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

memorax's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 2,227 posts. No reviews. 1 list. 1 wishlist.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,227 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I just don't see how it takes so much effort not to swear.

It's not so much the effort. So much as having to worry if any word is offensive to a person. I actually got told at work "buddy language" after saying the word dammit. I had just banged my elbow into the wall. One can also say is it that hard to actually stomach a swear word or two as well.

Liberty's Edge

Vincent Takeda wrote:


So your philosophy is that the purpose of the forums, for people in general, who share in varied interests in varied conditions, within a very diverse hobby... is to combat those that have opposing points of view for you as a higher priority than likeminded gamers coming together... Where I see the forums as a way for gamers to come together to meet like minded individuals within the gaming community, you see the forums as a way for gamers to come together to meet individuals whos mind is most like your own and to instigate against those who dont... Marvelous. Gotcha.

I do think their is a difference in having opposing viewpoints. And one where a poster paints a entire generation of gamers in a negative way. Saying that the current generation of gamers can't roleplay because of computer games and mmos. While blaming Pathfinder. Is not conductive to having a good discussion. I'm 40 and probably your age or close to it. So while I was not offended too much by it. I do think it's being unfair. This hobby needs new blood. It can survive eternally with older gamers imo. Maybe it was not your intention but it does kind of come off as insulting.

A potential gamer in their early teens to mid twenties. Comes on the forum and lurks in the background without making a account. After reading some of what gets posted here. With all due respect to some members of this forum. Your not doing the hobby any favors. Your really not. If I was getting into the hobby and reading some of the BS some of the older members post here. I can tell you I would not enter the hobby. It's also some what of a insult at Paizo as well. I have had my share of disagreements with the devs. Accusing them of being responsible for the decline of gaming. Is simply not true.

As far back as 1E their were problem players. It's not something that suddenly came into existence with 3E. I had a player who I known for years. Who a few months ago I asked to leave my game. Unless we played Palladium he simply shut down at the table. Was there simply because his brother was there. I put up with it for so many years and enough was enough. It was not the only reason it was a bunch of others. My first gaming group I am ashamed to say were and still act like some stereotypes of the hobby. I also don't came with them. Nor hangout with them anymore.

I think at this point VT were not going to agree. I was kidding about archiving my posts as well. I know your not maybe the NSA or CSIS as I'm Canadian. All I'm saying is be careful what you post. Expect a negative reaction if it's going to be a inflammatory kind of post. Those are the kinds of posts that usually get a strong reaction imo.

Liberty's Edge

LazarX wrote:


Similarly, I find it shocking that in this thread just how appalling lacking are many folks are in basic civility, and how some seem to have been either totally raised without manners, or simply glory in that lack of them. Some seem determined to cling to that subhuman stereotype about gamers that the rest of us have been trying to prove is utterly wrong.

Where is this coming from. I was raised with manners. I'm willing to accomdate another person if my behavior bothers them. I'm not going to bend over backwards either. I don't curse as a sailor. I admit to sometimes swearing and cursing under stress or injury. But I can't be around someone who with a simple swear word is offended on a regular basis. I want to relax when I'm with friends or family. Not constantly worry about what I say and having to tiptoe on eggshells. If I can't do that then I'm simply not interested in hanging out with that kind of person. Most people won't either imo.

Liberty's Edge

Digitalelf wrote:


I don't go out of my way to avoid someone that lets slip the occasional profane word or two, but if I call that person friend, and that person claims to call me friend as well, yet that person just refuses to even try and make a sincere attempt to avoid using profanity around me, I have to wonder... As I do my best to not do something that I know offends or annoys the people I call friends, no matter how small or insignificant I personally see the action.

Well I would do the same. The trick is to let them know. Too often it's assumed that for example a person who swears should know ahead of time that it bothers someone. If I was your friend I would make a effort not to swear. Not telling me anything and assuming I will figure it out is not the best way to go about it imo.

The reason why I say it can be social awkward is the context. Among friends sure profanity and cursing can be kept to a minimum. In a public place like a bar or a sport event. One can ask for less profanity. One will simply be ignored. Or depending on the area and the mood of the person get into a fight.

Liberty's Edge

I'm not saying I swear for the sake of swearing. I just can't be around a person(s) where I have to scrutinize every single word I say. Like Freehold has pointed out. Sometimes in the heat of the moment like a injury one will swear. In that context instead of worrying about what was said. Worry about the injured person. Even then make sure to point out if one is offended by swear words before a conversation begins. I'm not going to live my life figuring out which person is or is not offended by swear words. It's the same way when inviting people over to dinner I expect to be told of any food allergies or restrictions on the menu. I also make a point of asking as well. Showing up to a all meat BBQ then complaining of a lack of vegetarian or vegan option is on you. i'm from Montreal and I know of a place where the chef will simply say "you have a food restriction well then you can't eat here go elsewhere". Not what I would do. But I'm not the owner.

I also agree with the anti-swear words. It's the same thing. Saying Dang instead of damn is still the same thing. Calling crap HAW (human atomic waste) is still the same thing. I'm more of a live and let live. Some don't mind swearing. Some do. Both sides should respect the other. But at the same time their is a limit to how much once should accomadate another person. While I want the other person to be comfortable. I also don't want to have to walk on eggshells at all times. My social circle and myself used to hangout with a person that insisted at eating at only kosher restaurants. Once, twice three times after a point he simply was no longer invited. We decided as a group that we were not in the mood to eat at josher only restuarants. As well he ate non-kosher meat when it suited him.

Liberty's Edge

I don't like too much profanity myself. But if every single swear word bothers a person. Then it's a bit much. Sometimes if I hit my hand with a hammer or bang my elbow into a door. Well I can tell you that I might say a swear word or two. Or more. I can respect not wanting to hear profanity. I will never ever respect low self imposed tolerance levels. When one is certain age it comes across as being social awkward. I used work with a person that every single swear word even as simple as the word damn was considered offensive. Then he wondered why no one wanted to hangout with him after work. Or never said anything to him beyond a simple Hello or Hi. When it comes to other people if I have to walk around on eggshells at all times. I rather keep my dealings with that kind of person to the absolute minimum.

