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.
My personal take, if they're writing journal logs that you can just publish, grant all of them the reward for taking the time & effort outside the game to help. Adding the random element risks making them feel it wasn't worth the effort (at best), or that you're playing favorites (at worst, assuming the random selection keeps coming up with the same person).
Personally, if it's the only way to gain hero points, just don't use hero points. My advice, use hero points as written, it's an easy system with a lot of benefits to it.
As to the reward, either rotate (not random) through the rewards, if you're concerned about balance. Or, just let them pick (I'm willing to bet they'll choose the XP near every time).
The big reason to avoid random (as much as I love random) is that some people will get disheartened if they keep getting skill points and stop caring.
As to "OP", assuming they don't end up all accruing to the same person somehow (easy to avoid, grant the bonus to everyone who contributes), they're all reasonable. Except, that 100 XP/Level is straight up better than any of the other three.
It's still a reasonable reward, given the level of effort they're putting into it. It's just better than the rest by a wide margin.
Give them more to work with. You presented three options (the genie, the princess, and the dragon) which all look the same. Don't let them look the same. Because if there are truly the same, there's no decision-making even needed.
They didn't look the same to me. The princess is the most time-sensitive, and the genie the least, so I would do those in that order.
In my experience, if GM history hasn't made it clear that "this ain't no computer game", players generally expect all other quests to maintain a holding pattern for them.
So, the choices as presented are (largely) the same:
1. To the West, is a Macguffin (genie), guarded by a set of roughly CR-appropriate encounters (undead).
2. To the North, is a Macguffin (princess), guarded by a set of roughly CR-appropriate encounters (orcs).
3. To the East, is a Macguffin (dragon hoard), guarded by a set of roughly CR-appropriate encounters (a dragon, possible servitors).
Unless the party contains classes that are more effective against one target than the other, there's no basis in the presentation for choosing one enemy over the other.
If they knew what sort of time frame was involved in the ransom (pay by next friday, or the princess is thrown from the top of the highest cliff of the Gar-Lar orc holdings); or what was in the hoard to make it a better macguffin (a +2 flaming orc-bane [insert fighter's Weapon Focus here] and a wand of fireballs); or that rival (maybe even eeevil?) adventurers were seeking the genie for their own uses.
Now there's a bit more than a set of Macguffins, each guarded by roughly CR-appropriate encounters, to pick from.
Jaelithe wrote:
I suppose that if a suggested a GMPC who might provide timely and necessary leadership I'd inspire a lynch mob ...
I got your back on this one, Jaelithe. My group has trusted me with GMPCs in the past (right now, they've got an entire cart loaded down with their allies the "B-Team").
Malwing wrote:
A thought occurred to me to include a rival party. Not people who you could kill without becoming evil but heroes who talk to you like Gary from Pokemon.("Well we're gonna save the princess FIRST and then I'll have a hot royal girlfriend, unlike you single losers! Smell you later.")
Yeah, this is another good route to go. As a general reminder (your post history suggests you already know this), just don't let a rival party overshadow the guild. At least, not too often, or for too long.
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.
It's a time thing. If a smoker is comfortable lighting up every 2 hours or so that's fine with me, but many smokers insist on a 'smoke break' every hour or even less than that, which can disrupt the flow of a game.
I'd run into the same issue with someone with a tremendously weak bladder and without the will to control his fluid intake during a game, although fortunately I haven't encountered someone like that yet.
In my group's case, it's a mix of this, and allergies.
If you smoke infrequently enough that you neither disrupt the game, nor bring enough of whatever is in commercial* cigarettes that sets off my coughing fits, you don't count as a smoker for my ban's purposes.
*I've been around "all natural" cigarettes, and habitual pipe smokers who still reek of tobacco, no problems, so it's not the tobacco.
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.
Do you invite random strangers into your home for your first meeting?
How random is random? Walk up to a literally random person on the street and say "Wanna come over to my place to play some games?"
Doubtful.
Have someone at a FLGS or other gaming club come over, express interest and then invite them over for a game?
