Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Darius Finch

knightnday's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 712 posts. 2 reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 712 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

TheWarriorPoet519 wrote:

I'm getting the sense that this to a very real degree comes down to that old "Only if you run it that way" argument.

Which isn't a problem, it's just that it also falls into "I just disagree" territory.

I think it's not unwise - from a design perspective - to design a setting the way they did, accounting for a certain type of jerkish behavior some players are known for rather than making one particularly vulnerable to it.

It is, afterall, a lot easier to redesign lower level versions of NPC's than it is to tack on a whole bunch of levels.

Pretty much this.

For me, it comes down to GMing 101: You can change things. The stuff in the books is the baseline view for the setting, set that way for all the reasons people have delineated above (PCs are bastards, NPCs raiding places, etc etc.)

You can certainly alter anything you choose to flavor the game for yourself and your players. There are good reasons to have lower level rulers, or higher level, as long as you are capable of addressing the questions that come up from your players. Heck, the designers are great but don't always take everything that PCs can think up into account and you have to add protections from things they'd never think of. This has become more apparent in recent years in things like comics, where they've had to address why supers haven't killed the President or taken all the nukes and so on.

As with everything, they've given you the beginning of the game but if you have specifics in mind you have to adjust what is written to take that into account.

tl;dr: The trope exists as a baseline.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kolokotroni wrote:
Too many good things to quote

I have to say I agree with everything said in Kolokotroni's post. D&D5 and Pathfinder and hosts of other games can and will co-exist without issue. There are rules light, rules medium and rules heavy games out there that all manage to get a share of the market and there are players of multiple systems that enjoy them all at the same time for different reasons.

A small sub point, and one that exists for any game system really: your familiarity with it speeds you up and you don't have to always check every book every round. Make cheat sheets, improvise modifiers (if your table isn't a stickler for such), and so on.

Even before most everyone had a tech object they could look things up on we'd have cheat sheets and notes and so on to speed things up. And while I've had people get irritated with the suggestion in the past, part of the game is work -- enjoyable work, don't get me wrong -- but work nonetheless. For the GM, for the players. Know your character and what it can do. Know what is going on, pay attention, keep notes, get bookmarks or tabs, use phones/computers for the online resources and so on.

Even with "rules lite" games there is still some responsibility for the players and GM to know their stuff and work together to keep things moving.


LazarX wrote:
knightnday wrote:

Asking here instead of staring a new thread .. are all these posts about these iconics (and the ones from the other books) going to be collected at some point in a book or other resource?

My wife is interested in the backstories, so looking to see if there are collections or if I need to save each individual blog post for her to read.

I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for a collected biographical tome. Do some cut and pasting and a trip to staple, you can make your wife happy now. And that's always a smart move.

Heh, no, no breath holding, I just didn't want to duplicate effort on the project. I'm happy to print it off and make a nice little supplement for her and myself for that matter. Thanks!


Asking here instead of staring a new thread .. are all these posts about these iconics (and the ones from the other books) going to be collected at some point in a book or other resource?

My wife is interested in the backstories, so looking to see if there are collections or if I need to save each individual blog post for her to read.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

Speaking as a loyal Paizo customer, and as someone who is normally quite satisfied with the editing of their books, and finally as someone who's often accused of being part of the 'Paizo Defense Force'...the editing in this book is a serious problem.

I suspect it's due to the GenCon rush rather than any actual incompetence on anyone's part...but let's put it this way, I'm methodically going through and enumerating editing problems right now (I'll post them in the problems thread). I'm on p. 33 and have five or six notable problems, that's one every six pages, and I'm convinced they're more common in the archetypes section than the class section. That's an unacceptable rate of notable problems (especially when some of them have to do with basic class functionality and I saw some of those commented on based on the playtest documents).

This is not an acceptable editing job. I was gonna pick it up in hardcopy...but I'm waiting on the second printing to do that now.

I agree that the GenCon rush must have contributed to the problems this book had in the editing department and mentioned that in my review. Still, I'm glad I got one of the "collector's edition" cover mishaps and got mine now instead of waiting for another printing. There is something much more enjoyable for me about reading a hard copy rather than a PDF.

I look forward to your list of problems and hope you put them up. That way I can notate my book and not have to do the hard work! ;)

Tirisfal wrote:

Seriously, I love this book. Sure, there're a few editing issues, but I have found such mistakes in every book I've ever read. I have to applaud the team for working so hard on this book and giving us something that will provide me with endless ideas.

I'm not good at crunch, so I'm thankful that these folks are able to put out high quality books like this to help me with most of the heavy lifting. If I disagree with the way that something works, or I prefer it to work a different way, I can always adjust it, and that freedom is the beauty of table top :)

My sentiments exactly. This (or any game book) is a gold mine of ideas and concepts and fully realized material. Instead of inventing whole cloth, I can "fix" anything I deem broken or otherwise modify it to my table's tastes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
And again that doesnt mean the fighter has to be able to jump 1000 feet in the air. But he should have proper recourse simply because he is an x level fighter. Maybe fighters at x level get a pegasus mount. Maybe fighters at x level get an ability to shoot flying creatures out of the sky (and not the literally laughable fly check currently required to avoid such an effect). Maybe his tactical knowledge gives him foreknowledge of the situation and he is actually waiting on the cliff 300 feet up. Maybe the fighter throws a grappling hook onto the dragons leg, climbs up it and fights the dragon from its back. The point is he should have the tools regardless of the campaign setting to deal with the situation.
Kolokotroni gets it. 100% spot-on. And when people say "he can already do this stuff," we mean that getting it really needs to be hard-coded into the rules, so that he gets it as part of the game, not "he may or may not get thrown this stuff as a bone by the DM in contravention of the rules because everyone feels sorry for him."

Which is what I agreed was a good idea (and have even done and am still doing). The problem is the extremes on both sides (they are great and need no help versus let them be super powered). A little moderate thought on both sides (ala what Kirth and Kolokotroni were suggesting) would go a long way. Wouldn't take much more than a chapter in a hardback, maybe a Campaign Guide like Inner Sea magic or whatever.

@Simon: Not a new parent, although my four year old was pummeling me with trains when I wrote that so it may have coloured my words.

In any case, I may be alone over here but I'd love to see casters ramped back a bit as well as martials raised up. I'm a fan of restrictions on casters and putting the godhood off for mythic/epic/super high level play.


