Hobgoblin Battle Priest

Duskrunner1's page

RPG Superstar 6 Season Star Voter. Organized Play Member. 164 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 164 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

They look nice, but when I go to paint them all of the detail goes away and basically looks just like one of the pre painted ones that they release. It might be different if I had my eyesight at 20, but at this point I am just going to stick with the metal reaper figs.

Sovereign Court

CrystalSeas wrote:
I use Roll20 for that for one group I GM.

I'm not exactly looking for a virtual tabletop to play. Thanks anyways. Appreciate it.

Guess it will just have to be a condition to join the group that any players at the table must have Facebook in order to join the group. Also realized that Meetup would accomplish this, but I dont want to shell out a monthly payment.

Sovereign Court

Hi Everyone,

Was curious as to what gaming groups use to help store files, calendar events, do posting, etc. I am currently using Facebook Groups to be able to do this, but over time there seems to be more and more resistance to individuals wanting to have it be Facebook based at all.

I have found using the group to be a convenient way of keeping the players up to date with game day scheduling and anything that I need to show or tell them, and vise versa.

Thanks much for your input.

Sovereign Court

Hi All,

So I have been looking around to see what I can dig up in regards to the masks that the Mordent Spire Elves wear. Why do they wear them? I am thinking that it is to cause intimidation, but then you go and throw in the whole swimming thing that they have going on and I just dont see it. When they go off the Spire are they still wearing it? When they mix in with the general population do they still wear it? Also what does it look like? I keep picturing high elves walking about with tiki masks. Thoughts on this?

Thanks

Sovereign Court

And just forgot an arcane class that should do well...an Alchemist. You should be able to find various things to help complement being an Alchemist, especially since the Ironfangs do employ them.

Sovereign Court

Yeah I understand. There is actually a reason why most DMs dont allow for evil characters, as they tend to not bind the party into a cohesive force and can create issues between players. Of course it is knowing your players first and knowing if they can handle something like that.

I am currently running this AP as well so just so you know arcane classes are not required.

A sorcerer would do well. However for the other types you would need to be a very strong player in the way of the arcane classes as there is a lack of resources to draw upon.

If I was playing this AP with the group composition that you have mentioned I would be leaning into a caster Druid. Also if you have not read the Player's Guide for this AP I would recommend doing so as the tips they provide tend to lead into successful characters. Hope that helps.

Sovereign Court

Hi Chris,

Short answer... No

Long Answer, it isnt a bad idea shoring up that leg in the arcane. As you mentioned there will be items that only someone who knows arcane can use. With your party make up currently, the rogue could use magic device for some of the items. The main thing however is playing what you want to play.

Sovereign Court

Dont forget that earth elementals have tremorsense. So unless those PCs are flying that elemental will know that they are there, if they are within range.

Sovereign Court

Hello Everyone,

Has anyone use all of the following variant rules in their campaign? I am planning on mixing things up a bit to get away from the standard magic/combat system that has been around for the last 20 years (in various incarnations). I am looking for constructive feedback about things you liked/didn't like, and any potential downfalls.

  • Words of Power
  • DR Armor
  • Called Shots
  • Piecemeal Armor
  • Wounds & Vigor

Thank you for your time.

Sovereign Court

Hello Everyone,

I have a player who has approached me wanting to use a Lesser Rod of Empowerment to charge up a Wand of Fireballs. Per wand creation rules this isn't feasible, but it did get me wondering about certain things. Let's say that the level requirement for wand creation was lifted. Could a Lesser Rod of Empowerment (or any of the meta-magic rods) be used in conjunction with spells needed to be cast for item creation in order to have a greater effect (wands and scrolls for example)? Or are the various rods S.O.L. when it comes to item creation?

This is my train of thought currently. There are two options available to the player. The first is that if they have the Item Creation Feat, and the Meta-Magic Feat that they can in effect fill a wand with the Meta-Magic effect (pending wand creation rules).

The second idea was to enhance the Meta-Magic Rod with the spell to be augmented, allowing the rod the capability to enhance whatever spell is stored in the rod or the spell being cast, while maintaining the daily limitations. A side thought was to allow the wand creation with the use of the Lesser Meta Magic rod, but grant the ability only on the spell in the wand itself.

Thoughts?

Sovereign Court

Thanks all. I was curious to see how many are actually at the 4-5 group size. It does sound like on average the group size rests at 6. I do agree I prefer smaller groups as well (running 8, with an off and on player currently). it can get chaotic, but I make sure that everything runs fine.

Sovereign Court

Had a random thought pop into my head while at work today in what is the average size for most adventuring parties. What got that thought was the changes that I need to do to for an AP built for four and converting it for 6+. Reading various posts in the AP threads it sounds like the majority of groups have about 6 Pcs in any given adventure.

So the question becomes from your experience what is the average party size (PCs only)? I am thinking that it is 6 (even though I have read 5 on a different site).

Sovereign Court

I did something close to this with on of the PCs a few months ago.

Backstory: The player who was playing basically bowed out of my game and wasnt planning on returning due to life issues (she did eventually came back to the group). Her character was an integral part of the story (at that time) due to her being the Duchess of their new kingdom (Kingmaker AP). I did have grand designs for her, but needed the player about to make various decisions.

Campaign Story: The PC in question basically became an NPC. She seduced one of the PCs into marriage, and all was good for a while in game. The pcs went out adventuring when they met up with a small stronghold of Fey. Only a couple of PCs met the actual leader, and barely made it out alive. The rest of the Fey however were dealt with by the Pcs.

