|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
To be fair no one is saying print is dead. To me at least it's dying a slow death. Between PDFs being cheaper. E-readers improving over time. A lack of space to store books. As well as a depreciation in the value of rpg print books. It will slowly become the medium of choice for most people. I'm sure their are people who like and enjoy 8 track tapes. I don't see a sudden renaissance in that format. He'll even VCR recorders are getting harder and harder to find in homes
Don't forget it's all piazo fault for making people buy new material. It's all their fault because DMs can't say no to their players. Or that gamers are not responsible with how their money is spent. That somehow new material equals forced to purchase. Option paralysis I'm not to sympathetic. Once or twice I can understand. More than that get over it, grow a pair and pick something already. It's playing a rpg. Not saving the world.
I'm in agreement with Joe Hex. WW was fine after the reboot. Once they got together with CCP. Is when things went downhill. Not to mention the reboot had to happen IMO. They painted themselves into a corner with the whole " all the game lines will end. Nothing the players can do about it" Unless the storyteller either ignores the metaplit. Made worse that later sourcebooks were tied into the metaplot.
For myself I want them to find the proper middle ground between flavour and crunch. Either something like a feat is either too good. Or not worth the paper it's printed on. I prefer print myself but realize PDF/POD is the wY of the future. Whether I like it or not.
Seconded pretty much what Rynjin has posted. In my experience I have had to double if not triple the go of certain Mocs. At one point the semi-optimized Gunslinger was one shotting the weaker variety of giants in my game.
If your running AOs. Rynjin #5 post is correct to damn correct. The bbegs are sonetimes so poorly designed it's not funny IMO.
As well the CR system for the most part does not work well either. A group of four characters even slightly optimized can defeat most encounters IMO.
Fatal and the people who wrote it have no redeeming qualities IMO. Sometimes people write something without realizing how offensive it can be. It's rare but it happens. The people who write the rpg. We're not only unapologetic. They even tried to defend the game.
As to those who decided to ignore my it others warnings about Fatal. You were warned. Ignore that at your peril.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Trust me I feel your pain. i had to unfriend someone on FB because he insisted on writing every detail of his life. Unless it's important. I don't need to know that a 9 am you brushed your teeth.
All I'm saying is to be careful. Sometimes a player will learn from his mistakes. In this case to carry a ranged weapon. Sometimes they don't. Which is a failure on their part and not the DM. One can't force the issue. Yet one cannot cater to someone who will not learn from his mistakes either. If the same player(s) keep forgetting or ignoring to take ranged weapons. I'm not going to stop throwing opponents who can fly at them.
I usually always have a sling at least.
I can see why some players don't use it though.
-it's too expensive at least for bows and crossbows
-require too many feats to be quite good at using it. To get that extra bonus to damage I need to be within 30 feet of the target. It kinds of defeats the purpose of firing from range.
- Have specific build in mind that focuses only on melee weapons
-player preference for roleplaying reasons or simply too stubborn to take a bow.
One way I DON"T suggest DMS force the issue. Is tailoring the game to force the player to use one. Not only do you come across a dick DM. Your putting the player in a uncomfortable situation at the table. It's kind of obvious when the player who has no bow suddenly keeps getting targeted by the nocs. To the extent that they ignore bigger threats. Eventually a player adapts or he/she ends up at a disadvantage against flying opponents. If any DM would pull that kind of BS with me. I would first try to talk to him/her. If that fails leave the game. Or if it's held at my place kick the DM out. People forcing their gaming agendas either as player or DM I don't put with anymore.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
To be fair if they don't want to be given advice then they should not be posting on Facebook. Or telling me in person about their troubles with their children. Don't tell me about how little timmy is being a pain at home and school then get mad when someone suggests advice. It works both ways. If one does not want to hear advice on their children. Then don't regal us with your tales of woe about your children.
The sad and frightening part is that despite what is said. Fatal at first was not a parody. It was apparently a serious attempt at a rpg. Those in the hobby insists its a parody because no one wants to believe that it was a serious attempt. Made worse when the developers of the rpg adamantly defended their game. When reviews pretty much tore it apart. Deservedly too IMO.
Before I forget DO NOT READ IT!!!!!
