EDIT: Which isn't actually a bad thing. Charisma is often the least essential feature of a person in real life to be successful, and the least emphasized.It's the least emphasized. Though it's definitely not unimportant, not where I live anyway.
Why do you think people who go one a solicitation where suits? They do it because a suit essentially is a +2 charisma outfit. Same with bank agents or consultants. All they want to is win one or the other charisma check to either get your money or convince you they are right even though they aren't.
Or just look at the important people in business. You rarely see ugly people or people that totally don't have socials skills. They are all people with huge charisma. Just look at Steve Jobs if you don't know what I'm talking about.
Heck, there are even talent scout program that are named after the charismatic aspect of performers. The X-factor in it's core is totally based on charisma.
And why is not emphasized? Because it would be cruel to people who simply don't have it. Working hard is something everyone can do. Though being charismatic simply isn't.
Though let me tell you one thing, if you are ugly, the chance of being successful in live are smaller. And the more ugly you are, sadly, the lower the chance are. Of cource, you can balance part of that with other aspect (just like you can do in pathfinder with forinstance intimidating prowess).P.S. I hope I didn't burst anyone's bubble to much.
No bubbles busted. It fits perfectly. Notice that items that adjust your appearance grant modifiers to Diplomacy skill checks when interacting with people (see noble's clothing description, as well as parade armor descriptions; both which modifier Diplomacy when interacting people, based on your appearance). The +2 Diplomacy suit makes perfect sense. Over in one of the Charisma threads, I posted the following as an example of a social interaction:
But it doesn't say that's all it's for. You can influence an NPC's attitude up or down, causing them to like or dislike you. You can make requests, ask for advice, or even convince them to do something they normally wouldn't do.
Example: Bard with an 18 Charisma walks into a bar. He spots this fine half-elven lass who's playing a flute, and decides he wants to talk to her, impress her, then woo her. He doesn't have Diplomacy, so he's going on his raw natural ability.
She's indifferent 'cause she's not a huge b#@* and she doesn't know him. He walks up and tries to make a good first impression, and rolls 1d20+4, resulting in a 13 (DC 15). Ok, still indifferent. So he talks with her a while, and then decides he's going to try the pickup line, "Hey baby, I got another flute you can play in my room." and rolls his 1d20+4 again, and gets an 18, but she's not a girl who's into one night stands (+5 for complicated/lengthy aid) or perhaps she's worried about garnering a negative reputation for herself (+10 for dangerous aid), setting the DC at 20. Oops, bard biffed it. He's cute and all, but she's not into it. She probably laughs at him or tells him he's barking up the wrong tree. Further requests apply a cumulative +5 penalty, and may result in her becoming irritated.
Sigfried the Fairly Handsome comes into the room. Now Sigfried is something of a local hero and has reached 7th level. He started out as something of a gruff warrior, and had little to talk about rather than swords and combat training, and has a 7 charisma. However, he's gotten pretty good at relating to people, especially having been traveling with his friends so much. He now has a +7 Diplomacy, because he's invested seven ranks and a masterwork suit (+2 Diplomacy).
He sees the same half-elven lass playing the flute, and a rather disappointed bard walking off. He comes up and strikes up a conversation. He takes 10 and gets a 17, making a good first impression with a kind word and a sharp look. He listens to what she says for a while, and has a conversation with her. After a bit, he too gets a bit forward, and casually mentions that he'd love to continue their discussion in his room after dinner. 1d20+7 and he banks a 23, beating the DC 20, and Sigfried has some pillow talk later that evening.
And you're doing that thing again. You just told me my PC puts off weird rapist vibes. Good show dude, now back it up. C'mon, I'm waiting. Tell me where 7 Charisma means "weird rapist vibes", 'cause otherwise, not only are you metagaming the NPC reaction, but you're assigning traits to my PC that aren't part of my PC.
In the example, Sigfried is started out with a fairly poor charisma (7) and wasn't much of a conversationalist. He spent all his time training with weapons, learning to wear armor comfortably without giving out, and all the things that makes someone a great warrior, but at the cost of a lot of his social skills (not everyone just wants to talk about swords and the proper grip techniques for resisting a disarm all the time); but after becoming more social since he began his adventuring career he has overcome a lot of his handicaps. He's still behind the people who either A) are naturally gifted at it, or B) have had more time invested in it; since it's all relatively new to him.
