On the subject of confusion. I thought people were saying there isn't evil or good in the modern world, just modern grays...
Search Posts
----- Ahh yes, the modern approach to right and wrong: -Politicians who vie to limit the financial freedom over my own money while the other side similarly vies to limit my social freedoms. -Companies who ruthlessly slash domestic jobs, putting hundreds or thousands of people out of work in order to prop up their bottom lines, which in turn makes their goods cheaper for those said people to purchase. -Police departments who vigorously enforce traffic laws... out of concern for public safety or simply as an added revenue stream for a cash strapped local government. -Employers who wring more productivity out of their employees or reduce their benefits while simultaneously withholding raises or promotions due to "global economic conditions" which benefits their shareholders. -Where representative government listens to all "persons" - be they human or corporate - proportionally to the amount of money they spend on lobbying. -Multinational corporations who can borrow money to finance their operations at interest rates inversely proportional to the interest rates the average citizen has to pay for his credit cards and personal loans. -When my freedoms and liberties are curtailed to promote safety and security. -When a government enacts cuts to a social program to "protect life" while concurrently approving funds to bomb a foreign country to pieces. -HR departments who go to extra lengths to promote diversity, tolerance, and understanding while simultaneously shielding those employees who have long stopped caring about doing a good job merely because of the threat of litigation. -Politicians who govern by the precepts of a religion or ideology not everyone follows or believes in. -Where the rights of those who are willing to take a calculated risk are curtailed to "protect" those who might not object to the act in the first place. -A legal system which, at times, seems to go the extra mile to defend the perpetrators rather than the victims. -Homeowners who overstated their annual income and net worth numbers to close on that million dollar house a few years ago who can now have their loans modified to something more "fair and reasonable." -Outlawing a woman to have an abortion because it's "evil" even when the child's father was her rapist. ----- Ahh, the joys of the modern world.... with all it's shades of gray. Some people want to play a game where there is clear evil versus good, law versus chaos as an escape and as an antithesis to the modern world with it's endlessly debatable moral ambiguity. To play something they are not - nor could ever be in our "modern world." A game where you can play a good and true hero slaying the forces of evil.
Does this mean a Private can rule forever?
First, do you require your players to share their character sheets? Absolutely, positively YES. Second, what is the best way to approach this individual? When he does happen to show up, suggest he find a new gaming group.
I completely agree... and I make great efforts to do what is right because that is a worthy end, but not because I'm chasing a cosmic carrot. I just wish more people felt this way.
That is, if I can say so, a very sad way to view things. Getting people to do the right thing for the sake of doing the right thing is incredibly difficult. It tends to get much easier when you use the cosmic carrot or the cosmic stick.
Actually, that rule, while supremely important, takes a clear second place to the part people struggle with: Love God with all your heart, mind, soul. Have no other gods before Him.Honestly, if that WERE the sole piece of Christianity, I would be a Christian again in a heartbeat. But it's not and it doesn't pretend to be. Frankly, I have always viewed this as having a distinctly coercive element - A crude, mailed fist intended for those who can't or won't see the innate, unquestionable truth in the First Rule.
I would consider further twists... Not to disparage the story, but the players might sense the whole "Senator Palpatine is Darth Sidious" approach. Perhaps making the BBEG not embed himself in the council, but have another person entirely - maybe even a generally well respected "niceguy" (maybe the BBEG has serious "dirt" on him?) who then does his dirty work for him. You could continue to use the councilman to further lead the PC's astray with some degree of sincerity since the BBEG isn't actually him - lots of potential for disinformation here (which, if you think about it, the BBEG would want to exploit). He may even be torn between helping and hurting the PC's as he tries to interpret his master's plans. Maybe dropping a subtle hint - but never really going the full measure of disclosure (BBEG has my wife captive!) Then, as his cover gets more and more eroded, he is murdered and it's made to look like the PC's were responsible (or some other, innocent person). Rinse, repeat, twist, distort, parry, etc... I think players have the ability to smell out certain plots quite easily. Now the real fun begins when they think they've figured out the plot and it just isn't that simple. This is where numerous, twisted convolutions can come in handy.
I can't wait to begin spreading the word on The Secret Project. I can't imagine how difficult it would be for a marketing manager to obey a hush hush rule... :)
Blood feuds (An offense given by an opposing clan, lusting after the clan leader's daughter, etc). Marauding a local monastary and killing the inhabitants (one of whom, a monk, is brother to a distant civilized king - who gets very angry with your clan). The northernmost glacier in a distant land is rumored to contain shards of ice so hard, so dense, so unearthly, and so sharp as to be suitable for making weapons. For some reason, this ice is also rumored to never melt. An opposing clan's shaman is angered with your clan, and performs a costly ritual which summons a sea monster who terrorizes your coastline and attacks your clan's ships. A longship blown off course in a severe gale reports back seeing a beautiful fjord in a distant land. It's warm, verdant, filled with game and fruit trees of the utmost quality. You're sent on a mission to find the hidden fjord and establish a claim. Will you find it? Does it even exist? Is it just a tall tale by a drunk Viking?
