I think we may be over exaggerating "Approval" of the setting. People are there to play, and in my experience (which is mine and may not be yours) people aren't silently sullen because we are playing X game. People were happy to be PLAYING! The game, the actual act of getting together to play was what was important. If the campaign wasn't working out, we'd talk about it. But people did not show with the expectation they were going to vote in some way.
This matches much closer to my experience as well a few of the group have ideas they like to try out an of course they tell about these ideas as the crop up, so those of us that GM knows about what people would like anyway, which means eventually those concepts can usually be played.
Another thing I find interesting is that attitude of "just go play with another group", I guess I must live relatively isolated because honestly because it is rare that we see anyone else playing beyond our little group (which is basically 4 people total! with two that only sometimes are interested and no there is no gaming store within 30 km of where we live). Maybe I am just not very privileged, but turning away players with a wave of a hand is just not feasible if I want to game I have to compromise.
(for example I can't run modern, sci-fi or my favorite superhero genre games at all since we can't find enough people to run those type of games).
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
How should I put it, the mechanics says that magic is available in large quantities to the player characters etc, in fact the whole thing is balanced around the point, but that is just it those are the mechanics not the flavor. I can even accept that some low level magical items like potions of CLW and the like is relatively easy to get a hold of, that being said the PC classes do belong to the 1% of the population, not everyone, adapt sorta allows commoners access (with training and at the very least average and really higher than average is needed making it the least accessible "average person" class. Admittedly that is still mechanically.
Personally I would expect from a man in the street for magic to be uncommon, not something super strange but still something to raise an eyebrow and that the more powerful magic (4+) would be a pretty darn rare sight.
Anyway there is more things that make me think my way, but I believe we will have to disagree or you could shun me :p
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
I said a step in the right direction not that it was the solution.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
I wonder what a GM would say if their setting might die just as easily and then the players go "Let the dice fall where they may! Remember REAL settings start at level 1". Personally I think as a GM I would start screaming and throw a tantrum if my "setting" was destroyed hehe.Seriously though players should be treated as the main characters in a story, they can die randomly but it should never be without rhyme or reason.
I know the feel about the years of experience thing, honestly mostly to me it is mostly useful to show where in the history of rpgs one started and through that give an idea about what assumptions are made about the game at the time.
I like to throw in that I kind of wish people would stop deliberately reading more into what a post contains for the purpose of being able to ridicule the poster without actually having to make a rational response to the post.
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
The assumption you make here that everyone can potentially learn magic and would learn some making magic comparable to technology makes me cringe i is the absolutely worst part of the pathfinder system. I believe that magic at the end of the day should be magical, should be something strange and different not easily quantified controlled or comprehended magic should be that which breaks all the rules that normal people play by and not 1d4+1 damage.
yes possibly :P but the reason I don't like that everyone has spells is because I feel it cheapens magic it makes magic mundane rather than magical and the idea of limiting resources to a daily amount is just silly in my head nor am I fund of the encounter resource as a limiter, I feel all such are rather artificial.
Obviously I dislike the way spellcasting is done in pathfinder as well, but that hardly is a unique thing or something the majority can't understand (even if they might disagree).
Not sure if it on the get shunned list but a few minor things I loath:
Resurrection cheapens death, it is boring and too easily available (ie. it exists).
Far far FAR to many classes have spells and spell-like abilities, spells are for wizards not everyone.
Drows should be shot on sight.
Forgotten realm is not a setting it is a tool build for the purpose of telling the characters "you are not heroes, but zeroes!"
cheating on a dice roll is okay for both players and GMs as long as the purpose is to enhance the story and/or move it along.
limited daily resources is the worst feature of Pathfinder.
Abilities/spells/etc with a duration measured in rounds is just weird and a metagaming limitation.
Alignment is a cool tool.
People that play/use with their mobile phone/ipad/etc at the gaming table are being inexcusable rude.
Just because a game takes place in a fantasy place does not mean characters need weird names, especially human characters. I really want to be able to pronounce character and location names.
Seoni is not cool OR sexy.
Weather, weather, weather. D20pfsrd has a nice random weather generator. Before each session, I used this to game out about two or three months of weather conditions. Sometimes this turns into just flavor. At other times, my players fought (for example) bandits and owlbears in thunderstorms ... which significantly hampered the ranged attackers.