Ashiel,I certainly agree with you on that. As a DM I enjoy very much when a player takes the time to be creative and make a deep and interesting character it makes my job more fun when I can make player specific plot hooks and items and whatnot. During the campaign you can really see who has evolved as a character cause they are well flushed out and those who are not. The premise for that Paladin sounds pretty awesome to me. The sorcerer that you created seems pretty interesting too, though I could imagine the headaches it would cause with a Cha that high lol.
Thanks for the complement on the paladin. I'm very much enjoying her at the moment. She has been fun to play, and my friends seem to really like her. She's definitely a trip. ^-^
do you think i can convince Ashiel to DM a pbp on these boards?
i have some odd characters i wish to play.
I'd love to, but most of my GMing time is taken up either with Tabletop games or with my Heroes of Alvena OpenRPG community, and I'm not very good at checking PbP games promptly enough, I feel.
I do write adventures and other stuff by request, however; and people are always welcome to join up with the Heroes of Alvena groups on the Blackstar server. We usually have a lobby open on that server (marked by the tell-take "HoA" in the room name).
I notice a trend on these comments that people feel that it is wrong for a GM to 'punish' someone for not being 'the strongest role-player.' But that begs the question, is someone 'punished' for making consistently dumb tactical mistakes?
I'll go out on a limb here..Almost inevitably yes.
At the very least, few in this thread are advocating for the GM to stop 'punishing' the tactically-challenged. It appears assumed, by those advocating for consequence-lite roleplaying, that good tactical abilities are the core skills of the game.
So it sounds like there are a lot of players who want to play a war-game that has advancing story elements linking the fights. If a player doesn't get the basics of tactics, she should pay the price. But if she can't role-play well, then the GM should not 'punish' her for that lack by in-game consequences.
I'm really not trying to troll here. As I read through the thread it occurred to me that some skills are assumed 'part of the game' and other skills are assumed to 'ancillary' to the true game.
For me, when I GM or play I prefer challenges in all elements of the game. I love a good role-playing challenge. Am I better at it than some of my table-mates? Honestly, yes. But I also love a tactical challenge and I lean heavily on other players to make sure I don't make too many dumb mistakes. So I think that good role-playing should be rewarded just a much as good tactics. But some see the inverse of that reward and claim that they are 'punished' for bad role-playing. I differ.
Oh, and early in the thread the OP said:
Charisma is often the least essential feature of a person in real life to be successful, and the least emphasized.
I have to vehemently and categorically disagree. Nothing could be further from the truth. That may be true in the world of geeks that we live in, but it certainly ain't so in the real world. It has been fairly well-proven that taller men make more money, on average, than shorter men. To quote a wise man: "And that's all I've got to say about that."
I notice a trend on these comments that people feel that it is wrong for a GM to 'punish' someone for not being 'the strongest role-player.' But that begs the question, is someone 'punished' for making consistently dumb tactical mistakes?
I'll go out on a limb here..Almost inevitably yes.
At the very least, few in this thread are advocating for the GM to stop 'punishing' the tactically-challenged. It appears assumed, by those advocating for consequence-lite roleplaying, that good tactical abilities are the core skills of the game.
So it sounds like there are a lot of players who want to play a war-game that has advancing story elements linking the fights. If a player doesn't get the basics of tactics, she should pay the price. But if she can't role-play well, then the GM should not 'punish' her for that lack by in-game consequences.
I'm really not trying to troll here. As I read through the thread it occurred to me that some skills are assumed 'part of the game' and other skills are assumed to 'ancillary' to the true game.
For me, when I GM or play I prefer challenges in all elements of the game. I love a good role-playing challenge. Am I better at it than some of my table-mates? Honestly, yes. But I also love a tactical challenge and I lean heavily on other players to make sure I don't make too many dumb mistakes. So I think that good role-playing should be rewarded just a much as good tactics. But some see the inverse of that reward and claim that they are 'punished' for bad role-playing. I differ.
Oh, and early in the thread the OP said:
Charisma is often the least essential feature of a person in real life to be successful, and the least emphasized.I have to vehemently and categorically disagree. Nothing could be further from the truth. That may be true in the world of geeks that we live in, but it certainly ain't so in the real world. It has been fairly well-proven that taller men make more money, on average, than shorter men. To quote a wise man: "And that's...
