Just the impression I get from the GMs who advertised "sandbox". Sandbox is a game without limits. Play however you wish to play as a team or solo as the mood strikes you. The world is there. Go left or right and you will find new stuff. I suspect the GM who placed a den of trolls in a low level sandbox would be expecting the player to look for help. Or maybe he is a GM who doesn't understand game balance?
PS: Think about it. If a sandbox game has 15hd monsters populating it but the GM starts you at level 1 you are likely going to end up as a tasty meat snack.
Yes, that would be sandbox. And in a well run sandbox, the GM doesn't just blindly have the 15hd creature pop out of nowhere on top of one (or more) adventurers.
Instead, he has signs & warnings that "this way lies an elder dragon".
Similarly, the reason to wander into the troll infested area is presumably to deal with the trolls. You can, with some effort and planning, do this as a group at low level. If you decide, by yourself, to go into "Trollandia" at level 1, you are a troll snack.
In sandbox, the responsibility for encounter balance is about a 50/50 split between the players & GM. The GM creates the world/encounters, and advertises their presence. Said advert (should) include enough information for the players to make a reasonable assessment of their odds of success.
Also, in my experience with face-to-face sandbox, there's always been agreement (tacit or spoken) not to split up too much, or too often. Because that gets very boring, very fast (in addition to very deadly).
So, yes, technically, in a sandbox environment, the GM has said "I'm going to present the world, and let you decide your actions without interference". And, that, in theory leads to players going every which way, and the GM having to track individual plots out the arse.
But, in practice, I have my doubts it happens all that often. Once or twice wandering off from the group in dangerous territory seems to be all it takes for a new player to decide it's not healthy.
Full disclosure, I synthesize aspects of all three of the GM styles you've mentioned.
I'll plot out, in advance, the high-probability stuff. Things the players have made clear are on their "to do" list. Major NPCs and encounters I would like to see fit in somehow. Towns in their immediate area.
Then, if they go outside what I've anticipated, I just improv it. I've had years of practice, and while my encounter tactics do get a little sloppier, it's still sufficiently solid for the group's fun.
If the group (or parts there of) go so far out in left feild, stop the game (food break!). I'll use the time they're picking up grub to flesh out whatever I feel I need right quick.
It helps that I have players who take good notes, and a surprisingly effective memory. But, once it's out of game time, it's time to commit all the off-script details to paper & filter them into the existing material.
It's been my experience that they don't mind if a more active player chooses to be the "party leader" and make most of the decisions for the group. Who this is often would rotate depending on energy levels & personal engagement at the time.
If I have majority/exclusively these players:
and they're mostly new to RPGs & want to learn:
I'll run a module, dungeon crawl, or other fairly rail-road (preferably subtle/illusion of free will style). The amount of rail-road will dwindle as the game progresses.
AKA, training wheels.
and they're familiar with RPGs
Odds are darn good at this point that they don't actually want to play this game, at least, not right now. Stop the game, find out why no one is willing to make a decision (politely). Maybe they just need a meal break, maybe they just need to take the night off.
I've saved so many games by just putting on a movie. Much better than having people get disgruntled (myself included) by trying to play when people aren't interested. (How do you know they're interested? Simple, they care enough to make choices.)
Malwing wrote:
Big question; how do you have fun? This is big because I have DMed situations where nothing less than an firm railroad kept things active and CR 5s are proving too challenging for the 10th level party, and the amount of plot hand holding and needing just made an increasingly boring story for me. If the party goes to the tavern to find and apprehend the criminal One-Eye Willy, and walk through the door and do nothing but look at each other for thirty minutes inside I want to stab myself and then quit GMing.
In this situation, I would have fun by stopping the game. All you're doing is making the situation worse for everyone by continuing the game. I'd have more fun with a board game, or a movie (see above). Find out why they're doing so poorly (even my densest player can handle APL & APL+1 encounters, and this is a person who doesn't remember basic mechanics some sessions), and address that problem before you play again.
If the problem cannot be addressed, and this is how the game is going to play (and you don't have fun running it this way), then step down. Let them find a GM that enjoys running in a fashion they enjoy. Find yourself a group that you enjoy running for.
Just because animation currently has a smaller envelope doesn't mean that envelope doesn't get pushed. Animaniacs didn't have bad animation. It had cartoonish animation. The level was as high as it needed to be.
Also, I'd agree that "cartoon" generally implies a light-hearted work, though that hardly makes it any worse. Would we say that Monty Python and the Holy Grail is lower-tier than Return of the King because RotK is serious and Monty Python is a comedy? I would hope not.
That would depend entirely on context. Most games I've played fall somewhere between the two in terms of seriousness. A reinforcement of silliness in OOC terminology might have well torpedoed any IC attempts at seriousness.
More gamers who care about terminology probably see their games closer to RotK than Monty Python. As such, treating it as silly is going to offend them. Just like dismissively labeling cartoons as "childish" offended you.
Ok, guys enuf with the hijack about cartoon quality, please.
Actually, I think the hijack has offered a little illumination to the basis for some people's dislike of the term "toon" for PCs.
During that hijack, look how the language changed from mostly "cartoon", to refer to relatively simplistic, slapstick shows, towards a preference for "animation", "animated series", or "animated film" when referencing works perceived as higher-quality.
It's not thorough enough to prove out that people see a difference, but a correlation between "low-quality, non-serious, animated shows" and the term "cartoon" is hinted at throughout. I bet if we let them hijack the thread even longer, the correlation would become clearer.
Heck, examining my own language use in light of this, I can't see myself, or my social circle, calling works like Avatar, 9, or Ghost in the Shell (most any anime, really) "cartoons".
It's technically the right term, by definition. However, by connotation, these works are not the silly, slapstic works with two-dimensional characters that typify "cartoon" the way that Tom & Jerry, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, or Looney Tunes do.
people associating a term with a 26 year old movie versus its usage for years in massively multiplayer online roleplaying games
Well, while we might all be quoting "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?", it'd be more accurate to say...
