|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
That's the point of the watermark though -- they don't want you to remove it. If you could just peel it off then pirates would as well, would would make the money spent on protecting the PDFs sort of a waste.
I'm not sure I understand the issue, however. Why do you need the image to be 100% clean for your VTT? Is the watermark interfering in using the map in some way on the VTT?
The "pathfinder community" is a pretty big place with tons of people -- you have folks at your local (for a given value of local) game store that play pick up games or Society games, people that play by post, that play home games, and more.
I'm sure that there is a group for everyone; there almost has to be, given the wildly divergent ideas on the game we see posted here.
The thing is, sometimes you have to play a game that may not interest you in order to network and find players and games. Sometimes you have to put aside your likes and dislikes to make something to attract people.
You cannot please everyone all the time, or even some people any of the time. Advice I was given once was to run something and then do a survey, if you will, with the people at the table and see what they liked and didn't like, what they wanted to do and what they actually got done. More than what character they got to play or if they got the +whatever thingy they wanted is a more important question: did they have fun? Would they want to play with you again? Why or why not?
Some days it can be a chore to be a player or GM if you are not happy, I know this. But you often have to put yourself out there to be seen and so people know that SilvercanMoonpaw plays like so or GMs like this. That way the community of players can make an informed decision on you, and you on them.
You do not HAVE to compromise as a GM or player; that said, it often helps to keep people's feelings in mind when you are setting up your game.
In face to face games as opposed to online there are often less choices in who can or will GM. In those cases it is often a fine line to walk to get a non-standard build or idea, either as a world or a character, into play. Gamers can be a prickly bunch with what can seem to be irrational likes and dislikes -- for instance, I am not a big fan of dinosaurs for monsters and especially not for animal companions; there is nothing wrong with them -- I just don't care for them.
So, if you came to me and wanted to play Joe the Dinosaur Rider I may be reluctant to allow that. Others dislike gunfighers, ninja, furry-types, playing a different gender than your own, punny names, crafters and so on. This can be hard on players that are dying to play X and no one will ever let them.
So, circling back to your last paragraph, as a world building GM who enjoys creating new and exciting backdrops for players to play in and often without player input you have to be willing to admit that not every corner may be filled in and that there could be room for a compromise. What is over on that island right there? Well heck, dunno, never thought about it. Well then, can my turtle person mage be from there, a lost race of turtle people?
I've been building worlds for going on 35ish years now. Some are notes on the back of a napkin. Some are multiple 3 ring binders filled with political notes, character sheets, economies and so on. None of them are so filled in that I couldn't shoe horn in something if I really really tried.
The question becomes, however, is the character's idea one that will reshape the world in ways that are detrimental to everyone's fun? Will they break the premise the world is created around?
Example: Generica is based around humans and their allies in the never-ending battle against goblins and their ilk. "Monster" races like goblins, kobolds, orcs and so on are not allowed. Could a player play one? Well, maybe. If this were a real campaign I'd have to think long and hard to allow that, given that nearly every "civilized" place in Generica will basically attack the character on sight, and the party with them. They'll be outlaws in a land that desperately hates that race. Is the player's need to play a goblin worth everyone being possibly miserable for the whole game?
There are always arguments for corner cases and what ifs. What if there was a Gate? What if the character was summoned? What if a magician made them from scratch? What if it was just one gun and the player was the only one who knew the secret of gun powder? What if?
It isn't a question that has a set answer. You have to be willing to put aside your pride as a GM to compromise a bit on your world. You have to be willing to put aside your passion as a player to compromise a bit on your idea. Not every world gets played every time, and not every idea gets a seat at the table just because you like it.
A compromise that isn't a compromise isn't a compromise.
I'm willing to meet a player (or GM if I am ever in the situation) halfway. I'm even willing to bump that up to sixty percent some days. But if the conversation is just a continuing variation on "give me what I want regardless of what we've decided for starting classes/races/thingies" with little to no give then we've hit an impasse.
You are welcome to color within the lines or meet me part of the way for something outside the box, but I am not obligated to just give you want you want because it will be "fun" for you.
I find that an overused term and excuse. We're ALL here for fun. But if you can only play X and your fun is diminished because you aren't given 100% your way, then we're going to have problems down the line I can already tell; I've experienced this enough with players and GMs over the years that the warning signs are like billboards on the highway of "this is going to suck."
