Dalgar the Great wrote:
Honestly, I've taught my little sisters to game and Pathfinder is hard for that, at least for me. I've been introducing younger kids to RPGs through FATE (sometimes accelerated edition sometimes CORE) and then graduating them to Pathfinder after a few adventures. I'm not saying you CAN'T teach your daughter through PF, I've just had more success with FATE. Entire way good luck with the little one :D
I agree that Pathfinder has a steeper learning curve. A rules light system that is not Class based would probably be a lot easier for kids to pick up and less work trying to stuff beloved characters into rigid archtypes.
Eons ago, a mad wizard named Scald Ha'ankhs came into possession of a powerful artifact named Le Gofine de' Mak. This artifact was the very one the gods used to create life itself. Obviously, it was too powerful for any mortal to possess. Ha'ankhs spent years trying to destroy it, but failed. So he decided to hide it where no one could ever find it.
Ha'ankhs created an underground labyrinth so treacherous no one could survive and he placed the artifact deep within this dungeon. There it remained for centuries until recently when the wizard Lo Enive uncovered an ancient text which revealed the existence of the Gofine de' Mak.
It is imperative that we find this artifact before Lo Enive does. Unfortunately, we do not know where Ha'ankhs' labyrinth is. We do know of five possible sites; dungeons long hidden from the surface only recently discovered via divination. We have recruited your group to explore these sites and return the Gofine de' Mak if you find it.
Now just create 5-7 random dungeons and let your players explore them. No need to explain why they exists. Your players do not see like the kind to bother researching and if they do, they can uncover that each of them was created by Ha'ankhs to hide the artifact, but he was not satisfied with them for whatever reason and decided to try again.
I said 7, because at the end of the 5th dungeon, the PCs uncover a scroll which tells of a 6th (and in the 6th, they find one leading to a 7th) dungeon.
Break out ye old dungeon geoglyphs and CR appropriate monsters and you are set. You do not have to put in a lot of time crafting plots that your players will by pass and they get to whup on random monsters for a good cause.
I want to play a character that has a higher Charisma and better skill at diplomacy than I the same way some people want to play a character that is better in combat. I certainly think Skills have a place.
Something I have tried to do in my games is to not necessarily equate a failure/success of any given roll as an indicator of proficiency. For example, say Mr. Bard and his +20 Bluff Skill rolls a 1 and fails to convince the guard he left his invitation back at the inn. It is not that Mr. Bard did not give a convincing oratory, it is that the guards were alerted before hand that Mr. Bard and his companions might try to sneak in. Or perhaps, just at that very moment, the captain of the guard strolled by and recognized Mr. Bard and his companions as those pesky kids from earlier. External circumstances were responsible for the failure, not any lack of skill.
This also gives me some freedom to interpret a mismatch between what the player says and the character's ability.
Mr. Cha Dumpstat Guy makes an eloquent speech on why it is in the best interest of the King to listen to him, but for some reason, the King just doesn't trust this guy.
Awkward Player Cha 18 Guy tries to chat up the barmaid, but the best he can come up with is 'Hey baby!'. She giggles and bats her eyes. "You're awful. I get off at 6."
What the player says still impacts the game. I think it is important. But that impact does not have to be what we would expect. Because of that, we can still allow Skill to temper that impact. Crazy shit happens all the time in real life. There is no reason crazy shit can not happen in game.
Courtfool, is that aN indirect personal attack, generalizing my own beliefs, which you don't even know yet?
No more so than claiming homosexuality makes someone less than others (sinful/deviant/unatural).
Only if those principles can stand on their own merits at which point, can you really call them 'Christian' or are they simply a culturally shared principle?
If so, is it possible that the christian belief (as interpreted by many) that the institution of marriage should only exist between a man and a woman a good one for our society, again, regardless of the claimed source of the principle?
Again, if the principles can stand on their own.
Would you agree to live under Sharia law if I could prove to you that it would benefit our society? What if the evidence I showed you was little more than baseless claims, fear mongering and statistics taken out of context? Would you still be willing to live under Sharia law?
