Immortal Greed's page

Pretty much what I wanted to say.

Yes, language evolves. But that's not an excuse to say "Screw the rules, I do what I want!".

Until the formal rules are changed, your slang is still incorrect (even if it is acceptable and probably even encouraged in informal conversations). Always be aware of that when you speak or type something.

Don't forget regional dialects, and that the culture of the cities is not the culture of the country (as much as the cities and their courtiers would just love to police the periphery and be the holders of the one true language).

For that matter, the culture of the former colonial port holdings, is not the same as the post-colonial rural areas. :P

I never did trust those city folk.

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

3. If you have a special game world you've built...

I'm not really a passionate person. Most of the time I just shrug and move on. However, I might have some theories to air regarding #3.

I am thinking that when you create your own game world, you're trying to do something unique. After all, there has to be a reason why you're not just playing in Greyhawk or something. I haven't done much world building myself, but the people I know who have, they tend to like to do something to set their setting apart from everything else (more or less successfully). People like to put their own personal mark on things.

An easy way to do that is to go, say, "this world doesn't have elves!". Bang, unique setting. Then, if a player then starts to complain that they want to be an elf and you're being unfair for not allowing them to play an elf or their alternative idea for a "human who was raised in the deep forests by sylphs and hey we could use elf stats for him".

To the player, the "no elves" rule seems unfairly arbitrary (and, make no mistake, when the setting was first developed, it was an arbitrary decision to exclude elves), while to the GM it feels like an attack on their creative efforts, and an attempt to force their unique world into a "generic fantasy" mould.

At the end of the day, both character building and world building is a creative process, and people tend to get super defensive when their creative efforts are being critiqued. The main difference, to me, is that the guy going "I want to play an elf!" hasn't actually started his creative process yet, whereas the GM's unique "no elves here" world has been in the works for probably months (if not years) at this point.

So I am honestly not surprised if there's a violent (oops, I'm not supposed to use that word. Read: strong) reaction to someone suggesting that the GM should always defer to player wishes and modify their campaign/world/whatever to any idea the player is currently fancying.

(That...

Yeah, and the clash of uniqueness. For example, "my elf is unique, I want to play that char", vs. the dm's "my world is unique. There is no elves or place for them. There is only ettercaps in the woods, endless ettercaps and dire armadillos".

Sissyl wrote:

Aranna wrote:

For those interested:

Merriam-Webster wrote:

Usage Discussion of ALRIGHT

The one-word spelling alright appeared some 75 years after all right itself had reappeared from a 400-year-long absence. Since the early 20th century some critics have insisted alright is wrong, but it has its defenders and its users. It is less frequent than all right but remains in common use especially in journalistic and business publications. It is quite common in fictional dialogue, and is used occasionally in other writing <the first two years of medical school were alright — Gertrude Stein>.

If publishers let it slide in journalism and business then it's usage isn't wrong, it just isn't usually accepted in formal papers yet. As my favorite language experts say language is constantly evolving.

It is a very common view that there are no prescriptive rules for languages, only descriptive ones. However, while that may be somewhat true, it is not the whole truth. Every language variant has its own rules, and there are things to gain from following them. Most importantly, following said rules increases the precision of what you say, thereby increasing the chance for correct comprehension. Another gain is that you show your mastery of the language, which often gives you an advantage in status in a discussion, whether you or the other party know it. Third, you can also show a group allegiance through your speech or writing (sociolect). Ignoring these factors is foolish.

Following old rules blindly is foolish too. You ARE correct in that the true purpose of language is to communicate with each other. The English language is constantly evolving. If you went back in time to the late seventeen hundreds nobody would likely understand anything you were saying. As language changes so do the rules and if you want to be perfectly understood and not sound like some dusty misunderstood relic in a museum then it IS wise to learn about current usage of words.

As for...

Damn straight. You are alright Aranna.

I have been reflecting on the unusually large number of locked threads lately, most of which are about whether GMs or players suck more, but a few have been political or ideological. Some of the same behaviors are present, if not as pronounced, in other threads that have not been locked.

The common dynamic in all of these threads is passion.

I generally think passion is a good thing. I'm a passionate person in just about everything I do. But, as oxymoronic as it might seem, I do try to be passionate in moderation.

I doubt it is possible to avoid passion when it comes to ideology and politics. Or religion I suppose. That sort of goes with the territory.

But is the level of passion I see on these boards about game rules, character builds, and GM or player preferences a good thing?

I dunno. Maybe it's just that I'm getting older, but I find it hard to get all worked up any more about how someone else plays this or any other game. I do get worked up about how people treat each other, but that's different.

I would like to hear from some of the people who have been so passionate on these subjects exactly why it is so important to them that the game be designed, adjudicated, played and enjoyed certain ways.