+1
I have to vehemently and categorically disagree. Nothing could be further from the truth. That may be true in the world of geeks that we live in, but it certainly ain't so in the real world. It has been fairly well-proven that taller men make more money, on average, than shorter men. To quote a wise man: "And that's all I've got to say about that."
In the real world, we don't arbitrarily and falsely equate "looks" to Charisma. Charisma has NOTHING to do with a tall person or symmetrically faced person doing better in the business world than a person without those traits. It's like you aren't disagreeing at all.
|
I notice a trend on these comments that people feel that it is wrong for a GM to 'punish' someone for not being 'the strongest role-player.' But that begs the question, is someone 'punished' for making consistently dumb tactical mistakes?
I'll go out on a limb here..Almost inevitably yes.
At the very least, few in this thread are advocating for the GM to stop 'punishing' the tactically-challenged. It appears assumed, by those advocating for consequence-lite roleplaying, that good tactical abilities are the core skills of the game.
So it sounds like there are a lot of players who want to play a war-game that has advancing story elements linking the fights. If a player doesn't get the basics of tactics, she should pay the price. But if she can't role-play well, then the GM should not 'punish' her for that lack by in-game consequences.
I'm really not trying to troll here. As I read through the thread it occurred to me that some skills are assumed 'part of the game' and other skills are assumed to 'ancillary' to the true game.
For me, when I GM or play I prefer challenges in all elements of the game. I love a good role-playing challenge. Am I better at it than some of my table-mates? Honestly, yes. But I also love a tactical challenge and I lean heavily on other players to make sure I don't make too many dumb mistakes. So I think that good role-playing should be rewarded just a much as good tactics. But some see the inverse of that reward and claim that they are 'punished' for bad role-playing. I differ.
Oh, and early in the thread the OP said:
Charisma is often the least essential feature of a person in real life to be successful, and the least emphasized.I have to vehemently and categorically disagree. Nothing could be further from the truth. That may be true in the world of geeks that we live in, but it certainly ain't so in the real world. It has been fairly well-proven that taller men make more money, on average, than shorter men. To quote a wise man: "And that's...
+2
I notice a trend on these comments that people feel that it is wrong for a GM to 'punish' someone for not being 'the strongest role-player.' But that begs the question, is someone 'punished' for making consistently dumb tactical mistakes?
I'll go out on a limb here..Almost inevitably yes.
At the very least, few in this thread are advocating for the GM to stop 'punishing' the tactically-challenged. It appears assumed, by those advocating for consequence-lite roleplaying, that good tactical abilities are the core skills of the game.
So it sounds like there are a lot of players who want to play a war-game that has advancing story elements linking the fights. If a player doesn't get the basics of tactics, she should pay the price. But if she can't role-play well, then the GM should not 'punish' her for that lack by in-game consequences.
I'm really not trying to troll here. As I read through the thread it occurred to me that some skills are assumed 'part of the game' and other skills are assumed to 'ancillary' to the true game.
For me, when I GM or play I prefer challenges in all elements of the game. I love a good role-playing challenge. Am I better at it than some of my table-mates? Honestly, yes. But I also love a tactical challenge and I lean heavily on other players to make sure I don't make too many dumb mistakes. So I think that good role-playing should be rewarded just a much as good tactics. But some see the inverse of that reward and claim that they are 'punished' for bad role-playing. I differ.
Oh, and early in the thread the OP said:
Charisma is often the least essential feature of a person in real life to be successful, and the least emphasized.I have to vehemently and categorically disagree. Nothing could be further from the truth. That may be true in the world of geeks that we live in, but it certainly ain't so in the real world. It has been fairly well-proven that taller men make more money, on average, than shorter men. To quote a wise man: "And that's...
Taller men are also usually bigger, which gives an increased opportunity to excel at physical tasks. You won't be seeing any short centers in the NBA.
edit:As an example back in my H.S. days I was running a 4.6 40 out of shape. If I had gotten in shape I could have gotten down to a 4.5 at the least. I am however only about 5'4. Pushing me up to 6 ft would have given me the height to be a potential prospect at WR or CB.
Charisma deals with the magnitude of one's personal persona and presence. It is the force of one's personality and how well people like you. Everyone knows at least one person who has that magnetic quality.
To the OP, I think it takes empathy when you're a DM. When sitting behind the all-mighty screen upon my pedestal, I always take into account how I would feel playing in a given situation, what has come across as petty to me (as a PC) by the DM, and other such factors.