"Looney Toons" (Tunes? I think they spelled it this alternate way there), Saturday morning cartoons, Cartoon Network, and the TTRPG "Toons".
There are, I'm sure, far more examples of the "often-childish/immature, shallow, slap-stick, animated character" than I've listed above. And, in full disclosure, I love the old Tom & Jerry, and some Animaniacs. But, barring playing the eponymous TTRPG, I can understand why people who are familiar with the use of the term for the overwhelming majority of both time & circumstance would find it offensive.
Until someone explained that it's now an MMO-originating term for "Player Character". Then the offense (mostly) vanishes and is replaced with bewilderment as to why you didn't just call him a "PC".
I think I've well established that it's no skin off my back what you call the character, but I can certainly see why some people would take offense. And, since talking is about communicating ideas clearly, effectively, and (I hope, at least) without causing pointless offense, it makes very little sense to continue pursuing the use of a word that doesn't add anything to the conversation.
Full disclosure, I played (collective) years of WOW, Eve, CoH, Warhammer Online, Guild Wars (1 & 2), and Tabula Rasa. Here, in this forum is the first time I can remember hearing the word "toon" in the context of characters.
Hey, bbt, if I came up to a group and asked them if they could help me flesh out a concept for my latest "toon," then proceeded to make it clear that I was talking about a PC, and a member of that group said, "Gee, I was going to help you until you used the term 'toon,'" how should I interpret their reaction?
I cannot imagine someone having that immediate of a reaction in real life.
More likely, they'll say something like "Gee, I play with LazarX, and he's developed some bad feelings for that term from MMOs. Could you just call it a PC?" Or, "Oh, we don't call them toons, could you avoid it? It feels like you're calling my character Roger Rabbit."
Then, if you persisted in using terminology they've politely made clear to you they don't like, I'd be cool with them walking out on you.
Me, I'd just help you roll up the character, but warn you that some at my table will probably give you some good-natured heckling. Because those two are in the camps mentioned above. Where it's either a "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" reference, or suggestive of characters with all the depth and seriousness of Tom & Jerry.
Talk to him, figure out if it's a problem you two can resolve off the table.
If not, there's only one real punishment that seems to work in RPG. Inform him that until such time as the group is confident in his ability to be an adult, he is not welcome at the table.
Because when a workforce builds a building, they build the whole building, not the individual rooms to be slapped together on paper.
The game rules for this were designed under two assumptions:
1. Quickly provide reasonably solid building construction mechanics, building modification is a nice extra.
If I'm building a building consisting of one lavatory, it takes the time it takes to build a single lavatory. If I'm building a building consisting of two lavatories, it takes the time it takes to build two lavatories. Yes, there are efficiencies to gain from having a shared wall, but I'm splitting my workforce (the specialist in medieval indoor plumbing can only be in one place at a time, and he has to do his job before the tile guy can install the permanent floor...)
Joe's Carpentry Guild isn't going to dedicate twice as many people, unless you pay extra. Therefore, the labor requirement is really the same people, doing twice the work, thus double the labor resources.
Technically, I'd say that if you and your friend wanted to build two lavatories onto the same building, it would take double the time, same as if you want to build two lavatories on the same building.
However, if you're building two separate lavatories, on two separate buildings, it may, depending on the labor force available, be possible to build them in tandem.
2. Fit into as little space in the book as possible.
Thus, there are a lot of simplifications, omissions, and "GM, fill in the blank here".
Seriously, these rules were not designed to be in-depth construction simulators. Building twice as much stuff generally takes twice as long, so that's what they represented as best they could in the limited space they had.
They work close enough to reality for my buck, and I work in the construction industry. (No, I wouldn't say they come close to reality, no closer than the combat rules or the rules for carrying capacity. But, I use those happily, too)
And this is a perfect example of the players justifying their right to play whatever special snowflake they want regardless of the GM's vision for the game.
I don't think reworking a character concept so it logically fits in with the campaign setting is equal to "special snowflake". Egyptian Mythology has bird-headed figures, Egyptian Mythology has bladed weapons. How does a Tengu NOT fit in to the vision? I haven't read The Book of the Dead (Budge translation) for quite a while, but there was some really bizarro stuff in there, and a bird man doesn't even remotely seem like a stretch.
I would say "but my character could exist in the mythology of the world" is a perfect example of "special snowflake" messing with a campaign setting. Because unless it is the premise of the campaign common people being likely to either fall prone in worship or flee in terror before your level 1 magus will be rather disrupting to the plot. Alternatively making NPCs indifferent to your party resembling a supernatural circus troupe just so every trip to a town doesn't start with being dragged to jail or the church or just being stabbed on sight can be equally campaign disrupting.
If we're going on the theory of "ancient Egypt" rather than "ancient Egypt & its mythology", then a level 1 human magus would result in just as much worship/fleeing in terror.
Ancient Egypt didn't have burning hands, chill touch, or reduce person any more than it had bird-headed personas.
Edit As to the "6 core races" item, the comparison was an Egyptian-themed game. Elves, gnomes, and orcs would get more side-long glances & freakshow responses (being from germanic, gaul, and other not-Egyptian mythologies) than anything that's properly understood or inspired by their own mythology (bird-people, fox-people, demon-blooded, children of the undead).
I've managed, at my table, to make mostly-random loot work out.
What I mean by "mostly-random", since someone up-thread was commenting that such a means translates to "not-random" is that I use a mix of the 3.5 & UE random loot charts for 90% or more of the loot.
The remaining ~10% of loot is either specific quest items (sometimes "wish list" items that show up as stolen family heirlooms or other player-driven plots) or NPC gear loot, where I've tried to match the party's level of optimization.
This approach hinges heavily on my players enjoying the "make what you find work" and "golf bag" styles of play and a few house rules.
House Rule 1 - All those "pick a single weapon" feats? pick an interconnected set of five weapons that represent a "style" of combat training, subject to agreement between player & GM (I have a few default examples, and five from a fighter weapon group is always valid).