It's hard to describe my ex-player. Suffice to say it was like watching a person socially devolve. Never gave a care about anything but himself and his brother. Withdrew too much into mmos and online gaming because life threw him a few curve balls. I admit I did too once. But one can't hide from real life from withdrawing from it.
My player complained that my games lacked roleplaying. Yet had to be forced sometimes to interact with npcs. He lost a love interest because he refused to interact with the npc. Then wondered why another player had the love interest. Barely said anything at the table. Refused to show up to one of my games because he could not get a lift to the game. Thi is a guy who travels alot when it suits him. Refused to do game notes for "reasons" aka too lazy. If it was not a favored rpg refused to learn the rules. Had others make his character for him.
I wish it was your player. At least he had a reason for not engaging in game. My player simply does not give a truck about anything anymore. It's sad because you think that after alienating everyone around them it would be a walk up call to try and help themselves. Nothing. I don't even know if the player or his brother are still alive. It felt like being friends with them was like working a full time job.
The guy I kicked out of my game. While I did not give a hug. Did everything in my power to motivate to get into the game. It went nowhere. Sometimes one has to just walk away from a losing and soul sucking battle. Some people will not change and despite your best efforts and being friends or family the solution is to walk away. Life is too short.
Ha I not only get on your lawn. I seed it with pesticide resistant weeds.
Having gamed with 1E then 2E. RAW was not a term in those days. OR RAI. If it was I never saw it until 3E.
To be honest I never have seen anyone on the Wotc accuse Paizo of being in it for the money. If anything it's someone accusing Wotc of doing the same.
To me criticizing a company for doing what a company should be doing. Which is make a profit and offer most fans what they want. Is dumb imo. i know it's human nature but it does not make it any less dumb. It's like accusing Mcdonalds of making junk food. Unless it's a non-profit which many companies are not. Employees/bills need to be paid. The new books we get in print form are payed by profits that Paizo make. Fans fault them, Wotc or some other rpg company for being greedy or too profit oriented. I sometimes wonder if people are either too naive or have no clue on who business works.
To give a good example at one point the Canadian dollar was strong. Consumers assumed that the price of certain products would change overnight. Working in a bookstore people coming in thinking that suddenly books were the american price. Economics simply does not work that way. Say I buy 100 core PF books at 60$ I'm not going to sell them for 40-45$ no matter how strong the Canadian dollar was. Sorry but the company I worked for was not going to take a major loss in profit no matter how strong the currency was.
I don't see why PF would be considered a threat though. If some in the hobby want to stick with a certain edition of a rpg they can. If it happens that they either have a lack of player or DMs because everyone switiched over to the new edition. That's not the fault of the fans of the new edition or the company. Either adapt by learning the new edition or suffer in silence. I had a player who I kicked out of my current game. Who if I refused to play 2E or any Palladium rpgs was the stereotypical lump player from the GMG. At first I tried to work with him. Encourage him to participate. Eventually with other reasons I asked him to no longer come to the game. As a dM i'm in charge of more than one player. I can't help someone who won't help himself.
In the ned even if Paizo is more involved in the hobby. They still are a business that wants to make a profit. Maybe not profit oriented as Wotc. Yet I doubt the people working for the company are losing sleep because they are making a profit. If anything their involvement in the hobby is good PR that makes them more money. They of course do it because they like the hobby. They also know how to run a business as well.
Even if wotc was more involved in the hobby. Some would still accuse them of being greedy. Which goes back to the favored rpg and company can do no wrong.
Another sign. Automatically assumes a rpg is garbage unplayable without having played. Let alone read the rules. While hiding behind years of experience in the hobby. I don't care if you have 20,30 or even 50 years of experience in rpgs. If you never read a rpg then you really should not be judging the rules let alone crticizing them. Which happened alot when both 3E and 4E was released. Even more with 4E. Gamers were making opinions based on second or third hand information. As someone who read and played the rules I'm supposed to take your uninformed opinion seriously. Yeah...no.
What makes someone a Grognard
Going into long unwanted dissertations on how much better things were before rpg xyz came along. I can respect older members of the hobby liking a older version of a rpg. Unless I or others ask I'm in no mood to hear how things were better in the "good old days" .
Considers new younger members to the hobby a threat. Simply because they like to do things differently. Or like other stuff like mmos and newer rpgs. The irony here is that those members were they themselves treated the same way when rpgs threatened to replace board games. This hobby needs more members. A select few expect new members to essential be clones of themeselves. If they are not they are unwelcome.