So I'll pose a few questions:

1. Why is it so important that you play a specific character concept? I understand that you might WANT to play something special, and that you feel it shouldn't be a problem to do so, but that's not what I'm asking. Why do you get so emotionally invested in it?

2. Why is it so important that classes be balanced? At the worst an unbalanced design would mean some characters can do more than others in a mechanical sense. But this is a role playing game, supposedly. There are plenty of ways to enjoy playing a less powerful character, and if you simply can't deal with playing a less powerful character, then why don't you just play a character that satisfies your desire for a certain level of power and move on?

3. If you have a special game world you've built...

Good post, but locked threads and threads locked in large numbers are not new here.

Yes, on passionate matters, absolutely on political disagreements, a thousand times on something sensitive like race, sex or gender the threads are locked over and over again. I've seen threads locked for a critical attitude towards a paizo product (they don't want the cash cow to get lighter, but many things are deserving of critique), for arguing against the premise of a thread and the attitudes of those within as well as threads locked with no explanation given or explanations that don't actually make sense (locked for breaking a rule, but the rule hasn't been broken, it was just used as an excuse).

Sometimes a mod will follow someone branded as a troublemaker and go nuts with thread locking. It is not pretty when people with some power get petty.

I too find it weird how worked up people get; but one thing is for sure, flagging summons mods right quick.

Of relevance but from another game.

So I was playing an mp gave of shogun 2 with a friend. The Hattori clan was going well (me), but Shimazu were running into a lot of trouble (my pal). This guy got a lot of land, but his enemies rocked up and started taking it back. He hadn't lost his best provinces or his home provinces in the south, but the north was being lost bit by bit.

It ended up coming down to a major battle of my pal vs the computer. Now he almost won, but ended up with a brutal loss that greatly damaged the enemy army.

He now wanted to quit. He wanted to throw in the towel, "please let me do it again", "let's restart", "I can do it better without losing any of my generals" "I can win if I make them attack me".

This went on, for some time.

This despite the guy agreeing that whatever happened we were going to continue, the player had real trouble accepting a loss and moving on with it. It took a long time for him to continue with the game as it turned out, and before that happened there was a lot of begging, attempts at bribing me to go back to the last save and general sniveling and complaints at losing in an entirely fair match up.

This player had great trouble accepting some loss and moving on. He rage quit with many provinces and armies still under his command.

When I eventually got him back to the game, he then had a series of wins. His reserves and new units arrived and he took back the land and after a few more rough battles, emerged on top. All he had to do was stick it out, keep trying, bring in new generals and troops and make a fight of it. Giving in or going back to the past save was easier, so this player wanted to do that.

I don't like seeing this in players, but it has become very common (maybe it was always common, I don't know). At the first sign of a major loss they want to call backsies, or throw in the towel, or beg and whine to get their way.

Truly a shameful display.

A few questions.

1) Is dying bad?

2) Can you accept a character dying?

3) You know this is a game right?

Johann Bückler, a rogue I made had quite the backstory. It involved a certain river city town and a desire to get out of there before he was fed to the eels. It left him with a bit of an anxious personality but a strong will to survive and proper way beyond the city limits (adventure or eels, basically). The fear did lead to him becoming a bastard sword wielding rogue with a few tricks up his sleeve and a very nice defensive style.

Eels up inside ya, findin an entrance where they can.

knightnday wrote:

shallowsoul wrote:

Detect Magic wrote:

I don't mind if my character dies during an epic, last stand confrontation, or a hail-mary attempt to stall the big-bad's advance long enough for my party to flee, but to die... arbitrarily? That's just a bummer.

Sucks but you will get over it.

And it's comments along this line that start many of the fights we've been having. I happen to like dungeon crawls and traps; that said, "Get over it" isn't a great approach to take to the players of your game.

Sure, they'll get over it, or at least many will. But some will harbor grudges against killer GMs, and you in particular, if they believe there is any sort of malice (real or imagined) in your actions. Further, as Mikaze and Detect Magic were saying, there are other complications to adding in a new character into the existing party. They are not insurmountable, but they do exist and represent time and energy lost to some people.

Not everyone enjoys the same sort of game as everyone else, nor does everyone keep a stack of disposable characters in case die rolls go bad and they have to bring out Bob the Barbarian IX, which is the same as all the others with a new number. From my experience, within a few sessions you should have an idea of what your players like and want out of a game, and at the very least should strive to incorporate some of that into the game. If they dislike keeping track of camp and random encounters, phase some of that out. Not into social play or urban adventures/detective work? Then you adapt and look for the things that make you all happy. Otherwise it makes for a long and tedious game. YMMV.

Let me stop you right there.

Player's dying by the rules of the game is not "DM's killing the players". If I said "bang you die", then you would have an argument but that's not what I am talking about. People need to stop this attitude of saying DMs are killing them if they die in the course of the game in any way but the way they want to...

