|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Aniuś the Talewise wrote:
I imagine it's a phenomenon similar to how someone can know that racism is bad, but if they drive through a new part of town and all the pedestrians are black they conclude it's a "rough neighborhood" and try to avoid it, and don't even know that's how they came to that conclusion.
EDIT: Or like how there was a study where a man and a woman would have a conversation, and they'd both think the woman did most of the talking, when actually (per the recording) the man did most of the talking.
Aniuś the Talewise wrote:
I'm kinda hit-and-miss with this. Some movies/videos seem impossible to understand, while others are fine even without raising the volume.
Related: movies with massive swings in volume; you turn it up to hear what's going on, then get deafened in the next scene.
Some dude: Doing X means you're really being unreasonable.
Me: I don't think there's anything wrong with doing X.
Some dude: Oh, I totally agree, nothing wrong with doing X.
Me: Oh, maybe I misunderstood you then. Carry on.
Some dude: A person really must've missed the boat to actually do X.
Repeat a few times, then:
Me: I'm confused. Whenever you're asked directly about X, you say it's totally legit. But whenever you're discussing X directly, you keep bashing it like somebody would have to be really messed up to do X. You're contradicting yourself, sometimes even from one breath to the next. What gives?
Some dude: What are you talking about? Of course it's fine to do X; I even explicitly said so! Are you not bothering to pay attention to what I'm saying?
Is your lack of response a "yes"? Like, you really did mean that just that one post about a knife through butter when you said most people were filling the thread with a notion comparable to a diamond spear passing uninhibited through a skyscraper?
A normal dagger is ineffective tool for bring down a wall, or carving stone. Adding properties to it, doesn't change that it still is an ineffective device for what you are trying to use it as. It just means it would be more effective than the rest of the ineffective devices.
Then I may have misunderstood your original stance; I thought you were saying that, like the bludgeoning-versus-rope example in the CRB, any "ineffective" device will fail to ever deal damage to the target. But if you're saying that adamantine does indeed make a dagger better at hacking at a stone wall than if it was a steel dagger, then I've got no beef with you. :)
Guy prepares to run game for a new group he's never played with.
Guy reviews characters prior to any actual gameplay.
Guy concludes players have zero interest in any story-related aspects of the gaming experience.
(I've also seen the player-to-player version of this, where you show up to a convention/game day table, lean over to see your neighbor's stats, then say something like "So much for thinking there'll be any actual roleplay in this game.")
Besides the fact that the rules for the game we are playing have called out weapons that would be effective for the actions you are trying to take?
So, is it that you're taking "such as a pick or a hammer" to mean "only a pick or a hammer," or is it that you think a blade into a wall is comparable to a hammer onto a rope?
el cuervo wrote:
...and the players know the golem is aware of their presence, which changes their behavior towards said golem. As I mentioned earlier, I am not blessed with perfect players who never metagame.
Then teach them to do better.
It is okay to say "...but your character wouldn't know that."
It is okay to say "Why would your character be doing that?"
It is okay to say "Is that really what your character would do when he doesn't know X?"
Those are all preferable to the experience you had.
"Like a knife through butter" implies something like punching through a skyscraper with barely a loss of momentum?And one post is "most people", "filling" the thread?
"Damn shame the game doesn't work like the real world isn't it?"
Wait, then how did you determine that a dagger was an ineffective weapon against a wall in the first place?
It sounds like you're changing the standards of what it takes for something to work so as to only favor what you already want to be the result, and trying to avoid directly addressing any inconvenient counterpoints.
But I don't want to come to that conclusion prematurely; maybe your posts just look that way by chance. Could you explain your position in a bit more detail? Thanks.
I seem to have missed all those posts that are "filling" this thread. I've seen posts saying that your diamond spear does not forever fail to damage the skyscraper no matter how hard you swing/throw it, and I was just about to make a post poking fun at the suggestion that your diamond spear would get worn smooth as you continued to stab the skyscraper over and over, but I must have missed all these posts saying that it would punch through with barely a loss in momentum.
