|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
The only time I've used such an all or nothing multiple rolls approach is when the PCs want to try to circumvent something with an off the wall idea that might, but really shouldn't, work.
I find it interesting that there often seems to be this correlation of low death rates with some kind of "passive participant youre just along for the ride".There are plenty of ways for players to not be passive and drive the game off in unexpected directions without a high death toll. In fact, you can run an awfully railroaded game, killing off PCs left and right. The story and ending are known from the start, the only question is whether it's PC 1 or 5 that'll be there at the end.
Or you can have a game where no one dies, or only a few, but the actions they took and the decisions they made drove the game in their own unpredicted ways.
Depends. Is that action to light up a stogie and comment on the pretty patterns his blood makes? That's evil.
Is that action to stay in the fight and help keep yourself and others alive? Nah. That's pretty much expected, even good.
"leaving a PC to die if there was an easy opportunity to prevent that death" and "chose to withhold basic, free, first aid to teach a different agent a lesson about being prepared." Doesn't that pretty much say it all?
Ignoring the classed NPC stuff for the moment, the kobold is currently roughly on par with where it should be according to the general monster design guidelines, which only go down to CR 1/2.
Bump their AC up with better armor and give them higher damage weapons and you're pushing them way out of the proper range - but weirdly so. Hard to damage, but die if you do hit them. With better weapons, they'd still be hitting too well, but now doing damage almost on par with CR 1/2.
Whatever the NPC guidelines say, with gear to give them a couple points of AC and a couple points more damage - especially the light crossbow, they're at least CR 1/2.
So you understood and are just arguing about her using the wrong words? Fine.
And wealth is not always social standing. Think nouveau riche families marrying into old money. Or of course hereditary titles and positions. Or it might mean a loss for the family, but a step up for the child. How many real families sacrifice to ensure a better future for their children?
Liz Courts wrote:
You realize you could just ask Crystal what she meant, instead of going back and forth about it?Or even just read the actual post and look at the context rather than just jumping on specific words:
Dowries and brideprices aren't inherently misogynistic in a fictional setting. They're part of how dwarven families make their available children more attractive to better marriages. You want your child to marry better than they have now, so you sweeten the pot so a family of a higher social class will okay the marriage. Is that necessarily progressive? No, but dwarves don't generally marry for love so much as to secure family lineages and political alliances. Dwarves do this for both their male and female children, and they have different words for each because the story was written in English and English uses two different words for this.
She even comments on the words.
Yeah. Sometimes, it was awesome.Sometimes it's just bongoing about bad GMs. I still bring up the 1st level AD&D party that got eaten by a purple worm from time to time. Doesn't mean I thought that was a great game.
Find out what the players want. Give it to them. If that's a meatgrinder, that's cool. If it's a story driven cakewalk, that's cool too.
If it's too far from what you want to run, find a different group. Or compromise, if there's a middle ground you'll both enjoy.
It tends to happen most often in the combats that are starting to drag and have lost most of the drama.
We roll in the open, but don't worry too much about monitoring everyones rolls every time. If someone was actually cheating even semi-regularly, someone would catch it.
One thought that would tie in the mining, but still technologically primitive aspect would be to give them something like bronze armor and weapons.
Though the real problem remains using the original folklore source of little monsters that set traps for miners with something intended to actually function as a primitive tribal society.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
And into this other damn straitjacket of a playstyle.Figure out what your players want and come up with a compromise.
Also remember that players may like easier challenges for reasons other than just breezing through things. It might let them turn down the optimization knob on their builds, while still getting what they want for an in-play challenge. Challenges also often look tougher from the player side than the GM side. Ask them if they're enjoying the level of challenge they're seeing.
Of course, if you really want to crank the knob up, don't stop by spending that equipment budget on slightly better armor and weapons - spend it on one-shot items - tanglefoot bags and other alchemical items, buffing potions and the like. You can make an encounter way above its theoretical CR. :)
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
And the purpose of those other adventurers would be to be killed by the PCs.
