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

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

My Game, My Rules


Gamer Talk


3 people marked this as a favorite.

There are so many games, games with different rules, different settings, different play styles. Sometimes to get the feel of the setting / game, and for the enjoyment of the game you change rules, which is okay because rule sets for games are really more like guidelines. Sometimes they work really well without any interference, sometimes you it doesn't quite fit what you're trying to fit it into, and sometimes it just doesn't work as written.

There are many games and what may work for one game may not work for another. For example the whole caster/martial debate that goes around is the result of different playstyles under the same rules which causes certain people to desire more and want to change things so that the game fits how they imagine it should.

Sometimes you want to share your ideas or get help fitting it how you want to. I know I do. However, when doing such, there is nothing more frustrating than when I go suggesting or asking for help changing a rule and someone comes along and tell you that you're wrong, that you're somehow doing all your players a disservice because you want to change how the game works, how it's supposed to be.

Instead of helping someone tailor their games, they tell off those who want to stray from the suggested path. Like there's only one true path or something.

Argh, it's not like these people have to play in my games. It's my game, my rules. And by my game, I mean the game I run for my players not the entire freaking internet.


It's all true, but there comes a point where as a community we're trying to be conversant in the way that various people are playing the game.

Some people take it in entirely the wrong direction, and get confrontational about the "right" way to play, but by and large discussions about martial-caster disparity and how to run low-magic, ye olde magick shoppes and what a paladin should do are all just discussions where we share our approach to the game.

For instance, I often claim that I don't have a problem with martial-caster disparity. But I don't know if I would have a problem if I hadn't picked up on the threat from these forums, from people who are really committed to the disparity's existence (and purported ubiquity). I learned a lot about concepts like the "tiers" which I have no direct use for, and yet I feel I've upped my game by knowing it.

I'm very picky about my players. I run with the same group I've had for over a decade, because they're cool, calm, funny guys who never metagame and never throw fits. That means that a lot of the discussions on these forums about the way the "public" plays don't apply to me, but I still learn a lot from them. And I try to help other people up their own games, when they ask for help.

The spirit of your post is a good one. I think it is worth considering why it is that we congregate and discuss the game in a public forum.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This game (and any RPG actually) is *so very much* about what works for you and your group rather than what any book or other person says.

I've had groups where the Arcane casters were kings and the melee had mops and brooms to sweep up after them. I've had games where everyone shined occasionally and all was well in the world and I've been in games where the melee were kings and the casters struggled to keep enough spells throughout the day to keep up.

All of those games- *everyone* had a blast. No one was complaining, all were having fun. Some of them went into the epic levels.

Its not about tiers or "arcane are gods" its about what you all have fun doing at your table.

If you aren't having fun- you are doing it wrong.. and thats really the only "wrong" that exists.

-S


Selgard wrote:

This game (and any RPG actually) is *so very much* about what works for you and your group rather than what any book or other person says.

I've had groups where the Arcane casters were kings and the melee had mops and brooms to sweep up after them. I've had games where everyone shined occasionally and all was well in the world and I've been in games where the melee were kings and the casters struggled to keep enough spells throughout the day to keep up.

All of those games- *everyone* had a blast. No one was complaining, all were having fun. Some of them went into the epic levels.

Its not about tiers or "arcane are gods" its about what you all have fun doing at your table.

If you aren't having fun- you are doing it wrong.. and thats really the only "wrong" that exists.

-S

While certainly true, I think we can also agree that there are probably some things that most players prefer (and, in fact, we know that some of these things are the case because of some limited research that's been done on them).

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

You can play it anyway you like as long as it is my way.


You can't say what most players like because it is meaningless. Gaming styles change the game enough that they aren't alike. I know people that like call of duty and people that like final fantasy, but not many that like them both just because they are videogames.

I only like simulation games with lots of player agency and strong characters when compared to the world at large. I hate story gaming, gm fudging, and railroady games with uber npcs and won't play any of them.

What is right by me is wrong for others.


cranewings wrote:
You can't say what most players like because it is meaningless.

I stopped agreeing with you here. Having a solid grasp of what people tend to prefer is worthwhile.


Cranewings
Comparing two different video games is like comparing two different RPG's. It is not the same as comparing modded verion of baldur's gate with an unmodded version which is more like what house rules do to PF or D&D.

It is not meaningless to say what what players like.
There are some things that most of us do agree on.
We want to be treated fairly at the table. What is fair however is another discussion onto itself.
We all(most) would like to be useful. How much a person has to do to feel useful is also another subject unto it self.

The main points are almost always agreed on. It is when you start to break those points down that difference show up.

