|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Zombie Ninja wrote:
I liked ToEE after the Circle of 8 modded it. I'd prefer a game like that to a giant multi-player game to be honest. Bonus points for something I can play and not have to log into a @#%#$^#$ server every time I want to play would be lovely.
If I can adjust my own logs then they'd have no evidence that the doors were opened. They'd have to figure out how the criminals got in. If I'm REALLY lucky, they'd be destructive on the way in or out, albeit quietly destructive, and break in.
The majority aren't anymore. Others are friends/spouses/children of other players and drop kicking them would cause more drama than necessary; me watching and correcting them along the way is a small price to pay not to have problems.
Technology can be quite useful if you have experienced players or those who don't need hands-on help or a close eye. I've had a few players over the years that I'd prefer to keep an eye on when they are working out their characters, especially if we are rolling stats instead of using point buy. Their "miraculous" rolls are a little less miraculous if there are witnesses I've found.
I don't think it is a secret so much .. although it could be mentioned more thoroughly in RPG products .. but more that it seems to have fallen out of favor in some corners of the gaming community.
If you look over posts on these boards and others you'll find some strong push back against the idea. Not so much that there should be a Session 0, mind, but that the GM should put constraints on the player's creativity. There are those that like the idea that they should go where their muse takes them and it is the responsibility of the GM and other players to coordinate their efforts to make the whole cohesive.
Likewise you'll find those that are strongly against house rules, restrictions to builds, or both. I've seen all too often "I'd just walk if X is not allowed/is allowed/other."
The game is supposed to be cooperative, and Session 0, in my mind, is a good way to start working on that. The GM showing up and just announcing that you're doing a political thriller may not sit with players who aren't really into that, and the players telling the GM that he's running an intense pirate game could be in for a disappointment when they find that the only thing their GM hates more than cat people is Jack Sparrow.
I am a strong proponent of Session 0, and am reluctant to accept people making characters in a vacuum to the point that I and my players balk when someone wants to join the game late and has created a character without any idea of what is going on. The last time I didn't have some sort of Session 0 along with a players document was sometime in the early '80s.
No, I realize it quite well. Doing good without being forced to should have merit too.
What I'd like to see is something that ties into the game, along the lines of using the new characters, classes, races and so on that have or are coming out.
Another line of thought might be to have the module use races that aren't normally allowed in PFS, which does double duty of showing "We're not just humans and elves and dwarves" as well as making a number of people in PFS currently happy that they can, even for a day, play a favorite race.
And that worked for that character. But truth be told, I have seen similar results come from straight RP of a code without the reinforcement of "Do this or fall!". A variety over the years of warriors who refused to back down from combat due to honor, of marines and solos that wouldn't leave anyone behind, characters who wouldn't lie for any reason, and so on.
The code is a good guide for being a "good" person, for a given value of good. But those aspects aren't unique to the paladin, nor are there any less interesting aspects that come along with other alignments.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
I just remember that there was a kerfluffle, just not how many there were. But yes, given the source material it was a lot over nothing.
Didn't people have a holy fit about the lashunta having different stats for females and males? Within the last month or so I want to say.
Gygax's views on women's strength aside, if the bevy of alternative classes for people who want to play a divine warrior of different alignments exists, why does the paladin need to exist? I mean, if the others are so great and the paladin is so crappy, why bother having it?
Something else that interests me is the idea of keeping the class as is for tradition reasons, but not returning it to its roots. High stat requirements, heavy limitations on who you can deal with and how much gear and money you can have and so on. No one interested in that for tradition's sake?
Chris Lambertz wrote:
Hey folks! Thank you for posting your feedback about the selection for this year's Free RPG Day. I think it might be a better venue, though, to post any ideas about alternate adventures to our Pathfinder Modules subforum. Our product discussion threads really need to be centered on the specific product being discussed, and there are definitely nuggets of good discussion to be had here that I'm not sure quite fit.
Done! Divert your traffic and attention HERE!
captain yesterday wrote:
I agree with the Captain. It was a neat joke the first time, cute the second, tolerable the third, and now, well, it doesn't really evoke a smile. While I appreciate the idea of bringing in new people, there aren't other things we can intrigue them with in our game?
Mmm. Except not everyone played Greyhawk, so that bit works about as well as saying something is because of how it is on Golarion .. which people commonly dismiss as the rules should be setting neutral.
People read the lore. People understood that there was a manufactured reason that they didn't agree with. People didn't agree with the limits on female strength as well, and I don't recall much in the lore about that.