Yep, yep, yep. If a player can't handle failure, don't play in a game where you may fail.

Easy, if the elf looks like a woman, it is a guy. If it has giant gazongas and impossibly thin thighs, so warped in its form that it does not represent a woman except in the most fevered sexist objectifying mind, then it is a girl.

Mikaze wrote:

shallowsoul wrote:

Mikaze wrote:

shallowsoul wrote:

Detect Magic wrote:

I don't mind if my character dies during an epic, last stand confrontation, or a hail-mary attempt to stall the big-bad's advance long enough for my party to flee, but to die... arbitrarily? That's just a bummer.

Sucks but you will get over it.

The PC they wanted to play won't, however.

So they play another PC?

Please don't bring up the extreme case of the player only having that one concept ever.

Who is bringing it up?

Fact of the matter is, that player still lost that character. They may have been very invested in that character. Some players don't enjoy losing such characters to seemingly arbitrary deaths, for a variety of reasons.

Different strokes.

Nobody likes character death. Just like nobody like losing but it's a fact when you play games. Now if your DM wants to eliminate death all together then they can do that but there are other games that are better suited for that kind of play.

*Raises hand*

I like character death.

Whether it is a char I am playing or the chars of others, sometimes a character death really has meaning, is liked at the table or funny. It can demonstrates something like heroic sacrifice, a char death can be very cool indeed (killing self to kill boss as well), entertaining (funny for the whole table, like the guy that fell into lava after destroying the way to activate a bridge) or reinforces the setting: dies of thirst in dark sun, killed by magic traps in Cormanthor, eaten by a snake in Katapesh/Calimshan or murdered by bandits in the River Kingdoms.

I have been happy when my chars have died or nearly died. I can like it. As a dm when it happens, sometimes I think that is perfect, that really helps the story, yes, even a death to a trap. That can bring up and reinforce the themes of danger and sacrifice, especially if a partner is left alive for some rp. Then you can make a new char and enjoy their adventures.

One of my old rping buddies really can accept a char death. He has asked for a good death when tired of a char, and can roll with the punches if a char dies to a monster, trap or environmental hazard (lava). He can roll with the punches, like it and move on to a new char, something else he has wanted to play for a while. If this a problem for you, can you please ask yourself, why can't you?

Immortal heroes are boring. Where is the danger? Why are you against the danger zone?

http://purplegaming.slashmeow.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/danger-zone.jp g

A shortcut involves the following.

Yes, party are checking for traps and moving at half speed with your rogue out (on a pole) and carefully checking what is ahead.

If there is anything then when there is something to find, the rogue makes their roll. You can throw in a few fakes, and make it also about secret doors and not just traps, and then the party can carefully move forward without needing every single role.

I am surprised your group didn't think of that.

I remember a new dm ran a very nice short game in magic-heavy Iriaebor, it had planetouched. A fiery lady really is one worth helping, if only to watch her flames dance in the wind.

I too love halberds. Naginata and nagamaki, also great.

Yeah, it easily makes a good story.

Only give dms photocopies!

Well, archetypal chars and the common sort of man/woman thrown into adventuring can be great rp characters too.

Being a snowflake from the get-go is not a pre-req, and some can develop over time, starting plain but moving and growing from there. As they complete quests, meet other npcs, solve problems and rp the real uniqueness of their char will show (or will not show).

most adventurers tend to stand out in their own localized societies, and a lot of them are seen as odd in their own ways. because adventurers tend to be freaks, exotic races within reason shouldn't be a problem

all 8 species of planetouched are basically pallette swapped humans, some might have minor exotic traits that can be either concealed or passed off as an exotic fashion statement

some, like changelings, samsarans or dhampir, could be passed off as identical to humans with odd or rare pigmentations and/or odd cosmetic features that could be passed off as fashion choices, much like planetouched

the key to defeating an attention grabbing players habits, is not to restrict options, but to simply not give the player the attention they desire

everytime the dwarves give the drow an odd look, everytime your players show signs of being irked by the gnome, everytime the NPCs attack the catfolk on sight, every time an NPC begs the aasimaar for a lock of her hair. every time you contemplate abducting the noble blooded loligoth for her cuteness and fashion choices, every time you prioritize your focus on the guy with blue skin and feathery black wings, you are doing one thing that can be percieved as the mistake of a DM whom hasn't learned to counter this

you are letting the snowflake win

the Snowflake, following the definition of the "look at me i'm special" player could be done with any race, class, fashion style, age category or accessories, they all have one thing in common, they want all the attention and generally want special treatment

to defeat the snowflake, the strategy is to ignore their uniqueness and pay them less attention.

think to yourself but don't word it aloud, "the blue man with wings is not special, he is an adventurer like the rest of the group, nothing more." blue man with wings could be a stand in for any oddity.

have your NPCs say to themselves under their breath. "oh, adventurers, an odd bunch, their lot come with all sorts of oddities, but no matter what, they...