The vast majority of the time I work out the house rules with my players before we sit down. The 0 session gives us a chance to make sure that everyone is on the same page and no one is overly disgruntled or making something to spite me or the table.
On the rare occasions that I am GMing for a new group then I either play a "generic" setting where most things go, or I let them know what the rules are and where the lines are and indicate just how much or little I am going to negotiate on this. If we cannot come to an agreement, someone else can GM, we can play a board game or another setting, or the person that is unwilling to be part of the game is welcome to watch.
Oh no doubt the person deleted knows. My direction was more towards the other bad little boys and girls out there. :)
Thank you for responding Chris and for all your hard work.
Posting this here instead of the thread I found it in so as not to derail.
In a thread, Chris Lambertz said:
Removed a post. This kind of comment is really unnecessary.
While I understand that the comment was removed because it violated policy in some way, someone who did not see the comment doesn't know what was said or why it was unnecessary.
It might help teach people what is unacceptable if they have a hint of what is, well, unacceptable in these cases. Something like "Talking about Blah is unnecessary" or "We don't insult others" or whatever. This way the next person knows that "Blah" isn't acceptable and hopefully will edit themselves before the mods have to.
Thank you for listening.
Although .. blank books with Pathfinder artwork on them would be neat. I have tons of journal-type moleskin books and the like around, some with art would be nice.
Agreed. Options are useful for those that are interested in romantic or other relationships. I suggested that Paizo expand on it, in fact, in a online PDF of extra material like they used to do with Dragon or Dungeon magazines.
As for "wrong aspects" of the game -- what would that be? As thejeff mentioned, romance comes up in epic fantasy adventure.
There is no One Way.
This is fairly close to how I deal with it as well. Elves that grow up outside of an elven community tend to end up with more problems as they've had to deal with all these short lived hyper other races.
Pretty much all of this. I am a big believer in having a party that works together as characters and players both; most of the groups I've been lucky enough to have been a GM for have worked together very well.
I'm more likely to discuss this with interest with a long-term player than someone who is newer to the table. I want to know that the player is coming at this, for lack of a better word, honestly. I want the player to be able to explain what they are planning and why they want/need to play this character with this group. I want to know that the other players are OK with it too. There are issues with young characters in these sorts of worlds, as some have pointed out above, and for other players there are triggers involved.
Heck, "maybe" is an answer on a great deal of things that come up. While I have base rules I am usually willing to discuss things that seem to interest the player *if* they aren't a problem for the rest of the players and do not break my or their immersion in the game. A kid PC? Maybe. A bulette character? Probably not.
the Discworld connection might be iffy and only apply to Rincewind (or Terry just forgot what he was doing along the way.)
Ridcully teleports himself and Granny in Lords and Ladies and then claims to be out of juice to teleport back. He recovers a bit, it seems, as they walk and claims he might be able to teleport only himself back or manage a small fireball.
This seems to indicate that they have a power point system of some sort rather than slots.
Oh good it's this thread again.
Yes, there are reasons to play any class. Yes, you can often do similar things with another class, sometimes better. Yes, indeed, the rogue and the monk are often the jokes of the gaming world and exist only so other classes shine next to them.
I think that covers about everything that gets said in these threads outside of insults and allegations about someone's mom. Is this thread going to cover new ground or are all the dead horses going to get beaten?
Sorry if this seems cynical, but it is a once at week at least thing with "Does the Rogue/Figher/Monk/Insert Class Here suck or REALLY suck?" threads. They don't do much more than get people riled up, get locked, and then spawn a new thread with a similar title.
Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
it was a school for disabled students, but because of local prejudices, the school was kept on lockdown like it were a prison and they had plenty of guards and a teacher who loved beating our left wrists silly with a ruler. which lead to violent reactions, which led to brawls.
So it was likely that the guards were not trying to do more than slow down a child rather than administer a beating or otherwise take them down. In any case, it seems a bit of a stretch, you'll have to pardon us for our disbelief.
Despite being a kung fu master at age 8, there are a number of circumstances that might augment the child and still allow them to have age penalties -- even more so considering this child was apparently small for their age.
In any case, I am not sure that this story, entertaining as it is, is a good measuring stick against modifiers for child characters.
Yes, it certainly is. I've seen characters and players that were less than thrilled to travel with what they considered children even though they were considered adults by their race and culture. Actual children would be worse for those folks.
