So if you cross a MarySue with a Mcguffin and a Griffon, you get one of those ?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like there's no substantive difference between a GM coming up with a new item, spell, enchantment, feat, template, monster, etc. and a Paizo writer coming up with one as happens several times a month.
The two differences I can see are just a matter of perception. The first is that we expect the professional writers to maintain a certain level of quality and balance that we may not expect from amateurs. The second is that we trust that the Paizo writers have no ulterior motive when creating the new thing besides "make the game better" while the GM's motives are often more suspect.
So the only thing I can suggest is try to win the trust of your players, and when you come up with new stuff as is needed for the plot, go the extra mile in terms of thinking it through.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
<Master villain cackles wildly>At last my secret breeding project is complete. This new creature shall devastate my enemies. I will call it the MarySueGriffin.<PCs bursts in, rolls knowledge> Oh hey look, a marysuegriffin.
I had just this situation come up in a published adventure. The party ran into creatures bred in a secret lab by a demonologist, creating a new beast. PCs rolled knowledge checks and I got to describe what they recognized in the beasts.
"You don't know what this is, but the demon flesh used to graft it together likely gives it resistance to fire."
"The uncoordinated movements and simplistic tactics give you the feeling that the monster is not fully imbued with whatever essence the creator gave the other beasts. Your best guest is that it shares more in common with mindless constructs than outsiders."
I feel like there's no substantive difference between a GM coming up with a new item, spell, enchantment, feat, template, monster, etc. and a Paizo writer coming up with one as happens several times a month.
The two differences I can see are just a matter of perception. The first is that we expect the professional writers to maintain a certain level of quality and balance that we may not expect from amateurs. The second is that we trust that the Paizo writers have no ulterior motive when creating the new thing besides "make the game better" while the GM's motives are often more suspect.
So the only thing I can suggest is try to win the trust of your players, and when you come up with new stuff as is needed for the plot, go the extra mile in terms of thinking it through.
No one has a problem with either person coming up with a new creation. But have you ever played a published adventure where the new thing that just existed with that module/AP/Book has immunity to PC knowledge checks? Because I haven't it might be as TOZ put it more of a describe the form or function instead of specifics, but never "The PC's can never attain knowledge about this beast unless they drink from the fountain of GM knowledge, seek the old wizard in the mountains of anguish based off of the GM's old character, or find the tome of unbridled learning in the library of asspull"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like there's no substantive difference between a GM coming up with a new item, spell, enchantment, feat, template, monster, etc. and a Paizo writer coming up with one as happens several times a month.
The two differences I can see are just a matter of perception. The first is that we expect the professional writers to maintain a certain level of quality and balance that we may not expect from amateurs. The second is that we trust that the Paizo writers have no ulterior motive when creating the new thing besides "make the game better" while the GM's motives are often more suspect.
So the only thing I can suggest is try to win the trust of your players, and when you come up with new stuff as is needed for the plot, go the extra mile in terms of thinking it through.
yes! I think there is no point in arguing wether or not you can create stuff in your gameworld by twisting some rules or creating new stuff if you are consistent and fair while doing so.
yes! I think there is no point in arguing wether or not you can create stuff in your gameworld by twisting some rules or creating new stuff if you are consistent and fair while doing so.I feel like there's no substantive difference between a GM coming up with a new item, spell, enchantment, feat, template, monster, etc. and a Paizo writer coming up with one as happens several times a month.
The two differences I can see are just a matter of perception. The first is that we expect the professional writers to maintain a certain level of quality and balance that we may not expect from amateurs. The second is that we trust that the Paizo writers have no ulterior motive when creating the new thing besides "make the game better" while the GM's motives are often more suspect.
So the only thing I can suggest is try to win the trust of your players, and when you come up with new stuff as is needed for the plot, go the extra mile in terms of thinking it through.
Exactly.
And this is where the problem lies: If you find your GM's motives more suspect, then there's probably already a problem.
If a GM wants to screw with you, they can do so quite easily with changing the rules.
I feel like there's a difference though between a GM not wanting you to be able to skip through everything they've prepared with the application of some spell or class ability, and a GM wanting to just screw with you. The GM doesn't have to be forthright or honest all the time, but whatever subterfuge they engage in should be for the benefit of the game (and thus all the players.)
Like if the idea is to have the PCs need to solve a mystery, and you want to come up reasons they can't skip to the end with a couple of divination spells, that's perfectly fine.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then why bother putting points in Knowledge(Arcana) ? Or bringing along that annoying know-it-all bard ?
PCs: I use spellcraft and my arcane knowledge! I roll a 28!!!
DM: Hmm, drawing upon your vast arcane experience you are only able to tell that it's from a power greater than your own level. Reaching out with your senses, the hairs raise on the back of your neck.
I agree that's not a good response. Neither is saying "you identify the spell as being Marvello the Magnificent's personally researched spell #4". Both responses fail to reward the player for investing in the skills and the second provides a label but no description.
The Knowledge (Arcana) skill description states that to identify a spell effect that is in place is a DC 20 + spell level check. If the player rolled a 28 then unless the spell effect is 9th level the GM should describe the spell's effects to them. The GM does not have to give the player the name of the spell, the trigger for the spell, the duration, level or anything else.
