|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Luckily the downtime rules can be down over email and such, since they really are just rolls and description.
Still, you can turn them into adventures for the whole crew. Maybe a rival organization tries to get a cut of their money for the brothel/tavern. Or thieves' guild robs them. Or highwaymen try and assault their supply line for the brewery. Or perhaps they can use the brothel to gather interesting information from local nobles. There's a lot you can do with this.
Probably a topic for another thread. Don't want to derail.
I'm actually really sad to see Fire Mountain Games fall so. I thought it was awesome to see a third party publisher get a great deal of recognition for an often controversial style of gaming with their evil AP. Especially in the Paizo community, where third party publishers can be much maligned. A real shame to see how they've fallen.
Well, yes and no.
One of the issues with the continuation of adding feats and spells is that it adds more complexity without depth. There are a lot of moving parts that come together with a character, and when you add more feats, it can have unintended consequences with previous ones. And with more and more feats, it's harder to look back at previous work to make sure that there aren't weird or overpowered feat combinations. And really, as great as the option are (I love options), I feel they haven't added depth to the game. The feats and such are still mostly centered around combat or skills.
That's why I liked Ultimate Campaign. It wasn't just feats for combat or skills. It added support to run different styles of games that went beyond "stop the bad guy, save the world". You had kingdom building and exploration, which was a HUGE hit with many of my players. There was base building and running your own business. There were child characters and infamy and just lots of rules that added depth to one's campaign with less of the complexity. I had a crew of friends that always wanted to do "get rich quick" schemes, and were surprised when I was the first GM to not only say yes, but actually have the support to do it. There were great adventures with the players fighting guild monopolies and thugs and thieves, while rubbing shoulders with nobles. One player even became a drug kingpin under the guise of a detective. And that's awesome.
That's what I want. I like options. Hell, I love them. But I really want to see more options that add depth to the game. Occult Adventures did that with their rituals and such. I haven't read Horror Adventures, but the Corruption rules sound interesting. And I prefer all of this to the reverse, which is stagnation. That's kind of where I feel the OSR community is suffering. You have people just making the next retroclone instead of new, cool things. There are some exceptions, but for the most part, I prefer Pathfinder's publishing to another retroclone heartbreaker riding the coattails of The Black Hack.
It also helps to choose your battles. Remember that every interupption gets in the way of the flow of the game. So if it is something super small, I wouldn't sweat. For this, maybe it's best to talk after the game to the player. Generally, one on one is handled a lot better than calling them out in front of everyone.
As long as you watch your tone, it's not really a problem. Sometimes you'll get the stink eye and get treated like teacher's pet, but it's good to remain fair and impartial for everyone involved, including yourself. Without knowing the situation but looking at what they said, it sounds like they got caught fudging and didn't appreciate it.
One of my buddies does it by phrasing it as a question. Like "You can do two immediate actions and a swift action in one go?" Seems to soften the blow a bit. Maybe that will work?
Honestly, I just want rulebooks that don't add more feats and spells, but just new ways to approach the game. Like I said many times, Ultimate Campaign is my all time favorite book. There are no feats or spells or anything that directly adds power and complicated the game. It just adds new avenues for the game to go to and the players can do. I want more of Ultiamte Campaign.
I think a lot of it is differing views on the different types of slavery between someone from the past and a more 20th century view. Back then, slavery was seen as a mercy to prisoners of war. It wasn't really limited to a certain ethnic group. It was prisoners of war and debtors that were stuck there. And depending on the country, many were treated well or poorly. Some had legal protections while others did not.
Mind you, I'm not excusing slavery. It's a deplorable institution that destroys the culture and subjugates the humanity of man. But it is important to remember this perspective.
Of course, even back then, you had abolitionists and free thinkers that blasted the practice as inhumane. And I think that would be perfect for a cleric of Sarenrae that feels deeply that the church has strayed too far from the path of good and redemption. And since words haven't helped, the cleric feels it is time for action. They may still be merciful to plantation owners and nobles with slaves. But ultimately, the cleric goes out and fights for abolitionist legislature by day, and frees slaves from their owners by night.
