Heh. This thread is acquiring a rather classic, slightly hypnotic tinge of "We'll just keep beating one another over the head with the same arguments, even if they're becoming rather stale by now". Seriously, there are different ways to GM. People value different things. But: These things come with other implications. Just as some are not interested in a setting where they can't play their undead houri minotaur, their optimus prime, their genestealer or their half-fiend gelatinous cube, some are not interested in a setting where "My undead houri minotaur got thrown through a portal" is an acceptable backstory.
I do object, however, to the idea that has been thrown about here several times that you should only play kitchen-sink games that accomodate every possible character that could be made with the rules in Pathfinder, and that anyone wanting to play anything else should use some other system. That just comes off as a rather primitive territorial argument. The truth is that it's perfectly fine to play different styles of game within the Pathfinder framework, from gonzo mythic campaigns, to everyone playing commoners, and everything in between, without one iota of change. If you are changing things, it all depends on what gets changed. Tearing out the WBL and CR systems as well as cheap healing, and you should be able to make a rather functioning gritty ruleset. Add in more on diplomacy and such and you should be able to do intrigue. And guess what? If the GM does this, and one of the players say "Pathfinder doesn't work for this", the proper response is:
MAKE. IT. WORK.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
As someone who is very fond of and prefers to run/play in kitchen sink/"throw it all in" campaigns, I just have to shake my head at the hostility such are receiving here. It seems like quite a few people seem to like using "you're just running a kitchen sink game" as a sort of insult bludgeon, as if it's some kind of lowest-common-denominator standard and thus anything with any level of restriction is instantly better.
Seriously. Comments like this:
Sissyl wrote: If someone suggested a generic, kitchen sink campaign where they did not intend to make a coherent plotline, deal with NPCs, keep track of combat, etc seem to suggest the poster in question believes that those two go hand in hand - and little effort is made to clarify if they do or not. Would it change your mind if said kitchen sink campaign DID have coherent plot, elaborate NPCs, and steady flow of combat gameplay?
I don't want to believe that's what some people believe, and I honestly don't think Sissyl does, she just provided the first example I could find. But some of the comments here have me wondering.
Orthos wrote: As someone who is very fond of and prefers to run/play in kitchen sink/"throw it all in" campaigns, I just have to shake my head at the hostility such are receiving here. It seems like quite a few people seem to like using "you're just running a kitchen sink game" as a sort of insult bludgeon, as if it's some kind of lowest-common-denominator standard and thus anything with any level of restriction is instantly better.
Seriously. Comments like this:
Sissyl wrote: If someone suggested a generic, kitchen sink campaign where they did not intend to make a coherent plotline, deal with NPCs, keep track of combat, etc seem to suggest the poster in question believes that those two go hand in hand - and little effort is made to clarify if they do or not. Would it change your mind if said kitchen sink campaign DID have coherent plot, elaborate NPCs, and steady flow of combat gameplay?
I don't want to believe that's what some people believe, and I honestly don't think Sissyl does, she just provided the first example I could find. But some of the comments here have me wondering.
It's not a "lowest common denominator" indeed, it's something I sometimes run, I just prefer it to stay in the games where I run the game with kitchen sink in mind as opposed to being the only sort run.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Orthos wrote: As someone who is very fond of and prefers to run/play in kitchen sink/"throw it all in" campaigns, I just have to shake my head at the hostility such are receiving here. It seems like quite a few people seem to like using "you're just running a kitchen sink game" as a sort of insult bludgeon, as if it's some kind of lowest-common-denominator standard and thus anything with any level of restriction is instantly better.
Seriously. Comments like this:
Sissyl wrote: If someone suggested a generic, kitchen sink campaign where they did not intend to make a coherent plotline, deal with NPCs, keep track of combat, etc seem to suggest the poster in question believes that those two go hand in hand - and little effort is made to clarify if they do or not. Would it change your mind if said kitchen sink campaign DID have coherent plot, elaborate NPCs, and steady flow of combat gameplay?
I don't want to believe that's what some people believe, and I honestly don't think Sissyl does, she just provided the first example I could find. But some of the comments here have me wondering.
I read that specific bit as a belated reference to this exchange
Davor wrote: "Hi, I'm the GM. I sink hours of preparation time and planning, including running dozens of NPCs and monsters per game, keeping track of combat and in-world consequences of PC action, and organizing a grand storyline that will carry the players across continents and levels." TriOmegaZero wrote: I don't do any of that. Things seem to work out just fine. Not really a generic accusation.
Personally, I don't have anything against generic kitchen sink campaigns. They can be fun. So can more focused games.