Mind you I once had to tell one of my ex-players to tone down the details of what he did in the bedroom. IT was great that he was happy with his girlfriend. Myself and others at the table did not need to know the amount and variety of sexual positions being done in the bedroom.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So basically you want to come here. Say whatever you want to say. No matter how negative or inflammatory. Then get called out on it and cry foul and act like some sort of victim. Ok I can't stop you from doing that. All I'm saying is if one wants to engage in such behavior. To take responsability for it. I'm not impressed with this new social movement. Where somehow one can say what they want. Yet somehow be immune to feedback or criticism. If a posters is going to come here. Draw a line in the sand by picking a side. Then say negative comments about the other is asking to be crticized imo.

Coming here and accusing both the mmo generation and Pathfinder as a rpg for the downfall of rpgs. Implying that it's not only a opinion but a fact. Well VT did you honestly think that would go over well with some here. It goes back to wanting to say whatever a person feels like while being immune to feedback or criticism. One can it have it both ways.

Vincent Takeda wrote:

Being 'free to disagree' is one thing.. But its not really your thing. Is it?

You're totally free to disagree with me but i'm not as totally free to disagree with you.

Are you archiving or saving everything I post on these forums. It's starting to creep me out somewhat. As rest assured I'm not doing the same. The post you referenced was from the same bloat thread. Again with a difference that you seem to want to ignore.

Some posters go into those threads that criticize Paizo and tell people to leave and find another rpg. Simply because I or others dislike a rule or feat or the design process. I'm not telling you to leave or find another forum. Post whatever you want. Disagree as much as you like with my posts or others. All I'm saying expect the same in return and take responsability for what is posted. Espcially if it's a negative or inflammatory post.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vincent Takeda wrote:


What a curiously poetic, emotionally charged, and curiously specific choice of words to describe the 'modern' gamer... These guys really sound like they know whats up. This seems like a pretty significant issue.

Yeah nice try. That post you referenced was taken from a bloat thread. Which imo has nothing to do with this topic. I was never referencing any modern gamer in the least. I was pointing out that complaining about Paizo releasing new material. Then trying to come across as a victim by saying that one is forced to buy new material. No one is forced to buy anything. It's like a raging diabetic who keeps eating donuts. Then complains that he is forced to eat then because Dunkin Donuts keeps producing them every day.

Hardly anything close to "oh these modern gamers with their mmos and player entitled attitudes. It's them and Pathfinder that are ruining the hobby. Nothing anyone says will ever change my mind about that" stance that your taking.

Again your more then welcome to post here. At the same take responsability for what you post as well. Posters want to come here. Post whatever they want positive and negative. Then when it bites them in the behind because it causes a negative reaction. They get angry, offeneded and defensive. You can't have it both ways. Go to a forum. Post whatever you like despite the content. Then play the victim when it gets a negative reaction.

Which applies to me as well. If I ever post something inflammatory or negative such as blaming the ruin of rpgs to Pathfinder and a modern crowd. I expect the rest of the forum to do the same thing. I don't think people understand or want to understand that Freedom of speech is a two way street. A person is allowed to say what they want. Everyone else is allowed to crticize what they say. As freedom of speech does not suddenly make one immune to criticism.

Liberty's Edge

Some of us don't agree with VT posts. Do I also need to apologize for doing so now as well. If some posters on this forum want a echo chamber tell me. I probably won't alter my posts to accomdate that kind of forum. I can respect his point of view even if I don't agree with it. Again people come here write topics and/or posts that are guaranteed to get a negative reaction. Then simply expect no reaction by doing so. I love the double standards but pretty much the usual for this forum.

Liberty's Edge

Vincent Takeda wrote:


Its an opinion about a fact.

Again your not doing yourself any favors. It is by no means a fact. In your opinion and only opinion that Pathfinder gamers are ruining gaming. I played with enough 1E and 2E players and DMs who did not ruin the game but made it a pain to be in the hobby. Does that mean that 1E and 2E players factually ruined the hobby not in the least.

Liberty's Edge

There is nothing wrong with having a difference in playstyle. It's when others hear and elsewhere insult a certain playstyle. A good example is a person playing mmos automatically means the person playstyle and mindset at the table is geared to that and only that. Sometimes it is and sometimes it's not. One gets tired of being lumped into a certain group or playstyle. Nor does it do anyone favors here or elsewhere. Why would I want to play under a DM who has such a dismissive attitude to my playstyle or my hobbies.

As well terms like Grognard get thrown about because somehow before third edition. Their never was any problems or problem players. Somehow minimaxers/optimizers etc suddenly came into being once the 3E PHB was printed. All I'm going to tell you guess again. We had all that with 1E and 2E. No one I played with almost never wanted to play a Paladin. From the alignment restriction to the absurd stat requirements. It's not exactly easy to roll a 17+ on 3D6. Being told that unless one is going to play a certain way and only that way will some in the hobby even consider playing with others again does no one here or outside of the forums.

How exactly does that help a person imo. I could never play with someone who has such a onetruwayism and only that was as a phiosophy. Respect it sure but never play with a person like that. Their too much of my view and only my view in the hobby. It's not to say I don't sometimes do the same but it's rare. I consider myself a enlightened grognard. Their certain views on rpgs and non-rpgs that I will never change. I also know that change is not always bad. Or that the generation who plays mmos and computer games and later editions of D&D are not hopeless souls because they refuse or never played any pre-third edition of D&D.

