|
Woot, page 11!
So what have we decided?
After 10 pages (500 posts) of discussion, we have made progress.
We've decided that the solution proposed in the rules thread for Pageant of the Peacock is correct.
Also, we've cycled back to the decision in post 1. The debate engine will now begin a new revolution. That puts us on RPM cycle #2. Our next ground breaking discovery is scheduled for post #995...
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
That you are a horrible PC-killing monster?
Yes, as my run through of the Confirmation last weekend with 5 new players nearly proved. You know, a certain monster
:)
In other words... "Will not run a game with Pageant of the Peacock" still stands.
Nah. Likely I'll just enforce the "one skill check per use of the ability" interpretation that others seem to think is kosher. I still think the ability is stupid, and I'll sigh to myself when players use it, but that limitation brings it down to a level that I think is merely powerful, instead of stupidly powerful. Obviously I'll keep careful track of bardic music rounds as well.
I reserve the right to ask players to describe what their character is doing, exactly, though =D
Also, we've cycled back to the decision in post 1.
No, we haven't. See my previous post.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That you are a horrible PC-killing monster?Yes, as my run through of the Confirmation last weekend with 5 new players nearly proved. You know, a certain monster ** spoiler omitted ** got crits on Kyra AND Merisiel. Nearly two dead characters.
:)
Mathematically, read below:
|
In other words... "Will not run a game with Pageant of the Peacock" still stands.Nah. Likely I'll just enforce the "one skill check per use of the ability" interpretation that others seem to think is kosher. I still think the ability is stupid, and I'll sigh to myself when players use it, but that limitation brings it down to a level that I think is merely powerful, instead of stupidly powerful. Obviously I'll keep careful track of bardic music rounds as well.
I reserve the right to ask players to describe what their character is doing, exactly, though =D
bolding mine....
sure! but why take extra game time on things you don't like and consider un-fun? If the Masterpiece is not fun - don't spend extra play time on it. If the only person enjoying it is the guy talking... and he likes to talk... why not just move on to other things?
Seriously though, this has got to set records for the longest number of posts that a hot topic thread has gone without summoning The Wrath of Chris (or any other Mod).
*shrug* It's just a matter of not taking rules debates personally.
sure! but why take extra game time on things you don't like and consider un-fun? If the Masterpiece is not fun - don't spend extra play time on it. If the only person enjoying it is the guy talking... and he likes to talk... why not just move on to other things?
Because I derive enjoyment from causing people to realize that their thematically stupid abilities are thematically stupid. Naturally.
Hah. I've been a moderator of another forum for many years; perhaps that helps with my ability to avoid creating drama.
sure! but why take extra game time on things you don't like and consider un-fun? If the Masterpiece is not fun - don't spend extra play time on it. If the only person enjoying it is the guy talking... and he likes to talk... why not just move on to other things?Because I derive enjoyment from causing people to realize that their thematically stupid abilities are thematically stupid. Naturally.
On the other hand, if they can come up with a good thematic explanation, more power to them.
Really, though, it's more a matter of a generalized dislike for roleplaying without roleplaying. I tend to ask all my players to describe what they're doing; I'll be very interested to see what answers I get to this when asked about Pageant of the Peacock.
The likely author of Pageant is one of: Amanda Hamon, David Ross, Gareth Hanrahan or Jerome Virnich.
If you are curious who might have written something in a book, check out the book's credits. Neither my name, nor Amanda's, nor Gareth's, are in the author credits for the Dragonslayer's Handbook, so it's a pretty safe bet that none of us worked on the bardic masterpiece in question (I certainly didn't). The Dragonslayer's Handbook's authors are Jerome Virnich, Marie Small, and Shaun Hocking, but some of the content will likely have been written by developers or editors after the authors turned over their work and certainly some of it will be tweaked by developers and editors.
Although you might not be able to see all the names who worked on a book without owning it, you can usually see the authors in each product's description on Paizo.com and Pathfinderwiki.com
|
|
sure! but why take extra game time on things you don't like and consider un-fun? If the Masterpiece is not fun - don't spend extra play time on it. If the only person enjoying it is the guy talking... and he likes to talk... why not just move on to other things?Because I derive enjoyment from causing people to realize that their thematically stupid abilities are thematically stupid. Naturally.
sure no problem.
just seemed like if it bothered you, you would want to skip it.
Kind of like Intimidate checks bother me. I just gloss over them, "Intimidate Check is a 35" is much better than the graffic threat to someones body/family/business/friends that is often represented by the skill check. I could not see "...ask players to describe what their character is doing, exactly,..." when it comes to Intimidate or heck, to a lot of other things....
judge: "it's a dead body"
Player: "What killed it? I got a 24 Heal check..."
