Daniel Myhre's page

The problem was that NOBODY was making the save. Thus our characters were fully convinced there was a statue. While we knew there was an illusion of some sort, the party came to the conclusion (in character) that the illusion was hiding what we were fighting. Or maybe hiding any damage to the very dangerous statue. Oh sure, as players we all knew what was going on. But nobody was using that knowledge to meta-game. It was bloody hilarious. Then again, I find that so far anytime there's an illusion involved things quickly devolve into a 3 stooges routine as people fail their saves and react accordingly.

Obvious to the players isn't always the same as obvious to the characters.

WHile many of the PbP games here on the paizo forums aren't sanctioned PFS sessions, some are.

LegitName, Pathfinder Society, or PFS is a short hand term for Pathfinder Society Organized Play. It's the officially sanctioned organized play format. It's intended to let people reliably join a session, and is great for things like conventions or gaming night at the local hobby shop. If you're familiar with D&D's Living Grayhawk, it's basically the same thing.

All PFS sanctioned sessions are set in the official Pathfinder world setting, and the default assumption is that all player characters are members of the Pathfinder Society. There's many different lodges, which may have conflicting goals and ideologies. And the scenarios explore these ideologies to one extent or another.

Each scenario is designed to be run in about 3-5 hours or so and are usually self contained adventures. Even when there's several scenarios which are part of an overall story arc each one is generally self contained. The scenarios are then divided into "seasons". These go from Season 0 (original scenarios written when Pathfinder was a world setting for 3.5 D&D) to Season 8 (current season). Most seasons have an overarching story line such as trying to reassemble the Sky Key from season 6, I think. But again, each individual scenario is generally a stand alone adventure.

PFS character creation is standardized, so there's no table variation in what classes/races are allowed. And other then the CRB, you must actually own a physical copy or watermarked pdf of any given book to use anything within said books. Although there are a LOT of restrictions even if a book is allowed. Always a good idea to regularly check the Additional Resources page to see if something has changed.

For example, in season 7 Kitsune are an allowed race, assuming you have the right additional resources books (advanced race guide or something else that details the race). Aasimar were (and probably still are) a Boon race, meaning that even if you have the right books you can't play an aasimar without an appropriate chronicle boon. But at one point aasimar were available as a standard race in PFS.

You know those situations where there's an illusion, everyone KNOWS it's an illusion, but nobody can make their will saves even with the bonus for being told it's an illusion?

Well, I can't remember which scenario it was exactly. But the party encountered a statue. Now, this statue was an illusion. This quickly became rather obvious. Heck, one of the magic users used Detect Magic nd informed us it felt like illusion magic. And yet, none of us could make the will save. Now, the non-existent statue was blocking a door. And it looked too heavy to move. So naturally the idea came about to destroy the statue.

The barbarian takes a swing, and accidentally hits the door, chipping it. But fails the new will save granted by interacting with the statue. So my kineticist tosses an elemental blast at the statue. I fail MY will save, and accidentally hit a party member on the other side of the "statue". Thankfully the damage is very low. But since nobody could see through the illusion, we came to the conclusion of "Oh gods, the statue is ANIMATED!" Cue the party going into combat rounds against a statue that isn't actually there.

Eventually someone did destroy the door, quite by accident. And we did eventually see through the illusion. But until that happened the party was in a life or death battle with an illusionary statue... and losing.

You know the party is in trouble when...

You show up, and see the GM brought a two foot tall statue of Cthulhu as one of his minis for the session.

Also, it's a little worrying that spell-check can correct the spelling of Cthulhu.

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Hey they do make DM screens for a reason. all i'm saying. I do find it in bad taste to let your players know your fudging numbers even if its for their benefit.

Do you mean each specific case (Like "That attack should have killed you, but I changed it to a miss")?

Or do you mean at the start of a campaign ("I will generally take the rolls as they come, but I may occasionally adjust them in your favour if I think you're having an unlucky streak and I judge that failure will be un-fun")?

I wouldn't do the first, but I'd definitely do the second.

If done sparingly and not maliciously, you'd be amazed at how often players don't even notice you're fudging the dice. Often players expect the GM to roll behind a screen. there are legitimate reasons to do so. For example determining an enemy's hit points if it's a random encounter you weren't quite expecting thus didn't stat out. Or a sense motive and/or perception check. All the player really knows is "The GM just rolled dice".

A few times I've taken the old 2nd edition DMG's advice of "when in doubt, roll and shout" to heart. Namely I decided how I was going to rule something, then rolled percentile or a d20 behind my GM screen. The roll didn't actually matter since I'd already determined what ruling I would make. Or on rare occasion I've rolled die for no reason just as a joke. Such as when the a party found a badly enchanted sword. The sword sang bardic songs, off key. And occasionally I would roll a D20. The sword wasn't an intelligent sword, just had hundreds of songs it could sing. Other then the +3 bonus that was the enchantment. The fighter was fairly convinced the sword was intelligent, as was the party's wizard. And they thought I was making Ego checks. I wasn't, the sword was just an amusing prank.

Could have sworn I saw that. Might have been a faq or something, not sure. I know it doesn't make any sense for a wizard who knows nothing about religions to be able to imbue Knowledge: Religion into a headband of vast intellect they created. Can't remember where I saw the ruling though.

Or was it a different system? I play too dang many rpgs.

I'd have to research the rules for them, but let's say you make a homunculus or ten and set them to building ships for you to sell. I'm fairly certain the quality of those ships would probably be pretty low. Maybe so low they sink if ever actually put in the water. After all, a crafter can't put a skill into a headband of intelligence if they don't have the skill. So how are they creating a construct which has engineering skills that the wizard or alchemist probably doesn't have?

