|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I thought it was interesting that Drogon, a real-life shopkeeper, seems to have a soft spot for people who steal from shopkeepers. ;-)
So, to quit my rambling, is asking players to "colour inside the line" GM hubris, or a reasonable request? and corollary is it ever okay for a GM, or a gaming group by mutual accent to install an electric fence on a few of those lines to enforce compliance? And how can it be done without hard feelings.
I think it's good to get all the players and the GM on the same page when it comes to the tone of the campaign, and this seems to be the purpose of that.
In the past when I've run adventure paths, I usually prefaced it with a comment like: "This is an adventure path, so it runs primarily in one direction. So it's up to you folks to create characters who want to move in that one direction as a cooperating party, and I'll work with you to make that as smooth as possible. If you think that's too restrictive, then this may not be the right game for you."
Instead, how about you take the problem player aside and explain to him that it is bad gaming sportsmanship to overpower encounters to the point that other players do not feel they are having fun.
I highly recommend that the other players should talk to Player A, not the GM. Why? Because the other players are much better judges over whether they're actually having fun or not than the GM is!
If you're unhappy when Player A pulls his grappling trick against lone casters, let someone else GM the scenarios which feature lone casters.
If other players are unhappy when Player A pulls his trick, they should tell him so.
If nobody is unhappy when Player A pulls his trick (which is quite possibly the case), nothing needs to be done.
Lord Foul II wrote:
then why is making undead evil in a way that leaves: craft construct, inflict spells, and raise dead NOT evil?
(a) Because desecrating the dead is icky.(b) Because you're messing with someone's soul against their will (e.g. an undead creature can't be brought back to life with Raise Dead, so there must be some kind of soul shenanigans going on).
I'm just glad you didn't ask "why are vibrators legal, but necrophilia isn't?"
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Was my role playing too much?
Not at all, since you politely put it in an email so you wouldn't be monopolizing game time. And there was nothing wrong with the other players' reactions either; they're not morally obligated to be interested in the stuff that you find interesting about the game.
Good news! Even if faction missions are going away, we can still use those valuable techniques with the main or secondary scenario mission. ;-)
TL;DR: Depending on the organization of the dungeon and the relationships between the different factions resting in the dungeon can be easy or not.
Again, it's obviously campaign dependent, but that's usually the kind of information that's obvious to the GM, but not necessarily obvious to the PCs (at least at first) unless the GM is having pity on them.
Now I can certainly believe that there are some parties out there who do all kinds of scouting and picking up rumours and who know everything about the lay of the land before they even start their dungeon delving, but that never came up in any of my campaigns. If we ever slept a dungeon, we just hoped that the GM would take it easy on us.
Philip Dhollander wrote:
In our case, it was about the game and the fact that it was too much (two days basically), the fact that she did not have a real hobby and was stuck at home and the fact that she finds it a 'silly hobby'.
That's basically my wife's attitude: why should I want to waste so much time out of the house when I could be at home, entertaining her? We've settled on one night every two weeks being a happy medium, however. (Although there was that one time when she was griping that my one game every two weeks was interfering with her going to the gym every night! Gimme a break...)
But it's a waste of time! You could be mowing the lawn or fix the door to the basement instead. You know, be a real man rather than playing some stupid game once every few weeks.
Ha! My wife occasionally comments: "Why don't you get a hobby that MAKES money? Like, instead of playing games, you could write games!"
And yet she never finds it funny when I suggest: "Why don't you learn to make shoes instead of going shopping for shoes?" Odd how that works...
;-) (If you're reading this, I love you, honey!)
I'm going to run a Pathfinder adventure path very soon (Reign of Winter) for these same people, ie players that prefer detail-oriented, "realistic" kinds of games. I'm fairly well read on the rules but I certainly don't have them mastered, so I want to ask you folks: can Pathfinder handle games that aren't very mechanically crunchy?
I think I'm missing something here. It almost sounds like your players like a mechanically crunchy game, so you're trying to trick them into a game that's not mechanically crunchy.