That's how my girlfriend got into gaming. A group wanted another girl gamer so they put up a 'Gamer Girl Wanted' notice at the FLGS.
I've no problem with advertising in the FLGS. And, if I ran games out of the FLGS (or, perhaps, if I ran APs), that'd probably be a main method of fleshing out the ranks of a small group.
But, the combination of running the game from my home & running PC-tailored campaigns makes me leery of bringing in new blood that I haven't had the chance to get to know.
Not knowing people well enough before playing led to the two boots I mentioned up-thread. And, as a bonus story, I had a trio of new players met by advert who decided they weren't a good fit for the group after about five sessions of a very in-depth campaign. They were central enough to the game that their loss torpedoed it.
I have grown pickier over the years, and my pickiness has been a matter of whether or not the person is fun to spend time with and can sufficiently grasp the rules to play.
Most of our new players come by recommendation of existing players. These "recruits" get screened the good-old-fashioned way. I can't stand the idea of a formal interview, so instead we arrange a board game night or two.
This lets more of the group get a feel for the "recruit", we see how they behave at a table, in a competitive environment, and it's usually easy enough games that we can also talk about what an RPG is and what our expectations are.
As a result:
I now have a "wait list" of pre-screened players. And, we had one prospective player own up to not fitting with us for most games. He likes things to be nearly 100% goofy. To the point that he admitted he'd have a hard time resisting the urge to sabotage a serious game. So we've agreed, the next time we toss together a "joke game" (KAMB!, anyone?), he's in.
This habit has developed in part due to our experiences with two of the people we have had to kick/disinvite from the group.
First boot-to-the-pants:
In the early 4e days, we were playing the system to see how we liked the new style. Ultimately invited in a fellow from the FLGS, thinking nothing of it. First sign of trouble: he can't stop staring at our female player's cleavage. Don't get me wrong, the girl's got some oomph there and generally likes attention. But, he's a total stranger, and at least some eye contact is expected of people.
Okay, she doesn't mention it at the table, I'm too busy with other things to catch onto the behavior, so play on! They're in a bar, I kid you not... he wants to know the mechanics for getting drunk. We tell him there aren't really any, if he wants his character to drink enough to get drunk, he drinks enough to get drunk.
Done.
Right?
Nope.
Not five minutes later, I'm trying to run through what a few others are up to... "So, how do I know if my character's getting drunk?" Rinse and repeat until the bar scene's over. I know, I'm a chump back in these days. I'd never really had problems with players that force people to develop the "stop being a twit" skills we hold so dear in GMs.
There were other problems, mostly relating to the same theme of playing up geek stereotypes (whether because he was one, or a poorly executed play for laughs) and general lack of social graces.
And the Guy I Sometimes Regret Kicking:
We had a fellow, wonderful actor, half-decent GM, and excellent organizer. When he was involved, the plots could get thick & yet things still tended to keep moving at a decent pace. He was the classic "team leader".
Problem? He couldn't switch off.
At the table, he had to be on the stage, spinning his webs (and expecting everyone to back any play he made, without once explaining it to them). Even when his character lacked the skill for what he was doing, to his mind it should work because it was a great idea.
Away from the table, it was much the same. Emails, text messages, facebook chats, didn't matter the when or the what, he had to talk about more plots, more plans, more background. Before the obligatory challenges, this level of engagement wasn't the problem.
The problem, again, was that he couldn't switch off. He had to talk out every idea. I could be nursing a migraine & pissed off over a bad day at work. Didn't matter, his idea was too important to wait. I could have a completely different idea to fill in the same hole. Didn't matter, couldn't compromise & work out a synthesis of our ideas, his idea was too good to change.
In anticipation of a future Bestiary errata affecting general lycanthrope rules to make them more in-line with polymorphing, generally (always use mods to base character stats). But, then they'd need to designate whether the "true base form" was the animal (animals that turn human) or the human (humans that turn animal).
Dunno, just as likely to be an error or a targeted "nerf bat" at the weretiger. Never ran one, so I don't know its power relative to CR.
