DiceHoarder's page

More so than anything, you need to know your group.

Some groups are almost always attentive and love to be narrated to by the GM.

Others are more rambunctious and prefer saying goofy jokes and snappy comments.

Some players don't want to miss anything crucial just in case a challenge later requires it.

Another group might just want to learn about the world and not miss anything in the campaign.

Yet another group might have an entirely different reaction.

Learn what your group enjoys and what each individual wants to see from a game; it's best done with practice and keeping a keen eye towards the players. But most importantly asking yourself a few questions. What makes them happy? When do they seem the most involved during your games? What do they seem to really enjoy about your games? Find out what those things are (preferably in play) and focus on those when you narrate, your players will appreciate it. I guarantee it.

DiceHoarder wrote:

What I'm wondering is why so many people are complaining about Pathfinder's 'rulesy' nature and how modern RPGs are badwrongfun for taking aspects that they enjoyed from their older games, while posting on a modern RPG's forum and supposedly play that modern game. I have no problem with other people having different opinions about their games, however, those games still exist, tweak them to your liking or play pathfinder the way you want to; I don't see the reason to make snide offhand comments against attitudes you don't like, be it 'MMORPG terminology, optimization, having more defined rules, etc...'

I happen to prefer having a stronger rules set, I like to know that I'm playing within a certain set of rules and that everyone is on the same playing field. I've been burned too many times by GMs that basically require you to convince them for anything you get, so whoever was the better talker/manipulator got what he/she wanted. That really bugs me, I assume that I am working from a certain framework and expect the GM and players to work within that framework, if that framework is being broken I really feel like I should be told something about what to expect instead of being forced to figure things out on my own.

(I'm not accusing anyone who prefers a more open playstyle of these attitudes, simply what I've experienced from some of them.)

Okay, for the third time on this thread I'm going to say it. There is nothing wrong with enjoying a rulebook that is a. huge b. growing. c. requires 'system mastery' to play several of the available classes (although to improv something you really need to understand it well it's like an artist who doesn't learn the rules of anatomy before trying to draw the human figure or a musician who only knows how to 'air-guitar').

No one is forcing you to play, discuss, or enjoy roleplaying the way it used to be. If uncertainty about rules makes you uncomfortable no one will push you into the pool. If you are afraid of GMs who are not...

I get that several of the posters here don't have any overwhelmingly negative feelings towards a more rules based approach of RPGing. However, several posts suggest that if I want to play the game with a more RAW-centered approach that I'm doing it wrong and that it's inherently less noble than playing a more free-form way. The fact is, that I have actually played with actors with more free-form RPGs such as Fate and The Window (about as close you can get to playing an RPG without hard rules) and I still prefer the rules based approach. Even your post uses negative terms like this line.

' ever-expanding into strange permutations, lack of improv, RAW fetishization'

This seems to imply that my playstyle is 'strange', lacks creativity and takes a almost sexual obsession to the letter of the rule. I doubt that was your intent, but you are using negative phrasing and making assertions about the RAW-focused style of play that put it in a bad light. I keep seeing broad generalizations like one of the posters above me saying that optimizing is wrong (not just a different style of play, but wrong) because it creates a disparity, when I've actually seen that disparity arise more when the rules aren't followed or the game is more rules-light. That's anecdotal evidence sure, but no more so than the crap-ton of anecdotal evidence I've seen so far.

The thread may have started out as how to recapture the old D&D feel, but even on the front page are posts about how modern RPGing represents a lack of creativity or the ability to think for ourselves (one post outright stated that my generation cannot think for ourselves; applying a broad generalization that simply doesn't hold up). On the front page there was a post deriding MMOs for 'destroying the game' and implying that anyone who uses DPS in a RPG discussion is contributing to that destruction. And that post was followed up by others who also tore into Video Games and those who enjoy playing them as being entitled to being spoon-fed there fun. Those are the attitudes that I find insulting. If you want to play your game with a more 'classic' or nostalgic feel... Go ahead, I have absolutely no problem with that, just don't present it as the better way to play. Don't mix up your opinion (or mine for that matter) with assertions about what is objectively better. That's all I ask.

What I'm wondering is why so many people are complaining about Pathfinder's 'rulesy' nature and how modern RPGs are badwrongfun for taking aspects that they enjoyed from their older games, while posting on a modern RPG's forum and supposedly play that modern game. I have no problem with other people having different opinions about their games, however, those games still exist, tweak them to your liking or play pathfinder the way you want to; I don't see the reason to make snide offhand comments against attitudes you don't like, be it 'MMORPG terminology, optimization, having more defined rules, etc...'

I happen to prefer having a stronger rules set, I like to know that I'm playing within a certain set of rules and that everyone is on the same playing field. I've been burned too many times by GMs that basically require you to convince them for anything you get, so whoever was the better talker/manipulator got what he/she wanted. That really bugs me, I assume that I am working from a certain framework and expect the GM and players to work within that framework, if that framework is being broken I really feel like I should be told something about what to expect instead of being forced to figure things out on my own.

(I'm not accusing anyone who prefers a more open playstyle of these attitudes, simply what I've experienced from some of them.)

To be about the same deal as 3.0 -> 3.5

Basically, completely compatible with all products made with the previous edition and assumes that all available material is legal for play. But fixing some of the more problematic issues and making the changes necessary to make the game prosper at least as long as 3.X has.

I find it confusing that one of the most common responses to the argument that rogue's suck is 'but they can roll lots of dice when they get sneak attack'. And how do you typically get sneak attack? Either charging as a Scout or walking up into a flank. Both options require your d8 HD, low armor, MAD squishy glass cannon to walk up to the stone giant (having to pray that his tumble is good enough to beat the giant's CMD), make a single sneak attack and desperately hope not to get clobbered (the scout has the added benefit of quite possibly being the only target next to the giant). Why is this proof of the Rogue's combat ability again? I'm legitimately confused, at least fighters get the extra AC armor provides, high hit points and can be more focused on their physical abilities.

magnuskn wrote:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

magnuskn wrote:

And this is just arbitrary. Really, it is.

Call it what you want. Be kind of disappointed. Focus on one page you don't like out of the entire book. That's your choice.

Who said that I dislike the rest of the book, which is what you are trying to imply here?

I think he's implying the opposite. Maybe you dont like this one page, but why focus on that if the rest of the book is good?

Because something good could be even better without the bad? I'd quote the glurge about the brownie and a little bit of disgusting material, but that'd be cliche. So I'll just say this, I believe that you should strive to make every bit of your work the most excellent you can. I'm not saying to throw out the book because something's not good in it, but fix it. Explain it better. Strive to be even better than you are, don't be content with just good. While I doubt that anyone follows that entirely, (I certainly don't) the best and the elite should. And I hope that paizo (like all of us should) strives to be the very best.