Judge: "Describe what your character is doing, exactly, to determine that the month old body died of damage from a swarm of wasps..."
no thanks...
Huh. I always ask players to describe what they're doing. It enhances the experience for me, and I figure at worst it will cause the people who don't like roleplaying to avoid me.
|
|
Huh. I always ask players to describe what they're doing. It enhances the experience for me, and I figure at worst it will cause the people who don't like roleplaying to avoid me.
are you sure? Many of us think we do, but we often don't...
some examples..."I climb the wall..."
"I cast sleep..."
"I do a perception check..."
"I gather information about the up-coming mission..."
"I do a Kn(Local) check on the monster ..."
"I disarm the trap..."
"I pick the lock with disable device..."
"I sing ...+1! +1!"
"I do a spellcraft roll ..."
"I tumble thru the square..."
"I use Escape Artist to get out of the Tenticles..."
"I use Linguistics to see if this note is ligit..."
here's a dozen things that I could expand on to fill most of 20 (Or more) minutes... all the judge (or player) has to do is say, "How do you do that? please describe what...". This is why people know that when I sit at the table, we are more than likely going to "run long"... I love to RP. Been doing it longer then many people I play with have been alive (longer than my V.L. father has been alive...), I often think I can do it to fill all available time we have...
Pretty sure, yeah, given that I've been doing it for a decade.
Obviously there are limits which vary from case to case. I don't ask a bard's player to actually sing for example, and I do try to provide leading examples to players who haven't played before, or who are relatively new "Alright, you begin a stirring balad about heroism and bravery in the face of evil, bolstering the hearts of your companions," etc.
Please realize the players are different from you. Sometimes we role play, sometimes we roll play. And it's all part of the game.
Some players even play different at different times...
Sometime, early in a CON, when I'm really in "the zone", I can play a demagog that would rouse Andoran to a second revolution!... other times, I'm down and not really feeling it - in need of caffeine perhaps, and I just need to roll the dice and read off the numbers.
A judge that can do both, that can run a game for both and recognize when he/she needs to do one and/or the other (perhaps with different players at the same table at the same time) always impresses me. (Sometimes - maybe - I can even do that as a judge...)
Not interested in roll play. I sympathize that that is what some people prefer, but it makes the experience distinctly unenjoyable for me, and not something I'm going to readily enable.
I certainly don't twist players' arms; if they will not provide roleplaying input after several tries, then I give up (for that session), and generally provide the roleplay description in their stead.
Huh. I always ask players to describe what they're doing. It enhances the experience for me, and I figure at worst it will cause the people who don't like roleplaying to avoid me.I've seen judges "hold her to the task" and say "What EXACTLY does your PC say?" and watch helplessly while a fun game turned into a painful experience for her. Anyone else trying to help her (me, or any other player) was hushed by the judge ("you're character isn't there!") while he stares at her struggle to say anything. Holding her to every word that she utters, ever stutter. With her realizing that every miss step is being reflected in a penility to a roll that she has said she can handle for us, a role she is trying to play. Needless to say, we never played for that judge again.
My goal isn't to get people to avoid me; that's not what I said at all. I said that was the worst case scenario, not my goal. Please don't twist my words in that way.
As far as your story, that's obviously not something I'd do. I'd probably say "Okay, what does your PC say to them?" Once it became clear that they player was very uncomfortable with it, I'd not press the issue.
Yes, I do, actually.
Heh. Actually I remember being stunned recently because a PFS GM didn't believe me that I was allowed to take 10 on disabling a trap (outside of combat, no time constraints, mind you). Rather than get in a fight about it, I agree to just roll the check, and I realized it was the first time I'd ever rolled for disabling a trap*.
*EDIT: That I could remember, anyway.
So this causes me to wonder if you would ask for a description of actions taken in:
Attack rolls
DEX based skill checks (Or any skill other than a CHA skill)
Spell Casting
or anything OTHER than CHA based skill checks...That's the root of my question.
Generally, yes. I try to encourage players with examples at first.
New Player: I attack the orc... I roll an 18.
Me: Okay, what do you do, exactly? Do you go for an overhand chop? Sideswipe with your blade?
New Player: uh... overhand chop I guess.
And I repeat this process a few times. Not necessarily every roll, of course, but interspaced. In most cases, in my experience, players pick it up on their own after a few times.
That same player, a combat later, will be saying "I rush in, delivering a powerful thrust with my longsword," etc.
Yes, I do, actually.Welcome to the club! Want a T-shirt? (serious question - I actually have T-shirts made up with the Take 10 rules on them, though I've been told not to wear them when I am a player anymore, just as a judge). What size are you?
Uh... possibly, yes. Large or X-Large. Do you have pictures, by any chance?