K177Y C47 wrote:
Except that it is kind of true. How many times have you heard "well... its too magical, and fighters should have NO magical at all.." or "too wuxia for me," or "that is just ubsurd, that just makes no sense, that is impossible!" when regarding potential abilities for hihg level martials without obvious spellcasting? Heck, look at how a lot of people dismiss the barbarians abilities because "they are too magical and make no sense" becauses "martials are supposed to be normal"...

Or mundane rather than normal. It isn't common, even with a lot of skill in battle, to leap miles. To shatter mountains or as an above poster commented, destroy entire armies by yourself. Even at high level.

That is something some players want, but not all. Not everyone believed the Book of 9 Swords (or whatever the exact name was) was the way that all martials should go. Not everyone wants or is comfortable or want their martials leaping about streaming energy like a kung fu movie.

The game has laid out what a fighter is, and what many posters are asking is to toss all that out and make it into something that is very foreign to many eyes for the same of making them do the same sort of thing that wizards can do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:

I think part of the problem here is that people refuse to acknowledge, or just don't realize how their style of play or house rules impact the game. That is why when discussing such things it is best to not bring corner cases or house rules("How I or my GM does it"), unless it is done with a rule in the actual book.

...

Before this is misread nobody is saying don't change the rules for your game. I am saying be honest and don't say X is not a problem when you know your X and everyone else's X is different.

I am also NOT saying that if you used class x without houserules that class x would not work. I am saying that you need to recognize what your changes bring to the system. Because once you bring in your house rules all you are really saying is "I made changes so problems ______ doesn't happen in my games". That is very...

I believe the reason people say these things is because it isn't a problem for them. If I "fix" something, it is no longer a problem for our game. For your game or his game or their game it might be, and that is still relevant to an extent. But for my or their table, the problem is fixed or taken care of. They are not waiting for the devs to put out a new book to fix this perceived problem or give the OK on the boards, they've moved on.

Now, that might be more common in older players who did this sort of thing over the years before message boards and vocal campaigns to get things fixed or changed. Regardless, and whether people are happy with the response or not, it is a valid response and a valid way to deal with these problems.

Rule books, from this or any game publisher, often have problems that need errata, corrections, balance issues and so on. And not all of them are agreed on. Not every change that people are upset about is bad in the eyes of the devs, no matter how many threads are made about it. Not all of them are good either, mind you.

That said, once the game is in your and your table's hands, it is your game. You can and in my opinion most assuredly should take it apart and tinker with it, exploring what you believe is right or wrong and fixing, discarding, or upgrading as you will. They really won't come to your house and spank you.

To drag this back to the OP, it appears from their first post that their play style and players have prevented many of the problems that are seen on the boards. There are gamers who only play once a month and won't see a tenth of the issues that come up on these boards. There are players and GMs that are content to play and not tear into the rules set to see where it bends and breaks and won't run into the CODzilla in 3.5 or the various broken/bent builds that we see all the time here. They aren't wrong to say "Not seeing the hubbub guys, but good luck with all that."

X is not any more of a problem than you let it be, whatever X is. If you are waiting for your personal X to get fixed by the company, you may be in for a long wait. If these threads are nothing more than blowing off steam and wishlisting, then that is great. But out and out telling people who are voicing their opinion on the matter -- which is all we are doing -- that they shouldn't talk about their experiences with the matter or that they are wrong to do so is out and out dismissive and not very conducive to any sort of conversation on the matter.

By all means, let's "fix" things. But let's not pretend for even a second that someone's fix is better than someone else's, or someone's opinion is somehow lesser because it doesn't conform to The One True Way.


Nicos wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Being able to cut through a mountain isn't magical. It is however awesome. And I would like my martials to be awesome.
I'd beg to differ on that. Cutting through a mountain is pretty darn magical, or supernatural, or godly. Awesome sure, but it is beyond what even a really good guy with a sword should be doing IMO.
And this, my friends, is why fighters and rogues cannot have nice things...

It is not. It is just a diferent view on the game they would like to play, and a diferent view on what constitue a "nice" thing.

Of course, without crazy stuff the martial coudl not compete agaisnt caster at mid to high levels, but I blame on how crazy caster becomes.

Ah, that same tired comment. Sorry, but fighters and rogues and monks and other classes get "nice things." What they do not get is the things the wizard does, or anime/super hero things, in the core rule set. They do get a nice selection of power ups in the mythic book, however, if that is something that folks are interested in.

For all the people saying that there are dismissive comments going on, the battle cry of "they are denying X nice things" should be in the top 10. It isn't true, it isn't helpful, and doesn't do much for the conversation.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:

3. Myth: "You just want fighters to teleport and throw fireballs!"

Answer: No one wants that. Try actually reading some of the suggestions people post sometime.
Dunno, I've read the suggestions on this and other threads, and many of them are pretty out there. We've gotten everything from the more mundane (increased movement, move and full attack, friends overseas and so on) to the more exotic (slice mountains in half, leap miles, throw enemies so they take out lots of enemies and so on.)
Yeah, I should really edit that from "No one wants that" to "very few people are actually saying that." However, I'll insert the caveat that, while I don't want my 10th level fighter teleporting himself, I very much do want him able to handle things going on across the continent, and in a time-effective manner. Whether that means he has a network of troops and messenger pigeons, or some other appropriate mechanism, is open to debate.

This I agree with and in our various games we've implemented since the 80s for characters of all types.

Yes, I know, it's house rules, but for the games I've GMed and helped with, the books are the start of the rules, not the end. We saw a problem and worked to fix it rather than waiting for the various companies to do it for us (and in the old, old days we didn't have this new fangled internet boards to yell at them on!)

But yes, yes, a thousand times yes everyone in the game should have at least the opportunity to pick up options that allow them minions to do spying for them or bring back clues or set up the second stage of the invasion while Our Heroes take a long boat ride or wagon train or whatever. I'm for that a million percent.

edit: and yes, that rewrite looks better to my eyes at least.


Kirth Gersen wrote:

3. Myth: "You just want fighters to teleport and throw fireballs!"

Answer: No one wants that. Try actually reading some of the suggestions people post sometime.

Dunno, I've read the suggestions on this and other threads, and many of them are pretty out there. We've gotten everything from the more mundane (increased movement, move and full attack, friends overseas and so on) to the more exotic (slice mountains in half, leap miles, throw enemies so they take out lots of enemies and so on.)

It is great that people want to help out the martials so that they are on par with casters because this is a problem for many people. Not everyone, mind you, but more than enough that this keeps cropping up. That said, I'm less interested in martials replicating wizard spells just to even them up. Isn't this the complaint that everyone had with 4E, that everyone felt the same?

