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 Society Member. 1,726 posts. 40 reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,726 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Jessica Price wrote:
Mosaic wrote:
AlgaeNymph wrote:
Slithery D wrote:
Side note: I find the use of "they" rather than "it" as a genderless pronoun horribly jarring and confusing. I couldn't even understand what was happening the first time I encountered it and thought there was some mysterious group entity I had missed a reference to or poor editing.
My guess is that Paizo feels that "it" is dehumanizing, or depersonizing in this case. I do understand how using "they" can be a bit confusing, but gender-neutral pronouns like "e" aren't yet popularized in colloquial English.
I assumed it was an editing error, like an accidental find-and-replace. If it's intentional, it's really annoying. I've seen "When someone leaves their light on..." but never "Someone walks into a room. They look around." 3rd-person indefinite, okay; 3rd-person singular, no. Weird, and not weird like saying "she or he," rather than "he or she" (maybe a little jarring at first because it's unusual, but it's still grammatically correct and equivalent) vs. weird because it's wrong.
It is 100% intentional. There was a sidebar that accidentally got cut explaining the decision--what it amounts to is after a considerable amount of research, we settled on the singular "they" as the most recognizable and acceptable pronoun for agender and genderfluid characters.

If I could make a suggestion, perhaps that sidebar or something like it could make an appearance on the blogs? That way readers who haven't wandered through this thread might be enlightened.

As for the usage, it was only mildly confusing when I scanned the line the first time. After you (or in this case I) acclimate yourself to the style it works out fine and isn't particularly confusing.

I may be in the minority -- and I know that, as indicated in later posts that since I don't use these pronouns my opinion is a little less meaningful -- but at this point I think that "they" reads better than some of the less commonly/widely used. Unless the sidebar made an appearance detailing that "e" is being used as a pronoun and not a misprint in the text, then it would be fine.

In any cases, I enjoyed the book and the effort put into it.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

While not a design or computer expert, I will say as a customer I like the Paizo web site. It could be a bit better, but it functions quite well for my needs.

As for hostility and ridicule from board veterans, please keep in mind from their point of view: someone who has been here a few minutes comes in and puts out a variation of "this place sucks and I know better than you".

It doesn't exactly make people sing your praises or look upon you in a good way, even if you may be correct.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
The key elements are pretty much the weaponized anti-magic
That's the part I don't care for. The martials remain totally mundane dumb hit-things-with-sticks guys. The wizards remain a million times more awesome, except when the DM screws them over in the players' favor and basically says, "No, they're wearing purple, so your spells don't work today."

No, see, I'd have weaponized ant-magic be a core part of how the setting works. And, hell, how martial classes work. That plus some pseudo-magical tricks at higher levels and vastly improved action economy. It'd work much like Dispel Magic, too, in terms of requiring checks so it's not like anybody who's not at least in your general league can counter your magic.

The idea is that 'Magic is really awesome...as long as there's nobody around to do anything about it.' It makes magic powerful, but fragile, which is much more accurate to how it's portrayed in most fiction. And that makes me happy.

I'd also vastly expand what skills can do, at least for martials. The party above? The Ranger (or fighter, or somebody) will have everyone back to full health in a few hours (or by tomorrow at the worst) with the equivalent of a Heal skill unlock (only better). Part of my class design would definitely involve martial Classes getting skill unlocks and jacking up what those are capable of. But that's outside a fight, and the OP asked for the fighting stuff.

I'd be interested in seeing more on this.


RDM42 wrote:

Wth makes you think we are all talking about or playing in golarion? It certainly isn't the case for probably almost as large a contingent as those that do. Many that do play golarion don't play anything near bog standard.

I don't see hint to limit the discussion to playing in golarion as really a legitimate debate tactic.

Moreover, even if you are using Golarion as a game world you are not required or obligated to use everything as stands.

To the original question: there are no flavor requirements, per say, for the classes. That said, someone may remove a class for mechanical reasons and/or enforce a regional requirement for certain classes, be they base class or archetypes as well as prestige classes.

As always, the GM should give ample warning and information and be ready to discuss it with the players.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

How is one "forced" to pirate something?

Oh right, you aren't. You are impatient and making the usual internet threatening comments because you feel that you are being unfairly treated for having to wait.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Meh, no one is being "screwed". People are being mildly inconvenienced, along the lines of a broken nail or stubbed toe.


The 117 might be a reference to the individual chapter files for some of the books. I have not downloaded the books in that manner, so it is just speculation.

@Dave Talbert: While you might not be planning on hosting or pirating, that doesn't mean that everyone else is on the up and up. Paizo has been putting up a fight against digital pirates for years -- and from what I understand giving some of them fits -- so it is in their best interest not to release the books without watermarks. Sure, there are probably cleaned copies out there, but turning off the watermarks on however many thousand copies of the books is just asking for trouble.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
If nothing else, the commentary from knowledgeable customers has been very informative for me as an IT undergrad student.

It certainly lets you know how many people seem to be employed in that field, in any case.


BretI wrote:

The bundle is a great deal. I bought it even though I owned many of the products already.