Well I used the random weather generator in the core books (p. 439) and rolled up as we went along, once a day pretty much. I started campaign out in an early fall and the generator quickly turned it into an early winter that was rather long an harsh with the battle against the staglord taking place after a major snowstorm with 5 feet of snow covering almost everything.
My players hate snow, running water and cold since kingmaker and endure elements is standard issue.
That might be, but does that make them an invalid choice for others or for others to feel that that character is uninteresting? I mean if I had to ban/disallow every character from a game that I found rather dull I would probably have to disallow 2/3 of all characters put before me.
You mean none of the other characters knew this. that doesn't change the fact who says the other characters knows that the half-nymph has a nymph as a mother?
And how is this different than a special snowflake who at the beginning are mostly special for what they are? I mean we are talking character creation here not end of the campaign. I mean with the example of the half nymph bard she is special by being a rather unique individual by birth and decide to make her own way and choices by adventuring. After all adventuring is being different than almost anyone else of their kind being in that special 1% which include paladin Orcs and what not.
A Character should not be special because of what they are, but because of what they do.
I am not sure everyone feels compelled to agree with that philosophy and fantasy have plenty of examples of people who are special for what they are first before what they do just take Aragorn (decendent of a king) or for that matter Gandalf is another example of someone who is special because they are.
which is why she should carry a large instument so the opponents goes "ohh a bard/skald/musician/entertainer, we can bother about her later".
Anyaway we seem to get a bit off topic mostly, I will agree that a half almost everything can usually disguise themselves as human with a minimum of effort while more exotic shapes have to do the hooded monk robe like the dragonlance draconians. This means from a snowflaky point of view makes them logical getting more attention while they beg/intimidate/slaughter those that wants to take it out on them, which in turn makes every social encounter more potentially bothersome for a GM and therefore influence the decision process of allowing said character to be a part of the story.
Though regarding this snowflaky story we are on, I have heard very little about if the other players should have a "say" if they want the special snowflake in the group, I kinda thinks that is important too, since their enjoyment of the game have to be taken into account as well in this process.
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
I'd love to see that work out in practice in a game would be awesome! Gods I would love to have my player come up with such concepts.
Erick Wilson wrote:
Balance was always an illusion in my book anyway and only really came through in a few and limited number of situations, usually there will always be one or more characters that will for whatever reason be able to do more. For my games being a high perception character will give you tons of benefits since it is a skil I use probably way to much, on the other hand another GM in my area tend to do stuff that favours pure speklcasting characters, which means the balance is out the window to some degree.
It came up last week and the ranting was legendary and did include the "pointless limitation" of a 10 dice max fireball rather then a level number of dice fireball.
While I can't answer for Erick Wilson, I can give a couple of examples I encountered from other "old" players:
I don't personally instantly consider a snowflake a bad thing and in general I am willing to work with the player to allow a snowflake that is made for the purpose of exploring that unique point of view, however on the other hand I will not allow the same character if it is made solely for the purpose of statistical optimizing. As I am usually the GM these days I always talk to the players about their character to see why they want to play that even if it is a regular John Farmer so that I can accommodate each player's wants for the character within the established campaign being played.
As a player I like playing unique races exploring what it means to be a member of that race and their mindset, it's fun really and I played some rather unique things (in my opinion) over the years (for reference I started roleplaying in '85) including tree spirit, an earth elemental and a mouse. That being said in the beginning I didn't feel a need to play anything special, a regular fighter or thief would be grand over time though I started to become more and more bored of playing "yet another farmer boy who went off to seek his fortune". All this means I tend to play rather unique characters to get me excited about the game, I found though that very few GMs, that I have encountered, will allow anything that isn't core and that is rather frustrating for me since it greatly lessen my enjoyment of my characters and I get less involved in the game by being forced to (without any sort of leeway) play a standard race/class combo.
Overall I think that player's should be aware and accepting even respectful of the desires and wants for the game that the GM brings and that any game everyone agreed to, the players should try to work within that setting. ON THE OTHER HAND I do feel that GMs in general need to be more open and accepting towards the players and learn to say "yes" and not just "no" a lesson I have seen forgotten far far to many times; whether this is in regard to concept, class/race or even 3pp material.
If we accept each other maybe the game will be even more awesome for all it might not be but at least we game it a chance, in the end it is the synergy between everyone at the table that makes a game fun, at least for me.
usually I find that the music only works if you get the players caught up in the story, so the music needs to fit the situation or distort it. For me the most successful "scare" music I had was the soundtrack from Jurassic Park, but try to check to see which kind of music will fit the pacing of the story you are telling before selecting the track.
