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

zohaletha's page

FullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 33 posts. No reviews. No lists. 2 wishlists. 5 Pathfinder Society characters.


RSS

Silver Crusade

I am a former journalist (investigative reporter/editor) and now do freelance writer. Also a former professional artist who now teaches it. Currently a pastor and own company where I sell therapeutic items and do life counseling and other consulting.

Silver Crusade *

Bob Jonquet wrote:
Is it just me (old guy) or does seeing references to ToEE make your eye twitch ;-)

*nods* My husband keeps laughing at me because I keep calling it Temple of Empyreal Evil.

Silver Crusade *

First, I'm on a nook, so these quote commands can be cumbersome qnd difficult for me. I will type it.

No, my mappings are not wrong, but perhaps you are not seeing what I am seeing. Here are the conversations.

I write...

Creativity and clarity. First, I owm a lot of scenarios and not one of them gives such an ultimatum that there is only one approach.

Notice I say "approach"; not "skill check roll". However, even assuming I did say skill check roll...

TOZ writes...

The Midnight Mauler has such a faction mission. Fail the check and your PC is not allowed to try anything else to accomplish the mission...the Sczarni mission to be precise.

MM Notes on Sczarni quest...

Convincing the duplicitous merchant requires more than just money; PCs must succeed at a DC 20 Diplomacy or Intimidate check to convince the killer to take the job. This check may only be attempted once per PC...

Notice that with every PC in the group, that is several tries and assists and T10 or T20. In my book, knock him out and then prep the scene to get oodles of bonuses.

But, I write....

Actually the Midnigt Mauler's faction quests read similarly to most faction quests, assuming the most obvious skill will be used to achieve it, but it does not state tthat you have to go that route.

TOZ writes...

I was talking about the Qadira mission which says it can only be tried once.

Midnight Mauler's Notes on Qadira quest...

Qadira faction PCs need to bring back a preserved sample of an xtabay for study. This requires a successful DC 15 Craft (alchemy) or Knowledge (nature) check to preserve one of the dead blossoms without damaging its alchemical properties.

Nowhere does it state you only get onetry, so I write...

In the Qadiran case you must preserve a flower. However there 3 such flowers in the scenario...

Then TOZ writes...

The Sczarni mission happens in Midnight Mauler, the Qadira mission happens in ToEE. I'm having a hard time understanding you as the only quest in ToEE is the Shadow Lodge mission...the Qadiran mission is to retrieve the glass orb...and specifically says the PC must succeed on a Disable Device check to avoid breaking the orb, and that the check may only be tried once...

Come again? First, why on Earth would I bring in a Shadow Lodge quest whenwe are discussing Sczarni and Qadira? Second, if TOZ was switching the modules who should've clarified this. The ToEE conversation was as follows...

I write...

Tempe was actually the scenario I was referring to when I said a failed skill would cause the attack...I then made the Andoran example.

TOZ then writes...

The Andoran mission has nothing to do with Diplomacy. You must mean the Silver Crusade.

I acknowledge the error and observe his own Sczarni/Qadira mistake. TOZ then switches what module he is referring to.

But for the sake of argument and clarity, I will make one final point regard the attitude of finality with faction quests and present a single alternative approach. I will use the debated ToEE Qadiran quest...

ToEE Notes on Qadiran quest...

Removing the fragile glass sphere from the narrow compartment without breaking it requires a DC 15 Disable Device check...(this skill check can be made untrained, but may only be attempted once).

The purpose of parenthesis is to set a separate thought apart. If the single check applied to all PCs it would not have been in parenthesis; but it is, tied to the unskilled statement, attaching it firmly and specifcally to it. Disable Device is a trained skill only. An untrained person would not be able to tell when they were putting the sphere in danger like a trained person would and stop moving it in time. Only allowing one check for an untrained character is the compromise as opposed to not allowing any. A trained character could proceed as normal.

One proposed alternate route...

Egg roll it! In ToEE you have all the time in the world. Wait to the end and then build a padded, scooped ramp placing a padded container, such as a wide-mouthed pouch, at the end and then gently roll it down.

To JohnF, I acknowledge that T10 doesn't take technical game time, but it does have to be non-combat and stress-free, insinuating the ability to relax and slow down in order to take your time.