Yep, defeating snowflakes is easy, and you understand this. You can throw them the bone of small acknowledgement, but other than that, a dm can run things as per normal.

Humans are adaptable creatures with great imaginations. I think my players will be fine.

Or they will rail at the injustice of my dming, and I will make a statement on the inevitability of death and go make a hazelnut coffee.

Immortal Greed wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Immortal Greed wrote:

Yep! One more thing to keep in mind is that players can learn and adapt and they can also get used to a certain type of play. That can lower their guard relating to other things, like trapped dungeons. So got to dip them into the acid pools before you go for full immersion.

Because players must learn and adapt to your style of play. Even if they prefer another.

Are you angry with me thejeff? Did I kill a player of yours in the past?

If the game has trap filled dungeons, they need to find a way to get through or around said dungeon (sometimes I do throw in a means of avoiding the dungeon entirely and get to the objective), or avoid it entirely and deal with the consequences of that. I do like sandboxes, but if players don't want to enter risky dungeons as brave heroes I may ask "so why are you here?"

I'm not angry. I'm a little irritated with the constant refrain of "Why are you playing if you won't play like me?", but it's no more than that.

But to respond, what if the game doesn't have trap filled dungeons? Pathfinder doesn't. Pathfinder doesn't have dungeons at all. It has rules for traps and for dungeons. It has modules you can play that have traps and dungeons, but there's no requirements anywhere for the GM to make heavy use of them.

Any more than every session of the game must consist of a dungeons with a trap and 2-3 fights with the last one being a boss fight.

My character's actions and motivations are different than mine. Given sufficient reason, he'll go into the trap-filled dungeon and play the brave hero. At least until I get bored with it and give up on the game.

I want to play the hero. I want to buckle swashes (or is it swash buckles?), swing from chandeliers, duel my arch-rival, rescue dragons from evil princesses, etc. I don't even mind dying heroically in the process. I'm not fond of slogging step by step down a corridor throwing summoned animals in front of me to see if they...

Trust me, you don't want to set off the trap in front of you while you are in THAT corridor. It doesn't end well.

Never was a kitchen swept so thoroughly.

There is actually a setting involving a giant dungeon and all the players have died before and forgotten almost everything. They try to get out, they can't remember much and some give up hope or go insane.

Pretty grim eternal dungeon setting.

Robert Carter 58 wrote:

Freehold DM wrote:

Robert Carter 58 wrote:

I rarely say "no" to players, but the one time I did was to a player who had become increasingly disenchanted with my GMing style, and I was increasingly disenchanted with her playing style. She came with her husband, who was a very good player, fun, into problem solving and puzzles, a team player. She would try to kill the monsters, when her build couldn't be the best combat monster AND spell caster she would get frustrated (her druid tried to be both and wasn't, and she wouldn't take pointers from me on how to make an effective build). Needless to say, that character eventually died, which really put her into a huff. Her next character, she announced, would be a Kender Rogue.

We play in the world of Greyhawk. It was a fairly gritty 3.0 or 3.5 campaign where we were fighting drow and mind flayers in the underdark. I said no, BUT she could be a halfling rogue. She cold even make the character look like a Kender with those personality traits if she liked, but no Kender.

Then I wavered a little, I said "I don't have stats for a Kender, (I don't think there was dragonlance stuff out at that time) and why is it here?" "It got curious found a portal and found itself in Greyhawk."

"I'm sorry, it's just not going to work. That's hardly a story."

After some consideration, I asked her to leave. On top of this, she would read during most of sessions, hardly participate and fall asleep. The Kender thing was the last straw. She would complain about it, write nasty e-mails to me about it, complain to her husband about it, etc. Of course, her husband wasn't allowed to play either.

I'd be interested in hearing the other side of this story.

Well, there are two sides to every story. I gave you a short version of mine. She'd probably say I was overly rigid or some such. If she had come up with a compelling story for a Kender in Greyhawk beyond "the kender finds a portal" I would have allowed

...

Someone shredded your backstory? I think the best thing you could do would be to definitively say "I will never game with you again, and you should consider what you just did".

What did you say though?

