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

knightnday's page

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 1,311 posts. 2 reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,311 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DrDeth wrote:
Snowblind wrote:

[

I thought that old school was the meat grinder sort of play, where PCs dropped every session from unspeakably horrific deaths, Wizards died from a stiff breeze and had to track their bat poop on stone tablets, traps had none of this silly "take X damage" frivolity but just "save or die, b****". The sort of game where you didn't bother naming your PC for their first three levels, because it is a bad idea to form attachments to dead characters walking. The sort of play where looking into a statue's mouth puts your head into a sphere of annihilation, no save, and where getting off the cart at the tavern results in several broken bones because you need to stop the cart first, dumb***. You know, the way Gyngax intended*. None of this nonsense about "choice" or "point buys" or "Role-Playing". That gets in the way of the players learning the meaning of suffering and loss and getting crushed in hilariously unfair ways.

I guess that just goes to show that "Old School" means whatever the hell the person saying it wants it to mean, either as a pejorative or as a badge of supposed superiority.

*Yes, I know exactly how factually valid this statement is. The question is though, how many of this particular flavor of "old school" think that competitive tomb of horrors play is the way Gyngax wanted DMs to run their games in general.

Yep, there were a few of those. Thankfully rare, unless it was for a one shot competition, where the idea was to survive. Those can be fun too- saying you "beat" Tomb of Horrors was real cred.

Roleplaying over tactics. Not necessarily roleplaying over powergaming or optimizers, plenty of those in the Old School days, but tactics were rare. Battlemats were uncommon, and the main use for figures was to show party order in a dungeon crawl. More dungeon crawls, too.

Traps werent always that deadly but they were far more imaginative than today. The idea of just "walking ahead and taking the damage- who needs a Rogue?" was unthinkable. Traps didnt just do damage. And there were lots of them , so the idea of "just summoning something would make you run out real soon. Not to mention it wouldnt work at all on half the types of traps.

A Thief was necessary. I should know!

Oh and yes- you mapped. Always.

Buying magics items was pretty much impossible, other than potions, scrolls and magic arrows. Thinking your character would have a flaming scimitar by level 7 was the definition of "hubris". Heck, you might have a small pile of +1 and even +2 weapons. But you used what you found.

Rolled, and often rolled in order. "Ooh, this would make a good wizard! " Not- "I will do up a wizard, he'll start with a 18 Int". Ha!

A good deal of this is indeed what I experienced in old school gaming. But, to elaborate, I think it goes beyond this. You can still get this sort of mechanical approach today with the old D&D/AD&D versions or retro clones, but there is a bit more to it than that, something I think was touched on earlier.

In the Old School Gaming, you didn't have a message board that you could appeal to in the middle of the game or afterwards/before to ask if the DM was being mean or how to best beat a trap. There were precious few resources for getting information from the game company or other gamers outside of the rare conventions.

The idea of some sort of mutiny against the DM was something akin to the Bigfoot -- you'd heard someone had done it, but always in some far away place and the information was never very clear on why.

You learned to play the character that you were dealt. Sometimes you died, but a lot of the time you managed to persevere. The fifteen minute adventuring day was not even a twinkle in its grandfather's eye yet; you grimly plowed on if the magic user ran low on spells.

Was it better? No more or less so than the TV shows and movies we watched then. My son asked me why I was watching an old episode of Star Trek the other day when the newer ones are so much more vibrant with colors and special effects. I could have just told him about nostalgia, but that wouldn't have been true. I liked the show because not only was it an interesting show, but it evoked memories of that time of watching it and it being new, different, and exciting.

Old School gaming was like that, at least for me. At the time it didn't have all the fancy options and bells and whistles we have now. There weren't the myriad of choices in game system, let alone options for all sorts of different genres of gaming experiences. There weren't video games about it, it wasn't accepted widely yet. But it was what I had, and it was mine, and it was fun.

Old School games and today's games share a lot, and a lot is lost as well. Neither is worse or better than the other, any more than my wife is better or worse than my first love. They both represent a time in my life and the things I liked then and now. And I wouldn't give either of them up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
cycnet wrote:

I will probably buy this book but I want to add my voice to those asking for more info on more interesting races. I have been DMing pathfinder for just a year now so its not like I have all of the older softcover race books or anything but I find there is already more than enough info about the core races. I want more traits etc for tengus, kitsune and other cool races. I really hope that the next exploration of races focuses on less boring and overdone races. Every RPG ever practically has published mounds of info about humans and dwarves and elves. I would love to see pathfinder go a little more off the beaten path.

It also would just make the game more balanced. You shouldn't be punished for playing a tengu - but the lack of racial traits and feats and favoured class options means you are almost guaranteed to be a weaker character if you choose an interesting race vs a core race (or assimar etc - which are super overpowered, I would not even let a player play them and PFS has banned them too...)

Keep in mind that "interesting", "boring", and "overdone" are in the eye of the beholder. For some, having feathers or fur doesn't make the race any more (or less!) interesting than a human or elf or whatever.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Eh. The guides usually have at least one piece of useful information that I didn't know or hadn't thought about recently. They aren't bad; for some people they can be very useful. It saves some folks time and energy, and that is never a bad thing.

It's like being mad at reviews of movies. You don't have to read them or believe them or not see something because they say it is bad. Don't click the link, move on with something more productive.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
AntiDjinn wrote:

Back to the OP (who hasn't chimed back into this thread with more details, so going off the first post). If the DM is using impossible DC's (as in made-up after you roll and tell him what you got), foregone conclusions, and impassible obstacles to keep the party following the story, just point out those times when this type of storytelling strains verisimilitude.

