Could you enjoy a simplified game?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

201 to 223 of 223 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Secret Wizard wrote:
Just to clarify, I am not equating liking traditional RPG races to biggotry and not implying Faelyn is such a thing; I am just saying that traditional RPG races were conceived in an extremely Western, white European environment and it wouldn't hurt people to try to get out of their comfort zone and try to include new concepts...

I understand your point and am not taking your comment the wrong way.

Nonetheless, I'd point out that it would, in fact, "hurt" me to do that. I'd be spending my leisure time doing something I dont enjoy. I appreciate there's a lot of people who like lots of options, but I like bearded dwarves, pointy-eared aloof elves and uncouth, ugly half-orcs. I may well be a product of my upbringing/culture, but I'm happy with what I like, so where's the problem? Why is getting out of my comfort zone desirable, of itself?

Personally, I think the only problems arise when someone declares their own preferences "correct" (whether that be a restrictive DM, banning stuff out of hand or a permissive DM spurring a disinterested player to try something new).


blahpers wrote:


Not allowing certain character concepts that don't fit the theme of the campaign is equivalent to segregation-era bigotry? Is that the argument you're running with?

That was not even close to what I read. I think he was saying that the RP rather than the race would be a more likely problem at the gaming table. Of course if the campaign has a theme that makes ____ not reasonable the player should let it go, but the idea behind this thread is that ___ is restricted for "simplicity". That is not the same as ___ interfering with the theme.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:
I want to play a Goblin Monk, I have a good idea of how to RP a Goblin Monk, why restrict me from playing a Goblin Monk?

The reason I would restrict it is because in my game worlds Goblins are monsters. They wouldn't get five feet into a town or village before someone had put a crossbow bolt or an axe in it's head. Same could be said for many of the options in the ARG in my opinion.

If you are playing a game world where goblins are more part and parcel of the races of the world that's fine, but I think many GMs would share my view that they just aren't acceptable for regular game worlds.


Eryx_UK wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
I want to play a Goblin Monk, I have a good idea of how to RP a Goblin Monk, why restrict me from playing a Goblin Monk?
The reason I would restrict it is because in my game worlds Goblins are monsters. They wouldn't get five feet into a town or village before someone had put a crossbow bolt or an axe in it's head. Same could be said for many of the options in the ARG in my opinion.

I don't see why does it have to be necessarily so. That's how Paizo handles Goblins in their books, sure, but that's all they are - books by a corporation that tries to hit a note that the average person finds pleasing, not necessarily your playgroup.

In real life, goblins don't exist. In actual folklore, they can be as good as they can be evil. In different media, goblins are portrayed as vegetarian, cannibalistic, evil, shy, smart, dumb.
You think of goblins in the way you mentioned because you must be well-versed in Pathfinder material, but what if someone has been exposed to other versions of them much more? The World of Warcraft player wants a crafty, wise-cracking Goblin like his character in that game; someone who is into a lot of old fairy tales might want a greedy and churlish - but not savage or malicious - Goblin PC.
And you are going to say "no" out of loyalty to the text written by some other dude at an office? I don't see what you are gaining from this.

Here's another, real life example -- I was setting up a game when my players told me they had decided the characters they wanted to play. A Catfolk Bard, a Tiefling Paladin, a Fetchling Druid and a, well, Half-Elf Rogue.

Rather than glancing twice at that, I remade a ton of NPCs of my campaign to make their characters more or less grounded in the game world... suddenly, there was this ancient city of Tieflings that hosted a sacred temple; Catfolk became the main allies of the Human empire; and I created an area that was a Shadow plane scar on the face of the land, the place the Fetchling had bonded with to enter Druidism.
Suddenly, the game world was a whole lot different than the whole idealized medieval Western Europe that Tolkien popularized and everyone knows and loves, but we had a ton of fun and it wasn't hard at all to adapt APs and modules to it.

Again, these are your players. I'm not saying you shouldn't kill them dead, because that is the joy in life. But it is so much more rewarding to kill their beloved characters than the half-hearted ones they make.