If you play at another table, or PFS, or RPGA (does that still exist?) then you accept table variation. That's been a truism since games began.
I remember those days. The "lore" was mostly "because". The same reason was used for giving females lower strength as well.
As I recall, level limits were one of the many things that were house ruled out as many people find "because" less than a great reason.
As for losing things you care about .. you don't. You don't lose anything unless and until squads are deployed from the game companies to force you to play in a certain way. So far I've been lucky and avoided the assassins sent out by Wizards, Paizo, and TSR before them.
You must be mistaking me for someone else. I haven't asked Paizo to do anything. I've managed quite admirably for years to adjust this and other games for my needs.
Additionally, I've yet to see myself or anyone else ask for cheers over it. People are discussing it and others seem hellbent to jump up and down to decry any change to the base paladin, as if allowing something similar in other alignments will hurt the paladin's feelings in some way.
No, if I don't like it I have the power to change it. You see, the book isn't some divine mandate that doesn't permit change. If I, or someone else, wants Neutral Paladins or LE paladins or CG paladins or whatever else .. you can have them.
It doesn't matter what I, you, them or anyone else thinks. These discussions on the boards are entertaining ways to pass time but they don't have any ability to stop people from wanting things and indeed having them. See also caster-martial problems, different fighters, things PFS won't let you have and more.
There's going to be disagreement about it, some of which boils down to a gamer (or even regular person) not liking to be told that their version is incorrect.
It seems, if I am reading some of the arguments correctly, revolve mostly around the idea that one is role playing if they engage in minimally interpreting the dice (I hit, 20 damage. I intimidate the guard) or if one is role playing if they are fully engaged (player gives 3 paragraph oratory quotation from Goodfellows to intimidate the guard).
Yes. And any middle ground too. Role playing is what you make of it and telling folks that they are doing is "wrong" just leads to bad feelings.
No particular headings were given; this all takes place in the Introduction to the book with that brief commentary on roleplaying along with a note in the Foreward to "get into the spirit of the game and use your persona to play with a special personality all its own."
The rest of the material tends towards what is expected of the DM and how to have a successful party before getting into the meat of character generation. Even the adventuring chapter deals more with how to have a successful team and how to make the most out of being in dungeons.
Let's see, AD&D Player's Handbook page 7 under "The Game" tells us the following:
You act out the game as this character, staying within your "god-given abilities", and as molded by your philosophical and moral ethics (called alignment). You interact with your fellow role players, not as Jim and Bob and Mary who work at the office together, but as Falstaff the fighter, Angore the cleric, and Filmar, the mistress of magic! The Dungeon Master will act the parts of "everyone else", and will present to you a variety of new characters to talk with, drink with, gamble with, adventure with, and often fight with! Each of you will become an artful thespian as time goes by-and you will acquire gold, magic items, and great renown as you become Falstaff the Invincible!
So a degree of acting was certainly suggested.
Um, no, you are wrong there. Neither I nor anyone else have to prove anything to you or you to us. I think that is where you're getting confused in all this.
There is as much, or as little, need for paladins as there is for an anti-paladin, a neutral paladin, a green paladin, a holy warrior or anything else. There is a want for such things .. see also articles in the Dragon numerous times, third party products and threads like these where people suggest that they'd like to see a "holy champion sort of like a paladin" for other alignments.
Now, you are free to not like people wanting that. You are free to suggest that the only true paladin is the One True Paladin Accept No Substitute. But that doesn't change anyone's desire for something different.
Finally, for someone who doesn't have to defend paladins needing to be LG you have expended a great deal of time in a number of threads doing just that, extolling that they MUST be LG or else .. what? The world ends? Or they lose some of the mystique that has been built around them and they are just another class like any other?
Any class or alignment can have strict rules and code. I think that you are overselling the importance of this being unique to the paladin. The alignment being LG isn't a NEED for this class.
The same sort of codes and rules could be applied, with some modifications, to any alignment. You could easily remove "can't lie" from paladins and they would remain unchanged. The code can vary between deities and not change what this class is.
Ah, so it was a problem looking for an excuse and found one in a argument here. Well, that is sort of sad but that seems a local issue and not one that is tied to the forums or Pathfinder in particular.
With luck, you and yours will find things to do that you enjoy.
A lot of words that sum up to I REALLY like LG paladins!
My question for this all is .. how do they deal with clerics? They may or may not totally act in the exact way a deity desires .. for that matter paladins (the LG variety) don't always act how their deity wants; this is why atonement spells exist, no?