A good sign. When they start a conversation by going "It's not that I'm against change". Then proceed to show everyone and anyone that yes they really don't like any change.
Their favored rpg is the best. No flaws whatsoever usually. With the company who publishes it above reproach. Rpgs they don't like they see flaws where their usually are none. The companies that publish them the spawn of the devil. A good example is some on this forum accusing Wotc of being greedy and wanting to make money. Last time I checked Paizo is not a non-profit. Who starts a business not wanting to make money.
With all due respect to Palladium apologists. Much if the flak their rpgs and KS is deserved to a certain amount. Having played since the first core book for Rifts was released. Their games are poorly organized. Have copy and paste errors that later printings usually do not fix. With important rules scattered all over the place. As for KS well his habit of sending Cease and Desist letters while his legal right to do so is not going to endear him to anyone. Not to mention the Robotech Kickstarter miniatures fiasco where people at Gencon received their minis before backers again did nothing to endear him to the KS backers. So let's not pretend that Palladium Rpgs and KS are innocent of any wrong doing either imo.
Mind you I still think that 2e Palladium Fantasy to be a decent game. Even if it suffers from "humans at the top of the food chain" simply because the devs have a soft spot for humans like too many fantasy rpgs. At the same time they offer monster races as pcs. Yet most of those races would considering their evil reputations would not be allowed 100ft near any town. village or city. I also like the magic system. So much better than the fire and forget magic system of D&D.
2E D&D is what Pathfinder is to 3.5. Very few minor rule changes but 80%+ is mostly rehash. I enjoyed that edition. But the level limits for demi-humans simply because the 2E devs were pro-human and unwilling to give humans as a race anything better than unlimited class levels was annoying to me at least. I'm getting penalized simply for taking another race other than human.
Myself I consider myself a Enlightened Grognard. While their a few things I hold sacred when it comes to rpgs. I'm also open to new experiences. If it makes me have fun more. Or a new version of a existing rpg easier to run. I get the newer version usually. I also don't find the newer generation of gamers to be such a threat to the hobby as others grognard do. Without new blood the hobby dies like any hobby. It's up to use to teach the newer generation to get interested in the hobby. If need be adapt and change.
Lord Snow wrote:
When Simmons tried to kill herself would have been a great opprtunity to show or at least have the character develop mutantphobia. Instead as long as bad stuff happened to strangers. She was good. Once someone who she was close to and had feelings for died. Then the mutantphobia suddenly is part of her character. Mind you in a world where there is people with powers both mutant and non-mutant. Targeting mutants makes little sense imo. Human Torch, Black Panther and Iceman. The first two get a free pass on racism. Iceman gets persecuted. It's not like mutants and non-mutants have a tattoo on their forehead that make them stand out. If Marvel really wanted to show racism properly then the fear would not be towards Inhumans and/or mutants. It would be against everyone and anyone who had superpowers mutant or not.
Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
My roommate tried to let me let him play an artificer EVERY FREAKING TIME I suggest a pathfinder campaign. He staunchly refuses to look at it as anything but an extension of 3e.
To be fair the core is pretty much a extension of 3E. Their nothing really in the core that makes it stand out in a major way from 3E imo.
While their is some unbalanced material in 3.5. There is some that is. Too often as some others have said. It's either a lack of understanding. Or were never that broken. I'm in a game with a good DM. He refuses to allow 3.5. material. I kind of respect but at the same time he has never read any 3.5. material. Someone told him that the 3,.5 material was broken and unbalanced. Which one should never take as the gospel truth imo. I once had a fellow gamer insist that DR/2 was not just broken and unbalanced it was game breaking.
Lord Fyre wrote:
It's not a major issue. I'm glad they show how much a hypocrite Simmons is. I just wish their would have been a buildup. While realistic it does feel like they tacked it on simply to push Inhumans.
Not sure if these have been mentioned yet. The "everyone says the class I like sucks and I'm a horrible person and useless roleplayer for taking it" meme. Yes I have seen a occasional poster say that about a class and/or player. By and large it's very rare. Instead it seems their a super secret evil player organization hellbent on telling others that everything is badwrongfun.