I suppose you could run a game where the purpose was to kill the PCs, but I doubt many groups would take well to regular TPKs.
Nathanael Love wrote:
Because obviously differences in culture and role in the world are meaningless. Every creature should be equipped with the gear most efficient at killing PCs.
There is a bit of confusion with kobolds, I'll admit. Largely linked to the conflation of their mythic origins as mining goblins with the tribal role they play in the world.
Nathanael Love wrote:
Not true. With PC wealth and PC classes, they're CR=Level.
NPC Gear Adjustments wrote:
You can significantly increase or decrease the power level of an NPC with class levels by adjusting the NPC's gear. The combined value of an NPC's gear is given in Creating NPCs on Table: NPC Gear. A classed NPC encountered with no gear should have his CR reduced by 1 (provided that loss of gear actually hampers the NPC), while a classed NPC that instead has gear equivalent to that of a PC (as listed on Table: Character Wealth by Level) has a CR of 1 higher than his actual CR. Be careful awarding NPCs this extra gear, though—especially at high levels, where you can blow out your entire adventure's treasure budget in one fell swoop!
More importantly, not everything needs to be designed most efficiently to fight PCs. Spears are hunting weapons. Hide only bumps AC by one and penalizes stealth.Plus, as said above, they're tribal cave dwellers. Spears, slings and leather are appropriate, even if not optimal. If you're dealing with the Great Kobold Empire, they'll have better gear.
Honestly, I think you nailed it right there: Put it in place when a player has a concept that requires it.
Leave it fairly open otherwise.
In fairness, your earlier post said "fun I had would sometimes depend in part on whether or not tablemates within a certain demographic thought I (or my other tablemates, for that matter) was roleplaying."
Which I didn't initially read as "because they'd publicly shame me if they didn't like it", but more as "It's hard to have fun unless everyone's on board with the way we're all roleplaying."
That post wasn't at all clear to me. I can see how Aranna took it that way. Your next one on the subject of course made it obvious that was wrong.
Yes, I'm sure they did.But that specific post was in response to a complaint that Paizo lacked minority villains. Nothing to do with Dragonlance or Paizo being the first and only to have minority villains.
She also seems to be a pirate, but not actually a villain.
But that's OK. We've already learned that Dragonlance is the bestest, most inclusivest setting ever. Putting all of Paizo's efforts to shame even decades later. :)
The other reasonable interpretation involves the actual words of the FAQ:
Having your Int and Cha blasted down to 8 by an extraplanar entity is a significant and distracting threat
According to the FAQ, the stat loss is caused by enemy action, thus making it far more like combat than climbing a wall is.
And on the comment about the lack of non-white-male villains. You do realize if there are minority baddies then they could be also accused of being racist.
Plus, there have been - A lesbian queen. A black (Garundi) pirate captain. A witch queen. Those come to mind immediately, just from the few APs I'm familiar with. I suspect there have been others.
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
Theros, I'll give you, though I don't remember him.For the other stuff - there are half-elves (and half-orcs) throughout D&D (and thus PF) from the beginning who could play the metaphorical role you describe. Similarly for the others - you can read things into the characters if you choose to, that may or may not have been intended. In terms of inclusiveness, there's a big difference between that and actually including open non-analogy characters.
And yeah, as xavier c said, nearly every fantasy setting includes Christian references at that level.
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
Well, I don't count myself an "internet expert", but I'm willing to concede WoD, with the caveat that as LazarX, it's our world with twists rather than a new creation. That said, it was also pretty Eurocentric and bits of their treatment of other cultures and groups made me cringe at the time - often being more US/European pop-culture takes than anything else.
For Dragonlance, I only read the original novels (maybe 2 series?) and a couple modules and haven't done so in decades. They did have women as major characters, though I can't really comment on their roles at this point. I don't recall (and a quick internet search doesn't help) much racial diversity - though I guess Riverwind(?) & Goldmoon(?) were basically Native American?