On experience:

A certain swordsman in his declining years said the following:
In one’s life, there are levels in the pursuit of study. In the
lowest level, a person studies but nothing comes of it, and he
feels that both he and others are unskillful. At this point he
is worthless. In the middle level he is still useless but is aware
of his own insufficiencies and can also see the insufficiencies of
others. In a higher level he has pride concerning his own ability,
rejoices in praise from others, and laments the lack of ability in
his fellows. This man has worth. In the highest level a man has
the look of knowing nothing.
These are the levels in general. But there is one transcending
level, and this is the most excellent of all. This person is
aware of the endlessness of entering deeply into a certain Way
and never thinks of himself as having finished. He truly knows
his own insufficiencies and never in his whole life thinks that
he has succeeded. He has no thoughts of pride but with self-abasement
knows the Way to the end. It is said that Master
Yagyu once remarked, “I do not know the way to defeat others,
but the way to defeat myself.”
Throughout your life advance daily, becoming more skillful
than yesterday, more skillful than today. This is never-ending.

Hagakure

Thank you for posting this.

Yeah, as a dm I am so very pleased when the players really get into it, gung-ho and they push the game in the direction they like.

The current party I am dming for are serious dungeon bashing ladies. Remorseless and driven in many ways. The other parts of the game that can be in, they mostly gloss over, with only some sessions on building a group of like minded adverturers, resolving problems/conflicts and rping.

^_^ Hi all.

Just thought I'd weigh in here. I personally love being invested in a character, and yes their death saddens me. That being said, rolls are rolls and death is a part of the game.

There are a select few times I take issue with a character death:

Inappropriate encounters: By this, I mean the GM (either intentionally or from lack of experience) slams a party against an impossible encounter, with no way the part can avoid it. Think level five 1's vs. CR 16 that just lands on the road they're walking down. This does -not- include when the party is full of idiots that challenge the king in front of his 9,999 elite guard.

Bad calls/making up rules: This one frustrates me the most, if/when a GM kills a character by making a "ruling" that is not in the rules, or is simply against the rules. For example, ruling that 2 allies under confusion passing through each other square triggers the "attack last attacker" reaction, causing the fully buffed level 6 fighter to mash the level 3 squishy. Yes, I almost had this happen, and would have been quite mad as it was clear the GM just wanted the fighter to kill someone for giggles.

Other than that, rolls are rolls, death is part of the game.

I absolutely agree with you RedJack Rose, but you sound to be a pirate, so it was inevitable.

Immortal Greed wrote:

Yep! One more thing to keep in mind is that players can learn and adapt and they can also get used to a certain type of play. That can lower their guard relating to other things, like trapped dungeons. So got to dip them into the acid pools before you go for full immersion.

Because players must learn and adapt to your style of play. Even if they prefer another.

Are you angry with me thejeff? Did I kill a player of yours in the past?

If the game has trap filled dungeons, they need to find a way to get through or around said dungeon (sometimes I do throw in a means of avoiding the dungeon entirely and get to the objective), or avoid it entirely and deal with the consequences of that. I do like sandboxes, but if players don't want to enter risky dungeons as brave heroes I may ask "so why are you here?"

If you don't want your character to die then why are you playing Pathfinder?

Let me rephrase that. If you want control over your character's death, why are you playing Pathfinder?

Yep, yep, lol.

There are monsters with save vs die effects, massive amounts of damage can be dealt, and you can be hit with so many hits you get dizzy calculating the damage. It can be a rough game some days.

Immortal Greed wrote:

Three questions for you Vivianne, if a character were to keep walking into traps when does an "arbitrary death" become a "death due to carelessness"?

If these traps are deadly as you claim, then a character cannot walk into them continuously. They would be killed by the first trap and then not be able to walk into any more traps, what with being dead and all.

Quote:

Do you think traps should be respected and players show caution and planning when progressing through a dungeon?

No. The solution is to instead not go into labyrinths filled with death traps and oozes to search for gold coins and gems. If dungeons in the world are as dangerous as you paint them, then the only reasonable decision for a character to make is to not go in these dungeons. Instead, you should hire idiots with no sense of self-preservation to go through the dangerous labyrinth for you. They are expendable. If they survive, you can ambush them outside the exit and take all the loot they gathered!

The other option is that you roleplay a suicidal character who goes into these dangerous dungeons with the intent of suicide by trap. But that's necessarily not something that works for every character.

Quote:

Lastly, does a multiple trap set-up offend you more (a dungeon that kills your char steadily via multiple traps) or traps (and monster-trap fusions) that can kill a pc quite quickly in one go?

The former. But only because it seems to assume that wands of CLW and Lesser Restoration aren't available.

That is really disappointing you don't think traps should be respected. If the players keep out of trap infested areas, well, so much for adventure. Novelty + exploration+ risk + excitement = adventure. If you don't want part of that equation, risk, you are missing out.

Immortal Greed wrote:

Three questions for you Vivianne, if a character were to keep walking into traps when does an "arbitrary death" become a "death due to carelessness"?

If these traps are deadly as you claim, then a character cannot walk into them continuously. They would be killed by the first trap and then not be able to walk into any more traps, what with being dead and all.