In short, if the guy wants to play a Gillman Ninja, and you simply can't fathom (lolzpunz) how could such a thing exist... then talk with your player to flesh the concept out in the game world.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:
Eryx_UK wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
I want to play a Goblin Monk, I have a good idea of how to RP a Goblin Monk, why restrict me from playing a Goblin Monk?
The reason I would restrict it is because in my game worlds Goblins are monsters. They wouldn't get five feet into a town or village before someone had put a crossbow bolt or an axe in it's head. Same could be said for many of the options in the ARG in my opinion.

I don't see why does it have to be necessarily so. That's how Paizo handles Goblins in their books, sure, but that's all they are - books by a corporation that tries to hit a note that the average person finds pleasing, not necessarily your playgroup.

In real life, goblins don't exist. In actual folklore, they can be as good as they can be evil. In different media, goblins are portrayed as vegetarian, cannibalistic, evil, shy, smart, dumb.
You think of goblins in the way you mentioned because you must be well-versed in Pathfinder material, but what if someone has been exposed to other versions of them much more? The World of Warcraft player wants a crafty, wise-cracking Goblin like his character in that game; someone who is into a lot of old fairy tales might want a greedy and churlish - but not savage or malicious - Goblin PC.
And you are going to say "no" out of loyalty to the text written by some other dude at an office? I don't see what you are gaining from this.

Here's another, real life example -- I was setting up a game when my players told me they had decided the characters they wanted to play. A Catfolk Bard, a Tiefling Paladin, a Fetchling Druid and a, well, Half-Elf Rogue.

Rather than glancing twice at that, I remade a ton of NPCs of my campaign to make their characters more or less grounded in the game world... suddenly, there was this ancient city of Tieflings that hosted a sacred temple; Catfolk became the main allies of the Human empire; and I created an area that was a Shadow plane scar on the face of the land, the place the Fetchling had...

1) He didn't say Golarion, he said, "my game world".

2) Sometimes it doesn't make sense to rework the entire setting to better fit the races your players happen to pick. Sometimes the GM isn't willing. Sometimes he doesn't have time to do a whole rewrite between character creation and game start. Sometimes the intended campaign plotline or themes don't allow it.


The initial question will be answered but the following anecdote kinda relates to it.

I was recently going to join a gaming group, but while talking to the party's rogue player my first taste of the game style was a bit much

Guy: "So, I'm a half dragon Fetchling with a 12 foot wing-span, my diving attacks do ridiculous amounts of damage"

Me: "Hmm, alright...right on, what level are ya?"

Guy: "First"

Me: "Oh, wow, so that's a high powered game, hunh?"

Guy: "Not really, this is all out of the book"

Me: "..."

The whole interaction helped to remind me that all tables function differently and that everyone wants to play a different fantasy game, not that there's anything wrong with that.

Anyway, I suppose I could deal with the four iconics if those were the options presented. I'd just end up playing a cleric for the sake of being the glue.


Secret Wizard wrote:
Faelyn wrote:


No one is saying a Half-Elf Rogue is better than a transgendered Kitsune Antipaladin. The problem that we are running into here, is that it seems the folks who want more options are taking offense against the more "traditional" group. No one is saying one side of the fence is better than the other... we are all saying we prefer one side of the fence to the other.

Lastly, if a player doesn't like the character creation guidelines a GM wants to put into place, then find another game. No one is forcing...

Look, I'm going to leave this here because I don't want to derail this conversation, but I think yours is a dangerous line of thinking.

Consider for a second what would happen if someone went to an establishment and was rejected because "they don't serve their kind here" - is the answer "just go somewhere else"? Or is it "maybe the storeowner is a huge douche and should try to change"? ...

1)

I disagree with that analogy. I believe it is closer to...

Someone went into and Pizza Hut and started demanding to be served shrimp fried rice. There's nothing wrong with shrimp fried rice. Why won't you serve shrimp fried rice. Heck I might want a chicken taco. Where do you get off not serving chicken tacos?

The GM is not saying I don't play with your kind of people. The GM is saying this is the game I'm offering.