I have no idea what you mean to imply by "analogy for inclusion". You can also present an analogy for something without actually including it. In fact that's how you usually do it. The original X-Men were an analogy for racism and were all white. Then it became more homosexuality, but it was still a long time before there was a homosexual character. You could have a strong theme of "We need each other to stand strong", but just not include people of different races or give them narrow stereotyped roles.
And really, "Judeo-Christianity"? In Dragonlance? As an analogy or actual Jews and Christians? Cause that's hard to fit in.
I'm also not sure why you think Paizo shrieks in fear at including everyone. They don't have Judeo-Christianity, for what I think are obvious reasons. They haven't done much if anything with Native Americans, though there is a place in the world for them and there's been some talk of it. They do have atheism, blacks, interraciallism and heroes and villains of all sorts. So, near as I can tell, you're way off base there.
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
I'm sure there are lots of groups Paizo hasn't touched and maybe even some they've declared they won't touch, but "far from inclusive" and "pretty far behind the curve" are very strong statements and I'll need some evidence. At least examples so I know what you're talking about.
Certainly true, but it also matters how it's presented to us the players. If all the actual pictures are of whites, but theres a note somewhere that other cultures portray them differently that still presents to us a very white set of gods.
Showing us white and black gods (and all the other hues!) and still adding notes that different cultures portray them differently gets the same point across, but also lets everyone see it viscerally. More so if they actually portray the same god in different ways. A picture is worth a thousand words, they say.
If we did in real life what we do in Pathfinder we'd attack a faith we didn't like or approve of and poop on their altars. *tries to shove the train back on track*
Cause that's never happened in real life.
Edit: Nor is it something I often do in game, for that matter. Barring the kinds of faith that are sacrificing captives or some such. Those altars get desecrated after stopping the sacrificing and killing the murderers. Usually not desecrated by so crude a method though.
Draco Bahamut wrote:
At worst he's saying that Paizo doesn't have to. I don't think that matches well with Paizo's own stance - as shown both in statements and in characters other than gods.From earlier in this thread:
Erik Mona wrote:
I like how everyone has strict, hard limits on what is or is not roleplay. And how they're all different.
And how they use a lot of the same words, so until someone goes into more detail it's easy to assume they mean the same thing you do.
Doomed Hero wrote:
Egyptians don't qualify as black?
Not really. Black is usually used to refer to Sub-Saharan Africa descent, which really refers to several very distinct groups.Historically, southern (Upper) Egypt would be from those groups - Nubia and Kush. Northern, Lower Egypt is North African. Genetically distinct from sub-Saharan Africa.
In Golarion's terms: Garundi rather than Mwangi.
I like Batman, but I prefer the Punisher because he steps outside of right and wrong and does what will make the world a better place, even if it makes him indivually a worse person. There is no benefit to the revolving door prison system, Arkham, etc. Two in the chest one in the head and you never would have to deal with the Joker again.
Oddly, the Punisher seems to have recurring villains too. Not as many, but that's because he doesn't have a dozen regular monthly titles.
It's a comic book trope, not a moral test. Besides, the number of times the Joker's "died", has to be in the dozens. Two in the chest, one in the head and 2-3 years later a new writer would want to use him and concoct an excuse to bring him back.
Rule of GMing - reward the behavior you want to see more of. If you want player to play good, heroic characters, make good and heroism work. Punish them, make torture and murder the most or only effective ways to succeed and you don't get characters who rise above those tempations or perish holding to their code - you get characters who survive and win by those rules. Paranoid, amoral jerks.
And talk to your players. Find out how they want to play. Does the good character want his morals to be constantly tested and challenged? Then do it. If he wants to be the shining hero, saving and redeeming people, let him do that. Don't make him rely on torture to save others.
Crystal Frasier wrote:
I don't think it was you making the mistake.
But thank you. It clarified some things I hadn't thought through.
I feel so cheap.
Rules ~$80 80
So roughly $555 (Of course, that's ignoring the subscription discount)
That's probably more than I've spent on any other game system. With the possible (inflation adjusted) exception of AD&D.
I'm not a fan of lots of rules and I usually play homebrew content. You really can play an RPG for years with nothing but the core rules.