Like: ...

Ah, the ol "derail the game" solution. The answer to that, for GMs listening and wondering what oh what to do, is to respond "Maybe all his magical gear was stolen some time ago. Perhaps by the rest of the party that made it past here. Of course, you have no way to know. Moving on, Legend Loring, or do you guys need a break for a few moments?"

GMs being annoying are not cool. Players doing it are also not cool.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:

I once played a powerful sorcerer who specialized in enchantment effects. If I remember correctly, CR-appropriate enemies should have failed their strong saves 80% of the time against certain spells.

Except they didn't. In fact, in the entire history of the character, only one minor enemy of no consequence ever failed the save against the spell I had focused on.

I realized after a few games that it was because the GM was fudging the rolls, which he denied. My character ended up being universally reviled by the other characters (and their players) in the party because they all saw my extremely powerful build as "completely useless."

Never again will I abide by such shenanigans. It totally wrecks the fun. I'm with better people now.

This might be part of the issue. No, it probably IS the issue.

What is fun for you or another player might be building something that utterly dominates/destroys/rules over the game. You can do tremendous damage, never fail any skill check, your spell works most if not all the time.

The game for others and/or the GM at that point often can be less fun; it becomes watching Bob do X. Wow. Another guy charmed. Another skill test blown out of the water. Look, you killed everything in one attack. Someone wake me when or if it is my turn.

Wrecking fun happens both ways too. I'm not saying the GM is right or wrong to change the DCs; rather, I'm suggesting that some GMs may do this to try to cling to a semblance of game balance or fun for other people or themselves. Something that is mostly fun for everyone involved rather than 100% fun for one person.

There are better ways to do it, most of which should happen before the game starts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

My five year old likes to "help" when we play Pathfinder. While he doesn't have a firm grasp on most of the game, he tells us what he wants to do and we translate that into something a little more useful to the rest of the players, which are his older (11 year old) brothers. After a bit he'll leave and just float back and forth, asking to move his character but otherwise letting the game move without him.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
It's funny- this whole "pull your weight!" stuff never comes up in my game or any game I have been in. Usually characters that suck on their own merits die on their own merits.

I saw it every now and then back when I played PFS. There was a rogue with 9 STR and high DEX who didn't know Weapon Finesse existed but fought in melee anyway. There was a gunslinger at like 9th level or so still managing only one shot per round, with no other contributions to speak of other than a high Perception skill. A few others.

And in organized play, you're contributing to the math that determines which subtier you play, which in turn determines how tough the encounters are. Which kind of goes back to your "die on your own merits" thing, except then the other players are still stuck in a math'd up difficulty without you, and possibly get pressured into helping pay for your raise with resources they can never get back. So... yeah.

That is likely where a lot of the forum disconnect comes from. PFS and other organized play requires a different way of approaching the game than one that is less bound by the restrictions of subtiers and requirements to hold your side of the table up.

That isn't to say that you should be an untalented slug in your home game, but there isn't the pressing need from strangers (usually) to explain why your character is not tricked out and ready to dominate in some way.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I usually ask people to pay attention, dating back before smart phones existed and up to today. We've had players that wanted to vanish to play pool when we played at the rec center or go into another room to play Playstation when someone else was doing things at the table.

While I can understand the allure of the little electronic screen, I don't excuse it. I'm not in the habit of calling someone's name repeatedly to get their attention for their turn; if you are that focused on whatever it is you are doing, you aren't "here" with us. I'll readily skip your turn and have you take only defensive actions if you are that busy.

I prefer, especially in combat, for people to be in the here and now and paying attention. I don't want to have to explain where and what everyone is and what they are doing to each person at the table every time it is their turn. That's tedious and disrespectful to those that ARE paying attention.

And yes, there are special circumstances -- I'm not a monster. Doing homework or working from home for your job and have to dedicate attention to that? Tell me. Your wife is having a baby? A family member is undergoing surgery? Tell me. But trolling facebook or looking up cat videos or whatever other idle pursuit that you're doing shouldn't require so much of your attention that you cannot multi-task and pay attention to the game at hand.

Before smart phones were a thing and it was just cell phones, we've asked people to leave during games and even during social events or get togethers. No one in the room was interested in looking at the top of your head or hearing half a conversation while you ignore other people in the room. If it is that pressing, maybe you should be elsewhere.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I've been lucky that over the many game sessions I've GMed the majority of my players treat death as something to be avoided at all costs and tend to make plans and use tactics to minimize losses whenever possible.

Death, when it does occur, can be more difficult to overcome depending on the particular game world we are using. Some have different/reduced magical rules going on so Raise and Resurrect are not common and require some effort to obtain.

Others treat death a lot like the Vlad Taltos books where you might be killed as a warning from someone and being brought back, barring destruction or soul removal, is fairly easy.

i think, as always, the answer the this question depends on your players. If they are not fond of the idea of dealing with the ramifications of death (loss of character, being behind, etc) then make bringing characters back easy and move on. Talk to them and find out is my usual MO.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
trollbill wrote:
Squirrel_Dude wrote:
Aniuś the Talewise wrote:
Maybe I'm a little bit old-fashioned (strange for me to say having been introduced tabletop rpg a couple years ago) but I don't see what's inherently wrong with Vancian casting? To me it's just What Wizards Do and so forth.
The problem that most people have Vancian casting is that it doesn't really relate to any magic in fiction outside of D&D.
Well it certainly relates Jack Vance's "The Dying Earth" series as that is what it was based on. There are other works of fiction out there that use similar systems, like the spell-hanging system from Roger Zelazny's "Amber" series. Albeit, they are not as common as systems that might be more compatible with a Spell Point system.

the Guardians of the Flame series by Joel Rosenberg also uses Vancian casting; then again, it's basically a "What if D&D players went to their game world" set of novels, so it shouldn't be surprising.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Damon Griffin wrote:
How exactly did Dr. Doom get to be God? I had no intention of trying to follow all the different series that tied into that, so I've just been reading the few whose settings I thought would be interesting: Thors, Squadron Supreme, Years of Future Past and 1872..or '74, or whatever year it is. And there's no setup for any of them, you just get dropped into a...