Finally if one mind is made up on a topic please refrain from posting here. It's really starting to bother me how some come here expect validation or "atta boy" comments on what they post. Not get that and get very defensive and insulted. While I try to be polite when I can and not always succeed. If for example one asks if they were being a bad DM and they were. Then get the majority of people telling them that they are and get angry and defensive then don't bother asking for feedback. If all one wants to hear is that no they are the worlds greatest DM then save yourself the trouble and time. That being said some here could be somewhat more diplomatic in their responses as well. But were also adults as well. I will be polite when I respond to a poster. I'm also not going to sugercoat what I say either.

Liberty's Edge

Your more than free to post what you want on a forum. Just like others are free to respond to it as well. In a positive or negative way. I'm getting tired of posters coming here. Verbal barrels ablazing. Then when it gets a negative reaction cry foul and act like a victim.

Liberty's Edge

Haladir wrote:
...and I still don't hire people if they cuss during the job interview.

Not even remotely the same thing imo. I would not hire someone who swears in a interview either. If the person interested in the job can't be professional it goes to someone who can. But being bothered by the occasional swear word. Or even just "damn I almost I died". Is trying to hide behind fake innocence as far as I'm concerned. If any swear word offends a person then they can't go to a sports event or any similar kind of event where emotions run high. Try telling someone "buddy language" at a sports event and see where that gets you.

As for Freehold it's obvious he is going to try and milk it for all it's worth ;)

Liberty's Edge

Rules will needed were not something that was usually fun or that we wanted to do at a table with older editions. As such discussions needed both DM and players to be level headed. A minimum amount of rules lawyering as well. We tried keeping rules discussions to a minimum because all we wanted to do is both run and play a game. Who wants to sit around a table and discuss what rule XYZ vs rule abc means. It's not to say that with Pathfinder and later editions it does not happen at our tables. Compared with 1E and 2E we have hardly had any problems with the rules. Nor is that a bad thing imo.

I also think the market has changed as well imo. Gamers want to play with RAW as much as possible instead of trying to figure out what a rule is trying to say. While it's all well and good to say play whatever you want. The system as it is really does not help certain concepts imo. Sure one can build a really smart fighter with low str and con. But if he expects to be as effective as a Fighter built the usual way. Good luck. Not unless the DM gives a helping hand. Or plays the smart fighter as staying out of combat. With other rpg systems such as Hero System and Gurps one can build both types of Fighters effectively.

Dump stats are more common know then they were in previous editions imo. Want to build a character with a low con go right ahead. Good luck coming back from the dead. Dex actual made a character harder to hit from missile weapons. I know some may not like being called Grognards but if you think that pre-third edition, pre-mmo was some kind of gamers paradise. I suggest you remove the rose colored glasses spray painted black and take a good hard look at that time. It was not a bad time to play rpgs. It's certainly not the unrealistic, stress free nostalgia utopia some make it out to be.

Rynjin wrote:

There's a whole lot of ignorant hostility and nostalgia tripping in this thread.

"Back in my day, men were men and gamers were gamers and everything was perfect and everybody and everything today is doing it wrong *Waves cane wildly*".

Get over yourselves.

Very much agreed and seconded. Then the same people wonder why no to little new blood is coming into the hobby. With all due respect insulting the younger generation and their liking of playing mmos and a proper set of rules is not exactly very welcoming. While I treat both players and dms with all the respect that is due. Having been on both sides of the screen I don't expect or demand it. Nothing makes me want to leave a table as a player faster than a DM pulling a guilt trip on how much more work they have to do. Been there, done that get over yourself.

Liberty's Edge

CommandoDude wrote:


1. Forgot to pay my share for Pizza.

While I would have offered to pay without being asked. If it bothered them so much why not ask. If it's one thign that bothers me it's when something bothers another person yet they don't say anything about it. Expecting a person to read their minds.

CommandoDude wrote:


2. I was not chipping in for snacks.

I can understand if everyone else was and you were not. But if no one else is chipping in for snacks. I don't see why you were singled out.

CommandoDude wrote:


3. Drinking the host's milk.

Well this I think is a mistake on your part. Even if it was ok at first. They did tell you not to drink the milk. Even if I find the new reason somewhat laughable. When I go buy juice if it's game week I tend to buy more than usual in case someone wants some. The milk as well.

CommandoDude wrote:


4. Problem with cursing.

I can understand if a person curses like a sailor. Or has a child in the house. But if all it takes to be offended is one or two curse words. All i can say is I'm not impressed with the "fake innocence". As a child being bothered by swear words I understand. Past 15 years old it's time to grow a pair and/or seek professional help imo. My gaming table either you get over that particular hangup or seek a new game elsewhere. As were not going to put up nor enable anyone who pretends to hide behind fake innocence.

To sum up. I don't think you should have been kicked out. But look at it this way. Now you know what to expect and do it differently at another game table.

Liberty's Edge

I do think roleplaying class features should only be done rarely. I see some saying that a Wizard without a book is not useless because he can use wands, scrolls and potions. All well and good. Except do I also need to roleplay getting a wand, potion or scroll. Having to roleplay every single item or class feature does get annoying after awhile. As well do come up with a better example then saying that a Barbarian without Rage is the same as a Wizard without a spellbook. It's not even remotely in the same league imo. A Barbarian can still hit and do damage. Take more damage than a Wizard as well as being somewhat harder to hot. While only being slightly less effective. A wizard without a spellbook, scrolls, wands or potions. Is simply a commoner left with a ranged weapon and not really good with it.

Liberty's Edge

Death_Keeper wrote:


You don't seem to understand my point in that section of the post... I'm not asking for much. For your Rogue to Fighter example... If there is a fighter in the group, or even a ranger, or /SOMEONE/ the captain of the guard of the main town... the barbarian bandit that they befriended... Have the rogue talk to them about, "What is it like to swing around such a massive weapon?" "How do you survive combat when you are being hit that much?"

Understood. I do expect some of the above to happen. One also has to be careful how long one drags out such roleplaying. If I multiclass into a Wizard and roleplay it. I expect to get a spellbook within 3-5 game session. Or simply ask if I could just be a single classed character. There is a fine line between roleplaying and feeling useless at the table. If I multiclassed into a fighter while being a Rogue. Without better armor I'm not going to charge into combat. While roleplaying is all well and good I don't play sucidal characters fro any DM.