The rest of the list is good and bad and could be debated for thousands of posts and get no where, much like this. I suggest that perhaps Paizo isn't going to go to the level of change that many are interested in. Maybe a kickstarter or crowd sourced third party project might be able to put together the sort of source book that many are interested in -- I just don't think this company's core rules are going to represent the martials doing what is being suggested in many cases.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Coriat wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Being able to cut through a mountain isn't magical. It is however awesome. And I would like my martials to be awesome.
I'd beg to differ on that. Cutting through a mountain is pretty darn magical, or supernatural, or godly. Awesome sure, but it is beyond what even a really good guy with a sword should be doing IMO.
I've read the Song of Roland, and I don't remember Roland being either a magician, or a supernatural being, or God. And yet...

And yet, it's a story. It doesn't have game rules applied to it, and could in fact have any number of game mechanics applied to it. Just like other stories. People cannot agree on what level Batman is, or even how things written in the rules should be applied. I'm not sure basing giving martials new abilities based on that is a great idea, any more than basing them on what the Hulk can do.

Stories have interesting scenes and characters have wonderful abilities that do not directly translate to Pathfinder; heck, many of them don't translate well into games written exclusively for them (see Batman).


Lemmy wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

If doing anything extraordinary is considered magic, no matter if there is any actual magic involved or not, then Fighters, Rogues and all other non-caster classes should stop progressing at 5th level.

Fortunately, it's perfectly possible to create a story where characters can be extraordinary without any use of magic.

I think the difference is where we begin and end the definition of extraordinary and magical, and where slicing through a mountain falls.

I just don't think "stuff a normal human can't do in the real world" is a good definition of magic.

And here is the thing...

Every creature of CR X should have CR-appropriate abilities. If a Fighter and a Wizard of same level have the same CR (and the rules say they do), then their abilities should be similarly powerful.

If that's not the case, then they should not have the same CR.

So if a martial characters are always limited to doing what a a CR 5 creature can do, then their classes shouldn't go beyond 5th level.

Perhaps so, and I can certainly agree about the CR discrepancy. That said, I'm still not sold on giving even high level fighters abilities that seem more at home with mythics/demi gods and the like, not even if a story or movie or book showed a guy doing something like that and he must be Y level (in an opinion.)

I'm all for martials getting interesting and new abilities that allow them greater power at higher level; that said, you are getting what it says on the tin: wizards are guys who can manipulate reality and fighers are guys who fight. They aren't equivalent and I've never quite gotten the arguments behind them from the very beginning days of D&D or in other games (Shadowrun comes strongly to mind.) It isn't a real surprise that there will be places where the wizard excels, just like Superman is going to shine in far more instances than Green Arrow. We know that going in, and yet people still watch Arrow and so forth.

Sorry, losing track of what I was going to say next and not going to let the baby type just yet, so I'll trail off there. We're still arguing the same argument from the last twenty threads on this: people want changes to the fighter/martials, they want it NOW, and want Paizo to do it. Just house rule it and move on and have fun, I say.


Lemmy wrote:

If doing anything extraordinary is considered magic, no matter if there is any actual magic involved or not, then Fighters, Rogues and all other non-caster classes should stop progressing at 5th level.

Fortunately, it's perfectly possible to create a story where characters can be extraordinary without any use of magic.

I think the difference is where we begin and end the definition of extraordinary and magical, and where slicing through a mountain falls.


Anzyr wrote:
I think you might want to define what magic means to you then. Because unless the martial decided to chant a mantra to the nine gods, or speak syllables in an alien tongue prior to cleaving through a mountain, there is 0 magic involved. And none of the fantasty people who have done that (oh yes, there are fantasy people who have done that) needed to do either of those things.

Which means that they perhaps used a different form of magic or supernatural help. Just because the author didn't spell out that they used magic doesn't mean that they didn't, or didn't have some other form of assistance.

Regardless, we circle back around to what defines what a martial character is and just how far they should be able to go, which I believe was talked about extensively in another thread. Some want mile jumping mountain cutters and others a little less than that.


Anzyr wrote:
Being able to cut through a mountain isn't magical. It is however awesome. And I would like my martials to be awesome.

I'd beg to differ on that. Cutting through a mountain is pretty darn magical, or supernatural, or godly. Awesome sure, but it is beyond what even a really good guy with a sword should be doing IMO.


As a side note to all of this, over the years myself and a few other GMs worked on various house rules to ramp up or down the power of casters and non-casters. Despite the hard knocks house rules get online sometimes, we did find that it helped non-casters feel a little less put upon if magic were limited in some way, be it taking damage when casting or any of a number of other suggestions.

In other words, instead of making all the non-casters super powerful to keep up with the casters, we made magic a little less omnipresent and a little more, well, magical.

Doing so changes the dynamic of the game and isn't everyone's cup of tea, but it does provide an interesting way of playing and while casters can still be very powerful, they aren't rushing about doing it all the time.

Just a stray thought in the middle of all this.


Stepping away from the "is not" "is too" aspect of this conversation, I'll go ahead and toss in my two bits.

I've played (since someone asked) 37ish years or so, and yes, casters can be problematic Taken at just straight book face value, someone who wants to be disruptive to a game can certainly do so with a caster, can overshadow others and turn the whole game into the Caster and his Buddies hour.

That said, you can do some of the same thing with any class if that is what is on your mind, your scale is just a little smaller and you have to work a bit harder to do so.

It would be nice if non-partial casters had some perks that made up for some of the power discrepancy -- nice but not a game breaker for me, in Pathfinder or Shadowrun or any of a dozen games where casters and non-casters share a party.

So lodge me in the "It can be a problem, but not always" camp. We'll be over here making smores while the two big camps continue to do battle. :)

edit: somewhat ninjaed by Mystically Inclined


I'd like to see some of these as well. Several of my bags could do with some morale patches with Paizo-related stuff instead of some of the assortments I can find right now.


Forgive my ignorance, but this has a street date of the 14th for stores right? I'm hoping to pick up all this month's stuff at my not-so-local game store Friday morning if so.


I agree with a great deal of this rant. Things described in the OP (among other reasons) have kept me out of many a game. Some days it is just hard to overlook some of these problems, or if you'd rather, personal choices.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Werebat wrote:

I'm not telling you all to stop playing PF. I don't even want you to. I think this competition between Paizo and WotC is good for all of us. And I'll freely admit that Paizo seems to have the upper hand when it comes to business strategy -- although WotC seems to have taken some pages from their book (not nearly enough, if you ask me, but still). Like another person who commented here, my ideal would be 5e spurring Paizo to develop something new that incorporated everything good about 5e and improved on it. I wouldn't be surprised if that happened someday -- the Paizo people are smart.

