Brian James's page

I have no animosity towards WotC for trying to release an updated game after only 5 years or so. That's pretty much par for the course for a lot of the systems out there and they are a business after all. Ford doesn't go 15 years between redesigning Mustangs.

Books can last a long time. There is no need for me or anyone I play Pathfinder with to ever overhaul our rules or get a new core rulebook. I can play this game as it is, forever. Just because businesses make these decisions every 5 years doesn't mean that customers need to buy anything new. The old ones still work just fine. I would rather have a complete set of one system, then a few books from every system that comes out. I pick one, and I stick with it. For every new player that starts gaming with us, we will break them in using the PF rules only. We are going to live happily ever after, while others will forever wish for a new version.

In my opinion, HASBRO should get out of the roleplaying game business altogether. Turning D&D from the iconic pre-eminent game it once was to the 4E failure it has become is a monument to their corporation's ignorance about roleplaying games and its insensitivity to the role-playing community.

I agree. I'm really surprised that people keep on chasing this brand. It's best days are behind it.

Brian James wrote:

I refuse to buy any more WOTC D&D products. I stopped at 3.5. I'll let someone else continue to waste their money on new core rulebooks every 4 years or so. The world already has enough fantasy RPG materials. We do not need more of what is already available (older editions of D&D, and non-D&D systems).

If everyone shared your attitude, fantasy tabletop gaming would be a shivering husk of itself in twenty years or so.

No, it would be fine without WOTC. Their time is over. They are not the only kids on the block anymore.

I refuse to buy any more WOTC D&D products. I stopped at 3.5. I'll let someone else continue to waste their money on new core rulebooks every 4 years or so. The world already has enough fantasy RPG materials. We do not need more of what is already available (older editions of D&D, and non-D&D systems).

What? WOTC is reseting the rules on D&D again! I'm so glad I didn't buy any of that 4E crap! WOTC should just let it go. Discontinue D&D as a product line. There are more than enough fantasy RPG systems out there, including the old versions of D&D that one can find one and stick with it. I've made my choice. I'm sticking with Pathfinder!

Shadowborn wrote:

I don't find GM screens to be "toxic," whatever that means. I've been using them since 1st ed. AD&D. They're full of handy reference tables at a glance, block player sight of my notes, maps, and anything else I don't want my players to see (including my dice rolls). They also give me a good bounce surface for my dice, so they don't go rolling across the table.

I've explained what I meant by "toxic" a few times, now. What I mean is "potentially condusive to ill-will between players and DM". That takes too long to say, though.

Screens and hiding rolls have been a part of the game forever, and are not news. If you bring your own conspiracy theories to the gaming table, that is on you. He didn't generate that mistrust, you did.

GM screens may well be toxic if eaten. :)

DM Screens are useful for other things as well. They hide your bong if the wrong person walks into the room.

If you're worried about the screen being in between you and the players, simply move the screen over to one side, and use that hand to roll behind it. You no longer have cover, and everyone can get line of sight to throw dice at you.

Unless all you are doing is saying 'okay, he misses you' or 'made his save', the players are going to pick up that that enemy is not very good at hitting, and that other one is really tough.

What's the difference between the player switching to two-handed from sword and board when they learn the enemies attack bonus, from switching when you describe the wild, misaimed swings the enemy makes? Functionally none. You just don't like the first one.

If you are not revealing the precise numbers that were determined behind your screen, it is more difficult for people to do the meta game math.

Brian James wrote:

Players get exactly as much information as they should be getting from the GM.

Well, unless the GM is a tightwad who hordes all the information for a big reveal that never comes because the players have no idea what is going on and thus can't care.

** spoiler omitted **...

You're now talking about "role" playing now, not "roll" playing. Die roll results vs. plot information. Up until now, we'd been focusing attention on GM screens blocking die roll results, and the subsequent fudging of the die rolls.

I think we all can agree with anything mentioned in that spoiler you quoted regarding plot points and narrative.

Players get exactly as much information as they should be getting from the GM. There is no "work" if you're a "player" in a game. The GM does all the "work". If it's "work", then find a better hobby! My goodness, the sense of entitlement is thick!

You are looking at the GM's role from the wrong perspective.

In addition to what you already know about GM-ing (playing monsters, running encounters, etc):

GM's have the authority to do whatever it is they want to. It's up to you players to decide whether or not you are ok with allowing this person to do that. If you don't like their style of GM-ing, then you don't really have to go over to their house and play with them. As the GM, its understood between you and your players that they may only have the information that you allow them to have. That includes all of the GM's die rolls, period. If the GM doesn't mind showing you a die roll, then you should feel priviledged that he provided you with that information. When its a player's turn to take on the GM duties, it's understood that he will have exactly the same creative and otherwise authority to control the game and the environment as they choose to.

I know from experience, on both sides of the table, that the mathematical metagaming goes on. It's often obvious with some players. "Oh, we now know that it takes a 15 to hit it," is something that players do if they see die rolls. That suddenly removed you from the "role" playing into the "roll" playing. You're character is now not behaving in character if he's basing in-game decisions based on meta game knowledge.

GM screens are only toxic if you have players who lack the maturity, or the understanding that the meta gaming is wrong.

We now have 2 bestiaries in print and another on the way and tons of creatures in each AP volume. Dear Paizo, use them, extensively. If a Paizo module or AP volume comes across an editors or developers desk and it contains a single monster that exists in the 3.5 SRD it should be immediately replaced with something new from a bestiary or previous AP volume. I should never see another ghoul or specter in a Paizo adventure.

I think that we just had our first volunteer! cibet44, you have been assigned to the task of monster replacement. I expect at least a dozen new ones by end of business today. thank you.

Humans, elves, gnomes, and dwarves are old and boring. Why can't they write modules without them? Gosh, why can't they make core rulebooks with anything but those four races in them? Sheesh! Talk about redundant!

Just kidding - sort of.

I was thinking about this a little when drafting plans for a new home made campaign using PF rules. I thought of how cool it would be to create a whole new set of player character core races to replace the humans, etc. Then I just forgot about that, and spent my valuable spare time drafting adventures, not worrying about insignificant details like core race redundancy.

Can you map where Glimmerhold is located? Module S1 Clash of the Kingslayers

i don't know if it is just me but does it seem a little weird that the Inquisitor who I'm my opinion is the closest thing to a witch hunter doesn't gain access to either of the two only mage slayer feats, i don't want to take away anything from the fighter but i just feel that it makes as much sense if not more for the Inquisitor to gain access to those feats.

Which Pathfinder book has the stats for Inquisitor? I would like to know.