If they were targeted by the spell and it was level 3 or below then they are entitled to identify the spell. However as the spell is new/unique/previously unencountered or undocumented. Then it would be reasonable to state that you have been targeted by an unknown spell of the [school name] school of complexity [spell level] that did [effect].
To deny the player of that description is to break the mechanics of the game and the player has every right to feel cheated.
If the control and release of information related to a new thing is important then the GM should consider ahead of time what information should be released using which skill and at what DC and keep those DCs consistent with RAW and/or advise on any exceptions ahead of time.
And this is where the problem lies: If you find your GM's motives more suspect, then there's probably already a problem.
If a GM wants to screw with you, they can do so quite easily with changing the rules.
I feel like there's a difference though between a GM not wanting you to be able to skip through everything they've prepared with the application of some spell or class ability, and a GM wanting to just screw with you. The GM doesn't have to be forthright or honest all the time, but whatever subterfuge they engage in should be for the benefit of the game (and thus all the players.)
Like if the idea is to have the PCs need to solve a mystery, and you want to come up reasons they can't skip to the end with a couple of divination spells, that's perfectly fine.
And all of that is fine if it is consistent, but if the villain gets immunity to mind effecting spells while wearing a tinfoil hat expect the party to be pissed if it doesn't work for them.
Would you believe an artifact for exactly this already exists?And all of that is fine if it is consistent, but if the villain gets immunity to mind effecting spells while wearing a tinfoil hat expect the party to be pissed if it doesn't work for them.And this is where the problem lies: If you find your GM's motives more suspect, then there's probably already a problem.
If a GM wants to screw with you, they can do so quite easily with changing the rules.
I feel like there's a difference though between a GM not wanting you to be able to skip through everything they've prepared with the application of some spell or class ability, and a GM wanting to just screw with you. The GM doesn't have to be forthright or honest all the time, but whatever subterfuge they engage in should be for the benefit of the game (and thus all the players.)
Like if the idea is to have the PCs need to solve a mystery, and you want to come up reasons they can't skip to the end with a couple of divination spells, that's perfectly fine.
Yep and it works for the party if they put it on which makes it just fine.
The issue is can X thing that has been done be replicated by a PC? Or is creating a brand new disease only able to be done by the GM fiat skill? That is the issue people want, it doesn't have to be 100%by the book but the game works off the premise that the rules apply to everyone and everything until an ability the says otherwise. Making up a...
In my opinion that's literally what a GM is supposed to do. Not everything is supposed to be able to be done by players. That's just how it is in my opinion.
I do think players that believe that GM should be limited to only things players can do are wrong for believing that, I'm not going to pretend like I don't. But I'm also not going to insult or abuse someone for that opinion. I see it as a necessary tool for GMs to be able to make things up that aren't justified within the rules, but they also shouldn't do it with everything. It's a tool to be used sparingly, and the right times and places for good reason. As I mentioned, even Paizo does this when writing APs.
A shared reality is only shared if everyones expectations of reality matches.
No, it's not. It's the basic premise of table top fantasy gaming and its shared reality.
Boooo-riiiiiing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Boooo-riiiiiing.A shared reality is only shared if everyones expectations of reality matches.
No, it's not. It's the basic premise of table top fantasy gaming and its shared reality.
We currently live in a world where everyone’s expectations of reality don’t match.
It suuuuuuuuuuuuuuucks.
And all of that is fine if it is consistent, but if the villain gets immunity to mind effecting spells while wearing a tinfoil hat expect the party to be pissed if it doesn't work for them.
But already, the game strictly as written is not consistent. For example, an NPC Cecaelia (from Bestiary 3) has Grab on its tentacle attacks, but a PC Cecaelia (from Bllood of the Sea) does not. Apparently gaining class levels causes them to lose Grab or something.
And all of that is fine if it is consistent, but if the villain gets immunity to mind effecting spells while wearing a tinfoil hat expect the party to be pissed if it doesn't work for them.But already, the game strictly as written is not consistent. For example, an NPC Cecaelia (from Bestiary 3) has Grab on its tentacle attacks, but a PC Cecaelia (from Bllood of the Sea) does not. Apparently gaining class levels causes them to lose Grab or something.
Don't have those book but I'll poke around that example, but as far as i know that would be the first time I have seen with difference.
EDIT: Okay We start with this line on the race.
As cecaelias are unusual and powerful monstrous creatures, you should play one only with your GM’s permission. Cecaelias normally have racial Hit Dice, skills, and other abilities. PC cecaelias, however, calculate these benefits based solely on their class. Note that these abilities are only an approximation of the cecaelia monster from Pathfinder RPG Bestiary 3 and may not match exactly. PC cecaelias have the following racial traits.
So it flat out tells you up front that its not the same thing because of lack of racial hit die, which they have 6 of, so we can extrapolate that it must need the racial HD to get grab. It also tells us that they are powerful even with the reductions. Finally I'm going to point out that while not consistent it does follow that its up front about it. It's tells you before even getting to the meat of the race that it is different, so at least you know up front.