And toon is a recognized abbreviation for your character in an RPG.
Obviously not, or else you wouldn't see so many people mention that they'd never heard the term used before outside of these boards.
So because some people have never heard of it, it's not a valid term?
What kind of logic is that?
I think the logic they're going for is that this board represents a collection of highly knowledgeable persons in TTRPGs (let's call them amateur "subject matter experts"). Of these amateur SMEs, the argument runs, a sufficient percentage of them either haven't heard the term, heard it in context of TTRPGs, or consider the term inappropriate to the subject.
Consequently, the argument follows, if the amateur SMEs predominantly disagree with the term's use, then toon is not "a recognized abbreviation for your character in an RPG".
I don't necessarily agree, given that we are a massively thin slice of the community & at least half of us (myself at the forefront) are in no way experts of all RPGs everywhere.
Rynjin wrote:
Am I The Only One? wrote:
But as it stands, it just seems like some here have a bit of salt and are enjoying rubbing it in the eyes of those who have a stronger preference for traditional terminology in their traditional games.
It's posts like this that imply that the word is somehow causing them actual physical discomfort that makes this thread a comedy goldmine.
I'm still reeling over the whole automobile == car == tractor trailer bombshell.
Off-Topic Trailer/Semi-Trailer Debate:
Heathansson wrote:
they're actually "tractor semi-trailers."
Trailers have front axles.
Where I live & work, we have tractor trailers, per your definition.
We move some really big stuff.
Also, the definition of a trailer is "an unpowered vehicle towed by another, in particular". The definition of a semi-trailer is "a trailer having wheels at the back but supported at the front by a towing vehicle".
So, huzzah, I'm not wrong about one thing relating to powered & unpowered vehicles this month. Stretch goal: be not wrong twice.
Car is an abbreviation of horseless carriage and therefore still technically quite correct. In fact car was a recognised abbreviation of carriage back around the turn of the 17th century so it's hardly a newfangled fabrication.
Fair point. Current recognized definition is synonymous to an automobile.
However, I still reserve the right to flip out if you call a tractor-trailer a car.
You don't have to care, and may even point & laugh at me for being an idiot. But, the connotation of the term "car" no longer applies.
It's a bit like if you tried calling a PC a "horse".
Not really. Actually it's a bit like calling your automobile a "car", and yet millions of people do so every day and nobody flips out about it.
If your particular automobile were a tractor-trailer and you called it a car, I might flip out just a touch.
On topic, as far as the whole toon/character thing... I agree with others that my immediate thought is cartoons (never heard the term in MMOs during my various exposures). As such, it tends to give the word a negative connotation for me.
However, that's not going to make me knee-jerk upset with the term.
Its biggest detraction, for me, is the lack of familiarity the term has. Talk about "toons", and maybe a subset of people (predominantly under 30, but with exceptions) are going to know you mean "characters in an RPG". Call them "characters", "PCs", or "NPCs", and absolutely everyone involved will know what you mean.
The purpose of language is to communicate ideas. If people don't understand you, you wasted everyone's time.
tl;dr, the term "toon" has sufficiently varied meanings as to be effectively useless or offensive in conversation. Everyone knows "character", "PC", and "NPC", so using those makes a lot more sense.
bribery isn't exactly lawfull eighter is it? and more often than not, it's not a Good act eighter.
on the second point, I beg to differ. greatly. I've made plenty of people do stupid things. Naivité is often a welcoming and easy to abuse quality.
LG? Sure its not. Not good? Yeah have to stop you right there. Bribing officals to do their job(paperwork wise or other works quite well for the greater good, especially NG. Bribing guards at the gate to get into or out of city gates prevent bloodshed, which is bound to happen.
People can do stupid things. But its their choice to do so. Not on you.
first of all: no.
bribing officials to do their job is an act of evil, for all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. by bribing those officials, you are effectively telling them that being corrupt is the way to go. that's not good, and certainly not Good.