Death_Keeper wrote:


Have the character Act like a person... People have to learn things. I just think that people should roleplay at least an interest in something before they are bestowed powers from the rulebook...

While I agree it also depends on the players at the table. If they have a interest in doing that kind of roleplaying I work with them to achieve it. If not I can;t very well force the players to do so. It's a bit of give and take on both parties imo.

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:


Why can't you roleplay it? Or at least give the GM some indication so he can work something in?

How is a wizard without a spellbook going to roleplay being one. Without a spellbook. Once he cast his spells. He can't re-learn them without spending a hour with a spellbook. Now it's different if a multiclassed Sorcerer. Some class choices can be roleplayed easily. Some not so much. All a Wizard can do is cast spells when he needs to. While fun roleplaying at first not so much because once all the spells cast. Your reduced to firing a ranged weapon or nothing at all. Or at most a skill resource.

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:


Frankly, if you're not willing to either make a character who will easily fit in or come up with reasons why your character does fit into the campaign, I question your interest in the campaign. You may want to play Pathfinder, but not have thought at all beyond that to the specifics of the proposed game.

I will if possible try to make a character fit in a DM campaign. Sometimes give a reasons why he would fit or the choices I made. And sometimes I don't. It all depends on the class and the campaign. Sometimes if I'm playing a melee class. Sometimes all I want to do is travel, acquire wealth and crack a few skulls. I may use that to expand on a background. Or I may not. It's not easy to come up with backgrounds imo. Not only that depending on the DM. It can be from a paragraph or two to a a mandatory five page+ backstory. Again sometimes I'm in the mood to write a extensive background sometimes I'm not. I try to work with a DM but if I can and he or she insists on a long essay I may or may not walk from the game.

thejeff wrote:


Like playing Skull and Shackles with a character who's got no interest in pirating. What are you doing there?

That kind of player behavior has not happened to me very often. But even I would not work to hard to incorporate such a player. A few months back I dropped a player who was pretty much the defination of a "lump" playstyle from the GMG. He loved playing Palladium rpgs and when it came to those rpgs he would come up with the best backgrounds. Any other rpgs he was lazy as heck. Simply stating "make me a character". No input or help. After a certain point I had enough.

That being said I do wish posters would stop using such extreme examples. Really how often does a player join a pirate themed campaign with the intention of not playing a pirate.

Liberty's Edge

Death_Keeper wrote:


I, me personally, as a DM would ask for an explanation. If the character was halfway down a dungeon and goes 'the rules say I can multi-class into whatever I want' I would put on my best DM shoes and say. No. Simple as that.

That I can understand as I too don't simply allow someone to multiclass in a dungeon. At the very least when they get a chance to rest. I don't see the need to explain or give a reason for every choice on a character sheet. Or rarely. Only when I or a a player are roleplaying out of character. If a player to use your barbarian hating magician suddenly decides to become a wizard. Then I will either say no. Or if I allow it expect the player to roleplay a very confused individual.

Death_Keeper wrote:


HOWEVER. If my character is level 2, and tells me they are 'seeking out a person who wields a gun' so that they can 'learn from him'... and then they want to take a level in gunslinger. That is fine, that is roleplaying.... Maybe they never find him and have to keep looking... But just saying BOOM I'm a wizard, behold my glory... where did my spellbook come from? Oh IDK, LOLZ I'm a wizard now.

Then I suggest no allowing anyone to multiclass then. If I start as Rogue then want to become a Wizard. I can't very be one without a spellbook. At the very least I would let them find a spellbook down the line. Sure it may not be realistic in terms of roleplaying but it's allowed by the rules. In the same way if a character playing a Rogue wants to multiclass being a Fighter. I would not allow a the player to suddenly get a suit of full plate. I would allow him to get it eventually. no one going to multiclass if every instance is penalized simply because one can't roleplay it imo.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't mind sometimes explaining everything I put into a build. Sometimes only sometimes. I'm playing D&D. Not answering a questionnaire or applying for a job. Even then only if I ask to play something that the DM might possibly ban. Or if I want to take some rule or class that is not from the core or 3pp. I can understand say if it's a Gunslinger or a rare class in Golarion. If I want to take a two weapon ranger I don't see the need to give a long dissertation or essay for every single choice. Beyond "i'm in the mood to play a character with two weapons". One of my players wanted to play a Gunslinger. Another a Aasimar. Both freely gave background elements without being asked. They would have simply walked out if I asked for a reason for every choice made on the character sheet.

While their is a limit to what one can ask from a DM realize their is also a limit to what a DM can reasonably ask from players. If I asked for a long dissertation or essay on every player choice when I run games. Or if someone else ran a game. They and myself would rapidly no longer have players. Possibly even blacklisted. I can tell you this if I'm forced to give a dissertation or essay on a character choice as a player I'm doing to same to you as a DM. Fair is fair. Give me a anti-gunslinger rant as a DM then want to take one as a player you can bet I'm going to ask why.

To say that someone who refuses to do so is not a roleplayer. Is not only a galaxy sized cop-out it's also insulting. Some on this forum either have some very forgiving players. Or they are simply the only one willing to run games. I can guarantee in my neck of the woods accusing someone of not being a roleplayer without a very good reason. Is not going to be invited to any games.

Liberty's Edge

wraithstrike wrote:

Here is another one:

OP:Hey guys what do you think about me doing ______

99.9% of us in unison which almost never happens: That is not a good idea. <list a few alternatives>

OP: Well I think my idea was great and then follows up with some insult

99.9%: More ideas to counter the OP

OP: <very much upset> goes into rant, sometimes with more insults included

Basically they did not really want advice. They wanted people to agree with them, and got mad when almost nobody supported them.

