Blackpawn's page

I'm an old-school player and DM, and have participated in gaming on both sides of the table since 1977. So that's where my perspective is going to come from on this.

There are good players and there are bad players.
There are good DMs and there are bad DMs.

There are people who prefer rules-tight games.
There are people who prefer rules-loose games.

There are people who prefer finely-tuned adventures on rails.
There are people who prefer open sandbox style play.

Regardless of any of that...the game is THE DMS GAME. The DM has gone through the effort of organizing, writing, preparing, and getting the adventure together. At the end of the day, the game is his/hers. Players are simply participants in the game.

That being said, the DM should ensure expectations are set at the beginning. "This is a magic-light campaign, you will not be able to buy magic items. XP advancement is slow. And character race and class selection is limited.". In addition, if the DM intends to make any structural changes to the RAW, that information needs to be communicated up front. "Here are my changes in the way Acrobatics works".

If players have questions or don't like the rules, they can respectfully ask for clarification or adjustment on the rules. But they should never argue with the DM. They are free to leave the game if they don't like it.

My campaigns are story and character based. I have plotlines that I intend for the characters to follow, but I do allow varying levels of deep sandbox play depending on the campaign I'm running. My players have great freedom to do as they will and control their own fates. My campaigns tend to last for years of real-time, and they're in-depth and engaging for all. One of the reasons for the length of game campaigns, the player retention, and the overall success is that I do not allow dissent at the table. If a player feels that I've ruled incorrectly on any given rules interpretation, they can make their case and we'll discuss it. The discussion will be brief and I'll give my ruling. Once I've done so, there is no further discussion. That's it. Tough but fair, ultimately I'm the final arbiter. I do my best to remain consistent and unbiased in my interpretations.

There are many bad things a DM can do that will ruin the game and take the fun out of it for everyone. Being arbitrary with random rulings. Being inconsistent and making contradictory rulings. Not properly communicating "why" a ruling goes a certain way. Not listening to the players when they give feedback and questions. Not controlling disruptive players. Being unfair and stacking the deck against the players. Being perceived as the enemy rather than the facilitator of the game. Not being prepared. Not having a thorough understanding of the rules. But with all that...at the end of the day, it's still the DM's game. Even if they are a bad one. If you don't like it, don't play.

When I play in other games and a DM rules incorrectly to my way of thinking, I'll respectfully bring up the question and lay out my logic in a brief and succinct fashion. I'll ask for clarification. If the DM does not budge, then I'll let it go. If enough of those situations occur and I realize that the DM style and type of game that is being run is not for me. I'll finish the session then pull the DM aside privately at the end and simply state that the campaign is not for me and that I won't be attending future sessions. I won't be insulting, I won't be aggressive, and I won't place blame. Even if they're a bad DM who has no clue what they're doing, I won't attack them or be disruptive or derail the game. It's the DM's game for better or for worse, and they get to make the call in their own game.

As a player, you play or you don't play. A campaign is NOT a democracy, you don't get a vote, and you don't get to have your way. If you don't like it, don't play.

I don't want to escalate, she already escalated it, I am merely responding. Does that mean I am still the problem? No, I'm pretty sure it doesn't.

You could solve the problem in 5 seconds, yet you don't. You're dragging out the issue. You're at fault as much as the other player.

I never said I deserve the weapon, I said I was the one who can make the most use of it, ergo (logically speaking, because none of our characters wants to die) I should use it, until we find a better user.

You think you deserve it because you're minmaxing and saying it's best used in your hands. Even though from an RP perspective it's best in someone else's. And you have a perfectly servicable weapon to use, plus one that is RP-flavored properly for your character. You're munchkinning at this point.

I'm also not the one throwing a tantrum, she is, I'm trying to find out how I can get her to calm down.

You're here throwing your tantrum publicly. You know how you can get her to calm down, you are just too selfish to take the right action and you're looking for justification and support of your unwillingness to be a party player. Or you're an epic troll and you get 8/10 on this thread.

I'm all about the journey, I'm not the one who started this, I'm just trying to end it without ending the game, without any hurt feelings, and without any bloodshed between players.

You can end it without ending the game without any hurt feelings and without bloodshed. "Here's the sword".

Really? The item was parsed out to the person who will use it the most, another player who isn't going to use it (probably at all) wants it, so the second person is throwing a fit, and the first one is being immature by telling the second no?

That's..... jeez, I'm not sure what to call that, aside from wrong. We probably wouldn't be having this problem around your table, you probably would have given us the time and facilities to properly gear up, but we didn't have the time or facilities, so guess what: it's causing a problem in the party, I'm trying to solve it without bugging the GM, and without giving in to the whims of an adult child. Does that make me immature? I don't think so.

The fact that I'm willing to ask others what I should do shows that I'm unprepared, which may imply a degree of immaturity in itself, but the fact that I'm willing to admit I'm not prepared, and willing to ask for help from others shows a far greater degree of maturity.

Or did all of that go over your head, because you were too busy calling people names?