I don't think that a chirugeon who supposed to be good at something will be happy to miss 55 of his operations, he is supposed to have a near perfect score in what he is trained for, so yes 45% is a low goal for something you should be an expert in...

In a fantasy world or low magic historical setting such as the 1800's, then yes I'd say a 55% chance for the skilled doctor to successfully treat their patient sounds about right.

swoosh wrote:

It's pretty easy to not be intimately aware of how every mechanic works

That's not really what I said though, is it?

Basically? It is. You implied that for GMing a PFS table you need to know every rule from every rule book, as well as what every feat does and how every class works. Quite simply, no you don't. If I were to sit own at your PFS table and want to play Kahel, I'm not expecting that you'll know how kineticists work yet. It'd be nice if you did, but I'm not counting on it. What I am counting on however is that I have the following with me:

1. a cheep tablet that has my Occult Adventures PDF on it
2. my character sheet, chronicle stack, and ITS
3. a physical printout of the entire Kineticist section from Occult Adventures, as well as the printout for the Overwhelming Soul archtype

When I first sit down at the table, I'm going to show you my PDF of the book so you can verify I do in fact own the book thus can play a kineticist. In fact, I'll have that pdf opened already and the tablet in sleep mode to facilitate this. Then when I'm pulling out my dice, mini, character sheet, and chronicle stack (as well as maybe my laptop to run Hero Lab to manage my character during the game), I'm also going to pull out the pages from those printouts I directly need. Namely the pages which cover the class it's self, my blasts, and my wild talents (both infusions and utility). I'll also pull out the page from Advanced Race Guide which details kitsune and my alternate racial trait. If you ask, I'll show you either that watermarked print out or the book on my tablet.

Then during the game if you have a question regarding something I'm doing, I can just hand you the print out that covers those rules. It also lets me reference the rules myself if I need to.

swoosh wrote:

Headfirst wrote:

I think a lot of you are getting off on those really obvious tangents instead of staring the main problem in the face: bloat

It's not refusing to stare the problem in the face. It's that some of us don't think there's a problem at all.

To expand: we are looking at the burned piece of toast, we just aren't seeing elvis's face in it no matter how hard we squint.

Gee thanks RDM42. Had to turn away quickly to prevent my spit take from getting water in my laptop's keyboard. I read that reply just as I took a drink of water.

Thus why you don't see armies of constructs marching across the field. But you may encounter the occasional construct that's stationed as a guard. It's not fast, efficient, or cost effective to churn out constructs left right and center. In fact, I can't see any ruler willing to trust a construct he or she bought to even be a body guard. Unless the ruler is a spellcaster it's unlikely they can truly control the construct. And there is the concern that the person who sold it may have given the construct orders to be an assassin.

Being the Game Master is a delicate balance to maintain. You spend hours each week creating your adventure, months or years creating the world setting if it's a custom setting. When you show up to the session, you're prepared for the adventure you planned to run. You have the wizard's tower mapped out, wandering encounter tables, scripted encounters, traps, and all that planned out. This is a lot of work if you're not running a published adventure.

If the party then decides to ignore the adventure you brought, now what? One session when I had to create an entire dungeon on the spot because the players added 2+2 and came up with aardvark, it ended up being a fun session. One trap I created on the spot ended up being ridiculously complex and nasty because the thief kept critically botching the disarm check. I didn't hurt anyone with the trap since the only one caught in it had made his reflex save. But it was stupidly complex and overly silly. Every botched disarm added something else to the trap. The party KNEW I was making all this stuff for the trap up on the fly. Only to cap off the dungeon I'd had to create as they explored with a room that held an illusionary beholder, and a throne which would teleport them to where the actual adventure is set.

It was fun, but at the same time frustrating. I've had players completely derail a campaign because instead of dealing with the prepared storyline, they decide to head in the opposite direction. To an extent, the GM does need to force the issue sometimes. YOu join a session running Crypt of the Everflame, then decide that rather then doing that adventure you want to go out and hunt bandits... Seriously?

But it's possible to go too far too as the GM. I've had a GM set up an impossible siege because his story demanded we must fail, get captured, and then have to escape. To force us into this siege we were given orders to come back "with your shield or on it, and if you refuse I'll have you killed". When we came up with a brilliant if flawed plan that allowed us to win the siege, the GM punished us for not following his script.

Personally, I probably wouldn't allow a magic item to let you qualify for feats. If you only qualify for Power Attack when you're wearing your belt of strength, then I guess you don't qualify for Power Attack. After all, if you take off your stat boosting item at all it gives no benefit for 24 hours after you put it back on.

Exactly my point Juda. The GM fudging the dice isn't a bad thing in and of it's self. It's why they do so that can create problems. I can't remember where I read it anymore, but I remember reading an essay on how to be a good game master. And one of the things it mentioned was that it's okay to ignore the rules as the GM when it improves the story. And to me, avoiding the unfair one hit kill falls under that category. It's not something I do all the time. But when the players are REALLY having a hard time of it and my dice are just too dang hot, I feel no shame in ignoring valid results such as disregarding a critical. It'll still be a hit, just not a critical.

I'm not a fan of how D&D has always given experience for defeating foes only. Well, 2nd edition gave minor amounts of experience for spells cast. Namely 10 xp per spell cast during the session. The thing is, you don't have to kill everything to defeat the encounter. Manage to talk your way past the evil duke's guards so they'll let you by without a fight? You just defeated the encounter, I'll record the xp. You managed to sneak past the ravenous beast of Aaaaarrrrrggggggh without being noticed? XP is recorded, well done. Did you completely bamboozle the BBEG with your witty repartee and jocular japes to the point he accidentally caught himself in his own Web spell? I'm rather amused, here's your xp (and maybe some bonus xp for such awesome roleplaying).