It works both ways... there are players who are convinced that with a high enough score, Bluff and Diplomacy should be as effective as the Domination spell in getting someone to do something they want, no matter how much it may go against the target's base urges.
Shouldn't it? Don't we have real life examples of people talked into things they were against?
Also, does that not just make magic (in a meta sense) that much more powerful?
What I intended to do is show people who complain about min-maxers, that it's not acceptable to enforce their view of roleplaying at a gaming table.
Except that what happens all too often is the min-maxers enforce their view of roleplaying at the gaming table. The GM has to reign them in or make the challenges more difficult. If they try to reign in the min-maxer there is no end to the bemoaning of 'nerfing' and/or enforcing their view of gaming. If the GM makes the challenges more difficult, the non-min-maxers have to start min-maxing just to stay relevant.
…play a supporting optimized character yourself.
Great advice. When it starts happening in the wild then there will be less of an issue.
I want in on this game!
I think for this to work, like most things, you really need player buy in. If they just sit there like bumps on a log waiting for wandering monsters to kill so they can level up…epic fail awaits. If you can get players to write back stories that have at least one hook built in and the players play their characters like they are three dimensional people with their own hopes and ambitions…epic win awaits.
I know some people do not want to write lengthy back stories and that is perfectly cool. I would at least ask for one driving ambition and one person the character cares about from each player. The ambition should tell you what kinds of things the player wants to do in game. The NPC gives you at least one way to get the character involved and/or release information through.
Proactive players often create their own campaigns.
I would really like to see a PDQ# universal system. I mean, it is already pretty much a universal system, but the terminology needs a more broad based appeal. For instance, instead of Forte and Foibles, something like Advantages and Disadvantages.
I would also like to see PDQ# include super powers and maybe a couple different magic systems. I keep thinking I should try to take a stab at this myself, but I just never seem to have the time.
For free. If you need a book Shawshbucklers of the 7 Skies.
Older versions of the PDQ system include alternative magic systems
These games are for people who think FATE is too crunchy.
I remember when tool use was the defining behavior. Sort of like planets, we pick and choose the definition until we include what we want and exclude what we don't want.
What you're talking about is called "Reskinning" and it's the kind of thing that sticks in my craw.
…and you are certainly entitled to your preference.
A scythe is simply NOT a greatsword, the greatsword works the way it does because it has the FORM and mass distribution which is nowhere near that of a scythe.
…and armor does not make you more difficult to hit. It absorbs kinetic energy. So you already accept abstracting real world physics.
You do not like it and that is fine, but the concept is not far off in left field. Some games do make all weapons do the same damage. I like that players do not take up a lot of time pouring over the rules looking for that perfect implement of destruction and just pick something that works well for their concept.
I think the father's actions fall somewhere within the 'normal' human range between Saint and Hitler.
What?:I think he could have handled the situation better. However, I do not think his actions are an indicator that he is a 'bad' father.
Really? I am the first one to Godwin this thread? You people are slacking.
Abraham spalding wrote:
I think he reacted exactly like she would have and I doubt he will see how his own actions help model the behavior he doesn't like to her.
This is pretty much the extent of my 'problem' with his response.
All systems favor some concepts over other concepts. When the group is of the same creative agenda, this is not much of an issue. However, when you have optimizers mixed with non-optimizers, it becomes a problem.
Discussing the issues with everyone should help. Are the non-optimizers not optimizing because they do not know the system well enough? Ask the others to help them out. Do they have specific concepts in mind? Again, ask the others to help them meet their concept and stay relevant. Do they have some other reason for not wanting to optimize? See if all of you can find some common ground where everyone can enjoy the game.
If not everyone is having fun, talk to the two players and ask them to tone down their characters.
This works no matter what amazing build a player comes up with and does not lead to an arms race with the GM. If they refuse to listen, they risk alienating the other players and losing a GM.
Ratcheting up its propaganda machine, meanwhile, North Korea claimed Kim’s death generated a series of spectacular natural phenomena, creating a mysterious glow atop a revered mountain, cracking a sheet of ice on a lake with a loud roar and inspiring a crane to circle a statue of the nation’s founder before perching in a tree and drooping its head in sorrow.
No one would ever lie about something like that, would they?