The "How dare you criticize Paizo. Your a bad person for doing so. Why are you still playing Pathfinder? Why are you here? Go play other rpgs". Again like above there are some rude posters. Most of the time it's criticism. Not always constructive to be sure. Yet last time I checked this forum and many others are not echo chambers.
As for APs a lack of plot opportunities has never been the problem. It's the design of the NPCs which has and remains a issue at least at my gaming table.
Matthew Pittard wrote:
I'm not too fond of how the suddenly have Simmons being so anti-mutant/Inhuman. If there would have been some kind of buildup or a episode where it's revealed that she secretly hates people with superpowers. One bad thing happens and because it's a fellow teammate that dies all of sudden she wants to kill those that are different for their own good. The character also comes across as a hypocrite. If it was a total stranger instead of Skye chances are good that he or she would be dead. Since it's a close friend and teammate it's not the same.
That being said I like the new look for the Inhuman/mutants in the series. Characters that look strange and bizarre. Instead of the usual human looking mutants like Cyclops that are persecuted. Yet a giant 8-10 ft tall orange talking rock (The Thing) gets a free pass. Simply because his powers came from a radiation cloud in space.
Matthew Pittard wrote:
Seconded. At the very least setting things up for what may come post Secret Wars. Many fans think the event maybe a giant reset button. It remains to be seen.
Matthew Pittard wrote:
I think this will not change imo. A show with too many good characters and not enough screen time. It's both the benefit and curse of a good show imo.
Most combats are actual fights. The way the Rogue class is designed. To use Sneak Attack requires the class to be within melee. Meaning they become targets of opprtunity as unless one is fighting a monster with low int. No intelligent npc or creature is simply going to stand still and allow the rogue to sneak attack with impunity.
I ran into a similar problem in 3.5. with the Ranger class. I houseruled that a Ranger with Two weapon style had access to medium armors. Light armor unless one has a build with a decent Dex is simply to easy to hit. A player refused to want to take Medium armor. Smart npcs are not going to make a straight line for the armored Fighter. Unless the Fighter is either a archtype or disguised by a illusion spell. Enemies are going to bypass them and go for lightly armored targets.
I hope your being sarcastic or joking. If this is what you truly beleive. I have a bridge or two for sale.
Possibly. Without knowing the level of gaming experience or system mastery. Your assuming way too much.
Gee players acting like normal players. Color me very shocked.
You think my players don't ask too use something new like a feat or archtype in a new or older book. As a player I do the same. Unless the DM allows only core. Players will ask to use non-core material. I see your point but not every player is out to screw the DM. My players if they would take a templated race with a level adjustment don't attempt to get around it. It's part of being a DM. Don't want to deal with that kind of stuff. Then don't run games. Being on both sides of the screen your not going to get much sympathy from me.
I suppose i have been lucky then. Beyond a few exceptions most players I Dm for have been honest. It also helps to take a look at their sheets.
Saying players main goal is to screw the DM is not only unfair. It's untrue most of the time imo.
5) Rogues are not a bad class to play. The sneak attack damage mechanic does not help them imo. Either a Rogue has to be in melee range or do a ranged build. In melee the vanilla Rogue does not have enough AC or hp to risk staying there for too long. My games rogue die. As most intelligent opponents don't stand there and simply allow someone to stab them in vunerable areas over and over again. Not to mention being easier to hit they are prime targets. Ranged Sneak Attack helps but it too is a pain in the behind to implement imo. If they allowed Rogues to move, sneak attack in melee then move again it would help the Rogue a lot imo.
It's not helped that they made trapfinding a feat in specific AP. Or that newer classes or older classes can do the same and better. The Rogue talents are a mixed bag. Either really good. Or the usual case of too situational or simply not worth taking. Even the newer classes such as Investigator I would still not use their version of sneak attack. As again they don't have the AC or hp to take the damage.
One can say they are not a pure melee class. But when their main ability needs them to be in melee. Most of the time they can't survive long enough melee. At least not without the DM playing intelligent foes smartly. Then it is a problem. Rogues in my game as a DM don't survive for very long.