Ravingdork wrote:

noretoc wrote:

But complaining that the spell didn't work the way he thought it would, is kinda counter productive.

Let me make one thing clear: I was not "complaining that the spell didn't work like I thought it would." I was informing the GM that he had the rules wrong.

In that regard, I was absolutely right. He did have the rules wrong. He then house-ruled (needlessly as it turns out) that the spell would not work on us because, as he put it, the extraplanar type was not some temporary condition.

I made a rules mistake of my own when I missed that the spell can only be cast on my home plane. That, however, has nothing to do with this thread (which is about whether or not the way the GM behaved was fair).

Now, since we aren't likely to find anyone with the power to send us home via plane shift or similar plane-hopping magic, I would have had a mind to find a native who could cast dismissal or banishment. That however, won't work due to our GM's unfair house rule--even though finding such an individual and getting them to help us would be an adventure in its own right.

Or... Novel idea here... Accept that BOTH you and the DM are imperfect beings. Keep playing the game, since you OBVIOUSLY know the DM doesn't want you to escape with a PC skill you instead stop trying to fight the DM and accept that the only way out is to find one (that is likely part of the story) and have fun with the journey.

Or you notice the thread is a necro, that it had died over six years ago, and that before Abaraii's post the last post had been on Mar 9, 2010, at 07:47 pm? And on that note, I'm out of here. Laters

That +2 difference may not seem like much Bandw2. But it can, and does make a huge difference. One reason I avoided 3rd edition in favor of 2nd edition for years was because the system I thought made you too powerful too quickly. In 2nd edition you needed a high strength to get any bonuses to Thac0 and damage. That's "To Hit Armor Class 0" for those unfamiliar with the term. In fact, you needed a 17 or 18 Str score to get a +1 to-hit. You needed a 16+ str to get a +1 damage (18 Str for a +2 damage).

You also needed a 15 Con to get a +1 to hit points per level. For a +2 you needed a 16-18 Con, unless you were a warrior class. They got +3 HP with a 17 con or +4 HP per level with an 18 con. Those incredibly high attributes actually mattered, but then again they were rare to get unless the GM allowed something like 4d6 drop lowest reroll 1's.

By comparison, an 18 Str and power attack in Pathfinder at level one is the equivalent of having an 18/00 strength (best you could have at character creation) in 2nd edition. My fighter build that does +9 damage with a scythe when using power attack? That's a damage bonus equal to having 21 Str in 2nd edition (which was HARD to get back then). His attack bonus of +6 with power attack would be equal to having a strength of 24 in 2nd edition.

I've played lots of "atheists" in D&D style games with divine magic and actual tangible deities. The general perspective is not that beings called "gods" are unworthy of respect, they're just due the same respect as a king who has an army, or a man with a sword pointed at you, or a wizard who threatens to burn down your house is. They are to be respected because they are vastly powerful, but one generally tries to avoid the attention of vastly powerful beings.

The other key to it, I think, is to deny the primacy of a divinity's role in their portfolio. While the so-called "God of the Sea" can certainly control the wind and the waves, just like any powerful wizard could, if the "sea god" were to suddenly cease to exist there would still be wind and waves that proceed according to natural forces rather than the whim of the powerful.

Especially when you have gods that used to be humans (or elves, etc.) that aspect of their prior mortal existence can be used to deny that they are anything more than "incredibly powerful beings" but one does not worship their monarch or their landlord, so why would someone more powerful in the same role merit worship? For particularly intelligent characters prone to deep thinking on matters of ethics, you can also try to decouple the elemental notions of "good", "evil", "chaos", and "law" (i.e. those things that detect {foo} detects) from good and evil on a practical sense. To say that "Good" as exemplified by the "Gods of Good" is an elemental force (like electricity say) that these beings have harnessed, but its correlation with genuinely beneficial outcomes is largely accidental.

Or as Kahel put it during Skykey Solution regarding if everyone has CLW wands...

"Not that there's anything wrong with it, but I'd rather put my faith in preparation then the whims of some powerful being."

Or in a short story I'm writing about Kahel, when she meets Calistria the following exchange is made.

“To what do I owe this dubious honor?” She asked of the goddess.

To her surprise the goddess laughed. “Oh my, it's not often I am scorned. Are you not worried I shall feel offended.”

“Should I be?” Kahel asked. “I mean, from what the texts say it's nearly impossible to know your motivations. But one common thread can be determined. Your reasons may be unknowable, but you are likely to either try seducing me or do something in vengeance for who knows what slight you are angry about. And it's not as if I could escape from you in either case. Now again, why are you bothering me?”

Still reading the thread, but here are my thoughts on the debate.

First of all, "roll players" in my experience tend to view the game solely as a board game. And that's not inherently a bad thing. Hero Quest was a fun board game, and my introduction to the world of roleplaying. Decent is also a fun game to play now and then. This game pretty much personifies "roll playing". There was little story to any given session because it was a GM vs The Players style board game. The GM wasn't there to tell a story. They were there to try killing the players off.

If everyone agrees that this is the goal, Pathfinder or D&D 3.5 can work very well as a board game. But honestly, that's not why I GM. These days I'm here to tell a story. One of heroes and villains, might and magic. To do this, I need players who are willing to go beyond the idea of playing a board game. I need players who are willing to become actors in this tale. The rules are there to determine if what you're trying to do works or not. But the who and why matter just as much as the what, when, and where.