But something has happened to PF, and for me, I feel it is time to get off this train and board another. I'm not alone.

And that means something.

So what are you telling us? That you, and perhaps others, are ready to go on to another game? This isn't news, this is the subject of a post or two every other week for the past however long these boards have been up here, and on boards elsewhere. For this game. For every game.

I appreciate the heads up on your status with the game, I really do. But this doesn't mean anything more than you (and perhaps some others) want to play something else for a while. It is as meaningful as if you tell me that you are done with True Blood or don't want to follow X sports team anymore. I nod and say OK, but your exit from this game only means that you exited this game. It isn't a statement on the overall state of gaming or if this or another game are going down a certain route.

I wish you the best in whatever game you find yourself playing. Have fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Well, firstly, we don't have a Belkzen book yet

This is important because we don't have a lot of information on a lot of places. The reason, as far as I can see, why there isn't interaction and movement between the countries is because Paizo is giving us a starting point and expanding outward from there, giving GMs a place to work from.

So you get your information (however limited) on guns, on crashed spaceships, demonic incursions and so on so that you can run something from there.

Given from the posts I've seen that the devs are working, what, a year in advance on the APs they have to toss these ideas out and see if they work with the masses before deciding on follow up. I imagine that there are lots of areas they'd love to follow up on, and may do so in the future; they just have to balance that with pacifying whichever side of the "I hate/love X" that they are currently offending with X.


Zhayne wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

1.) I don't.

2.) I probably wouldn't join it. Passive-aggressively "allowing" something and then s~!@ting all over a player (and not just the player, the rest of the group by association) because he takes that option tells me right off we're not going to get along. If you don't like something at least have the balls to ban it outright, it'll show you're at least honest and straightforward enough to deal with.

This.

This is as big a pile of dickery as 'sure you can play a paladin, I'll just take away your powers in the first session'.

Pretty much agree with Zhayne and Rynjin here. I prefer for my players not to dump stats -- that said I'll tell them what I expect and what I enforce and let it go from there. If you are comfortable with the ramifications of your actions, or stats, or alignment, then cool. But if you make a hideous social troll or utter weakling and aren't interested in dealing with the in game problems (represented by encumbrance penalties, stat mods and so on) then you may want to rethink.

Sounds like the OPs GM had some bad experiences and is trying in some way to lay down the law, but in a counter-productive way instead of talking to the group.


Adjule wrote:
Hama wrote:

So, if they make a useless character, but it makes them happy, that's it? And if other PCs die because his characters was useless, that's ok too? Playing a character who "doesn't make all the right choices" is ok. I even encourage it. But not making useless characters.

And, I've noticed among the people I game with that those who make useless characters are always the ones complaining that someone is annoying them by trying to give them advice.

The only useless character I have ever made is my life oracle in my Wrath of the Righteous game I play in over roll20 on fridays. I thought fighting mythic creatures and demon lords and possibly closing the Worldwound permanently would required a healer of some sort. I had no idea how broken mythic is and how wrong I was. Also didn't know how absurd the other players would make their characters. I lost the fun factor back in March, after starting October 2013. We are level 15 and tier 7. A bit too late to try and bring in a different character, and I keep hoping something will happen (not disastrous) to make the game get cancelled.

All of my other characters have not been useless. Just that oracle. The oracle is useless because the other 3 characters can't be hit unless the DM rolls a 20, and slice through the enemies in 1-2 rounds. We took out 2 balors in 3 rounds yesterday.

That is not my idea of fun. The others seem to enjoy it, despite saying how stupid and OP their characters are, but they continue along that path. *shrug* I stay because the DM is a nice guy and I want to finish out the AP. I wouldn't be sad if the game had to end early, though.

That seems to be a large part of how "useless" someone is: what the current game is and what the others are doing. I've noticed that if you have more than a few powergamers in a group, they tend to label those not doing a zillion points of damage or otherwise keeping up with their builds as useless or weak.

It's hard to make a character that cannot contribute in some way; you actually have to work at it. Yes, you can make "broken" characters or those with sub-optimal or so-called trap options that make them less desirable, but they can still contribute in some way (I've seen it. Yes, yes, anecdotal evidence and all that.)

Anyway, to address Hama's point, yes it's ok if they make a useless or sub-optimal character IF -- and only if -- they tell the group "Hey, this character isn't going to be the most combat savvy or optimized, but I think they idea will be fun and I'll be able to contribute in X or Y way." That way people know what to expect and can adjust the combat load accordingly by addressing builds beforehand, hiring NPCS, avoiding certain fights, and so on.

It is, they tell me, about having fun playing. Someone getting everyone killed by surprising the party with "I have 3s in all physical stats and am a pacifist and by the way, all my spells just are for cleaning and making things change colour" is not cool, I agree. But then I'm a strong believer in people talking about this before dice are rolled and points are spent. It saves time and aggravation later.


Adjule wrote:

I am one of "those guys" who gets annoyed when someone tries to tell me what feats, spells, wondrous items, class features, or equipment to take. Nothing annoys me more. It is one of the reasons I dislike playing with powergamers of any type. I don't make terrible characters that drag the others down because I took "trap" or horrible choices. I just usually don't take options just because they give higher numbers.

I was told a barbarian of mine was terrible because I didn't take Beast Totem for rage powers. The one time I did take Beast Totem powers, it made sense for the character. He was a kitsune barbarian, and the beast totem powers made sense. I guess the DM thought I did it for powergame reasons and the game ended after we reached level 2. Might not be the reason, but it felt like it.

If people want to powergame, I say go for it. I just don't want to play with you. I don't find fun in resolving combat in a single round, and even less so on the very first action. Nor do I find it overly fun when someone has a +20 or so to a skill at level 1. But, like I said; if you find fun in pushing your power so high, knock yourself out. I am sure you share my feelings in not wanting to play together. And I am ok with that.

So much all of this. If someone wants to play a certain way and that makes them happy, then so be it. But I'm not interested in being told why the character I made doesn't live up to their standards and how much better it would be if I'd just blah blah blah.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
It's not just you. Lots of people have problems with Pathfinder. Some of us put up with those problems and play anyway, others don't and find some other game that doesn't irritate them. Whichever you choose, I hope you have fun doing so.

This is pretty much the best advice you'll get: find something or some way to have fun.