2)
I will not say that playing a fairly 'standard' character will make someone a great role player. I will say that trying to play a very bizarre character concept will contribute to some mediocre role players becoming nothing more than a very annoying distraction.

I have seen several people like that. The guy that can't play a tengu without trying to screech and mispronounce every in-character word and constantly trying to snatch every shiny item encountered. The guy that plays the Nagaji and makes a point of constantly telling everyone about the meandering route he takes to do anything cause he's a snake. Etc... They are ok to play with when they pick a fairly standard concept. But they really have no idea what to do with something that hasn't been 'done to death' so it always becomes some sort of caricature like Jar-Jar.

No. Playing a weird character doesn't automatically make someone a Jar-Jar. But some players don't know how to handle it without becoming a Jar-Jar.

3)
Everyone makes a huge deal about how, in modern versions of the game, the GM has to make everything specifically for the specific PC's in the party. That job becomes quite significantly harder when you compare what he/she has to do with a CRB game and what he/she has to do when you allow umpteen published sources that each player thinks would be interesting/unique/fun.
Being the GM is already much more difficult and time consuming than what any player normally has to do. Yes, I prefer more options to build my character. But I also don't have a problem making his job easier, if he prefers a reduced option set. I still don't have a problem making a fun PC.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:
Eryx_UK wrote:
The reason I would restrict it is because in my game worlds Goblins are monsters. They wouldn't get five feet into a town or village before someone had put a crossbow bolt or an axe in it's head.
I don't see why does it have to be necessarily so.

Because it's his game world.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree 100% with enjoying gaming with limited classes and races.... I think that the reason that folks are so excitexd about the new d and d 5e is that it is going back to a simpler system... to a large degree, this is a game of the imagination and improvisation... instead of creating thousands of rules and sub classes, a good gaming group with a creative GM can create a wonderful synergistic experience... and have FUN! the essence of ttrpg's is collective strory telling and playing "make believe" like we did as children.... with a FEW rules to provide challenges, puzzles, obstacles.... to a large degree, the attitude and maturity of the PC players and the creative improvisation of the GM drive everything... I submit that rules bloat hinder the very engine of good collective story telling...

I DM 2 pathfinder games... my homebrew rules focus essentially on keeping things simple, and always following the creative leads of my players... my best DM moments are probably at the moment that a PC says something really cool ("i wonder if that monster was actually the child of this villain?" referring to nualia and the sandpoint devil...it sounds cool! so the answer is yes!).... we dont need an ever expanding list of classes and races to use our imaginations ......

this is my humble opinion


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Ooookay. So it seems like the big thing here is the idea of social contracts being, like, a real thing. Just because you decide you don't want to subscribe to a particular social contract doesn't mean it isn't there, and it doesn't mean that you're justified, better, or correct because you don't want to subscribe. I'll throw out an example from just last night at my LGS:

::Puna'chong, the mighty half-orc rage-prophet Dungeon Master prepares for the evening's festivities. Venture Lieutenants [they're cool dudes, I like these guys] likewise engage in pre-bloodbath rituals, like grabbing vitamin waters and delicious snacks. Suddenly, music blares: it is some Frozen song being sung by a pony on someone's tablet at a table in the middle of the room::

The person was asked numerous times by his table to turn off the music, because it was distracting and because you don't play loud music in a crowded public space. It was a social contract he was violating. He repeatedly asked (at least four times), "Is it because it's Frozen or because it's Pony? [I assume that's capitalized] The other people at the table told him, no, it's because it's loud music in a crowded public space and you don't do that, because we've all agreed as a society that we don't want someone else making a specific ambiance for us in a public area that we didn't sign on for; restaurants, bars, game stores all have different music playing, usually different types and volumes, but you know that going in. It took the store owner to tell the player to turn off the music before he shut it down, and no number of glares from around the room seemed to matter.