Can you direct me to the posts that suggested anything remotely like that? Maybe link, say, five of them? I hope I wasn't just blind to miss the posts made by "most people", but I'll give you the chance to show me before I rule out the possibility.
Is paying an additional 3000gp for your weapon, justification for bypassing and trivializing numerous encounters, plot points and various other situations in the game?
I submit that if "numerous" encounters/plots can be bypassed/trivialized by the ability to cut things, the ability to cut things is not the problem.
My gut is saying no.
Guts are no less prone to error than heads are.
Thought experiment for those discussing the "ineffective weapons" thing:
Okay, so let's suppose that an adamantine dagger is an "ineffective weapon" against a stone dungeon wall, because daggers aren't designed to destroy walls. Thus, the adamantine dagger can't damage the stone wall.
Now, suppose I cast stone shape, replacing a segment of wall with a 3ft-high stone box. It's open on top, with inch-thick sides. The box's sides are still stone walls, but they're thinner than the length of the blade and I can cut down from the top instead of chiseling in from the side. Can the adamantine dagger damage these stone walls, or is it still an "ineffective weapon" because daggers aren't designed for destroying stone walls?
Suppose I cast stone shape again. The box now turns into humanoid figure; basically, a stone scarecrow/training dummy. It's not a wall now, but it's still an object, and made of the same material. Can the adamantine dagger damage it, or is it still an "ineffective weapon" because daggers aren't designed to destroy stone statues?
Now suppose I animate this statue I just made, turning it into some kind of stone golem. It's still made of the same stuff as the stone wall my dagger couldn't scratch, but now it's a creature who happens to have hardness. Can the dagger harm it now, since daggers are designed to hurt creatures?
Not telling your players whether it's a surprise round or a regular round is kinda like making them guess which Knowledge to roll to ID the monster. It's (presumably) a well-intentioned hedge against metagaming, but it actually harms the narrative by having the characters do nonsensical things because they're controlled by players who don't know which sets of mechanics to use. The GM's effort to preserve roleplay actually damages it instead.
Look at the in-character narrative of what happened: for about six seconds, the PCs suddenly all slowed down to about half speed for no (in-universe) reason, then sped back up to normal. That's complete nonsense.
If you want to preserve the narrative/roleplay, you've got to tell the players which sets of mechanics are appropriate for interacting with the current scene of the narrative.
Goth Guru wrote:
I've found when playing a rogue who is skill focused, it's good to multiclass as a bard. The bard song and use magic device are good in combat, often better than a surprise attack which works once. Does that change with Pathfinder or 5th edition? It's not looking like it.
Disagree. The 5E rogue is as accurate with his attacks as anybody, and Sneak Attack is REALLY easy to get consistently from round to round. If you think the rogue plays out the same in 5E as it does in 3.X, you haven't looked close enough at 5E. They are worlds apart.
Wait, you said that "your right to feel safe" may be worth more than "pride", but you've been using "pride" to refer to the idea of not wanting to hide because the person has a right to feel safe.
So... Their right to feel safe may one day be worth more than their right to feel safe? Huh?
Your logic asplode.
@DM_Blake: Re-reading your previous post, it looks like you're talking about modern gamers rather than older gamers' modern selves, though I can see the latter meaning now that I'm looking for it. I'll chalk that up to simple miscommunication; sorry about that. :)
There are a couple of things I want to point out, though:
First, you are erroneous in your (apparent) assumption that disliking your post must necessarily mean I thought you were talking about me and I took it personally. Believe it or not, there are still people in the world who will speak up when they see someone else in the line of fire, rather than only when they get their own toes stepped on. I just saw something that seemed potentially hurtful to others, and I thought pointing it out might be more beneficial than flagging it.
In addition to a dislike of your post not meaning I was personally offended, it also doesn't mean I have an opposing viewpoint. I in fact explicitly stated that I agreed with the actual content of your post, so I'm not sure what "differing viewpoint" you think you "welcome" from me.