Much of the problems you seem to be having are not locked to the Pathfinder or 3.* system, but crop up in how GMs and players interact. you don't have to play dungeon crawls or use towns like a selling hub. You say you've run adventures -- I suggest talking with your players and seeing what their interests are and what they want to do and doing that.

As far as instant learning with skills and so forth, there are ways that one can replicate training time if one cares to. It is a point of some discussion here on the boards, with those who prefer not having to spend downtime to do what they believe they've already trained to do while others would like to see more effort spent learning. Again, this is something to talk about with your table and see what they want to do.

Players using OOC knowledge is troublesome but not locked to the system as well. It's pretty easy to get around as well, with something as simple as "I'm sorry, you learned that where?" or "Can I see your sheet?"

If you feel the problem is Pathfinder (and given your comments I don't think it is) then there are a multitude of gaming systems out there. Grab one, learn it, and introduce it to your friends/players. You may have to be the prime GM for a while until everyone is on board, but you may be able to find something more to your liking.

Best wishes.


PM Sent. Thank you so much for this!


I usually play whatever makes sense for the group and the ideas I have. Whether or not it is considered underpowered isn't on my mind when making a character.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matt Thomason wrote:
Coriat wrote:
Matt Thomason wrote:
I believe, like me, he's saying a forum isn't really the best tool for handling a question/answer format. Currently it's far more "rules discussion and arguments" than "rules questions and answers". A typical player coming here for an answer and searching the forum is unlikely to want to trawl through X00 pages of conversation just to find out how a rule works.

I do think there are plenty of rules questions threads which can be (and often are) resolved clearly and neatly.

Of course they don't tend to stay constantly on top of the forum because there's nobody who keeps posting in them afterwards.

It's not about keeping those threads at the top of the forum - more about keeping the two or three posts out of the hundred or so in each thread that actually answer the question on the first page of the thread, so anyone coming in later can read the actual answers without having to read pages of conversation to find them.

Maybe a way to move questions marked ANSWERED into a subthread to find them easier and general neatness? That way people don't have to do some huge search, they can go right to the subthread and see what is there.


shallowsoul wrote:
knightnday wrote:
If you start off a thread with "100 ways you suck at playing a paladin complete with pictures" you are going to get negative responses.

You won't ever find a thread I started that is anywhere near this.

Why are you exaggerating the issue?

Well, I was exaggerating for comic effect to help lighten the mood. In all honesty, it is hard for people sometimes to see what they are posting and how it can be seen by their audience. There have been posters on this thread who have made their own threads with titles and opening posts that are the equivalent of throwing red meat to the howling masses looking for an argument.

If you aren't looking for that sort of discourse it is important to find the right balance. If people are coming in and right off the bat saying that a thread should be locked or that it is troll bait, that is a perception that they have -- right or wrong. If you are getting more negative responses than positive, then I suggest that you may want to revisit how you are saying things.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:

What's holding me prisoner is the fact that I can't come in and have a discussion unless it's under their terms. Like I almost have to have permission to discuss a particular topic. I respond to those posters because in all honesty, nothing gets done flagging them.

My hands aren't clean but I don't go around looking trouble. Some people really don't need to take it upon themselves to decide that a post or a thread is somehow "trolling" when it clearly isn't. It's just a tactic to get the post removed or the thread locked.

But you don't have to respond. Try ignoring the people that are trying to get your goat or otherwise derail things in your opinion. Stick with the topic and do not allow others to dictate the flow of the conversation. If your motives are pure and you aren't retaliating, you are less likely to have posts removed.

Don't copy or quote other posts with derogatory language, because your post is going to get removed when/if theirs does. Yes people use these tactics to close threads and get reactions and they use it because it is working with you!

I'd also recommend working on less provocative thread titles and the general outlay of the question. If you start off a thread with "100 ways you suck at playing a paladin complete with pictures" you are going to get negative responses.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

Yes, and there's a couple of posters pulling the old trick of when the debate isn;t going the way they want it to, they start asking for a thread lock and insulting other posters- which means that post gets flagged, which does sometimes end in a thread lock. It's a nasty, cheap trick.

The mods are just so busy I don't think they catch it.

This this this this!

I'm growing tired of a select few posters who act like they are the self proclaimed Paizo forum police and go out of their way to get threads locked just because they either don't like the topic, or they are losing their argument. They are dictating when a thread is to remain open or closed. I will not continue to be held prisoner by these people.

Nobody is forcing you to click on the thread and read it, nor is anyone forcing you to make a comment, especially those comments informing you that you are trolling and they will be flagging it. It's like these people think they are of so much importance that the whole board needs to hear them speak.

By the same token, it is this sort of melodrama that keeps things in a state of turmoil. No one is holding you prisoner. No one is forcing you to respond to the other posters and exacerbate the situation, nor to post things that are provocative.

It goes both ways. You cannot say they are being meanieheads when your hands are not clean either. And that goes for anyone and everyone in these threads. Over half the posts are accusing someone of being a troll or not knowing what they are talking about or debating if they are being offended or needling the other to get them in trouble. It's like driving with kids who poke at each other until someone gets smacked or the car gets pulled over.


Matt Thomason wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Tormsskull wrote:

In regards to the Rules forum, it should either be eliminated, or changed to one question and one answer only per thread.

.....

If the rule gets enough FAQs to require a staff response, the OP and the answer to the OP are created as a thread in the Rules forum. This would provide a forum of all staff-responded FAQs.

Um, what you just described as your ideal Rules forum is actually exactly what the existing collection of official FAQs already is. Are you wanting a second one, or were you perhaps unaware of the existing FAQ? Or am I misunderstanding you?

I believe, like me, he's saying a forum isn't really the best tool for handling a question/answer format. Currently it's far more "rules discussion and arguments" than "rules questions and answers". A typical player coming here for an answer and searching the forum is unlikely to want to trawl through X00 pages of conversation just to find out how a rule works.

Being able to automatically filter out the chatter and see what the suggested answers are (and they can only ever really be suggestions, unless made by Paizo staff, because half the time the player base can't agree on a single answer) would be a huge benefit. It may also have a beneficial side-effect of cutting down on the hostility in said arguments if it focused on providing answers rather than shooting other people's answers down.

^^^^^^ This.

What I'd love is a thread that allows you to ask questions, ala the way we do with James, and have it be about rules. Or multiple threads. Not for people to debate their views on the rules but for someone on staff to definitively answer. Instead, what we have is someone asks a question and it turns into page after page of less than useful information and hedge cases.