Some Example Combat Style Sets:
Knight's Armament: Longsword, heavy flail, lance, dagger, shortbow
The Desperate Wizard Style: Quarterstaff, ray, claw(or bite), (light/heavy) crossbow, dagger.
House Rule 2 - Instead of a flat 75%, items up to the base price of the town have a 10% - 90% availability, depending on how expensive the item is (and possible ad hoc rarity adjustments, rare but has come up).
Beyond that, the minor, medium, and major magic items in the community are randomly generated; unless coming to that town for a specific magic item had already been made part of the adventure.
Math of Availability & Ad Hoc Example:
%Chance =([Base Price - Item Value]/Base Price) + 10%
With an upper limit of 90% chance for items that are 10% or less of the community's Base Price; and a lower limit of 10% chance for items that are equal to the Base Price.
If a character wants a Page of Spell Knowledge pre-loaded with an uncommon spell, I'd probably knock 5% off the percent chance.
House Rule 3 - At least one of the spellcasters in town whom represents the "Spellcasting" line on a community's stat block (say, 8th level spells in a Metropolis) will have specialized his skill & feat selection for magic item crafting & is generally available for custom commissions. (Really, this is a clarification & interpretation of existing rules, rather than a true "house rule")
House Rule 4 - WBL is a guideline, preferably interpreted as "minimum WBL".
End result, with a little time & effort (in character, not out of character, most downtime is covered between sessions in our group), the players can get the items they really want for their characters. And, generally, don't feel they have to "lock in" on specific items to make a build work for them.
When they're on a serious "save the world" time crunch isn't the logical time for them to be looking to gear out. If they're in that situation, either they've done something dramatically stupid, or I've done something drastically moronic.
This probably won't work for every group, especially treating WBL as a minimum. But, for my players, they prefer using that wiggle room to explore neat items or investing in side-businesses, as opposed to breaking the system with over-powered gear.
Combat started when you screamed & pulled a sword.
Surprise round: you move 30 feet. I am flat-footed.
First real round: IF I won initiative, I'm no longer flat-footed and may respond.
IF you won, I'm aware of you charging at me, but haven't translated that to direct defensive action. Therefore, I'm flat-footed.
Fiction and the nightly news are rife with both examples and flat-footed is how Pathfinder (imperfectly) models it.
It's harder for me to conceptualize a meat-based creature that would inherently be easy to cut, but difficult to stab, but perhaps "because fantasy" is sufficient there. :shrug:
I'd imagine a creature with long, slender proportions. Extreme end of the elf-type, if you will.
You can easily hit it with a slashing action, and even trim off limbs this way. But, successfully connecting with a jab, or hitting vital organs (the purpose of a piercing weapon), is significantly more difficult.
Alternately, any creature where biological functions aren't really tied to a tightly-clustered group of essential organs. Think plants, fleshy or otherwise. Any robust plant, you will harm a lot faster cutting (slashing) it than you would poking it.
I am sure the core book infers that cdg can only be performed with melee weapons. Natural attacks are not considered melee... So ghouls in our game do not cog!
PCR, page 182 wrote:
Natural attacks: Attacks made with natural weapons, such as claws and bites, are melee attacks that can be made against any creature within your reach (usually 5 feet).
italics mine.
It doesn't get clearer. A natural attack is an attack made with a weapon against a foe in melee range. As such, a claw, or bite, or any other natural attack / natural weapon is a melee weapon unless otherwise specified.
PCR, page 197" wrote:
Coup de Grace: As a full-round action, you can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace ... to a helpless opponent.
As previously defined, a natural attack is an attack made with a natural weapon and is considered a melee attack.
If this isn't sufficient, the definition of a melee weapon is...
PCR, page 141 wrote:
Melee and Ranged Weapons: Melee weapons are used for making melee attacks, though some of them can be thrown as well.
Any weapon (see definition of a natural attack as an attack made with a natural weapon) used to make attacks in melee (see definition that natural attacks are melee attacks) is a melee weapon. QED, a natural attack is made with a melee weapon, which naturally possessed by the creature.
The CdG is a special attack made with a melee weapon. QED, since a natural attack is made with a melee weapon and CdG's are made with a melee weapon, a natural attack may be used to make a CdG.
The bestiaries do require an errata for clarity, since their explanation of natural attacks fails to clarify that they are attacks made without manufactured weapons, rather than attacks made without weapons. IMO, Pathfinder Core Rulebook trumps all other rulebooks until an errata or FAQ is provided.
This is the sort of thing that varies by group. Your best bet is to discuss this with your players prior to gaming.
The terms "lines" and "veils" are great for this discussion.
Lines - things people in your group are sufficiently upset/disturbed/uncomfortable with that you don't even reference them. Rape of a player character is one for my group. It will not happen, even by reference.
Veils - are things that are uncomfortable to get too close to, but the group is willing to use to explore or reinforce themes and atmosphere. Think old movies where deaths happen off-screen. For my group, torture of a character, or NPC-on-NPC rape is veiled. They might occur, or have occurred in the past, but will never occur "on stage".
In Faerun, you have Knights of the Triad, who worship Helm, Tyr, and Torm collectively (including some clerics in the organization).
In every edition since 3.0, barring certain settings, you could worship "concepts", instead of gods, and your powers work fine.
In real life, it was rare to find anyone who worshiped just one god. Yes, priests held their god as "greater", much akin to how you might find a church dedicated to a saint. It's still part of the same religion (Goralion poly-glot/the Greek Gods, or Catholic Christianity), but it raises up one face of that religion (a "god" or a "saint") as its particular exemplar.
Heck, even taking the Anubis/Hades example, where you had different pantheons. When Alexander led his army into Egypt, they were already willing to ascribe "translations" of the Egyptian gods to their equivalent Greek gods. And this happened at the intersection of Greek and Roman gods. Jupiter was Zeus, Mars was Ares.