This is weird. Not unwelcome, but strange.
|
|
sure! but why take extra game time on things you don't like and consider un-fun? If the Masterpiece is not fun - don't spend extra play time on it. If the only person enjoying it is the guy talking... and he likes to talk... why not just move on to other things?Because I derive enjoyment from causing people to realize that their thematically stupid abilities are thematically stupid. Naturally.
many of us derive enjoyment from having thematically stupid abilities, and know full well that they are thematically stupid.
"I can tell you are lieing, 'cause I can sing good!"
"I can fall from a 1000 foot cliff and land on my feet! And walk away almost unharmed!
many of us derive enjoyment from having thematically stupid abilities, and know full well that they are thematically stupid.
"I can tell you are lieing, 'cause I can sing good!"
Yes, versatile performance is another offender, albeit not an overpowered one. I've learned to live with it in players, and pick bard archetypes that don't get it.
"I can fall from a 1000 foot cliff and land on my feet! And walk away almost unharmed!
That's realistically stupid; not thematically stupid.
I don't know if I'd call it "acceptable" to me, but I have "accepted" that it's the best I'm going to get from a RAW interpretation. :)
|
|
So then this?
If I were to break this down into what I would consider a power that should be acceptable to all parties it would be something like:
1) You are adjusting your body language (this is why we require Dance or Act)
2) The adjustment in body language makes you seem 'better' than you are (as defined by breeding/eloquence/refinement)
3) This sense of refinement (etc.) gives you a +4 circumstance bonus to Bluff, as people are more likely to believe you (as refined/eloquent/well-bred types are less likely to lie... depending on who you ask, at least)
4) It likewise gives you a +4 circumstance bonus to disguise to pose as someone of higher station (after all, you seem more refined/eloquent/well-bred than someone of your actual station)
5) Finally, ONCE during this charade, the supernatural nature of this bluffing and posturing lets you use Bluff in place of an Intelligence or Intelligence-based skill check. (This is basically magical method acting... you're channeling the persona of someone who would know, and the supernatural elements of the ability make it so)
Note that in my interpretation, the knowledge/information gained, or other results of the int-based check are Real, this is what makes it supernatural. Versatile performance's reasonings/connections make a bit more sense, but they're also non-magical.
I think this interpretation addresses the logic behind the ability, the flavor of the ability, the supernatural nature of the ability, and the power level of the ability, all while remaining completely faithful to the wording of the ability.
1) can I kick off the Masterpiece more than once in 10 minutes?
Using perfromance rounds for each INT check?
2) does takeing the INT check end the Masterpiece - in other words, if I take the INT check, do I then loose the +4 bonuses?
THANKS!
I realize you were not asking me directly, but I would say "yes" and "no" myself.
"yes" to the first, because you can always end a performance as a free action, and this one is no exception. So, there's no reason you couldn't end it as a free action, then start it again.
"no" to the second, simple because there is no basis for saying the performance would automatically end after making the check.
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Huh. I always ask players to describe what they're doing. It enhances the experience for me, and I figure at worst it will cause the people who don't like roleplaying to avoid me.are you sure? Many of us think we do, but we often don't...
some examples..."I do a perception check..."
Ironically, I have had a player who used to describe his perception checks.
He came out of the old, old, old school adversarial GMing culture, where if you said "I look around" you got jumped from above (you didn't say you looked up), if you said you looked around and up, you got jumped from behind, if you said "I look around and above me, and behind me" something leapt out of the ground and ate you.
So he always specified that he was keeping a constant look out in front, around him, behind him, above and below, as well as checking behind each bush they passed... I had a mental image of his PC's head just free spinning in a pintle mount...
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Yes, I do, actually.Welcome to the club! Want a T-shirt? (serious question - I actually have T-shirts made up with the Take 10 rules on them, though I've been told not to wear them when I am a player anymore, just as a judge). What size are you?
edit: some of my old T-10 threads
Why-cant-we-take-10-on-1-day-job-roll..
Yes, but where is the link where I can buy the Tee (10) shirt?
Good lord, I'm away from my computer for a few days, and this thread DOUBLES in size. D:
|
|
So he always specified that he was keeping a constant look out in front, around him, behind him, above and below, as well as checking behind each bush they passed... I had a mental image of his PC's head just free spinning in a pintle mount...
Military lingo for that is 'keep your head on a swivel'.
@DrakeRoberts
The thing that especially doesn't make sense about not letting you take 10 when looking for traps is how time consuming (real time, I mean) it is. I mean, if a player says to you (as I always do):
"Okay, GM, I'm just going to be taking 10 to look for traps as we traverse through the dungeon, so for each square my result is X,"
are you going to be like "ok", or are you going to have them actually roll the dice for every single square as they go through. Tediousness at its greatest.