Even worse, IMO. Fellow PCs are generally given more latitude. "PC glow". You usually can't just kick PCs out of the group or not bring the new character along. Taking advantage of that generally makes it feel like the GM and one player are conspiring against the others. The resulting anger/frustration are likely to be directed against the people as the character.It also sets up potential future problems - don't trust any new PCs not to be set ups. It's hard enough to come up with plausible reasons for replacement characters to join up. Not a good idea to add justifiable player paranoia.
Arturius Fischer wrote:
I went back and read it again, since you were so polite about it. Yeah, he said basically what I'd though. Pulled a couple basic tax charts and misread them. The charts show income tax (almost certainly just federal), which is fair in the context of talking about the tax cuts, but gets blurred into all taxes in his rant, which is par for the course. I didn't need to read it because everyone who makes that "poor people are parasites because they pay no taxes" does exactly the same thing.
Arturius Fischer wrote:
Not really. He showed some tables from another source and ignored the details. Showing that the change in tax rate was greater the higher your income, which wasn't really his point, though technically he was correct. The poorest got a small tax cut. Which isn't quite the same as "improved the situation for the poor". And also ignores the deficits and service cuts spawned from those tax cuts, which were showing even back in 2006.But then he goes off on the actual attack on the poor, which isn't immaterial and only tangentially related to showing how tax cuts helped them.
Secondly, I'm getting mighty sick and tired of your greedy scum bucket parasites known as "the poor" who think you have it so rough when in reality, you don't pay a freaking dime for any government service if you're in the bottom 60% of income earners. Free roads, free schools, free health care, free defense. Let alone you have the audacity to demand that the rich pay more in taxes.
And that part is just blatantly wrong. He's not limiting that to federal income tax but "don't pay a freaking dime". (BTW, how do the bottom 60% both get a tax cut and "not pay a freaking dime".) Ignoring of course all the non-income taxes they do pay.
Arturius Fischer wrote:
Well yeah, because that's where the money is. Should we take more from those who are swimming in piles of cash or from the Lucky Duckies who don't owe any income tax because they're so broke they're already only getting by on food stamps?
The audacity of the poor working single mother demanding the rich stock broker in his limo snorting coke through hundred dollar bills pay a couple percent more in taxes that won't affect his lifestyle in the slightest. If it's so easy to be poor, since you don't have to pay taxes, maybe some of the rich wouldn't mind swapping places?
Arturius Fischer wrote:
Parasites, leeches, seems basically equivalent to me.It's also nonsense. Without even looking at his data, because I've looked into this before, I can tell you that people in the bottom 60% of income pay plenty for their government services. Perhaps he meant they don't pay much federal income tax, but that's far from all the taxes and fees that exist.
They don't pay much income tax because they don't make much money. The rich do pay more and the percentage they pay has been going up, strictly because the percentage of the total income they make has been going up too.
But lousy economic attitudes aside, it's the attitude that the poor who think being poor is rough are "greedy scum bucket parasites" just because they don't make enough to pay income tax that shows his colors. Being poor is tough. Being a Lucky Ducky who doesn't have to pay income tax doesn't make up for it.
The perils of a shared universe. I think that was set up in Hellblazer.
According to Sandman, that wasn't so much "slipped in power" as bored and trying to amuse himself with games. The same boredom that led him to quit.
In the beginning I enjoyed it. I was -- I am -- more powerful than any of them. I could have destroyed any of them -- perhaps even all of them -- without much effort. So I manipulated them; set them one against the other; let them faction and divide and plot. But... but I grew weary, Dream Lord. Mightily weary. I ceased to care.
Sure, 8 hours of rest, then an hour to prepare all your spells.As opposed to 8 hours of rest, then 15 minutes per spell level. High level casters who burned all their spells would need days to prepare them all.
How do I dismiss them without looking at them? At least without some kind of automated tool. Even then the automation is tricky - far from as simple as "I don't qualify for this".
I'll admit you don't generally have to do so every time you level, because you've already parsed through them all when you planned the build. At least down to a handful of options.