So, worshiping multiple gods is a completely benign thing, "lore"-wise. And the only sensible approach when each god has a different sphere of influence. Offering prayer to a god of Laws when you're worried about your ship sinking in a storm is kind of pointless, after all.
As to the mechanics, and trying to eek in a mechanical advantage, there are so many ways to gain mechanical advantage. It's next to pointless to stress the possible exploitation of such a fluff piece. And, doing so will pressure people to avoid incorporating interesting fluff in the future, for fear of such suspicions being leveled their way.
Player defines his character's "enemies". The rules stating enemies trigger are a shorthand way of avoiding saying that "everyone technically triggers attacks of opportunity, but you generally only care about taking an attack of opportunity against your enemies."
An "Enemy" is just an ally trying to stab you right now. An "Ally" is just an enemy that isn't trying to stab you right now.
Chitinous gloves and boots I'd imagine, maybe a weird skin tone and spider fangs. Who says he needs to be a monster? Extra limbs blows up the game anyway, so maybe 2 vestigial arms?
Now, Half-a-Drider is another story. That's all about where you draw the line.
BillyGoat wrote:
I'll be over here, developing crunch & fluff for a half-drider template... that will have four legs.
I look forward to it! Though I warn you, he'll have a hard time finding good pants.
If the mythical half-drider roams around it is probably going to cause issues in civilised places. Even in the under-dark.
MrSin wrote:
Yeah, he might corner the silk market and make the best fashion statements in the world. Imagine spider silk being the new in thing? Whole new fantasy fashion world there!
Half Drider sounds cool to me for some reason... Huh.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Does a half drider have four legs?
Great. Thanks a lot, you three.
I'll be over here, developing crunch & fluff for a half-drider template... that will have four legs.
The reason that it goes to extremes is that people won't accept rebuttals. For example the whole thing blew up because it became an argument about whether a GM was being a badwrongfun GM for not accepting the supposed "reasonable" snowflakes, so people said, "Oh yeah? Well what about a spell-casting sentient mud geyser!? Huh, huh? It's the same principle!"
By the way, I'm hurt that the sentient mud geyser was left of the list. I thought that was awesome.
That does sound awesome.
As an extension of this line of thinking, some of the examples (including mine) are so out there because, to the person offering them, there aren't any in the mid ground.
If it's in the ARG, I'm probably not going to blink most of the time. And, the exceptions would generally be based on power level, not "exoticness".
Even there, I'm having a tough time coming up with an example out of the ARG without going to the way-back where they don't detail races, but offer RP-builds of monsters like the drider and the drow noble.
So, I pull out absurd examples to illustrate whatever tangential point I have on the topic. Because, to me, kitsune doesn't scream "special snowflake" on it's face. Half-drider draconic dryad does.
If you personally identify yourself as a player of "special snowflakes", but disagree with the commonly accepted connotation of the term, choose a new term to identify yourself with. The overwhelming majority of the hobby has acceded to the negative definition.
I don't think a few posters on a single website can ever be used to claim an "overwhelming majority" of anything.
I'm not so much using a few posters on a single website as I am the attitude and usage I've seen from said "overwhelming majority" on any website I've been to and every real-life event/store/location I've visited.
And the definitions I find online in places like urban dictionary and tvtropes. I do understand that TVTropes acknowledges that there may be non-negative connotations in settings similar to Planescape or Spelljammer.
Simply put, I can count on one hand the number of positive references I've seen regarding the term "special snowflake". I cannot count the number of negatives. This includes meeting total strangers from half a world away who have the same opinions as those at my FLGS.
Yes, I'm aware that this is limited to my experience. Obviously some people have a positive understanding of the word. Otherwise there'd never be any debate on the subject.
However, even granting that, for purposes of this one board, the "overwhelming majority" of people with an opinion on the subject has weighed in on the negative side of it.
pres man wrote:
BillyGoat wrote:
Nor does the half-drider draconic dryad with levels of druid need to be a "special snowflake", in the right campaign. Someone once mentioned a campaign of odd-ball monster races seeking acceptance amongst the normals. This character would be a shoo-in for such a game.
This is just a pet peeve of mine, but if someone wants to make up a wacky example, at least make it possible. I mean you can have a half-drider half-dryad draconic druid, but you can't have a half-drider dryad anything, because then it wouldn't be a dryad in that case.
I get that it'd be better to use a real example. And, had I been trying to argue that a specific thing was good/bad, I'd use one. However, for the sake of illustrating that point, it really doesn't matter. In the end, the alliteration was too delicious to resist.
And more to the point, the way templates worked (in 3.5, anyways), had there been a "half-drider" template that could be applied to a creature of the type dragon, then the result would actually be as follows:
Dryad with the draconic template == draconic dryad
draconic dryad with the half-dragon == half-dragon draconic dryad.
The real reason it's not a valid example is because there is no half-drider template. There's a draconic template in the 3.5 draconomicon, and dryads are a reasonable target of said template.
alternately, with less alliteration, substitute "half-celestial". This template can be applied to any corporeal, living creature with an Int of 4 or higher. Our draconic dryad qualifies on all three criteria (it's living, is corporeal, and has a high Int). Looking at the example creature, you name your half-celestial by taking the existing name (draconic dryad) and appending "half-celestial" (half celestial draconic dryad).
The name may be absurd, but it's by the books. Or, would be, if a half-drider template existed that could be applied to a creature of the type "Dragon".
I'm sorry, but I think you're the only person who wants to re-argue that ground. By general acclamation and overwhelming intent in use, the term "special snowflake" has a negative connotation deriving from its perception as a form of disruptive player. Notably, by trying to force the spotlight onto themselves, at the expense of the group, due to some perceived "special uniqueness". This is sometimes, but not always, the product of choosing unexpected/unusual races or classes.
This horse need not be resurrected again. If you personally identify yourself as a player of "special snowflakes", but disagree with the commonly accepted connotation of the term, choose a new term to identify yourself with. The overwhelming majority of the hobby has acceded to the negative definition.
