldn't be that both positions are valid in the first place.
@Raynulf - It's been my experience that most folks who avoid all non-mandatory social interaction with their "non-Face" characters have been trained to do so by at least one GM. Have enough instances of innocently trying to portray the grump you've envisioned and then having the GM unexpectedly call for a check and then force an embarrassment that you didn't sign up for, and you'll start keeping your head down as much as you can.
If it's not you, it might have been a previous GM. I recommend putting some extra effort into making it clear that demonstrating their flaws won't get them shamed (let alone penalized) at the table. That might remove your peeve. :)
Alternatively, it could also be a symptom of the players being very conscious of the "team" aspect of the game. Getting involved in the parts where the diplomat is supposed to shine might feel (to them) like betraying the trust that each player would respect what the other players claimed. Like if someone wanted to focus on stealth so they could scout ahead, then everyone else moved forward with them instead of waiting. That's pretty rude and inconsiderate, and it's possible that the "silent non-Faces" see the social encounters the same way.
If that's the situation, then changing the behavior will likely start with making sure that the invested diplomat feels like they still have plenty of times to do their thing, and that the other players can see that assurance. That way, the minor social interactions might feel less like that player's "territory", making it easier for others to get involved without feeling disrespectful.
Best of luck in getting your games going the way you like. :)
Hm, yeah, so maybe the similarities were mainly with the casters: mages nuke things with fireballs, clerics heal (and maybe smite the undead).
Really bugs me, though, when I run into folks who can't fathom that there might exist a game wearing the same face-paint as AD&D wherein the classes have entirely different strengths.
Oh well. Getting a bit off topic now, I suppose.
My primary experience with pre-3.X D&D was playing a licensed D&D video game called Order of the Griffon, based on pre-AD&D rules.
Fighters and dwarves (and exactly one of your halfling options) were good for placing in a choke point and trading blows with enemies.
Clerics were basically required due to the prohibitive cost of potions (both monetarily and in regard to inventory space) and the lack of any sort of natural HP recovery. You had one worthwhile spell (hold person) and the moderately useful Turn Undead ability. The rest of the time you were taking pot-shots with a mace and tapping people with a staff of healing.
Thieves were literally just bad fighters due to this game's lack of non-combat challenges, so no data there.
Anyway, overall that's not THAT far off from the MMO arrangement (at least, as I understand it), but it's pretty different from how Pathfinder works.
Just thought of another one: it bugs me when someone mentions "rolling up a new character" if they're not using rolled ability scores. Now, if you're rolling for stats (or rolling for other aspects of your character, for that matter), then the phrase doesn't bother me in the slightest. Only when character creation is completely diceless. Then saying "roll a character" really bugs me.
Yes, I'm being picky about that. I'm sorry.
Nothing about my having pointed out other possibilities implies that I missed the part of your post where you said "hazard a guess".
On a side note, it's generally considered poor form to favorite your own post, as it looks like you're trying to manufacture an appearance of having a popular opinion. If you're using it for reference, I recommend the "List" and "Focus" features instead.
Matthew Downie wrote:
I've seen face-to-face tables range from absolutely zero first-person intra-party dialogue, to so much excited chatter between PCs that the store had to tell them to tone it down because they were bothering customers. And that's just within PFS. When you start looking at other mediums, such as Play-by-Post, there's even more possibility of PC-to-PC dialogue.