Furthermore, I do not (as you assert) "feel aging gamers are a detriment to the hobby". The fact that you could look at my post and take it that way was kind of the point.
As for "attacking" you, well, that's a very interesting interpretation of the Golden Rule.
Anyway, I can only give you feedback; I can't force you to do anything particular with it. Sorry for the derail and (apparently a bit of) miscommunication.
At my job, I (and my team) often have to write letters. Since they're the same handful of letters over and over again, we use "templates" (meaning Word docs with fillable fields for name, address, relevant customer info, etc).
Now, since it would be chaos if everyone could edit these templates, only a certain person can edit them. Thus, if a letter needs to be changed (maybe updated wording for legal reasons, or to reflect a change in procedure, whatever), you have to go through this person.
As it happens, there is a certain letter template which I personally am the only person in the whole company who uses it. Then one day, I discover that it has been changed.
I was not asked whether it needed to be changed.
I was not asked whether the proposed changes would be helpful or not. (There wasn't even a "proposed changes" phase.)
I was not so much as informed of the change.
I just ran into it when preparing to write a letter. And the actual changes? They ranged from completely unnecessary to actively detrimental.
Completely unnecessary: Changed the wording on a couple of things, still communicating the same message with no meaningful change.
Worse than unnecessary: Added additional fields of information to be filled in (extra steps for me to do), despite not being relevant to the topic or function of the letter.
Dubya tee eff: Removed the phone number the customer can call with questions and replaced it with a drop-down menu where I have to select a phone number. However, (1) that letter always has the exact same number so selecting one is pointless, and (2) the correct phone number isn't even in the list! So I have to delete that field entirely and then type in the number manually.
I didn't request that the letter be revised, and nobody else uses it, so why did this person even decide to spend time on this in the first place? And how were these decisions made of what changes to actually make? URGH!
Is that the entire problem? Certainly not. But I'm sure it contributes.
Little disclaimers like this, which take a thorough post that speaks in broad terms about a large population of people and then deny responsibility for its broadness, are often carelessly hurtful.
Yes, there are some tables which are negatively affected by one or more individuals whose addiction to instant gratification has kept their attention spans to a minimum.
There are also some tables which are negatively affected by one or more individuals whose advancing age has long since reduced their ability to process information accurately.
Suppose I wrote a post as long as yours, discussing in a similar level of detail the rather large population of aging gamers and the potential detriment they can bring to the hobby, and speaking in the same broadness of terms as you did, with the same short disclaimer about how they're not the whole problem, they just contribute. What would your reaction to such a post be? Would you be okay with someone having the same kind of reaction to what you just wrote?
If you're going to speak about a group of people that includes people you've never met or interacted with; if you're going to speak more broadly than just your own personal experience; stop and ask yourself what it would feel like if someone wrote the same thing about a group to which YOU belong. If you don't like how it would feel, then perhaps you could reconsider how you communicate your point, or even whether it needs to be said at all.
First of all, I think you would gain some benefit from comparing this list of ideas you came up with to some of the ideas that myself and others will offer, and seeing if you can discern some trends in your own ways of thinking that might help explain why you've encountered so much friction with other gamers lately. You might end up happier in the end. :)
Now then, I have indeed had a couple of instances of getting tired of a character. I'll try to articulate my experiences:
I had a fighter that I played up to 9th level. I thought maybe I could buck stereotypes and have a "smart fighter" who was able to defeat foes as much with superior cunning as with brute force. So I made a fighter with some INT, and picked up things like Improved Trip and Improved Disarm. Up through about level 3-4 or so, it was pretty cool: tripping and disarming was something that other PCs couldn't do, so the character actually felt different instead of being just another brute. Sure, I did a little less damage than others, but it didn't seem to be making much difference. So it was cool and fun.