WOW. Thejeff did a pretty good job of skimming the surface of how, but this whole thing actually has it's roots in Jonathan Hickman's Fantastic Four run (as well as the Fantastic Foundation aka FF) then carried over into his runs on BOTH New Avengers and Avengers. He's been laying out a pretty complex story of opposing philosophies and how heroes deal with facing inevitable defeat and destruction of everything that they care about. As well as the lengths some of them will go to try and save their world (s).

Really strong characterizations of Reed Richards (and his compulsion to SOLVE EVERYTHING), Tony Stark (and how is futurist thinking often backfires HORRIFICALLY) Black Panther (his conflict between wanting to do what is RIGHT but having to do what is NECCESSARY) and Namor (who simply doesn't have that conflict AT ALL.)

New Avengers is the stronger book but really to get the full picture you should read both as they kinda merge in the last 4 or 5 issues and lead directly into SECRET WARS.

I'm not reading any of the side titles myself just the main book. And they main book is fantastic. It is by far the best of Marvel's event books in the last decade. EASILY.

That's just me though.

I only started picking it up in the Avengers run. Didn't know about the FF. I liked the lead up quite a bit. I'm not at all sold on the actual Secret Wars/Battleworld stuff.

I'm not sold on it either. The lead in material was OK, but now it's a weird conglomeration of What Ifs, with the added overtones that "everything you know and like is going to change!", which doesn't really do it for me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Bill Dunn wrote:

Stuff I was listening to when I was 11?

AC/DC, Blondie, Cheap Trick, the Cars, Supertramp, Styx, Queen. Lots of good albums around 1979-80.

This plus Eagles, Fleetwood Mac, KISS.

Come to think of it, it's pretty much what I'm still listening to today.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Eirikrautha wrote:

So Rynjin has never heard of 3pp? Or Jiggy?

See, that statement would be plausible if we were talking about an advice thread with newbs and such. But so far the vast majority of folks in this discussion (at this point) are quite experienced. Rynjin actually raised the 3pp product himself. And this is a sign that he doesn't know about it?

Sorry, but that wasn't the intent expressed in the post I was responding to. Not without Olympic quality mental gymnastics...

I can't speak for John's intentions. I imagine that Rynjin and Jiggy have heard the the products, but maybe there are others who haven't? There are a lot of lurkers outside of those talking. My point was more not to attribute to hostility every comment. I know that is hard in these threads, but maybe, just maybe it wasn't meant to upset people.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Eirikrautha wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:

By Rynjin's own post Path of War provides martials with "nice things" and allows most people who want martials with nice things would be satisfied with similar options to the Path of War classes. Given this already exists in Pathfinder the only conclusion I can draw is people want the CRB to be errata'd or they want a new edition that removes the traditional martial classes and ONLY provides the PoW style classes. If this occurred the current fans who actively enjoy the traditional martials would not be catered to. This is a win/lose situation.

However the game can be played as is with poeple who want PoW style classes getting PoW style classes (by buying PoW) and those who want more traditional martial characters getting more traditional martials (by using those in the CRB). It is a win/win for everyone except the people playing PFS (and unfortunately you can't please everyone. See: Unchained Summoner as an example). And yet people act like all martials in the Pathfinder game are absolutely horrendous and that none of their desires are being catered to. They are. All they have to do is by the supplement that caters to their desires.

I agree that you can't please everyone. So please join with me in encouraging Paizo to make PoW-style martials the default in PFS and in the rules. You'll still be able to play your traditional CRB martials in your home game. So we agree that Paizo needs to make that style the preferred style?

Or perhaps, since the status quo favors the folks who like the "traditional" martials, statements about people should just buy 3pp or not play PFS are just thinly veiled attempts to tell others to shut up?

Or just efforts made to honestly tell people about options that exist in third party products. Not everyone knows about them or has experimented with them.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Anzyr wrote:
knightnday wrote:
You left out the part where Bob was just as bad as Fred, Betty and Mary. Let's not pretend for even a moment that many of the Bob's aren't slinging insults as much as the others. And yes, there are some Bob, Mary, Betty and Freds that are relatively polite or middle of the road.
As Kobold Cleaver's wonderful index indicates, Jiggy's post was statistically accurate.

As I recall from the recent post by Ssalarn, KC's index indicates who started the threads. There is enough bile and venom from all the parties once things get going. Or sarcasm, if we go by the last page or so of this one.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:

What could have happened from the beginning:

Bob: The caster/martial disparity really makes it hard for me to enjoy this game.
Mary: Really? I never noticed it in my own games; sorry, wish I could help!
Fred: I see what you mean, but I actually prefer it that way. To each his own, I guess.
Betty: Oh, Bob, I had the same issues, but I've found that using X workaround alleviates it a bit. Hope that helps!