Maybe she gets a vision from Sarenrae to do this. Many ask why Sarenrae wouldn't just change things herself, and really, she is using your cleric and other like minded individuals to enact change. I say roll with it. It's a great story and a great adventure that I'd like to run one day.
I wasn't really thinking staves, more clubs and maces. And I've seen the damage bludgeoning someone in the head with a baseball bat can do. It's not pretty.
I've played some FATE and while I feel it comes close to bridging the gap, there are still aspects of it that seem to favor the players over the GM in decision making. Also, I'm not a fan of the elevation of the story over the group. In games of FATE and books under the Apocalypse World engine, I've seen games grind to a halt because a situation that happened to their character didn't fit their perception of their character's story.
I think I'd like less mechanics empowering one side or the other, and would rather have advice on how to come together as a group and make the game fun for everyone involved. Often, you see tons of DM advice. Rarely, you see player advice. And even more rare you see group advice. I'd like to see more of the last one. It'd be hard, especially with different groups having different group dynamics. I'd also like to see more advice that treats RPGs as a social activity and not as a game, story, conversation, or simulation. I feel it would fix a lot of issues
Yeah. Honestly, it's a conflict of the status quo that's ripe for a player to come in as a reformist cleric and change the church. If I were a GM and a player expressed issues with their god and church, I'd tell them that they can attempt to adventure and change it. Makes it much more exciting and rewarding when they enact a huge change to a game world like that.
I think the biggest problem in TTRPGs in general is a lack of unification between the players and the GM. Every single RPG I've played, from D&D to Apocalypse World, seems to favor one over the other. I'd like to see advice that instead unified the GM and the players as one group that is looking to make a good game and have run. Rather than empowering one side over the other with advice that equates to social enginneering and manipulation. I feel like some of the indy games come close, but veer too far into players empowered over the GM.
We're in this hobby together. There shouldn't be social stratification enforced within our groups. We need advice on better communication and transparency for both sides.
The Sideromancer wrote:
Yeah bludgeoning weapons are arguably harder to use non lethally. They crush bones and skulls and do so much damage over a large area.
Honestly, I prefer my gods to be flawed, but I also don't have alignment. So there are no good gods or evil gods. I like having flawed, distant gods that give powers to those that believe in them, with little regard for whether they are good or evil. That way it opens up stories of corruption in the church that you normally couldn't have in standard D&D. And it leaves the redemption and reformation of said church in the hands of the players, which one did. Had a cleric of Ahmuzencab (homebrew goddess of healing and community) that fought against her church's hierarchy that would conveniently imprison those that threatened their rule under the guise of protecting the community. She saved the political prisoners and caused great reform with the church, leading it back to its more altruistic roots.
That's a story I can't really have with gods the way they are. I'm actually okay with the schism in Sarenrae doctrine and would run it as is.
For XP, i make it where confronting an obstacle and overcoming it will grant you xp. Whether it's combat, social discourse, or any crazy creative ways they can think of.
At the beginning of every game, I also let players know that they don't have to kill everything and that always evil races and monsters don't exist. Still, it can be difficult to show mercy because generally, a GM will use that mercy against players and have the creature betray them for more conflict. So if the players are going to show mercy, you have to make them not regret it.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Lots of nonliterate cultures have designated memorizers. That's basically what a bard, a skald, (in West Africa) a griot, and so forth are. The Incan equivalent is the Amawtakuna.
Thanks for the link. I admittedly only heard about it from Buzz Feed and well, that's Buzz Feed for ya.
Language is really important for less developed societies because for many of them, they may not have writing. Without writing or an alphabet, a people have to look to oral history and story tellers to keep their history and such alive.
I'm unsure the validity of this, but I remember reading that the Inca empire did not have a written alphabet. Instead, they had designated memorizers that would remember laws and legal issues for use. Now, while I don't know if this is true or not, this would make an interesting culture.
The only time I'd really use broken English is if a person was trying to speak another's language that they don't understand.
Just a word of warning, most GMs don't really appreciate it when a player tries to bring in a Dev to go over their head to override their ruling. While I think he could be more lenient, trying to overrule him isn't going to get him to change his mind any quicker. If anything, he'll probably stand his ground and the problem will get even worse.