Quote:

Do you think traps should be respected and players show caution and planning when progressing through a dungeon?

No. The solution is to instead not go into labyrinths filled with death traps and oozes to search for gold coins and gems. If dungeons in the world are as dangerous as you paint them, then the only reasonable decision for a character to make is to not go in these dungeons. Instead, you should hire idiots with no sense of self-preservation to go through the dangerous labyrinth for you. They are expendable. If they survive, you can ambush them outside the exit and take all the loot they gathered!

The other option is that you roleplay a suicidal character who goes into these dangerous dungeons with the intent of suicide by trap. But that's necessarily not something that works for every character.

Quote:

Lastly, does a multiple trap set-up offend you more (a dungeon that kills your char steadily via multiple traps) or traps (and monster-trap fusions) that can kill a pc quite quickly in one go?

The former. But only because it seems to assume that wands of CLW and Lesser Restoration aren't available.

No, wrong right off the bat. I did not ever claim every one of my traps is lethal, just that you can have very lethal traps and trap combinations.

Yep! One more thing to keep in mind is that players can learn and adapt and they can also get used to a certain type of play. That can lower their guard relating to other things, like trapped dungeons. So got to dip them into the acid pools before you go for full immersion.

Immortal Greed wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Immortal Greed wrote:

Josh M. wrote:

A game with no risks is boring to me. There's no such thing as an "arbitrary death" in the games I play/run. Death is death. If people can drown in a spoonful of water in real life, then so can fantasy characters.

I just play by the rules the books says to. If a trap does enough damage to kill my character, I shouldn't magically become immune to trap damage all of a sudden.

If a DM didn't mean for a character to die, then they should've prepared the encounter better. We all make mistakes, it's true, but here's a tip: don't throw an encounter at the party that is CR 4+ the party ECL if you don't want someone to die. I've seen this happen; facepalms abound.

Yep, yep and yes.

As a friend has said "people die from falling over". If players don't think there is risk stepping into a trap filled dungeon or monster den, they will soon learn to be more cautious with the next char.

Yes, be very careful about the +4 ECL, and take note of the groups weaknesses and strengths. What is likely to counter them (go easy on that).

Absolutely great if you want to play like that.

If you want your characters to be larger than life heroes and not die silly ignominious deaths, that's also great.

Lol.

A good dungeon should have the risk of silly death and grisly death contained within.

Take Sen's fortress in Dark Souls. You and some of the monsters can be crushed by giant rolling balls (silly death), and you can be guillotined off a walkway and then fall many many tens of feet on to tar covered ground, and then a demon stabs your corpse (just to make sure). That is a grisly death, and the whole fortress is a challenging and thrilling dungeon.

Check those boxes!

Players can groan and then laugh at their failure if they die the silly death, and be shocked and surprised at the grisly death. Entertain those players with the demise of their characters.

Again that's great if you like...

We like the same things. Dangerous dungeons does not mean heavy roleplaying and complex plots have to go out of the window (and on to the pit of halberds).

Three questions for you Vivianne, if a character were to keep walking into traps when does an "arbitrary death" become a "death due to carelessness"?

As a veteran dm said, "respect the trap". You could respect them instead of calling all dangerous traps dealers of arbitrary death (aren't those two words getting old now?). Do you think traps should be respected and players show caution and planning when progressing through a dungeon?

Lastly, does a multiple trap set-up offend you more (a dungeon that kills your char steadily via multiple traps) or traps (and monster-trap fusions) that can kill a pc quite quickly in one go?

Anyone else can also answer how they like.

A video game, where you can load from the last quicksave if your character dies, is not the same thing as a tabletop game.

Yes, and the players have a lot more tools and options at their disposal so as to not get killed, compared to a computer game.

Immortal Greed wrote:

Josh M. wrote:

A game with no risks is boring to me. There's no such thing as an "arbitrary death" in the games I play/run. Death is death. If people can drown in a spoonful of water in real life, then so can fantasy characters.

I just play by the rules the books says to. If a trap does enough damage to kill my character, I shouldn't magically become immune to trap damage all of a sudden.

If a DM didn't mean for a character to die, then they should've prepared the encounter better. We all make mistakes, it's true, but here's a tip: don't throw an encounter at the party that is CR 4+ the party ECL if you don't want someone to die. I've seen this happen; facepalms abound.

Yep, yep and yes.

As a friend has said "people die from falling over". If players don't think there is risk stepping into a trap filled dungeon or monster den, they will soon learn to be more cautious with the next char.

Yes, be very careful about the +4 ECL, and take note of the groups weaknesses and strengths. What is likely to counter them (go easy on that).

Absolutely great if you want to play like that.

If you want your characters to be larger than life heroes and not die silly ignominious deaths, that's also great.

Lol.

A good dungeon should have the risk of silly death and grisly death contained within.