And with that, I bid this thread adieu.

Silver Crusade *

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I was talking about the Qadira mission, which says it can only be tried once.

Also, the Andoran mission has nothing to do with Diplomacy. You must mean the Silver Crusade mission.

Of course. I do still tend to mispeak myself-a holdover from the need to convert 2nd season faction quests to 3rd. :). Appparently common since you also mispoke your Qadiran mission as Sczarni, originally (Although Sczarni does convert to Cheliax.). I will assume you do mean Qadira, rather than the original Sczarni quest you referenced. In the Qadiran case you must preserve a flower. However, there 3 such flowers in the scenario...and again, party members can assist or the process of preservation does take time (I do it in real life) and taking your time (i.e. taking ten or twenty) does improve your chance for success. Or hire an expert NPC to do it.

Silver Crusade *

Lakesidefantasy wrote:

I hate to ask, but are bastard swords considered always available equipment?

I was told exotic equipment is not considered always available. Is that true? What about whips and nets?

I have a wizard who took a bastard sword as his bonded item, is he legal?

Tetsu is right about it being always available, but just remember...a bastard sword, in and of itself, is not exotic. It is, in fact, quite common. Merely the ability to use it one-handed is considered exotic for combat purposes.

Silver Crusade *

TriOmegaZero wrote:
zohaletha wrote:
Creativity and clarity. First, I own a lot of scenarios and not one of them gives such an ultimatum that there is only one approach. The closest is one that claims that if the players choose to use a particular skill and fails then the npc attacks...in which case the players could opt to subdue andcapture, etc.

The Midnight Mauler has such a faction mission. Fail the check and your PC is not allowed to try anything else to accomplish the mission.

** spoiler omitted **

I also found one in The Temple of Empyreal Enlightenment.

Actually the Midnight Mauler's faction quests read similarly to most faction quests, assuming the most obvious skill a player will use to acieve it, but it does not state that they have to go that route. Temple was actually the scenario I was referring to when it said a failed skill would cause the attack, but even that could be circumvented in a variety of ways. Those should be viewed as the most common ways, but they are not the only way that could go down. For instance, I'll useTemple since you are clearly familiar with it, I had an Andoran player who instead of convincing his fella to go back with him through Diplomacy, used the guy's love of meditation to trick him to go use the amulet. A GM needs to be adaptive.

Silver Crusade *

nosig wrote:
zohaletha wrote:
It seems to me that the real issue was not the shirt. The original poster felt bad because the roller lost out on the faction quest as a GM never have I had a faction quest rest solely on a single roll. There are always a coupe of different approaches to achieving it. Plus, remember, your teammates can help you out and on skills you can always take ten or twenty and be assured of your success. A shirt reroll or not should never be the deciding factor on completing a faction quest....or any true quest objective, for that matter.

Agreed. Very much. I think you hit the important point when you said, "the real issue was not the shirt". I think it's the difference in the way the judge and the player expect the shirt re-roll rule to work. Different expectations. Table Variation causing friction between players and the judge. That's why I come here and read the threads, so I can get a better understanding on how everyone else does things, so that I can do them the same way as everyone else. and do my part to reduce Table Variation (YMMV).

** spoiler omitted **
edited: to correct typos and clearify my views somewhat. sorry I am so hard to follow sometimes...

There isnothing in the rules that says you cannot take ten or twenty just because you are at a Society event. Most faction quests have you doing one of 4 things: finding something, negotiating or intimidating or just some little oddball thing like an etching or moving something. Everyone of these use skills that you can take time with. Rarely do they require an in-combat move...and when they do its so easy you almost don't even need to roll.

Silver Crusade *

sveden wrote:
zohaletha wrote:
It seems to me that the real issue was not the shirt. The original poster felt bad because the roller lost out on the faction quest as a GM never have I had a faction quest rest solely on a single roll. There are always a coupe of different approaches to achieving it. Plus, remember, your teammates can help you out and on skills you can always take ten or twenty and be assured of your success. A shirt reroll or not should never be the deciding factor on completing a faction quest....or any true quest objective, for that matter.
When the scenario states "The PC may make only one attempt at this" in regards to faction mission what do you do then?