Eh .. I have kids. They are working to become "real people", but they still have a long way to go, many more experiences to get and so on. Children are lovely creatures but they need a great deal more seasoning before they have the tools necessary to handle a great many of things a standard life, let alone an adventuring life, would bring.
And this isn't about playing Harry alongside Hermoine and Ron and having adventures. This is Harry in the first book, Dumbledore, Snape and Hagrid wandering off for adventures.
Editted to add: And are the other adventurers OK with trusting their life to someone who is younger than the socks the dwarf has on?
Dragging this back towards the light, I'll comment that there can be interesting child/teen characters that one could have in a game: a younger version of Gaston from Ladyhawke, Talen from the Sparkhawk saga, Garion or X'Nedra from the Belgariad, a squire for your knight, an apprentice and so on.
They are interesting not for being children/teens, but because they are interesting characters. They'd be interesting at 20 as well, I'd add.
Again, the questions become why you want to play someone so much younger than what would be standard for an adventurer, and what sort of impact that should have mechanically and otherwise.
Before we ever got that far I'd want a clear understanding of the whys for this character and what the goals here are before we'd discuss mechanics. "Just because" or "there are wizards who can cast spells so therefore.." isn't a discussion, it's an evasion. Of course, I tend to ask questions of my players and their concepts before dice touch the table so this isn't anything new for us. The further into oddness you go, the more questions there are.
Liam Warner wrote:
That's part of why I find using it so baffling since it effectively says "YOU shalt suck most righteoulsy until 3rd level or you do something like oh finishing this mission then spend downtime retraining so you have the same levels as everyone else but stat penalties for being younger." Why not just apply the stat penalties and let them have the same PC levels from the start and assume they've already had some major event that move them from NPC to PC which is why their adventuring in the first place?
That is certainly an option. Another, which seems to be a target for the dreaded "passive aggressive" comment, are those in the book.
In the end, if you allow children to be characters, it is up to the GM and players to decide if children should be the equivalent of adults or if they should have some sort of meaningful downside to not being fully grown, apprenticed, or otherwise trained members of their species.
+1 regarding the GM needing to find their own world acceptable.
@Anarchy_Kanya: There are limits, actually: those the GM and/or table has set up. You can like and want to play an 8 year old barbarian or 6 year old magician or 18 month old cavalier who rides on a stuffed toy sheep, but that doesn't always mean you can in every campaign. Breaks from reality are fine; not every table is set to the same level of break, however.
Also, what is the link to that character supposed to illustrate? To me, it says "plot device" followed by "that sure is a lot of +6 gear for a 3rd level PC." I'm not sure that it helps to prove that 11 year old characters are viable.
I didn't bother to read through all the posts. The overwhelming attitude of "its the dms game" sickens me. Let him play by himself if its his game. The game is shared by all players and Dms alike. It is fair for a player to have a say in the rules. if anything it should be left up to the group to decide. if there is a reason the dm does not want a child involved i.e. sexual content or adult material that a player character under the age of 18 would just make him feel weird trying to roleplay with then I would restrict the play of children. if it is purely based on the "adults are this strong you must be weaker" then i will remind you this is a FANTASY game and each character in it is expected to be above average. Extraordinary people have exceptional stats even kids.
Oddly enough, the "It's a fantasy game therefore.." makes me fairly ill. It's a meaningless phrase meant to say that basically anything can happen because it's fantasy?
Even in most fantasy novels and material there are rules to the world at large -- how magic works, what magic can do and so on. Just because magic is involved doesn't mean that the floodgates are open and anything goes.
As for it being the GM or Players game -- we've beaten this particular dead horse into dust over the last few years. Everyone should communicate, no one is better than anyone else, etc etc. Vehemently saying that the GM should run a game for himself if he doesn't let the player have their way doesn't fly for me. We can talk about it, sure, but if I get ultimatums I am more than happy to do just that -- play by myself.
My players have, for the most part, been eager and willing to discuss things and work out compromises and/or trust that when I put down rules they are for their benefit and not just for my own personal jollies. Hopefully others have the same luck with their GMs, and they have players at their table that are willing to discuss things rationally.
A side note? That is good advice for almost every thread on the forums. Things get circular after a while. Best wishes and good gaming.
Also, you mention a game that you run in your home - do you have to host? If not and that game involves parents with kids, it may be easier (quieter, etc) to move the game to the parents' house if they're willing, a lot of times kids can keep themselves entertained if they have access to all their toys and are someplace familiar.
