|1 person marked this as a favorite.|
Rynjin wrote:Imbicatus wrote:I've never played a game where this is the case.Omnitricks wrote:
The only reason I played PFS a few years back is because I can't play anything with my friends otherwise.
If I had any other choice I wouldn't even play PFS. Its needlessly restrictive and some of the restrictions don't even make sense.
I find PFS is far more permissive in player options than any home game I've seen.
How often do you see no monk/samurai/ninjas because I don't want Asian crap in my game? No gunslingers? No advanced class guide?
With very few exceptions you can play most of Paizo published content, which is seldom the case with home games.
I've seen "no UC Gunslingers" because Paizo was sloppy in writing the gun rules, and the 3.5 gun rules work much better. Also, Paizo's gun rules interact really badly with my house rules on critical hits, which I wrote years before Pathfinder came out.No ACG is a rule I currently enforce....
of course I run 3.5 and don't allow any Paizo products with the exception of Ultimate Campaign (I do use Interjection and DSP stuff though).
I've honestly never heard of someone banning stuff because they "don't want Asian crap" outside of the Paizo.com forums. If someone did hypothetically one to avoid "Asian" content, they could always refluff it. Oh, except in PFS, which has a special rule against refluffing:|
So, no, I do not think PFS rules would make the game as a whole better.
The "refluff" conversation has been had a few times. Many people ban that also, sometimes with the idea that Paizo's flavor is the only flavor that matters or that refluffing to get the class into a game is "cheating".