I am having problems with the personalization of the PDFs though. It seems the personalization isn't completing, even if you leave the screen there for hours. Coming back to it later and trying to download gets the message about personalizing again. Fixing this would likely reduce the congestion because then people wouldn't have to keep trying the watermarking step.

They are working on it. There should be red text at the top of the message board page with information and links about the problem. In short, new hardware is going in and corrections are being made for the massive amount of traffic they've gotten.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Chris Lambertz wrote:

OK, I've gotten in touch with a few teams and have some words for y'all. Heads up, big post ahead!

The work that went behind the Humble RPG Books Bundle: Pathfinder has generated a wonderful result: as of posting, 26,660 people chipped in to support Extra Life and pick up Pathfinder RPG products. Roughly two-thirds of the redemptions so far are new paizo.com customers. That number is astounding! In fact, that number is projected to eclipse the amount of folks who participated in our Pathfinder RPG beta playtesting. In just over 24 hours. I can assure you that all of us in the office are just amazed to see that number tick continuously upward (the energy here is absolutely palpable).

The easiest way for me to describe what is happening to our downloads system is to compare it to ticketing systems used for large conventions (such as PAX Prime). The system puts you in a queue, which it works through as quickly as it can. If you've ever tried to buy passes for that particular show, you know the feeling of nail biting panic over whether you're going to get to a "Sold Out" page or a page full of badge purchasing options. And that result can take hours to process (and that's not even a service providing on average a ~50 MB PDF download). The systems in place that support the kind of numbers we're seeing are expensive, are maintained by large teams, and are built specifically to handle that kind of load.

Since paizo.com doesn't regularly run and anticipate events on that scale, this is why we're seeing the pileup. We are actively exploring possible solutions, and considering many of the ideas you have suggested in this thread. Paizo.com has had constant and diligent attention to remain stable over the last 24 hours, with our staff (particularly, System Administrator Lissa Guillet and Technical Manager Cort Odekirk) working long, tiring shifts to make it happen. The overall amount of people on our Tech Team available to perform this work is also pretty small (our team is comprised of 7 awesome people, including our Sys Admin and QA). We are examining and exhausting all options immediately available, and hope to have some news for people waiting for their downloads as soon as we can.

As a reminder to anyone under the impression that there's a timeline for redemption: you do not need to redeem your codes immediately for them to be effective, and they do not expire. Additionally, Paizo downloads under your account are updated automatically if a reprint occurs, and have no download limitation or expiration.

I can't say enough how humbled we are by the gaming community choosing to support this bundle benefitting Extra Life. It's also an amazing opportunity to grow our own community and introduce them to the gaming world we've created. Thank you for your continuing support through this fantastic and frenzied promotion!

My team will be posting updates to our site and our social media outlets as frequently as we can get them.

For people who haven't read the whole thread and/or missed it, this is what the team has been up to. Staff has been working and posting here throughout the night.


Communication would be a good step forward. Involve the players and find out why they want to do whatever it is and/or want a more technologically advanced world. Maybe people are hankering for a Shadowrun game rather than Pathfinder.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The best way to be patient is to, in fact, be patient. Find something to do that isn't downloading the items in question while the tech team works on the issue.

Side note: I'm always amazed at the tech experts that arrive to nod knowingly at the problem and how they could fix it better, cheaper, and with results that outstrip the industry. The internet never ceases to amaze.


Thank you Chris for the update and pass along to the Tech Team that we appreciate their hard work.


The4TimeTravelers wrote:
deltreey wrote:
yes, I'm seeing this as well. I appreciate the header to make us aware. Any idea when would be a good time to attempt these downloads?
Common Paizo its 2016 and you need not run servers on DSL in a garage, we need more servers fired up in the cloud! I will not purchase the full bundle until I can at least download one PDF for god sake and check out if I want the full Humble Bundle for $25. Your loosing people interest with the indefinite personalizing link BS not to mention loosing charity money for willing people!

At most there are frustrated people. The interest is still there, given that people are here talking about how they cannot get the merchandise. Paizo didn't expect the huge response that they received on this promotion, and were not geared for that sort of demand on their servers in combination with their monthly release schedule.

It's 2016, let's show some patience. It's a great thing that there are this many people interested in the game.


So neat!


The heart of the problem is not applying "no" liberally, possibly followed by thrown objects.


Milo v3 wrote:
knightnday wrote:
There are people in real life that think asking their deity to answer prayers is demeaning or otherwise questioning the Grand Plan.
Considering that how cleric magic works, it's ridiculously obviously that is not how clerics view things.

Perhaps so. But why isn't Inner Sea Gods full of mandates for the Good clerics to run around lighting up the cities and healing everyone? What is the Grand Plan for the good deities? Did any such plan die out with Aroden?


Milo v3 wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Some may consider it demeaning to the celestial being in question.
But how? You're asking a being of good and law that is literally a light, to make light, which does things that lower crime and can improve peoples lives. How is it demeaning rather than "something that the archon would 100% approve of"?

There are people in real life that think asking their deity to answer prayers is demeaning or otherwise questioning the Grand Plan.