Two Fey survived and tracked the PCs down to their kingdom. One of them was able to pass off as elven, and spent about a month getting info on the PCs, where they learned that the PCs were the nobles of this country, and the wife (the stated PC turned NPC) was the Duchess. Since the "elven" Fey had the items to pass off as royalty she presented herself to the very very vain Duchess as a handmaiden from the elven nation (Kyronin I believe), and pledged her services to the Duchess as a handmaiden, as a show of friendship. The Duchess immediately accepted the Fey's service (she failed her Sense Motive: still a npc). Over a week the Fey used a poison to muddle the Duchess mind.

Upon the return of the PCs to their kingdom, the Fey launched their assassination on the Duchess. I had informed the PCs that whenever they return the gate guard blow their horns to signify the Duke of the Realm has returned. The PCs went about some business when the castle alarm bells went off with commotion. The PCs eventually heard that the Duchess was dead and rushed to the bed chambers to she the "Elven" Fey lady holding the slit throat of the Duchess, and dropping her body to the ground. Battle occurred shortly after. The PCs managed to defeat the Fey, but one got away...

Hopefully this will help. You can still place a dramatic event in and have the overall results that you desire, while giving the PCs actions and a focal point. If you are wanting this to be played out the only way I can recommend doing so would be to have an overtly powerful nemesis that you know the PCs cannot handle, but is not interested in the PCs deaths...at this time.

Sovereign Court

Thank you Vincent. I hope that what you just wrote is agreeable to all.

I do believe that the main focus of this conversation evolved into what is now pg 16, and devolved into GM vs one player. I do believe that restrictions can make a campaign world a richer place. If not the Dragonlance and Dark Sun settings wouldn't be popular (each does not have paladins when originally created). My hang up is with some races or third party source material that is brought in by a player that allows that player to powergame. I personally like to keep things simple and manageable, thus originally why I wanted to have the CRB only allowed. No one in my group asked if they could be something else from either the APG or UM. I decided to bring those in because there was certain aspect I enjoy out of each book. However if a new player came at me with a book that I wasn't using and demanded that I allowed him to powergame that is when I would tell him to hit the road (I get enough demanding at work, I dont need it in a leisure activity). Granted that has not happened, but I think that is the type of situation that a good many think would/can occur.

Sovereign Court

Very interesting Vincent and a good read on campaign theory. I would have to say that what I am currently running is a mix between Simulationist/Narrativist. I wouldn't say in the example posed that Simulationst has to be the exact opposite of Narrativist. Case in point. I am currently running the Kingmaker AP. Each player has selected two traits to assist in fleshing out their backstory. As such each player has given me a story thread for me to work with, so that as the world and events transpire around them (i.e. Kingmaker). They do have "spotlight" situations however that come into play, revolving around that player (and their choices).Hope this makes sense.

Overall the funniest thing that I find is Paizo itself is a culprit of creating their precious little flower box as you coined, as well as, Wizards of the Coast, and even TSR. Each has created world(s), and have modified rules from the previous incarnation (some good, some not so good; anyone remember when an elf could only be a wizard?). The only thing is we the consumer never see the ideas they originally have, and decided not to release, as those never get published.

Anyway the only thing that matters is how the individual gaming groups that we each belong to view this, and how they react accordingly.

Sovereign Court

John Kretzer wrote:

Um...no one on that the players should have some power have ever say that the GM should creat a entire campaign setting to accomandate that one guy.

It was straw man arguement put up by your side.

Hey if you guys want to argue about it...I guess we could start a new thread title..."Hey guys let argue against each other by setting up easy straw man so we can smash them".

But to point out that can ever happen in my democracey group...as all the players and I vote...so that player will be disappointed if expects a game where he is the superstar.

See...personaly such players are jerks...I kinmda like my way of dealing with them. What is worst for a jerk being told my one guy No!"...or being told by the entire group?

First off I am on no one's side but my own.

It was a genuine question. It wasn't meant to bait or anything like that. If a GM running a world that bans humans and warriors, and the group itself as no issue with it other than one person, who has this concept around a human/warrior would it be to much for that player to wait for the GM to think up something without destroying the original concept that they had in mind? While letting the original campaign play itself out?

Sovereign Court

He Man...he has the power.

Now you are envisioning him saying so.

Sovereign Court

Scott Betts wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
SnowHeart wrote:
*grumbles* You malcontents and "entitled" players have made me reconsider a ban on gunslingers, ninjas and samurai. Why? Because I trust my good-for-nothing players to help me integrate their silly little "concepts" into the campaign. Curses! Curses says I! (I still think setting restrictions with new players, until that trust builds, is not unreasonable, but with an established table and mutual trust and respect... well, damn if some compromise ain't in order.)

Including perhaps compromise by the player to not HAVE to have that concept and realize the is possibly or even probably a good reason not to have it?

I don't want to speak for him, but it sounds like he already had a pretty solid grasp on that part.

And you? Do you think that player has any obligation to at least try to abide by the gms campaign restrictions?

I think that players have an obligation (as much as one can when we're talking about a board game) to respect the GM's final decision on the matter. And I think that any player who develops a character concept that might clash with the GM's setting has an obligation to be willing to work with the GM to make it work, or to suggest ways that the GM might find room in the setting for the character concept.

Is it reasonable then for a GM to disallow that concept for the current gaming setting, but create a different setting that does allow for it at and latter date and time?

Sovereign Court

iLaifire wrote:
Duskrunner1 wrote:
This conversation makes me wonder about campaign worlds that have limitation imposed on them, and if players feel that they should have what they want due to it being in any official source book. The example I am using is the Dark Sun world (not the 4e version as I do not know what changes have taken place).

