|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Aniuś the Talewise wrote:
I don't like giving out my government name in situations I don't need to give it, but if the name they ask for has to be my government name, I need to know that, so I know which name to give, thanks
"So, you admit to using an alias? I believe you must be a terrorist. Come with us, please."
Second, don't let anyone else tell you how to drink Scotch. If you like it over ice and drowned in Coke, that's fine.
Er, to quibble, I'd say that's fine if you drink it alone and not when other people might smell it. Scotch and Coke?! That's like saying "You want a bite of cooked carrots mashed into chocolate milk?" No one is going to thank you for sharing.
666bender, did you notice that everyone else in the thread is posting in sentences, and that your posts are in bursts of microbytes? It kind of reminds me of my grandmother, who would sometimes sit there and interject Spanish into everyone else's English conversation, just because she knew half of them wouldn't pay attention.
I'm not saying it's wrong, just that your points would reach more people by following their lead.
Go ahead and whine about it being suboptimal. Many people do and will. But opening character concepts up without having to cringe every time you roll a d4 is priceless to those players that want to roleplay over rollplay.
Oooh, good, Stormwind Fallacy, badwrongfun, and condescention, all in one post!
Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
Going to the opposite silly extreme does not invalidate someone's preference of something somewhere in the middle.
"Squatting in between those on the side of reason and evidence and those worshipping superstition and myth is not a better place. It just means you’re halfway to crazy town." --P.Z. Myers
And when he says 'houstonderek, TOZ, and I' he means 'that TOZ guy showed up to a couple games and had fun'. :)
Modesty -- from YOU of all people? What's the world coming to?
Seriously, though, your insatiable interest in what makes a good game had as much influence on the rules as all of Derek's grognarding. (Also, it should have been, "Houstonderek, TOZ, myself, et al.," because Jess Door's systems mastery and incisive reasoning had a lot of influence, too; and Frank Trollman's various rants during the PF Beta playtesting, some of which finally sank in; and Psychicmachinery pointing out "you've kicked the wizard enough, it's time to ease up on the poor guy!"; and so on.)
When a PC tries to use Acrobatics to move through a threatened space, and the roll succeeds, I would totally rule that the PC actually did a standing high jump instead, because that's also a function of Acrobatics, and it's far more realistic than moving through a threatened area when someone is clearly looking to kill you. So the PC jumps in the air, lands, and takes an axe to the face.
Another thread where half the people say that the DM's job is to run the game according to the rules as fairly as possible, and the other half say that, yeah, that's maybe true to a small extent, but really the DM's primary job is to always make sure those horrible, conniving, entitled players are put in their places.
Raith Shadar wrote:
If you're forcing fewer than 14 encounters a day and/or not providing infinite free healing for fighters, you're obviously a Bad GM(TM)!
Unless you're a dirty minmaxing munchin DPR Schroedinger roll-player, playing a Commoner is just fine. My commoner always contributes to the party. He carries extra supplies from 1st level through 20th level, and he can do it all day long. When there are monsters to kill, he has barbarians and fighters and wizards in the party to do that. When there are other situations to handle, he has casters to deal with those, too. Because it's a TEAM game.
All these threads about "fixing the Commoner" are making me angry, because the Commoner is just fine, and those people are all theorycrafting or else just playing wrong. Their GM should fix whatever "problems" they claim to be experiencing, because I don't see them. And we all know that tinkering with the rules to try and fix them will inevitably bring about 4e.
But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about your belief that the GM has an obligation to sacrifice her/his fun to accomodate a single player.
"Oh, woe is me, someone wants to play their own idea for their own character, instead of mine! Now all of my fun is RUINED RUINED RUINED! Because I can only have fun if everyone does exactly what I tell them, like the good little slave robots they're supposed to be!"
If even considering permitting a non-standard race results in the inevitable destruction of all of your fun, I'd say your idea of "fun" is restrictive enough that you're maybe better off not playing with others at all, much less DMing them.
Say the bad guy crosses the street to go murder some kids. The paladin can't find a crosswalk, so he jaywalks in pursuit. He has knowingly and willingly broken a law and committed a chaotic act. Does the DM take away all his powers? I say yes. Or does "has to be lawful" just mean you write it on the sheet, but ignore it when convenient?
The only rolls a player should make are to hits, damage and of course saves directed from outside the party.
Yeah, and not using the purple, red, or blue dice! Only the green ones. And don't let them make decisions, either, or else they get uppity. If players don't get to make decisions, they can't metagame! In fact, they shouldn't even be talking. A good DM will just type up the entire adventure in advance and hand out the transcripts; then the players can sit there quitely and read them, and you'll have no problems with them that way.
Yeah, but you should be using that loose change to buy food. If you've got any loose change left, you don't need my tax dollars!
Unless you're hungry enough to EAT the loose change as soon as it gets into your hand -- to supplement your usual daily alotment of dirt -- then you're nowhere CLOSE to being needy enough to deserve my tax dollars!