Andoran

If you don't want opinions, don't post.


ciretose wrote:
If you don't want opinions, don't post.

At first I was thinking "What's gotten into Ciretose?".

Then I read--> "It's my game, my rules. And by my game, I mean the game I run for my players not the entire freaking internet."

So now I have to say Ciretose gets a +1.

I will also add that sometimes people ask questions a certain way because they don't know about better options so I see nothing wrong with presenting that option. If they insist on doing it their way then doing what you can within that person's limits is ok.

PS:Trying to make a suggestion and saying "You are doing it wrong" are not the same thing. The second only applies when a poster is being forceful. Now if an idea is full of logic holes, and they are being pointed out some people get upset. There is no need for that. If someone finds a flaw in my idea I thank them.

PS2:I just realized this is the "perception skill should be a feat" guy.
Some of us can't help make a rule without understanding "the why and the how" and the way your idea is written is not clear. You know what you mean of course, but your description of your thoughts is not coming across well. If it was so many people would not be questioning the idea, and would probably just give advice on implementing the idea even if they don't agree with it.

Andoran

wraithstrike wrote:
ciretose wrote:
If you don't want opinions, don't post.

At first I was thinking "What's gotten into Ciretose?".

Then I read--> "It's my game, my rules. And by my game, I mean the game I run for my players not the entire freaking internet."

So now I have to say Ciretose gets a +1.

Thanks!


I think it is human nature to be 'protective' of one's personal perspective. Additional perspectives give one a more rounded toolkit to deal with new challenges.

Now please excuse me while I go lick my own bum.


ciretose wrote:
If you don't want opinions, don't post.

So does this justify telling people how to play their own games?

There's a big difference between telling someone to get what they're looking for without major rules altering and telling someone to stop what they're doing because they're "breaking the game".


wraithstrike wrote:

Cranewings

Comparing two different video games is like comparing two different RPG's. It is not the same as comparing modded verion of baldur's gate with an unmodded version which is more like what house rules do to PF or D&D.

It is not meaningless to say what what players like.
There are some things that most of us do agree on.
We want to be treated fairly at the table. What is fair however is another discussion onto itself.
We all(most) would like to be useful. How much a person has to do to feel useful is also another subject unto it self.

House rules are only a part of it. The way the GM runs the game is a bigger part.

I'll just go on and say I agree with you because I think you are only disagreeing to play internet word games. Yes, players can like things as a group. Yes, the details of those things they say they both like are different from person to person. Yes, someone can dislike the changes in the details enough not to like the game anymore. Yes, this varies a lot from person to person and group to group.


Scott Betts wrote:
cranewings wrote:
You can't say what most players like because it is meaningless.
I stopped agreeing with you here. Having a solid grasp of what people tend to prefer is worthwhile.

All that "people tend to prefer" that you will get around here are the feelings of the super posters that choke out every thread with their same opinions. It isn't totally meaningless, but it doesn't represent any kind of universal consensus.

All of the crap that people on these boards talk about being important, like fair CR, access to magic item shops, GMs being kept inline with the rules, even player agency, are all totally against how at least half of all the gamers I've ever played with like it.

They all HATE any aspect of magic item stores because they don't fit with a classic story, don't want the dice to matter when it comes to a good story, enjoy have DMPCs along in the group because it gives them a consistent character to RP with, like strong DMPCs because they are "cool", expect that the GM came up with a good story, complete with an ending before the game start and want to play through it without anyone messing it up with their own input.

That kind of game is treated as badwrongfun by gamers on this board, but it is popular and it is a common way of playing Pathfinder.

Andoran

Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
ciretose wrote:
If you don't want opinions, don't post.

So does this justify telling people how to play their own games?

There's a big difference between telling someone to get what they're looking for without major rules altering and telling someone to stop what they're doing because they're "breaking the game".

If you ask for input on how to play your games, you're going to get input. Some of that input may be negative. That's life and that's the internet. You can post threads ranting and raving about how people are trying to tell you to run your home game, or you can stop and consider that maybe the people here are trying to help you, even when it comes across negatively.


ciretose wrote:
If you don't want opinions, don't post.

Exactly.

Unless somebody breaks into your house while you're running a game and screams I'M FROM THE INTERNET AND YOU'RE PLAYING WRONG, if you're asking for advice, be willing to consider it. Even if the advice is "there's no good way to do that" or "your assumptions are faulty"

Shadow Lodge

If someone took every piece of advice I gave here, he'd be in jail or dead.