It wouldn't even have to be a lot at first. A question a day, or every other day, or a week. Actual useful information instead of pages of arguing over what someone believes is the correct answer and how dumb they are for even suggesting that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Because the Paladin is a cool class with nice mechanics which is overly restricted by alignment restrictions.

(Also, Anti-paladin code screws them out of ever being a reliable party member)

So basically you just want access to cool mechanics without the restrictions?

This is an RPG BTW.

And? The mechanics of the Paladin are interesting and sometimes people want to play a Paladin-esque character, but wants to play as say... a harbinger of Law and the absolution of law. The Warpriest, the cleric, and the Inquisitor can mimic it to some extent but lacks things like Smite that really bring the flavor to the forefront. Say, as an LN "Paladin" you would have Smite Chaos, and you would basically be flavored as smiting down chaos with the absolute power of law.

Oh BTW, this is a RPG...i.e. YOU PLAY ROLES... WHATEVER ROLE YOU WANT...

In a homebrew game you can play what ever you want, but this isn't the homebrew section. We are discussing the default of the game which cannot be ignored in these conversations. Can you play any way you want? Sure you can, but the game is set up with a specific default flavour and that flavour has carried on for over 30 years now.

Dismissing the lawful good alignment with the paladin is dismissing the paladin itself. If you remove the restriction you no longer have a paladin, you have something else.

Not really, no. If you changed the alignment requirement to Neutral Good or Lawful Neutral, you'd still have a paladin -- just with different hoops to jump through.

There is nothing intrinsic to the Lawful Good alignment for the paladin anymore than there was to require them to have a 17 Charisma back in the day. It was a prerequisite, the early stages of what we now have for prestige classes. The early bard class had even more hoops to jump through.

The paladin is God's hammer -- in this case Lawful Good God. It isn't a requirement to be LG, and I'm not utterly convinced that LG is the bestest good, but that's a discussion for elsewhere. The paladin existed to give the players something to strive for, some extra zing above the fighter in the old days. You got the scores? Sweet, have this assortment of abilities and go kill some demons my child.

As the years went on, that idea was left behind and they have become just another class instead of, as some have said, a prestige class or even nine prestige classes. If I were to house rule it -- and I have -- each god would have their own flavor of "paladin" for their specific religion with specific codes and requirements and flavor.

So IMO people are not trying to get rid of the alignment restriction as much as drag the class into more modern times and ways of telling stories and playing. Being Lawful Good isn't a requirement to be a paladin, it is a vestigial fragment left over from The Good Old Days.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Matt Thomason wrote:

While I think there's certainly room for feedback/debate over the usage of the Rules Forum, I'm leaning towards agreeing that this thread is not the place for it. This should be about the amount of hostility in general on the forums.

While the two may be related in some cases, addressing the hostility issue feels like it ought to be the priority here - the problem certainly isn't with how the forums are being used, the problem is hostility, or attempts to provoke it. Anything posted with a modicum of politeness and respect ought to be absolutely fine. I really don't see why expecting people to tone down the type of response Rynjin has illustrated above to "That isn't the way I read it. However as I'm not prepared to explain why, you should feel free to go with your own interpretation." (or indeed, not making such a thoroughly useless post in the first place) is too much to ask of a society that supposedly has realized for a while that clubbing one another over the head isn't acceptable.

Exactly. The snarkiness, the "fixed that for you" commentary and general irritation that someone would dare to post something different or dissenting doesn't help anyone out, it just makes the place seem petty and vindictive.

This is not just the Rules Forums, but everything from how sexuality should be viewed in the game to whether or not you are doing a Paladin's code right. And the sad part is that this is all opinion. No one has the One True Way and I would hope that people can discuss things without having to be rude for no real reason.

If you don't agree or don't agree and cannot be cordial about it, try not to post. No one is forcing anyone to do so -- believe me, I post far less often than I could. If you cannot be nice or at least reasonably polite, maybe you are better off taking a walk until you can be.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Thing is, it isn't just the Rules forum that this is going on in, although it is pretty bad there. A number of other threads all across the boards are just uncomfortable to even read, let alone talk in.

I echo some comments from above where it is better to just not ask questions or enter into the debates. I've erased a number of entries because it is just too depressing to get involved in the commentary or have a simple question turn into a thousand posts of "This is why you suck for even asking the question."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

An idea came to me as I was flagging a post. It would be nice to indicate why or what you are flagging for outside of the pull down menu. What insult, what derogatory term, etc. There have been times where I think whatever the flaggable offense was got lost in the mix or the mod might not be sure what you are going on about. Being able to highlight the problem or an entry field on the drop down might help.


captain yesterday wrote:
Adam Daigle wrote:
As we're rolling into the weekend, I'd like to ask folks to be cool to each other. I'd hate to see the noise drown out the signal. Let's have a conversation rather than an argument.
I'm a' guessin' they didn't pay attention to this:)

My apologies. In deference to the mods I changed a great deal of the language and ramped back on as much of the aggression as I could. Some things need to be brought into the light, however.


thejeff wrote:

I'm saying that I'm also a Straight White Male and I don't see this bile and general hostility I keep hearing about. There certainly wasn't any in the sequence of posts you were responding too. I do see a lot of whinging about how the poor SWMs are always persecuted. Sometimes I get fed up with it and it overflows.

Dunno, we may read different threads. I've seen the same general theme on at least half a dozen threads now and am fed up as well.

In the end, my stance is that if we all want respect and all that jazz, then we all get it, you know?

I don't care about the art or the lover interests in the adventures or how many of which are depicted. More than half the time I'd editing things for my groups, so I don't think it will cut down on my work load. And if more of the art is of half naked men instead of women, then yay? People get what they want and the arguing goes down. A win-win.


thejeff wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Kerney wrote:

The first post is the perspective of a 40 someone (not me btw, but who is of my generation and could have been me) who looks at Paizo and sees how far the hobby has come from 'back in the day' and genuinely feels like others are demanding a change in the game and are being infringed on by the demands of the the OP to get a product they like and enjoy and feel justified (just as much as you do) in saying 'enough'.

You are not an interloper. But remember that these people are not interlopers either and both sides of this debate should keep this in mind, and try to see that the other's POV is genuine and heartfelt.

They may even be wrong. But just telling them how wrong they are will likely only harden their position.

Take Care,

Kerney

Right. Or to put it another way, in this and other threads it has been inferred and even outright said that straight white men are evil, that they've had their way for too long and have hurt X group. Which, sure, you can feel that way -- but understand that is a gross generality and there are a lot of us that might be SWM that didn't do whatever bad thing to you and yours, that have actively worked to prevent such and try pretty hard to get things changed. And to be continually slapped and minimized and told to go stand in the corner is hurtful, gets old, and leads to resentment.