Even with the worst interpretation of Sissyl's and other similar posts, it's far less obnoxious than several direct statements that any restrictions on character generation mean the GM is going to railroad or read you his fan fic.
thejeff wrote: I read that specific bit as a belated reference to this exchange
Davor wrote: "Hi, I'm the GM. I sink hours of preparation time and planning, including running dozens of NPCs and monsters per game, keeping track of combat and in-world consequences of PC action, and organizing a grand storyline that will carry the players across continents and levels." TriOmegaZero wrote: I don't do any of that. Things seem to work out just fine. Not really a generic accusation.
I feel dumb. I completely missed that exchange between TOZ and Davor.
Sorry >_< I'm going to blame it being early.
Quote: it's far less obnoxious than several direct statements that any restrictions on character generation mean the GM is going to railroad or read you his fan fic. I don't disagree.
Sissyl wrote: I do object, however, to the idea that has been thrown about here several times that you should only play kitchen-sink games that accomodate every possible character that could be made with the rules in Pathfinder, and that anyone wanting to play anything else should use some other system. That just comes off as a rather primitive territorial argument. The truth is that it's perfectly fine to play different styles of game within the Pathfinder framework, from gonzo mythic campaigns, to everyone playing commoners, and everything in between, without one iota of change. If you are changing things, it all depends on what gets changed. Tearing out the WBL and CR systems as well as cheap healing, and you should be able to make a rather functioning gritty ruleset. Add in more on diplomacy and such and you should be able to do intrigue. And guess what? If the GM does this, and one of the players say "Pathfinder doesn't work for this", the proper response is:
MAKE. IT. WORK.
Or use a different system. Sure, PF can work for a lot of more restrictive concepts. It's not intended as a generic system* and there are plenty of things it doesn't do well. I'm not attached to it enough to prefer hacking it to make it sort of work rather than using system designed for the concept. There are lot of other fun games out there. Why limit yourself?
If someone wants to GM a game with a concept that requires modifying PF significantly, I'd probably suggest a different ruleset, if I knew of one that fit better, but I'd be willing to try if he stuck with it. Assuming I liked the concept in the first place, of course.
thejeff wrote: Sissyl wrote: I do object, however, to the idea that has been thrown about here several times that you should only play kitchen-sink games that accomodate every possible character that could be made with the rules in Pathfinder, and that anyone wanting to play anything else should use some other system. That just comes off as a rather primitive territorial argument. The truth is that it's perfectly fine to play different styles of game within the Pathfinder framework, from gonzo mythic campaigns, to everyone playing commoners, and everything in between, without one iota of change. If you are changing things, it all depends on what gets changed. Tearing out the WBL and CR systems as well as cheap healing, and you should be able to make a rather functioning gritty ruleset. Add in more on diplomacy and such and you should be able to do intrigue. And guess what? If the GM does this, and one of the players say "Pathfinder doesn't work for this", the proper response is:
MAKE. IT. WORK.
Or use a different system. Sure, PF can work for a lot of more restrictive concepts. It's not intended as a generic system* and there are plenty of things it doesn't do well. I'm not attached to it enough to prefer hacking it to make it sort of work rather than using system designed for the concept. There are lot of other fun games out there. Why limit yourself?
If someone wants to GM a game with a concept that requires modifying PF significantly, I'd probably suggest a different ruleset, if I knew of one that fit better, but I'd be willing to try if he stuck with it. Assuming I liked the concept in the first place, of course. Possibly you don't want to spend money on new systems every time you have a new concept? Or learn a new system from scratch every time you have a different concept? Perfect should not be the enemy of 'good enough'.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Indeed, my comment was a reference to the exchange between Davor and TOZ.
I still don't follow why claiming that PF can be used very well for more restricted flavours of game has anything to do with death panels, understood as an example of opposing a bill because of something that is not included in that bill. I remain unconvinced, and will treat suggestions that you must use other systems than PF if you want to play anything but anything-goes games. There are perfectly good reasons to prefer PF to the thousand other fantasy RPGs out there, considering the familiarity of the system, freely available rules, expansive materials available, support, and so on and so forth.
Sissyl wrote: Indeed, my comment was a reference to the exchange between Davor and TOZ. Yeah I'll call that one an early-morning derp on my part. Sorry!