Ideally your character is more then just a collection of numbers and systems. It's a living breathing person within the game's world setting. And people have opinions. They have emotions. They have wants and desires. And they have these things because they aren't mindless robots. Give me the heartbroken warrior scholar who laments that they are forced to kill instead of reason with their foe. Give me the noble barbarian who's only noble because he's honestly too stupid to actually do evil. Give me the revenge driven sorcerer who's revenge quest is misguided.

Give me these things, and I'll do more then just arbitrate a board game for you. I'll tell you a story. One where you are the main characters. This to me is the heart of what being a roleplayer is. And yes the occasional Hero Quest style dungeon crawl with no deeper backstory then "here's a dungeon, wander through it and kill every monster while looting the treasure" can be a lot of fun. But to be honest, I roleplay these days for the story being told, not the battles being fought.

I don't always have all these details fleshed out for my character at the start. Kahel Stormbender started life as just "this is a kineticist". There was no deeper backstory or personality involved. The personality evolved as I played the character. And the backstory got added to piece by piece. I had decided Kahel's parents were traveling merchants after one game session. When I made a human spiritualist I decided they were brothers. Well, brother and sister I guess. But the spiritualist is human, so how was this possible? A bit more backstory got created to explain that. Realized I accidentally changed Kahel's gender during my level 2 rebuild. So I added a bit more backstory to explain that too. And over time what started as a one dimensional collection of stats and systems became a fully fleshed out character.

One problem I've always had with creating adventures is that sometimes the players simply ignore the plot hook that was suppose to draw them in. For example in a superhero game I was running the players saw on the news a "breaking story" which informed them of a super villain team that was holding the local mall hostage. They were suppose to go stop the villains. Instead, they went out for a burger then hunted for muggers. Thus ignoring the villains who were threatening to kill hundreds.

Or they add 2+2 and somehow come up with Rutabaga. In a 2nd edition AD&D game I ran the players learned that villagers have been going missing from a small hamlet. The thief in the party decided that of course he needs to check with the local thieves guild. Never mind that he's in a hamlet that doesn't even qualify as a 1 horse town, there IS no local guild. Then while they investigated they learned Small child like figures had been seen exiting the home of a recent disappearance and carrying lumpy bundles to the west (which was the direction of a wizard's tower they passed on the way into town). So naturally they came to the concluson of "orc slavers in the sewers".

Again, never mind that this is a small hamlet, not even 20 buildings total. There is no sewer system.

I think legitimately the complaints about "with a low point buy, you can't play a [race] [class]" are ultimately complaints about racial stat modifiers not point buys.

Like if Dwarves didn't have a penalty to Charisma, they would make fine (non-Empyreal sorcerers). Probably an easier sell to get your GM to "do racial stat modifiers differently" than to up the point buy.

Coming from spending years playing 2nd edition AD&D as my game of choice... the very idea of a dwarf wizard or sorcerer still seems weird to me.

nate lange wrote:

@zainale- technically, no... but if you pick half-orc you do get both (because RAW half-orcs count as orcs but orcs don't count as half orcs).

There's a handful of interesting options if you look at unusual humanoids... kobold racial feats include draconic aspect and follow ups like glide/breath/paragon, and scaled disciple is cool if you want to dip oracle and go dragon disciple! Giants are humanoids too, so you could take heritage for frost giant and pick up born of frost (and icy stare if you want).

Is born of frost PFS legal? Because if so...

Human Unchained Monk
Lvl1: Racial Heritage (level feat)
Lvl1: Born of Frost (+1d6 cold damage)
Trait: the one that gives +1 unarmed damage

That's just sick.

You know, I've long wondered just how the heck a half giant could come to be. I mean, if the mother was a human, how did they survive the pregnancy, let alone becoming pregnant? And if it's the other way, well... the phrase "hotdog down a hallway" comes to mind.

My take on the npc class ban is that it's because those classes are intended for... background npcs who need to be statted out. Yeah, shocker isn't it? They weren't designed as a player class. Instead they were designed to be applied to non-player characters. The warrior npc class for example is the generic soldiers and town guards, and as such is not able to keep up with a fully trained fighter.

NOt just Paizo's freelance policy either. I have a copy of Writer's Market, published in 1995. And while the contact information within this book is likely out of date, it does go into depth on how to break into the freelance writing business. Among the things it talks about is how to pitch your manuscript to a publisher. Note, this does imply that your magazine article, story, or other book/movie script/whatever is already finished. One of the things you need to do is provide a detailed description of what your manuscript is about.

Remember, this is not you sending the manuscript in. This is your letter trying to convince the editor they want to read your manuscript to begin with. I could write the best romance novel ever written. But if my sales pitch consists of "I wrote a novel, it's about a girl who falls in love with a guy" no editor is going to want to risk reading it. There's no reason for them to think my story is even half as good as the worst pos on the market. There's no reason for them to think the story is going to be as epic as I know in my heart it is.

I've been tinkering for 10 years with a viking centered rpg I decided to make. I've GMed a couple short campaigns to test out my system so I could refine it. But right now it's just a collection of rules for character creation, handling ship travel, and combat. There's nothing there to really set it apart yet, or make anyone else think "Oh wow, this could be huge". When I'm finished with the system (if that ever happens) I may go through a local printer to have one to ten copies made. And if I feel it good enough, I may try pitching it to a publisher.

"I've got a game, it's about vikings" however would probably get my sales pitch rejected. And rightly so. Similarly, if I was to approach a publisher and say "I want a game about vikings, I'll write it if you give me a contract" I would expect to be laughed out of the building.

EDIT: Fixed spelling error

What do I want? Why do I keep asking you these questions? I want to UNDERSTAND what you want. Why else do you think I keep asking you for this? When you keep saying 'party rules' but don't explain what you think these 'party rules' should cover, it's impossible to make informed decisions.

