Threeshades's page

Man I love Goblins.

I really hope there is a boon someday to let us play one in PFS

Sometimes you're in a hurry. <wink, wink, nudge, nudge>

You could just tell the caster to roll another character since you plan on punishing the him for trying to be less squishy instead of being more offensive or using his FCB for skills.

Question: Why shouldn't the witch get a tangible benefit from prioritizing his resources towards his goal for his character instead of yours?

I'm waiting for someone to say that you can't cross a street because there's no rule mechanic for doing so in the books.

James Jacobs wrote:

Because ECL caused more problems than it solved.

Fair enough. So what would you recommend for those wanting to play monster PCs?

Advanced Race Guide.

I'll take the basic utopia that is ST:TNG

For my part, I'd go with Star Trek: The Original Series. It has most of the advantages of the "Next Generation Universe" but without the "Political Correctness" and it has just enough danger to keep things interresting (+ miniskirts).

The Oliphaunt! Please!

I am too.

Oh, you meant humans as the dominant character race in RPGs! I see...

Maybe. But bear in mind that humans are it; they are the be all, end all of races in Golarion. The other races are, psychologically speaking, less alien to the human experience than Ed Gein is. They're all, dwarves, elves, gnomes, halflings, basically human. Even orcs and goblinoids are basically human. They all have a basically human psychology, adapted to the relatively tame variations of their physiology and lifespans.

I have a Tengu PC in a campaign I am running. How do Tengu breed? I don't know. Do they breed like humans? Do they lay eggs? Are Tengu females the larger of the two sexes? I don't know. This is about as alien as it gets, and I could fill these details in myself. But the more alien I make them, the harder it is to explain their integration into human society. The less alien I make them, well; then they're humans-in-funny-suits, like the rest.

That is what they all are; they're convenient in that humanity is a reference point used to make them all understandable. In the real world, we anthropomorphize things all to time to make them easier to relate to - it's a facet of human psychology. Without turning this into a psychology seminar, there's evidence to indicate that other mammals like cats and dogs behave this way as well.

I like having different choices for character races. I'm all in favor of making campaign worlds that are dwarf-dominant, or giant-controlled. I especially root for the orcs to win; they seem like they really got the short end of the stick. The truth is, though, that those worlds are literally only cosmetically different from human dominated worlds; truly alien worlds are much more difficult to come by due to the inherent limitations of human psychology, the pressures of conformity, and the difficulty in achieving a believable versimilitude in such an endeavor. I encourage any and all such explorations, they make for fun games and also make for stronger thinking habits. I only bring this issue up because it's important to understand why a human-dominated world makes sense from both a design and a psychological point of view.

I dont see why people feel the need to punish players for dieing. As if losing a character wasn't enough of a blow, now you want them to be reminded it every session by sucking it up. Especially since in pathfinder there is no mechanism to 'catch up', you are essentially putting the player behind permanently. That seems plainly antagonistic to me and smacks of vindictive gming. Do you all play with people you are unable to have a reasonable conversation with about the mood and style of the game and instead have to smack them with arbitrary penalties in order to get them to use caution or take part in the style of game you want? Does no one play with their actual friends anymore?

It not as simple as you make it sound.

On one hand the GM is tired of the "no consequences" style of play. That should be discussed, which I did recommend. If he is not the "discussion" type of GM then other options were presented.
As far as loss of characters go, not all the characters died. They justed wanted to avoid dealing with their decisions. It seems to me like they "expect to succeed", which is not always a bad thing, but the GM wants them to earn it.
I think a discussion is the way to go. What the GM wants to run is not what the players want to play, seems to be the issue.

PS:The players are also partly to blame for ignoring blatant advice. This is not a one sided issue.