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
a disruptive player can be disruptive with any race or class
Agreed, see above & many examples provided in this (and other) threads of special snowflakes who were simple core race/class combinations. No one is trying to say that all special snowflakes are half-drider draconic dryads with levels in druid.
Nor does the half-drider draconic dryad with levels of druid need to be a "special snowflake", in the right campaign. Someone once mentioned a campaign of odd-ball monster races seeking acceptance amongst the normals. This character would be a shoo-in for such a game.
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
in fact, a disruptive player, is more likely to be disruptive with a gnome than he is, with an aasimaar, tiefling or half-nymph
Agreed. And, should that disruption take the form of hogging the spotlight, especially with an effort of claiming some "special uniqueness", regardless of source, we call them "special snowflakes".
GDM there IS a difference if the person speaking IS a wise old experienced dungeon master.
But here we are again with a situation where the goal is to score rhetorical points to WIN a thread. I am so tired of this.
FIne GDM, you discount experience. I expect you'll get your heart surgery done by an intern then. Knock yourself out.
He's misapplying the logical fallacy in this argument. Here, we had a naysayer claim the author lacked experience to make his claims. Someone pointed out that the author had decades of experience.
The logical fallacy is not relevant. An Appeal to Authority is an argument where the validity of the claim rests solely on the claim being made by the authority.
Example: "The rogue has a full BAB progression. You can beleive me because I have ten years experience playing rogues."
This argument is an Appeal to Authority, since the claim is supported exclusively by the experience of the claimant.
This is not the same as saying that a person with three decades of gaming experience might not have insightful things to say about types of gamers or playstyles. In fact, since such advice is subjective, it's not even grounds for logical argumentation. Logical arguments (and therefore, the risk of logical fallacies) require that claims be premised around discern the truth of factual claims.
I agree that PF could use more designer/GM notes that explain the role and utility of certain options. That, I believe, was ultimately the point of Monte Cook's ivory tower game design blog article about system mastery. The game could use more notes on where and when some feats and other options fit the situation more than others. That would make it a better toolbox than it is.
Heh, I can actually envisage "Pathfinder: The Designer's Cut", a PDF core rulebook full of annotations explaining the thinking behind things.
Being an engineer with a healthy interest in game design, I'd buy a copy. I'd even pay special edition prices to get it in print.
Giving a home to jokes poking at over-enforcement of what can be turned into an impossible-to-follow code of conduct until the next thread on Paladins is spawned.
And with this, we roll back around to the argument from the other thread(s) that the amount of time/energy/thought invested is equal or equivalent in any way, shape or form.
So you are saying that as a DM, you wouldn't be okay with a series of unlucky dice rolls meaning the death of your setting?
If so, and if it's just a matter of how much time and energy was put into the setting, then this would imply that the more time and effort players put into their characters, the worse it is to kill them off arbitrarily. Is there a point at which someone has put enough work into their character that it crosses the line and it's now bad to randomly kill off their character? What about the other side of the line, with DMs? If a DM doesn't put enough work into crafting a setting, is it okay to kill off their setting?
Settings and characters simply don't equate in this way. A character is made with the understanding that they will be engaging in mortal combat. That's kinda the point.
To tie Vivainne's idea to something more realistic (name the last setting to "die" by dice roll), let's replace "setting" with "campaign".
A campaign certainly can die due to dice rolls, in my opinion. It's called a TPK. If the characters all die, then one of the outcomes is the campaign's "death".
So, using that, you can measure how okay GMs are with "campaign death" by how many are okay with a by-the-rules, "them's the breaks", TPK.
On the main topic, my group would kill me in reaction to a "rocks-fall" arbitrary (as MrSin pointed out, this is the real case of "arbitrary"). And they've cried over the lose of long-running beloved characters. In fact, we had to take a break when one of the PCs was dominated and killed the party hireling, so she could gather herself up.
But no one has ever asked that things get toned down, be less risky, or that the costs of being raised from the dead reduced/hand-waved. Rather, they've balked at such ideas, and occasionally accused me of playing too gently with them.
So, while it ultimately comes down to personal play style, for my group and in my experience, there's nothing wrong with having a well-loved &w well developed character die as the result of bad rolls while following the rules of the game.
They'd probably change their mind if every well-loved character met that end, instead of just risking that end.
And if PF is free, how is Paizo on that fastest rising companies list you mentioned?
It's doing so well because, while the Pathfinder core rules are free, the players you believe to be fleeing the system enjoy it so much that they're willing to pay for hard copies, PDFs, and Adventure Paths.
Its misleading no matter how you look at it. The paladin made the person believe he was going to leave if he wasn't paid more money. That is pure disception.
And whether that counts as lying is a matter of opinion.
Actually it's not a matter of opinion. Misleading 'is' lying by definition. How the DM handles it is a matter of opinion and trying to state a fact as opinion is nonsense.
Definition of Misleading: giving the wrong idea or impression.
Definition of Deception: the action of deceiving someone.
Definition of "to deceive": cause (someone) to believe something that is not true, typically in order to gain some personal advantage.
Definition of "to lie": tell a lie or lies.
Definition of a Lie: an intentionally false statement.
Queue the song, "One of these things is not like the others"...
Sorry, but "by definition", neither deceiving nor misleading require lying.
Not to sound callous, but I'm in the business of running a game, not keeping Paizo afloat. It's hard enough to do the former without bothering my players about the latter. ;P
The thing is, not all players want to spend money on the game. It's not like I can force them. My job is to keep them interested long enough that they eventually want to run games of their own. No more.
I have to agree with the cleaving Kobold. Paizo needs to sell Paizo's books, and I'm sure that's their attitude. GMs are not their salespeople. And at fifty dollars for basic entry, when player's rulebooks for other systems are often as low as $30 or $35, it's a tough sell, regardless. Don't get me started at how high the PDF prices are when they cost Paizo nothing more than hosting fees. The argument that it eats hardcover sales is defeated by making all the core rules available for free.