Wow, who was making all those implications? I just talked about available free time.
Better go and tell the people who play EVE Online. I'm sure they'll be fascinated by your description of what they're doing. There are single player cRPGs providing thoroughly sandbox experiences too. Grinding on roids vs. killing 80 snuggleflumpins? Swaping real time for adventuring time (one might argue this is an even *more* effective maximization of subscription revenue since you can't get Amarr Dreadnought V without spending exactly XXXX $$$$.)? EVE is a better bridge towards the wide variety and open endedness P&P can give players, but it still falls short. And I should know, I played it for 3+ years (as it offered a more "casual" experience). Still not enough IMO.
MMO's do somethings very well - (some things even better than P&P RPG's). It's hands off & uniform mechanics, it's objective approach, it's mostly "on" status (except when servers are down), it's vibrant, colorful, humorous, it's ability to provide a shared experience, etc. However, it's also a sublime straightjacket. It is the quintessential "railroading" experience, as you can never really leave the tracks (no matter how "varied" they appear in the game). It's an absolute slog / timesink, designed to maximize subscription durations - where teenagers and 20-somethings have the free time to grind out the "Kill 80 snuggleflumpins!" adventures, us older guys have neither the time nor the patience. There is no subjectivity. For the most part there is no gray area (enemies are red and while faction type systems might simulate relationships better, it's now on a group basis, and not on an individual). It's a one size-fits all world, where there is no ability for a "GM" to design adventures, worlds, dungeons, NPC's, (Neverwinter nights inched toward this direction). The lists really do go on... and I'm just scratching the surface.
That's a rather radical solution, IMO, but what is your answer to my question?That solution was my answer to your question. If subsequent, alternate campaign settings are made available to the PC's because the original campaign setting households the godlike archmage reset button - would you ever be willing to run a campaign setting sans the godlike archmage reset button, thereby not requiring subsequent alternate campaign settings?
I don't use it, because I don't compare people to furries. Not even 4E players. Furries have sex.... ;)
I have my preferred solution...... That's a rather radical solution, IMO, but what is your answer to my question?
If the DM doesn't ask... At the start of the campaign, "Ask" is one way. "Advise" is another. But if is either case no complaints or objections are raised by the players, it ceases being debatable. and then refuses to adjust things at all when they start realizing what they're into? I don't follow you 100%... are you suggesting that the DM must radically alter his entire world, mechanical system, concept, setting, etc simply at the whim of his players - even if they consented to his specific interpretation of those said aspects before the campaign even started?
If the GM establishes a "tone and tenor" of a campaign beforehand and nobody, objects to it, then it's perfectly within the DM's pervue to preserve that tone and tenor for the life of the campaign. Certainly, he cannot be expected to produce a line by line itemization of what isn't allowed (or, with mystical forethought: what won't be allowed in the future (see Aux's teleportation / splat example)).
I've had lots of experiences with bad players, but I can't remember any bad experiences with players as a result of an unreasonable entitlement mentality. I very clearly remember a player demanding that the ref of the game allow him to use a character design (including weapons, equipment, etc) that "his other ref" allowed him to use at their other game. He was adamant, insistant, and confrontational about the whole thing. Disclaimer- I was simply a player observing the disagreement.
Lots of comments on the bad DM part of my post... but not much on the bad player part of my post: For me, I've had similar experiences but not with DM's, it's been with these insane players and their bizarre entitlement mentalities (and mind you, this was not just as a Ref, but also as a fellow player at the table). Sadly, it's stuck with me forever too.
Agreed. Although I probably am more sympathetic with the GMs than you are, having experienced lots more problem players than GMs over the years. The funny thing is this... most people out there who complain about DM Fiat (or similar complaints about DM's) have usually had their experiences colored by a single DM with serious control issues. It sticks with them forever. For me, I've had similar experiences but not with DM's, it's been with these insane players and their bizarre entitlement mentalities (and mind you, this was not just as a Ref, but also as a fellow player at the table). Sadly, it's stuck with me forever too.
Are there really players out there demanding that all available material be allowed in play? That just seems silly. Yes there are... and yes, it most certainly is. I've always thought that "subject to DM approval" was implicit. (Forget the explicit disclaimer in the front of the APG.) It's implicit, explicit, and too often ignored by these types.
It's "player power" demanding rules/mechanical elements that I have the most problems with.Do you play with 2-rear-olds? I mean, if you explain why something needs adjustment, do they threaten to hold their breath until they pass out, or what? You'd be surprised.... ever go to a Con?