Instead, try working with him and reaching some compromise. And if that doesn't work, honestly, I'd drop the issue.
Goth Guru wrote:
Not really a good thing to infect people I think. Sounds more neutral to me. Especially with the vague description of what is a threat to nature.
And at least for lycanthropes, it's hard for me to imagine a creature that we essentially hunt for food and pelts to really be scary. It doesn't help much that in Western culture, rabbits and squirrels are seen more as jokes and comedy than as a danger. And this is coming from a bunny bite victim. Even the name is pretty silly. Weresquirrel doesn't strike fear into the hears of men.
But I'm intrigued. How would you make a squirrel therianthrope more dangerous, or taken a bit more seriously?
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Arrogance would definitely fit them. Altruistic dragons with a messiah complex that don't take into account the avarice and mercenary ambitions of man.
I like it a lot.
Honestly, there are rare times where I feel roleplaying gets in the way of the game. Purple prose, arguing over their character's story, poor attempts at complex characters, players fighting over spotlight. It can get tiring after awhile as a GM and a player. It's why whenever I feel a bit winded from GMing, I just run a murderhobo one shot. No story, no arguing, no whining. Just a bunch of us gathered together to kill orcs and take their pie. It's simple, but fun and gets to the game quicker. And eventually we all feel refreshed and get back to more roleplayng in our games.
That's one good thing about the munchkin (in small doses at least). Reminds us it's a game and not to take it so seriously sometimes. Sit back, grab a beer, and have some fun while we can.
Yeah f@!* that. That honestly sounds like someone forced into GMing so now they feel entitled as s~*@ for running. No thanks.
Don't get me wrong, I respect my GMs and the work they put in. I consistently thank my GMs. But as a GM, I don't find that my hard work entitles me to control my players. I'm not a control freak.
Players can survive without a douche GM like that. We'll just play Wizwar or Boss Monster. A douche GM really isn't anything without players to lord over. Just a guy with notes.
Steve Geddes wrote:
I don't know if I'd call it 'sacrosanct', but I agree in disliking Hero Points. I get it puts that power of option in the player's hands, but I still honestly don't like it.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Yeah, that's probably why I really don't like Hero Points
And honestly, from my admittedly anecdotal experience, I've seen DMs fudge dice more often to prevent their precious encounter from being one shot. Or to protect their plot from any bad rolls. Or punish a build that is seen as disruptive. That last one I've sadly seen DMs do more often than not.
The only time I ever fudge the dice is if the player has had some really bad luck with die rolls. And even then, I ask the player "Hey, you've had some s@#~ty die rolls. You want a freebie?".
I've played FATE and Savage Worlds and I just can't get behind the reroll aspect of Hero Points and their ilk. I don't know why. I think if hero points let you do cool stuff beyond just a simple re-roll or fixing your roll, maybe I'd like them better.
Steve Geddes wrote:
For Hero Points/Fate Points/Bennies/whatever, it's the idea that they are still the player's choice for the re-roll. Though it is still elevating the story over the players, but through the guise of the player's choice.
I'll be honest though, I don't like hero points as a player. At least, as a re-roll I don't like it. Again, I'd rather keep the result and play on through.
Yeah, once your players realize that their choices don't matter and that the GM is just socially engineering them into the plot result he wants, to me, it cheapens the experience.
I've caught a GM in the middle of pulling a Quantum Ogre on us and it was pretty bs. It taught me early on that it was something I didn't want to repeat.
Illusion of choice really is just not great advice honestly. There has never been a moment in my time GMing where giving the players false choice was more engrossing and rewarding than giving the players a real choice and having them deal with the consequences.
Honestly I wouldn't really do either because there is no choice to make for the player. But if I didn't want the players to know something, then I simply just wouldn't have that scenario or opportunity for them to learn it.
Of course, in truth, I'd give them the chance to learn from the demon
I would let them roll. If they succeed, that's fine. If they fail, that's fine. It was a success/failure that was the player's choice to make. And I would react accordingly.
I like that. Prep scenes, not screenplays. Catchy :)