But Pathfinder changes as you level up. I started facing foes who couldn't be tripped (no legs, flying, too many legs) or didn't care much about being tripped (spellcasters) and who couldn't be disarmed (monsters, spellcasters). Against those foes, my fighter played exactly like all the carbon-copy brutes (except weaker, though that was a smaller issue than the loss of identity). Also, I eventually realized that even when I was at my best using trip/disarm/AoO tactics against humanoid weapon-users, the net result on any given round was that I'd taken this long, roundabout path to eventually just dealing damage, but did it during AoOs instead of on my turn. So I was still just hitting things like everyone else, except I used up more table time doing it because of how many extra dice it took to get the same final result.
So to sum up, I got tired of a character because Pathfinder doesn't support the concept I wanted to roleplay. (Pathfinder's so bad at it, in fact, that years later I even published some 3PP "smart fighting" material to try and help fill the gap, with mixed success.)
I've had other characters with similar stories: I would get a cool concept in my mind, make the character, then discover over the course of a few levels that it did not at all offer the play experience I was after. There was a rogue, a druid, a cleric, one or two others... (Eventually I did manage a "perfect storm" of a concept that I liked and which was also supportable in the system, and he was my favorite character ever—and well-liked by my tablemates too!)
I would make a guess that this is one of the more common reasons people get tired of their characters: they don't support the intended concept as well as expected, leaving them playing a character other than the one they were in love with.
Hope that helps. :)
I think I'll just stick with "Pathfinder's Knowledge skill system is borked". ;)
But just for fun:
Aniuś the Talewise wrote:
getting the core idea across that Jesus had to feed hundreds of people with only 5 loaves of bread and two fish, and by blessing the food he was able to not only feed the entire crowd but had several baskets of waste left over.
Well, you're close: it was thousands, not hundreds, and in fact the source material includes more than one instance of him using one lunch to feed thousands of people and get a few baskets of leftovers. So what DC do you suppose you hit? Maybe 13? ;)
Yeah, in theory the tags are supposed to "wrap" to a second line so that doesn't happen, and I've heard a few people say that's the case for them, but for me (and apparently others!) they stay on one line and force out the page width.
Once RPGSS ends, the related tags become hidden (unless posting in the RPGSS subforums), but in the meantime our intertubez asplode.
Aniuś the Talewise wrote:
Well that's part of what makes the knowledge local skill kind of odd in my opinion. I can be from Hartford and particularly well studied in the gossips, rumors and local legends (nor do I even have to be to know common rumors in my community), but none of that experience tells me anything about the talk of the town in Seoul.
Maybe Kn(local) is like Reddit or something? Yeah, you're not the only one who finds it odd. :/
On the other hand, I am not trained at all in Christian theology, but I can remember some Christian myths and some of the commandments. If I saw iconography of Jesus holding bread and fish I would undoubtedly recognize the story it's based on. In that case maybe we have a different definition of the word 'common'.
It's DC 10 to be able to recognize holy symbols and clergy (which, remember, requires that you have some concept of that religion's nature/existence in the first place).
As for knowing some of the myths, you say you "remember" some of them; buuuuut can you actually recite those stories, accurate to the source material (in this example, the Bible)? Or do you just kinda remember "there was this one story where he fed a lot of people with bread and fish"? I'm of the opinion that a successful Knowledge check means actual, accurate, real, solid knowledge of the thing in question, not just kinda recognizing it. If you do really know the stories, then I bet you at least went to Sunday School as a kid or something, in which case you totally have at least one rank.
Or maybe Pathfinder's Knowledge skills are just borked beyond hope. ;)
Aniuś the Talewise wrote:
What I did was I picked the DC that isn't really intended to be challenging (for example a Local 15 is knowing a common rumor and a Religion 15 is know common mythology and tenets), and then chose the modifier that was just below to think about the odds.
Knowing what rumors are going around in a town you've never been to, and being able to list and number the Acts of Iomedae, "aren't really intended to be challenging"?
Freehold DM wrote:
It's funny- this whole "pull your weight!" stuff never comes up in my game or any game I have been in. Usually characters that suck on their own merits die on their own merits.