Take Sen's fortress in Dark Souls. You and some of the monsters can be crushed by giant rolling balls (silly death), and you can be guillotined off a walkway and then fall many many tens of feet on to tar covered ground, and then a demon stabs your corpse (just to make sure). That is a grisly death, and the whole fortress is a challenging and thrilling dungeon.

Check those boxes!

Players can groan and then laugh at their failure if they die the silly death, and be shocked and surprised at the grisly death. Entertain those players with the demise of their characters.

Dodging 18-20 weapons is one thing. Scythes and picks, though? Those are obviously my reward for being such a great game master.

You can never have enough scythes and picks.

Hmm, I've done scythe traps, now how about some pick traps?

Pressure plate and spring loaded heavy pick to the face. If char is small they are comedically hit by the base holding the pick (ouch). Maybe add some bleed to the pick itself...

If they wrench it free from the trap they will have a bleeding pick. Enjoy the treasure!

I've never met dead weight yet.

The closest one I can recall, mr average spread around fighter was pretty mediocre for a few sessions. Then he died saving the party. Collapsing a giant bell on himself and the big bad.

That was truly heroic.

A game with no risks is boring to me. There's no such thing as an "arbitrary death" in the games I play/run. Death is death. If people can drown in a spoonful of water in real life, then so can fantasy characters.

I just play by the rules the books says to. If a trap does enough damage to kill my character, I shouldn't magically become immune to trap damage all of a sudden.

If a DM didn't mean for a character to die, then they should've prepared the encounter better. We all make mistakes, it's true, but here's a tip: don't throw an encounter at the party that is CR 4+ the party ECL if you don't want someone to die. I've seen this happen; facepalms abound.

Yep, yep and yes.

As a friend has said "people die from falling over". If players don't think there is risk stepping into a trap filled dungeon or monster den, they will soon learn to be more cautious with the next char.

Yes, be very careful about the +4 ECL, and take note of the groups weaknesses and strengths. What is likely to counter them (go easy on that).

I dont understand why people on here a community that should theoretically be trying to grow makes everyone that does not build the perfect monster character when asking for advice gets told your wrong this is a better way to do it... so what if I want to be a halfling wizard with a great maul... and want to know what feats would make it more fun, stop telling me to play a @$##ing summoner!!!!

Exactly.

Some are obsessed with builds, power, dpr.

These are types that balk at ever having a low dex or con. They will never give up ac and hp to be good in another area.

Don't let the powergamers get to you, they are just vocal haters.

I would agree billygoat gruff.

Be unique, punish everyone with your uniqueness. Make the dm groan and annoy the other players.

Honestly, the fellow pcs should just murder the snowflake if it goes too far. Yes, pvp can solve problems.

Sorry, it was gonna be "Big Deal", but the alliteration claimed control of Kobold Cleaver's computer.

Oops.

So anyways, bad builds. In another thread just now (4e vs. Pathfinder, it's actually a pretty fun read, go there if you want to flame your least favorite edition's supporters a remarkably rational discussion) someone said that it's easier to make bad builds in Pathfinder.

This is true. Nobody's gonna say it ain't. Who hasn't made a crappy sling-wielding fighter? Or a wizard focusing on spells like floating disk?

But here's my question. It's easy to get overwhelmed by the prominent system mastery on these forums and start to assume bad builds are not only bad, they're utterly undesirable and will hurt your fun.

I've had tons of fun playing lousy designs, like a hobgoblin wizard who invested in being a decent melee combatant. Long story. Suffice to say I couldn't visualize him as an eldritch knight or magus, so I made him a wizard who would have eventually dipped into fighter a couple times.

This character was not maxed (though I did optimize him as well as I could). Nonetheless, he was plenty fun. No, not just in roleplaying. Believe it or not, sub-average-to-mediocre characters can be just as much fun in combat, even if they're being outshined! Crazy, I know.

So for those who say Pathfinder encourages you to only play wizards/gunslingers/clerics/whatever in all respects but roleplay: It's not that vicious a game. This ain't Monopoly, where every mistake comes back to bite you. Play what you like, and odds are you'll still have fun shooting people with crossbows or sneak attacking with firearms you had to take Exotic Weapon Proficiency to use.

Maybe this thread's unnecessary. I'm probably stating the obvious. If that's so, just see this as a bit of a self-indulgent rant. We all have 'em from time to time.

Cheers.

Yeah, I am in a similar camp. I don't always play the strongest builds, but I have fun. I at times don't max them out (odd stats instead of even) but other times I will make a bit of a dump char with a sub optimal build. I'll give an example.