Fortunately this seems to have become less lately. I do agree that sometimes it's not really not asking for feedback. More like seeking "atta boy" kind of validation.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

A new one.

Posters who complain about posters who seems to hate alignment, hit points, Vancian casting, SoD/SoS spells. While also telling them to leave and play another game.

A message board is simply not a echo chamber. Don't like a certain topic don't post in it. And no your not doing Paizo or yourselves or the hobby any favors by doing so either.

Liberty's Edge

magnuskn wrote:

"Murderhobo". No other term on this forum gets my hackles up like this one.

I already feel that gamers in general tend to verbally punch themselves in the face way too often. But this is one of those concepts which, if you'd explain it to anyone who is not a gamer, would just confirm every stereotype "normal" people have about gamers.

Aside from that, the concept of a "murderhobo" is disgusting and offensive. It's very probably just me, but when someone refers unironically to their character or group as "murderhobo(s)", I cringe in disgust.

Seconded. Your not the only one.

I do the same when someone posts that one can't both roleplay while having a effective character.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:

So here's mine: People who ask for advice on how best to realize their cocept, but get all mad when someone suggests a better way to realize that concept. Especially when they respond with something like "Look, I'm not trying to optimize/power game this here".

Then why did you bother making a thread asking for advice on how best to do this mechanical thing that has pretty much nothing to do with your concept? Just do it, if you truly don't care about how it turns out.

*Facepalm*

Very much agreed and seconded. Fortunately it's been very rare in my cases. Yet it is annoying when it does. For example a player in one of my first 3.5. games wanted to make a multiclass monk/bard yet still be as effective as a regular Monk in melee. More than once I tried to tell the player to play a single class monk. Or accept that to a lesser degree he will be less effective. Ignores my and others advice then complains the entire time that they single class monk is better than his character.

Option/analysis paralysis

Yes the game has many options. Too many sometimes. While I'm willing to work with a player who suffers from it. I do have a limit to how much. After a point either get over it. Or look for another group. It's a set of rpg rules. Not the procedure to use to save the world.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Threads that are started by posters who want mention in the original post that they want to hear about both sides of a topic. In reality it's a thinly hidden validation thread. For example asking if Pathfinder has too much bloat. Then when the response is usually towards the negative getting unhappy that the other forum members don't agree.

Going into a complaint thread and complaining about the complaining. It happens way too often. As long as a poster(s) are being respectful let them post about what feats/classes/etc they don't like. Nothing bothers me more when a poster comes along and verbally wags their finger accusing myself and others for being bad people because we dare to criticize Paizo. I'm purchasing their books. Damn straight I'm going to point out something I don't like.

Posters who spout terms like minmaxers, optimizers, bloat, broken like it's going out of style. Funny enough some of us can make a character that is both good at roleplaying while making him effective at the table as well. No reason by one has to be exclusive to the other. Paizo releases new material. Unless someone is holding a gun at your head no one is forced to use it.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lore the Seeker wrote:

The Paizo mantra remains; "all you need are the CRB and if you GM, the Bestiary."

/End Bloat threads.

You think but apprently those complaining about bloat . Are either being held at gunpoint forced to use new material. Or simply act like every new book means the death of Pathfinder as a whole.

Liberty's Edge

What I don't like

Save or suck spells/effects.
Both as a DM and player they are simply not fun. In one session I had to alter some of the outcomes of a spell as most of the group failed their saves. A high level npc casting Prismatic Spray. One of the options for that spell is being struck twice. Imagine being insane and gated to another plane.

Skills

Why does a fighter not have Perception. The frontline character. The one taking the damage. As well they don;t offer much as one levels up. It would be nice for a skill to improve or time as well. Higher ranks means it takes a move action to notice something.

Feats.

Either feats need to be taken because of feat taxes. Which I don't like. Mostly a lack of feats that hit the proper middle ground. What i mean is that either a feat is really good. Perhaps too good. Or simply not worth taking. With the description of the feat not matching what the feat can actually do.

Art

I'm finding that the art is start to look too alike for my tastes. Nothing stand out. At least with 3.5. and having different artist it was not a problem.

Faq/Errata

That instead of helping resolve a issue make it even worse. As well too often at the whims of Pathfinder society. When a rule/feat/trait gets banned before the book containing is even released their is a problem. Not to mention sometimes it feels like the devs simply don't listen. We ask for a feat that allows us to apply dex to damage. What we get is either not worth taking. Sometimes confusing and not worth taking.

Liberty's Edge

Here the thing though no matter how feedback or criticism is phrased it's seen a attack on Paizo. I get if it was something rude. Many times it's not. I have the ACG. For the most part I like the material in the book. I'm still going to warn someone to either get the PDF or wait until the second printing because it's edited badly.

Liberty's Edge

Silver Surfer wrote:

Lets not exaggerate shall we.....

I dont see the point in adopting the "Lets all keep that stiff upper lip shall we chaps?" mentality if we see something we dont like/disagree with....its very sheep like

What IS weird is why you would waste oxygen on a thread that you have nothing but contempt for... ?!?!

Get used to it imo.

Every now and then one to a handful of posters feel the need to make brownie points with the Paizo staff. Going into threads such as these. Verbally wagging fingers on how you, I or others are truly bad people. For daring to criticize Paizo.

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:


I think that "Any rpg that has more than just the core book is too big" is an extreme position, even among those who find PF bloated.

Normally I agree. But let's be honest. As soon as a new book is announced from Paizo.It's assumed that the bloat will go out of control. So far the game seems to be surviving.

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:


Cthulhu has that many Core books? Plenty of adventures and supplements for different eras and settings.

Actually they just released 7E awhile back, Unlike the previous versions which simply were rehashes with different production values. 7E address some of the flaws of COC.

thejeff wrote:


Does 6th Edition really have 6 rule books that you'd actually wind up using together for anything but a time travel game?