What's historically happened instead:

Bob: The caster/martial disparity really makes it hard for me to enjoy this game.
Mary: Really? I never noticed it in my own games; it's probably just dirty theorycraft. Do you even actually PLAY this game? Does anyone actually have any real-life stories of this coming out in actual gameplay?
Fred: That's how the game was MEANT to be played. Maybe if you weren't an MMO-generation powergamer obsessed with trying to 'win' a cooperative game, then you could just focus on having fun instead.
Betty: Well Bob, I've implemented X houserules that alleviate that disparity, therefore I'm pretty sure the disparity never existed, and you're creating it yourself through your GM's ineptitude.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Now, some people seem to think that the only reason anyone would ever mention an issue they have with the game more than once is to try to use repetition as a means of lobbying for the game to be changed to match their vision. Maybe some people are doing that. But for myself, I keep getting in these discussions in the hopes of guiding one more player back toward the first type of discussion in place of the second. (Also I'm interested in game design and seeing people articulate and re-articulate their ideas on the topic is helpful for me, but the above is still true.)

You left out the part where Bob was just as bad as Fred, Betty and Mary. Let's not pretend for even a moment that many of the Bob's aren't slinging insults as much as the others. And yes, there are some Bob, Mary, Betty and Freds that are relatively polite or middle of the road.

And yes, the first version would be great. One thread of it every X months would be great too. A zillion threads in a week, requiring KC to make an index, is a bit much unless the problem is like The Ring and people are dying from not solving it. Actual players, not characters. :)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:

Wow, commute + dinner = 55 new posts. Let's see...

knightnday wrote:
Does your wife repeat herself incessantly about the mess and talk about you, your parents, and in general run you down about it? If not, then it isn't a good comparison.
If I kept leaving the mess there in spite of her requests, for years on end? Yeah, she just might get to that point. (Isn't that where certain stereotypes come from?) Were you under the impression that the consistent re-dredging of old topics was the initial response the first time the issue popped up, equivalent to the first time I made a mess at home?

No, not at all. Let's say that she's upset about a mess in your area -- garage, office, (gods help me) man cave (I hate that term) or wherever -- and you've explained that it isn't a mess, it's how you want it. It's a discussion/argument that you've had for years. Some people get divorces over that, some people it is an inside joke and something to complain about when there is nothing else to do.

Much like disagreeing about the mess, in this case Paizo has stated several times that they don't agree with some views about the problems in many of these threads. That seems to indicate to me that continuing on about it is akin to the wife nagging about something that you don't plan to change.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ssalarn wrote:
Perhaps you're not aware of this, but there was an index put together recently by a forum regular, Kobold Cleaver. One of the things this index revealed was that, more often than not, the combative and negative threads were actually started by individuals who took it upon themselves to come in and explain why everyone who believes in martial/caster disparity just isn't as good at the game as they are, or some similar stance. This is the truth, and it's provable. The majority of the instances you're saying are problematic, aren't being started by the people who want to see the game grow and improve, they're started by people who choose to express their disdain for those people.

Oh I'm aware of KC's index. I applaud him for his work and look at it as a symptom of a number of problems.

I agree with the majority of the rest of your post, but I'd perhaps add "Make your point and leave it at that. Reiterating it dozens of times doesn't make it any more true."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:

I'm not looking to get in a rules argument AT ALL. Merely sharing a solution that works for me so that other GMs out there who like this interpretation/solution can do so in their games.

If it doesn't work for you, it doesn't work for you and you shouldn't assume I'm talking to you to try to make you change your mind—you are not the one I'm talking to in this case, and should feel free to ignore my suggestion.

It works for me. I suspect it works for other GMs. Doesn't mean I particularly care if it works for everyone. Every game is different.

I want this quote as my signature.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:

Yeah, this whole paradigm of responding to complaints with "Since you obviously dislike it so much, why are you here talking about it?" is really weird and nonsensical, yet it keeps coming up.

I bet my wife is glad that when she points out the mess I've left in the other room I don't respond with "Well if you don't like me anyway, wouldn't there be better ways to spend your time than here with me?"

Does your wife repeat herself incessantly about the mess and talk about you, your parents, and in general run you down about it? If not, then it isn't a good comparison.

Zhangar touches on the difference in the conversations. If people are coming at it from love and respect for the game, as many may be, then great and wonderful. If it turns to insults because of frustration at not being answered or mot getting the answer that you desire, then that's where the problem lies. And we are getting a lot of that.

@Jiggy: When a point is repeated over and over and over again, I (and this could just be me) feel that you are trying to influence the conversation by repetition. I've seen similar styles of talking down a product when I've reviewed people unhappy with products on Facebook or Youtube. It isn't enough to say that you are unhappy; it turns into trying to preach to others why they shouldn't like them, like the product, or should believe like you do.

@Ssalarn: It may or may not be false. But let's say that in several instances it comes across very poorly and not at all like someone who cares about the product, the company, the people behind it or the people they are talking to. This is not directed at any one individual in particular.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:

See, I don't think that makes you a fanboy. Just a fan, like most of us here. Fanboy has an inherent negative connotation to me.

None of us would be here if we couldn't overlook the game's flaws when actually playing. But there are flaws, which I think most people can see, even if they deny seeing it.

The caster/martial disparity problem seems to have the largest disconnect, with people falling into three camps:

1.) People that acknowledge the caster/martial disparity exists and don't like it.

2.) People who don't see this flaw...but nevertheless have a large number of houserules that address the flaw in one way or another (so recognizing it when it comes up, but not in theory? I REALLY don't understand this but there's a lot of people here).

3.) People who acknowledge it exists, but don't care.

That second camp is where most of the arguments seem to come from.