ShadowcatX wrote:
If you ask for input on how to play your games, you're going to get input. Some of that input may be negative. That's life and that's the internet. You can post threads ranting and raving about how people are trying to tell you to run your home game, or you can stop and consider that maybe the people here are trying to help you, even when it comes across negatively.

So hold on, you're asking me not to rant, but to accept the ranting and raving that I'm doing things wrong as helpful advice?

Will do mister.

Seriously though, I'm not against advice, even if it's against how I'm going about things. The thread in question, I actually managed to have a civil discussion with Parka, where he outlined what I was doing wrong and even suggested some things to look at.

However, just telling someone that they're doing things wrong is not helpful. What or why are they doing things wrong? If you can't answer that, then you're just being condescending and nothing more.

Yeah, I know there will be condescending people on the internet, but don't expect me to respect them.

Andoran

Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
If you ask for input on how to play your games, you're going to get input. Some of that input may be negative. That's life and that's the internet. You can post threads ranting and raving about how people are trying to tell you to run your home game, or you can stop and consider that maybe the people here are trying to help you, even when it comes across negatively.

So hold on, you're asking me not to rant, but to accept the ranting and raving that I'm doing things wrong as helpful advice?

Will do mister.

And what has your ranting accomplished? Do you think that your rant has magically changed the people of the internet and next time you post a similar thread you won't get similar responses?

And if someone says "You're doing it wrong." "How am I doing it wrong?" is a perfectly acceptable answer.


ShadowcatX wrote:
And what has your ranting accomplished? Do you think that your rant has magically changed the people of the internet and next time you post a similar thread you won't get similar responses?

It was really just a rant, I didn't actually expect to accomplish anything with it.

ShadowcatX wrote:
And if someone says "You're doing it wrong." "How am I doing it wrong?" is a perfectly acceptable answer.

And so I asked, and an overwhelming response was, "You're changing the rules," and thus this thread was born. It's a game, and everyone has their own game. The rules are guidelines.

And we could go into this circular argument repeating what we said, maybe I should just link this thread as a response. I mean, how helpful is it when someone answers with same thing that you're questioning in the first place?


cranewings wrote:
All of the crap that people on these boards talk about being important, like fair CR, access to magic item shops, GMs being kept inline with the rules, even player agency, are all totally against how at least half of all the gamers I've ever played with like it.

Do you realize the irony of saying, "We can't make general observations because all people have experience with is their own set of anecdotes! And, to prove it, here's my own set of anecdotes!"

Quote:

They all HATE any aspect of magic item stores because they don't fit with a classic story, don't want the dice to matter when it comes to a good story, enjoy have DMPCs along in the group because it gives them a consistent character to RP with, like strong DMPCs because they are "cool", expect that the GM came up with a good story, complete with an ending before the game start and want to play through it without anyone messing it up with their own input.

That kind of game is treated as badwrongfun by gamers on this board, but it is popular and it is a common way of playing Pathfinder.

Out of curiosity, are you typically the DM for your group?


cranewings wrote:
They all HATE any aspect of magic item stores because they don't fit with a classic story, don't want the dice to matter when it comes to a good story, enjoy have DMPCs along in the group because it gives them a consistent character to RP with, like strong DMPCs because they are "cool", expect that the GM came up with a good story, complete with an ending before the game start and want to play through it without anyone messing it up with their own input.

Sounds like the way I've been gaming since '78.

Andoran

A link to the original thread would be helpful.

Andoran

Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
ciretose wrote:
If you don't want opinions, don't post.

So does this justify telling people how to play their own games?

There's a big difference between telling someone to get what they're looking for without major rules altering and telling someone to stop what they're doing because they're "breaking the game".

You can break your game to your hearts content. But when you propose rule changes, you are potentially breaking everyones game.

Again, if you don't want feedback, don't ask. You can do whatever you like in your game and no one can stop you.

When you post to a message board and you don't want feedback, what you are doing? The only purpose I can see it perhaps trying to convince people to do it your way.

Asking us not to argue against what you are telling us we should be doing, when we don't agree with you...well that isn't gonna fly.


ciretose wrote:
You can break your game to your hearts content. But when you propose rule changes, you are potentially breaking everyones game.

You can always just change your game back to the old broken way.


ciretose wrote:
You can break your game to your hearts content. But when you propose rule changes, you are potentially breaking everyones game.

Cool, so can we agree that something in the homebrew / houserules section is not a rule change to everyone's game?

ciretose wrote:

Again, if you don't want feedback, don't ask. You can do whatever you like in your game and no one can stop you.

When you post to a message board and you don't want feedback, what you are doing? The only purpose I can see it perhaps trying to convince people to do it your way.