While Conjurers in the hands of a player who knows what he is doing can be a pain for a DM at a table. Universalist mages unless they are being played by a beginner are even better imo. I have yet to see anyone say that a universalist mage is the worst choice. I made a mage specialized on crafting items for a 3.5 game. I was still able to contribute at the table. Whomever tells you that simply does not know what they are talking about imo
3) Power Attack is a decent feat. It helps for certain builds. I don;t think it's as good as everyone who says it is. Some lie myself take it because it's a feat tax as well as being useful.
The main problem I see is building a character that is non-optimized then wanting the character to be as as one that is optimized. Or at the very least with the right attributes. One can build a Bard with 12 Cha and one with 18 Cha. The first ones spells will fail more often than the second one. It's how the rules work. The first gives a +1 to DC to save vs spells. The second a +4.
1) Healers useless. I wonder which groups the Op is playing in. It's not that Healers are useless. It's that some players don't want to play Healbots all the time. Healing with Channeling while useful becomes somewhat less useful at higher levels. If it was a static number instead of rolling dice it would be different. A 11th level Cleric rolls 6D6 which may seem a lot. That assumes the player rolls high. If it was up to me I would allow Clerics to always heal at least a quarter to half damage on the Channel Energy rolls. At the cost of being able to use it less. Wen the Cleric heals allows at least nine or 18 hp. It's more useful imo.
The problem is it's all subjective. What's bad and broken for one table is good and not broken at another. My table we allow 3.5. material. Both players and Dms use it. As well both sides research the material first.
I'm also tired of DMs acting as if players want to pull a fast one them at every opprtunity. Some do but they are rare. Their is no super secret anti-DM player organization bent on ruining the fun for DMs. In the case of the OP I don't think the player was trying to pull a fast one. They might have simply thought what they wanted to take was not that powerful or broken. Again depending on the person.
I once had a fellow gamer on another forum attempt to convince me that DR/2 was gamebreaking and overpowered. Maybe at levels 1-5. After that it's anything but. With Paizo it's the opposite so many situational underpowered options. That are simply not worth the paper they are printed on imo. I would require a minimum six figure payment to take as a player. Craft Ooze is a good example imo.
I never considered Rogue useless as a class.
One of the main flaws is how sneak attack damage works. It's kind of hard to move in and sneak attack and then move away. I can tell you if Rogues somehow are able to keep doing sneak attack damage with impunity in game sessions. It's the DM going out of his way to help the player imo. When I'm a DM my npcs don't stand still allowing Rogues to constantly sneak attack. Rogues are prime targets. Having less hp and AC then combat classes Rogues tend to not have lasting power. It can be done with specific builds. Vanilla Rogue is easy to take out. Their is ranged sneak attack but it's a pain to implement as well.
The situation is not helped with some very weak and situational designed Rogue talents. Their are some useful ones yet if I played a Rogue I would need to be paid and very well to take some of them. Paizo did not help things either by making trapfinding a trait in one of their APs.
Playing Mortals was very difficult in OWOD. At least in NWOD it's not only possible it does not lead to almost instant death. Besides the metaplot in OWOD. It was how each different rpg was not meant to mixed together imo. Werewolves hated each other and mages and Vampires. It was the same with Vampire and Mage. I get that the OQOD devs wanted to go for a dark feel. But still. Unless the players and Storyteller came up with good backgrounds. It was very hard to do a mixed group of characters.
As for the metaplot I don't think it was so much having a mataplot. So much as one that painted them into a corner. No matter what. No matter which core book was used the world was going to end. The players could do their damn best to stop it. To no avail. Yes I know it's possible to play without. Except the company get building and releasing new material centered and built around the metaplot. I'm just glad that they removed the GO GO Eco-Rangers element from Werewolves with NWOD.
As for Exalted and the complaint about it's power level. That I never understood. They pretty much tell your from the start. That if your expecting to play a character beginning with nothing but a rusty dagger and codpiece to look elsewhere. I don;t know about anybody else but if a game advertises itself as being fantasy where players begin as being very powerful. Well I expect it to be just that imo.
I do think it's taking it too far. If all it takes is to have dwarven features, manners and behavior to be ugly. Then all other races by that defanation should be ugly as well imo. That's one way to make sure no one plays demi-humans in a campaign.
Then again I'm not sure if your serious or being sarcastic.