Or another way: you don't like it when your particular ethnic persuasion or sexual persuasion or lifestyle choice or whatever is picked on. But it's totally ok if it is a SWM?

Oh the poor SWM. The most abused and persecuted creature in the universe. Slavery, centuries of institutionalized rape and misogyny, it all pales in comparison to being told that your race and gender might have caused problems for the rest of the world.

Speaking as another straight white male: Get over it. It's not about you. You don't get be center stage in everything. It's not even about you being the bad guy. It's about the rest of the world wanting a piece of...

Don't think I asked for the control room or for it to be about me or the sarcasm. What I believe I said was that if you want people to see your side, attacking them is seldom a way to go about it.

Second, as I said, the slavery, rape and so on wasn't me. I didn't do it and don't really want to be the target for someone's ire over it.

Third, I've said at least once if not more that I think the art and situations could be improved in the material, and barring that, a group and GM should modify the material in their best interests or even for Paizo to put up extra material on the site for multiple situations. Given that Facebook had what, 50 different gender options, might be daunting to do for each adventure so having the player side have to do some of the lifting might be better.

Lastly, and I mean this from the bottom of my heart, you don't get to tell me that I don't get to be upset over the way these conversations go anymore than I get to tell someone who is black to get over slavery, or a woman to get over gender inequality or so on. If I put forth 10 percent of the bile and general hostility towards another race/gender/etc on these boards that I see towards straight white males, they'd ask me to leave. I accept being a target, but I don't accept the hypocritical BS that comes with it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kerney wrote:

The first post is the perspective of a 40 someone (not me btw, but who is of my generation and could have been me) who looks at Paizo and sees how far the hobby has come from 'back in the day' and genuinely feels like others are demanding a change in the game and are being infringed on by the demands of the the OP to get a product they like and enjoy and feel justified (just as much as you do) in saying 'enough'.

You are not an interloper. But remember that these people are not interlopers either and both sides of this debate should keep this in mind, and try to see that the other's POV is genuine and heartfelt.

They may even be wrong. But just telling them how wrong they are will likely only harden their position.

Take Care,

Kerney

Right. Or to put it another way, in this and other threads it has been inferred and even outright said that straight white men are evil, that they've had their way for too long and have hurt X group. Which, sure, you can feel that way -- but understand that is a gross generality and there are a lot of us that might be SWM that didn't do whatever bad thing to you and yours, that have actively worked to prevent such and try pretty hard to get things changed. And to be continually slapped and minimized and told to go stand in the corner is hurtful, gets old, and leads to resentment.

Or another way: you don't like it when your particular ethnic persuasion or sexual persuasion or lifestyle choice or whatever is picked on. But it's totally ok if it is a SWM?


pres man wrote:

Yeah, if there was a game company that characterized all darker skinned humans as brutish, sexually aggressive, criminal, etc. Nothing inappropriate with that, I mean any GM can change it if they and/or their group are not comfortable with it after all.

This message is approved by the Rule Zero Fallacy Alliance.

Inappropriate? Perhaps. A problem? Nope. We saw multiple upon multiple pages in various race and world building and "why you are a bad GM" threads about how you can ignore the text and drow don't have to be evil, monstrous humanoids don't have to be brutish and so on. I am amused and confused how that is totally fine in those threads but not here.

The dislike of the art isn't a problem. It's a dislike. The dislike of the sex of the eyecandy is a dislike. Flirting NPCs. Dislike. These are not problems, they are things we'd like to see changed but aren't -- or hopefully shouldn't be -- the sort of thing that is killing your desire to play a game. These elements are changeable with minimal effort.

The Rules Zero Fallacy Alliance bit? Isn't this the sort of thing that we're asking people not to do on the thread regarding needling and starting problems just to start problems?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TanithT wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Isn't the term 'hyper-sexualized" a bit of, to put it pun-ly, hyper-bole?

Sure they're somewhat sexualized (perhaps a bit too much) but I'd hardly quantify it as hypersexualized.

No. It's hypersexualized.

Have you ever seen a male character posed in an anatomically improbable manner just so that his sexyparts were all showing at the same time? It's unfortunately the default norm for female depictions in fantasy art and comics, and boy is it ever dumb. And annoying, if you don't happen to be of the orientation to be even remotely interested in the parts they are showing.

What do you call it when fanservice gets in the way of realistic depictions and storylines? Other than seriously annoying to everyone who isn't actually being served.

As a dreaded straight white male, I have to say that the "fan service" isn't serving me either. Overly sexualized art or images have been around my entire like -- I'm 46 now -- and they are back ground noise. Whether comics or RPGs or selling beer or chips or whatever, it has so ubiquitous in every form of media that my eyes just slide over it.

That said, this sort of art doesn't get in the way of the storylines for me, any more than having some beefcake poses are going to. I like art, don't get me wrong -- I think many of the pieces of art are beautiful and would love to have them as prints if I were rich -- but they are not what I am buying the books for primarily, and they do not decide, for me, if I'll continue purchasing.

As an aside, a vast number of my players past and present are female. They buy RPGs, they buy fantasy/sci fi books, comics, and even romance novels with this fan service art. The majority of them are .. well, not OK with it, but tolerant at least. According to one, that's the price of admission to get the product. They are not particularly any more interested in having male images of the same vein strewn all over the material either and would have just the same embarrassment issues with it as having half-naked girls on it. Take that as you will.


Jamie Charlan wrote:

You're misunderstanding the fallacy a little.

The idea is not that a GM should never change things, but rather, the fallacy addresses blind defenders of rulesets. Basically:

-Rule has balancing issues and/or does not work
-Someone suggests a houserule/fix/modification
-There was never a problem in the first place because you can modify the rules

The third part is the problem there. And a common one at that, including upon these very forums. Numerous classes/abilities/rules are pretty cruddy, or somewhat overpowered. Some folks claim that because you can just fix it, the RAW was never broken in the first place.

This is the logical equivalent of getting hit while stopped at a red light, needing a new transmission, and (the other person's) insurance refuses to cover it since if you just change the transmission it will was never has been damaged in the first place and thus they owe you nothing!

Oh no, I understand it. I just don't buy into it (see below). And while I am not much for blind defense, I am less for saying that if you can fix it that doesn't fix it. If the rules are borked and you fix it for your game, then it isn't a problem for your game.

Of course, broken is a matter of perception. There are people that will claim any number of things are broken, overpowered, underpowered, and so on.

