dunelord3001 wrote: The only way that a low magic setting works is either mortals just can't make magic items or they have some type of time limit on them. In most settings you have magic items last pretty much forever unless someone destroys them, and over the thousands of years that will lead to huge number of them on the market, even at 5 or 10 times cost. One of the interesting details in the 3.5 DMG (not sure if PF carried it over, though) is the detail in the magic items section that said that sometimes magic does go bad over time. As such, magic items that have set around for hundreds of years may no longer work like originally intended, either becoming cursed or having their magical abilities affected by their environment. I almost always include a little bit of that in my campaigns and my players have learned as a result that items from REALLY old sources should be tested before use. (I should point out that I did say that I'd do that before actually doing so...)
Mistah Green wrote:
I'm curious, do you hunt out threads for the purpose of posting short, insulting, general dismissals of the topic? Or, do you just choose them at random?
Abraham spalding wrote:
The research in this area must be less conclusive than either of us thought, because I recently (within the last week) read a study about how it is harder to teach a person new things when they already know a similar other thing, even when you'd assume there would be useful cross-overs. There were two examples given. One related to musical instruments and the challenge of teaching an instrument to two groups, one group which had already learned one instrument and another which had not (age set constant.) The other was languages. (I think the "new" language was English, in this case.) Perhaps the factor in the research you read was the recent nature of the previous study? Perhaps keeping the brain in practice is the relevant factor? Either way, I hadn't meant my comment to hang on age being a factor, though I can see how it would be read that way.
loaba wrote: I don't penalize my players for not having the same foresight as their character. For example, in our current campaign, the Cavalier took Elven at 2nd level. It was rationalized that the Elven ranger spent time teaching him. It doesn't have to be a big deal, people. My players don't see it as "penalizing" them. Our group simply likes to role play a lot. Even the little things, in some cases. My players honestly enjoy setting up watches every night (annoying to me, but eh) or role playing training for new skills (it's usually only a sentence or two commenting about it as they travel along or whatever.) The 'fighter' characters often go out of their way in large cities to choose the inn with a training salle. The wizards and characters with numerous knowledge skills always know where they nearest library is to help them train in their free time. If these things 'penalize' anyone, it's the GM (me) in that I have to always spend the extra time building these details in the cities I create. No, it doesn't have to be a big thing. Even in our games it's not really "big." It's just a detail we like to know. And it sometimes fits into the story in interesting ways. As for your example, what if noone in the group knew Elven when the Cavalier wanted to learn? Or, what if the language was a more "rare" one, like Undercommon or Infernal? Would you have felt the same way?
Kthulhu wrote: Why so harsh? Because otherwise, there's no reason that they would be so rare. Every wizard in the setting would take item creation feats out the wazoo and start flooding the market with magical items, and it would quickly become the default high-fantasy magical world. I'm currently playing in a low-magic campaign where the world is low-magic because the governments of the world (and the churches, to a degree) all had a backlash from the mage guilds uniting to conquer the world and slay the gods. When they nearly succeeded but failed, mages were distrusted by the people so were hunted down as witches and those who weren't registered with the local governments were executed without question. In that world, magic item shops were rare, as it was impossible to get a license to sell them legally. But, old magic items found as treasure or held as heirlooms were still normal. NPC arcane spellcasters were rare and almost always enemies of the group (which was aligned with one of the kings.) NPC divine casters were either part of the church heirarchy or were loners on the edge of society. (Peasants can't tell the difference between a witch and druid, most of the time.) Magical beasts were just as common and unchanged, since there was nothing really stopping them from existing. In fact, some areas were overrun with them, since there were no longer wizards holding them at bay. Mindless Undead and Golems, however, are relatively rare. PC arcane casters had to hide their profession or be faces with persecution by villagers. --- That is one alternate definition of "low-magic." Another could be Kthulhu's world where magic is actually harder to do, but that seems more artificial somehow. You'd almost be better off using the "Impeded Magic" planar trait from 3.5 Edition. --- Or, if you don't mind doing a LOT of extra work, you could actually create a demographic of your local world and alter it from the norm. Thus, you could simply create a Tolkein-esk world where the phisical number of full spellcasters is limited. Perhaps the wizards and druids of the region have set their number by common agreement and jealously guard their powers and knowledge. Perhaps sorcerous bloodlines are few and only exist in certain heroic bloodlines controlled by the GM in NPC-only families. By that method, you would know the exact number of characters in the region with full-caster powers, you could know every one of their names, and you can ensure that the PCs aren't one of them. After all, how can a PC be a wizard if noone will teach a new apprentice (because the number of wizards are few) and no spellbooks are freely available? If there are only twenty druids allowed to be part of the Druidic Circle in a region with five hundred thousand people, it seems reasonable that the PCs aren't one of them. And, in this way, it is leaves it possible for a PC to slip into that number later, when the story has one of 'the chosen number' die off.