Once again, you have given situations which are all conflicts with the players. No matter what system you're playing, you'll have such issues. They cropped up in AD&D 2nd Edition. They crop up in the Ghostbusters RPG. They crop up in White Wolf games GURPS, and any other RPG you want to play. Yes, even in the Diceless Systems and freeform games (aka games which use no rules system). They even crop up in miniture war games like Warhammer and Battletech. This tells you that the issues aren't caused by the game rule. It tells you they are social in nature. And none of us can figure out how you expect a game rule book to fix problems of a social nature.

So make your case, explain what exactly you want. And not just "a party rule book", but what you think this book needs to have rules for. Pitch the idea to us. Who knows, you may actually be able to convince us this is a good idea. But you haven't actually tried to pitch your idea yet, just said it's needed.

You said you would be willing to write the book if Paizo signed contract with you. But if you aren't willing to explain what exactly you want the book to cover, why would you expect someone from Paizo to come into this thread and say "Hey, that's a great idea! Let's pay Wise Old Man to write that book!"

Not that this is a likely thing to happen to begin with. Willing and able to write this 'party rules' book? Start writing it. Even if you can't get it published, you could use the book you wrote for your own campaigns. If you can't convince one person on a forum who has admitted they might like the idea if they knew just what the idea was, then chances are you're sales pitch to Paizo or any other publisher wouldn't go over very well.

You seem to think your 'party rules' book is the silver bullet that will fix the issue. So please explain to us what type of rules you think it needs to cover and what situations it needs to deal with. Who knows, you may be right. It Your idea may well be a silver bullet that will fix every issue gamers have ever had. Or it may be a lemon. With what you've said so far, we have no way of knowing if your idea even has merit or not.

As I've stated multiple times, I've never had any problems with my GM's and players, because I know when to separate a game from real life to accommodate my groups free time.

Thank you, everyone. I appreciate all of you taking the time give your honest thoughts and opinions. I will try and give you my most helpful answers in your future posts in the most friendliest manner, and I will also defend you with your merits whenever I see that you are being targeted. And I mean it.

Love, power, respect. Peace.

So you say. But then you also said

In no way am I a disruptive player. IRL, I'm a super polite, cooperative, and overall friendly person.

I'm not talking about being disruptive, I think if you have a personality problem, it should be dealt outside of game.

I've seen people play evil characters for the sake of wanting to steal from other players and kill them, or just cause shenanigans and they give me an excuses like "That's my alignment. I'm trying to play in character!"

I've also seen players trying to act the scientist for the campaign rules, like when a GM says "There is no astral plane." and players would say "Well, how does teleportation work then? And it wouldn't make sense because of this, this, and this."

And it's like...why are you trying to start this debacle, when it's very unnecessary. The GM puts in rules at the start, that's that. People don't need to justify in their own minds why it wouldn't work.

Those are disruptive players.

I hold back all the time to give my respected players a chance to have the spot light, so everyone can shine equally. Because it feels good to shine.

But I don't like how people are judged based on what kind of character builds they want to make.
I'm very honest about what kind of character I want in the beginning of the game, and I tell my GM's,
"I want to play an admixture wizard"
"No. Pick something else."
"I want to play a summoner synthesist"
"No. Pick something else."

Even when I'm researching a build and show them the link for my resources and FAQ's. They say "I don't know...Would it be okay with you if you just play a fighter?"

And then other player's jump in "You can't make these characters man! You're being disruptive!"

"How am I being disruptive??"

And the crazy thing is that if one of the guys is a closer friend to the GM, he let's him play like a slumber hexcrafter build. And they're always laughing and giggling about it.

It's frustrating. I'm all honest and nice about it and I get burned for it. It's not cool. And I see that it happens all the time. Favoritism.

I don't want to subjected to polite politics on a gaming table. And it's not easy finding a gaming table near me.
So it's "Too bad so sad for me"?
That's not fair.

Get a party rule set book out there, so people can play their favorite builds on an equal level and have fun.

So which is it, do you never have any problem with your GMs and players because you know when to separate a game from real life? Or do you have the problems and issues you'd previously described, then confirmed were accurately described? Because you can't have it both ways. If the earlier post was as accurate as you claimed, you have problems with your players and GMs. Problems which aren't going to be solved by hypothetical book with new system rules. They can't be solved that way because the problems aren't a game system problem.

Or do you never have problems with your GMs and players, in which case the above post describing such problems was pulled out of thin air? If that's the case, why are you insisting on a new rule book?

And you still haven't mentioned what exactly you think 'party rules' are suppose to cover. Clearly you don't think the plethora of advice you can find on how to resolve problems within a gaming group aren't enough. But you keep avoiding the question of what exactly you want new system rules to deal with.

EDIT: Please note, I'm not arguing with you to shut you down. If you can make a legitimate case for your 'party rules' book may well agree with you. As might many others. And that's the core problem I'm having with you WOM. You're not giving compelling reasons for a party rule book. You're not even explaining what you think such a book should cover.

This thread actually makes me want to play a sorceress with 8 Int, who thinks she's a wizard... Every morning she studies her spell book, but she's at a complete loss as to why all of her spells end up being the same ones over and over again...

One of my favorite sorcerer concepts was a sorcerer with 14 Int who bought a blank spellbook and spell inscription quality ink/quill. Every morning she'd study her spellbook intently. And since it was written in code, people assumed she was memorizing spells. In reality it was being used as a cook book, and she was deciding what to prepare that day for meals. Only party member who knew how to cook.

The deception saved the party's rear once when we got captured after a nasty wizarding duel which left me dry on spells and the evil wizard almost dry. It allowed us to escape a cell which only magical fire could damage the door.

