Mebmunay's page

Irontruth

1. If events always have their own rules, then Paizo wouldn't need this section of the book.

2. People have brought up content that can be seen as controversial in this thread, that has been written by Paizo. People can, and have, been blamed for such situations.

3. If a public event is being hosted that has content that can offend people and hasn't been announced, then maybe the event host should reconsider his or her line of work.

For your second question again, but more clearly, it is a rigged question. If the person with PTSD doesn't tell anyone they have it, then that is on them. It can easily be changed in the future of the campaign, assuming they would still want to be at that table. Then if they did tell someone and the story isn't changed, that game master is actively trying to trigger that persons mental illness. For all intensive purposes that would be a crime in my eyes. When you can come to me with a legitimate example, then we can talk.

With all due respect to you HWalsh, your version misses the point. The terms you find objectionable are the very terms used to communicate that something is safe for marginalized groups. Removing the terms "safe space", "marginalized", "social contract" gut the text of much of its meaning to those listening to know that a place is safe. To anyone listening your rewrite is significantly worse.

Something I do want to respond to. People who are bullied frequently become bullies themselves. It's actually part of the cycle of abuse and this idea that you don't need to call out gamers for their bullying because they know what real bullying is like is horses**t. I've watched in my lifetime as nerds have turned their childhood abuse into a get-out-of-jail-free card to harass, bully, threaten and degrade women and the LGBT community.

Paizo is absolutely 100% right to try to tackle toxic gamers head-on. And they can't do that by gutting the meaningful language of the section meant to do just that.

This seems like you aren't willing to compromise. Hwelsh got rid of redundancy and handcuffing text in his version. He clearly understands the meaning of the text, because the tone and hard hitting words are still there. I'm not sure what you want, but it doesn't seem to be a place of freedom of expression.

Thanks for doing this forum post a great service Hwalsh. It may be a bit rough, but you put together something that sends a similar message without fully forcing people to censor content.

Mebmunay wrote:

This post has never been a matter of exclusion, but a matter of forced inclusion. The way it is written forces peoples hands depending on the situation. I'd prefer to have open reign with creative freedom. I'm not one for anything offensive, but I want the choice to have a controversial character or story without having to risk scrapping it.

Then ignore that section, right up until the controversial stuff causes an issue. Nobody is going to come to your place and take away your books for running a controversial character or story.

Unless you're talking about PFS.

This goes beyond me having a personal preference. Things like PFS are the exact reason this text should be revised. It can set a precedence that has a snowballing effect. Respect and care for others is common sense in a team based game. Having it forced upon people can create a hostile environment.

This post has never been a matter of exclusion, but a matter of forced inclusion. The way it is written forces peoples hands depending on the situation. I'd prefer to have open reign with creative freedom. I'm not one for anything offensive, but I want the choice to have a controversial character or story without having to risk scrapping it.

Mebmunay wrote:

This post is not meant to aggravate or deter anyone. I am merely posting this in the hopes of preventing possible stagnation of narrative story telling in the Pathfinder 2nd Edition community. Please be respectful, and fully consider others opinions on this matter.

Currently with how the "Gaming Is For All" section of the book is worded, it is a bit heavy handed. While I agree that we should all respect one another, and give anyone the opportunity to join in on games. We should not shy away from character and story ideas that could possibly be controversial.
There can easily be situations where a player or a game master can push the envelope too far, and make others feel bad about themselves or make others angry. I am not saying that should be allowed. But pushing the idea, that proposing a controversial character or story is wrong, is like calling someones ideals wrong. Sometimes heavier concepts need to be explored to tell a more compelling story, but censorship should never be the way we try to resolve issues.
It is common sense that we should respect one another. We learn that outside of the game. But I simply ask of Paizo not to limit their and our creative freedom when it comes to developing a story. When healthy debating is killed, there comes the risk of unstable uniformity.

First... if you don't follow the text of this section... what exactly are the consequences going to be? Is someone observing your games and reporting them to Paizo? Are they going to come to your house and confiscate your books? Are they going to block your access to the SRD?

Second, I want to get your answer on the solution to an example. One of your players is suffering from PTSD. Doesn't matter from what specifically, but the topic can for them trigger panic attacks. The specific topic though is relatively contained, and it is very easy to run a game that avoids that topic. Would you as GM purposely include or exclude that topic from your game? In other words... would you make your...

For your first question, it comes down to if it is an official event. A game master or player that is not comfortable, no matter how trivial it may be, can be in the right if they decide to report you for something. Ergo, you might not be allowed at a location anymore because of someones viewpoint. This hinders the development process.

For your second question, that depends on the severity of the PTSD and if it is ever brought up. Of course any sensible person would find a work around if it caused the person mental trauma. If you can't understand that, then you haven't developed enough as a person to run a game. How it is written, it can come down to more than just someone with a mental problem not being able to tolerate something, it can come down to someone with the smallest issue not being able to tolerate something.

Quote:

SuperSheep and The Sesquipedalian Thaumaturge, I am feeling a good amount of aggression from you both right now, from a few points in your response there. From what I've read, you are injecting meaning that might not be there from what is written. My stance on this is from what is written, not what is suggested.