Pathfinder defines the band of Good versus Evil thusly:
Good Versus Evil, page 166, Core Rulebook wrote:
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
Notice how there is jack-all about legal systems or how smoothly (non-corruptly) they function in the description. Your argument would put CG characters at dire risk of going CN, then CE, for their efforts to undermine (corrupt) lawful officials.
Corruption (in and of itself) is a matter of ethics (law & chaos), not good and evil.
Snorri Nosebiter wrote:
and people can do stupid things, and it's their choise, yes, but if the choise is made out of naivité, as in, not knowing the full picture, then they were robbed of all nececairy knowledge to make a smart decision. By not giving them that information beforehand, you're "forcing" them to make a stupid one. By making them think it's the right one.
To repetitively quote you: "no" "no" "no" "no"
A person always has the choice to make the decision to await further information.
This is why there is that wonderful legal precept: "ignorance of the law is not a defense".
Just because a person is too naive to seek out the necessary information before acting doesn't mean the person who encouraged them to take action is evil.
Snorri Nosebiter wrote:
and btw: I did say MORE OFTEN THAN NOT... as in, it's not always the case, it's no dogma, but it is pure logic.
If it were pure logic, I could extend your arguments to all plausible scenarios. I'm not saying it's dogma, but "pure logic" applies absolutely. Thus, you contradict yourself.
But, to be fair, I give you an Example:
Uninformed Choices Aren't a Choice:
if the choise is made out of naivité, as in, not knowing the full picture, then they were robbed of all nececairy knowledge to make a smart decision. By not giving them that information beforehand, you're "forcing" them to make a stupid one.
I go to buy a new cell phone. The clerk at the store tells me about their price for the phone, payment plan options, and contract requirements for price breaks.
He doesn't tell me the store across the street will sell me the same phone, sans contract restrictions, for a lower price.
He doesn't tell me that an internet retailer is currently offering that phone, with contract restrictions, for US$0.01.
He even goes a step further, and lies about the price that is offered by a fourth vendor, claiming it's another fifty bucks over his price.
Has he forced me to buy his phone?
I'm not even going to pretend you'd argue he has forced my decision. My failure to acquire the necessary information to make a responsible decision is my failure, not his.
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.
My solution to this was to recognize that character competency in pathfinder puts (roughly) levels 1-4 as apprenticeship. Starting characters at level 5 (for non-apprentice games) means most will start play already multiclassed (if that's part of the plan).
Beyond that, the suspension of disbelief is easy enough for most multiclassing compared to the loss of fun for my table if I introduced a strict trainer or long-lead-time mechanic for multiclassing.
The rules are written assuming the maximum possible applicability. Thus, they're very general and make more or less sense to different people depending on those persons' individual knowledge base.
If a GM is huge on versamillitude, he'll probably figure out how many work crews are available with sufficient skill at lavatory construction. Then, he'll work out how much work could be done in parallel. From that, he'll work out how many lavatories can be built in what amount of time, regardless of who's paying.
If not, well, the rules in the book do work, if imperfectly, so a GM without the time (or interest in lavatory construction) can just tell you "4 days for one, 8 for two."
Parents and friends aside, how many of you had the "talk" with a girlfriend about being a gamer? I think trying to talk through their misconceptions was harder for me as a teenager than even what my parents thought.
Definitely awkward at first, but now my wife plays an elf cleric of Sarenrae. So, you know, happy face.
The last time I had that conversation it went something like "just because we're dating now doesn't mean you get an XP boost"...
Then, years later, it was "no, no bonus XP for marriage, either".
Edit
At wifely insistence, this clarification is being added to specify that these conversations are modestly embellished for humor.
She knew she wasn't going to gain any mechanical advantage in game (if anything, most people suspect I'm harder on her). However, being an anal-retentive engineer, I went ahead and spelled it out, regardless.
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)
My take on impartiality is that no GM can truly be impartial.
That being said, the goal to strive for is the level of partiality that most suits your group.
At my table, until we added Plot Cards & Hero Points, my players preferred I honestly gave them a slight "soft glove" treatment. They wanted the risk of dying, but not because the GM messed up encounter difficulty, or rolled four crits in a single round against a single PC.