Creativity and clarity. First, I own a lot of scenarios and not one of them gives such an ultimatum that there is only one approach. The closest is one that claims that if the players choose to use a particular skill and fails then the npc attacks...in which case the players could opt to subdue andcapture, etc. But nothing stops the GM from stressing that it could be hard and player assists or taking ten or twenty could be encouraged. Honestly, there are ALWAYS options. While I assume my monsters can think and so on, my goal is my players success and enjoyment, so I do what I can to reasonably ensure they can succeed. I do admit that there are a few GMs out there who seem to aquire great glee when they get the upper hand, but a Society event really should be about the players. My personal view anyway.

Silver Crusade *

It seems to me that the real issue was not the shirt. The original poster felt bad because the roller lost out on the faction quest as a GM never have I had a faction quest rest solely on a single roll. There are always a coupe of different approaches to achieving it. Plus, remember, your teammates can help you out and on skills you can always take ten or twenty and be assured of your success. A shirt reroll or not should never be the deciding factor on completing a faction quest....or any true quest objective, for that matter.

Silver Crusade *

Artanthos wrote:
Frankthedm wrote:

Good Call on the no changing ability scores! Folks rigged their scores to take advantage of the system with a obviously OP class. They got caught and now they get to keep their scores :D

Absolutely not! Whenever I play a character I go out of my way to ensure there is at least one really low score and one really high score and it has NOTHING to do with min/max'ing and everything to do with character flavor. Every person in the world, everyone of them, has strengths and weaknesses. Plus when we know we are good at something it normal to love something in that strength, so we choose our livelihoods and pasttimes accordingly. Small geeks don't play in the NFL. I want that reflected in my characters...and yes I decide to put my best stats in my class focus. I can't think of anyone who thinks to themselves, "Gee, I have randomly determined that my best stat is Wisdom. Now...What will I play?"

Silver Crusade *

1 person marked this as a favorite.
redward wrote:

I foresee several problems with this:

1) You're going to see a lot of negative reviews and very few positives. The title of your post is "...Both Good and Bad", you start off praising some anonymous GMs, but the meat of your post, and your reason for posting in the first place, is that you want to punish the GMs who "ran it wrong." Unless the GM does a transcendant job, people are rarely going to jump online to chip in a positive review.

I do not know that I fully agree with that.When I was GM'ing I did everything from 1st time, low-level players to veteran high-level ones. I also did both prepped scenarios and scenarios we weree literally down-loading on the spot. Yet my tables were filled with wonderful, understanding players who were encouraging in bad situations and attentive in difficult ones. In all my years of playing and GM'ing, this was my first Gencon. I wasn't impressed with much of it, all my anxiety washed away at the PFS HQ and GM'ing became my favorite part of the convention. At every table I ran my players let me know they had a fun wonderful time and onetable even applauded me. TheGM brings a lot to the game, but so does theplayers. Theplayers are every bit as much intregral part to a table's success as the GM. How much you, the player, enjoys the game is also up to you.

By the way, if you do really enjoy a GM, please do tell Mikeorone of the others. They do makesure it gets back to theGM and they do enjoy hearing it. It is not a bother and I can tell you that hearing from one of them that players stopped by to report great GM'ing by you is a fantastic feeling. Players will report the good too. That was the case for me...and that made the whole trip worth it.

Silver Crusade

GeraintElberion wrote:
thankyou!

You are most welcome. ^_^

Silver Crusade

Just rememberered...You can change your aliases' name and even have multiple aliases. You can also edit your character's name. But you can't change the alias name after you have 10 posts or more here on the message boards. To make those changes, simply go to My Account, scroll down the different sections. There is a link for changing/adding your alias...or you can go to the PFS block and click on the link to go to your characters. Find your character and hit the Edit button. From there, just type in the new name in the name field. Remember, once you receive an entry from a PFS scenario into that character, you can no longer delete, although you can if you have not yet played them.

Silver Crusade

I actually just recently ran into a similar concern. My current alias is also a PFS character and until last week, both existed in my account concurrently.

However, as of last week, my character's name got a random number attached to it and her character number changed from -1 to -2. I contacted customer service and was told that the aliases were now counted among the character names and they could no longer be identical. I solved the problem by editing my character's name to include a last name, but admit that for me it is a less than ideal solution. However, I just live with it.