As a GM, the way I handled this situation has always been that, if the player wants to multi-class or prestige class, he/she has to inform the GM (me) at least 1 level in advance, so that we can work it into the RP. The same goes for learning new languages or new use-only-while-trained skills. After all, Pathfinder states that characters who are adventuring get about 4 free hours per day (it says so when discussing magic item creation.) And, if a player is constantly spending every hour of that time for several levels creating items, when did he find the free time to suddenly learn martial arts (monk), learn to commune with nature spirits (druid), or learn to speak Draconic? So, we try to fit 'training' time in there, too. Not enough to interfere with game mechanics (how many characters really do spend all their free time crafting?) But, enough to justify the change in skill-set. As for the theory of "[t]he more you learn the easier it is to learn," reality has proven that (for humans, at least) it is actually harder to learn new things as you get older. In reality, the more you know the more set in your ways you are and the harder it is the learn something new and different.
Jaelithe wrote:
The way I would read it, Flesh to Stone would not kill the creature alone. It can be reversed by other spells, and when it is the "soul" or spirit of that individual was still in there. But, as it would temporarily be a statue, rather than a troll, it would not have the troll's racial traits while it was stone. So, it definately could be disintegrated, and that would definately "kill" it. Would it be easy to do to a Level 20 Cleric that's fighting back with spells, though? Probably not.
stringburka wrote: On a side note, is it just me, or does most animals seem to be a dire version compared to real-life animals? I mean, a wolverine IRL is surely a skilled predator, but pit her against an average human with a spear and she's got no chance. In the rules, she's considered about the same challenge as 4 trained warriors. Yeah, that kinda thing's a running gag at our tables. Things like "any domestic cat beats any Level 1 Warrior" in 3.5 just make no sense but are reality anyway. In the end, you just run with it.
James Jacobs wrote: My preference is to instead have the "tougher" version of an animal simply be its prehistoric or primeval ancestor. In the case of the wolf, this works out fine because a prehistoric wolf is in fact called a dire wolf. But a prehistoric tiger should be called a smilodon, and so on; in the Bestiary, I wasn't able to make the change to dump the "dire" element entirely, but I did manage to get the real-world names in there more often than not. (In the case of a few dire animals, we didn't bother because there really wasn't a great choice for the prehistoric version.) Out of curiousity, what of animals whose ancient ancestors were actually less vicious or dangerous than current? Like some sharks or crocs? (Maybe shark is a bad example, though...) And, what of animals who are normally docile herbivores, but magic/divine intervention (or just having it be in a fantasy realm) have twisted to a carnivorous attack beast? For example..."A century ago, mages wanted to create a more dangerous version or the war-horse, shifting and shaping common horses to give them fangs and claws. Now, entire herds of these beasts have slipped control of their masters and threaten the nomadic tribes of the East." Lastly, what about animals like the skunk, who would just be really awesome as a monster concept, but would need to be bigger and more potent to be effective as a challenge? (Ok, I just added this example because I still wish skunks were in the core Bestiary/MM...so sue me.)
Hunterofthedusk wrote: There was a magic item in the Magic Item Compendium (and probably in another book, but I can't be sure) called the "Blindfold of True Darkness". While you wore it you couldn't use your normal mode of vision, but it gave you blindsight 60ft. I believe it was 9000gp, so if you start at a slightly higher level it may be viable, but definitely not a first level thing. I think this is exactly what RD was complaining about. XD
Are we going to start asking if it's evil to not bury or have a funeral for your enemies next? More seriously, what are you suggesting as an alternative? Are you burying the enemy's gear with them? Letting the enemy's gear lay unused on the ground while their bodies are left to the scavengers? Searching out the enemy's family, informing the family that you killed your enemy, and returning the gear to the family with an apology? If you'd left them alive, making them a prisoner, it would be a no-brainer to confiscate the enemy's gear (particularly weaponry.) Why does their death make it harder or more wrong to take their gear?