Here, it didn't matter that the guy was wearing a raccoon tail on the back of his belt. I see it and roll my eyes and move on just as I would if I saw some LAX brooooo walking around with his knee-high socks in flip flops, too-long sports shorts, tank-top and backwards hat covering a [ironic?] mullet (I played rugby for years, and in high school these guys were our nemeses, because reasons). But it's their deal, it doesn't break any social contracts, and if they enjoy it and they're comfortable then by all means. Likewise, it didn't matter that he was playing--as he repeatedly asked--music from Frozen or that it was My Little Pony stuff. Again, that stuff is perfectly fine. The issue here came from denying the legitimacy of a thoroughly well-established social contract; he was playing loud music in a crowded public space.

Likewise, when a player brings a character that (sometimes) seems tailor-made to subvert the social contract the DM and the other players are following (and here it's more like a "gentleman's agreement," but it's very real) they are, for all intents and purposes, playing loud music in a crowded public space. It isn't that the player is being denied their creativity, or that they're not allowed to have fun. Rather, it is the simple matter of their character breaking the social dynamic and harming in various ways both low- and high-impact the cohesiveness of the group as a whole. Here, deciding that you don't want to follow their social contract doesn't make you a proud martyr or misunderstood genius; quite the opposite, as you are almost intentionally and knowingly undermining the other players in the group.

There is nothing inherently wrong with it, just like there's nothing wrong with My Little Pony [though some would argue] or Frozen or LAX bro dress. There's just a time and place, and recognizing that is how you navigate complicated human social interaction; and table-top RPGs are fundamentally social interaction.


When I'm in a good mood my response tends to be: "On the surface, this character doesn't seem to fit the game we discussed. What am I missing? Why is this the right character for this game?"

Mind you, that's not "How can we justify the character's existence?", but "Why does this character fit with the game and make it better?"


Puna'chong wrote:

Ooookay. So it seems like the big thing here is the idea of social contracts being, like, a real thing. Just because you decide you don't want to subscribe to a particular social contract doesn't mean it isn't there, and it doesn't mean that you're justified, better, or correct because you don't want to subscribe. I'll throw out an example from just last night at my LGS:

::Puna'chong, the mighty half-orc rage-prophet Dungeon Master prepares for the evening's festivities. Venture Lieutenants [they're cool dudes, I like these guys] likewise engage in pre-bloodbath rituals, like grabbing vitamin waters and delicious snacks. Suddenly, music blares: it is some Frozen song being sung by a pony on someone's tablet at a table in the middle of the room::

The person was asked numerous times by his table to turn off the music, because it was distracting and because you don't play loud music in a crowded public space. It was a social contract he was violating. He repeatedly asked (at least four times), "Is it because it's Frozen or because it's Pony? [I assume that's capitalized] The other people at the table told him, no, it's because it's loud music in a crowded public space and you don't do that, because we've all agreed as a society that we don't want someone else making a specific ambiance for us in a public area that we didn't sign on for; restaurants, bars, game stores all have different music playing, usually different types and volumes, but you know that going in. It took the store owner to tell the player to turn off the music before he shut it down, and no number of glares from around the room seemed to matter.

Here, it didn't matter that the guy was wearing a raccoon tail on the back of his belt. I see it and roll my eyes and move on just as I would if I saw some LAX brooooo walking around with his knee-high socks in flip flops, too-long sports shorts, tank-top and backwards hat covering a [ironic?] mullet (I played rugby for years, and in high school these guys were our nemeses,...

Well written. This is exactly my sentiments, but I apparently was not doing a very good job of expressing my opinions on the matter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
blahpers wrote:


Not allowing certain character concepts that don't fit the theme of the campaign is equivalent to segregation-era bigotry? Is that the argument you're running with?
That was not even close to what I read. I think he was saying that the RP rather than the race would be a more likely problem at the gaming table. Of course if the campaign has a theme that makes ____ not reasonable the player should let it go, but the idea behind this thread is that ___ is restricted for "simplicity". That is not the same as ___ interfering with the theme.