While this thread has been beaten to death, it lets me sleep at night knowing I posted something...
Okay, taller is only tangentially related to Charisma (but not unrelated, I'd argue.) One aspect of what I consider to be "Charisma" is what is called 'leadership' in many business circles.
I see it all the time in the mutli-national corporation that I'm in (and I operate at a decently senior level)...those who others follow naturally tend to be more successful (which is an appropriately vague term on its own.)
I'm not just talking about good looks or height. I mean those whose force of personality is such that people tend to look to them for leadership. And this doesn't have anything to do with their intelligence or wisdom.
We all know of some pretty small intellects who somehow have the raw force of personality to gain quite a following...not matter how dumb their actions and statements. (Alas, stupidity seems to have no political affiliations...)
|
@OP: /fistbump
I know that 4th edition gets a lot of hate on these boards, but if there's one thing I've always thought WotC got right, it was the emphasis of DM'ing FOR your players, not AT your players. You are there to make sure they have a rocking good time. And that's what the game is about :P
(Yeah, I'm not chiming in on the current topic, just responding to the OP)
@OP: /fistbump
I know that 4th edition gets a lot of hate on these boards, but if there's one thing I've always thought WotC got right, it was the emphasis of DM'ing FOR your players, not AT your players. You are there to make sure they have a rocking good time. And that's what the game is about :P
(Yeah, I'm not chiming in on the current topic, just responding to the OP)
Yeah the 4th ed dmg is well written.
@OP: /fistbump
I know that 4th edition gets a lot of hate on these boards, but if there's one thing I've always thought WotC got right, it was the emphasis of DM'ing FOR your players, not AT your players. You are there to make sure they have a rocking good time. And that's what the game is about :P
(Yeah, I'm not chiming in on the current topic, just responding to the OP)
mmmm....4th ed goes waaayyyy to far in the other direction though.
mmmm....4th ed goes waaayyyy to far in the other direction though.@OP: /fistbump
I know that 4th edition gets a lot of hate on these boards, but if there's one thing I've always thought WotC got right, it was the emphasis of DM'ing FOR your players, not AT your players. You are there to make sure they have a rocking good time. And that's what the game is about :P
(Yeah, I'm not chiming in on the current topic, just responding to the OP)
That seems to be a common sentiment. They were so intent on making corrections, they ended up creating a new set of problems.
It fills me with joy to see that there are so many GMs floating around here that aren't specifically out to get their PCs. It honestly makes it much, much easier to see the plethora of threads on message boards asking for advice on how to ruin a player's day in one way or another; because I now think of this thread and realize that's just a very vocal portion of our community; not necessarily a majority.
I guess the reason it bothers me so is because I've seen some bad GMs in my time; and by bad GMs, I mean the ones who are out to get you, who want to keep you from doing anything (heck, I had a GM who didn't want my ranger to sleep outdoors; or a GM who would sick monsters on the party if my PC danced nekkid in the woods (check out the lore for Eliastree from the forgotten realms if you're curious) because he said it was stupid; and so on, and so forth.
And I've seen that a great session can make a gamer for life.
And I've seen that the opposite can have an equally opposite outcome.
So I guess, without ever meaning to, I find it hard to divest myself of personal feelings when these kinds of things pop up. However, now I see that there must be at least 3 GMs who want to give a great shared experience to every 1 that doesn't; at least on the Paizo forums.
Kudos, and hurray for everyone. :)
I've never set out to mess up the pcs. My aim is always to tell the story they want to tell as entertainingly as possible - players are the heroes and what they choose to do should make a difference.
That's not to say that I sit back and allow things to happen in the way they think they might. The world is still going on around them, so actions have consquences. Some good, some bad, some just plain unpredictable.
Plot is improvised drama for me and improvised drama is all about saying "yes". Each time I offer a situation to the pcs, they are choosing to accept that offer and alter it. Each time they offer me a situation, the same thing happens. The difference, from my side, is that I know about the wider ramifications of the world they live in and they don't always.
2) How can I "legitimately" give my players less XP/Treasure/stuff that they have earned?
I personally shave xp in half, AND use the "slow" xp progression, on the basis that it simply seems too fast to me. Of course, most games seem that way to me, so there you are. And, on top of that, my group's good with it, and the other DMs in the group do this as well, so it isn't so much a mandate as a general understanding.