I'm going to quickly step aside to make a minorly related comment.

** spoiler omitted **

On the topic of campaign settings with restrictions, in general I am fine with them. My problem isn't so much the restrictions as it is the way those restrictions are handled I guess. Some examples I'm fine with are:
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **...

Thank you for addressing this iLaifire. I am hoping that with discussing this aspect it might clear up some conceptions that people are auto forming. I believe that for the most part we are all arguing the same thing.

For your first point I agree with you. When the session is a short lived one (conventions and such) the player normally doesn’t have a lot of investment into that character. The other aspect with that is when you are going to play a long campaign. You of course want to know what your options are and to be able to play them.

That is why I decided to use the Dark Sun world as an example. Paladins are non-existent there. It is part of the restriction that the designers placed on that world. Going into it you know that restriction. Bringing a paladin into that environment ( in this example) changes everything about that particular environment.
The majority of arguments that I have been reading seems to be GM vs. one PC. The overall aspect however has been mentioned at times is in regards to the group itself. The GM does need to think of the group overall.

So let us look at your next statement. I tell you about the Dark Sun world etc. and you are not interested due to there not being any paladins, as you are wanting to play one. However the rest of the group really wants to play Dark Sun in the way that it is laid out. Options are discussed with the group, but it breaks down that the group really wants Dark Sun What then? At this point I feel the option now lies with you to either join in with everyone, or find something else to do. The flip side also holds true. The GM really wants to run Dark Sun, but the group doesn’t (with maybe a player or two somewhat interested). The GM then needs to adjust to find what people want to play. At their point it is their option to either run that game (or play in it with some else picking the reins up), or find something else to do. I am hoping that we can all agree on this.

The last point you bring up also rings true. I as a GM need to take the overall group into account. If I have created a world that is a certain way with those players agreeing to those terms, and then much later invite a player who knows about those terms, but feels that regardless they should play whatever it has the potential to destroy cohesion, and the work of the other players.

As some have stated there does need to be a certain level of flexibility and adaptability on everyone’s parts. There are times when a GM shouldn’t allow certain things in order to safeguard various aspects of the game. In regards to settings (both homebrew and published), there are certain things that could place restrictions. Now to the opinion piece, with Golarion anything goes. I might not like certain classes as I for myself don’t feel that they fit in to a story that I might be running, but I wouldn’t outright ban them either (gunslinger, ninja, samurai). As the designer of a world I feel it is a different case. The environment might be set a certain way to purposely exclude various things. These exceptions should be made up front, but not necessarily need to be revealed as to why as they could place a part in the overall storyline (i.e dwarven race no longer about). If the group doesn’t want to play with those limitations that is perfectly fine. The creator can then decide what they want to do next, etc.

What I don’t do is outright ban something that has been allowed, and then all of a sudden it is not. I might make alterations to whatever to address whatever issue that I have. Wonder if anyone would take exception if all of a sudden humans were banned, or fighters.

Sovereign Court

If there is a gaming store nearby you might want to check to see if there are nights when the Pathfinder Society and 4e D&D (I know there is a name for the 4e version of Pathfinder Society; was Living Greyhawk/Forgotten Realms in times past) that your group can playtest in. That way your group can get an overall feel with each system and then decide where to go. You can also talk with the local in depth, which might assist you in your considerations.

Sovereign Court

Vod Canockers wrote:
kmal2t wrote:

If I wasn't lazy atm I'm sure I could pull out many examples of this...

but look at how ANY system describes what an RPG is. Do any of them describe the relationship between the DM and the Players as equal? The very definition of an RPG and what it is shows that the relationship is NOT equal. By the description of always being a ref of the game he is obviously not equal. If an NFL ref and the players were equal then obviously you'd never come to a decision on whether it was holding or not...that's why the ref is the final decider...except he isn't only the ref. He's the ref, the commissioner, the guy who makes the field and designs rules and brings in other players to play against you.

The fact is the DM/Player relationship is not equal and I would think most players would come into the game realizing that they concede some control of the game to the GM in order to have order because its his world and hes figuring out how to make it work so its challenging and he can still control it so it isn't chaos. He should take ideas into consideration as a fellow participant, but he is the final yay or nay on things until he gets so absurd that the players as a majority no longer want him running the game anymore. It usually would take something pretty extreme for this to happen.

Seriously what's next?

DM: There is a giant troll that walks through the forest towards you
Player: No there isn't. You're being a tyrant and dictating the game too much and being a control freak. I say it's a horse.
Player 2: Actually I say its a frog
Player 3: No I say its a bunny
Player: Ok are we all agreed then? Now its a bunny.

As long as it is this bunny.

You sure it isn't this bunny?

Sovereign Court

Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Mechalibur wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:


Well, I think the winning argument is "It's a shared gaming experience and no one person should be dictating to others. Important decisions should be shared in advance and discussed as a group and the GM's primary role is to direct the story and be the referee during game play."
Well, people tend to think their own arguments are the winning ones. That's why we get so many people who post /thread in threads that mysteriously continue afterward.

Well, sure... but there is more than one way of "winning".

I think my argument "wins" not because it's going to convince the folks here on the boards that they are wrong, but because my style of play tends to avoid the whole "entitled player" or "tyrant GM" issue entirely, so we don't tend to even have the problem behaviors being described at my table.

That's how I define "winning".

What? No tiger blood?

Sovereign Court

This conversation makes me wonder about campaign worlds that have limitation imposed on them, and if players feel that they should have what they want due to it being in any official source book. The example I am using is the Dark Sun world (not the 4e version as I do not know what changes have taken place).