I am still waiting for her chronicle number to be returned to -1, however. I am told a request has been submitted for it.

As such, I would say that it probably is not possible for your alias and character to have the same name.

Silver Crusade

hogarth wrote:
Hama wrote:
Yeah right, I'll see how you feel when YOU devote countless hours to developing plots, interesting NPCs and locations for me to play in, will you be taking it seriously.
Sounds like you're tired of being a GM.

Absolutely not. What he is doing is showering it with love.

I most certainly relate to Hama. We don't think twice about our kids entering sporting events where they have to do to camps, practice everyday, hang it up on their walls, etc. I, too, am seriously serious about my fun...that makes it more fun. Every gamer, like every hobbyist has pet peeves regarding the game. For me, it's dice-flippers, but especially it's those who can't be responsible enough for someone to be committed to showing to the game when it's scheduled, for the scheduled amount of time. If you can't make it, vacate the seat for someone who can. But I have a friend who tells me she can't stand gamers just because we expect this 'unreasonable' commitment. Yet she wouldn't dream of her daughter blowing off a swim meet when she is on the team.

However, there's a flip side to that. A game is still a game. If that player hit depression after that character died, there is an unhealthy obsession to the game. Just like the sports player who commits suicide or goes on a drinking binge when they lose a game. Now, keep in mind, a single incident does not a depressed person make. If these situations occur, I will guarantee you that the situation was already there and a bug pooing on a bus bench beside them could have just as easily thrown them into that situation. But I will not tolerate fits, accusations, anger, and rudeness to me or anyone else at the table because the game is not going their way. Like any other game...good sportsmanship and a healthy view of the game are not only necessary...they are required.

Silver Crusade

Thanks Kirst and William. I appreciate the answer.

Jack, most of the posters are correct...you particular campaign is your own. Even the writers of Paizo state that the books are a guideline, and you should feel free to adjust to what you need and/or want. TThe person to really ask is your GM. Who knows, maybe in your setting, he never died.

Although I will say, Aroden reminds me of a certain Divine Being on our own world...and I can't help but wonder if we have truly seen the end of him...currently dead and judged or not. We are dealing with gods after all. In my book, that makes anything possible.

Silver Crusade

Take Boat wrote:

First page, first section of the Inner Sea World Guide:

Quote:

Just over a century ago, the god of humanity died. His name was Aroden…

…Aroden, the god of humanity, died…
…death of the god of humanity…
…Aroden's death scarred the world…
…decades since Aroden's death

And later:

Quote:

Aroden's death…

…Aroden died, and a part of Cheliax died with him…
…death of Aroden…
…sudden death of the god Aroden…
…between Aroden's death…
…precise moment Aroden died…
…following the death of Aroden…
…death of Aroden transformed…
…Aroden (The Last Azlanti; Dead God)…
…Aroden died, leaving his followers…
…death of the last Azlanti…
Although the section on Mendev mentioned that Clerics of Iomedae existed during the emergence of the Worldwound.

Yes, I've seen all those entries, however, the exact details state that Aroden disappeared and is presumed dead. So while passing mentions speak of his death, absolutely nowhere can I find an actual accounting of what may or may not have occurred. There isn't even a hint as to what the incident that caused his death was. Perhaps it is in a novel...I haven't read those...but I have strived in vain to find an accounting of his death in the gaming books to no avail.

Silver Crusade

Did I miss an entry in a book, somewhere? Highly, highly possible, I simply don't have the money to own everything...but everything I've read on Aroden doesn't have a definitive basis of his death. He disappeared and is presumed dead...with Iomedae taking his roles in his absence? If I missed something....please clue me in.

Silver Crusade

GM Elton wrote:
zohaletha wrote:
GM Elton wrote:
thunderspirit wrote:
Drejk wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Unless you're a cheese pizza without too much cheese
There is no such thing as too much cheese on pizza.

There is when you're lactose-intolerant.

Sincerely, Lactose Intolerant.

you can't be Lactose Intolerant to cheesecake, right?

Lactose Intolerant to cheesecake...check; Plus the pizza...check; Aaaannnnddd ice cream, pudding, cream cakes, cream cheese, even...worst of all...milk chocolate. Seriously, anyone realize how milk is in EVERYTHING? If it's not drowning in cheese, it's got milk mixed in with it.