Kahel Stormbender wrote:

Just... MLP plus Lovecraftian mythos... *shudders* Some things should not mix. And some of those are disturbingly effective when mixed. I had nightmares for a month because of that campaign.

Everything is better with tentacles

Four words that should inspire fear and terror... Pinky Pie Elder God

... when the party's rogue breaks the only way to open a secret door, before the contents of the hidden room have been examined.

I still get a chuckle from the table I GMed at a convention where that happened. Party almost failed the adventure before it truly began. Was going to have to have the VC tell them something along the lines of "Explore, cooperate, report... why do these kids never explore?"

... when the party's wizard determines there is illusion magic in the area and tells everyone that, yet nobody (wizard included) can roll higher then a 5 on their will save.

Hmm, interesting there. WHile the zygomind is a horrifying entry in the bestiaries, it does provide some intriguing possibilities for campaigns. You know, if you're mixing in the Cthulhu mythos that could even be one way to justify saving a party which did all fall under the mental whammy of a zygomind. You know, finding a path into Lovecraft's Dreamscape, and from there back to reality. Various stories by Lovecraft do heavily imply there are places where you can walk into the dreamscape while still awake after all.

... someone asks "When did the fight become Disney On Ice", and it's a serious question.

... you spy the Dreamer in the Deep, Great Cthulhu among the minis the GM is setting out

Liberator 2000 wrote:

I don't think the thread should be locked. I note that a VL, a 5-star, and a VC think it should be locked. Well...news of news...the establishment doesn't like whistle blowers.

Let's face it, a reply of "Sorry but I will not approve that.
DC," is a dick move. It is a bad move even if there were extenuating circumstances. It is a bad move even if there is bad blood between the two.

So I don't see any problem with someone playing whistle-blower and exposing it on the forums.

“The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but
because of those who look on and do nothing.”
--Albert Einstein

How is "Sorry but I will not approve that." A dick move? Curt, but I don't see how it's overly dickish.

Also it's not so much "the establishment" hating "whistle-blowers" as people pointing out it's kinda unhelpful to your cause to use inflammatory tactics to try and rile people up when we don't even have much of a story, let alone half, especially over the holiday weekend when most of the people you're trying to appeal to aren't even in to look at your posts.

Look at the title of the thread, it's an outright attack that's basically saying the VL did it to spite the charity specifically, rather than because of following society rules for when scenarios can be played for credit.

The lack of explication, especially with the revealed fact that the RVC had apparently been ignoring the event's coordinator for months is what makes it a dick move. Especially when the decision was apparently finally made so close to the cut off date for getting an event sanctioned.

Kahel Stormbender wrote:

Then as mentioned, there's the zygomind. That thing is scary. Even if you kill one, you can never tell if you actually killed it or are trapped in it's dream world. I've been toying with the idea of a campaign centered around the party spending the first 6 or 7 levels trapped in a zygomind's dream world, only to wake up weak, near death, and years younger then they think after a party of high level adventurers kill the creature.

Why not just go all the way(or as close as you feel you want to run) to 18, have the PC's fight a Zygomind, then(win or lose) have them wake up in the same situation?

Even better, reduce them to 1 hit die(and lvl 1 stats/skills) and have them level back up to level 7 as NPC classes gestalted with their "dream" class, using minimal "adventurer" type encounters as though they were characters in an idealistic sit-com type(or a reality show) world instead of adventurers, with any cosmic source they tap for information referencing their "dream" character while everyone else just pretends(or has no knowledge) of them, finally unravelling their "too perfect" world however you like(either pulling "your princess is in another castle" with another Zygomind or changing it up with something else capable of world altering.

Interesting idea. As I said, still tinkering with the campaign concept here. The idea was that the level 1 party starts investigating a problem in a village, only to unwittingly get trapped in the dream realm by the zygomind. I'm tenitively thinking level 7 for the 'reveal' because to be honest, I know I'd get really upset if the GM let us get to level 18 then pulled dick move such as "Oh, your entire adventuring career ws just dream, you're level 1."

I was thinking I'd let them keep the experience earned, so they're still level 7. But they would have to actually train to 'recover' any physical level up attributes they assigned and the physical conditioning (hit dice). And naturally they don't have the equipment they thought they did. To soften that blow I am considering having some magical gear in the zygomind's 'horde' which is equivalent or maybe bit less effective.

Then as mentioned, there's the zygomind. That thing is scary. Even if you kill one, you can never tell if you actually killed it or are trapped in it's dream world. I've been toying with the idea of a campaign centered around the party spending the first 6 or 7 levels trapped in a zygomind's dream world, only to wake up weak, near death, and years younger then they think after a party of high level adventurers kill the creature.

Someone's group killed all the AD&D gods... including the good aligned ones?! That's just nuts. What sort of GM would even have that as a possibility in the campaign?! Generally speaking, when you have a god personally show up in an RPG campaign it's as a Plot Device.

Even a great GM may not know every rule. I consider myself to be a good GM, but then I've been doing it for 26 years now. When it comes to some systems like the Palldium system yeah I pretty much know every rule by heart. Or at least memorized what page the rule is on. But then that's the main system I've been GMing most of that time. For Pathfinder, I don't have anywhere near that level of system mastery. I don't know the mechanics for every class backwards and forwards, just for the classes I tend to play. Nor do I know the grappling rules by heart, so I'd have to look them up if someone is planning on playing a grappler. I'm not 100% certain of the lighting rules either, I keep having to look them up when I GM for pfs.