As it was written when it came out the world (Athas if I remember correctly) was broken off from the rest of the "known" cosmos and was basically on its own. There were no gods, only elemental powers. There were limitations that were imposed on the setting in both items, classes, races etc., and the environmental was overtly hostile. Metal and water was scarce, and guns were non-existent. Dragons basically decimated the environment due to life force being what powered arcane spells. There are all these restrictions that are being places on the players due to what the flavor of that world is. There were however new options put into place.

At that point should the GM override what the designers originally have created in order for one individual out of a group of people to get something that doesn't fit storywise in the world? Even though the other players in the group want these restrictions in place as they was to experience that world as is.

Curious to see thoughts on this.

Sovereign Court

TOZ wrote:
Once you start arguing, you have already lost.

(( Looks at religion, looks at government. ))

Indeed

Sovereign Court

Food again? We as gamers must be a hungry people.

Sovereign Court

Scott Betts wrote:
Duskrunner1 wrote:
That individual can go to any GM running Pathfinder (including Scott) and would not be happy, because they want to play Warhammer Fantasy.

I run 4e, so you never know. But if he was absolutely insistent upon playing Warhammer Fantasy, you're right: he'd probably still be unhappy. That said, again, I challenge the idea that something as trivial to the overall experience as the game's mechanics can actually take you from "Yaaaaay this game is awesome!" to "Boooooo this game sucks!" I think that, at worst, you'd probably be slightly less satisfied with your game experience (assuming you didn't let yourself get hung up on something; that's important).

For instance, I prefer 4e's mechanics, and frankly it's a bit grating to go back to a system based on d20 (I loved it back in the day, but what I've been exposed to since then is more appealing to me). That certainly didn't stop me from getting in a couple Pathfinder organized play games at PAX last year. Or from leaping at the chance to play in a friend's Pathfinder Council of Thieves game.

Getting hung up on the little stuff is a recipe for an unhappy life.

I agree with you on this. However each person enjoys things differently, and how they express that displeasure also is different from person to person.

Definitely agree with the last line you wrote.

Sovereign Court

iLaifire wrote:
Duskrunner1 wrote:

No I am interested in telling a story. I offer and present that story and set the boundaries. If someone takes issue with the boundaries I am willing to hear them out and present their argument. If afterwards their argument doesn't make sense then of course I will not allow it.

I have made exceptions to allow things in, against my better judgment, and in turn from my experience it destroyed the overall story and led to nobody having fun with the exception of the one who wanted special favors. On the other hand letting some things in had created a better overall story.

Two questions, when you decided what story you were going to tell, did you ask what story the players wanted to play in? After you made those exceptions, did you adjust your story to help fit in the changes or did you stick to the original story exactly?

If you didn't do either of those things, I think the blame lies mostly on you for the games not being enjoyable. Why is it ok for a DM to run a type of game without finding out if that is the game their players want, but not ok for a player to run a character without finding out if that is a type of character the DM wants? And why is a player who only wants to play one type of character a bad player, but a DM who only wants to run one type of game not a bad DM?

The first question. No I did not. I had available to myself at the time the CRB, Bestiary 1, and the first two Kingmaker Paths. I invited people I knew if they wanted to play, and gave them the run down of what the story was. Each individual wanted to play. Since I only had the CRB those were the classes to choose from. Over time I purchased the APG and Ult. Magic and worked into the storyline the reason why there were new classes. The players were given an option to rework their PCs as they saw fit. The only thing they could not change was abilities, hp, and race. The requests the PCs have made have been attempting to acquire new spells/items. I have made the items/spells in the two books to be rare and hard to acquire as they are new. However with new levels any class that gets additional spells can choose from those books. The PCs have also throw monkey-wrenches into the overall story that I have had to incorporate. As such each PC has their own separate story thread to the main one (which is pushing the Kingmaker story into the background). The group is also asking for me to create an adventure and abandon Golarion. At this point no one else as purchased a single book.

Due to how things have played out it attracted other players (Kingmaker currently has nine pcs). I have a waiting list of people wanting in, so I decided to offer those on the waiting list a separate campaign, with the selection of whatever AP they wanted to play. The selection was Carrion Crown. That is where the orc barbarian came in as ork was a optional race in the player's guide. The player of the orc got a hold of the Orks race book and read up on them and orc society and brilliantly played the orc. However the start of that AP is none of the PCs know each other and that is where the problem lies. The other was the play style of the group. Even though they wanted Carrion Crown they didn't want the research/mystery aspect of it. As such after three sessions that campaign was nixed and Rise of the Runelords is now being played.

In each at the end of a major story point I ask the players how things are for them gamewise. I have had some drop game. The reasons with the exception of one wasnt due to how I was running things (move away, work hours change, etc). One of them even came back. The one that did drop was due to the mechanics of Pathfinder itself. That individual can go to any GM running Pathfinder (including Scott) and would not be happy, because they want to play Warhammer Fantasy.

I have been on both sides of the screen, and have gone looking for groups to game with. If the GM's style isnt to my liking I just go to a different group. That is the choice that a player has, to become a part of that world or not. I have joined groups where any humanoid race is playable, and where magic wasnt properly understood as to how it functions. Have even been in a Pathfinder Society group where the magic effect that as I understand it (from multiple GMs) was different than the one that I cast per Gm rule. This isnt saying that the GMs were bad, or that I as a player was bad. It is just that the world as it was presented to me wasnt to my liking. In your case if you are experiencing a GM that is saying no to a particular class I dont see why asking them the reason is out of line. They might have an actual reason for it beyond "Cause I say so". If the answer isnt to your liking then you have the choice to do something differently in that world setting, or go elsewhere that is more to your liking. It is the same as going to McDonald's and wanting Taco Bell.