Hey, the wealth rules don't work in a 3.x variant. That's unbelievable! I mean, it's been true for 13 years, but still! Unbelievable!
I actually don't have many problems with money in 3E/Pathfinder. Most "complaints" I see run along the lines of:
However, I agree with the original poster that prices for land and buildings have always been on the high side in D&D. I imagine that's supposed to make it challenging for adventurers to buy real estate, but that makes no sense when you consider that by level 5 (or whatever), most adventurers are the equivalent of Bill Gates or Warren Buffett.
I Hate Nickelback wrote:
Though I somewhat disagree about the oracle/cleric list. Animate dead with no material component as a 2nd level word? Yes please!
The superstar spell that I like is Alignment Shield. Rerolling saves against any kind of "spell or effect" as long as it's not from a neutral creature? That's comparable to an improved version of Break Enchantment, but it's a first level spell!
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
This is essentially cheating! Okay, you could state a long list of 'what ifs' before you roll any attacks, but at that point it would be quicker to roll them one at a time.
I agree that "over-rollers" can be as annoying as "under-rollers".
Recently, we had this type of situation:
GM: Roll two Fort saves...
(Note how rolling two dice super-quickly turned out to add an extraneous roll after the fact, slowing things down anyways.)
Kirth Gersen wrote:
People get really severe cases of metagamophobia and will make the most asinine rulings in order to avoid any appearance of it -- to the extend of declaring mass mental blockages and selective blindness on all of the characters in the game world.
My personal pet peeve is skeletons. In the real world, most people would be smart enough to use a hammer to smash up a pile of bones instead of an icepick, but in D&D-land players and GMs are suddenly scared to let PCs use an ounce of sense.
If I thought the DC was enough to succeed with a "take 10" (as several people have suggested), I would probably be peeved if the GM only told me afterwards that my calculation was incorrect and that I couldn't take back my action. But I'm not sure if that's exactly what's going on in this case.
When I'm GMing, I try to help the players (not necessarily the PCs) in every way possible.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Oh, sure. It's easy to answer these kinds of questions if you cheat and look in the book. Newb.
Been there, done that. I usually end up getting hosed. As a player, I always say I'll never do it in a game again, but then I keep playing characters that would take the chance in a heartbeat.
My problem is that I see the other PCs getting good stuff and I think "One draw can't hurt..."
Yes. Yes, it can.
I agree: I think there's a gap between what you're describing and what the players are seeing. If you describe a guy moving forward in "a blur of speed", for instance, then the players won't be surprised if the guy is moving faster than a regular human. And if you describe a wraith's "eyes glimmering with malevolent intelligence", then they'll realise that some undead are smart. Etc., etc.
upon reflection, I suppose it's not really his crafting so much as he's really REALLY good at exploiting the rules, especially with magic.
That's what I suspected. Taking Craft Wondrous Item is a symptom of him being a power-gamer (or whatever your preferred term is), not the cause.
Mark Hoover wrote:
I have several success stories about joining a group that wasn't a good fit, bowing out gracefully, and then later finding a group that's just about perfect for me.
I don't have any success stories about joining a group that wasn't a good fit and trying to change it from within, however.
I'd think a non-combat trained dog would rather flee that defend itself if attacked.
Would it make a difference if it was a wolf instead of a dog? If not, can I tell that to the GM every time our party gets attacked by wild animals? "Sorry, they don't have Combat Training so they'd rather run away."
How does sharing a language factor into Handle Animal checks? (less common of a factor for Animal Companions though a gnome druid or any druid who has cast Speak With Animals could be in combat and speaking with their companion)
You beat me to it. Speak with Animals says that a friendly animal "may do some favor or service for you". Does that supercede the trick/Handle Animal rules? What about intelligent animals who have taken the Linguistics skill: would they similarly be willing to perform favors or services?
What about animals acting in self-defense: are they also limited by the type and number of tricks they know? It doesn't seem right that a wolf without the Attack trick would never bite anyone, but on the other hand it doesn't seem right that a wolf without the Flank trick can flank on its own initiative but not when ordered to attack.