Nazard wrote: Another way it sometimes works in games I play in is if I know I'm going to have a dual-class character, I write the training for the second class into the back story, and just don't use the class abilities for that class until my PC gains level 2. I recall a cleric/wizard I had once who didn't have the wizard level yet, but kept trying to use his wizard spells anyway. They would always fizzle from the stress of the combat encounters, making him more and more frustrated. Of course, it's a risk having a character take an action in combat that you know will fail purely for role-playing reasons. That reminds me of a character my brother played that was a Gnome Psion whom he inteded to become a Cerebremancer. The gnome grew up persecuted for his psionic abilities, so studied arcane magic to know enough about it to pretend that his manifestations were really spells. That study was intended to also cover the justification for knowing how to cast spells once he took a level of wizard. Great way to manage it when you have a DM that insists on strong role playing and character backgrounds.
I can definately see arguments for situations where CDG could be seen as either good or evil. That said, whenever I make a good character with a code of conduct, one of the key points of my code is always that I cannot kill a helpless, living intelligent creature (or even kill a threatening intelligent creature when other options are available.) So, I guess my personal belief is that it is evil...
MordredofFairy wrote:
The story-teller in me likes this. The player in me that always chooses LG characters scolds it. The part of me that tried visualizing...shudders. Ah, internal conflict. :-D I do wish I could say I hadn't thought something similar before, though...
Mistah Green wrote:
I hate this. This is where Mistah Green sits there and says I'm playing the game wrong because I'm not playing it the way he wants to. He wants to play a combat that is nothing but "the party wants the opponent dead and the opponent wants the party dead." He says that you're playing wrong if you're not playing the characters that do nothing but combat. I want both the party and the opponent to want realistic goals beyond "I kill things, so yay." I want some of my dragons to be so arrogant that they don't always care about finishing the party off. I want to have recurring enemies that can skirmish with the PCs, prove their ability to TPK, but not actually try to TPK until later. I want combat to be an extention of the story, rather than just an obstacle on the way to a goal. I want players who are willing to sacrifice a bit of optimization in order to create a character with a fun backstory and even more fun play-style. I want players to create characters that can utilize the vast reservoir of abilities that are available to characters but don't affect combat. I want my characters to get involved in the story and have their characters' stories get involved in the overall story. Why is my story-driven game wrong? Why must all my characters be super-optimized for combat and ignore role-play abilities? Certainly nothing in the rules say my way is wrong. In fact, the rulebooks of every edition of D&D I've ever played (and Pathfinder, and White Wolf, and M&M, etc) say there is no wrong way to play. (Emphasis mostly mine.) Combat-only is fine if you enjoy that. Dungeon-crawling only is fine, too. My fellow players and I enjoy story-driven games with combats that are part of telling the story and stories that grow and evolve based on player actions. And, I'll be darned if Mistah Green or anyone else tells me I'm playing the game wrong. In fact, I'm so upset about this that I will no longer be posting regarding this point and will consider any future attempts to tell me I'm playing "wrong" to be trolls just stirring up trouble.
pres man wrote: @Godz and Jess: But why does fudging make something fun? If the party fails, they still have fun. If the party succeeds, they still have. If the goal is fun, then how does fudging help something that was already fun? Easy again...because not every failure is fun. Just like not every success is fun. It's a judgement call.
pres man wrote: So since "fun" is divorced from the actual game issues, why can't players have fun and have the dice fall where they may? "Succeeding" or "failing" isn't about "fun", having a good time with your friends is. Why do so many GMs feel they have to provide "success" or "failure" by fudging in order to get "fun" if "fun" isn't determined by those things? Easy...you can just let the dice do what they do, if that's what's fun for the players. But, if the players' fun would be ruined by nothing more than a string of extremely bad luck, then why can't DMs use fudging as one of many tools to defend the players' fun? (I don't mean coddle your players and ensure they never die. I mean just moderate the extremes of chance.) If the players want to have a particular BBEG be obviously massively powerful, why not fiat that the BBEG's non-combat skill auto-succeeds for dramatic effect? I'm just not sure how it's much different than having a player/group roll Perception checks when there's nothing to see, just so they don't meta-game every time you have them do so.