I recognize that my comment doesn't apply to the OP or to the thread as a whole, but it most certainly was a restatement of the comment to which I responded. Secret Wizard's post basically stated that the GM should allow whatever character concept the player wants regardless of how it meshes with the setting. That's codswallop. If I'm running a game of nobles and intrigue in the Elven High Court and a player wants to play a goblin vivisectionist, it's my prerogative as GM to decide whether that concept fits with the game and either accept or reject it. And I'm not a jerkbag for doing so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:
Eryx_UK wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
I want to play a Goblin Monk, I have a good idea of how to RP a Goblin Monk, why restrict me from playing a Goblin Monk?
The reason I would restrict it is because in my game worlds Goblins are monsters. They wouldn't get five feet into a town or village before someone had put a crossbow bolt or an axe in it's head. Same could be said for many of the options in the ARG in my opinion.

I don't see why does it have to be necessarily so. That's how Paizo handles Goblins in their books, sure, but that's all they are - books by a corporation that tries to hit a note that the average person finds pleasing, not necessarily your playgroup.

In real life, goblins don't exist. In actual folklore, they can be as good as they can be evil. In different media, goblins are portrayed as vegetarian, cannibalistic, evil, shy, smart, dumb.
You think of goblins in the way you mentioned because you must be well-versed in Pathfinder material, but what if someone has been exposed to other versions of them much more? The World of Warcraft player wants a crafty, wise-cracking Goblin like his character in that game; someone who is into a lot of old fairy tales might want a greedy and churlish - but not savage or malicious - Goblin PC.
And you are going to say "no" out of loyalty to the text written by some other dude at an office? I don't see what you are gaining from this.

Here's another, real life example -- I was setting up a game when my players told me they had decided the characters they wanted to play. A Catfolk Bard, a Tiefling Paladin, a Fetchling Druid and a, well, Half-Elf Rogue.

Rather than glancing twice at that, I remade a ton of NPCs of my campaign to make their characters more or less grounded in the game world... suddenly, there was this ancient city of Tieflings that hosted a sacred temple; Catfolk became the main allies of the Human empire; and I created an area that was a Shadow plane scar on the face of the land, the place the Fetchling had...

That is a great approach. It is also merely one approach. A GM is under no obligation to rewrite the world's history and geography to cover a player's character concept, and not doing so does not make that GM a better or worse GM.


Wiggz wrote:

If the only options available to you were Fighter, Rogue, Wizard and Cleric and the only races Human, Elf, Dwarf and Halfling, would you be able to enjoy Pathfinder/Fantasy role-play... or would you need to have the option of being a Dhamphir Gunslinger or Wayang Dervish/Magus to be able to get into it?

Not a right or wrong kind of thing, just looking for perspectives as more and more options (Mythic, Hybrid, Unleashed, etc.) continue to become available...

You're basically describing the Pathfinder Beginner Box, and that was a blast to play. Even if you don't eliminate map combat, the removal of AoOs makes players much more casual about their movement during a fight, and people seem to have more fun *during* the combat, rather than just being jazzed that they survived at the end.

There's been a strong trend towards "retro" fantasy rpgs among indie publishers lately in a similar vein to this. Fewer mechanical options, more focus on background, storytelling, and atmosphere. Dungeon World and Torchbearer both come to mind.


spectrevk wrote:
There's been a strong trend towards "retro" fantasy rpgs among indie publishers lately in a similar vein to this. Fewer mechanical options, more focus on background, storytelling, and atmosphere. Dungeon World and Torchbearer both come to mind.

As well as Swords and Wizardry, which fits the OP's description to a tee (and which I personally would play anytime.)

Shadow Lodge

Gorbacz wrote:

Yeah. There are two kind of people who play transgender Kitsune Paladin/Monks: the ones who want to play that character and the ones who want to wreck your day. If you tell the former that he/she can't play that character because arbitrary reasons, you've just killed a puppy. If you tell this to the second type, you've just set up yourself for a world of pain. In either way, YOU LOSE GOOD SIR.

The only way to play a traditionalist game is when everybody at the table is down with that. I'm sure you can find dozens of groups who are so, I'm just pretty sure most of them don't even bother coming here, because PF lies some 10 miles from their tastes.

Under what circumstances is a GM allowed to say no? If all the other players and the GM want to play a semi-historical campaign based of King Arthur, does that mean that a GM who rejects the character concept of a kitsune soul knife is a horrible tyrant who should be banned from running the game?