Sovereign Court

wraithstrike wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Duskrunner1 wrote:
No, you are making an assumption. The restrictions I "impose" are discussed prior with PCs. I run a very heavy Gaelic/fey style campaign, and as such a gunslinger/ninja/samurai doesn't fit or make sense.

In your head.

And yet I can throw countless, compelling fish-out-of-water stories where an outsider with no real place in the setting makes for a very interesting story thread.

I just don't think you're trying hard enough.

And who are you to judge him or his judgment over the game he GMs?

This is one reason players get hit with the entitlement label - continually arguing and never taking that GM no for answer. Duskrunner1 has giving you his rationale yet you utterly refuse to accept it.

It seems as though Duskrunner has decided in advance that he just won't allow X no matter what the player says. That is different from he does not think they will fit, but he will try to make reason to fit them in if he can.

However without access to his gameworld I that is just an assumption. Scott is judging him, by the way. He is doubting his effort to help the player. I see nothing wrong with doubting someone, until they give a good reason to not doubt them.

Wraith, I am currently running a Kingmaker campaign. I dont have any restrictions as we are in the base world. As stated, I am not fond of firearms in this setting, but have not expressed it to my players, nor have banned any classes. Right now the rules that I do have in place is no talking combat strategy in depth during combat. The other rules are more about clarifications on how I handle magic, etc.

I have ran a homebrew where monks were not around much as there simply wasn't an oriental region. I do see the monk class based off of the Shao Lin movies of the 60s more than the Western Culture version,as do my players. In my opinion there are classes that fit and those that simply dont, based on how the world and cultures of the regions are.

The main point of this game is simply to have fun. The GM can decided to go homebrew or go default world. There might be things that they enjoy or not. I have my characters have an alignment, another might throw the alignment system out entirely. Each GM has a different style to their game, and as such the player can decide if he wants to be a part of it or not. If he can't find what he/she is looking for then they can run their game the way that they see fit. If they want all options available to them then I recommend the Pathfinder Society...oh wait...they impose restrictions as well (granted not on classes). Nix that idea.

Sovereign Court

Scott....enjoy your game.

Sovereign Court

Scott Betts wrote:
Duskrunner1 wrote:
No, you are making an assumption. The restrictions I "impose" are discussed prior with PCs. I run a very heavy Gaelic/fey style campaign, and as such a gunslinger/ninja/samurai doesn't fit or make sense.

In your head.

And yet I can throw countless, compelling fish-out-of-water stories where an outsider with no real place in the setting makes for a very interesting story thread.

I just don't think you're trying hard enough.

Wow... arrogant much? I don't think you are paying attention, you might want to read some of the previous posts that I have left.

I do listen to my Pcs. None of my playing group have wanted to play gunslinger/ninja/samurai. I have not told them my dislike for the classes for the current setting. As stated above STORY is more important and a reason for things to fit. Guess what? It doesn't fit. You can try all day to get a cow in a thong, it just doesnt work. AS GM I don't have to go out of my way to make some thing work. If the PC wants to develop the concept on their own and can justify it in a logical manner then yes, it would be entered into the game world.

Sovereign Court

Scott Betts wrote:
Duskrunner1 wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Duskrunner1 wrote:
I am thinking about two-three years running the same story.
Oh, well then sure.
Reason why I asked is during that time have you experienced one of your PCs question or asked for something that you know would break the overall story?
I have literally never encountered a situation where a player has said, "Hey, I saw this option and thought it was cool, could I use it?" and found myself in a position where there was no way to accommodate that option without ruining the setting or the game.

I have. One of my players wanted to be an orc barbarian with an evil nature. It was against my better judgement. The end result of this choice was the entire party (with the exception of the orc player) not having fun and wanting to quit the campaign. The player did an excellent job of being an orc barbarian, but is was disruptive.

Sovereign Court

Scott Betts wrote:
Duskrunner1 wrote:
I am thinking about two-three years running the same story.
Oh, well then sure.

Reason why I asked is during that time have you experienced one of your PCs question or asked for something that you know would break the overall story?

Sovereign Court

Scott Betts wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:


I'm sure you did. I'm also sure that your exposure to a social dynamic in which the DM imposed ridiculous character creation restrictions has contributed to you viewing this sort of thing as totally okay and normal.
Or it could be that those DM impositions are perfectly OK and normal.

Sure! Maybe they are!

But I was simply pointing out that his attitude towards DMs imposing arbitrary restrictions on their players is, at least in part, due to the fact that he had lots of arbitrary restrictions placed on his own characters as he was learning the game from a role-model.

No, you are making an assumption. The restrictions I "impose" are discussed prior with PCs. I run a very heavy Gaelic/fey style campaign, and as such a gunslinger/ninja/samurai doesn't fit or make sense.

Also at the time I had a very fair understanding of the game, and had experienced other GMs who were not as structured and didn't breathe life into their game, but they also allowed anything to be played.

This goes back to what has been stated. The game is basically what you are trying to make of it. I want a game that falls along the lines of Babylon 5 and not a Monty Python movie. For myself it is about story and things making sense. As stated above I am not fond of the gunslinger, but i would allow that class in certain settings because it can work and fit into the overall story.

Sovereign Court

Scott Betts wrote:


Quote:
I'm sure you did. I'm also sure that your exposure to a social dynamic in[ which the DM imposed ridiculous character creation restrictions has contributed to you viewing this sort of thing as totally okay and normal.