What's really hard? When you didn't start out lactose intolerant, but your body developed it after years of absolutely adoring all that stuff. Torture....it truly is.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. You can't be lactose intolerant to CHEESECAKE, right?

Ahhh, sorry. Missed the reference. Weelll, I still find Red Sonja difficult to digest. ^_~

Silver Crusade

GM Elton wrote:
thunderspirit wrote:
Drejk wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Unless you're a cheese pizza without too much cheese
There is no such thing as too much cheese on pizza.

There is when you're lactose-intolerant.

Sincerely, Lactose Intolerant.

you can't be Lactose Intolerant to cheesecake, right?

Lactose Intolerant to cheesecake...check; Plus the pizza...check; Aaaannnnddd ice cream, pudding, cream cakes, cream cheese, even...worst of all...milk chocolate. Seriously, anyone realize how milk is in EVERYTHING? If it's not drowning in cheese, it's got milk mixed in with it.

What's really hard? When you didn't start out lactose intolerant, but your body developed it after years of absolutely adoring all that stuff. Torture....it truly is.

Silver Crusade

Maulium wrote:
zohaletha wrote:
They never forget they are heroes...fighting seemingly insurmountable odds.

Heroes? What would you define as heroic?

May you give examples?

Perhaps I'm being critical here, but....You honestly need a definition for what the average person would consider heroism? Really?

As a mother who has two sons who work in law enforcement and search and rescue, I'm going to let this one go.

Silver Crusade

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I play humans because the bonus feat is worth more than any of the monster races abilities.

As for justifying them...have you looked at all the crazy monsters the PCs encounter? Are you seriously saying in a world where you encounter goblins, orcs, hobgoblins, gnolls, vampires, ghouls, nymphs, dryads, barghests, basilisks, chokers, centaurs, dragons, gargoyles, six types of giants, lamias, lizardfolk, minotaurs, hags, pixies, ogres, sahuagin, satyr, yetis, and so many other things, you balk at the players having access to aasimar, tieflings, ifrits, or anything else because they don't make sense?

Your PCs are only a handful of characters in a MUCH bigger world.

No, Trio, I don't balk at the access...I balk at the dominance of it. Even in a world rife with alternative lifeforms...the game mechanics and campaign settings are both clear....humans are the dominant lifeform, even over elves, dwarves, gnomes, halfings, etc. I certainly don't mind the occasional, and even common, inclusion of such races. But when alternatives become the mainstream, I believe it is time to review precisely what is going on.

Now, if we're playing in a nation where the dominant race is one of those rare ones, then it is understandable, albeit restrictive in its scope. But these races are supposed to be either the results of exceptionally rare matings (Assimars, etc., of small and/or hidden populations that do not interact with society-at-large typically, or monstrous in its nature being the thing that is slain. Having nothing but them running around...yeah, I got a problem with that.

Silver Crusade

thenobledrake wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
zohaletha wrote:
No evil, CN or N...I've yet to meet the person who can play a truly N or CN person.
I thought most people are Neutral.

Some people see N alignment as not being particularly for or against either side of either axis.

Some people see N alignment as being fully dedicated to balance of both axes.

That's why there end up being people that feel like no one can "truly play" the alignment.

As for CN - too many people think that stands for "crazy nuts".

My own experience on Evil characters: intentionally taking things way overboard to make some kind of point, which just spoils it - no need to go straight for in-character murder at the drop of a hat, rape, or full on genocide... but I've seen so many players do that instead of just being selfish, easy to violence, and generally spiteful and hateful.

Noble and Sun, there are good points from both of you. Sun, I would tend to agree that it is natural, especially in our society, for most people to have Neutral tendencies. Neutral, when you look at the definition, truly insinuates either selfish or dissasociated viewpoints (For Noble's statement of balance, dissasociation would have to be involved). However, these are accompanied with personal biases, which interfere with the perception, thus good, evil, lawful and chaos would have sway over any action and/or interaction. There is simply not the person that can completely dissociate him/herself to the point of maintaining absolutely no bias, whatsoever. Further, since even trained, celebrity actors/actresses acknowledge that every part played contains aspects of the person playing the role (which adjudicates preferences for certain ones from fans), then it really becomes impossible to achieve true neutrality.