Now that they have the extra wiggle room of Plot Cards & Hero Points, I've heard no complaints if I hit them with APL+4 encounters, and don't even think about budging a die.
Or when the APL-1 skeleton encounter resulted in each of the eight skeletal champions critting at least one PC.
So, I find when my players are pre-equipped with an agreed upon "get out of trouble" mechanic, they're far more tolerant of a very impartial GM.
That being said, even when they did hope that I fudged the occasional roll to save their skins, they want my dice behind a GM Screen, so they don't know about it.
Once you've spent the total capital and time needed to finish the building, it's complete.
No restriction in the book requires you to spend capital all at once and the plain meaning of that sentence tells you that payment may be handled as an ongoing process.
When in doubt, if you could do something one of two ways, and only one of them works as clearly intended, use that one.
Speaking only to what I've seen in my years playing 3.5/PF, I can honestly say that the druids I've dealt with have never been more powerful than psions, wizards, sorcs, or summoners.
In my current group, both the druid & the summoner pale in comparison to the barbarian most of the time (at least until the druid gets sick of his enemies and pops Call Lightning).
Granted, that's underestimating the value they provide in terms of buffs to the barbarian, cavalier, & magus.
Full disclosure: the magus has minimal system mastery & should probably be playing a simpler class. The same is probably true of the summoner, but she does keep her ground sufficiently well.
None of our group is interested in serious optimization, though. Those who have a good grasp of system mastery have basically used it to get to what they want their character to be good at quickly & then held their power levels at "in range of the rest of the group & the GM's encounter design".
Before she comments:
Yes, there's also the cleric/sorc, but she's kind of in the middle-range of power, so not worth mentioning. Darn forum lurker...
While it would need errata/FAQ to make properly RAW, an argument could be made that the Catch Off Guard or Throw Anything feats make you proficient with improvised (melee/ranged, respectively) weapons, since it eliminates the -4 non-proficient penalty for melee or ranged (respectively) improvised weapons.
If your GM takes that interpretation, Weapon Focus should be legal for a specific improvised weapon, provided you have the Catch Off Guard or Throw Anything feat.
What I mean by "certain cases" isn't "all miss chance rolls" it's "miss chance rolls where the % chance to miss and the result on the d% are the same".
That's the only time there's an advantage to your methodology on miss chances.
Maybe I just don't have sufficiently creative players, but I don't think I've ever seen a miss chance that isn't evenly divisible by 10...
I may not have been sufficiently clear on this one.
I'm not arguing that the miss chance changes (20% or 50%, depending on concealment/total concealment).
I'm saying that unless you roll a 20 on the d% (or a 50, in the case of total concealment), your methodology offers no advantage for miss chances.
Really, I think we've beaten this horse pretty dead. Both methods work, some people find one more intuitive than the other. Folks ought to run with what works for the majority of people at your table.
To sum-up, the advantages seem to be:
d00 is 10's position, d10 is single digit, 00+0=100
- Can read the dice exactly as they land, with one exception.
d00 is 00-90, d10 is 1-10, 00+0=10, 90+0=100
- Can roll only the d00 to determine miss chance (single most common method).
- Is consistent with other uses of a d10 (1-10 range).
The disadvantages of either are more ambiguous and, frankly, require anyone looking at this post read through the whole thread. YMMV.
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).
A lot of times I forget that a house rule we've been using for a long time is not the actual RAW. Then when a new player comes to the group, I don't tell them about it along with my other house rules, because I stopped thinking of it as a house rule.
So, yes, we have unspoken rules, but they are all INTENDED to be spoken. But sometimes we forget...
That's actually one of the reasons I visit the forums: reading other people's discussion of the game periodically reminds me of the actual rules, so that I can explain the differences to players new to my group.
This, and the fact that I'm an engineer working with technical manuals all day, is why I have an online document that has all of our actual mod-the-RAW house rules (as opposed to unspoken etiquette rules).
Even though it's not huge (certainly no kirthfinder), it's organized by chapter (corresponding to the PCR, wherever possible).