RDM42 wrote: thejeff wrote: Sissyl wrote: I do object, however, to the idea that has been thrown about here several times that you should only play kitchen-sink games that accomodate every possible character that could be made with the rules in Pathfinder, and that anyone wanting to play anything else should use some other system. That just comes off as a rather primitive territorial argument. The truth is that it's perfectly fine to play different styles of game within the Pathfinder framework, from gonzo mythic campaigns, to everyone playing commoners, and everything in between, without one iota of change. If you are changing things, it all depends on what gets changed. Tearing out the WBL and CR systems as well as cheap healing, and you should be able to make a rather functioning gritty ruleset. Add in more on diplomacy and such and you should be able to do intrigue. And guess what? If the GM does this, and one of the players say "Pathfinder doesn't work for this", the proper response is:
MAKE. IT. WORK.
Or use a different system. Sure, PF can work for a lot of more restrictive concepts. It's not intended as a generic system* and there are plenty of things it doesn't do well. I'm not attached to it enough to prefer hacking it to make it sort of work rather than using system designed for the concept. There are lot of other fun games out there. Why limit yourself?
If someone wants to GM a game with a concept that requires modifying PF significantly, I'd probably suggest a different ruleset, if I knew of one that fit better, but I'd be willing to try if he stuck with it. Assuming I liked the concept in the first place, of course. Possibly you don't want to spend money on new systems every time you have a new concept? Or learn a new system from scratch every time you have a different concept? Perfect should not be the enemy of 'good enough'. As I said, if another GM wanted to do it, I'd go with it.
Though there are certainly some concepts I don't think PF could be sufficiently hacked to do justice to. At least without essentially being a new system.
Besides, I like new systems. And tend to prefer less mechanics heavy games, which have much less of a learning curve than PF. Generally less cost too.
Edit: Again, certainly not claiming that no restricted games should be run in PF. Just that PF is not designed as a generic system and really works best within a certain range of genre.
Orthos wrote: Sissyl wrote: Indeed, my comment was a reference to the exchange between Davor and TOZ. Yeah I'll call that one an early-morning derp on my part. Sorry! Oh, don't worry. Sissyl just doesn't know when to take me seriously and when not to.
I admit I wasn't sure how serious I should be taking Davor either.
TOZ wrote: Orthos wrote: Sissyl wrote: Indeed, my comment was a reference to the exchange between Davor and TOZ. Yeah I'll call that one an early-morning derp on my part. Sorry! Oh, don't worry. Sissyl just doesn't know when to take me seriously and when not to. There's times we're supposed to?
thejeff wrote: RDM42 wrote: thejeff wrote: Sissyl wrote: I do object, however, to the idea that has been thrown about here several times that you should only play kitchen-sink games that accomodate every possible character that could be made with the rules in Pathfinder, and that anyone wanting to play anything else should use some other system. That just comes off as a rather primitive territorial argument. The truth is that it's perfectly fine to play different styles of game within the Pathfinder framework, from gonzo mythic campaigns, to everyone playing commoners, and everything in between, without one iota of change. If you are changing things, it all depends on what gets changed. Tearing out the WBL and CR systems as well as cheap healing, and you should be able to make a rather functioning gritty ruleset. Add in more on diplomacy and such and you should be able to do intrigue. And guess what? If the GM does this, and one of the players say "Pathfinder doesn't work for this", the proper response is:
MAKE. IT. WORK.
Or use a different system. Sure, PF can work for a lot of more restrictive concepts. It's not intended as a generic system* and there are plenty of things it doesn't do well. I'm not attached to it enough to prefer hacking it to make it sort of work rather than using system designed for the concept. There are lot of other fun games out there. Why limit yourself?
If someone wants to GM a game with a concept that requires modifying PF significantly, I'd probably suggest a different ruleset, if I knew of one that fit better, but I'd be willing to try if he stuck with it. Assuming I liked the concept in the first place, of course. Possibly you don't want to spend money on new systems every time you have a new concept? Or learn a new system from scratch every time you have a different concept? Perfect should not be the enemy of 'good enough'. As I said, if another GM wanted to do it, I'd go with it.
Though there are certainly some concepts I don't think PF could be... Save that the system you have is a sunk cost, as in you have already paid for it, and you would be paying for the new system IN ADDITION to it.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Goin' For A Troll wrote: There's times we're supposed to? Successful Troll is very dedicated to Successful Troll's art.
Successful Troll is Successful wrote: Goin' For A Troll wrote: There's times we're supposed to? Successful Troll is very dedicated to Successful Troll's art. I can respect that.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Also, it was me and Digitalelf, not me and Davor. Davor was calling players scum of the earth.
TriOmegaZero wrote: Also, it was me and Digitalelf And I knew you weren't being serious, which is why I included the ":-P" emoticon.
|