The CN alignment builds upon that. While one does not have to be 'crazy nuts' to be CN, they would have to extricate themselves from any semblance of order. CG and CE would both compensate at least aspects of order in the attempt to pursue good/evil biases. However, the neutral/chaos blend demands only chaos. Even in nature, one can perceive that order blends with chaos so that sustainability can take place. Humanity operates on at least the underlying assumption of at least points of order.

Silver Crusade

DeathQuaker wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
DeathQuaker wrote:
ulgulanoth wrote:

Every GM has things they don't run, systems they don't like, monsters that are too complicated to run, spells that break the game, crazy items that destroy the session, ect.

Lets hear yours!
Generally speaking, I tend not to like a lot of splat material and find trying to include it all gets overwhelming. So there's a lot of supplementary stuff I won't include or will allow only on a case by case basis.

Not to rain on your parade, but you've reminded me of another kind of game I don't run: core only. Tried it once because I thought it would make the game simpler for brand new role players, but within a week they were chomping at the bit for more options.

So now I run Everything-and-the-Kitchen-Sink style, only banning things due to extreme genre violation and balance reasons. I guess I've never had a problem including everything because I don't try to define the whole fantasy world before a campaign starts.

Most of the stuff I exclude isn't necessarily because it doesn't fit into the world (a handful of things don't fit into my world but my homebrew world is pretty "standard fantasy" so at the very least 90% of it could apply). It's more about just not wanting to keep track of all that crap and wonder if/how it fits balancedly in with everything already in the game. I don't have a head that easily wraps around that many extra rules and options, and as my players are kind enough to not want to see DQ be overwhelmed and stressed out and not having any fun whatsoever, they'll not beg overmuch for extra stuff and know how to ask for stuff based on concept rather than just wanting X powerful thing that breaks my brain. (As it is, I allow way more in Pathfinder than I ever did in 3.x.)

But if the Kitchen Sink method works for you, then that's great! I'm glad you have something that works for you and your players and that you are having fun.

I do like having options and my players having options, but I agree with you, DQ. It can just get too much. I'm not real happy with the new Ultimate Races book, myself. Mind you, it's not because I have any real problem with any particular entry, but it was hard enough trying to get people to play a human, or even just an elf, dwarf, gnome, etc, before.

I simply cannot justify all the Aasimar, Djinn-offspring, and beastial races coming out of the woodwork. Currently, in one campaign I'm playing, we have one human, who is severely outmatched by every other character. Looking at all the bells-and-whistles of these races, I have a hard time seeing the balance. Who would want to play a human. But from a story angle, How can anyone justify all these creatures running around.

I readily admit. I'm one of those who always likes to do something different, but even I have limits.I sincerely hope Paizo sticks with not allowing the bulk of the book in organized play.

Silver Crusade

cranewings wrote:
zohaletha wrote:


No overpowered classes. In Pathfinder,that's Summoners, Wizards and Witches.
Fixed that for you.

Lol. ^_^

Silver Crusade

No evil, CN or N...I've yet to meet the person who can play a truly N or CN person.

No player-vs-player. We're here to have a good time and too often, those fights don't end with the role-playing.

No overpowered classes. In Pathfinder,that's Paladins and Magus'.

Remember, you may think you're smart Min-Maxing and Powergaming, but I have 25+ years experience, and nobody does it like me. If you do it, I'll do it, too...and you probably DON'T want to meet my min-maxxed monsters.

Keep the setting to the setting. No Oriental-based stuff in Western-based games, no firearms in fantasy, no magic in sci-fi, etc.

Silver Crusade

Wow...several branches of this conversation is getting heated. You know, when I get in this area...and I do more than I care to admit....I try to remind myself of something. As a spiritual person I tell myself...Judge not lest ye be judged...for wherewith you judge another, so do you condemn yourself. Yeah, I know. Those are scripture references, which is not to say that one point of view is better than another. It's merely a reminder. See...they simply remind me of something I know as a counselor...that we tend to criticize others on aspects that we don't like about ourselves.