I'm really becoming disturbed. I mean on an actual real level. I see posts that are literally asking how to mess with their players for seemingly random stuff. Asking how to spite them, punish them, or make them regret playing their characters.
Yeh, I've played with jerky DMs like that. We ejected them from the group.
EDIT: Which isn't actually a bad thing. Charisma is often the least essential feature of a person in real life to be successful, and the least emphasized.It's the least emphasized. Though it's definitely not unimportant, not where I live anyway.
Why do you think people who go one a solicitation where suits? They do it because a suit essentially is a +2 charisma outfit. Same with bank agents or consultants. All they want to is win one or the other charisma check to either get your money or convince you they are right even though they aren't.
Or just look at the important people in business. You rarely see ugly people or people that totally don't have socials skills. They are all people with huge charisma. Just look at Steve Jobs if you don't know what I'm talking about.
Heck, there are even talent scout program that are named after the charismatic aspect of performers. The X-factor in it's core is totally based on charisma.
And why is not emphasized? Because it would be cruel to people who simply don't have it. Working hard is something everyone can do. Though being charismatic simply isn't.
Though let me tell you one thing, if you are ugly, the chance of being successful in live are smaller. And the more ugly you are, sadly, the lower the chance are. Of cource, you can balance part of that with other aspect (just like you can do in pathfinder with forinstance intimidating prowess).P.S. I hope I didn't burst anyone's bubble to much.
No bubbles busted. It fits perfectly. Notice that items that adjust your appearance grant modifiers to Diplomacy skill checks when interacting with people (see noble's clothing description, as well as parade armor descriptions; both which modifier Diplomacy when interacting people, based on your appearance). The +2 Diplomacy suit makes perfect sense. Over in one of the Charisma threads, I posted the following as an example of a social interaction:
** spoiler omitted **...
This is perhaps the most interesting and realistic description of picking up someone in game(and perhaps in real life). Thank you, this is excellent.
I think one of the worst things a DM/GM, whatever, can do is say a character broke their world; whats up with that. How can this even really be possible; is it that the players challenge the GM thinking that they cannot come up with a scenario; what does it blow up? like are the pc's diety killers; I really am mystified by this and think this a gm screwing over players; after all, everyone made a character and devoted a lot of time and energy into their characters; and to suddenly not have a game to play because the world is suddenly "broken"; well, that sucks.
This is perhaps the most interesting and realistic description of picking up someone in game(and perhaps in real life). Thank you, this is excellent.
Thank you Freehold. I appreciate it.
I think one of the worst things a DM/GM, whatever, can do is say a character broke their world; whats up with that. How can this even really be possible; is it that the players challenge the GM thinking that they cannot come up with a scenario; what does it blow up? like are the pc's diety killers; I really am mystified by this and think this a gm screwing over players; after all, everyone made a character and devoted a lot of time and energy into their characters; and to suddenly not have a game to play because the world is suddenly "broken"; well, that sucks.
I know, right? :P
+1
This attitude has pushed me out of PFS. Happily, I have found a gaming group that is playing to have fun with a GM who is working to tell a fun and interesting story.
I'm really becoming disturbed. I mean on an actual real level. I see posts that are literally asking how to mess with their players for seemingly random stuff. Asking how to spite them, punish them, or make them regret playing their characters. I see people lining up with piles and piles of really bad advice, telling them to do stuff like making extra rules to punish them twice, or telling them they can't do something arbitrarily ("you've been hit with Feeblemind,...
It fills me with joy to see that there are so many GMs floating around here that aren't specifically out to get their PCs. It honestly makes it much, much easier to see the plethora of threads on message boards asking for advice on how to ruin a player's day in one way or another; because I now think of this thread and realize that's just a very vocal portion of our community; not necessarily a majority.
I guess the reason it bothers me so is because I've seen some bad GMs in my time; and by bad GMs, I mean the ones who are out to get you, who want to keep you from doing anything (heck, I had a GM who didn't want my ranger to sleep outdoors; or a GM who would sick monsters on the party if my PC danced nekkid in the woods (check out the lore for Eliastree from the forgotten realms if you're curious) because he said it was stupid; and so on, and so forth.
And I've seen that a great session can make a gamer for life.
And I've seen that the opposite can have an equally opposite outcome.So I guess, without ever meaning to, I find it hard to divest myself of personal feelings when these kinds of things pop up. However, now I see that there must be at least 3 GMs who want to give a great shared experience to every 1 that doesn't; at least on the Paizo forums.