To be fair though when it comes to non-existing games. One does not have the same time. With marriage, having kids. Social engagements for some like myself. Having a regular weekly game is sometimes not possible. I can't exactly say "forgot about your kids birthday. Show up to the game anyway". Now if it's players cancelling at the last minute. Or telling a DM that he or she has some social engagement at the last minute it's one thing. I had a gastro a few weeks back. I could have gone to the game. While also possibly infecting everyone at the table. Sometimes a child gets sick during the night. I can't tell a parent to ignore that in favor of coming to my game.
To be blunt gaming is a pastime. A hobby. As much as I want to do it on a regular basis. I simply can't put aside life and responsabilites for as hobby.
It also depends if one has a social filter. Which not everyone has imo. I have been in public where some things were better left unsaid. Such as telling me exactly what was done in the bedroom. A good example happened to myself at a dinner table. I'm having dinner with a bunch of friends. One of them asked another how the relationship with his girlfriend. His response was " I (cesnored) her brains out on a daily basis". You could just hear a pin drop. The rest of the dinner was kind of ruined with that verbal bombshell. Then he wondered why some people at the table. Espcially of the opposite sex hated his guts. It's all context. If simply hearing the word sex puts one on edge. It's not simply being a prude. It's not normal imo.
As for having sex in public you would be surprised. I think more people engage in it. My brother used to work as a waiter a a reception hall. One of the other waiters caught a couple going at it in the parking lot. The manager was kind of cruel and found all the off duty waiters he could and they all began cheering. The couple made a speedy exit out of there.
I can respect someone for not wanting to hear about certain subjects. At the same time I tend to avoid socializing with such people as well. Not because I'm a jerk. I want to be relaxed when i'm with friends.
In terms of mechanics one does get some minuses of roles with a low cha. While not making social skills impossible. It does make them harder. As well as doing something like rubbing themselves with horse manure would get huge penalties in my game. Which no amount of roleplaying can remove. Having worked and been around people with bad body odour. No amount of charm, personal charisma or skill at public speaking is going to make anyone ignore the smell. Bribing people with money maybe. If you stink your charming repartee is not going to make me forget about it.
Well said Alex. I have noticed that a small minority of players want to build characters with low stats then either don't want negative ramifications. Roleplaying can only do so much. The lower the score the harder it should to overcome. A 5 cha is simply not going to be accepted with open arms at least at first. Eventually and with skill points and roleplaying. As well their only so many "I'm really a handsome well groomed, well spoken beautiful person cursed to be ugly" origin stories I'm willing to allow.
It also flies into the face of how we treat looks in society. Put two men or two women in a room. One attractive with no social skills. One average with good social skills. Chances are good that at least at first the one with the better looks will get more attention. Even after chances are good that he or she will have more attention. It's not to say that the average person has no chance. He or she does. It's just that we as a species focus on the more attractive first. I'm close to 41 years old and that has not changed really that much. To think that all it takes for someone to ignore appearence is how well they talk. Simply does not know how people think or act. If all I needed to get a date easily was being able to talk well. Then dating would be very easy. For better or worse as a species we want a person with both looks and intelligence.
In terms of rules a player with a low cha character is not useless. Far from it. It will take a decent investment and skill points as well as a minimum amount of roleplaying imo to succeed. Even then against a person with a high cha they still are at a disadvantage even if it's a small one. Chances are good that they character with the better score is also investing in skill points. I don't think it's fair to say that they will or should be equal at the table.
Torger Miltenberger wrote:
What i meant was not running the same game. Just that some in the hobby who run games. Seem to think that their irreplaceable. Without them no gaming can be had. While players outnumber DMs imo. Neither are we some sort of special rare commodity. With online gaming it's quite easy and fast if one is willing to adapt to that format to find a game. Or find players. It's quite possible to be playing with people from every corner of the planet and be in one home. Running the same game with the same notes. I could not see myself or another player running the same exact game if the DM moved on. I do agree it is kind of creepy. Kind of how like everyone suddenly has a interest in reading a dead author books. What makes them more readable then when he was alive.
Can I say I like your forum name and the avatar associaited with it. I can see a goblin with that name lol.
I'm hoping that if we ever get a ultimate skills book that we get some kind of mechanic. Even then it's one of the few times I would require at least some small amount of roleplaying on the part of a player. Otherwise we will start seeing too much "I'm so ugly that I break mirrors but I auto succeed on social situations because of my skill points" type of behavior at the table imo.