Father of three here, two tens and a four. I agree with this comment from Leganduil regarding allowing those with children to host (if they can.) I've found that it is actually quieter and there are less interruptions for boredom or "where is the X" or "Can I have blah to eat/drink" if they are in familiar territory.
Moreover, as a parent, I can say I am much more at ease and concentrating on the game (and I usually GM!) when I am not worrying that my children are doing something in another room. My wife is the same, and she tends to worry that they are in there dismantling things instead of just being quiet. A quiet room can be more terrifying for parents than a noisy one.
I do not think it is rude to make a 'no kids' night if you host. That said, I'd talk to the parents before hand. If, like with my wife and I, they both play then someone may have to stay home to take care of the kids as babysitters are not an expense some want to foot. As long as you are honest and direct I think you'll be fine. And they should understand -- they have to live with the little monsters!
As a person with your life experiences I feel you would have an appreciation for how unique they are. If someone wrote you as a PF character I would expect them to realize that there would be mechanical disadvantages, or would you have me believe that not once has your genetic issue left you in a situation that would have not been easier to deal with without said issue?
A quote from Auren earlier:
speaking of lucky star and the like, i'm a more extreme real life case, i'm a 25 year old young adult woman chronologically, but could pass for a 10 year old girl cosmetically. but then, i am also mute and have to be accompanied by my boyfriend any time i want to see a movie, eat a chocolate bar, shop at a comic book store, or drink a margarita.
That definitely seems like more than a cosmetic modification. In fact, I know that is a HERO games disadvantage (I remember from some NPCS.)
Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
There's the thing. What is the intent by playing the child? What are you trying to accomplish and where are we going to stand when mechanics come into play as they are almost likely to do? Same goes with just letting the halfling pretend to be a kid because it is a cosmetic thing and so on.
I'd like to bring back Zodiac_Sheep's comment
2) How does you being a child further the story? Doesn't have to be in definite terms (he's the child of the king in the AP or something isn't necessary, but it's a little weird to want to play an 11 year old 'just cuz').
That is important in all of this.
As for the bit about whether X book is or isn't a valid rules resource, that's for an individual to decide. It does give a GM and player common ground to see how the game suggests they could take this.
But it isn't cosmetic. This is something covered in the rules -- that is, modifiers due to age. This isn't "I want to be short", this is something that carries advantages and disadvantages, enough so that Halflings can take Childlike as a Feat.
With anything someone does when designing a character, intent plays into it.
Does the GM have the right? Well, yes. If the two of you can find a way that you can agree on to make it work, then there you go.
For myself and my table, we'd be fairly leery to allow child PCs into most games. It isn't something we are particularly interested in to begin with, and unless it is a specific campaign focusing on the children/young adults, you can usually get the same results with someone that edges a lot closer to the adult age range.
I've run and played in a number of online (text) games where it was just not allowed at all because, well, people tend to take things into areas that they shouldn't and the owners of said games didn't want Chris Hansen wandering over to ask some questions. That may colour some of my view of this as well.
Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
Well, I wouldn't say completely untrue. I am sure there are GMs out there who have had players that were a handful, just like there are players that dislike Gms that are too controlling because of that one time with the guy with the thing that scarred them for life.
Our tables have swung the entire range from low to high magic, from barely finding anything to get by on to tripping over artifacts on the way to the Biggest Magical Emporium ever. I prefer a middle range, myself, as a GM and a player both. I don't prefer having players that are never able to find an item they could use or want, but at the same time I dislike being handed a spread sheet and being told that the player won't have a good time if they don't get X by Y level.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Bolded for emphasis. Regardless of anything else said in this thread or another thread, this right here is all that matters. Talk to your players -- they don't bite, usually -- and ask their opinions. See what kind of game they are looking for, compare to what you are interested in, find the middle ground if you aren't on the same page. Adjust as needed.
The book rules on settlements are a starting place and don't have the final word at your table anymore than anything else. As long as you understand what you are getting into by giving less (or more!) treasure, be it from drops or garishly bright warehouse sized buildings with massive assortments of things, you'll be fine.
Not only that, you can change anything you and your group may find unappealing with hardly any effort.
As far as the potion bit versus the FAQ goes, it is pretty easy (as mentioned above) to hammer out a simple magic item. The FAQ, on the other hand, likely requires conversation with multiple people and digging through rules and interpretations and, although I wish it didn't have to consider this, the consideration of if you should change things and how much/how little grar and screaming you are going to get out of it.