When I post things in the houserules section, I'm either asking for feedback or just sharing my ideas. Feedback is great when it's constructive. Being that they're doing it wrong isn't constructive though.

ciretose wrote:
Asking us not to argue against what you are telling us we should be doing, when we don't agree with you...well that isn't gonna fly.

That's exactly how I feel when I ask for help trying to pull something off in the houserules section, and someone tells me to stop trying to change the rules.


ShadowcatX wrote:
A link to the original thread would be helpful.

Yeah, no kidding. Whence the hostility?

Andoran

It seems like this thread may be a response to the removing perception as a skill thread.


Ragnarok, you can also just refuse to reply to people who aren't processing your information or are playing Internet word games. I think you are just worked up about trolls here. 90% of what is posted here is a word game or a trolling post. It takes two to argue. You don't have to indulge people in their main hobbie.


CourtFool wrote:
ciretose wrote:
You can break your game to your hearts content. But when you propose rule changes, you are potentially breaking everyones game.

You can always just change your game back to the old broken way.

Ragnarok is posing an existential threat to ciretose's fun. He's afraid the game designers can't think for themselves, will adopt his house rules to PFS and put out a decree that his current home game is badwrongfun.


cranewings wrote:
Ragnarok, you can also just refuse to reply to people who aren't processing your information or are playing Internet word games. I think you are just worked up about trolls here. 90% of what is posted here is a word game or a trolling post. It takes two to argue. You don't have to indulge people in their main hobbie.

Labeling honest disagreement as trolling and word games gives me a pretty solid idea of why you are here.


Scott, I can't find the block button for you. I'll reply to your posts when I like their tone and you have processed any information correctly.

Andoran

cranewings wrote:


All that "people tend to prefer" that you will get around here are the feelings of the super posters that choke out every thread with their same opinions. It isn't totally meaningless, but it doesn't represent any kind of universal consensus.

I see a lot of variation in people's opinions on here, so I'm not sure that the "super posters" are really choking out all discussion.

cranewings wrote:


All of the crap that people on these boards talk about being important, like fair CR, access to magic item shops, GMs being kept inline with the rules, even player agency, are all totally against how at least half of all the gamers I've ever played with like it.

With due respect... why are you here if you think what "people on these boards" are discussing is crap?

cranewings wrote:


They all HATE any aspect of magic item stores because they don't fit with a classic story, don't want the dice to matter when it comes to a good story, enjoy have DMPCs along in the group because it gives them a consistent character to RP with, like strong DMPCs because they are "cool", expect that the GM came up with a good story, complete with an ending before the game start and want to play through it without anyone messing it up with their own input.

Hmmm... the gamers you play with, and their opinions, are your experience of the game-- it does not match my experiences with it, though there is one point where my opinion does match a lot of the people you've gamed with (although, truthfully-- I have seen some players who were like this in my many years of gaming).

Some specifics from my anecdotal collection: Magic Item Stores? Depends on the campaign. Some campaigns, actually having magic item stores is a good fit (Eberron, for instance-- when you've got Artificers and Magewrights all over the place, you think they wouldn't set up shop and sell?)-- other campaigns, they violate the setting/flavor/etc. and really don't fit (and then I'd be one of the people objecting to their presence-- games where magic and wizards aren't common, magic may be illegal or otherwise a hidden art, etc.). Don't want the dice to matter when it comes to a good story? This one I agree with, more or less-- I don't consider the dice unimportant in a game with strong mechanics, but I do believe that storytelling is more important than strict adherence to die rolling results. DMPCs? Often useful, cover up gaps in capabilities that maybe the PCs haven't covered themselves, good minor steering agents so long as the DM doesn't over do it (I really hate DMPCs taking over the party's direction a lot)-- however, I do not consider DMPCs desirable or undesirable for consistent RPing-- IMO, that's what my fellow PCs are for (and/or any recurring NPC we meet and interact with wherever we go-- not so much for the DMPC inside the party, although I don't ignore them). Like strong DMPCs? No. IMO, DMPCs should not outshine the PCs-- and "strong" DMPC is usually a code-word for "God's character who can do no wrong" (and this definitely reflects the opinion of most of the people I game with, whereas it's more of a mixed bag exactly who'd agree with or disagree with some of my other opinions expressed here)-- although, any NPC/DMPC who accompanies the party had better be useful, otherwise why are we taking him/her along?