Humanity and the other races have been around a very long time. No one thought about this until the player characters show up? Why haven't the forces of Good done something about this before, or more? Why don't the gods interact more? Why haven't they solved all of the problems out there?


Some may consider it demeaning to the celestial being in question. One might also wonder if it were that easy to do, why hasn't anyone done it before? It isn't like the devs aren't aware of these capabilities as well.

For that matter, what are the ramifications of doing this? There are always reactions to everything.

These are the sorts of things that you have to work out when you go off the normal realm of the game and wander into grey and/or new areas.


I believe that the counter argument will be that you can train to be a new class in virtually no time -- by the rules -- and so therefore our peasants will thus be able to train without incurring the starting age rules.

I don't personally like that and have made adjustments to my own game to cut that off at the knees, but as I recall this came up a few pages ago.


You say, "That is a very interesting idea, Player, but that isn't the sort of game that I and/or the other players are interested in."

If the GM has already dealt with this sort of thing, refer them to the world document (that they should have read) and move on with game play.

If they haven't, be prepared to think on your feet as a GM or be willing to either let them do it (and deal with the consequences that comes with it for your game) or say no (and deal with the consequences of possible hurt feelings).


Most of my players take the racial trait or skill point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bob Bob Bob wrote:
knightnday wrote:

Still waiting on that page number.

Also, why do we care if something is or isn't a GM Fiat, a judgement call, Rule 0, or an Act of whatever deity that you choose? By a show of hands, does anyone care?

Because the OP cares?
Klara Meison wrote:

That just brings up more questions than it answers. I know a couple of people who, if their GM told something like that to them, would rather abandon whatever quest they were on and instead explore the physics of this particularily weird universe. Saying "oil can burn but not explode, no matter what you do with it" is worse than "sorry, I can't allow you to make a bomb, that would wreck every plan I had for this adventure and I can't come up with new ones on the spot" in pretty much every situation.

As for "no one in our world heals with lay on hands":sure they do, it just doesn't work. Google "Faith healing".

Klara Meison wrote:
A lot of good responses here, though for some reason some people misunderstood the original question. It isn't "Why shouldn't this be a problem", it is "Suppose a player asked a question like this, and you don't want to tell them to metaphorically f&+@ off" sort of question. I understand that with handwaving you can explain pretty much anything, but, in my opinion, it should be used sparingly.

Because once we're at the point of "this happens because I say it happens" the rest of the details are irrelevant? And, in fact, may end up complicating things further?

Basically, if the solution is some form of "the GM says it works this way because they say so", there's nothing to discuss. There's nothing we can possibly discuss. If the solution is some form of "the GM says it works that way because reasons", those reasons are something we can discuss. However, if the statement was supposed to be an absolute no then giving reasons just means we're going to go back and forth until we reach "because I say so" or the world has thoroughly been ripped to unrecognizable shreds.

So, I care if the solution is just GM fiat. That's a solution, not the solution, and not particularly imaginative. A blunt tool, best used sparingly or not at all.

Therein lies the problem. There is no the solution. The books aren't covering this; we've seen was to bend what exists to maybe-sort of cover some parts of this, but nothing that delves into the subject.

What you're going to come to is that the GM and usually the players -- but not always, because there are players that don't want to be involved in world building and GMs that don't want players involved -- but they are going to decide if this is the sort of world that they want. Do you want a world that mirrors what people believe a fantasy realm would look like? Do you want steam punk? Do you want magic to emulate technology, as someone mentioned above with the simulated cell phones?

These questions are ones that people work out during the world building stages, usually, if they deal with it at all. Maybe the Gods don't want you to have ray guns. The world was built on an ancient burial ground that prevents technology from being developed. The magical geegaw has put the universe in a stasis loop and nothing advances.

This sort of thing is something that can be handled with a few lines in your world building document. If players want to play scientist instead of adventurer and that is something the rest of the table is willing to indulge then you get the joy of dealing with something outside the rules. If you are lucky, you've thought about this ahead of time, or are quick on your feet.

Now, for me I've worked this out on various worlds I've run. Moreover, I'm not really interested in watching someone play Mr. Wizard, nor are most of the players I've dealt with over the years. They'd deal with it for a bit and then would frankly tell Player A "Hey. Are we going to play or should we leave you and the GM to map out the physics of our imaginary game world?"

Don't get me wrong, there are those that find this sort of thing utterly fascinating. In my experience, that number falls off once it starts eating up valuable game time and interferes with actually playing the game.

The answer is going to be some version of GM judgement call. There isn't a clear cut rule that covers this sort of thing, and while I can only speak for myself, if/when people try to rules lawyer some form of "RAW says this so it MUST happen" the game tends to grind to a halt as we have a polite or even not so polite conversation about it.

The rules guide. They do not control, they do not command, they are not a set of chains. If they don't make sense, you move into an area that some people dislike, that of Rule 0/Gm Judgement calls/house rules. Those are part of the game too.


Still waiting on that page number.