Off topic to a certain extent the game is a even split in ownership. Either side is free to either kick out a player. Or for a player to walk away. To say that all it takes is the death of a DM to make a game come to a full stop is simply untrue. If the DM who passes away is a close friend. Take some time grieving then move on and find a new DM. To be blunt to some DMs and being one myself. Get over yourselves. Your not some secret special super rare commodity. Your not. If I decided for whatever reason to stop running games today. My players would try to convince me to keep running. Failing that another player in the group replaces me. Or they find a new DM. As for kicking players out with impunity I suggest any DM who does that to run games at their homes and only there. I can tell you if I get kicked out of a game. Which is being held at my place. Your sure as hell no longer going to keep running the game. Even if I have to call the police to remove a DM from my home.
As for appearence despite a few exceptional people I think we as a society place too much importance on it. Take two people one attractive and one average looking. Even if the second one is a better public speaker we are more drawn to the first. I'm not sure if it's a sad reflection on our society. But I have yet to see it happen differently. Take dating sites. Too often from friends and strangers they want the most attractive person, physically fit, rich, smart sociable. When more often than not it's usually a mix of one two or if one is lucky three. Never the whole package imo. I have a male friend who is still single. He has all the excuses in the book in the end it comes down to wanting to date someone who is clearly out of his league. Scanning some profiles sometimes I feel like telling the person is their anything else you want to add to that extensive laundry list.
In my games I allow characters to dump Cha but I do tell them that they can't take higher than a 16 in a stat. Sometimes even a 14 if they want to invest heavily in social skills. Why the penalty if your a character that has low Cha and as a player you tell me that your roleplaying being more socialable. That mean less time to focus on everything else. So if a 5 cha character does his best to roleplay being more effective in social situations. It means less time developing Str or Con or both. It's only fair. When I was working out Between work and the gym I had little time do to do much else.
Well banning stuff because of realism is a PF meme imo. I can understand and respect wanting to ban something because a person dislikes. Just say so. Using realism as excuse to not come across as being restrictive is not fooling anyone. In my current game I have a Alchemist who can toss more than one bomb at once. It's a legal build. Is it realistic no. Then again in the default setting of the game it makes perfect sense.
as for violence and sex being spoken at the gaming table. It also depends on the comfort level of the table. I don't want intimate sexual details of what is done with characters at the table. Or what players do outside of it. Neither do I want to game with 20+ year olds who hide behind fake innocence either. If simply hearing " I made love to my wife yesterday" bothers or offends that's not normal social behavior imo.
Which 4E and 5E to some extent did fix imo.
In my neck of the woods having games for 15 or was it 20 years. As a whole I almost never had a player ask that I tone down the game to make it more realistic or belivable. With Dms at most it was no guns or science fiction elements in the game like psionics. Gamers play rpgs to get away from reality imo. We live it every day of every hour. Speaking for myself I don't want to live reality in a rpg. Not unless it's one set in the modern day. Even then with some rpgs it takes away from what makes it fun. If I'm playing Call of Cthulhu pre-7E I'm not going to remove the insanity mechanic even if it bothers my players or breaks belivability. As losing one mind when facing what the Cthulhu Mythos has to offer is one of the main selling points of the game.
Or Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay. Where a arrow if damage is rolled high enough can kill a character. Or Earthdawn where even a low level horror can cause a TPK.
I never have and never will exclude everyone or anyone who has a difference of opinion when it comes to D&D or any rpgs. I freely admit I will never see eye to eye with everyone or anyone on certain subjects. I simply refuse to take anyone who tries to ban something on realism in a more evolved version of pretend and make beleive. If it's a rpg that is based on realism it's one thing. Playing in a fantasy rpg where realism is the exception not the norm. That never made sense to me when I began in this hobby and never will until the day I did.
Having played in the hobby since the mid 80s with a variety of players over the years. I can count on one hand the times I have been asked by players to ban something on realism. Even then never in a fantasy rpg. In D&D or any other fantasy rpg I have never had someone ask me to make it realistic or more beleivable. If anything players or DMs banning stuff based on realism is the minority. I'm not saying it's universal. But simply because it happens at certain tables is not a indicator that it's common. How many people here can honestly say their players have asked them to reduce or remove elements from a fantasy rpg simply because of realism or because it breaks the suspension of disbelief. Even then it's not the default setting it's something that has been houseruled. You want realism in D&D then their go the arcane and divine casters. As they break the laws of reality and suspension of disbelief.