2b.) People who see the flaws, correct the flaws for their own game, acknowledge that there are flaws and don't bother getting upset about it and/or don't wait for the game company to fix/errata/FAQ it.

Rynjin wrote:

@Knightnday: Beyond the fact that it's a good place to kill time and discuss things, one of the major upsides to frequenting the forum of a company that is active in its community is that they will probably read your post. Meaning, if you have a complaint (and others have a complaint) that thing might be changed, and has been changed in the past.

Nobody ever likes EVERYTHING about anything they ever do or see, or everything a company they like does. That's just life. Not voicing your opinion unless it's positive just gives them the impression that everything is perfect and nothing needs to change (essentially, since you hold the opposite opinion about some things, not voicing that is like lying to them).

Nor do I ask or expect everyone to like everything they do or see. There are ways, however, to voice an opinion that comes across less negative than we see on the boards. You can sit and wait for a new hardback to come out and check off a list of the same people saying the same things.

After a while, the complaints become background noise because you know that Bob is ALWAYS going to say something negative, and George is ALWAYS going to say something positive. Doubly so when it is post after post of "This is bad!" "No it isn't!" "Is so!" "Is not!"

Rinse, repeat, Chris or Liz kill 46 posts and threads look like a nuclear wasteland, repeat.

Comments are great and I'm sure that the folks at Paizo learn something from many of them. But just speaking for myself, it's draining to see the same people fighting the same fight every week on the same topic.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The part that I find puzzling -- and I recognize it may be that I am just an old man and out of touch, or perhaps I'm not quite all there -- is if you are adamant about disliking a game, a product, or a company why do you continue to use it?

A brief story: I played a lot of Shadowrun. A lot. An unhealthy amount, from the day the books hit the store until around a year, year and a half ago. I disliked a number of changes made between versions, especially after 3rd.

At no time did I go to the forums of whichever company decided to produce the game that week, nor any of the RPG forums and tell them that they are wrong, or that I was incredibly unhappy with their choices. I continued to play the game that I had purchased and quietly voted with my money and time against what they'd done, and finally -- and quietly -- left that game.

I like Pathfinder. I like, for the most part, the community that surrounds it. I am more than willing to believe that there are people that don't like it, or don't like it anymore, and still engage here in good faith for the community that Paizo provides, for friends they have made over the years, or perhaps to wait and see if things change.

But to just go somewhere to not like something and tell them daily how much you don't care for it -- that I don't get. I don't do that to the music groups I don't like or that have changed. I don't do that to TV shows I don't care for.

Maybe it's me. Maybe it's the Internet Age. I just think that I'd rather spend my free time doing the things I like and supporting the products I like rather than trying to discourage others from liking it or tearing it apart.

This isn't "If you don't like the game then go away!" This is "Maybe step back and consider that there are better ways to spend your time."

Play and have fun.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Hey, we have like 20 martial/caster threads to bash at each other on. Let's crawl back to the topic or perhaps go back to discussing which game system might address these problems better, or even suggestions that might help Pathfinder be the game that does what you'd like.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

We're still looking at legends, demi-gods and folklore and trying to adapt those to the current rules set, which doesn't support a guy who eats dynamite and uses snakes as a lasso. Just because the story doesn't explicitly say "Bob used magic totally here guys" doesn't mean that the abilities aren't magical or divine in nature.

Authors aren't constrained by game rules.

The more I hear this, the more it sounds like a non-specific system would work out better.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

So what it sounds like is people are interested in something like HERO, where you can do any number of things and change the special effect from "magic" to "extreme physical abilities".

That or convince Paizo to put out an anime/legendary figure source book, something beyond what Mythic was designed for.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

No snark here, just a question: Which game is it that supports the other versions of fantasy? From what I've heard 5E does some of that, but has other issues. 4E didn't do it for people, and there is a lot of side-eye given to GURPS or HERO (jack of all, master of none) systems.

Is it a matter of getting Paizo to put out supplements that cover what people want, or are people just unhappy that no one in the industry is doing the type of game that they want?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
137ben wrote:

As for how to actually address Jiggy's concerns:

For the first one, you could go through every spell in the game and ban all those that can break the plot, but that is a lot of work for a system you are paying for. A better solution would be to drop the Vancian spell list altogether and use the many alternate casting systems in circulation. Strange Magic, Talisman and Petition magic, and Spheres of Power all do what it sounds like you want without much work on your part. Ultimate Psionics does to a lesser extent.

I've been working my way through the spells and removing/adjusting those that I dislike, those that I feel break things, or otherwise create problems. But then, I tend to keep a tighter hand on magic in general and don't just allow you to pick any spell you want either.

When not every magician has access to every book's spell list, I've found that players have to get creative in their solutions. That and those magicians that are interested in certain spells have a new goal: find or develop the spell themselves.

Is it perfect? No, but it certainly changes the idea that spell caster's are omnipotent.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
knightnday wrote:
If the game doesn't do what you want, don't play it!
This is what I said my solution was, and people wanted to challenge me on it. I've just been dialoging since then to elaborate on the "why"s because people asked. :)

Heh, yeah I never find that the "why" is good enough for some people. It's like "I don't like Pink Floyd."

WHY!?!?

Because I don't like Pink Floyd. I tried it, I don't like it.

Have you listened to X song?

I don't like Pink Floyd. I am pretty sure that I won't like that song.

But Why??

I try to just leave it at I don't like something rather than having to justify it. There are people that will try to force you to like it as if they are your Mom trying to get you to try new food when you are a kid.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Write in the margins. Adapt the game for your own needs and those of your players. Customize it to fit you.