As for the fallacy and the others that crop up on message boards, more often than not they are used to shut down conversation and dissenting opinion and translate in my mind as "you aren't coloring in the lines of the debate that I like, so your opinion doesn't matter anymore because of my kewl fallacy." Doing that is just as useless IMO as blind defenders. In another thread I mentioned that if you drank everytime someone blindly parroted "Stormwind" you'd die by page 3 of the thread. It stops being a useful point in a debate and starts being a meme that people throw out because they want to shut down the conversation.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
pres man wrote:

Anybody else ever heard about The Oberoni (or Rule Zero) Fallacy?

Basically it says if someone says a rule is not broken because the GM can always use Rule 0 to fix it, then they are committing the false. If you HAVE to change the rule to make it work, then that proves it is broken, otherwise you wouldn't HAVE to fix it.

I'm seeing a very similar thought process going on in some posts here.

"A GM should use internet pictures and change the written and developed game material (which they probably purchased specifically to avoid having to do all the writing and developing themselves). See there isn't any issue here. There is nothing wrong with the content at all. All you need to do is fix it."

I believe that fallacy got brought up on another thread. It is one that bothers me, as it basically is a way to shut down other people's opinions of what the GM could do to fix, change, or adjust things to remove a perceived problem. Keep in mind on this it isn't broken -- the APs function quite well if you don't have your particular flavor of playmate or eye candy in them. For a large number of groups, that is a secondary, tertiary, or lower priority/goal/thing that they are interested in.

And this is very much something that the GM should be doing anyway -- or maybe it is just me? Does no one else adjust adventures for their gaming groups? Sure, there are problems and it would be nice if the Powers That Be had space to cover every contingency and preference that might crop up in your group.

You aren't being asked to do all the writing or developing. You are adjusting things for your groups sensibilities, likes and dislikes, and so on. It doesn't seem likely that a product designed for mass distribution is going to be able to cover all the angles. That is just not something that is going to happen. They have to walk a fine line that keeps it approachable or interesting for a wide market while simultaneously not offending or ostracizing others.

It isn't easy and it has come a pretty far way for Paizo. They seem interested in addressing the problems and adjusting to the changing market. Until that happy day happens, however, GMs and players will have to do their part to customize the product for their individual needs.


Komoda wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Komoda wrote:
I think that the idea that you can make the internet a nicer place is just naive.
I disagree with this. We're not looking to make "the internet" a nicer place. We're looking to not have this section of the internet continue to behave in a manner that is unfriendly, unhelpful, and generally antagonistic. Just because other sites allow people to do whatever doesn't mean that Paizo should throw their hands up.

Is that really the only part of my post that you got?

But many are spouting just that. Many of the posts that I was responding to were not about removing/reprimanding blatant jerks, but about wording and inflection.

An example I have seen many times is BlackBloodTroll - without speaking for him, I have seen quite a few times where his posts have been read as rude and baiting whereas he was just making a point without going into an APA style report to ensure proper etiquette.

Just 30 seconds ago I saw a post from Jiggy stating that a person should not say something to the effect of, "Paizo doesn't think monks should be able to enhance unarmed strike without the Amulet of Mighty Fists" and should say something to the effect of, "There is no way to enhance unarmed strike without the Amulet of Mighty Fists."

That is what I meant by trying to make the internet nicer. The original poster didn't say anything mean, condescending or even slightly untrue.

Sorry, that was just the part that stuck out that I responded to. I got the rest of it, just wanted to address that line.

Your explanation makes sense and expands on how hard it can be to moderate or even flag posts -- what offends you or I may not be the same for them, or for a mod. What I believe is jerk-like behavior might not fit the parameters the mods use.

Chris Lambertz wrote:
Hey guys, I'd rather we stuck to coming up with ideas to improve the situation, rather than turning this into a heated debate. There are some really good suggestions and valid points made here so far, though I haven't been able to respond directly to some just yet. I can say that: we're likely not going to have additional mods to handle spam (especially since we now have a new tool to deal with them), we're not super keen on editing posts as a method of moderation (we feel like it's counter intuitive to positive interactions within the community and we'd rather not alter the words that other people have said), and we have no plans for an ignore feature. I agree that we could be more transparent in some areas.

Can you whap people with a frying pan then? Three pages of "Nuh uh you smell bad and are stupid" "Nu uh YOU smell and are stupid AND don't know the rules!" is silly. That goes beyond flagging each post, that's 2-10 people behaving badly. Removing their posts, as others have mentioned, doesn't stop the problem. Most know that they are going to have the post removed and are getting their hits in before they get pulled.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Komoda wrote:
I think that the idea that you can make the internet a nicer place is just naive.

I disagree with this. We're not looking to make "the internet" a nicer place. We're looking to not have this section of the internet continue to behave in a manner that is unfriendly, unhelpful, and generally antagonistic. Just because other sites allow people to do whatever doesn't mean that Paizo should throw their hands up.

As Cheapy has mentioned, there are some usual suspects that are going to turn up. Perhaps there should be a limit to the number of times you have posts removed before you are asked to get out of the proverbial pool and sit on the side for a while until you can behave.

This isn't a case of a few new people wandering in and causing a ruckus. This is people that have been here a while and know how to behave, but gosh darnit that other guy said something that is wrong so I just HAVE to call them names and berate them over and over.

Posters following each other to other threads and attacking/needling/generally harassing each other should stop, and that's the lion's share of the issues IMO. You don't like Bob and think Bob is a troll and don't like the threads he makes? Stay out of them. Wow. Hard.


Something I suggested for another topic which escapes me at the moment: would it be possible to have something like bonus material (like the Bonus Bestiary, for example) with multiple romantic/non-romantic interests in it.

That way the AP/module can concentrate on the main NPCs and story line while the downloadable extra content can shore up the other avenues that the players might want to enjoy. Could even use this content like DVD extras with material that didn't make it into the AP but is still interesting. No art needed for this, which solves or at least avoids a problem and allows for social interactions, story hooks and so on for those that are interested or want more variety, and those that don't aren't obligated to download.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Caedwyr wrote:
Ah. By self-policing I meant that the poster self-moderates or self-censors before they hit the post button.

Which would be great. That said, there are posters that have said they are just speaking in a blunt manner and will not change, or that honestly don't see anything wrong with how they are presenting themselves. There are others that I believe are doing it to provoke a reaction from the other side(s).

Whatever the reason, I'm not confident that several are willing to change -- it is more about "winning" the argument or being seen as the smartest in the room rather than being polite or constructive.

1 to 50 of 712 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.