Mistah Green wrote: Which leads to the question of what kind of mindset does it take to not regard accomplishing character goals as a victory? Do you consider failure to be a success? Simple answer, having fun is the victory. My characters goals are completely unrelated to this. If the story is entertaining, I have fun. Even if the entertaining part of the story is my character's hilarious-but-heroic failure. I consider that to be the win. As for me, I have to wonder what kind of person only considers the game to be rewarding if their character gets what he/she wants...
Mistah Green wrote: The 'win condition' people are taking offense to in no way resembles what I am saying it does, even after repeating the definition to. Actually, your definition exactly describes what I consider to be offensive about "win conditions." I know you feel that couldn't possibly be the case, but it is...
Mistah Green wrote: White Wolf is the exact reason why saying 'story teller' to gamers is like saying a certain 6 letter word to an African American man. It's just not kosher. Wait? What?!? I'm a gamer, and I've never found "story teller" to be offensive in any way. I have many gamer friends, none of whom find it offensive and many of whom enjoy White Wolf games. For that matter, this forum is a gaming community and "story teller" is often seen as a positive thing by people here. If anything is an offensive term in my gaming groups (or here judging by the responses,) it is the idea of a tabletop RPG with a "win condition."
houstonderek wrote:
Best argument against fudging so far, honestly. Only real answer is the fact that the rules (at least in D&D 3.X) specifically encourage the GM to alter the rules as they go along to enhance the fun/story, but discourage GMs from allowing players to do so. That said, it assumes the end goal of the GM is always the players' fun rather than thir own ulterior motive. Admittedly not always the case.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Ok, but just because it's mechanically the same doesn't mean it is the same power. It wouldn't be the first time two powers are exactly the same mechanically withot actually being the sme power.
Mistah Green wrote:
Ummm...huh? If my character meets his personal goals, but I'm bored when he does it, I lose. Saying the goals don't have to be killing monsters or gaining treasure (which were still your only examples,) makes no difference. It doesn't matter what my character's goal is. If I'm bored by limited/non-existant roleplaying, repetitive combats, etc, I lose and I'll quit because of it. As for alleged "misrepresentation," the only thing I ever said you said was that your example referred to organized play. You did say that. Everything else was my opinion. If you misunderstood me, I'm sorry.
Mistah Green wrote:
That's OP. OP should probably be run as written, it is true. Becaused that's its purpose. Homebrews, on the other hand, is not the same. In Homebrews, the "win conditon" (if there is even such a thing in an RPG) is when the players are having fun, not when the characters do stuff like slaying monsters or gatering treasure. You have to remember, Mistah Green, that not every gaming group is the same. If I were to play in a game where the GM thought it was just a combat game, I'd be bored to death and leave. Clearly though, that's yor cup of tea.
Gauthok wrote: I've seen elsewhere that Quick Draw doesn't apply to alchemical items in PF, only weapons. So I don't think there is a way to attack with multiple acid flasks in a round without a DM ruling that you can either throw them with two weapon fighting or transfer from hand to hand as a free action. Free actions (like 5-ft steps, quick drawing weapons, etc) can't be done in the midst of a full attack, as I understand it. The free action can be taken before or after the full round action, but not during unless otherwise stated. (Quick Draw does specifically state it allows itterative attacks with thrown weapons, but that alchemical items, scrolls, wands, etc cannotbe quick drawn.)
james maissen wrote:
It's been discussed, but they honestly can't help it...They're the same people that'd "accidentally" look at your hand in card games if they have a chance and base their plays on the info. If I didn't also have 100% trustworthy players in the group, I wouldn't feel safe leaving the room for the bathroom without packing my GM notes up and carrying them with me each time...
Aardvark Barbarian wrote:
Would it make you feel better about my choice if you knew my players want to be railroaded and complain if I don't give them clear GM-set goals? >.> On principle, I don't like railroading my players. But, sometimes it's what the game as a whole calls for, and it otherwise dies...