For you, the ten exceptions works out because it means that you're always "more than" what's shown on the d%, which allows drawing conclusions quicker in certain cases.
From my perspective, there are no exceptions with my method — you are taking the numbers at face-value. Also, it's not a matter of "certain cases" but rather the only case. At the tables I've sat at or run, the only time percentile rolls are ever made by-hand during play are for miss chances. In that respect, it is objectively faster to roll a single die, no math involved and have your results.
In essence, the math is "there", pre-packaged with no effort needed by the players. For those who are curious as to the hows and whys, there's always the wiki page that breaks it down, but in terms of practical applications it's just not necessary to roll that second d10 and add the results like with the "tens places, ones places" model.
What I mean by "certain cases" isn't "all miss chance rolls" it's "miss chance rolls where the % chance to miss and the result on the d% are the same".
That's the only time there's an advantage to your methodology on miss chances.
Laithoron wrote:
Just out of curiosity, other than treasure generation (which I handle in-advance or via fiat), what other at-the-table use cases am I missing for percentile rolls that would make your method faster?
% chance an item is available in town. Given that this is a 75% chance, you're back to rolling both d% dice.
Random weather, if you go for that sort of thing. I'll definitely grant that the random weather table could easily fit your schema better than the normal (since they use ranges from X1-(X+1)0 for each weather event).
And, really, if we're looking for efficiency, take 10 minutes of downtime to convert the %chance to a d20 DC. 20% = ~DC 5, 50% = DC 11, invert the %chance on purchases to be ~DC 4 (to keep with bigger result = better).
I'll leave the weather to anyone interested in it. I'm sticking to d%.
Edit: I did forget to include Reincarnate as an option. But, to be fair, that probably sees less use than random weather.
Either system, you can read the dice as thrown, with one or more exceptions. Your method has ten exceptions, standard convention has one.
For you, the ten exceptions works out because it means that you're always "more than" what's shown on the d%, which allows drawing conclusions quicker in certain cases.
However, I think most people like the idea of "what you see is what you get". In that case, fewer exceptions is always optimal.
If the party hasn't prepared with resist elements acid they could suffer an unfair TPK.
An ancient black dragon is CR 16.
Any CR 16 encounter should be quite badass; any party that can expect to casually encounter a CR 16 foe should be able to handle quite a bit.
Frankly, I'd be more concerned about the possibility of encountering a horned devil, which is not only CR 16, but also has the greater teleport ability so it can essentially appear right in front of you and go to town with a +1 unholy spiked chain +26/+21/+16 (2d6+11 plus stun). At least black dragons tend to give you some warning.
Sorry for the tangent here, but am I missing something on this? Greater teleport is a standard action. At best the devil teleports and gets one attack in the same round.
Surprise round - Greater Teleport.
Assuming good init on horned devil, full attack in first real round against flat-footed foes.
As such, you can equate XP & CR, either individually or by encounter.
A CR 3 encounter is worth 800 XP, so a CR 3 monster (who, by himself, is a CR 3 encounter) is worth 800 XP.
A CR 1 encounter is worth 400 XP, so a CR 1 monster is worth 400 XP. Two CR 1 creatures are collectively worth 800 XP, so they are a CR 3 encounter.
This is most cleanly explained in the Gamemastering chapter of the core rulebook (chapter 12), in the section on building encounters (in particular, see pages 397 & 398).
3. play a session involving shopping - can be quite boring for everyone
Only boring if you make it boring. Either, handle shopping between sessions via email (they already know what they want, you already know the rules for if they can get it).
Or (if your players enjoy it) roleplay the scene out like you would any other diplomatic situation where the players want what an NPC they shouldn't kill has.
Mark Hoover wrote:
4. make the player craft it/have it crafted (player entitlement)
I can't see how utilizing the existing game mechanics (item creation feats, spellcasting/purchasing in communities) is "player entitlement".
A more honest drawback to this is the time-sink, assuming there's a reason the group needs to be rushing off to another adventure right away (and the PC can't live without the item during the adventures that happen while the NPC crafter works).