I saw it every now and then back when I played PFS. There was a rogue with 9 STR and high DEX who didn't know Weapon Finesse existed but fought in melee anyway. There was a gunslinger at like 9th level or so still managing only one shot per round, with no other contributions to speak of other than a high Perception skill. A few others.
And in organized play, you're contributing to the math that determines which subtier you play, which in turn determines how tough the encounters are. Which kind of goes back to your "die on your own merits" thing, except then the other players are still stuck in a math'd up difficulty without you, and possibly get pressured into helping pay for your raise with resources they can never get back. So... yeah.
Basically, give them History and Intimidation proficiency, proficiency in Calligraphy supplies or similar artistic toolset, some appropriate gear and a feature that reflects their code of honour and also the respect and privilege they gain from that.
Come to think of it, the Battle Master fighter archetype includes proficiency with calligraphy supplies, and the more I think about it, the more I think the whole archetype has a bit of "eastern enlightened warrior" influence. That's probably exactly how to make a samurai-type character in 5E.
Character concepts are even more flexible with backgrounds as well! Want a samurai? Why not a fighter with a background that reflects his fealty? And the code of honor could be among his traits!
If memory serves, one of the illustrations in the Backgrounds chapter (I think next to the "knight" variant of the "noble" background, but I could be mistaken) is, in fact, a samurai.
Having some coded bonus for being a samurai is not nearly as important as acting like one.
Ehhhh.... Yes and no.
I'll start with the "no": it is vital to a roleplaying experience that meaningful differences between characters are represented mechanically. If two characters have identical chances of success at disarming the trap, but you have one of them say to the other, "I'd better let you handle this, Mr. Sneakythief," that's just nonsense. In fact, I'll even go so far as to call it an actual failure to roleplay, because that's not really what those characters would do (unless they're seriously deluded about their own capabilities). Thus, in order to have that "Better let you handle this" roleplay moment, there need to be mechanics in place such that the dialogue would actually make sense in character.
On the other hand, does everything need to be mechanically represented? I say no. I'm all for differentiating (mechanically) between a raging barbarian and a studied martial master. I'm all for further differentiating two studied martial masters based on whether they use an armorless duelist style or an armored dual-wielding style. But do we really need to create different statistics based on the exact degree of curvature of the sword(s) and whether his armor has round or square plates? I personally have no need for that.
I'd hazard a guess that 99% of RPG gamers could agree to the general statement that meaningfully different character concepts need to have those differences reflected in the mechanics. The sticking point is just what constitutes "meaningfully different character concepts". For some, it's no more than whether you're focused on weapons or magic, and everything else is just window dressing. For others, the specific tenets of eastern and western feudal/knight codes are significant enough to merit mechanical differentiation. For others, it's somewhere in between.
So although I suspect that the earlier poster who felt he couldn't build a samurai in 5E might have just not looked closely enough at 5E's options, it's also possible that he wants a much finer degree of mechanical differentiation than I do, and there's nothing wrong with that.
I have been made to feel unsafe on these boards
Just wanted to pop in and offer condolences for this. I've been threatened here once (made my wife nervous about me going to GenCon last year), so I can sympathize to some degree (though, as a dude, I don't face it regularly). I'm sorry you've had to deal with that.
I'm following you on the difference between sitting with your friends versus sitting in front of a computer, but the notion that dice are a meaningful element of that same dichotomy is hard for me to wrap my head around. So if you had a face-to-face game but replaced the dice with some other resolution mechanic, the experience would be diminished?
In PbP you lack the magic of rolling dice at a table with friends, it's just a digital random number generator.
I'm a little confused. Are you saying that the only reason you include randomized resolution mechanics in an RPG is because you like throwing pieces of plastic on a table? I'm very curious about that notion, as to me the primary role of dice in an RPG is literally just to serve as a random number generator for resolving actions when success/failure is unclear. I'd love to hear more.
Besides that, with a dice-based game like Pathfinder you have to wait until dice are rolled to know how you should RP your turn.