Aardvark Barbarian wrote:
You misunderstand me. I never fudge a player's roll...EVER. I might fudge an NPC's skill roll, attack roll, or (rarely) saving throw. And, even then, only to make the NPC do what it's supposed to do...never to thwart an player's ingenuity.
porpentine wrote:
I might be going sligtly off-topic here, but... Whether a GM fudges or not, I still think it's important for a GM to use the screen. Maybe it's just around my circle, but many players find it far too tempting to use the info gained to metagame an enemy. As is, it's far too frequent for my players (all of whom are very intelligent) to quickly determine the general stats of their opponents just from the kinds of results the opponent can get... And, on the occassions that I forget to use a screen, I almost always regret it, because the players start immediately redesigning their battlefield strategy based on the bonuses the enemies have, rather than what their characters see. Again, maybe that's just my experience...
Aardvark Barbarian wrote: I do as a DM and Storyteller, have the distinct ability to not leave the outcome to the dice, by choosing not to roll. Why roll the dice if you're not willing to take the results? Quick answer...to make it unclear to my players that I decided an attack or ability that they have to roll for will auto-succeed/fail.
As a GM, I'll fudge for only two reasons: 1) To prevent a normal encounter from becoming insane by the occassional string of 4-5 natural twenties in a row. (Or, in the same strain, to drop the hp of a standard-level enemy if my players are hopelessly botching attack rolls.)
2) To keep a story-line character looking like a story-line character. If my main bad-guy is intended to do something and the die end up saying "nope, not happening," it will happen anyway. If my big bad is designed with a grapple that needs only a 2 on the die to fail, and I consistantly fail anyway, I'll fudge to make it succeed just so the players realize he's supposed to be doing that. If the story-line involves the big bad mercifully capturing and releasing the party (to give them a moral quandry later about killing him,) then my party is going to get captured. No poor dice rolling will change that (though exceptional inginuity by the players will.)
As a player, I expect my GMs to do the same.
Ravingdork wrote: Though it may be RAW, I seriously doubt that is RAI. That is difficult to determine. Some fluff makes trolls and other regeneraters as hard to kill (or harder) than just about anything else. And, why not? You don't always have to kill the opponent, anyway...just disable them so they are no longer a threat. And, once the Troll is unconscious and his minions are dispatched, it should be relatively simple to prevent the troll from threatening you again. At least in the near future...
Chris Kenney wrote:
Just because Regeneration can't bring back the hp doesn't mean normal natural healing can't. The Regeneration keeps it alive until natural healing recovers the hp.
ProfessorCirno wrote: As far as bards go, the problem with Bardic Knowledge was that it asked the question of "What do bards know that others do not with a knowledge check?" and the usual answer was "Whatever the DM makes up spur of the moment that won't actually effect anything at all" I'm inclined to disagree there. The old bardic knowledge was more like "the bard is now a plot-driving device" in many cases. Of course, the GM can still just fiat that people know things like that, so it's hard to say anything is really lost there either way...
J.S. wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your reasoning why GMs should throw our the abstract falling damage rules that D&D developers first came up with but not throw out their abstract hp rules in general is "that's how these games work"? But, that's really not true, because the "way they work" is set out in the rules. The point up for discussion is GMs not even rolling falling damage for long falls, just saying "you're auto-dead/mortally wounded." Nothing about the genre insists on that, and the rules suggest you do otherwise.
LilithsThrall wrote:
I have no problem with PCs shining. I simply feel they must earn it. I have already stated that I would provide more info than the GM stated (as have many others.) But, had the DC been higher (i.e. Cloakers are a unique-to-this-dungeon, virtually-unheard-of threat) then that info would have been fine. The chance for PC failure is what makes the success meaningful. That is, after all, why game critics include "challenge" as a category for ratings.
Ravingdork wrote: I wasn't saying that a GM should give his players freebies when they rightfully failed. I was trying to get across that GMs should make the character abilities fun and useful to use, not make them come off as useless and as an in-game tool of insulting a player's intelligence. If this is the case, and you are really just "stat[ing] what happened and ask[ing] if I was overreacting or not." Then my simply answer would be "yes, a little." I don't feel that the GMs response by its very nature insulted your intelligence or reduced the fun of the game. By your admission, the game went on and everyone had fun. I can see how your reaction to it, modified by your expectation that the 22 should give you more, may have reduced your personal level of fun temporarily. However, I think that being thrust into an "emotional state" equivelant to that of being forced to lightning bolt your bud is a bit of an overreaction.