And then pay someone else for the opportunity to use the stuff you had to do the work to come up with yourself.

;)

I'm paying them for the engine, the fluff, the other material I didn't have to alter.

Exactly! But what if the engine is part of what you had to alter, and the list of "other material I didn't have to alter" is too small to justify the price? After all, you don't get a discount just for promising to only use half the book.

(Oh, and "the fluff" as you call it has pretty little to do with whether you're actually running Pathfinder or not; the books containing the most Pathfinder rules—the stuff we're talking about altering—also contain the least setting/world material, and the books containing the most setting/world material can be purchased by themselves and then used alongside damn near any fantasy roleplaying system imaginable. Including "the fluff" in your above list is basically saying "since the setting is worth money, it therefore makes sense for me to ALSO spend ADDITIONAL money on things that are not the setting". That's pretty ridiculous.)

Quote:
I just don't come into it expecting a bespoke game book, otherwise it would have my name across the top. :)
Same here. But just like any other game I buy, I expect it to have already done more work toward enabling a fun experience than what I'll have to put in. A few years of experience showed me that Pathfinder doesn't meet that criteria for me. I don't buy other games when I expect to have to rewrite a bunch of it to keep having fun, and being an RPG doesn't give Pathfinder a free pass on that point.

If you look over the material and are not happy with it, then as I said there are dozens of engines out there to choose from, both from the past and being put out everyday. This game -- or any game -- isn't for everyone.

And yes, Pathfinder doesn't get a free pass. But neither does D&D, Shadowrun, TMNT, Battletech, RIFTS, Rolemaster or any other game. And I've modded each of those when I found something I was unhappy with.

If the game doesn't do what you want, don't play it! That's what I do. Otherwise, I alter what I need for me and mine, and while I see that people hate hearing that, it works out better in the long run for us. I've not found any game that meets 100% of my needs or wants, but I've found that I can usually, with a little work, make it something that I enjoy.

Except Star Frontiers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Write in the margins. Adapt the game for your own needs and those of your players. Customize it to fit you.

And then pay someone else for the opportunity to use the stuff you had to do the work to come up with yourself.

;)

I'm paying them for the engine, the fluff, the other material I didn't have to alter.

To be honest, I and I imagine a lot of you never ever ever ever have to buy another RPG book or supplement ever again for the rest of time. Multiple versions of Dungeons and Dragons along with scores of other games give you a wide assortment of rules styles, fluff, and material to draw from, to mix and match and cobble together into whatever Frankenstein game that you and your table can stand.

I pay Paizo (and sometimes others) for material I enjoy. Sometimes I alter it to fit me and sometimes I don't have to do any work at all. I just don't come into it expecting a bespoke game book, otherwise it would have my name across the top. :)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
chaoseffect wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Hey, if it's not a problem for ME, then it's not a problem. AMIRITE?
I can see your point, but personally I would amend that to: "If it's not a problem for chaoseffect, then it's not a problem." I figured dropping "me" would be better as you wouldn't want anyone to misconstrue your meaning.

I'd amend it to "If it isn't a problem for me and my table, thebn it isn't a problem."

Is it an issue for other people? Sure, maybe. For me, I've either corrected the problem, don't agree that there is a problem, or found another solution.

It's not a problem for me in the same way the Kardashians being on TV isn't a problem, or Bieber on the radio isn't a problem, or whatever other problems are out there. Are they issues for some people? Sure, and I accept that. But the issues are in my rear view mirror and I've moved on to having fun instead of being upset that Paizo didn't correct a problem or that the problem exists at all.

Write in the margins. Adapt the game for your own needs and those of your players. Customize it to fit you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Just pulling off a random website that sells marbles, there are 80-90 5/8 inch marbles in a one pound bag.

If the information was requested by a player, I might move myself to cobble something up. I imagine if PFS requires this level of detail for the new class, someone might spend 10 minutes slapping something official together. Otherwise, I'm sure a GM could wing it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Bill Dunn wrote:
bookrat wrote:


To be fair to your friend, I've yet to read any book (pathfinder or otherwise) as flavorful as 2e's Planescape campaign setting. I mean - come on - you have the entire entry box set into the campaign setting written in-character from a person from that campaign setting. And nearly every Planescape book is written like that! It's fantastic! I've yet to read a pathfinder book written from the perspective of a character in that setting. It just doesn't happen anymore. Think about it - how many pathfinder books are written in heavy slang of the local culture the book was written for? I haven't found one yet.

You've just described the reason I hated reading Planescape materials. I found that patois extremely annoying.

I didn't care for the art, myself. Or the art they used. It just set my teeth on edge for some reason.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I reject the assumption and ask for a new GM or a new game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Ultimate Romance

No, not kidding. There were a number of people interested in this on other threads.

Ultimate Culture
Ultimate Worldbuilding


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Sara Marie wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Sara Marie wrote:
We have a significant amount of customers who only purchase occasionally from us, or sometimes just once for a gift or a paizo.com exclusive they can't get at a FLGS. Our community and customer base is much, much larger than the number of people that post on paizo.com and as Gary said earlier, implementing any number of things that makes account creation or log-in (which is already too much of a barrier for some folks) harder is something we need to be extremely cautious about. I'm reminded of this every Gen Con when a large chunk of the people visiting our booth have never visited or heard of paizo.com.

My only comment here, other than being glad that you guys are working on it, is that in 2015 I find it incredulous that account creation and/or logging in is a barrier for some users. Everything I do on the internet in some way requires you to do this sort of thing. In this day and age, that's like saying that tying your shoes is too much effort -- but then, we wouldn't have velcro shoes I guess.