That's a simple matter of hitting "Preview" then typing up your post. Honestly, given that the roller can do the math for you, I find that "waiting until the dice are rolled" is often shorter in PbP than how long I usually wait for someone to resolve an action in face-to-face. I honestly have no idea what significant delay you're seeing here. Could you elaborate?
Two immediately come to mind: the Lucky feat, and the Shield spell.
Lucky gives you a daily pool of Luck points, which you can spend to either roll an extra d20 on either your own or your opponent's roll, and pick which gets used. Shield is a 1-round bonus to AC and immunity to Magic Missile, but can be cast as a reaction when you either would be hit with an attack or are targeted by MM.
I have consciously avoided taking Lucky. I have one character with Shield.
No other such abilities come to mind.
EDIT: Wait, does Feather Fall count?
Core Rulebook, Skills chapter, Climb, chart of examples wrote:
Although some of the specific behaviors I described aren't great, the core divide I described is not one of good/bad or mature/immature.
For instance, maybe a group of friends decides they'd have a blast playing out a hyper-cliche'd "horror" narrative for laughs. To that end, they might all be interested in things going as one might expect in pulp horror (like investigating strange noises alone in your most revealing underwear while there's a killer on the loose). Curveballs (in this example, things like having your character behave with a sense of self-preservation) would ruin the fun of such an endeavor. There's nothing wrong with a game like that.
Just like with the GNS paradigm, it's a good and valid way to play, and the issues arise when not everyone's on the same page (i.e., some players want to play up the unrealistic pulp horror tropes while others want to start with that premise but then act like real people and see what happens as a result).
EDIT: And I'll go ahead and add that in my experience, 99% of the instances of people NOT being on the same page mostly has to do with one or more persons not realizing that there are different pages to be on, and/or which one describes themselves.
For years I have noticed two general kinds of Players (and we are players on both sides of the DM Screen) – which I refer to as falling into the “Two Schools of RPG Gaming.”
I prefer the gamist-narativist-simulationist trichotomy.
Interestingly, I think there's an even more fundamental divide than either of these breakdowns.
I think the most basic, root-level way to classify players/GMs is whether or not they're open to seeing things go differently than they expected. I think there are some gamers who, if thrown a curveball, will get upset or argumentative and try to force things back toward their own vision (and shame those who get in their way), while there are others who will encounter such twists and simply adapt (possibly even loving the fact that such adaptation was warranted).
The reason I think this is a more fundamental categorization than the others presented is because you could take any of the categories listed above and find that it contains this division.
For example, take nosig's #1 (the "Us vs Them" gamer): If it's the GM, then he probably has an idea of how deadly a given encounter will be. If the players then do something which bypasses, shortens, or otherwise overcomes the obstacle with less time/resource loss than anticipated, then the GM will react in one of two ways: either they'll accept it and think "Okay, next time I've got to be ready for that possibility," or they'll fudge HP, mysteriously always make the save (at least until a PC is unconscious), or start arguing about how absurd it is to think that the players' ideas/capabilities would actually work. Or on the player side, you can see this divide when he encounters a peculiar situation where his normal specialty doesn't work: does he think "Ouch, I didn't realize this gap in my capabilities would be this harsh; I need to find countermeasures"? Or does he (much like the GM, above) start arguing about the difficult circumstance being unreasonable?
For another example, take Flite's "narrativist". They're playing to tell a story, but have they already created that story (whether through worldbuilding on the GM side or elaborate backstory on the player side) and they'll get upset when the game goes in a direction that doesn't spotlight their masterpiece (foil the BBEG the wrong way, use an unanticipated solution to an obstacle, fail to include the network of NPC contacts from the backstory, etc)? Or are they coming to the table with only a starting point, intending to discover what story gets created as it happens?
Regardless of whether someone likes winning encounters, telling a story, defeating the other side of the screen, or whatever else; to me, the big thing is whether or not there's a certain thing they need the experience to end up aligning with.