I was in middle school at the time. My mother also worked at the middle school (she had been watching news in the Teacher's lounge at the time). She ran out to find me during the changeover between classes. I was walking on wet, cold grass - as it was a cool, crisp morning. She told me "The shuttle crashed!". I recall my incredulous, first reaction, "How can the shuttle crash, Mom?!?" I was one of the first students to find out about it at the school. . . . Most of the events of that day are remembered by me vividly, even down to what I had for dinner and seeing Reagan's face on the TV. Wow, such a long time ago.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with "player power" affecting content of stories. I love when it happens too. It's "player power" demanding rules/mechanical elements that I have the most problems with.
Splat in RPG's is the same (to me) as spaghetti code in computer programs.
Somebody who refers to himself as "master race" shouldn't really complain about semantics of the others :) LOL!
"Core" to me: Only the material included within the book(s) needed for running the most minimal version of the game system. So, PFRPG Strictest interpretation= Pathfinder Core Rulebook
Other examples: 2ed AD&D= PHB, DMG, Monstrous Compendium, vol 1. Ars Magica 5th Edition= Ars Magica 5th Edition Core Rulebook
That's refreshing to hear! Must be fun...
On second thought, my post was complete hyperbole.... NOBODY does save the Princess adventures anymore. ;)
I've taken liberty with the severity... but the underlying complaint is the same.
There's a big difference between the following: Ruining "best laid plans" because the player is role playing his character to be a cynic who doesn't believe that the princess was kidnapped from the tall tower - more investigation should be done! vs. Ruining "best laid plans" becuase the player insists that a rules interpretation fished out of Ultimate Player Character Glitch splatbook for the 3th Star Warsword 'Hypersonic Melody Attack: Motet Delta!' should be considered a fast action, not provoking AoO, bypassing DR and instantly granting nearby friendly combattants a +3 False Life hitpoint boost. (Oh, and the DM must allow this - because the player paid money to buy this book... and the Authors of that book have opined that this is all true when they posted on the CharOpWorld.org forums saying it is so!)
I have had an incredible amount of fun running Ars Magica, for example, but systems like 3.x - with it's advancement-centric, power-centric bias tends to mute the fun for me. In AM, it's mostly about the saga - the storyline is paramount, the setting is beyond compare, and history continues to march on... In 3.x it's all about the characters' advancement, "pwnzors" potential, and mechanically upwardly trending "everything".... Sure, you can re-focus the game on the story, but the deck sure feels stacked against the DM. It's one DM armed with his fluffy imagination, plots, NPC motivations, pulling the steering wheel one way against 4-6 players armed with their crunchy books, rules expositions, char-op builds, 20th level extrapolations, christmas tree plans, etc. It's not even about fiat or "DM vs. Players" - the 3.x system seems to have a built in soulless, number crunch, mathematic, formula based bias - which really makes it hard to steer towards something more soft and fluffy. - Monsters need +X weapons to be hit, necessitating weapon/item shops.
The game system is all about the trees.... and nobody can see (or cares about) the forest, it seems. The creative power has shifted because the people printing the game knew where most of the money was - they targeted the 4 out of the 5 players in the group vs. the older model of focusing mostly on the DM for revenue. Sounds eerily similar to something I once said.
I'm waiting for my Dwarven-foppish-dandy-gladiator-mobster.
Mathematically define a "viable" or "successful" character Viable = >0 Hit points. Successful = Unable to compute. Depends on character's goals.
Poorly designed and ill conceived feats should not be used as "proof" of anything, especially when it comes to an overreliance on material component minutiae. Simple solution: Allow spells to work without components, but grant users a minor statistical bonus (to any one variable) *if* a material component *is* used. 1. You'll see the use of them dramatically drop off, overall.
I don't agree with the decision, but there's a semblance of rational thought behind looking at how 3.5 is doing against MMORPGs and concluding that the way to pick up market share in an MMORPG-rich environment is to differentiate your current (new, hip, cool) approach to gaming from (old, stodgy) 3.5. MMORPG's do MMORPGing well but P&P RPG's don't.
Are you sure? Alienating the older fan base to appease/lure a younger fanbase... Yeah, that's pretty much a whole new flavor of idiocy I can't recall TSR exhibiting to the same degree.
A simple Yes/No is good, but comments and advice are appreciated :) Absolutely and resoundingly "NO".
Damn it, I want a Tarrasque Icon figure. http://www.chevychasecentral.com/snl/land%20shark.jpg
I only have to go to my local game store to see the WotC 4e cardboard display case with Pathfinder products sitting in it. Heh!
Excellent.... I might just consider this!
Out of curiosity, what level of "mature" themes will be allowed in the setting? For example, some Pathfinder supplements have touched on some mature themes... will there be a similar latitude given to the patrons in developing this setting?
If I were playing a "jerk" druid, I'd demand that my horse be raised from the dead. Heh.
Interesting "last among equals" perspective in this thread.I am unfamiliar with the phrase. Google "primus inter pares" and consider the reversal.
Interesting "last among equals" perspective in this thread.
"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789. ME 7:300
|