For instance, it tears me up when I hear people lose their temper and I think man...how rude. But, I'm hot-tempered and emotional my own self...and even years of training doesn't completely negate it. In public, I tend to turn down my nose to people who litter and I'm careful to clean up after myself, but honestly...I'm no housekeeper...and my negligence shows there. Even if it doesn't look exactly the same, the attribute holds true. We unconsciously condemn what we don't like about ourselves, by finding others guilty of the same things.

Humanity, as a whole is so complex. Combine it with community nuances and individual eccentricities....simply no end. There are so many factors...game mechanics, crossing cultures, societal nuances, personal preferences, individual struggles and desensitizations and misperceptions.

We are gamers...through our shared hobby we train ourselves for cooperation and tolerance...kudos to us. Let's keep those kudos....and maybe the next time we are at a cut-throat tournament...a smelly store...etc. we can remember...we can set the example. Is there a stink? Next time come dressed to impress...make it a habit when entering that environment. Or others dissing their opponents? Start complimenting and encouraging...it's contagious. We can have an effect. Don't like stereotypes. Don't just look, act and speak the game. Sprinkle your conversation with sports, education or current events. Wear a top that isn't a T-shirt or maybe change your hair to something trendy. Remember, it all starts with you. Complaining about others or a situation may shock a person to change temporarily, to achieve true, lasting changes comes from example, confidence and consistency.

Silver Crusade

I actually use role-playing in more than just one different aspect. I take this game...and I do have a basic game I GM....and I also use it for home schooling my kids, at seminars where I teach a variety of different things etc. Here is what I teach in those different settings.

Home-schooling
-character development...and I don't mean making a character.
-problem solving skills
-ethics
-social and cultural concerns
-math skills
-literature, reading and fiction
-history and politics
-statistics and probability
-being a good sport and keeping a game a game

Seminars
-conflict resolution
-cooperative play
-teamwork
-leadership/following/service
-economics
-spiritual issues
-community development

This is a just some of them. I have actually spent years advocating gamer role-playing (not just role-playing RL situations) in the educational, counseling, and spiritual fields.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have played and played with a multitude of characters in a variety of game sessions over the decades. I can list 3 favorites of my own characters and some of other player characters.

One of my own characters that was a favorite for years in a large role-playing group was a 7th Sea priest I made. And I always remembered he was a priest...on a pirate ship. He was great. I used confessional booths to pass secret messages, get information and hide things. I used administering last rites as a way to get onto otherwise inaccessible crime scenes. I used ordination immunities to go whereever I wanted. I rarely used a sword, wasn't a healer and didn't touch magic. My character was completely skill based...and he became the single most important character in the group in a campaign that lasted years and even had a few annotations in some gamer magazines.

My favorite character from a fellow player was a Middle-Earth character played in the original I.C.E. system who was a mage and fumbled a spell check. He internalized his spell and lost all spellcasting abilities for a month. Instead of whining about the situation or insisting on changing characters, he walked over to a fallen goblin we had just slain, picked up it's short sword and held it up and said, "I'll use this." Pathfinder, the mage's name, became one of our most valuable characters in another campaign that lasted years.

Silver Crusade

There are always so many views on this, but Pax Veritas made some good points.

Honestly, character deaths happen...and the frequency varies. It is a mesh of a variety of factors, some controllable...some not. You do need to make certain that the challenge rating matches, but I am leary of those who stated that there shouldn't be character deaths or no more than 1-2 over extended time frames.

While it is important to remember that a GMs job is to provide an enjoyable time, it is also important that the players remember that it is just a game...and like any game that includes random elements, nothing is guaranteed.

If there are never any character deaths or they are so rare players are shocked when they happen, you need to up the challenge rating. A GM should make every effort to see that the game is challenging without creating a sense of despair or hopelessness for the players.

I admit that my players refer to me as the killer GM, not because I have a habit of killing off my PCs, though. In fact, I typically only lose 1-3 characters per entire campaign. However, whenever they enter a combat, my players are always sweating bullets wondering if that combat will be the combat when they buy it.

In my campaigns, I make 2 assumptions regarding my monsters. 1- they have a brain...and 2- they want to live, too. As such, my monsters THINK. This makes my players think, plan, work as a team and role-play. Their combats are tough, and I don't mean just from a die roll perspective. But when it's over, if they have also used their heads, then they have survived (I'm also careful to remember my players are heroes designed to beat unbeatable odds and the purpose is that they are supposed to get through it), but most importantly, every one of them walks away with a feeling of accomplishment.