Also, why do we care if something is or isn't a GM Fiat, a judgement call, Rule 0, or an Act of whatever deity that you choose? By a show of hands, does anyone care?


Malwing wrote:

This question has been nagging my mind since I first started playing RPGs; Exactly who's responsibility is it for a player to know how to play the game?

I know that the GM is generally responsible for being the final arbiter of how the rules play out in a campaign so they are responsible for enforcing whatever rules are in play including house rules and what books to use, but what about knowing how to play in the first place?

Is the GM charged with rule education? If a GM starts a game does that GM need to consider running a tutorial so that the campaign goes smoothly?

If there are mixed levels of experience at the table should there be assuptions of sessions of remedial education that is voluntary on the part of experienced players?

If a player is handed a Core Rulebook and Strategy Guide a week or two in advance and has not further input from the other players or GM is it reasonable to expect that player to have a functioning(not necessarily optimized) character and general knowledge of what it can do?

In some cases I've seen plenty of players that are multiple sessions and even multiple campaigns into the game that have trouble calculating Power Attack or foresight to have more than 10 in their casting stat unless the GM specifically instructs and oversees the character creation process on a step by step basis, so GM responsibility seems desirable but should it be expected?

What about cases where the GM and the players are new to the game and GM goes through the process of learning the game in order to GM, should that GM also be burdened with teaching the rest of the players in turn? Who is responsible for teaching the GM or is the GM responsible for teaching herself in situations like that?

I'd like to know the forums point of view on the concept of learning the game and who is responsible for teaching. This isn't for a specific problem I'm facing so this is just a general thought to apply to a number of situations.

From my experience, the GM and the other players work together to teach new players how to play the game.

If you just hand someone the Core and Strategy Guide, I wouldn't expect a totally functioning character in a week; there is a lot of information to cover. Now, if they are an experienced player of other games they may have an advantage there and be ready and able with what many on the boards would consider a "good" character.

As far as players that still cannot calculate Power Attack and other things, I've seen players that are 10 year vets that basically don't care enough to learn parts of the game. They are focused on other aspects of the game, perhaps, or just forgetful, or don't care, or any other reason, but they simply don't retain the information.

In any of this, I wouldn't consider teaching a burden. Everyone has a personal responsibility to learn, but if the GM or other players don't feel any special need to help then they don't have much right to complain as well if the player isn't on the level they'd like.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:
You simply cannot follow the current rules and avoid some form of magitech explosion at some point. The power of unlimited casting in multiple venues is simply too world-changing. High level characters can make big, major changes, sure, but it's the broad, low magic that changes the world and society.

Really? I've yet to have a magitech explosion in some near forty years of gaming. It's a really easy thing to avoid, even following the rules.

Please show me where the rules that require a magitech explosion. Not a thought experiment, not a "if/then" exercise. Show me the page number where it says X number of sessions your game will have an industrial revolution, no saving throw. If I am following the rules, at what level of play does it occur. What is the title header for that section in the book?


Are these threads cropping up more often or is it just the time of the year?


Scavion wrote:
I wince every time I see a DM making hidden rolls in combat.

Eh, I don't worry about it much. I've had GMs cheat quite openly on combat rolls without bothering with the screen. It's all in who you play with. :/


None of this matters in the slightest. Are we going back on topic or should we call Chris to lock this?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

While I recognize that I'll be branded as a defender of the company, does this current line of commentary really need to exist? Does measuring "how much love" someone has for the game -- as if we could ever do so -- mean anything?

Isn't it mildly possible to not like something in the book or even disagree with it without succumbing to the Internet's incessant need to be overly critical and melodramatic about the tiniest thing? Do we need to make personal comments about the people who work here?

It's unnecessary and, to paraphrase what I often see Chris and Liz and others comment on threads, doesn't make this a happy community. In fact, it makes me just sad and disgusted.


Aelryinth wrote:
knightnday wrote:

Why are we slavishly trying to hang onto what RAW says when this is clearly a house rule situation? Did I miss the section in the book where they talk about technological explosions?

Shrugging helplessly and saying "Well, this is RAW" isn't helpful. It doesn't do anything for the conversation.

The rules are a tool box and nothing more. They are hammers, saws, screwdrivers and so on. Just because the rule exists doesn't mean that a GM or table needs to use it. You CAN hammer with a screwdriver and you CAN hammer in a screw; neither works very well.

Nothing in the OP requires that this discussion only use the RAW and not take into account GM preferences, design, or the dreaded house rule. RAW does not cover what we are talking about. We're moving past that now and into world design, which often requires changing and modifying rules.

When Have I ever said you can't deviate from RAW? I do so myself!

THE OP wanted a solution that didn't involve tons of blatant house-ruling. The fact is, you can't do it without house-ruling, be it blatant or gentlemen's agreement. But you also have to be aware of what the RAW says, so that you know WHAT you have to look out for/houserule differently.

But it's not my place to argue better/worse houserules. I've just stuck to noting what the RAW is, and if you want to deviate from it, then compensate for it.