You're causing the disruption at the table. It's in your power to escalate the situation or defuse it. You want to choose escalate. That means *you* are the problem.

You need to step back, gain a mature perspective, and realize that you're playing an imagination game.

Learn that the joy of gaming is the shared experience between people. Learn that it's about interaction, fun, adventure, and imagination. And it's most certainly not about you getting the most AWESUM LEWTS OMG that you supposedly "deserve".

You have the choice. Be the adult and focus on the game. Or be the child and throw a tantrum and break things if you don't get your way.

And remember....gaming is not about an imaginary person having an imaginary item that is incrementally more effective than a different imaginary item. It's about the shared journey and the collective experience you have with your fellow gamers. You've either lost track of that, or you've never had it.

She has a child's mentality, when she sees something shiny, she declares "mine", and doesn't give up until she possesses it. In a rather odd way, this makes the new guy and the barbarian player (both of whom are teenagers, while the oracle player is in her 40s) more mature. I've tried playing it nice, now is the time for me to be a bit mean.

I see childlike mentality from you here, frankly. Apparently you have two people going "mine mine mine" over something dumb. You have two choices:

1) Realize it's a game, give up the item and move on. This lets you be the good guy, it restores sanity and positive party state.

2) Be selfish. Come up with 1000 valid reasons why it's yours and why you'll burn down creation, destroy the party, destroy the game, do anything you can do before giving it up.

You want option #2, which makes you just as culpable and actually more of a problem player than she is. You're trying to justify yourself while I see you as the problem here. And your fixation on justification and being "right" blinds you to everything else, including the fun of the game and the entertainment and fun that everyone is supposed to be having.

Just be glad that you're not sitting around my table, because I do not tolerate problem players and as DM I take steps to ensure that bad behavior does not go unpunished.

I mstill left wondering about a BBEG who has class levels, if he has all class levels then what levle should he be compared to the parties level.

Unfortunately there's no hard and fast "always do it this way" sort of rule because of the uniqueness of parties. A party of level X will have completely different abilities from another party of the same level. You could have a 10th level BBEG that totally roflstomps one party of level 7 folks and pwipes them, while he could end up dying in round 2 from a different group of level 7's.

Things to take into consideration when designing your BBEG fight:
Is the party a combat-oriented build?
Are they melee heavy or ranged heavy?
Are they spellcaster heavy?
Can they throw out lots of control and status effects?
Do they have ways of cleansing bad effects from themselves?

You need to know your players' capabilities and then adjust from there. When tweaking encounters with a BBEG and his minions I usually figure out expected DPR from melee and ranged combat characters and then adjust the fights based upon the availability (or not) of control effects and area effects.

Doing it that way has worked for me in the past, but it requires a lot of homework on your side to get it right. And that's not to say that I haven't been surprised by clever characters "outwitting" my carefully prepared encounter or by swings of luck one way or the other.

Awesome, thanks for the quick feedback already! To answer Whiskey Jack, there's a few things that sort of tweak us the wrong way about 3.5

We're not entirely happy with the way skills are handled in 3.5, and we'd heard that Pathfinder improves on that system.

3.5 combat is somewhat boring. I hit you. You hit me. We never do anything interesting because the rules for trying to do interesting things are kind of 'meh' or too unwieldy. I'm very interested in PFRPG's implementation of combat maneuvers.

Also, 3.5 encourages a spicy melange of multiclassing options...there's no real reason to stick with a single base class for your whole run because the base classes are somewhat lacking in flavor and power compared to a character that is thickly multiclassed/prestiged. I'd heard that the classes in PF are much better designed and taking a single class to max level is a fully viable option in PF. I also understand that a number of the 3.5 classes that could have been great (but weren't) are fixed in Pathfinder.

Also (and importantly), Pathfinder consolidates rules. We've got every single 3.5 book out there, and sometimes finding rules in the right section of the right book/splat/whatever can take a huge chunk of time.

Hey folks -

My gaming group is made up of D&D oldtimers (1970's vintage) that played D&D from the Basic set in 1977 up through 4E. My group burned out on 4E quite some time ago, and we've been gaming in other systems. Recently on a whim we dug out an old unfinished 3.5 campaign and played a session or two with it and had a good time, but some of our 3.5 "bad memories" bagan to surface.
After hearing good things about Pathfinder, I decided to pick it up to see about converting things over and running Pathfinder instead of 3.5

My questions are sort of around the advice/suggestions for me and my group. I picked up the core book and the APG at my LGS, and have started stepping through the rules. I'm afraid of missing key rules points that may be skimmed over or missed because of my assumptions of the way 3.5 works. Are there common pitfalls that can be avoided by neophyte Pathfinder players and DMs?

Also, what other supplements do I need to have a fully rounded game? I noticed that the core rules and APG have mostly positive reviews, however there are somewhat mixed reviews of the "Ultimate" books for magic and combat.

Is there anything else I should know or be aware of?

Thanks for the help.