Every time there is a new answer, the forums have to decide which side gets the pitch forks and torches and what the rallying cries will be.
As far as the LGBT banner bit -- the gaming community and communities in general are made up of all sorts of people. The vast majority, regardless of what you may believe, are incredibly nice and creative people who all want to play a game that has heroes that resemble them. And they deserve it. So a bit of banner waving now and again is good for the game, the community, and the world. And this is how we continue to get great stories. For peoples of all sorts. That is why I love Paizo.
Sorry for the soapbox.
My suggestion would be a homebrew class or to pull from some of the various 3.0/3.5 sources -- the Candlecaster was mentioned above for example.
I'm afraid what you are looking for isn't something that I see the Witch class becoming anytime in the near future. Rather, much like anything in the game, you should always feel free to alter things to fit you and your table's wants and needs. I'm certain that there are a number of people here that would be eager to help you with a great deal of the heavy lifting in that regard.
My wife mentions that going through the rules for Pathfinder and all the books (and in many other games as well) can be a little like going to TVTropes or Wikipedia. You only meant to look up one little thing and before you know it, it's 4 AM.
I love the game but it can be daunting when you start out or even if you've done it for a while if you want to check, double-check and recheck that you haven't missed that one little trait or feat or bit of gear that is going to really make this character shine or do just what you wanted.
Steve Geddes wrote:
I think you are right, this is what the Strategy Guide will hopefully fix.
And yes, people tend to forget that some things are easier for them than others. When I was playing Shadowrun hardcore (since it was mentioned) I could calculate the Essence and nuyen cost in my head for just about any piece of ware and apply it as I went; others were flipping pages back and forth at a loss.
The same thing applies for Pathfinder. Not everyone creates lots of characters for fun or interest; they may only create the one they intend to play until that game ends which could take years and not look into the myriad of feats, spells and gears otherwise. For some people character creation can be as fun or more fun that then actual playing of the character itself.
This is why we have some of the grar and yelling on the boards -- some people do this as a passion, rummaging through the numbers and various feats to decide what is "best" and "worst" (for a given value of such) while others get lost in the forest of options and pick out what they think is a good idea at the time.
If you've made dozens or hundreds of mages or fighters or whatever, you have that experience to draw on. If you haven't done that, or don't go over and over the various books looking at options and making notes of what would be good combinations it can be a harrowing experience sometimes.
Neither one of these methods or styles is better or worse than the other. This is no different than the people who play a video game and those who study it and build walkthroughs and dig through every class and combination and little traveled path to see every aspect of the game. One isn't better than the other, or more dedicated.
I agree, I always find it a little odd given my experience with role playing. When I started with my first long-time group in the late 70s there were two ladies present that pretty much drove the game in fact, the main PCs. When I went to college in the 80s several women played in our various games, and later at another college, this one primarily female, the majority of those I ran games for were women.
From talks with my wife about her friends at work and at school, they were all heavily into fantasy/scifi books and had at least played once or were neutral/positive about RPGs in general.
The bolded above is mine. I wouldn't allow this, especially if you believe him to be overpowered. My common practice is to keep a copy of the full character sheet of each person on hand, in case they miss a session or leave theirs behind or some other mishap happens. That way you are all on the same page and someone cannot "remember" some stat or item that they don't have incorrectly. Some people cheat, and some people have faulty memories; either way, this prevents that.
Scribbling Rambler wrote:
Not only that, but to those who may be new to these boards and aren't used to the certain level of charm that some may employ the raging fits thrown can make this seem like an unhappy or hostile place. There are places on the Internet that I just don't go because I don't want to be bogged down with what is essentially screaming and yelling. I doubt I am the only one.
Constructive criticism is good and helpful. Unrelenting negativity doesn't do much for the people that work at Paizo, fellow gamers, or to fix the problem.
yeah it probably should be in advice i just thought since i was basically asking the rules on players killing players but yeah
The only rules for that are the ones you and your players make. That said, player versus player conflict seldom ends up well; it requires a great deal of maturity (and no, not age) to deal with this sort of thing. Usually it results in bad feelings and can even break up gaming circles.
Additionally, having someone who has to be Evil (with a capital E) and mustache twirling and betraying his own party seldom works out well either. From discussions on the board and first hand experience, you seldom see people with the subtlety to pull it off without being a cartoon.