... when Drendel lets you sleep in before giving his briefing

... when the party's scout is a barbarian who thinks "sneak" means "kick down door and charge while screaming"

... when the party's bard is a kobold who keeps singing the Doom Song from invader zim... as their Inspire Courage

Know how many campaigns I've left over the years because the GM broke the social contract? I've lost count. There's been game masters who would shut down any and everything you do if it doesn't match their pre-formed idea of how the story must go. For instance there was one superhero game where the GM had an npc do the whole 'magic hand wave' thing to remove anything that promoted characterization. Alien who can't speak english and uses a now busted translator? Hand wave and alien now understands and speaks english like a native. The heroes are actually managing to rescue the npc which the GM decided simply must get captured by the bad guys? Nope, can't allow that so better have the villains suddenly have the exact powers they need to completely shut down the heroes (oh, and break every piece of alien tech gear that annoying hero who is leading the rescue has).

Playing a "the apocalypse is happening right now" game and my character is a survivalist? Had a GM decide I was too prepared after they already approved the character and equipment list. So they arbitrarily ruled that all the canned goods my character had stockpiled had spoiled, dry goods had maggots in them for no declarable reason, properly long term stored firearms were rusted into uselessness, and all ammunition for said guns was useless because the manufacturers used black pepper instead of gun powder. Oh, and the properly cared for military survival knife is so fragile that it broke into a hundred pieces the first time it got used.

I've had GM's in avatar games tell me it's unrealistic to have weapons such as... a chef's knife, or even a butter knife. If you weren't aware, an 'avatar' game is where you ARE your character. Such games typically require you to prove you own anything you're using for equipment via a picture. I've had GM's rule that I'm unrealistic and thus lying even when I submit a picture of myself with my swords, daggers, B.O.B. both packed and laid out for inventorying (that's bug out bag if you didn't know), and so forth. They would then rant about how no real person has swords, daggers, and a crossbow on hand. And how knives in general are unrealistic. Yes, even sharp knives pretty much anyone is going to have in their kitchen.

In another superhero game I was told my character with superhuman strength and agility couldn't preform spiderman style acrobatic feats such as wall running, bouncing off walls and the ceiling, even though real people can do the same stuff if not to the same degree.

I've also left games where the GM told me my super genius inventor who specializes in vehicles can't build an armored surveillance van because that's not possible. They then helpfully informed me my plan to just use my starting budget to buy one fails because nobody makes such a thing... even though the company which makes the presidential limo makes them.

I've left more then a few D&D and PF games because the GM deliberately tries to kill the party in as bloody a way as possible. Such as throwing a level 1 party up against a greater demon or a dragon. When one of said game masters pulled out the tarrask during a level 3 adventure I left that game too.

All examples of times when I exercised my option to leave a game when the GM is unfair or otherwise abusing their power.

Here is your key problem Wise Old Man. You want a set of game rules to deal with an out of game problem. Rules that would require you to pay money for the book to even get. Rules that the problematic players and game masters said book is aimed at aren't going to care about, and the ones who aren't problematic don't need.

Think about it. One of the core rules of any RPG is "Do Not Cheat". Yet what is a problem that one has to watch out for? Players lying about what they rolled and lying about how much of a finite resource they have left. Even if 90% of players would never think to cheat, 10% will still do so. They're ignoring the rules for how their character works. While sometimes it's an honest mistake such as me and my former group not understanding how a new class works initially, it's more often deliberate.

The GM that tells you "no, that's too powerful" for every (admittedly powerful) concept you bring in yet then allows an equally powerful concept from his buddy/wife/girlfriend isn't going to care about your hypothetical book of 'party rules'. If he even realizes how unfair he's being, then chances are no rule supplement is going to change that. In all honesty it's probably better to just wash your hands of the group and find a new one. If he doesn't realize how unfair he's being (or maybe doesn't realize how powerful the allowed build is) try explaining things to him. Might be surprised.

Or maybe the classes you were told "no" regarding aren't ones that are suitable for the campaign. There might be reasons other then "it's too powerful" that you don't know. Or maybe the GM has had a lot of bad experiences with power gamers who used the class/archtype in the past. I know I'm reluctant to allow a synergist summoner because even an average "I didn't even try to make it optimized" build is rather powerful. Similarly I'm hesitant to let someone play a magus since there's a lot of fiddly bits I need to track and remember to keep them from becoming game breaking.

Following errata is one thing. These are fixes and clarifications to how the game works. Sometimes it's adding in text which was missing. Or adding text to clarify how something works. That's why errata are there after all. And naturally PFS sessions follow the PFS Organized Play rules. This is an official campaign which is tracked globally after all. The thing you have to remember though is that the PFS rules don't actually tell you how you MUST play or how you MUST game master. Well, okay, they say that as the GM you can't change the mechanics of the encounters. But they don't dictate one style of GMing or roleplaying and say "This is the only one that you may use".

Which again, is what it sounds like you want.

You realize the channel happy cleric uses neg channeling... and the adventure is dealing with a necromancer.

Get a party rule set book out there, so people can play their favorite builds on an equal level and have fun.

Again with the vague 'party rule set' line. Rules for... what exactly? Rules to tell people how they are allowed to roleplay? I can't imagine that will go over very well.

Rules for how to build a character? Already have that.

Rules for how to pick classes you can play? Again, not really needed. If a class or archtype doesn't fit the setting, the GM is already free to say "no". And quite honestly there are some people who can't be trusted to play certain classes or archtypes properly. Use to game with someone who I would never let play a magus or synergist summoner. But then that's because the person I'm thinking about either didn't understand those (favored) classes... or more likely knew exactly what they were doing counted on the GM not understanding the class/archtype.