That being said, when a player can afford to throw his own money at the core rulebook, it's to the good of the whole table that he does. It's one less person wanting the book passed to them. One less person potentially getting distracted by an email when they check a ruling on their phone or computer.
So, usually, once someone joins my table, a core rulebook becomes their next birthday/christmas present from me.
I think if a DM ever tried to have my character raped, I would have to leave immediately and never return. That is not a casual or trivial subject for some of us. It isn't a matter of not being mature, it's a matter of not wanting certain triggers pulled. Ever.
On that note, a sign of a bad GM is one who won't have a conversation about lines and veils prior to running a game that might pull a player's triggers. Especially if they already know what those triggers are (or they're obvious, like rape).
My greatest broken dream, that may actually finally get granted, is to be the player again.
For most of the past ten years, I've been on the DM's side of the screen. I love it, my players enjoy my games, and I don't want to give it up. But, I'd like more experience on the other side, too.
A break from doing all the prep work I like having for games. A chance to remember the player's perspective & see if I can't improve my own GMing based on that perspective.
And, the up shot is that, one of my players has gotten excited about trying his hand as a GM. So, he wants to start a Dresden Files RPG, alongside my now year-old pathfinder game.
My approach these days is party XP, even for people who don't make it to the session. Whether they're at the fight, or bar, everyone gets the same basic XP.
During play, however, one person may be carrying the weight in a particular scene. Or, perhaps, two of them really do an amazing job of tag-teaming the big-bad while the rest are dealing with mooks. People who do exceptional, interesting, or entertaining things (or push their own / the group's plot threads forward) get bonus XP.
So we're floating at about the same band of XP, with the possibility that particularly active players might level a session earlier than others.
For what it's worth, when the idea of ditching XP in favor of leveling when the story calls for it, or leveling when the group wants to level (I saw one person in another thread mention voting for levels); I was met with a universal "No". My entire table was opposed to it. Their general grounds were that the bonus XP created a little friendly competition, as well as incentive to come up with awesome-but-risky solutions. And, on top of that, they feel in control when they've got the XP they've earned, rather than the levels the GM grants them.
Obviously, the last is a perception thing, since the XP they've earned is all handed out based on the monsters the GM puts in front of them (coupled with the roleplay/quest-based XP the GM ball-parks).
Edit We also allow players to use downtime activities to earn "catch up" XP during group downtimes. (See Ultimate Campaign, if you're not sure what I'm talking about. Page 85)
This lets anyone who's afraid they've fallen too far behind catch back up. But, it keeps the power (or at least, the perception of power) in the player's hands.
Question 1: "What type of action (no, free, immediate, swift, move or full) is stealth when NOT used in the NORMAL way, or while SNIPING?"
From the RAW, you only have three choices:
1. "Usually None."
2. "Part of a move action".
3. A Move Action, if done after a ranged attack to avoid breaking cover.
And it's worth noting that, actually reading the sniping rules, there's a huge difference between that single-shot snipe and someone doing anything else, followed by stealthing.
Why?
Sniping wrote:
If you've already successfully used Stealth at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack and then immediately use Stealth again. You take a –20 penalty on your Stealth check to maintain your obscured location.
Emphasis mine, and worthy of consideration. I grant that it could be more clearly spelled out, but I read that as saying that success on this check means you never broke out of stealth, even during the attack.
Sniping Scenario:
-Attacker is hidden.
-Attacker attacks from stealth, with "sniping" rules, still (potentially) hidden.
-Attacker makes stealth check, as move action, if successful, still hidden.
In this version, the successful stealth check means you are never subject to so much as a readied action. You are (effectively) invisible throughout.
Full-Attack Scenario
-Attacker is hidden.
-Attacker makes full-attack from stealth, immediately revealing himself, thus is subject to readied actions, attacks of opportunity, etc.
-Attacker makes stealth check, as part of any legal movement, in this case a 5' step (movement not being more clearly defined by the rules).
Now, this is at least as open to interpretation as anything else we've discussed in this thread. However, I think this addresses much of the action economy concern.
Super-rogue pulls off his trick once, next turn, the wizard is readying a Hold Person, the fighter a grapple/trip attempt, rogue/ranger have tanglefoot bags out, etc. It's a one-shot, one-trick tactic that rapidly runs into problems once the opponent catches onto it.
Komoda wrote:
Question 2: "Does a 5' Step (not a 5' move action) count as movement to trigger an effect of a skill or ability that happens as part of movement? Examples include stealth and drawing a weapon with +1 BAB."
While I acknowledge your concerns about the action economy that back this question, unless and until an FAQ comes out against the term "movement" from either Paizo or Oxford, movement == movement. If you move (regardless of how far, or with what action type), you have moved. And that's called movement. If we cannot use the English language to interpret non-specific rules terms, we cannot play Pathfinder. If you don't like the result of general-use English language, request Paizo clarify their intent, rather than arguing against the written word.
this is why you don,t target a spell book or fighters +5 sword
and as for the scrolls and wands most wiz i see do not use them(that being said most people i see playing a wiz are just bad at it)
No offense meant, but I can't see the difference between targeting a spellbook, a +5 weapon, or the character's hit points. If I'm successful in targeting any of them, then the character is taken out of the game at least temporarily.
This could be extended to ability score damage, negative levels, etc.
The idea "targeting things that make the character less effective" is antithetical to roleplaying. If it's on your character sheet, and I only go after it within the agreed rules framework, it's fair game.
To be clear, I'm not trying to say that you're telling me I can't do hit point / ability score damage to a character. I'm saying I don't see a difference between your spellbook/equipment, and your hit points, ability scores, or levels.
1. Genre convention. Same reason that there are still dwarves, gnomes, and halflings.
2. World immersion. A wizard's game utility comes from his vast repertoire of spells. A library he doesn't have instant daily access to. If it were all "in his head", he'd be a sorcerer archetype, not a class. Therefore, he needs somewhere to put his spells that's not "in his head", to make him a wizard instead of a sorcerer. (See below for direct response on this topic)
3. To create non-death risk for a sub-set of PCs. Actually, the whole group, since losing your wizard's spellbook is a major blow to the whole party. Assuming he only carries one (or they all get stolen).