==Aelryinth

We've acknowledged what the book said and moved past it. What you are seeing as being mad at the rules but taking it out on you might be because you continue to hammer on the same topic over and over again with a shrug and "It's RAW, what can you do?"

We know RAW. Thank you for reiterating it. The discussion has gotten sidetracked with debating with you about why we're moving on instead of saying "Oh poo, those darn rules!"


Why are we slavishly trying to hang onto what RAW says when this is clearly a house rule situation? Did I miss the section in the book where they talk about technological explosions?

Shrugging helplessly and saying "Well, this is RAW" isn't helpful. It doesn't do anything for the conversation.

The rules are a tool box and nothing more. They are hammers, saws, screwdrivers and so on. Just because the rule exists doesn't mean that a GM or table needs to use it. You CAN hammer with a screwdriver and you CAN hammer in a screw; neither works very well.

Nothing in the OP requires that this discussion only use the RAW and not take into account GM preferences, design, or the dreaded house rule. RAW does not cover what we are talking about. We're moving past that now and into world design, which often requires changing and modifying rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure that training everyone on the planet to be a wizard is a realistic world, whether the rules as presented would allow it or not.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cort Odekirk wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:
magispitt wrote:
I'm noticing a few recognizable characters, but for the most part these spammers post in korean, correct? Wouldn't it help to just block non alpha-numeric characters besides a few?

Problem is that this would hurt PbPs that actually need weird characters for posts in other languages.

I'll go back to my recommendation of requiring that the first 3 posts of any new account be moderated. It would be only a small inconvenience for new users, but it would really cramp the spammers hard since they only post 2 times on each account, and I think that they would have a hard time coming up with 3 legitimate posts to get past this requirement anyway.

The spam laser doesn't block content just because it uses foreign characters, the heuristic is much more complex than that.

Even if it wasn't, losing the special characters for PbPs would be a small price if it cut a lot of this garbage off the site.


Milo v3 wrote:
knightnday wrote:

For you rule zero doesn't answer the question. For other people it settles the matter quite well. Your mileage may vary, expect table variation.

As far as rudeness goes, as an aside, implying that something is a cheat is also rude. If you felt strawmanned I apologize.

It was not my intention to be rude with the cheat code thing... allow me to restate my position.

Rule zero can settle the matter without question, as that is basically the point of rule zero so things undefined or contrary the rules can be maintained to help the games flow, themes and the enjoyment of the players (including gamesmaster).

But settling the matter doesn't necessary answer the question. If a student asks a science teacher a geography question, a teacher is well within their rights to say "Unfortunately, that is off topic and not the subject of this lesson." But the question remains unanswered.

Does that make sense?

Yes, I makes perfect sense.

That said, for my money, it does answer the question posed by the OP, of which the last line reads "Now, suppose you wanted to keep the tech level stable, AND have wizards. For that, you would need some counterbalance to magic, something that would slow down the progress of society back to normal levels. What do you think that might be?"

The rules exist in a vacuum and don't take this sort of thing into account because the devs aren't taking this into account. I firmly believe that they're leaving that grey area thought exercise to individual GMs and players. There isn't going to be one answer that is going to make everyone happy. There are those that will argue that the rules CLEARLY show that you can do something, and those that will say that the rules are very muddy on the topic.

Aelryinth wrote:

since he's ignoring the question the entire thread is based on with his flip answer that everyone already knew, I suspect you are correct.

I was merely pointing out the rules and how they work. Note I did not get into eternally revolving loans to fund all this, which is again pure gm fiat and not in the rules...although it was amusing to read.

Blaming me for what the rules read as 'my interpretation' is pretty funny too.

No, I'm not ignoring the question. I'm answering it in a way that you dislike. You are pointing out that the rules exist and that, in theory, one could do this. That's great, but once the rules reach the table it stops becoming theory.

We've gone around and around on this on other threads as well. The rules require interpretation AND someone to sign off on them. The GM and the other players do not have their hands tied because the book says something. This is why there is someone to interpret the rules rather than a computer program that simply reads the text and rules flatly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
knightnday wrote:

It is as much, or as little, a "cheat code" as using "but the rules say X!" as an excuse or argument to get your way.

Both methods tend to avoid a troublesome aspect of gaming: dealing with other people. GMs tend to dislike having the boat rocked when someone gets "creative" with the rules, and players tend to dislike the word No.
Communication long before it gets to that point is really the only solution. If your GM and/or the rest of the table isn't down with your plan, whatever it may be, no one is going to have fun. No matter what the book says or you believe it says, no matter what James Jacobs said on his thread, no matter if the Great Holy Cow comes down and tells you that yes, moo, you are totally right and everyone else is a meanie.
One person's fun isn't always everyone's fun.
I never suggested that anyone should ignore other peoples fun when it comes to Any aspect of Pathfinder or any other roleplaying game. That doesn't change the fact it is not an answer to the question, you're just ignoring the question. Please do not "strawman" me, it is very rude and unnecessary in this discussion.

For you rule zero doesn't answer the question. For other people it settles the matter quite well. Your mileage may vary, expect table variation.

As far as rudeness goes, as an aside, implying that something is a cheat is also rude. If you felt strawmanned I apologize.