Kudos, and hurray for everyone. :)
I do not go out of my way to "screw" my players over...
However if you design your character with a low stat, a foible, or some other weakness do not expect me to ignore it.If you have your character do something tremendously stupid do not expect me to bend over backwards to keep your character alive.
I have 5 simple table rules when I GM.
- 1: When play starts you are "in character" anything you say... your character does or says. (this one is usually only enforced when it is funny or tangential table talk threatens rule 5 for some or all the players.
- 2: Actions/choices have consequences. (means just what it says)
- 3: whats good for the goose is good for the gander. Meaning any "kewl" power/class/gear/tactic/etc that you may have is just as readily available to the NPCs as well.
- 4: I am the GM. I am the final arbiter of the rules. If you disagree with a ruling you get 5 minutes to present your case in a calm and reasonable manner; I will listen. This does not mean that I will necessarily change my ruling. If you still disagree save it for when the session is over; we will discuss the ruling in more depth at that time. I control all the NPCs including the gods... continuing to argue a rule after the time limit during play will invoke rules 1 and 2.
- 5: last but not least... Have Fun
These rules and a healthy imagination have made my games some of the most entertaining for players.
I think one of the worst things a DM/GM, whatever, can do is say a character broke their world; whats up with that.
I have never seen a post that said that. I wish I did so I could ask questions directly.
I think one of the worst things a DM/GM, whatever, can do is say a character broke their world; whats up with that.I have never seen a post that said that. I wish I did so I could ask questions directly.
Actually it is quite possible to break a GMs world (you have to actively work at it but it is possible) of course this has the added side effect of breaking the GM as well.
I have only ever done this twice... both times the GM deserved what he got (they were both truly horrid GMs of the worst stripe... gave GMs everywhere a bad rep).
I do not go out of my way to "screw" my players over...
However if you design your character with a low stat, a foible, or some other weakness do not expect me to ignore it.If you have your character do something tremendously stupid do not expect me to bend over backwards to keep your character alive.
I have 5 simple table rules when I GM.
- 1: When play starts you are "in character" anything you say... your character does or says. (this one is usually only enforced when it is funny or tangential table talk threatens rule 5 for some or all the players.
- 2: Actions/choices have consequences. (means just what it says)
- 3: whats good for the goose is good for the gander.
- 4: I am the GM. I am the final arbiter of the rules. If you disagree with a ruling you get 5 minutes to present your case in a calm and reasonable manner; I will listen. This does not mean that I will necessarily change my ruling. If you still disagree save it for when the session is over; we will discuss the ruling in more depth at that time. I control all the NPCs including the gods... continuing to argue a rule after the time limit during play will invoke rules 1 and 2.
- 5: last but not least... Have Fun.
These rules and a healthy imagination have made my games some of the most entertaining for players.[/list]
Over the years I have developed similiar rules...and have to agree it is great. All DMs should use them. Though number 1 I am lax with...people can make out of game comments....
Also I know I have done a great job when my player say with a smile "You are a !@#$" Because it means I have challenged them and they are having fun.
I think one of the worst things a DM/GM, whatever, can do is say a character broke their world; whats up with that.I have never seen a post that said that. I wish I did so I could ask questions directly.Actually it is quite possible to break a GMs world (you have to actively work at it but it is possible) of course this has the added side effect of breaking the GM as well.
I have only ever done this twice... both times the GM deserved what he got (they were both truly horrid GMs of the worst stripe... gave GMs everywhere a bad rep).
Yeah a volunteer. How did you do it?
I think one of the worst things a DM/GM, whatever, can do is say a character broke their world; whats up with that.I have never seen a post that said that. I wish I did so I could ask questions directly.
I do this regularly. If by "break the world," you mean "go so far off the rails the DM has to find some way to stitch the new world together."
|
I think one of the worst things a DM/GM, whatever, can do is say a character broke their world; whats up with that.I have never seen a post that said that. I wish I did so I could ask questions directly.I do this regularly. If by "break the world," you mean "go so far off the rails the DM has to find some way to stitch the new world together."
if I didn't know better, I'd swear we played together in college (Southern CT State in the late 90's, in case you're curious)...."breaking" the DM's "world" can only happen if he/she is rigid and doesn't flow with the PC's actions / Player's decisions.
"Oh, you take 30 days off to go create all these cool items & suchlike...ok"
...30 + travel-time days later, party arrives at dungeon to find:
A: It's been trapped up the wazoo.