Not saying it isn't true, mind you, just amazed where the bar is.

There is a vast portion of the population (including in the USA) who are completely unconnected to the digital world and for whom it is not just inconvenient but incredibly difficult to get access to the internet. I've posted about this before if you are curious: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2q43n?Direct-PDF-Downloads#17.

An interesting post. This is the one time I can honestly say that my privilege comes into play here -- my father was a computer technologist when I was growing up and I learned about computers so long ago that they don't seem like some mystery machine.

I can understand, as I said, the reasoning why. It is just hard to believe, doubly hard for people that want to do business with your web site.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Aniuś the Talewise wrote:

I have an anxiety disorder and I get anxiety over the most random and asinine things. For example, there is a website I haven't used in months because their login system doesn't work with password managers and the idea of having to actually wrangle with it irrationally distresses me and keeps me away. I actually use a password manager specifically because that removes some of the hurdles in account creation and login for me. I have trouble logging into things outside my browser (eg, downloading apps to the iphone, etc) for the same reason that it's not handled by my password manager.

I also tend to avoid making new accounts because when I do that, I feel like I am creating clutter, and I'm always anxious about being surrounded by clutter and having to dig into said clutter to find something I need. (both physically and in a more abstract space, like digital clutter)

So yeah, if people find account creation and logging in to be a barrier, I can empathize.

Having issues with anxiety myself, I can understand how this could be an issue for you and why changing it up could be a problem.

I probably have already seen this suggested somewhere, but have we considered turning off non-English characters in thread titles? It probably won't help, but it might slow them down long enough to get some of the other precautions in place?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Now I want fudge!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Sara Marie wrote:
We have a significant amount of customers who only purchase occasionally from us, or sometimes just once for a gift or a paizo.com exclusive they can't get at a FLGS. Our community and customer base is much, much larger than the number of people that post on paizo.com and as Gary said earlier, implementing any number of things that makes account creation or log-in (which is already too much of a barrier for some folks) harder is something we need to be extremely cautious about. I'm reminded of this every Gen Con when a large chunk of the people visiting our booth have never visited or heard of paizo.com.

My only comment here, other than being glad that you guys are working on it, is that in 2015 I find it incredulous that account creation and/or logging in is a barrier for some users. Everything I do on the internet in some way requires you to do this sort of thing. In this day and age, that's like saying that tying your shoes is too much effort -- but then, we wouldn't have velcro shoes I guess.

Not saying it isn't true, mind you, just amazed where the bar is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Hayato Ken wrote:

Posting numbers on avatar and alii are already visible.

Looking at different profiles i recognized there are vast differences though. Some people i know only joined "lately" have incredible posting numbers, while others who are here for years have still low counts.
Sometimes that can be explained by looking at several posts^^

Still i think it would be usefull to have that joined by date on a profile. It doesn´t seem like an intrusion to privacy to me.
Could also have beneficial effects for different board sections.

Con:
-PbP some might prefer long time members.
-newer members could be doubted more often or not taken seriously sometimes in rules regards etc.

Pro:
-PbP: Could show a consistency rate
-PbP: some prefer high posting rates, so many postings in short time can be a good thing.
-Long time players/GM´s have sometimes a better grip on the rules, more experience (or not).

Not sure if possible from a technical perspective.

The only real problem with this from what I can see was laid out in some recent threads where people were angry about posters using their years of experience as a bludgeon to shut down opinions or other ominous reasons and it turned into a rather vicious argument.

When someone started posting or the number of posts they have isn't much of an indicator of anything IMO. I started posting here in 2008 but read the forums for a while before that. I have less than 1300 posts because until recently I didn't have the time or inclination to post a lot.

When you started posting or the number of posts you have doesn't indicate any rules knowledge or grip on the rules. It just means that you like to chat on the boards and there isn't anything wrong with that. I'd not recommend using it as any sort of measuring stick of anything else, though.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Sissyl wrote:
No, tone is generally a useless complaint. If the tone you're reading into an argument is unpleasant to you, then that is mostly a problem within the head of the reader; reading tone is HARD. But the real problem is mostly the crowd of layabouts taking it on themselves to tell one side (the not socially approved one) that they need to shape up their tone. It is merely a way to suck up to their perceived authorities, to silence disagreement, and to score points. Yes, much would be far better without tone trolls.

It is of as much or as little use as being overly hostile is.

To address your other points:

* I don't care to silence anyone. Complain to your heart's content! But calling names, being insulting and otherwise throwing a fit aren't complaints, they are acting out for attention.

* I suck up to my perceived authorities here by spending my money on their products and that's about it. I ask people to stop making the forums a miserable place purely for my own benefit. If I wanted to listen to people howl and kick and throw things because they don't get their way, I'd turn off my five year old's Thomas movie in the middle.

* I don't keep track of points. This isn't a game, nor a registered debate setting. If you are keeping points, that's up to you. I try to stay in the middle in most of these discussions because I perceive that people can have good points and agree with The Man and have bad points and be The Man.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It would be better not to need forum police at all.


16 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'd be glad to stop talking about tone. I'll do that when people can address the topic without behaving that being told no, not being given a 100% info dump the millisecond they want it, not being given the answers the crave, and not having design go your way is a capital crime, and that's what several of these threads have digressed to.

It is entirely possible to interact, even on the Internet, in a respectful manner. A patient manner. To respect the people that produce the game as well as the other people that are interacting with you. There are posters who have said as recently as today that they treat people scornfully because they don't like the attitude they may believe they are seeing.