The paladin rule was imposed by TSR as the campaign world was based in Dragonlance. The rest of the creation process as a very interesting dynamic that I was willing to try. His race table actually made sense because all of the races of that world (exception being kender and humans) tend to stay at small localized areas due to what occured in the history of the place.

It was my choice to go to a different DM, however I had heard good things about his guy and am happy that I did. Over time that character creation process was discarded. However what I did learn about it was that when you became a race of something that really wasn't out and about in the world it became something special as opposed to commonplace.

Quote:
That depends on how long you consider a "long standing campaign."

I am thinking about two-three years running the same story.

Sovereign Court

Scott Betts wrote:


EDIT: I also think this ties into the larger issues of certain (and too many) gamers acting like they can't have fun unless everything is exactly the way they want it. Not the right system? Won't have any fun. Not the right character creation guidelines? Won't have any fun. The DM runs his game too "anime"? Won't have any fun.

You have to be insanely invested for any of that to be true. Any reasonable person might have less fun, but all else held equal he'll probably still enjoy himself. If you're the sort of person who really won't have any fun in one of the above situations, please take a step back and examine why those things are so important to you. Whether as a player, or as a DM.

I agree with you on this. Over a few months ago I had a player who used to run a Warhammer Fantasy game. He kept complaining that the Pathfinder ruleset was a bad and broken system (he wanted a higher AC to his back for wearing a shield for example). I had to explain that the overall AC takes everything into account, etc. He constantly interrupted the game to complain about "the broken ruleset" when he really wanted to play was a different game.

The overall point as to why we play the game is to have fun. Sometimes trying something different is good.

Sovereign Court

Scott Betts wrote:
Anguish wrote:

Know what's depressing?

15 people marked this as a favorite.

Those people are depressing. Every single one of them.

Damn right. And they need to take a serious look at why they GM, and their relationship with their players.

Yes, I "create" the world. Yes, I invest hours of my time into planning the game. Yes, it's my house that they come to to play.

Does this make me better than them? Does this entitle me to rule with an iron fist? Of course it doesn't. I do the things I do because I enjoy them. I enjoy pouring hours into creating exciting encounters. I enjoy watching my players enjoy themselves.

I reject the idea that GMs are justified in their awful attitudes but players are somehow overly-entitled when they want a say.

You want to know the real reason why players get the short end of the stick when it comes to discussing who is entitled?

It's because the people participating in the discussion are overwhelmingly GMs with seemingly no ability to empathize with the position of a player at their own table.

Sorry Scott, but I have to disagree with you on that last line.

I have sat on both sides of the screen, and until the last couple of years have been a player. The ruleset that my first good DM imposed was that you dont pick your family. You rolled your ability scores and they were locked into the first stat, rinse, repeat until you were done. Then if you wanted to be a race other than human you rolled percentile. Guess what? Humans had the largest chance of being and the range for them was right in the middle. Paladins were not allowed at all (this was back in 1st and 2nd ed).

Guess what? I had fun anyways. Now a question that I pose to you. Have you ever ran a long standing campaign?

Sovereign Court

NobodysHome wrote:
The black raven wrote:

It seems that "entitled" has become synonymous with "player disagreeing with the GM".

Note that how you disagree (respectfully or not) and the reason why you disagree are not taken into account.

In other words, Good good GM. Bad bad player.

I really think you and I are reading completely different threads.

GM: "I have prepared a world for you. There are no firearms, and hence no gunslingers."
Player: "I absolutely MUST play a gunslinger, because no other class works for me."

Is this equally the fault of the GM and the player in your eyes? Does it matter whether or not the GM is willing to discuss his/her reasoning for disallowing firearms and gunslingers?

Honest question. I will say nothing more, because I'm very interested in the response.

IMO the gunslinger class is banned in my campaign if I am running a certain style of campaign. Normally I abhor firearms in a fantasy setting, but I needed to take a step back with that Hansel and Gretel movie that took place. Upon conclusion I realized that it does fit in certain settings (Carrion Crown it fits perfectly). If you are wanting the Grimm Fairy Tale type of world it fits. If you want a fantasy based steampunk world it fits. If you are playing in a world that is bronze age, it doesnt fit.

I am also not a fan of the monk/ninja/samurai classes. The campaign I am running now it really doesnt fit as there is no setting for those to come from (monks are in however). With Jade Regent I took a reverse stance when the group wanted me to run that.

That being said taking the basic class and switching out the weapon for a crossbow and running with it as an archtype in a dark age / mythical setting can fit.

Sovereign Court

Scott Betts wrote:
Duskrunner1 wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Duskrunner1 wrote:
Here is the thing that a lot of people fail to understand. Everything besides the Core Rulebook and Bestiary 1 is optional.
And you fail to understand that everything including the Core Rulebook and Bestiary is optional.
You are right. It is my option to run at game with the rule set as I see fit. It is the player's option to decide to play in it. If they don't like it then it is also their option to find one to their liking.

Right. Both parties can reject the other. So why does this justify you imposing your will on the players?

Because it's easy to find new players, and it's hard to find a new GM.

That's it.

That's the entire issue.

If they want a game that suits their desires, they have to leave your game and find someone else willing to serve as GM running that game. And, to boot, the people who are willing to be GMs are probably going to have the same suck-it-up-or-leave attitude that you do.

If you don't like your player, though, he's gone. All you have to do is find some other chump with less of a spine to fill his spot.