Rules for how to game master? This again I can't see going down very well. When I was 10 and just getting into roleplaying I favored more hack-n-slash games. My characters reflected this. So did the adventures I designed. As I've gotten older my tastes have changed. These days I enjoy more role playing then roll playing. I come up with backstories for my characters, sometimes quite detailed ones. And I give them personalities. Kahel is a warrior scholar who prefers the scholar aspect. Xao Li Quin holds life to be sacrosanct and only uses lethal force as a matter of last resort (unless fighting undead).

The adventures I designed and worlds I create have changed too. Instead of a Random Villain Of The Week (and their monster filled dungeon), I craft stories. I fill my world with interesting people and events which happened previously. The villains have grand plans, rather then just being Evil Monster #579. Or they aren't true villains, you can sympathise with them. Maybe even agree with their end goals, it's just that their methods go too far beyond the pale.

Just as no two people are identical, no two game masters will have the same style. Some will run the game more as a board game. Others view roleplaying as a way to tell complex stories. Some groups will view roleplaying as a social activity with friends where having fun is the most important part. They joke, they goof off, and the game is only one part of why they are there. Others will view roleplaying as deadly serious and any out of character shenanigans are frowned upon.

Which views are right? Which views are wrong? If you are creating rules that dictate how someone role plays, you're basically telling everyone "This is the only way to roleplay".

Again, you mean like Paizo's game master guide? Other then a few charts, most notably for random treasure generation, and a handful of rules such as for haunts that's what this book primarily is. Advice, tips, and tricks for how to game master.

Alright, *panting* I tried to cover tidbits of everything, please continue. Oh, and uhh..I still think we need a book based on party rules.

And that there is your problem. There are a lot of blogs, gaming magazine articles, and other sources for advice on how to game master. Heck, the Ghostbusters RPG devoted a large portion of the GM book to advice for newbie game masters. Above and beyond listing the full rules, the GM book for most rpgs goes into details on how to run a game, how to build a campaign, and how to balance a campaign.

"I think we need a book based on party rules"... Rules for what exactly? Do you think we need a book that has rules that the players must follow beyond how you play the game? You haven't, to my knowledge, given a good reasoning for this. Do you think it needs to be rules for how to GM a party with different types of players? That's not as workable as you may think. Everyone has a different style of game mastering. Just as many people have different ideas of how to balance a campaign.

Me, I write up an initial adventure balanced around APL=1. Then I ask for everyone's character sheets. Based on how the first adventure goes, I ramp up, tone down, or otherwise adjust how I design future adventures for the group. In non D&D/Pathfinder campaigns I like to run a published intro adventure first as I go over the party's characters. If I'm running a superhero campaign, I'm not gonna run the same type of campaign for the JLA style team as I am for a group of low powered street heroes. And if some of the party have much greater capabilities then the others, I need to design adventures where both the powerhouses and street level heroes can shine.

It's just like how you don't toss a bunch of locked doors that can't be broken down and deadly traps at the group who has nobody who can pick locks and disable traps. An AP or published scenario is one thing, but if you're building each adventure yourself, you design it with the capabilities of your players in mind.

So please, explain to us what you feel this hypothetical book would contain. And not just "party rules" either. What specific topics would it cover? Also, as others mentioned... You do know that before you got a contract to write a book for a publishing company they likely would want a sample of said book. Right? When I was looking into getting some of my fiction published, I discovered that most unsolicited submissions get tossed in the trash unread.

That means you would first need to write the book you intend to submit. Or at least the first chapter of it. Then convince the publisher that your work is something they can make money with. This is where the sample chapter comes in, as well as actually contacting said publisher. Then there's the rewrites you'd need to do to satisfy the editor, possibly dozens of rewrites. And you'd need to finish each stage of your work by a deadline. There's more involved in publishing a book then just signing a contract and knocking something out.

When you set up such restrictions at the onset, the players know exactly what they're getting into.

Unless you're GMing for Pathfinder Society Organized Play, you do have a lot of control over the world setting. For instance I'm working on a homebrew campaign set on Earth thousands of years after a magic based apocalypse. In this setting teleportation is mainly something caused by deity level beings. You're not going to find a scroll of teleport because the arcane version is a ritual which takes half an hour and multiple participants. The divine version is faster, but is effectively asking your deity to teleport you. And the gods may not always agree. There's only one fast 100% way to teleport, but it again requires 5 people to pull off. It's also limited to a select group of people who are basically the chosen avatars of a group of gods/goddesses.

As the GM it is up to you to decide what is unbalancing. Do you feel that a given spell is too powerful? Then disallow it. Course, as mentioned this doesn't work for PFS organized play. But for a home campaign the GM is the final word on what's allowed. Don't want summoners, don't allow them. Think that alchemists and magus are too dang broken? DOn't let people play them.

You know your in trouble when...

You ask people to get their dice and character sheets out, and half the players ask what a dice is.

So true Kolokotroni. I personally have never really seen the Caster/Martial disparity people tout. I mean, sure casters can get really powerful at high levels. But then so are martial types if you think about it. And as a game master there's something to remember... You DO actually control what spells the player gets access to over the course of the campaign. Don't want the wizard teleporting everywhere? Then they just don't find a copy of the teleport spell. Want things like Wish and Limited Wish to be rare and valuable? Then make it so.

But yes, as I mentioned. The bar for what's needed to be effective isn't that high. The average encounter in a given adventure will be CR=APL. The 'boss' type encounters may be APL+2 or +3. But those are the fights which are suppose to be difficult. And it's been my experience that the party wipe caused by one person getting Dominated tends to happen because someone felt the need to push things as far as they can when building their character.

The guy who gleefully brags about how he has a +12 attack and deals 15-20 damage with each attack at level one is also the same guy who kills the party because he failed a will save. Not the person who does 1d8+3 damage with a +3 or +4 attack bonus at level 1.