I'm not saying I would not do as my players ask. Just that it's kind of a strange thing to ask in a fantasy rpg imo. Want realism play rpgs sent in the modern era. Forgot about playing superhero rpgs because if anything they break realism or supension of disbelief even worse than a fantasy rpg. A supervillain who can make himself as big as Godzilla. Would collapse into the hole he made because of his weight. While that is realistic and belivable it's certainly not very superheroic.
When it's all said and then D&D is simply a more evolved version of a game of prented. With dice. So banning stuff in a game where one essentially throws realism out the window on general principles to me at least makes no sense. If a person wants to disallow say Leadership then just say so. I can tell you that banning stuff for realism at most tables will get you mocked at worst. A few raised eyebrows in the least.
If what makes no sense about the whole caster vs martial debate. Just because casters have access to magic they can break reality. Have a martial try and climb a smooth surface on a wall. Or leap from roof to roof easily in heavy armor suddenly breaks realism. In the end it's simply either wanting characters to remain in their roles even if it means nerfing martials. Or as it's put on these forums Martials can't have nice things.
Here are two joke feats I made at a table once during a break.
Grounded in reality
pre-requistes: Any martial class. DMs with the Martials can't have nice things feat.
If any martial class attempts to do anything other than swing a weapon. Or a combat manuever in a game session. The player must save vs DC 1000 or remain firmly grounded in reality. If by some miracle the DC is beat. Then a player can do other stuff then swing a sword or a combat maunever.
Improved Grounded in reality
pre-requistes: Any martial class. DMs with the Martials can't have nice things feat and It's not realistic feat.
the DC is now 2000
The default setting is as Rynkin pointed out consistent. Meaning that many fantasy rpgs also have similar elements. Realistic not by a long shot. Are really going to refer to a made up setting of a rpg realistic. Of all the examples to use World of Synnibarr that rpg is imo designed from the ground up to be as unrealistic. It makes Rifts look realistic. I remember a character class a archer type I think. That could do about 10000 points of damage in one shot.
Let me tell you take ten experienced players of D&D. Completer strangers. Ask them two questions. Should a DM ban material because they don't want it in a game or because it's realistic. As well as ask if D&D is realistic. I would hazard to guess that half if not more would say ban the material because they don't want it in cases. Followed by D&D is not realistic. By it's nature a rpg is anything but imo. I'm immersing myself in a more involved version of pretend. It's a big warning sign to me at least that if a DM is throwing out realism as a excuse to ban something that chances are good we will not be able to game at at a table.
The chapter on magic details a imaginary magic system. It's consistent within the rules.Not in the least based on reality. Wiccans are not looking at the Pathfinder Core section on magic and going "I can use that to cast spells".
That's the funny thing. It was not even trying to prove that it was broken. Simply double standards when a person is both a DM and player. What applies to players in their games as a DM. Suddenly no longer applies to them as a player. Not only wanting the candy store. As well as the factory where the candy is produced. Made worse when they think your picking on them. If for example we both agree in a mutual dislike of Gunslingers. Why would I suddenly allow a person to take the class in my games.
As far as I'm concerned it's not being vindictive it's proper tactics. Maybe not so much the water barrels but sunder/disarm are all valid tactics against any class whose features are based on a weapon.
Except the default setting for the most part is as unrealistic as can be imo.
I have no problem with someone banning something they don't like or want in their game world. Just be upfront about it being a dislike. Trying to cloak it in the realism argument is not fooling anyone. It's hard to take someone seriously when their Ok with Dragons and every other creature or element that breaks realism in a setting. Suddenly guns are not realistic. Casters of both types can summon creatures of out of nowhere to help them in fights. Which pretty much breaks apart the whole realism argument imo.
Now if D&D was built as a realistic fantasy rpg the realism argument would imo have more merit. If I tried realism as a excuse to ban something from my table my players would laugh and ask if I was feeling well. Or if I was joking and being serious. It's like some in the hobby who are against change. Thinking that by starting the sentence by saying "it's not that I'm against change" when all that does is tell everyone in the room that your not only against change. Chances are good your in denial about it.