It's an asymmetrical relationship that shouldn't be asymmetrical but unfortunately that's how it works right now. And instead of trying to correct that, you're only interested in perpetuating it.

No I am interested in telling a story. I offer and present that story and set the boundaries. If someone takes issue with the boundaries I am willing to hear them out and present their argument. If afterwards their argument doesn't make sense then of course I will not allow it.

I have made exceptions to allow things in, against my better judgment, and in turn from my experience it destroyed the overall story and led to nobody having fun with the exception of the one who wanted special favors. On the other hand letting some things in had created a better overall story.

The game requires someone to set the guidelines. Otherwise you might as well play make-believe in the sandbox outside (or 4th ed.)

Sovereign Court

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Duskrunner1 wrote:
If they don't like it then it is also their option to find one to their liking.
Indeed, even if that one is the current one minus the current GM.

I agree. That then saves the GM's time from becoming wasted effort.

Sovereign Court

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Duskrunner1 wrote:
Here is the thing that a lot of people fail to understand. Everything besides the Core Rulebook and Bestiary 1 is optional.
And you fail to understand that everything including the Core Rulebook and Bestiary is optional.

You are right. It is my option to run at game with the rule set as I see fit. It is the player's option to decide to play in it. If they don't like it then it is also their option to find one to their liking.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Here is the thing that a lot of people fail to understand. Everything besides the Core Rulebook and Bestiary 1 is optional.

I have had players try to strong arm me for something. If they want something that I disallow there better be a good reason why it is there. I have had other players complain that the overall ruleset is broken ( player was a warhammer fantasy player) and wanted me to incorporate that ruleset instead. The bottom line is the GM sets the overall rules. The players get to decide if they want to take place in that story or not. If they don't want to there is nothing stopping them to playing somewhere else that does fit into the playstyle and rules that they like.

The main reason why I GM is to present a compelling story. If there are things that I see as not fitting I will not allow it. It doesnt mean that I am not willing to hear arguments, but at the same time a if a player comes at me wanting to play a character with a born lycanthope condition that is a half dragon celestial paladin is simply going to get a resounding NO. Simply put I dont run that kind of game, and that player should look elsewhere.

Sovereign Court

AD,

Here are my two cents to throw into the mix. It is your world. It sounds like you inform others prior to the first die roll of things that are allowed and things that are not. Right there should be the end of the story.

The books are simply guidelines. The campaign that I am currently running I only allowed the Core Book at first. What experience has taught me that the more choices you offer people the less they want to stay with basics. Looks at 4e for example. When I hear about pixie paladins or some weird ass race/class combo I cringe. Isn't there like 4 books now on various races/classes for that world? The other reason is it is rare that modules include stuff from other "main" source material. Even though I have come across classes that are in the Aps I really have not seen the newer spells/feats/magic items go into those. That now means more work on my part to re-flesh everything, and if I am doing that I am then back at square one. I did decide later to add the APG and Ultimate Magic, after looking at them, but I agree with you about the gun thing. I am also against ninjas and samurai as I feel that those classes are better suited for an orient style environment (starting to think about that with monks as well). I also only allow the races from the Core, unless there is a damn good reason to be something else (just opened kobold as a race due to the party's actions).

The point is that not all worlds are exactly the same. Thus not everything is available (i.e. paladins in Dragonlance). As a DM you get to choose the ruleset, world, and the stories that take place in it. As a player they get to choose if they want to experience it.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Lol. Coming back as that which you hate. Funny. Reminds me of a certain kobold.

Sovereign Court

Orthos wrote:
I'll probably slip it into Hargulka's lair somewhere. Have it be his depository for minions who displease him. >=)

HA!! To bad there isnt a "like" button that could go with this.

Sovereign Court

It is a pretty nasty trap. Good news is it is easy to move into any other cave....or nice dwelling. I might actually use it again as it had my party all freaking out. Almost got the king and magister with it with their attempts to save the ranger. (evil grin)

Sovereign Court

Name: Eventine
Race: Elf
Classes/levels: Ranger 5/ Wizard 1
Adventure: Rivers Run Red
Location: Owlbear Cave
Catalyst: Had a "Mis-Step"
The Gory Details:

Spoiler:
After the party defeated the owlbear in V6 they decided to explore the tunnel to the south (V4 area). They had cleared the cave out, and had thought that all threats were nullified. Eventine however decided to check out the tunnel to confirm that nothing was in it. He decided to sneak in just in case something was taking residence in the tunnel. Relying on his low light vision to see an threat from the light of the party behind him he ventured forth. However he failed to look at the weakling floor, and wasn't able to avoid the yawning pit as the ground crumbled around him.

With this is plummeted into the 40ft drop and landed in the green smile. With no light source and the feel of burning acid all he could do was scream to his death. The party did mount a rescue attempt and they themselves took damage from various sources during their rescue attempt, but of course it was to no avail.

As a side note we do use hero points so the PC used 2 to avoid his fate. However he is now horribly disfigured and has to hide his appearance at all times. The party is now harvesting the green smile to weaponize it with a combination of levitate/mage hand/glass jars. We will see how that works for them over the course of time

Sovereign Court

Have you looked into the NPC Guide, Rival Guide, or the NPC Codex? That might help you if you have access to them.

Sovereign Court

Right now there really isnt much in the way of ramifications. I have altered the campaign significantly in that the gods are going to sleep with new gods awakening. One of the new gods is a goddess of corruption. I removed the werewolf encounter and switched it with an outbreak of Drekavacs. I also altered them so during the killing blow they would revert back to their child like state begging for Mommy or Daddy not to hurt them, etc. I also changed the cult of Gyronna over to the corruption goddess, rezzed a dumb paladin pc that they had in the beginning of the game (which is now a anti-paladin), and had that temple under the temple of one of the new good gods. The PCS wiped out that cult. As such the Guild knows better to break the established rules that were set before them. Besides they are making an assload of money from the brothels, considering one of the PCs tend to frequent the establishment quite a bit.