If the above isn't reason enough, strip spellbooks out, but keep the costs associated with non-automatic "new spells". The costs are intentionally there as a WBL sink to offset the power of expanded options.
When I do the math and think of the volume gold coins take up it makes me realize that those piles of treasure that even powerful dragons have isn't nearly as impressive as is shown in most artwork. That's even taken into account it being mixed with coins of lesser value and other objects.
Instead of having a large cave with them piled everywhere their stashes likely could only take up the corner of a small room.
What they never tell you is how the dragons like to sculpt mounds out of clay, then press a single layer of coins onto the surface. All the comforts of a gold-lined bed, at one-one-millionth the cost.
Magic traps are further divided into spell traps and magi device traps. Magic device traps initiate spell effects when activated, just as wands, rods, rings, and other magic items do.
So, text that explicitly says "Spell Traps" does not have any impact on "Magical Device Traps", and vice versa.
If you go deeper into the book, you'll find Table 13-5, which provides costs for "Magical Device Traps", and includes the costs for an automatic reset option.
In point of fact, go back to the [url=http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/environment.html]PRD Environment Rules[/url}, and don't stop scrolling until you see a set of tables titled as follows:
"Table: CR Modifiers for Mechanical Traps"
"Table: CR Modifiers for Magic Traps"
"Table: Cost Modifiers for Magic Device Traps"
And read that last table. I'd link straight to it, but PRD doesn't include ToC's and in-page links.
My players are smart enough to bring "back-up PCs" with them.
That is to say, they've earned the loyalty / paid for the loyalty of allies that can take the place of a fallen comrade. Several of these allies tend to be traveling with the party to guard their camps and handle the menial "beneath the PCs" jobs.
Should a death occur, one of these allies can be handed over to the dearly departed until such time as a raise dead (or new character) can be provided.
New characters come in at 90% Average party XP level, whether due to death or loss of player interest.
End result, players think before they bum-rush dragons, but are willing to take necessary, sometimes self-sacrificing, action to thwart evil. Because they know that (as a player) they won't be out of the game for too terribly long, but there are costs associated with either option. Therefore, the goal of the players is to avoid needing to ask whether or not a "death tax" does more harm than good.
While the goal of the GM is to keep things fun by getting the player, if not the character, back into the action as quickly as possible.
I wouldn't mind seeing some Ultimate Player, Ultimate Feats, and Ultimate Spells. Basically books with all the classes and archetypes put together, a book with all the feats put together and a book with all the spells put together. All with new stuff. Some things I am so tired of being separate. its intimidating to look through several books and companions to look figure out what spell I want.
I know some people look forward to it. But, this, right here, is the best way to enhance the number of people looking at buying DDN.
Seriously, if the game needs an overhaul, it should not, in any way, be timed to make me look at my hundreds of dollars of Pathfinder and ask myself:
"Should I buy that all over again? Or, should I give WotC, whose first 1.5 generations is the entire reason Pathfinder even exists, a second chance and buy new material?"
After all, my Pathfinder books are just as useful now as they were before. And, honestly, I don't know anyone who used 3.0 books after getting 3.5. So why would I believe any promises that I'd be content working through conversions of my Pathfinder 1.0 books once 1.5 came out?
And you couldn't even make people buy a "reverse compatibility" argument for PF2.0.
Personally, I want to see PF1.0 stand with Errata & FAQs for another five years (or more) before serious moves are made to a new edition.
Why? Because edition fatigue is half of what made everyone I know give up after 4e came out. When my friends first heard discussions about a possible PF2.0, they got worried & started looking towards the exits.
You could make that argument, but it is both counterintuitive and explicitly unsupported by anything in the rules.
It's counterintuitive since, in the overwhelming majority of all cases, you have to determine whether or not the save was successful before you can apply the effect. For example:
Fireball goes off -> Saving Throw (Successful) -> Apply half damage
Fireball goes off -> Saving Throw (Unsuccessful) -> Apply full damage
It is not:
Fireball goes off -> Since half the damage will always happen, apply half the damage -> Saving Throw ...
Therefore, it would be counterintuitive to argue that instead of:
Evil Eye is used -> Saving Throw (Successful) -> Apply -2 to saving throws for 1 round
You would apply it this way:
Evil Eye is used -> Apply a -2 to saving throws for 1 or more rounds -> Saving Throw @ -2 (Successful) -> Set duration of Evil Eye to 1 round
When you illustrate the stack this way, I think the argument's absurdity becomes a tad more apparent.
Uh oh. Probably a standard action since supernatural abilities are standard actions by default if the conditions are fulfilled (grappled target).
That is the one action it cannot be. A standard action to initiate or maintain the grapple and a standard action to kiss means they can never be done is the same round, so if it is a standard action it can never be done in the same round as a grapple - but the ability specifically says it requires unwilling victims to be grappled which means it cannot be a standard action.
Well, it also cannot be a full-round action, so there's two impossible choices.
Or you could acknowledge that there are a litany of standard actions already combined with the standard action to maintain a grapple. For example, you can make a combat maneuver to pin your adversary. You may make an attack (with armor spikes, a one-handed weapon, a light weapon, or natural weapons/unarmed attacks). You can even tie up your opponent.
As part of the same action that was used to maintain the grapple.
I'd recommend this thread for the FAQ, since they should stipulate the type of action and clarify its interactions with grappling. However, the most balanced and logical understanding is that it's a Standard Action (most of the rules dictate that an unstipulated action type is assumed to be a standard action) and that, like an attack, it can be combined with a check made to maintain a grapple.
It's easy, logical, and in keeping with both existing rules (actions which do not have a defined action type are assumed standard) and clear design intent (the ability stipulates that grappling an unwilling victim is a prerequisite to using the ability).
This sounds like two things are going on. It could be either, or a combination. First, they don't trust you. Second, they don't know the rules of the game as well as they think they do.