I was simply pointing out that according to some in this thread. Any rpg that has more than just the core book is too big. I'm a fan of NWOD. Their at least 20+ sourcebooks not including the core books. I read them all at least once. I never felt the need to use all of what was read. As for COC I'm not a expert so I can answer that

thejeff wrote:


The other thing with PF, that isn't so common in some other games, is that there are a lot of very useful feats, items and other things scattered throughout the non-core lines. The various feats and items making Dex to attack/Damage available are a good example. From the original Dervish Dance to the recent Effortless Lace.

There is useful material. Yet I disagree there about it being a lot imo. There is a lack of options that hit a proper middle ground. What I mean is that the option is not too good say like Sacred Geometery or not worth taking such Craft Ooze. To be fair they do exist but imo a precious few. The devs also have a bad habit of thinking that good fluff descriptions will hide bad crunch. Craft ooze has some good fluff. Yet in terms of crunch it's not worth taking. Requires a decent set of prerequistes. I'm left with a Ooze that even if I could communicate with is dumber than a bag full of hammers with no loyalty to me as it's creator. I can't use it to help my group as chances are good it will attack them in a combat. It might help to escape a encounter. But again situational and I don't waste feat slots on those.

Liberty's Edge

If one is going to accuse Pathfinder of becoming too big. Then it means any rpg that is six books or more is too big then imo. I'm a fan of Earthdawn I bought much of 3E. That at least 11-13 book right there. Call of Cthulhu 6E and both OWOD and NWOD have many books. Do I agree that their is much material for PF yes. Then again unless your the DM or a player who wants to access to all of it to make a character all that is needed is the CRB.

No one is forced to buy let alone read everything. Not to mention when it comes to successful rpgs expect a certain amount of support. I knew PF was going to be popular and expected a certain amount of support. It's funny how people stat out the number of options in PF. Did they do the same when you went to university or college. Make a list of all the courses then complain about the number of courses one needs to take and pass to graduate. Or going into a Tim hortons or Dunkin Donuts then complaining about the variety they carry. As well that they keep making new ones. I know some here and outside the boards don't like being told this. But again no one is forcing anyone to use all the material let alone buy it. I did not buy the Monster Codex. I'm probably not going to get the Strategy guide. I'm not going to tell Paizo not to publish them because they don't interest me.

As for Rifts I'm a fan. I had and sometimes still have fun in the system. To take a break for the balanced staleness that is PB one needs a system that does the opposite imo. Unlike PF where more and more either the new material is simply not worth taking. The crunch does not match the fluff. Or too situational. I see many more options that I would enjoy taking in Rifts

Liberty's Edge

I'm glad they made Juliette a Hexenbeast. It avoided what I call the Lois Lane Syndrome. Where being married to Superman and being a popular character. Somehow makes her immune to villain attacks and retribution. Nick is not always around and makes sure that if anyone is dumb enough to strike at The Grimm through his love interest. There is going to be hell to pay. My only complaint is how they dragged out the Wu storyline.

Liberty's Edge

Shipping outdide of the U.S. is crazy. It's always been bad but know it's insane imo.at least you live in Australia. I live in Canada and I get between 20-40$ worth of shipping added. Canada right next door.

Liberty's Edge

RDM42 wrote:


Your straw men are good straw men but the people disagreeing with you have bad straw men - is that how it works? Or actually, the people that won't flagellate themselves while basically agreeing to the general handling of things if not exactly where the starting lines are drawn?

Right because you never used any straw men either. It's the pot calling the kettle black. I'm going back on topic. You want to continue go right ahead. If it's not about the topic of the thread i'm not going to respond back.

Liberty's Edge

So getting back to topic.

New material can be used and not given the table and desires of the DM. I don't see and will never see the big issue around that. Even way back as 2E I was a fan of the complete series of books. I bought them all. I never felt the need to use them all. Both as a a player and DM.

I'm did not buy the Monster Codex and chances are good I will not buy the strategy guide. My choosing not to buy either was not a difficult or hard process. Unless one is forced at gunpoint by someone no one is forced to buy let alone use every scrap of new or existing material. And yes it is that simple. Those making it out to be such a big issue simply don't want to spend money on or want new material. Which is fine I totally get that.

No one in any of the too much bloat threads has every explained how they are forced into using new material. Why Paizo doing what a proper and profitable rpg company should be doing is a bad thing. In my neck of the woods why have Tim Hortons. I like some donuts dislike others. I don't enter and complain about the fact that they have a good selection of donuts. Or that they keep making new flavors. As no one is forcing me or anyone else to try the new ones.

Liberty's Edge

Kalindlara wrote:

Alright, question about race restrictions: does it help if the player can provide a concept and argue for it?

When planning a Legacy of Fire campaign set in a homebrew world a while back, I asked if iI could play a (slightly reskinned) strix. The GM was going for an Arabian Nights vibe, and one of my favorite cards from M:tG has always been Bird Maiden. So I wanted a brightly-plumed, beautiful dervish. We went back and forth, including some accusations of special-snowflake-dom (and other traditions), but in the end, I successfully made the case for the character being appropriately themed. That campaign is still pending, and I'm not that excited for it for other reasons (the homebrew isn't as much to my liking), but at least I get to play something I'm interested in.

Of course, I almost always have to GM and rarely get to play, so I tend to be very insistent about what I want to play. If I'm only going to play one or two characters in 3-4 years, I want to be fully invested in them... kind of like the GMs who want to be fully invested in their campaign. See - we aren't so different after all! :D

For me as a DM unless it was homebrew. I pretty much allow almost any races from the core. Even some 3pp and 3.5. occasionally. The point being made that if in your example your DM refused to allow you to play a Strix. That you would suddenly turn into a unreasoning abusive player who considers the DM a tyrant. Which almost never outside these boards. What usually happens is that it can go either way. A player gets what he wants. The player picks something else because his choice was refused. Or the player leaves the table. Or depending on how much is disagreed upon the DM leaves. If the players and DM have trouble agreeing on what is allowed. Sometimes the DM has to walk away as well.