B: The original antagonist (be they kobolds/gnomes/orcs/what have you) have picked up & left
C: there's some kind of big, scary monster (say, the combined CR value of all those potential "lesser" encounters) towards the middle/end of the dungeon
D: some other place is now under threat from the displaced/wandering tribe of monsters.
"The flexible reed withstands gales which uproot the mighty oak," after all.
The problem is our DM is running a homebrew campaign that should obviously be on rails but we don't even get so much as a hint as to how to proceed. Which leads to the party 'leader' and his people standing around doing crazy stuff and me being bored with crazy stuff and bored with the players' whatever they are doing, I just do something else.
The best example is we were "thrown back in time" and the DM's whole plot was we are supposed to be run into by some enemies of our country (back in the day) and we would defeat them and go do stuff and be done with the arc. Ok, so we come out of a cave and the leader and people on the page with him spend an hour out of game time trying to figure out where they are by trying to figure out who can best climb a tree and after having achieved that one by one then try and figure out who has the knowledge to know where we are (from the top of a tree in the middle of the woods). I (being quite tired of this) have my character look up and down the river we were standing next to, see a city up each way, flip a coin, and just start walking. Another player just went with me for whatever reason so the party is left without its bruisers and by the time they finish their lumberjack games, our characters are gone. We, ourselves, eventually come across the (low level) war party the group was supposed to run into and instead of beating their faces in we tell them we aren't enemies and hop on the wagon train to the closest town. by the time the rest of the party gets to that point, they find a higher level group of bad guys. The leader pulls the worst bluff eve and they are stripped and thrown into a holding cage at the back of the train. (I have no idea why the DM had these guys be stupid powerful [he made them up on the fly] instead of being more peons)
Thus breaking the entire previously created plot line.
Of course, the DM also did this to himself earlier in the game where a decision he made about how an ability work based on the fluff ended up breaking a lot of stuff (literally and figuratively).
Of course, it isn't simply homebrew campaigns I break by just deciding not to go along with the ridiculous working of other minds. Our DM for Rise of the Runelords kind of had to make up how an encounter would play out on the fly after we decided to set a crazy ass ambush instead of bursting in and fighting headlong.
I never intentionally want to screw over my players. We are all there to have fun, and it isn't fun to be jerked around. That said I have no qualms about letting stupid and dangerous actions have consequences if my players choose to pursue them. I also have no patience for munchkins and other players who only play to break the game.
|
|
@ Cartigan:
Of course, it isn't simply homebrew campaigns I break by just deciding not to go along with the ridiculous working of other minds. Our DM for Rise of the Runelords kind of had to make up how an encounter would play out on the fly after we decided to set a crazy ass ambush instead of bursting in and fighting headlong.
i'm starting a thread to discuss further ambushy, make your DM wrack his brain, off the cuff stuff HERE, if you'd like to continue the discussion.
/threadjack
I'm not going to punish my player if he has a 8 Charisma in real life and an 18 Charisma in the game, but I'm also not going to allow a genius (in real life) to play his 7 Int / Wis Half-Orc at that same genius level. To be fair, it works BOTH ways, not just in the players benefit.
Killing a character without cause is picking on the player. Forcing him to roleplay choices he made when he created a character in a ROLEPLAYING game isn't screwing anyone over. Pathfinder is a roleplaying game, not a tactical game, the non-combat stats matter.
In Pathfinder, it's impossible to ignore combat stats like Str / Dex / Con, especially since combat drives most of the action. The problem is that it's very possible to ignore non-combat stats, Int / Wis / Chr, because players can also use their real Int / Wis / Chr to override the character's abilties. It's non-combat stats that make Pathfinder a roleplaying game instead of a strategy game.
If you're the type of DM that allows players to ignore their non-combat stats, you're definitely playing Pathfinder less as a roleplaying game and more as a strategy /tactical game. If you want to make non-combat stats not matter, that's your choice, but it's not the type of game I want to play.
You're correct, some DMs are too punishing / controlling and make up really bad/unfair rules on-the-fly, but it's their game and you don't have to listen to their advice. I guess that applies to anything.
Am I the only GM who's more interested in seeing how a player is going to bring his or her character to life, rather than telling them how to play their character based on numbers on their paper?
Isn't roleplaying (with consideration to their stats, both good and bad) part of "bringing a character to life"?