Talk with them, find out why they feel a need to second-guess you.
Some things to consider:
How experienced is your group?
If you have a bunch of newer players, I'd recommend playing with the cards on the table. That is, let them know what they're facing well-enough that they can derive why you're making the decisions you're making. This way, they learn the game, become better players, and develop a sense of trust in you. You can phase this practice out once they know the rules better.
When did they start second-guessing you, and what happened at that time?
The last few sessions before all these questions came up, did you suddenly pull a bunch of esoteric rules out of the back-pages of Ultimate Combat?
Did you make a bunch of rule decisions in a recent session that proved to be contrary to the RAW?
Did they read one two many "player entitlement" threads on these forums?
Short version, if this is new behavior, something has happened to make them doubt you. Ask them. Address it. Move on with your gaming better informed, and re-build their trust.
If they've always doubted you...
Why are you still GMing for them?
Seriously, if my group couldn't extend a modicum of trust to me long enough for me to prove I deserved it as GM, I would not GM for them. Heck, I couldn't play for a GM I didn't already have enough faith/trust in to offer them the benefit of the doubt. It wouldn't be fun for me to always have to second-guess the poor guy. And it wouldn't be fun for anyone else, since I'm undermining their trust. In a game where one guy is sitting on the power to make or break the entire game, trust is not optional. It's the first step in a successful game.
As someone who likes everything to make sense, myself, an important lesson I learned from GMing is: Never, ever, ever, over-complicate things if it doesn't add to the fun & engagement of the players.
If it needlessly drags things out for no good reason, stomp it in the face and bring it to an end.
If the complication allows for a more intriguing story that keeps your players spellbound, let them distrust the thief. But, only if it's not going to lead to three hours of the table debating what to do because the thief was the only lead you gave them and by ignoring him, they're dead-ended.
But, if you've got players with no crafting who are twiddling their thumbs, and you're looking for suggestions:
Craft skills
Profession skills
Build a house
Start a business (with a month until Ultimate Campaign, this is about to get a lot more support)
Do charity work
Brief role-play scenarios
(very) short reduced-team adventures
The last four items are best only considered if you have the downtime situated between normal sessions, and the people in question can make a special trip. Or, do like I did and handle it via forum / skype / chat.
1. Sufficient competency with the rules to either know the right rule, know how to find it quickly, and know the framework and intent well enough to wing it if you don't have the time to find it.
2. An open-minded attitude that's willing to say "yes" to player ideas.
3. Enough critical thinking skills and logical analysis to know how to apply items 1 and 2.
4. A creative and flexible mind that can both plan grand adventures, and react quickly to whatever the players throw your way.
5. Sufficient organizational skills to find what they need, when they need it.
6. The interpersonal and communication skills necessary to keep a table of four or more people engaged, having fun, and relatively argument-free.
Numbering does not indicate priority, but rather allows for quick referencing should it be necessary.
As IejirIsk says, in this particular case, I'd be tempted to fudge, provided the players are down & out in spite of well thought out tactics & strategy.
If they bum-rushed a BBEG and got pasted, let the TPK go forward. Sometimes, the story ends when the bad guy wins.
Further, it really depends on who's in your group. If they'd take it in stride or the game is starting to get old for most of the group, go ahead and let the new campaign begin. If they're just getting a feel for their characters & loving the game, fudge like their lives depend upon it.
One last note, if you can't do a good poker face, and they'll know you fudged, think carefully about how they'd feel knowing they're alive because you scripted their victory.
Most of this gets into the "but it doesn't feel realistic to me for XXX to happen in this game where characters wiggle their fingers to make balls of fire fall from the sky and giant fire-breathing lizards hoard mountains of treasure."
Meh. Whatevs.
While I agree with you on the general thoughts (and a review of the threads where we've had this conversation before should bear this out), I do want to point something out on this.
I've found that, for most people, accepting the "big lie" (flying fire-breathing lizards with massive piles of wealth) actually depends on avoiding the "small lies" (the little details of realism). Those little details vary for everyone, you and I have no problem with the magic item shops, for example.
Now, for players (and some GMs), this has been trending towards accepting more and more "small lies" into the "big lie" of fantasy. An example of this can be seen just by looking in the Advanced Race Guide. The group I played with ten years ago would've flipped at the idea of Tengu and Ratfolk not being shot-on-sight in town. The group I'm playing with now is fighting over who gets to play a catfolk. And this group is made of many of the same people as the old group.
Sorry, I recognize this is a bit of a tangent, but it seemed like a good place to insert that caveat. When one's sense of disbelief is already being strained by magic and dragons, any number of relatively minor breaks in realism can be the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.
I do agree with people who stipulate that Caster Level & Spell Level must be measurable in-character by some means, rather than a pure abstraction. My conclusion is drawn from the pricing of magic items, and the aura strength, as referenced in detect spells.
Those are abstractions as well, for game purposes. the prices are what they are in game, the formulas however are purely for the sake of managing a roleplaying experience down to fiddly numerical bits for the sake of game management.
I would agree with you up until a point. Namely, Bob the Cleric makes a Wand of Cure Moderate Wounds (CL 3, Spell Level 2) which carries a price tag of 4500 GP. Jack the Bard makes a physically identical Wand of Cure Moderate Wounds (CL 4, Spell Level 2) and sells it to the same merchant for 6000 GP.
How does the merchant justify the price tag without using enough charges of the wand to prove that the Jack's wand cures an average of 1 extra point of damage per use?
Detect Magic reveals an identical Aura, since both CL's are below 6th.
Successfully identifying it tells a player that one is CL 3 and heals 2d8+3, while the other is CL 4 and heals 2d8+4. But, this entire explanation is mechanics. How does the in-world merchant justify to the player character the extra 1500 GP he's trying to charge for the second wand?
I don't see any way except to accept that there must be some parallel to "Caster Level" and "Spell Level" that enables a meaningful conversation.
And if the answer is that "economics is handled out of character", then we have a very bad answer.