The idea that every anti-paladin is some mustache twirling stereotypical idea of evil is ludicrous. They know where they draw power from just as much as their LG counterpart does. Why wouldn't Rovagug grant an anti-paladin power? What do you think they'll do that is against their master's desires, build houses and plant flowers?
A neutral "paladin" might not be the best word for what people are thinking of; that said, why wouldn't a neutral deity have some sort of champion? Why wouldn't any of the alignments? I mean, one can see the merits given what is going on with Lawful Good. Do we think that the others just say "Aw shucks!" and go mope in the corner?
Perhaps. Or at least some people want different perks and different costs. You don't have to follow the format of the paladin exactly but rather the idea it represents.
How .. are these forums doing anything to your home group? I mean, it is words on a screen. Why do you or they or anyone give them any more weight than "Some person somewhere said something?"
Maybe they and others want to play 5E because it is the new kid on the block? Something different and perhaps more interesting than the game they've been playing?
I don't think it is because people are somehow being meanies online and that is driving people away, or else everywhere else on the internet where people are so much worse would see people moving to other things in droves.
tl;dr: Your group changed. Don't blame the boards.
Edit to add: And for the love of every god, it's an internet maxim not to read the comments. If you and yours do not want the information on the forums here or elsewhere, don't read them. This is basic self-defense.
Let me scrape some of Kullen's sarcasm off the screen before remarking.
Yeah, yeah, Oberoni. That said, I'm always in favor of the rules being modified at some point as well as house rules being used to fix the problems. I've never been one to sit around and hope and pray that the Dev Gods will make X work the way I want. Usually X works the way SOMEONE wants, maybe just not me. Usually the devs.
Abraham spalding wrote:
There are several divination spells work across the planes and are not blocked. It also does not prevent location of the spell itself. So while it helps some against initial probes its like turning off beacons on your wifi and thinking it is some sort of defense.
True. I meant to elaborate and was distracted by small people in my house. In any case, it still bugs. :)
This is one of those spells that, again, I see more often "abused" online than I have in actual play.
The majority of my players have an objection to being trapped in whatever the space is that the rope trick creates, with at least one player remarking they'd rather take their chances nailing a door shut than being trapped at the end of a rope.
Beyond that, I find the spell one I have some questions and problems with as a GM. I dislike everything about
Rope trick says wrote:
"The upper end is, in fact, fastened to an extradimensional space that is outside the usual multiverse of extradimensional spaces. Creatures in the extradimensional space are hidden, beyond the reach of spells (including divinations), unless those spells work across planes."
This is a second level spell that effectively shuts down an entire school of magic? It may as well just be called "Base" and remove the whole rope part of it.
The few times it has been cast in my games it was used to hide for things like breaking into places to steal things, not to hide and sleep.
This one doesn't have any assumption of use by my players and is on my list to likely be removed from play. I never bothered because people used it for the above mentioned reasons and that was OK, tho the divination bit is under review.
If they add to it and don't replace then the example I've given numerous times of Torag causes some major problems.
The code is very basic and requires more information and both GMs and players with the ability to work it out, or else your paladin falls for buying the bar a round of drinks (alcohol is a poison).
The core information is a starting point, not an ending point.
It's a choice, I suppose. Is it one that if the situation were reversed that players would be less than amused at? You try to charm the merchant, he takes a nap. You go to dominate the barbarian bad guy, he falls over and refuses to accept commands.
My wife: "Are you done talking to him?"
An evil bad guy was floating above our bed monologuing and my wife, often called the Demon Queen, was annoyed about being woken up. I managed to get out of the bed before the fires consumed it and a large portion of the room.
I agree with Orthos here. I'd ask you to step away from the table a bit and have a talk with me if this came up; yes, it sucks to be mind controlled but this is tantamount to flipping the table in my opinion. You're basically saying that if the results come out in a way you don't care for, you won't play.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Lemme turn up my hearing aid.
The clear cut rules are a nice change from the old days; that said, there are still areas that aren't fully covered just as then and I'm more than willing to let random charts and dice cover that. I didn't think of it and they wanted to do what? Gimme a second to hammer out some mods and then roll .. er .. yeah, that.
Sure, my "subconscious" can still jigger the results when I make the modifiers or I can keep an open mind and let fate/the dice decide things. While I am not the biggest fan of always saying yes, I am a fan of taking a breath and giving some ideas a chance.