I'm not going to punish my player if he has a 8 Charisma in real life and an 18 Charisma in the game, but I'm also not going to allow a genius (in real life) to play his 7 Int / Wis Half-Orc at that same genius level. To be fair, it works BOTH ways, not just in the players benefit.
Killing a character without cause is picking on the player. Forcing him to roleplay choices he made when he created a character in a ROLEPLAYING game isn't screwing anyone over. Pathfinder is a roleplaying game, not a tactical game, the non-combat stats matter.
In Pathfinder, it's impossible to ignore combat stats like Str / Dex / Con, especially since combat drives most of the action. The problem is that it's very possible to ignore non-combat stats, Int / Wis / Chr, because players can also use their real Int / Wis / Chr to override the character's abilties. It's non-combat stats that make Pathfinder a roleplaying game instead of a strategy game.
If you're the type of DM that allows players to ignore their non-combat stats, you're definitely playing Pathfinder less as a roleplaying game and more as a strategy /tactical game. If you want to make non-combat stats not matter, that's your choice, but it's not the type of game I want to play.
You're correct, some DMs are too punishing / controlling and make up really bad/unfair rules on-the-fly, but it's their game and you don't have to listen to their advice. I guess that applies to anything.
Am I the only GM who's more interested in seeing how a player is going to bring his or her character to life, rather than telling them how to play their character based on numbers on their paper?Isn't roleplaying (with consideration to their stats, both good and bad) part of "bringing a character to life"?
As I said before people with low charisma generally know it in real life, and they are often smart enough not to draw attention to themselves. When they do have to speak they they do just enough to get by without making themselves look bad if possible. Now if a player has low charisma, and low wisdom then he may think he is well liked when everyone else knows the truth.
My solution to people that want to play an int of 7, but use their real life intelligence is to have monsters do the same thing. If they complain just call them on it.
Look for a post by balfic graa or llvenoc; you can find one in my valegrim's homebrew; and ask him how a character broke his world; am also wondering how he will answer; he is one of the several I know who have said that has happened.
I think one of the worst things a DM/GM, whatever, can do is say a character broke their world; whats up with that.I have never seen a post that said that. I wish I did so I could ask questions directly.
Personally, I would like it if my players challenged me a little more; I throw out so many sub plots and secondary plots and tertiary plots that generally all go kaplunk that is is a bit slow only doing a few plots at a time; this might just be a pbp issue; in my "around a table" games; that never happens and I am usually juggling 8-14 plots at a time and can do so pretty easily.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
In the real world, we don't arbitrarily and falsely equate "looks" to Charisma. Charisma has NOTHING to do with a tall person or symmetrically faced person doing better in the business world than a person without those traits. It's like you aren't disagreeing at all.
It isn't arbitrary. Personal Charisma is a combination of factors. Being taller or being better looking or owning a better suit enhances your personal charisma just like being well-spoken, being funny, knowing when to shut your mouth, etc. You can't say being tall isn't a matter of charisma - of course it is. It's a trait about one's self that statistically makes them more likable or more intimidating or more novel.
We have an agent at my firm who is 6'10". Great, likable guy with a good sense of humor. When he goes into a house to sell insurance he has an automatic advantage in that he's memorable, personal, and his height is an instant conversation piece. He gets it all the time:
"How tall are you, for real?"
"Well, 6'10", but I'm white so the NBA didn't want me. Hahahaha. The important thing is that we're here to talk about you, though..."
Instant rapport. Which is to say instant charisma.
And you guys forgot to mention that taller GMs kill more player. Muhahahaha.
I am not trying to derail the thread, but if we are to discuss charisma, I would say that suits are far from +2 modifiers to charisma. If someone is not comfortable in a suit, that shows immediately. Neither does being tall help you if you are unsure of yourself. What a suit does help you with is that it makes it show that you have put in effort at how you look, something that is taken as a good show by those you interact with.
"Fake it until you make it" is a solid figure of speech. Pretend you're a bigshot, have awesome skills, and that you're giving the one you're interacting with a great opportunity to meet you, show that you're interested in what they have to say and who they are, and you'll project the right stuff. Eventually, as you get better at it, you'll really start to feel this way when meeting others.
Only thing is: Some lucky bastards do this unconsciously. Those are the ones who pick up people all the time, who cover rooms with their presence, and can start working in any career and will see success, even if they're not all that bright.