Ravingdork wrote:
On the other hand, it is equally true that verisimilitude is broken by every piece of info being different. And, some GMs might take these concerns into account (perhaps even the GM in question.) However, this wasn't really the original issue, was it?
LilithsThrall wrote:
I think I see your problem with understanding my comment. I was responding to RD's theory that a GM should "give them some info for fun's sake?" All my suppositions started from the assumption that the GM did exactly that, gave them extra info just for fun's sake. To me, this is like saying "I only missed by 1, you should let my attack hit just for fun's sake." It is attempting to get more than you paid for from your abilities. If I was unclear, I apologize. I hope my explanation was helpful.
Kirth Gersen wrote: The fact that he mentioned the grapple (obvious at first glance), but then wouldn't let the PC withhold attacks for fear of damaging an engulfed ally ("that's metagaming!") in the same breath, to me smacks of a total dick move. Either tell the player about the engulfing or don't, but don't tell the player enough to guess something useful, and then refuse to allow the player to use it. Ok, this part of the discussion has comfused me for a while. I can't find where RD said that the GM refused to let the player choose his own actions due to "metagaming." That seemed to just creep up from random comments by others. Did I miss something here?
Ravingdork wrote: That's my only problem with many GMs these days. A lot of them are overly concerned with the rules or with their own personal illusion of power that they forget about their player's fun. It's this ever growing number of jerkwad GMs that what will ultimately doom this hobby. This type of comment is the type that confirms (in my mind) that the OP was, in fact, over-reacting. It implies that he feels the GM has not only a right but a responsibility to bend/break their rules to give the players what they want just because they want it. I feel that yielding to such things results in one of two issues.
I will re-iterate. While I might have given more/different info than the GM in question did, I do not believe the GM had a responsibility to give the player what he wanted just because the player feels it would make the game more fun for him. And, I don't think that one GM error falls into "ruins the game for everyone." I'm starting to feel like Admiral Ackbar here...
northbrb wrote: honestly though, i accept the idea of alignments in the game and that pathfinder needed it but i hat it, i hate having to explain how what i just did in game was within my alignment and how easy it is to fall to evil but hard to stay good. i am fine with some of the classes having a code of conduct that they are not allowed to break and if they do they lose their class abilities. i would totally prefer an honer system that is based on what other people see you do so the stealthy backstabbers are not automatically bad guys and i would prefer good and evil being an element of celestial and abyssal creatures. I kinda think that if you find it is hard to be good and easy to be evil, it's probably because you want to play an evil character...Just sayin'. Also, why would a stealthy character just waiting to stab his friends in the back ever be good...ever? They might THINK he's good for a while, but in reality he'd be evil. And, the rules already account for that.
I've had an issue since druids first recieved animal companions that my players (and sometimes I) would like an animal companion that doesn't fir on the chart. The animals in question aren't left off the charts because they're stronger than normal (that's easy to solve, just add it to the "tougher" charts.) Instead, they're much weaker than the standard animal companion. Such animals might be the equivelant (stat-wise) of a domestic cat or a bat. (We made stat blocs for skunks, foxes, and a few other animals that fit about that CR level.) If a druid in your campaign wanted to play a druid with such a companion, how would you handle this? I see 4 options, but would be glad to hear others... 1) Allow the animal and play it as a normal companion from the standard chart.
2) Allow the animal as though it were on a new chart that treated the companions on that chart as though their druid were X levels higher than they are. Sort of in the style of 3.X companions.
3) Allow the animal companion, but first advance that specific animal to be roughly equivelant to other animal companions, in the same way that the PF Tiger animal companion is weaker (at level 1) than the Bestiary Tiger.
4) Flat refusal to allow such an animal as a companion.
Any thoughts?
Ravingdork wrote:
If I'm discussing a topic with someone, I can 1) think it through better, 2) remember the info better for their asking the questions I might forget to ask, and 3) come up with superior conclusions. It may not help a lot, but then neither does an Aid Another check...
LilithsThrall wrote:
I think that falls into the category of a DC modifier, rather than affecting the type of info provided by the GM.
|