Milo v3 wrote:
Ugh, rule zero isn't an answer. It's a cheat code.

It is as much, or as little, a "cheat code" as using "but the rules say X!" as an excuse or argument to get your way.

Both methods tend to avoid a troublesome aspect of gaming: dealing with other people. GMs tend to dislike having the boat rocked when someone gets "creative" with the rules, and players tend to dislike the word No.

Communication long before it gets to that point is really the only solution. If your GM and/or the rest of the table isn't down with your plan, whatever it may be, no one is going to have fun. No matter what the book says or you believe it says, no matter what James Jacobs said on his thread, no matter if the Great Holy Cow comes down and tells you that yes, moo, you are totally right and everyone else is a meanie.

One person's fun isn't always everyone's fun.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:
The Wyrm Ouroborous wrote:
lots of stuff

Dude, you could have avoided the whole wall of text above by simply saying 'GM FIAT SAYS NO.'

Because that's basically all your post is saying. Chuck logic and allowed and defined game mechanics, the GM says 'per worldbuilding, I have decided it won't work.'

Which is, of corse, completely outside the bounds of the discussion. If Rule 0 was the answer to all problems, there'd be no problems.

==Aelryinth

Except Rule 0 is the answer to a lot of the problems, especially the ones on this thread. "Hey Mr. GM, I want to train the world's population to be wizards."

Long Silence.

"Why? No, wait, I don't want to know. No."

This entire bit of "well, the rules say blah" is, at best, a joke. The rules are not designed for this little experiment. The rules are designed for people to play adventurers and do adventuring things. There isn't much of an economy, there isn't much on world building and the ramifications of a magitech society, and there isn't much on "Hey, let's train everyone to be wizards for lols."

Bludgeoning people with your interpretation of the rules -- and that is what it is -- is no better than saying "No via GM Fiat."

It's really, really simple. Does your table want this? Then go forth and have fun. Does your table not want this? Better luck next time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Trust but verify.


kinevon wrote:
Bob Jonquet wrote:

Why does it have to be entirely the player's choice? We can "have a character sheet you don't mind handing to the GM if requested," but what about "a character sheet the GM doesn't mind handing?" Due to the [albeit very limited] chance of damage, I am not comfortable handling someone's device and standing behind them trying to get them to click where you want to look next is not ideal. It will likely slow an already arduous task, especially if I only want to do a quick scan looking for anything that should peak my interest.

A printed character sheet is more accommodating and is virtually indestructible from handling. A GM's job is already an extremely involved one that starts well before the game session and often after it ends. I don't understand the [insistent] need to make it harder than it needs to be. Just print a copy of your PC. Its just a few pieces of paper and minimal amounts of ink. It hurts no one to be a tad more prepared. If you fear for the environment, we can recycle the paper. No worries. Not to mention, there is always the chance the digital device fails, not just from battery life, but a random crash. No one wants to be "forced" to play a pregen to complete their session. A printed character sheet solves the problem with a minimal of effort. No solution will be 100% fool-proof, but having a printed sheet to backup your device covers the widest possible conditions with the fewest potential problems.

Explore! Report! Cooperate!

Just for a counterpoint:

Multi-day convention, away form home. Playing the same PC through a series.
Not easy to print out a "current" version of the same PC for 6-9 slots, with 1 or 2 level-ups happening.

Another exampel: I use a laser printer, and the toner cartridge, while it is good for about 2,500 pages, still runs out without warning, and sometimes I don't have enough disposable money available to buy a new toner right away.

Also, to those concerned about forcing the player to keep the pregen credit on the same PC who started the game, consider the opposite side of the coin. It is very possible that you start the game with a PC at, for example, 5th level in a teir 1-5 scenario. For some reason, your device dies/someone spills molasses on your character sheet, what-have-you, forcing you to play a pregen instead of your real PC. However, because of the situation, the pregen is not only not as optimized/focused as your real PC, it is lower level, increasing the risk factor. Is that fair, especially if it isn't your fault you have to switch to a pregen?

Well, you could keep multiple copies on hand, in case of molasses accidents?

From what I understand, many conventions have access to printers. Not only that, many hotels have access for their guests to printers. Kinkos, UPS stores, various office stores, coffee shops, internet cafes and more have printers. As far as I know most events aren't being held in the middle of nowhere. There are ways to correct the problem.

Print 20 copies in your spare time and keep them in a folder if you have problems with spills. Keep a device to power up your machine, or have a second or third device. There are ways to protect yourself and take responsibility. Then there isn't a concern whether or not it is fair; you're golden.


For that matter, a good deal of the material in the Companions has been as far as I know updated or revised in newer material - races in the Inner Sea Races for example. While it doesn't contain all the information, it does a pretty good job of giving you what you need.


John Francis wrote:


How can you play an RPG without having your character sheet available at all times?

Well, I imagine there are swaths of time that you don't need to stare at it and can save power on your device by closing the screen down. I'm not sure I'm following the counter-argument being presented here?