They never forget they are heroes...fighting seemingly insurmountable odds.

Silver Crusade

Many years ago, when I was just starting out...we're talking decades here...it was normal for the GM to have a PC and for players to run multiple characters even. This was due, usually, to small group size and believing that in order to succeed we HAD to have every class. Over the years I've come to realize that good roleplaying and good GM'ing can remove the obsessive need for numerical advantages.

Of course, sometimes, people just wanted to do it. As you can imagine, some were more successful than other...from the player who can have arguments with himself to the player who is simply rolling dice to add to numbers on a piece of paper...you have to consider everything.

I have not simultaneously ran a player while GM'ing in more years than I can count...and my players do not run multiple PCs. Nor do we any longer try to figure out who's playing the rogue and who's got the cleric.

If I do find that the adventure requires particular needs, it is almost inevitably a temporary situation that an NPC can fulfill. By not playing PCs, I am free to not only pay more attention to what the players are doing, but can add more personality to a brief and/or recurring NPC and to the overall adventure. That way I get to have 10 little PCs, all with the same amount of love and fun I would have normally put into a single side PC, that could only have gotten a portion of my attention anyway.

Note: In my Kingmaker campaign, Akiros was a recurring NPC who my players really got to know and love. Kingmaker became one of our funnest campaigns and we had several recurring NPCs. If you are tempted to make a PC as a GM, I strongly recommend you try out the notion of recurring NPCs. They can be a LOT of fun for you and the players without stealing your players spotlights.

Silver Crusade

I think one of the big things that is creating the problem for your group is not whether you are playing a "coward" as such. Don't ever forget one of the biggest reasons and joys for making multiple characters...you can try out new classes, new backgrounds...and new personalities. As I read what your fellow players and your GM was commenting on, I got the impression that it wasn't necessarily the actions of that character.

Heck, in my campaign, one of our players also played a "cowardly" wizard. So much so in fact, that he one time asked, "Couldn't we just put up a sign that says, BEWARE OF SPIDERS and go around it?" Everyone got a really good laugh from that. But this same person has also played sacrificial heroes, maniacal rogues and dumb brutes. I got a really strong impression that it wasn't that you were playing a coward, but that you've played nine cowards...and only cowards. Writing a different background on paper, doesn't mean you are playing that character any different than your previous characters.

What I read in your post was not that your are playing manipulators, but that your playing is rote. My advice to you, is shake it up...it's just a piece of paper....playing a death-doomed warrior...and risk-taking rogue. If they die, they die...no big deal. But it is within each player's capability to make every gaming experience memorable...for you and them. Who knows? Maybe you'll find that role-playing a dramatic death scene and then writing it for your character may become a great part of your characterization.

Silver Crusade

As mentioned in the previous posts, there are a number of ways you can handle this...and these ways allow for a lot of personalization on your part based on your and your players make-up, personalities, preferences and experience. Like has been pointed out, remember these factors.

1. Escape opportunities actually give many back-up and support PCs, such as rogues, oracles, clerics, etc...a chance to shine.

2. Encouraging the silver-lining aspect...a good PC with some diplomacy can actually use the situation to acquire more information on the Stag Lord (think Catwoman in the Avenger's opening scene).

3. The module provide back-up NPCs in the form of Kesten and his 4 soldiers, Jhod...and even Oleg if you're so inclined. Plus remember, these NPCs might actually have the opportunity to hold major positions....putting them into play briefly can help cement this.

4. There's more than 1 way to skin a cat...in other words....they can do an ambush while transporting them to the Stag Lord...they can learn about the alcohol by overhearing the soldiers....or even using it to get the current bandits drunk.

5. One thing my group thought to do when I was GM'ing was work at taking out Kressel and then turning the bandits against the Stag Lord. A capture scenario could be the perfect opportunity for this. This actually added in a whole new element of play and kingdom building that expanded out throughout the entire campaign.

MOST OF ALL...Don't despair, or write it off. This could easily become your party's most memorable and funnest incidences in the campaign. Be creative, let your party be creative (they may come up with a better idea than you) and use ALL your resources.


©2002–2014 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.