And your last point? Not for me thanks-- if I want to follow along, step by step, a story someone else wrote and be very careful to not mess anything up with my own input-- I'll go read a good novel, not play a game where my character's actions are supposed to have some effect on the situations he/she is in. I do expect that the GM has come up with a good story, but understands that it's "collective storytelling", not the GM tells a story and everyone else follows along-- therefore the beginning, middle, and ending have to be at least a little malleable and reflect the idea that the PCs are going to take action and that that will modify and alter the course of the "story" (and plan) that the GM has laid out (this is another point, where most of the people I game with-- if not all-- hold similar positions to mine).

cranewings wrote:


That kind of game is treated as badwrongfun by gamers on this board, but it is popular and it is a common way of playing Pathfinder.

I think "differences of opinion", "differences in play styles", "different approaches to the game" (most of which is what is being discussed here and elsewhere on the boards)-- doesn't make any person's positions on the game 'badwrongfun'. It just means that different people have different expectations and are looking for different things in the game. That different people prefer different approaches and different styles of gameplay. That none of these is inherently wrong (or inherently right, for that matter)-- but that, given the different styles, approaches, expectations-- your approach to gaming isn't going to work for a lot of people around here, and at least some of them are going to express a differing opinion. My approach to the game, I'm quite sure, does not work for a lot of people on these boards (many of them have told me so). That general idea applies to everyone here who posts a statement/opinion/whatever.

I have no idea whether you're correct in believing the style you appear to champion is popular and common or not-- it's not a style I'd like to play, but it isn't wrong-- I'm not sure which people are apparently telling you it must be 'badwrongfun' because you don't play the game the same way they do, but this still seems like a bit of an over-reaction to me.


cranewings wrote:
Scott, I can't find the block button for you.

Oh, don't worry about it. If I wanted you to find the block button for me I'd let you know.


cranewings wrote:
All that "people tend to prefer" that you will get around here are the feelings of the super posters that choke out every thread with their same opinions. It isn't totally meaningless, but it doesn't represent any kind of universal consensus.

Many people are sophisticated enough to tell the difference between one megaphone poster and a consensus. Megaphone posters aren't always wrong, either... I've learned a lot from some of them, even when I was glad to see them self-immolate after a fashion.

cranewings wrote:
All of the crap that people on these boards talk about being important, like fair CR, access to magic item shops, GMs being kept inline with the rules, even player agency, are all totally against how at least half of all the gamers I've ever played with like it.

But those are important. And you get a range of opinions on those things, which is great for a range of possible games. I think the best help I've given to new GMs on this board is CR explanation — which is a weird mix of contradictions of the list in your above paragraph. Many GMs think they have to adhere to CR, or they don't account for the undocumented factors that affect encounter balance, etc, etc. Even if they prefer a game which doesn't match the default assumptions, should they not be then (politely) informed of what the default assumptions are?

cranewings wrote:

They all HATE any aspect of magic item stores because they don't fit with a classic story, don't want the dice to matter when it comes to a good story, enjoy have DMPCs along in the group because it gives them a consistent character to RP with, like strong DMPCs because they are "cool", expect that the GM came up with a good story, complete with an ending before the game start and want to play through it without anyone messing it up with their own input.

I agree that the game could do more to support to "silent gamerjority" you're talking about. I create house rules to fill those gaps more than any other reason, and I actually play very close to the RAW otherwise. Some of these things (like the xmas tree effect) are little more than sacred cows that could be easily fixed if the support was there... but it isn't. And it isn't likely to arrive in any official way.

But there's a very good value in having a place to discuss the system's assumptions, precisely because the 3.5/Pathfinder rules assume a great deal more than other RPGs do about the style of play for all groups using it.

I actually think the 'unrepresented' gamers you describe are very well represented on these forums, just not as visibly as the superposters. You see them in the form of GMs asking for simple advice, getting straightforward answers, and going about their business. You don't see them so much in long strings of counterposts in the monster threads.

I think you're in a foul mood today, and I'm sorry for that, Cranewings, but ...

cranewings wrote:
That kind of game is treated as badwrongfun by gamers on this board, but it is popular and it is a common way of playing Pathfinder.

... is rather blind to the large amount of practical campaign advice that all sorts of GMs and players get here on a daily basis. To follow your own point, when it comes to posts, quantity isn't quality, and the best examples of conduct on these forums are often the short threads that do their job and drift down into the graveyard.


><; I remember when I was new to these forums and I questioned the "Sacred Cows" like Alignment oh so much. That was fun... or not fun... well to say the least it was a learning experience.

While I do understand that games vary from person to person, there's merit in understanding what is preferred over a large group of people. Honestly, I think there's a big difference in the demographics of those that post here and those that play Pathfinder. I am the only one of my friends who posts on these forums that I know of.

Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Gamer Life / Gamer Talk / My Game, My Rules All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©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.