If you are concerned about power, get an extra supply or print out the sheet or both. If the counter is you absolutely must have the device on at all times for the entirety of the time that you are at an event, I suggest that paper might be a better choice for your needs then. For people without that restriction, there are ways to conserve and sustain your device.

For that matter, tablets that you could use just for displaying your sheet and not worrying that someone will drop and utterly destroy are pretty cheap. I'm not talking about some $700 dollar multi-function machine, but a cheap tablet for RPG gaming purposes can be had for $50 or less and work fairly well. A back up copy of your sheet on your phone and you have two devices that I'd hope could survive long enough to be recharged. :)


John Francis wrote:
knightnday wrote:
[I will note that there are backup batteries that you can purchase for less than 5$ that don't have much juice, but enough to charge you a bit. For $20 you can get a portable charger/battery that can completely recharge your device, some more than once.
For a smartphone, maybe. Something that can power a laptop for several hours could set you back a fair bit more than that. Even my small (13") notebook with an SSD can't reliably last for two 4-hour tables, let alone three.

Perhaps not. But we're not talking about running a laptop at full power for 8 hours, we're speaking of making sure that you're character sheet is available whenever you are asked for it. A small tablet or a cell phone can perform this operation without much problem and can be recharged multiple times if need be. If you aren't playing Candy Crush or surfing the net or whatever and only using it to check your sheet and prove it to the GM, then you shouldn't have issues.

It's a matter of being prepared in case, for whatever reason, you've run down your device that you are counting on to show your sheet and you don't want to/won't bring a physical copy, there are relatively inexpensive ways to fix the problem. Or more expensive ones if you need more power. But the options are there, and saying "I guess my device is out of power so I can't show this to you" shouldn't be an excuse in 2016 if you plan to go the electronic route.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

Top 10 most likely reasons you'll need a paper back up

1) Your device can loose power
2) Device gets stolen (although I will note that a geek convention is one place where a 200 dollar tablet is perfectly safe, but you need an armed security guard for 20 dollar metalic dice)
3) Device loses power
4) Device breaks being used as an impromptu coaster
5) Device loses power
6) Device broken by the foam sword of a rampaging larper
7) EMP feedback from the tesla coil musican instrument fries your machine
9) Device loses power
10 Luddite DM will not handle tablet

I will note that there are backup batteries that you can purchase for less than 5$ that don't have much juice, but enough to charge you a bit. For $20 you can get a portable charger/battery that can completely recharge your device, some more than once.

It pays to be prepared. If you use an electronic device, carry some back up power to get you through the time you are out, and charge things up when you don't need them. There is no excuse.


Anzyr wrote:
GM 1990 wrote:

So in your game, "narrative-wise" its only applicable towards whether someone participates, if its an action exclusive to their class (something only their class gets to do? we're holding the fighter to that definition right?)

You are completely missing the point of the argument. So lets try having you answer a different question to help make it clearer:

What does the actual Fighter class add to help a player influence a narrative?

Because I'm going to assume that you know that players can shape the narrative by simply participating in it. The issue is not that a person who is playing Fighter cannot affect the narrative. They can. The issue is that the Fighter class gives less tools to do so then any other class.

Jack wants to talk to the guards? He's better off being virtually any other class. If he was, he'd be more effective at changing the narrative in this manner.

Jen wants to rally an army to fight against the encroaching orc horde? Again, the fighter class has nothing to contribute to this.

Mike wants to slip into a guarded place unnoticed? He's better off being virtually any other class since they have actual tools to help him do that.

Kelly wants to declare that someone who was dead isn't anymore? Better not pick the Fighter class, since there are other classes that will actually help her do this.

David wants to locate a criminal mastermind whose behind a string of murders? Again, the best choice for this is not going to be a Fighter.

Annie wants to tell the laws of physics to sit down and shut up while the adults are talking? Again... she's better off not being a Fighter.

Ok, this caught my eye as I was getting caught up on the thread, and highlights what, for me anywhay, is some of the disconnect in the Caster-Martial argument as well as plot agency.

Now, the fighter CAN do some of these things -- perhaps not as well as the other classes, but they aren't impossible for them -- and are certainly things I'd like to see increased for them without stepping on other's toes. So sure, sneaking in, talking to guards, investigating, or even raising armies sound grand. Some class features, more skill points, and I think this would be golden.

Raising the dead or "telling the laws of physics to sit down and shut up" -- I assume arcane casting here -- aren't things that I'm looking for in my martials, or the fighter in specific. Increased abilities? Enhanced movement? All but supernatural rallying, bravery, and intimidation? Sure.

Fireballs and gravity manipulation and reviving the dead and so on? That doesn't scream "fighter" in my ear, nor really martial.

There's a point where we have to acknowledge that "plot agency" shouldn't mean "one man band". And yes, I'm in the camp that the martials should be raised up and the casters should be taken down a notch or six. I'm of a mind that, as has been noted before, that this is and should be a team sport. You should need the other classes and while there may be overlap, it shouldn't be to the detriment of another class. There should be things that you need another class's assistance with in some way.

It likely isn't a popular school of thought, but it's one I'm happy with.