I would also suggest looking at Nox Arcana albums like Necronomicon or Darklore Manor.
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
I am sure we could put war on Buddhism as well, while not as commonly known in the west, religious Buddhist war is not entirely unknown (which just goes to show that people are people everywhere).
I am not sure this is a reason to "wash your hands", I think the point was to make it easier to tell the religions apart.
James Jacobs wrote:
Is there a list anywhere of which characters suffered this miscommunication? (I am asking since I am about to run the Serpent's Skull AP)
They all in all seem fine, I would do a few things differently:
Catholic: Favoured Weapon - Long Sword
For me the holy knight with the sword and the crusades seems like the place to look for the favoured weapon.
Taoist-Confucian: Domains - Community, Knowledge, Law, Nobility, Runes
If I remember correctly the Confucian and Taoist came to as a schools of thought on how to organize the world in the right way as a response to the fragmentation and civil war during the Zhou Dynasty period commonly known as the Warrior States period. Both of them had a lot of similarities* but a radically different approach to the way of ordering the world and both sprang up from the professional administrative elite the Shi, anyway to make a long story short these schools of thoughts are about how to order society.
Therefore Community is appropriate since this is the core subject of these two, they are both philosophies so Knowledge seems appropriate, they are created by an elite part of society leading to nobility and both are about how to order things giving us Law, finally Runes are about writing and well that just seems appropriate.
I suppose I should note that Neo-Confucianism seems to me to grants people a "sense" of what is right and wrong and says they must ensure that right is done, anyone happens to disagree are "bad"/"evil" and no compromise is possible. The guy that came up with it is someone called Zhu Xi in the 12th century and I don't really know how much Confucian has changed since.
If you want something to stand in contrast to Confucian-Taoism I suggest you look into Legalism from the same period (the philosophy of the triumphant Qin Dynasty).
* Confucian seems to me to be more optimistic and believing that if things are ordered right people will act right, while Tao seems to say that people will always act in self interest and any notion they will live up to an ideal is nonesense... so it is more skeptical.
From a quick search I noted that the Symbol of Confucian is the chinese ideogram for water the spring of life, so I suppose that water could be used instead of runes for domains to make them slightly different?
Well in the case of an animated Pathfinder movie I would love to see Don Bluth as the director or maybe Hayao Miyazaki cause his works are totally awesome.
As for story, I agree original is best but if it was to be an AP I would probably say Jade Regent, the whole harshness of travel work so well in animated movies.
Kobolds are in some respects the poor downtrodden underdogs of the monster worlds, even when they work together well them still get run over by a steam roller and traps? half the stuff that lives near them is either trap masters themselves or can barely be scratched by most things the Kobolds can make.
Personally I like seeing the Kobolds as these slightly alien people who dreams of a believed glory past and strive against all odds not to rule everything but to survive long enough for make sure their clan survive (and get a few good kicks in on whatever outsider they can before the end). Of course my view is just in how I experience them in the games and I tend to play them, I suppose they are more lawful then evil in my book, though they do enjoy a solid payback on the so called dominate races when the opportunity presents itself.
I think you need to sit down and talk to them about it, have a chat and explain your side of it and see what theirs is and if there is anything can be done to salvage the group/game and if not drop the game. A game that is not fun is not worth playing.
Also it isn't really about if you are more right than them it is the perception of evil overlord that needs to be changed and if you do sit down avoid getting too caught up in a minor detail as like a single ruling but keep focusing on the bigger picture "Dictactor GM".
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Thanks for the clarification, I think I will keep my answers blank though.
** spoiler omitted **...
I so agree with the points that some of these issues are pretty much American exclusive issues though I did try to take a stand on them anyway.
Which decade of life are you in? (11-20 counts as 2nd, 21-30 counts as 3rd, etc.)
Are you male or female?
Aside from geekdom, how many minority groups are you a member of? (LGBT, racial/ethnic, physically disabled, emotionally/mentally disabled, religious)
How financially comfortable are you?
In your experience, how big is the typical game group? (Including the GM.)
Do you play mostly private games, or mostly at public events?
How often do you like to play D&D?
How often do you play D&D?
Are you mostly a DM or a player?
Which edition was your introduction to D&D?
I am most comfortable in…
Real Life Issues
Are you religious/spiritual?