That is what being a "grognard" means to me, really, is just having some experience under your belt in a variety of systems and hundreds of games to be able to GM with a napkin and an idea and roll with the punches. The rules give a nice safety net.
Phobias are nice because they give the character a disadvantage -- something that many players aren't willing to have, or try to limit to things like "fear of the flag of Montana." Yes, even on Golarion. Some people.
No, I was speaking more of the mental illnesses that only exist for the most part in the minds of players that see too many movies/TV shows and get the fun ones that leave them totally competent but with extra abilities and a proclivity towards the sort of violence that would make the Hulk say "Whoa, calm down buddy." And that way you can not take responsibility for what you do.
Mutter mutter gesticulate angrily.
This might be a subset of the Joke or Misanthrope or something.
Ah! Irontruth, thank you for reminding me of a character type I'd love to see vanish from games!
People with mental disorders.
If I had a dime for every character that has multiple personalities I could own my own state. If it isn't that it is one of a hundred other mental disorders, most often done very very wrong, which are used in the inevitable "I'm JUST playing my character!"
This is one that I've seen done right less than a handful of times. The rest were dumpster fires.
It's always the Drow. It's like using Nazis or Zombies as a foe -- people feel free to hate them.
And yes, depth would be nice. I went back over some modules some years ago and realized I'd have to put in almost as much work to update the to what I wanted to do than to just create something from scratch. Some were really just stat blocks and XP awards with a story that was lighter than the theme of a sitcom.
As far as cringing goes, I once had the opportunity some 15 years or so ago to watch All in the Family with people who had never seen it who were much younger than myself. They were flabbergasted and asked me how this ever got on the air. Three's Company got a similar reaction coming from the other direction as well. It made for an interesting night.
Motivation in adventures is great and something that I enjoy as well. That said, 30 years ago the modules were a little less nuanced than we might get today. And that's the games that they put out, and there was nothing wrong with it. Monsters were attacking and you went and dealt with it.
These days, both here and elsewhere, there is an urge to .. I'm not sure .. be ashamed of a movie or song or perhaps module from the past. As if we are tainting ourselves by saying that we may have partaken and enjoyed it.
To be clear here, I am not accusing thejeff of that. I'm speaking in general terms.
That was what I was reacting and responding to. I've run across this sort of argument online at least six times in the last two days, so it was likely on my mind when this all came up here and reacted as if I were in one of those conversations. For that, I apologize.
This is the sort of thing that makes it harder when race and culture are a part of the game -- people can have issues with it, especially in light of the sort of reactions we see everyday online -- or maybe just some of the sites I frequent (no, not THOSE sites!) There are people that are prepared to be upset about anything, which is why I often, if annoyingly, preach communication at the table to puzzle out who you are sitting with and what the table wants and will tolerate.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Ah. Well, it wasn't for a political jab although this certainly has a feeling of the same tired "must be doing things in X way" that I've come to class together with political correctness. The same look you get when you mention movies from a less enlightened era (Pre-2000 usually) where someone uses a term or language that isn't considered correct by today's standards.
Maybe it isn't a PC thing. But it was easier and politer to say that than "Oh please tell me this isn't going to be something about how we're using green people to make a statement about how we are subjugating X people/culture/idea in today's world."
Maybe we're just fighting monsters for treasure and not attempting to play out today's world in the game? It was likely a response to what I considered (at the time) of thejeff's "that kind of game" comment that he has since explained. One gets a little gun shy when everything has to be filtered through a lens of what might be causing the latest kerfluffle.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Sorry, not sure what you are trying to say here?
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Right. If the players are willing to deal with the idea of racism, or sexism, or ism-ism and no one feels that the game is somehow being used as a way to attack them then all is well.
What is the default, though? Is there one?
As for being racist against PC races .. eh. See above. I'm not sold that all the PCs have to love all the races, or if we look at the Inner Sea that we shouldn't have cultural problems just because the PCs may be from Taldor or Cheliax or whatever. If handled by -- dare I say it -- mature players willing to communicate then it usually works out fine.
Edit to add: Sorry, but when I saw "that kind of game" in the above comment, it just comes across as sort of judgey to me, which is why I asked the question.
Wait, what just happened? We're not allowed to like The Keep on the Borderlands because of politically correct reasons or something? You aren't alone in liking the older modules nor in feeling, perhaps, that that we've gone a little too far being PC.
That last might just be me though. Also, I sort of liked weapon speed, although the weapon vs armor type was a little too much for me.