I don't equate banning (or some might call it "fixing") anything to make you a good or bad GM. It's something GMs and players do; that in and of itself doesn't make you good or bad, it makes you a gamer.

To swing back by what I said earlier, I will note that while I have some older campaigns, not all of them are old enough to vote. But I'd been asked by players in the past for a world where they didn't have to concern themselves with accidentally burning down a town and having that impact things on their other characters, which is where Generica was born from.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:

Knight, this is an honest question, not snark*: is Generica, the Land of I Don't Care synonymous with Golarion, or does it also include 3pp?

I'm just curious because RDM42 mentioned published settings being treated as sacrosanct as compared to homebrew settings, but I think that sort of gets it wrong, no insult to RDM. Published settings are required to include all of said publisher's material, so I see them as a lot less sacrosanct, actually. Just using Paizo material, you can play a Clint Eastwood Man with No Name type from Alkenstar who ends up adventuring alongside an Inuyasha type party in Tian Xia, but no GM should be required to do that in a homebrew setting.

*I suppose the snark would have been directed at Paizo, not you, in any case. ;)

Ah, no, not at all. Generica -- it doesn't actually have a name -- is basically a world that I don't care about, that I've invested little if any time creating backstory for and so on.

In contrast, some of my homebrew worlds have existed for going on thirty years, with ongoing stories and plots and the like, fleshed out NPCs and family trees and all that jazz.

Generica, for lack of a better name, includes none of that. I might use Greyhawk, or Golarion, or another created and published system but more often than not it would be a very generic fantasy setting world with little work put into it. The sort where the map might be drawn on a napkin with a scale that varies depending on the day.

I don't use Generica much because most of my players are looking to continue the threads they've started or heard about in the other worlds. I use Generica when people just want to bash things without worrying overly much about story, cannot agree what they want to do (half want pirates, two others want noble intrigue, and another wants to punt goblins), or for one or two off sessions where people want to create characters they don't have to care about, or introduce new people to the mechanics and general idea of the game without endangering ongoing quests or interfering in "the real world" of the game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My take on this is rather simple: I lay out what I am willing to GM on X world in the player documentation. If the mood strikes us and I'm feeling really masochistic, I'll run an anything goes game in Generica, the land of I Don't Care and people can run what they want.

If a player and I are just deadlocked because they want something and it's one of the few things that I don't allow for whatever reason, then we come down to the following choices:

1) You save it for next time.
2) You stand by your principles and don't play.
3) You GM or find someone else in the group who wants to GM for X thing.

It IS a matter of fun, as you've said Redbeard. If one person is just dead set on holding out because the game isn't allowing them to play StarBright the rainbow pony mage, then it is up to that person to decide what they want to do. Everyone else already made their choices.

This, incidentally, is why I give the players world documentation far in advance. That way I'm not dealing with an argument the day of the game.


Redbeard the Scruffy wrote:

There are some people who won't play with you as a player if they see you as a GM have a huge ban list.

I personally skip right over the words "Core Only" when games are advertised in PbP, and it has NOTHING to do with optimizing. I can make a druid all core that dominates everything if I just want to be the toughest.

It's because of three reasons:

1. I don't like having my creativity bottlenecked. There are some newer options that better express ideas. Fire sorcerer is good. Flame Oracle is another way to do what I had in mind. Oh, cool, Pyrokineticist, that's what I thought of!

2. GMs who ban stuff USUALLY (but not always) do so because of "balance" which indicates to me a mindset of crippling your player on purpose instead of stepping up your game as a GM when the players are more powerful than you expected. It makes the game a competition instead of a collaboration. This isn't always the case with banning, but enough so to make it not even worth my time to find out.

3. When it's not for power, it's flavor, which to me is worse. There's just a mindset with the flavor-ban GM's that I can't stand. I can't just call my ninja a mage-rogue and use the same class, really? You won't let me play a samurai because you don't want eastern, but for some reason heaven forbid I call it a knight and use the same mechanical chassis? No witches in your world, and I ABSOLUTELY can't use the class and call it something else? Seriously, the marriage of class names and flavor text without possible modifications is just indicative of a close minded GM lacking creativity probably telling a boring cliche story.

So, all that in mind, yeah, you don't HAVE to use all the books, but there are players who won't bother with you if you don't. I'm not the only one who thinks this way.

I'm not saying I won't play if someone has an incomplete list, but personally, the more you say NO to, the less likely I am to be interested for the reasons I stated above.

(Here's where some grognard glances over 1/3 of what I said, ignores the content and accuses me of being a dirty minmaxer even though none of the reasons I gave had anything to do with power. Happens every single time I make this point in a thread.)

There's going to be people that won't play if you are Core only, if you are NOT Core only, if you like green dice, if you allow ninjas, if you don't. If a GM or game doesn't want to use some product then you have to either play a game that you don't like or look for another.

It sucks, but it sucks more to play under a GM or table that is begrudgingly letting you do something and then taking it out on you in game. At least you were warned ahead of time if they give a list of denied topics.

1 to 50 of 1,726 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.