How do you feel about sex education in primary school?
How do you feel about gun sale taxes?
How do you feel about personal gun licenses?
How do you feel about gun education in primary school?
How do you feel about concealable and semi-automatic guns?
What do you want from tax reform?
How do you feel about government surveillance?
Wars to Spread Democracy and/or Protect Foreign Civilians are…
Voter ID Laws are…
Global Warming is…
Capital punishment is...
How do you feel about immigration?
How do you feel about racism and sexism?
What's your stance on abortion?
Do you believe that your government should provide certain necessities of modern life to all of its citizens? (Police, fire departments, schooling, roads, medical care, etc.)
Stem Cell Research is…
How do you feel about the separation of church and state?
If I had the power to change my country's drug and alcohol laws, I would…
Game Life Issues
Do you value game balance?
Random Game Stats (Abilities, HPs) are…
Do you value game realism?
Do you enjoy core-only games? (With possible exceptions being occasional.)
Do you enjoy kitchen sink games? (Few to no character options banned.)
Do you prefer individual XP, or group/no XP?
(Read the next question before answering this one.)
(If you answered 3 to the last question, don't answer this one.)
Do you like alignment overall?
Paladins should be…
Additional character options are best as…
PC death is…
What is your favorite level range?
Low Levels (1-4)
High levels (13+)
Hit points are…
Evil PCs are…
Do you enjoy guns/steampunk in D&D?
Do you enjoy asian/non-european stuff in D&D?
Combat is best as…
Do you turn down opportunities to play rpgs other than your favorite edition of your favorite game? (Assume that the GM is your friend, but only moderately skilled, or untried.)
Do you turn down opportunities to play rpgs other than your favorite edition of your favorite game? (Assume that the GM is a game-only friend or a stranger, but is a highly skilled one.)
Comment: A few of the real life questions seems to be exclusively pointed towards Americans (I'm Danish), for me the gun education in primary school made me go huh? and voter ID is another one of those I am not entirely sure what it entails. It might be advisable to clarify the real life questions or make them more universal rather than refer to current specific laws and regulation of one place or another as you are trying to find correlation between opinions on various questions on a particular cultural sphere and rpg issues, but that your potential sampling list includes (one/few/some/many) people from outside this cultural sphere.
There are few prestige classes I like, I honestly like the whole archetype thing better, I often feel like a prestige class takes more effort to plan for but has much the same effect as an archtype. All that being said my faborite prestige class is "Harrower" I am totally in love with this prestige class and the whole concept of fortune telling.
Umbral Reaver wrote:
That rings a bell, I heard of that before, but wasn't the AD&D 2e days and the rules said that it had to be a small off hand weapon such as a dagger or short sword? (sorry I don't even know where my AD&D 2e books are any more so can't look it up).
As for Drow they are also an abomination onto nuggan ;) just kidding.
I don't need horror for that, yesterday I had one of my players tell me that he thought that using things from the APG was a bit too exotic and implied that the main reason for using such material was to powergame :/
They removed things like Barbarians needing to be ragaholics who can't be lawful, and monks all being lawful guys from monestaries right? Or how about how they removed rangers having a specific list of pets to choose from, or druids needing to be neutral no matter what?
The whole alignment restriction thing can make a Rageaholic and in fact the whole rage mechanic as presented is something I strongly dislike, I wish they it more general like say "great resolve" or some such, something a bit more abstract then "Me mad, Me brush PUNY monster." but that is netiehr here nor there. Let us just say I agree with this.
I suppose it is backward compatible to a degree, or maybe it is more like it is easier for people to grasp the major new leaps when small stuff like that are maintained.
I suppose in a manner they are, I have personally just found them highly useful quite a bit more often then not and quite a bit easier to obtain then Greater "You need Dex 19 sucker" Two-Weapon Fighting. That being said there is no denying that two-weapon fighting is awesome mechanically and thematically.
Umbral Reaver wrote:
*shivers* It is sad to see how the poor ranger class have been abused by the vile and abominable R.A.Salvatore.
A quick research revealed the Ranger class first appeared in Strategic Review in 1975 at least according to wiki (I haven't read it so I wouldn't know) but I seem to remember it was also a first edition AD&D class (fighter subclass), so it might pre-date Drizztzy a bit.
I thinmk Kobold Cleaver is regarding Worst in terms of "most restricted" in terms of customization options
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I just think, compared to the rest, rangers are the most pointlessly restrained.