The who derail started because a few posters were bothered that a player should get a reason for something being disallowed at the table.

Liberty's Edge

RDM42 wrote:


Is it sort of like the examples which are presuming that gm's are whacking their players across the nose with a rolled up newspaper and saying "bad dog, no biscuit!" When asked why?"

And yes, that was an intentionally facetious example. Before someone claims that those exact words weren't used.

Which I and most never said. Their a difference between your example and asking that a DM provide a reason for disallowing something. Your example almost never happens. Players asking DM for a reason for disallowing something at the table. With DM actually giving a reason why and players more often then not accepting the answer.

Liberty's Edge

137ben wrote:


Asked? Bah, impossible! Haven't you been paying attention to this thread? Players never ask anything, they demand. All players are self-entitled whining brats, trying to destroy your delicate special campaign:D

To be fair it does happen. Very very rarely. To be blunt some adults act like overgrown manchildren. It's certainly not the rampant raging epidemic that some in this thread make it out to be.

Liberty's Edge

No player has ever said that to me. Include Catfolk in the setting even if you say they don't exist. Recently I added a new player who wanted a Gunslinger. I said no and gave my reasons why. He did not ask or demand to be a exception. No accusations of being a tyrant DM. I love how the examples given assume that worst from players.

THx 137ben could not have put it better myself.

Liberty's Edge

RDM42 wrote:


But something restricted isn't just suddenly appearing just because you say "but I want it!"

So asking for a explanation as to why a DM refuses something translates into demands. No one saying that. All were saying that if you refuse say Catfolk give a reason. I can almost guarantee that most players will be disappointed yet accept the refusal. Is it that hard to say "I don't allow catfolk because.. ".

RDM42 wrote:


Just explaining why "just suck it up and give them their cat folk party" isn't always an option. Sometimes likes and dislikes are just visceral reactions, not logical step by step determinations.

And no one saying that. Interesting how asking for a reason as to why a DM refuses a character concept. Turns into the DM suddenly "having to suck it up". It's as if people re ignoring that I and others want a middle ground. Now if as a DM some don't want to give a reason for refusing a character concept. Then admit to it. Why bother I'm sure someone will chime that asking for a reason is going to be seen as player entitlement or forcing the "dm to suck it up". Which by the way telling the DM to suck it up mostly appears on these forums. I never experienced any player or table telling a DM to do so.

RDM42 wrote:


I don't like soccer. No matter how much you might talk abut the "beauty of the game" and "it's constant motion" you are unlikely to MAKE me enjoy it. Therefore, if you want to watch a soccer game, invite someone else. If you want to go to something with me, how abut we BOTH go to something else, a second sport that we both like? That we can enjoy together?

Which is what some of us have been saying all along and still do. If a player(s) and DM can't come to a mutual consensus. Neither should be forced into doing anything. Or playing at the same table.

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:


There's a helluva difference between being willing to try to run even though the players have pushed you into a campaign your heart isn't in and doing a bad job because of it and "running a crap game on purpose to spite the players".

To me why bother in both cases. Even if the first is less worse then the second. I have been in a few campaigns where the DM heart is not in it. To be blunt they suck. No matter how hard the DM tries to hide it the entire table can see it. NPC are flat. Fight are boring. DM speak in monologue. It's a waste of both players and DMs time imo. The second maybe a handful thankfully. I don't stick around when the DM is a dick imo

thejeff wrote:


One is trying to hard to accommodate your players and failing. The other is being a dick. It seemed pretty clear to me that he was talking about the first: remember it was in response to "Why is the campaign that I want to run more important than the campaign that my players want to play in? "

Again why bother putting both the DMs and players through what amounts to be a waste of time. Unless your forced at gunpoint no one is forcing anyone to run anything they don't want. It's hard to feel sympathy for a DM who willingly put himself in that situation. I'm a fan of Rifts. At one point both as a player and GM I burnt out on the system. I was asked to run games a few times. I refused. As I knew that my performance at the table would be horrible. I was in no mood to waste my time and the players as well.

I don't get members of this hobby. Why would anyone think that if a DM runs a game. Knows they are not going to enjoy it. Probably end up doing a bad job of things. Expect some kind of positive validation. People who have poor performance at work are not praised. Why would I do so to a DM who knowingly is going to run a poor game. That apples to me as well. If a decided to run a game that I would nto enjoy. I would deserve to be called out about it.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

A matter of perception again.

I suspect part of it is wondering who you're attacking when you seem so vehement against someone, but your stated position is so reasonable it's hard to imagine anyone being against it. I've never seen a GM come out and say "because I'm the GM and I need to show my authority". I haven't seen a GM I even suspected of those motives since high school and then it wasn't about banning character concepts.
I have seen players argue with GMs who've given reasons for not allowing something.

More than one poster like myself have tried to find some sort of common ground on the topic. Everytime we try either someone comes along and declares it's player entitlement. Or that were doing it because the DM is a tyrant. No one said that. I certainly did not. Or come up with extreme and unbeleivable examples of players acting out of line. Their a point where one feels like one is not only talking to a wall. It's also made out of adamntium.

Color me shocked that of course it's only players who argue with DMs. The difference between you and me on the subject. I'm willing to admit to bad behavior on both sides. When I was younger and dumber at first I was a problem player. I rapidly outgrew that. If you don't no one wants to ask you to their games. I have gamed with some truly horrid DMs who did give ultimatiums. As I said and which was ignored is that it's rare. I never said it happened all the time. Even one or two other posters said they had to deal with similar DMs.

I don't understand why trying to find common ground at a table is such a bad thing. If both or one side can't come to a agreement. Both are free to leave the table. A player should not force a character concept on a DM. A DM should give a explanation for disallowing something at the table.

Liberty's Edge

RDM42 wrote:


Crap game to spite the players? Really? You going there? Ok, so if you were forced to play a type of character you don't enjoy you wouldn't end up not playing it as well as you would something you do? You want to talk straw men, this is the emperor of all straw men. That isn't even close to what I said, and I have trouble believing you don't know that.