I do have other npcs, but they are more geared toward the godswar that is about to take place rather than the overarcing Kingmaker story.

Looking forward to reading about the NPCs.

Sovereign Court

Silouette is basically a “Spy Master”. Her talents are focused in more on gaining information. Originally the Spy master role was filled by a PC. However said PC perished when she went exploring the “abandoned” Lizardman encampment in Rivers Run Red by herself (I had greatly altered that part of the module). She isn’t an assassin by any means, but does realize the truth that as certain times there are people who need a killing.

Here is how she came about. Please keep in mind that I am working off of what I remember of what took place months ago.

Silouette came about around the end of Stolen Lands. The pcs were expecting to finish up exploration (they had just turned in the Stag Lord’s head to the Swordlords in Restov), and as such decided to prepare themselves for the goods that they were going to need. As such they started purchasing vast sums of horses, building materials, livestock, etc. They did this purchasing over the course of a couple of days in Restov. With the exchange of vast sums of money it drew the attention of Restov’s Thieves Guild, and the eye of “The Man” (current ruler of the Thieves Guild). Everything was going along smoothly as the PCs saw it until they got to Oleg and did their post inventory travels. It was at this point when they realized that they were missing 15% of the goods that they had purchased. It was at this point that the rogue in the party who was from Restov that this was the work of the Guild. The party decided not much could be done about it then, and finished with their exploration.

Upon returning to Restov to complete the charter, the PCs asked the Sword Lords if they had any connections to the local guild, as they had issues in the past moving goods and didn’t want the same thing to occur again. Of course officially the Sword Lords denied any connection, but in private quarters I had the leader of the five man council (whose name I created and don’t remember at this point) state that he would ask the guild to send someone to talk with them. The Pcs then returned to the upscale inn, The Bronzed Dragon, in order to figure out how to transport the 50 BPs worth of stuff to their new nation of Tulessa.

During the evening there was a letter placed in the Pcs bedroom stating that a contact would be meeting with them in the dining room around lunchtime, her name would be Silouette. At that time only three Pcs went to the meeting as most of the rest of the party had other things they needed to do before leaving Restov. The three consisted of the newly appointed leader (fighter), the Magister (sorcerer), and the ranger (treasurer). I had the dining room designed with enclosed booths as I figured this would be a place where businessmen would gather and would not want their discussions overheard by others. The three PCs basically ordered their lunch from the waitress and proceeded to wait.

After 20 minutes the waitress returned with their lunch, and then proceeded to sit down beside them. She introduced herself as Silhouette and the discussion took place on how not to have the Thieves Guild take a cut from the resources being sent. Silhouette proceeded to negotiate terms with the PCs, as the PCs realized that the guild would be dipping their hands into their business in some shape or form. The agreement they struck was the Thieves Guild would be established in Olegs’ Fall (pcs temporary capital: Oleg died in my campaign). The guild would not be actively hunted down, but instead would provide any information to the ruling body that threatened the newly found kingdom. In exchange for this service the Guild wanted a guild controlled brothel in any and every town, village, or city that the PCs were to have, as well as an orphanage in each as well. The Pcs had a hard time with the orphanage at first, as they saw it as a nesting ground of future thieves. However terms were met that the Guild would offer the opportunity to any that might have the talent, as well as those whose skills might be useful in other areas. In regards to thieves being caught, it was mentioned that thieves have to test their skills, and if they are caught then they made a mistake and should be punished. However there would be no overtly harsh penalties made (mostly fines, community services, etc). The rational was if they were good they wouldn’t get caught, and those would be the ones that are needed to do the daring information seeking.

Silouette basically was put in charge of the Thieves Guild in the pcs kingdom, and has had various interactions with the PCs. Her physical description is that of being a tall very attractive blonde, but she has appeared to the pcs with different hair colors, body types, and ages (had the Magister expecting her so he was looking for a young beautiful woman, was surprised when an older hunched over lady came to offer advice to him). During the events with Grigori she planted “evidence” in his belonging to be able to give the PCs a way to work within their laws to deal with him. Without her they couldn’t do anything. However the evidence points to Bevroy possibly being the one who sent Grigori. The PCs decided to expel Grigori from their country (escorted by the paladin of the group), with a death penalty facing him for treason if he returned. Here is where Silouette did that which needed to be done. She ordered a hit on Grigori to occur in the wilderness and have it look like a beast of the forest got him. She didn’t want him to reappear at all, as he was threatening her livelihood. She was put in charge of being the Spy Mistress when the party’s rogue (mentioned above went insane and had multiple personality disorder).

Hope this helps some.

Sovereign Court

Wow this is a toughy. It sounds like your players are basically playing only if they have nothing else better that they want to do. As such this does make it hard to run a campaign. The only suggestion that I have is to run the Pathfinder Society Modules for them as they are self contained 4-5 hour stories, or create something that is of a similar nature. That way you wont have to worry so much as to who will be there or not at the next session. You still can have an over-arching story, it is just harder to pull off.

The only other thing is to talk with the group about this and find a common time that everyone can meet. Real life happens of course, but there should be a solution. If I have 9 players about to make every seconded Saturday then your group should be able to find a day/time frequency that works for them.

1 to 50 of 164 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>