But until people can act a bit more like people and less like a pack of wild dogs fighting over a bone, I'll continue to point out that hey, behaving a bit better might be more beneficial to your cause. I'll continue to flag every single instance of attack I see. I'll try to guide the conversation away from another round of "This is why the devs suck" and more towards useful solution or discussion.

Sitting around waving torches and pitchforks doesn't help anyone. Being snide for the sake of being snide doesn't help anyone. Calling people "The Paizo Defense Force" because they don't agree that what you believe is wrong is wrong doesn't help.

tl;dr: People need to stop acting like this is 4chan.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Has anyone considered comprising a list of the questions they'd like answered? Maybe getting Kobold Cleaver to put one together, as he seemed to like making things?

I say this because an organized list of questions might be much easier for the devs to address than sorting through the arguments of the last 1000 posts for the actual issues people would like to know about.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
HWalsh wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

Which is a nice idea... Except for that it can't happen...

From the spell's description:
"The rope cannot be removed or hidden."

Of course it can be hidden. Are you really going to try and tell me I can't put a shower curtain around the rope?

What's the alternative really? The world suddenly implodes as all reality breaks breaks down for defying all known logic put in place by the Rules gods?

Even out in the open, the rope is still hidden from somebody. After all, the planet itself would conceal the rope from those on the other side of the globe.

But that can't happen... *rolls eyes*

The rules say that the rope may not be hidden.

The rope must there for be out in the open. You can't actively conceal it.

Experienced GM, eh?

Listen, I get what you are saying -- the GM should and can take a great deal of responsibility for the game, just like the players, and not leave everything in the hands of the designers.

That said, there are problems in the game. Some get fixed with errata, some get overlooked, some are problems to certain tables who may play differently.

But -- and this is a big but -- let's not try to play the "I've been playing X years and am experienced and therefore know that you are doing it wrong". You are doing that. You are categorically wrong. Absolutely, positively wrong in this case.

You are not the only one with experience in the game. You may not believe this, but people that predate your existence in this game or even this world don't agree with you. They are not "Bad GMs", they play and believe differently.

What you do in your own game is between you and those that choose to play with you, the same as all of us. Believing differently from you don't make the problems -- perceived or not -- go away, nor does it make you right and anyone else wrong.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Not really my thing, which makes two APS (along with the Eeeevil one) in a row that I'll buy for inspiration and keeping my collection rather than looking forward to running.

Still, glad to see that this sort of thing is being done. I know the guys at Paizo and many players are very interested in the material.

As far as getting the information -- I don't care which way we got it, we got it you know? Could they have made some time delayed posts? Probably, but I imagine they were a little more interested in getting to GenCon and enjoying GenCon. You still got the information, you were not hurt by the wait or the way it was distributed. Everyone wins.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

I confess that I cannot stand aasimars. I think they're the very definition of a Mary Sue race. It's somewhat telling, I think, that the only aasimar I've ever found interesting is an NPC who was driven to villainry by the "so perfect it's a curse" device. Good aasimars can exist, but it's entirely in spite of the race design. No joke, aasimars are my kender.

I don't like dhampirs either, but that's only because I've only ever seen them played as annoying broody Cullens. The elemental planetouched are pretty much just uninteresting to me—they don't feel like four distinct races, more like four subraces off of one actual species. I probably wouldn't mind them if the Bestiary 2 acknowledged this. They just aren't interesting enough to carry four separate statblocks.

Tieflings are okay. I don't love them, but I don't dislike them, either. There's nothing inherently bad about the race.

Oddly, I am just reversed on it. I intensely dislike Tieflings. I do agree about dhampirs and more so. I just feels like a way to let people play vampires without actually letting them play vampires. Meh.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
HWalsh wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:
I guess you are advocating that we should have all moved on from pathfinder by now.

Its not a matter of "moved on" Rhedyn - Roleplaying Games are not competitive MMOs where everyone should be concerned with "hitting their benchmarks" as it were.

RPGs are about a player playing a character.

If Ringlefoot the Halfling Rogue wants to drop a few skill points in Perform because his player rationalizes that he would have picked up some sweet dance moves, and maybe he should spend less points in Stealth even though that means less opportunities to use his sneak attack... He shouldn't be seen as a lump because he's not optimized.

Edit:

Note:
And I, as Ringlefoot's GM, am also obligated to take that into consideration and eventually have a space in the game where Ringlefoot's dancing experience comes into play.

That is part of what being a GM is about.

Please stop being on my side.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Anzyr wrote:
FiddlersGreen wrote:
Last thing I want is for the rules to be determined by a vocal minority.
I personally believe the rules of anything should always be determined by a minority that is well versed in them. I'd rather have experts making rules then lay people. Allowing a majority to decide the rules of anything is nothing but mob rule.

I think that is what we've got now, a group of experts making rules. It's the other experts that disagree with them where the problem lies.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lord Mhoram wrote:

I like my version of the game.

I use a lot of Paizo material, but I probably use more 3PP material in my game, with some house rules. Paizo just happens to be the publisher I have the largest material from. The core game gives me a great base to work with to get things the way I like them. Things happen in the rules I don't like, I ignore. Errata happens I don't like I ignore. New book comes out with a class I don't like, I don't use it. To me, every rule including the Core rulebook is optional.

The game is my game - that is how I treat all RPGs. The rulebooks give me the tools and framework to run MY game. If it is "pure" pathfinder, or something unrecognizable aside from core mechanics and names to someone else makes no difference to me.

Gah! Get out of my head!

I had a response I was muddling through, but frankly this sums up a great deal of it. :)

1 to 50 of 1,311 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.