It can be. All I'm saying is that "hp are meat" isn't clearly the winner that resolves all the weirdness of hp. There are still a whole bunch of hoops you have to jump through to sort of make the system make sense.
Just like you have to with a "hp are evasion" approach. Or a mixed approach. None of them really fit cleanly if you think too deeply about them, because the real answer is that hp were designed as a arbitrary game mechanic without any real concern for what they meant. Everything else is a later patch.
So you also get more resistant to healing?OK, I guess.
As I said, if it floats your boat, go for it. I prefer thinking about it differently. Luckily, since it's just changing the interpretation, not the rules, you can play with your "My meat is just tougher and can soak up more damage" interpretation and I can play with my "I'm better at avoiding blows so I just get a little scratch, but I'm slowing down a little bit" version and we can do it in the same game.
No dramatic killing blows in your version I take it? The final blow is just another nick that finally brings him down instead of a nice dramatic stab through the heart or lopping off of the head, since his meat is still just as tough.
The 8th Dwarf wrote:
Or it just means winning initiative and getting the first hits in becomes even more important and the Rocket Tag accelerates even more.
The 8th Dwarf wrote:
HP is also a reflection of stamina and fatigue... Still it's too vague... That's why I like Rolemaster broken arms and legs, bleed stacks, guts spilling out. Combatants flee and surrender a few rounds into combat.
"A few rounds into combat"? From my few memories of Rolemaster, combatants tended to flee before combat started.
GM: You see a weasel. It's approaching.
One of the big problems with this approach is that it doesn't all come down to "sleight of hand versus perception rolls" and since there are no mechanics for the rest of it, it gets hard for players, who likely know OOC that the PC is stealing loot to figure out when their characters get suspicious.Does he keep winding up with new and better gear than the rest of the group? Unexplained new items? What is he doing in the fights anyway?
I suppose if you stole the stuff and just sold it and kept the extra gold in a stash somewhere, it would be hard to figure out.
Last time I played with a character who did this, there were lots of signs, but the GM wouldn't let us do anything about it unless we caught him red handed. Really frustrating. Luckily, I don't usually play with people like that.
The ubiquitous video cameras are going to change things. Makes it much harder for the cops to just lie about what happened. Makes the abuse obvious enough that even the American public finds it hard to swallow.
And all of which can be handwaved away and ignored since black people are so dangerous and culturally criminal.
Black people have to fix their own culture and then maybe white people will start looking at some of the things that created that culture. But racism has nothing to do with it.
Mark Hoover wrote:
Yeah, I can see that it gives you bare bones onto which you could actually build an adventure or actual campaign. And I get the nostalgia value.But it was billed as an introductory module, packaged with various versions of the Basic set. As such, it was very easy to take as "This is what adventures should be like" - hack and slash dungeons with tons of monsters packed into a small area with little justification, either for them being there or you fighting them.
As a framework to build an adventure around, it isn't bad. Run as presented, not so much.
Metanote: Irritating that when replying the spoiled text is counted to see when to truncate the quoted message, but isn't actually included. Bad design.
Then they can go research it for years and be the big bads of the next game I run.That's what the first guy did.
Game over. What do you want to play next?
I like that level of stealth, but I don't like it require corner cases of rules. It should just be "really good at stealth".
Some of that's useful to know, but in some cases it doesn't matter. It literally makes no mechanical difference in most cases whether you roll spell resistance or saves first. I'd roll resistance first if the spell has some effect (half damage or something) if the save is made, but only because that saves on dice rolling. Otherwise, whichever one's more likely to stop the spell - again possibly less dice to roll.Same with arcane spell failure/concentration or attack roll/miss chance. It doesn't matter, so there doesn't need to be a rule. Whatever's convenient.
Yeah, balancing casters against martials by making casters suck and die easily early on and rule everything at high levels is absolutely the wrong way to go.
All that "first level wizards suck" part was horrible and well fixed. But it needed to be accomplished without boosting the late game casters and preferable nerfing them somewhat and/or making martials more effective later on.