You wrote:

RDM42 wrote:



If it's not a game I am interested in running, if I have no interest, for example, in that all cat folk campaign, and I don't enjoy it, then frankly I will likely offer a subpar product in that game. I don't want to run that game. If my heart isn't in it, the. It's going to effect every players experience. I need to have passion for the game I
am running.

If your going to post that if you don't like the the character concepts the players bring to the table. Decide to run it and admit that your going to do a poor job of it. Then expect to be called on it. It's you that essential aired your own dirty laundry so to speak. Don't get mad at me if your willing to admit that if your not into the player characters concepts that your going to do a poor job as a DM.

It's like a ex-buddy of mine that made a extremely poor sexual comment at a dinning table. I can't even post it hear as it goes against the rules of the board. With woman at the table as it was about them. It alienated some of our social circle and he gets called out on it. Gets angry and offended. On one hand people today want to say whatever they want. On the other suddenly what they say or certain parts of it become immune to criticism. Well you can't have it both ways.

Liberty's Edge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
I don't think it's a fear, nor about absolute control. It's just a pushback against perceived absolute statements made on the internet. And as we all know, statements cannot go unchallenged.

That's the thing though no here is saying that a DM has to give players absolute control. Nor that a DM who refuses a concept is a absolute tyrant. Myself all i'm saying is give me a reason. Even if I may not agree with. If anyone is making absolute statements. Backed up with absurd examples it's the pro-DM side imo.

RDM42 wrote:


If it's not a game I am interested in running, if I have no interest, for example, in that all cat folk campaign, and I don't enjoy it, then frankly I will likely offer a subpar product in that game. I don't want to run that game. If my heart isn't in it, the. It's going to effect every players experience. I need to have passion for the game I am running.

Well unless your forced as in someone putting a gun to your head. If your going to still run a game that your not going to enjoy then the blame is on you. If your not having fun. If a DM dislikes Asisimars and Tieflings and the group wants to play a mix of them. Then still runs the game. Well the fault is on him. Not only that if I knew the DM was running a crap game on purpose to spite the players I would never every play with such a DM. That's a good way to get blacklisted in my neck of the woods.

Liberty's Edge

Kthulhu wrote:


Obviously the GM is no good at his job if he can't have a complete setting and campaign designed around the just-created characters moments after character creation ends. If he was a decent GM, he would have already prepared all of that for every possible permutation of characters that the group could create.

Which no one but you is saying.

Again what is this fear from members of the hobby toward the DM not having absolute control. If possible both sides should come to a compromise. Or one or the other walks away if neither can find a middle ground. If I want to play a Gunslinger the DM refuses. I either pick another class or walk away. If the majority of the players at the table want to play classes and races that the DM is not comfortable with. The DM can either try to accomodate and adapt. Or walk away.

If as a DM some here want to have absolute control at the table as a DM. While I don't like playing with such DMs. I can respect their style of DMing. Do us a favor though and stop pretending to be open minded about player control at the table. It's obvious some really are not interested in working with the players. While demonizing players.

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:


And I'm the one who keeps bringing up things you haven't said. "If you want to make the argument never end go with it. "

Which unfortunately happens with some players. No one saying their are no problem players. Not to the extent that you and others make it out to be. It's people on the this forum and others that seem intent on wanting to make something out of nothing. Don't want to run a campaign with the group being Catfolk don't run. If it's a majority decision then either try to come to a compromise or walk away. It's not going to make a DM less of a person. If the players and the DM don't want to play a Catfolk and one player does. If no compromise can be had the player is free to leave. With the player not being less if a person.

I and many here and other forums know that not every DM that refuses a player request is a tyrant. It's as if myself and others are simply waiting and biding our time to pounce on some helpless DM to overthrow him for simply refusing something at the table.

But hey if you want to make us all out to be unreasoning tyrant players who am I and others to stop you.

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:


Well, you can ban asian ninjas without banning the Ninja class. That's actually part of my problem with all these threads - I'm more likely to object to a concept than a specific mechanic. I may not want black pajama clad movie ninja in my western setting. If so, I might be perfectly happy with someone using the mechanics for a more western assassin/spy concept and object to someone using the Core Rogue class to make a black pajama clad movie ninja. How am I supposed to give a complete list of everything I'd object to up front? When it's a bounded infinite subset of the infinity of possible character concepts?

As long as the DM politely and respectfully tells me that he/she does want ninjas and the reason behind it. Again I'm not saying I won't be dissapointed by the decision. Why should I be happy. I will keep it to myself and follow the DMs lead at what he or she wants in the game. Cue the players are entitled counter arguments because I wrote that I'm unhappy about a DMs decision.

As for having to buy new material. I think fellow gamers are making it out to be more of a problem then it truly it is. I'm currently unemployed. Until I find a new job. I'm not buying any rpg material. If a player in my game wants to use new material. He either lends me the book or goes without until I get more money to buy new material. I think as a society we have become so used to instant self-gratification and when faced about doing something we don't want to do. That we simply complain about it. It took me the better part of a year or more. To get my 1E core set. Mowing lawns, doing errands. Where some in my gaming cirle had theirs before me. I can tell you I was not telling TSR to not publish new material.

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:

Now you're confused. Or I really am.

You were responding to Neurophage, not Tacticslion.

But sure. Go with it. Wait long enough and someone will.
Just like someone will jump in accusing GMs of being tyrants and railroaders.

Your the one that wrote "what?". Without giving more clarification than that. So i'm going to assume that your the one who is confused.

thejeff wrote:


But sure. Go with it. Wait long enough and someone will.
Just like someone will jump in accusing GMs of being tyrants and railroaders.

Yourself and a few others keep bringing this up. I and others have not done said anything along those lines. If you want to make the argument never end go with it.

1 to 50 of 2,227 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.