Skadi, a skirmisher type concerned with moving as fast as possible, hitting and running but with crappy dex, and average con. I know! You are not meant to drop these. I was using a zen archery type feat to use wis for shooting bonus, not dex, but my ac was still rubbish. Movement was more my means of evasion, ensuring I was "safe" as opposed to having my dex tested. Long range scouting meant my dex was less of an issue for stealth as distance went in my sneaky favour. He wasn't about getting close for a stab to the back (more a long range shot). This char was in many areas weak, his damage was okay but DPR was not great (because he moved a lot) and he had trouble with dex skills (but certainly not wis or str skills).

He was great fun and I played him as so greedy and chaotic. The sub optimal build meant he was good in a few ways, but not all, so he was easy to use. My first char of this type and I would play him again. Luckily, although he was not made to fight undead he was in an anti-undead campaign, and his crazy movement really helped him out. Yes, chase me, right back into the party and away from your group.

Another one was a pf rogue, Mosca. This guy was a bit of a generalist with a melee focus but who would never touch dual wielding (he had an aversion to cheese). He was great fun, and felt more normal hero in a distant land rather than super hero ginzu sword saint. So I liked him, he got along with everyone but the paladin and rping him was quite fun. So shady.

Immortal Greed wrote:

Grimmy wrote:

Why does it have to be "Let it die on page 1" or "In before the lock!"?

This is a topic I have actually had to contend with in my home-group.

Same here.

Exactly and I don't have a big pool of people to game with, it's just something I do with my little brother and his friends. It wold be nice to be able to hear from the community at large about how to wok through these differences, without everyone getting so wound up about it.

People get wound up about it, they actually lose hp over it.

!!!

A dm I know started a game very much like that.

Considering all I added to the snowflake thread was a bad joke, I'll chime in here after reading Steve's article.

Rather than "Yes, but..." I think, where specific campaigns are concerned, a GM is fine with going with "No, because... ." If a GM's campaign world has no elves in it, then the players are not playing elves. Why? Because they don't exist. If that's not a particular player's cup of tea, then they should probably find another game. Rather than taking it as a personal affront to elf-lovers everywhere, perhaps accept that the GM wants to do something different and would like players willing to support the concept.

I have to admit though, that a minotaur artificer riding a mechanical elephant sounds truly epic. (Yes, but...not at first level.)

Yeah, I don't quite get wanting to play something when the dm/world builder has just told you, there are none of them, they don't exist, this isn't like all that has come before it, here we have a different focus to Tolkien.

If the world builder has done their job, there will be a lot of new stuff on the table, or a gripping setting where you play "plain" races in a very contained seting. Or, it is a failure as a setting and you move on.

Why does it have to be "Let it die on page 1" or "In before the lock!"?

This is a topic I have actually had to contend with in my home-group.

Same here.

On saying no and killing something off to make space for another race, I almost used a Himmler quote. Surprisingly relevant.

658.

We were all weary travelers in the same bar, throwing back some pints. Not looking for trouble, not looking for a fight.

There was some noise up in the attic; it didn't go well. Spiders burst through the rafters, there were too many to count and some really thick nests up there. We were the only ones that survived.

Yes sheriff, we did burn down the bar.

So we decided this country had a real spider problem. Far too many people-devouring spiders about. Please let us go on our way, this is important work we are doing.

I too prefer power attack with throttle control.

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Including me. Yeah, I said it. My fun counts too.

Yes. Yes it does.

You know, I once had a player tell the whole group at the beginning of a session that the only thing that mattered was their fun, and that it didn't matter if I had fun at all because I was only there to serve their good time.

He has since changed his philosophy on this. But he really meant it at the time.

Ah yes, the one seeing themselves and their fun as more important than all others, as if only their fun matters.

You could have so much fun if the rest of the party were sadists, and when he said that, the group turned upon him with Jormungand smiles.

http://thecartdriver.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/gg_Jormungand_-_01_382A 285D.mkv_snapshot_16.58_2012.04.12_10.09.37-460x258.jpg

Good article.

*A tall, chilled figure steps into the warm cave, his cloak damp from the frozen wastes and chilly winds of lockedthread. The hood is pulled back to reveal a smiling, seemingly jovial hobgoblin, who sits down with a grin. He warms his hands and then speaks to the other adventurers taking shelter from the bitter cold*

Hello to all those travelers from lockedthread!

Yeah, I could not agree with this more. I especially liked this:

It boils down to this: I value a setting’s unique atmosphere much more highly than unlimited race and class options. If excising a few races and classes makes the world a more interesting place, then cut away.

Fine expression. Some may argue against this until they freeze to death, but it has a strong internal logic. Creation can involve destruction, removing the impediments to an idea being realised.

I had a player that once wanted to die in the next dungeon, so he could bring in another char. He fell down a pit trap and went to negatives fighting Aztec dire rabbits. The players got to him on -9, and then natural 1 on the heal check.

His next char was great, and a lot of fun was had.