Should the GM be forced to rewrite his campaign from scratch all because one single player refuses to consider character options that aren't completely incompatible with that campaign?

Does this mean that the GM is too incompetent, or does it mean the player is an entitled jerkass who is incapable of playing well with others?


Kthulhu wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

Yeah. There are two kind of people who play transgender Kitsune Paladin/Monks: the ones who want to play that character and the ones who want to wreck your day. If you tell the former that he/she can't play that character because arbitrary reasons, you've just killed a puppy. If you tell this to the second type, you've just set up yourself for a world of pain. In either way, YOU LOSE GOOD SIR.

The only way to play a traditionalist game is when everybody at the table is down with that. I'm sure you can find dozens of groups who are so, I'm just pretty sure most of them don't even bother coming here, because PF lies some 10 miles from their tastes.

Under what circumstances is a GM allowed to say no? If all the other players and the GM want to play a semi-historical campaign based of King Arthur, does that mean that a GM who rejects the character concept of a kitsune soul knife is a horrible tyrant who should be banned from running the game?

Should the GM be forced to rewrite his campaign from scratch all because one single player refuses to consider character options that aren't completely incompatible with that campaign?

Does this mean that the GM is too incompetent, or does it mean the player is an entitled jerkass who is incapable of playing well with others?

As I think I suggested above: "Interesting character choice. Can you tell me why this character really fits in a semi-historical campaign based of King Arthur, because I'm not seeing it. What does he bring to the game? Sell me on it."

Assuming that fails, "Ok, what do we want to do here? Do you have another concept that works better? Do you want to sit this one out, since you don't seem interested in the campaign?
Or does anyone else want to run something instead? "

The "sell me on it" part is important. In the given case, the chances are small but non-zero, but you also can get a better feel for why the player came up with this character. Was he just not concerned with the game you wanted to run? Did he misunderstand something about the setting? Or does he really have an absolutely brilliant idea for why a kitsune soul knife is going to make this the best semi-historical King Arthur campaign ever?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Everything would depend on the GM. You could enjoy a game played as nothing but the basic NPC classes if the story was good enough.


It's about the greatest fun for the greatest number of people, really.

In that example, a GM is perfectly justified saying no, though I personally would make some attempt fitting it in with some judicious refluffing (a Barbarian tribe with a fox totem theme, similar stats but maybe without the shapeshifting).

But when the GM wants one thing and the majority of the players don't...no I don't believe he has a right to say no. Not and be surprised when his players find a new GM, anyway.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the GM has the right to do whatever he or she wants.

That said, I don't see a point in GMing if you don't give the players agency and the freedom to do what they want in your world with the appropriate consequences.

I can sit around and think up plot all I want. It's just not PF to me if the PCs can't throw a wrench in it.

Player: "I want to play a tengu!"
Me: "OK, but they aren't an established race. You are basically the last one of a tribe that was created two ages ago."
Player:"What about my races culture?"
Me:"You are free to believe you have a culture and that there is a community out there somewhere"
Player:"Oh I have an idea! My char will just misremember his culture to the point that if he ever encounters another tengu, they will be impressed by just how wrong he is."
Me:"Great!"

Said player didn't end up playing a tengu, but I saw no point in not allowing it. I wasn't going to write up a place for his race in the world, but I don't think anyone is advocating the that GM go the extra mile like that to cater to his or her players.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Said player didn't end up playing a tengu, but I saw no point in not allowing it. I wasn't going to write up a place for his race in the world, but I don't think anyone is advocating the that GM go the extra mile like that to cater to his or her players.

At the same time, I see no reason why the GM is the only one responsible for world-building. Why can't the player, in this case, develop the Tengu culture, history, etc, for the homebrew world?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Puna'chong wrote:

Suddenly, music blares: it is some Frozen song being sung by a pony on someone's tablet at a table in the middle of the room::

The person was asked numerous times by his table to turn off the music, because it was distracting and because you don't play loud music in a crowded public space. It was a social contract he was violating. He repeatedly asked (at least four times), "Is it because it's Frozen or because it's Pony?

I think I've seen that guy.

201 to 223 of 223 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Could you enjoy a simplified game? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.