Also he/she/it clearly doesn't mean mechanically. Also it seems only to be a semi serious inquiry:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Again, I'm not trying to damn the class. I apologize for the clear lack of clarity in my original post. I am wondering what people think of the ranger's very strangely limited ability, and thought I'd have some fun.
Here is my thoughts:
I don't find him to be the worst class that has been strangely limited in terms of customization, honestly I always scratched my head at the whole two-weapon style since it clashes with my inner vision of what a ranger is. Honestly I have a much much harder time with classes restricted to certain alignments.
The topic is subjective, but I think Kobold Cleaver is trying for a bit of debate/discussion to gain a feel for what people thing in regards to the whole weapon style mechanic.
Actually yes, try to consider the inquiry as a regard to the design philosophy behind then original class and in that regard I think that the weapon style thing is a hold over from older editions.
Well, to be fair its only 3 feats and it doesn't take much to use a two handed weapon effectively. You really just need power attack and your done, unlike archery which has a lot of feats attached to it and two weapon fighting which requires at least 3 over its career(and for less oomph too!)
Well to me the point of running around with power attack is to gain cleave, cleave and greater cleave to me are to a power attack what improved and greater two-weapon fighting are to two-weapon fighting, the extra "oomph" that makes it all worth it.
Umbral Reaver wrote:
Hey, the Drizzt class is fine!
No a Drizzt class is an abomination unto nuggan! :p
Well with that much healing let them have plenty of encounters each day, make them use it or combat encounters will quickly be meaningless.
Basically you have a group with two obvious strengths and two glaring weaknesses, martial combat and divine/healing and support spells are their forté it is going to be hard to challenge them in these two areas however they have a serious downside in that they lack arcane magic and the pure skill monkey of the rogue, especially in regards to traps and locks. Sit down with the core rulebooks and find out what exactly this means for the group and try find none standard ways to challenge them then just pure straight up combat (ie. be sneaky! they want the challenge and have healing and combat resources to overcome them!) ohh and you can probably throw the idea of 2 or 3 encounter workday out the window.
In regards tos tats and number it sounds like you need to increase the extra from 20% to 50% or more!
Anyway good luck and hope you have fun.
My best advice is really a bit more general the kingmaker specific and I assume you probably know most already, from what I understand you have the following:
a 5 man group
Your five man group is a bit more than the four average, so you could start by beefing up encounters by 20%.
Does the character in your group fit into the 15 point-buy stat range or are they higher? if they are increase the encounters even further.
Analyse your group to see what are their strengths, go to strategies, weaknesses and what do they avoid. Exploit their weaknesses to make the encounters harder, create unfavourable conditions to water out their strength a bit.
Analyse your own strength, weaknesses and patterns for encounters and every now and then do something you wouldn't normally even consider, something off the bat.
If you are not rolling enough random encounters simply don't roll for them every time to catch up, if you don't want to do that toughen them up instead and create unfavourable conditions for the players, where they are forced to make less then optimal choices.
Remember the 20% resources spend per encounter by equal CR rule, and up the encounters to force them to use more resources.
Increase the number of times they can have a random encounter to say 5% every time the enter a hex, 5% per day and another 5% per night and finally a 5% chance of a natural hazard occurring per day (heatwave, cold snap etc).
the first book of the Kingmaker AP is to be a bit static, so look it through and make the opponents dynamic, think of it as a game of chess or Go, the staglord should react (badly) to their moves.
Have some of the random encounters be something the players can't "escape" that is, rather than being able to run away before the encounter stats have them be the prey that walked into the clever hunter's trap. One thing is retreating from a pair of trolls you see, another is retreating when you are in their ambush, that is is someone down first round? it raises questions like how are we going to get that person out of here with us or do we leave that person behind to be eaten?
Change the fact of an encounter on them, when they think they have a encounter well in hand, throw in a monkey wrench, they are taking down some bandits with no problem? have a Owlbear or a pack of Thylacine attack or even just have the bandits receive serious reinforcements or maybe an old mite pit trap is triggered by a random player at some point in the fight.
Obviously they are doing more than well so you don't really need to be too cautious of them since they can handle it.
Hope it gave you a few ideas.
Rolling Rolling Rolling
WS: 2d10 + 30 ⇒ (1, 3) + 30 = 34
Reroll: S: 2d10 + 30 ⇒ (1, 6) + 30 = 37
No idea yet as to what the char will be.