None of the above critique is meant to undermine your well spoken sentiments at the end of your post. Sentiments that I agree with, in the interests of full disclosure.
Assuming your d% goes from 00 to 90 and your d10 goes from 1-10 (and not 0-9), you can always just add the results together. While this may go against the mindset of the d% determining the 10's place, it does work out to a scale of 1-100 instead of 0-99...
00+1 = 1
00+10 = 10
10+10 = 20
90+10 = 100
I don't think anyone's confused that this approach can work to generate 1 - 100.
What seems to be the main point of contention is simply whether that approach is any more intuitive, or useful, than the 00+0=100 convention.
The arguments for 90+0=100 appear to be "d10 is always 10" and "00+9=09, 00+0=100, 10+0=10 ... WTF?"
Whereas the arguments for 00+0 appear to be "lowest roll on a 0-X die (be it 0 or 00+0) is max" and "if 00+0=100, then d% can just be read in all but one instance, translated in another instead of translated & added in ten".
At the end of the day, I think everyone agrees you should run with whatever works for you (and is understood by your table in advance).
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.
As with Are above, use whatever method works for you (I'm still looking for a real nice d100, myself).
However, it's above all else about consistency.
a d10, we represent with a die with (typically) faces 0 - 9.
a d% (or, d100 as two dice) is represented with a die (two dice) with faces 0 - 99.
The method 0 + 00 = 100 is actually more in keeping with the overall theme we see in the game.
When you see a min outside the accepted range of the roll (0, or 00+0), you translate to max (10 or 100).
This keeps the scheme of all dice consistent, rather than the scheme of the d10 consistent.
It's easier for more people to translate "zeros are maximum on a die roll" than "zeros on a d10 are maximum on a d10, so when pairing a d10 with a d00 to make a d%, any time I see a zero on the d10, add 10 to the result of the d00, but the 00 means zero".
The first is insanely simpler than the later, and translates across the overwhelming majority of game systems (0=max shows up in WoD, Savage Worlds, etc. d% 00+0 shows up in the Warhammer 40k line of games, at a minimum). The only game I know that avoids this convention is Eclipse Phase, and they do so by embracing 00-99 as the possible outcomes.
Not to mention, it also keeps the mental exercises down for a player using 2d10 (say, green for 10's and white for 1's) to represent d%. Now the rule has to remind people that the 0 is only 10 on a d10 when that d10 isn't standing duty for a d%.
I Can see the need to track things round by round. But none of the examples i read here have the need to reflect fraction of a second stuff that the initiative rules try to emulate. Only the combat rules talk about initiative. Using initiative before combat starts rewards aggressive character and hurt sneek attackers and folks that invest in better initiative.
Items 3, 5, & , from my post above are explicitly "fraction of a second" timing.
Also, initiative is as much about precise (6 second interval) time keeping as it is "fraction of a second stuff". See my other examples for the situations where what you can do in the time you have (how many rounds, and in what order) matters. If timing matters, or a time limit of a minute or less exists, then initiative is theproper tool to use.
My understanding is that immediate actions interrupt the action triggering them. I can't find the rules reference right this second, so take that with a grain of salt.
If I'm recalling it correctly, this would mean that they would attack, you'd trip before they could complete the attack, then the attack would be resolved, now with a penalty for attacking from prone.
The simple answer is that, the rules in every part of every book touching on spellbooks stipulate that it's function of a class feature.
Wizards get it through their Spellbooks class feature. (PCR, Ch 3 & 9)
Alchemists get it through their Alchemy class feature. (APG, Ch 2)
Magi get it through their Spellbooks class feature. (UM, Ch 1)
So, yes, the ability to use and add to a spellbook (or formula book) is a class feature. The new arcane classes even explicitly state that they can add to their formula/spellbook the "same as a wizard".
There's even a section on Spellbooks (UM, Ch 2) where the game designers chose not to expand on who can create and add to spellbooks. If your argument that the reference to wizards in PCR was founded in there only being the one spellbook user, this would have been the place to update the rules.