Well there's definitely a degree of irritation involved. Statements don't exist in a vacuum and your argument seems to be (correct me if I'm wrong) that it is too hard or impossible to always create a game that is fun and comfortable for all those playing.

And that you feel that Paizo putting in this statement is akin to them suggesting that your story involving some controversial theme be censored. And that they are asking for something that isn't realistic.

Am I wrong here?

For the most part you are correct. While I have no stories in the works that could institute such themes. With what is written it can easily be interpreted to be a censor on controversial character and story ideas.

SuperSheep and The Sesquipedalian Thaumaturge, I am feeling a good amount of aggression from you both right now, from a few points in your response there. From what I've read, you are injecting meaning that might not be there from what is written. My stance on this is from what is written, not what is suggested.

If you would like direct quotes imposing ideals upon players, then I will give the following and provide context on why they do.

"and the table is a safe space for everyone."
The term safe space is usually used in environments where anyone can feel comfortable one hundred percent of the time. This should simply not be the case when darker story or character directions can, and will, make this impossible.

"Pathfinder is for everyone, and Pathfinder games should be as safe, inclusive, and fun as possible for all."
This doubles down on what I just said, and I'm not exactly sure on what they mean by inclusive. Unless they are referring to humanity as a whole, or excluding those that might be opposed to this ideal.

"As a player, it is your responsibility to ensure that you are not creating or contributing to an environment that makes any other players feel uncomfortable"
Again, this is a not a very realistic goal.

"A character whose concept and mannerisms are racist tropes, for example, is exceptionally harmful and works against the goal of providing fun for all."
While racism isn't okay in a real life setting. It is common place to have a character not like, let's say elves, for the purposes of story telling.

"If another player tells you that your character concept or roleplaying style makes them uncomfortable, you shouldn’t argue about what they should or shouldn’t find offensive or say that what you’re doing is common (and therefore okay) among players or in other media. Instead, you should simply stop"
This would mean talking to the player that is uncomfortable with an idea is in the right always. There is no room for debate from the other player.

"If you notice a player becoming uncomfortable, you are empowered to pause the game, take it in a new direction"
The book at this point is asking for a GM to change their story if someone doesn't like its direction. Depending on the story this could either be impossible, or extremely inappropriate.

"People of all identities and experiences have a right to be represented in the game, even if they’re not necessarily playing at your table."
Assuming that this means equally, this is simply not possible at times with given time periods and settings.

The section actually directly imposes noncontroversial ideals upon the people playing it. It goes out of its way to call ideas that could be so wrong.

This post is not meant to aggravate or deter anyone. I am merely posting this in the hopes of preventing possible stagnation of narrative story telling in the Pathfinder 2nd Edition community. Please be respectful, and fully consider others opinions on this matter.

Currently with how the "Gaming Is For All" section of the book is worded, it is a bit heavy handed. While I agree that we should all respect one another, and give anyone the opportunity to join in on games. We should not shy away from character and story ideas that could possibly be controversial.
There can easily be situations where a player or a game master can push the envelope too far, and make others feel bad about themselves or make others angry. I am not saying that should be allowed. But pushing the idea, that proposing a controversial character or story is wrong, is like calling someones ideals wrong. Sometimes heavier concepts need to be explored to tell a more compelling story, but censorship should never be the way we try to resolve issues.
It is common sense that we should respect one another. We learn that outside of the game. But I simply ask of Paizo not to limit their and our creative freedom when it comes to developing a story. When healthy debating is killed, there comes the risk of unstable uniformity.

I can agree with you on points one, two, and five. Although I can't really agree with changing resonance to anything else. It should just be gotten rid of because of a few reasons. First, it over complicates the game. Second, there are already things in place to prevent magic item spam, such as items being much more pricey, the action economy making it disadvantageous to switch between magic items on the fly, and item slots still existing. I don't have enough play experience on point four to give a solid opinion of it yet though.

If you mean someone allocated a high-level item might want to sell it to buy a lower-level item instead, there's this:

page 348, Treasure for New Characters wrote:

A PC can voluntarily take an item that has a lower level than any or all of the listed items, but doing so doesn’t give any more currency.

If you mean someone allocated two mid-level items might want to sell them and buy a higher-level item instead, that strikes me as a bad idea to allow, or at least a bad idea to mandate allowing.

If you don't mean either of those things then I'm not sure what you mean.

I would just like the second option to be viable. Instead of forcing players to have items the development team assumes you would have. Many players like to save up in order to get items that cost more instead of less.

While the crafting portion of my original post was more for the what if scenario. The main point of concern is that the table listed in the book, doesn't accurately represent a player of the listed level's items. It is whether or not there should be a rule in place to sell off items from the table for 50% of their value. If Paizo plans to use a table like this in their official book without such a rule, it make tie the hands of many players when they generate characters at the table's listed levels.

Assuming crafting during character creation would be allowed, time skip wise. Can you sell off the permanent level items given by the wealth table for 50% of their worth in order to craft something that is often above your starting gold?
For example, a group would get a level six item from the end of their last adventure, but they don't need it. Therefore they sell it off immediately at the start of level seven.
Now because a character is level seven they can craft a master quality item.
I would assume this would be a legitimate option given the wealth table is to reflect a player at a given level with those items.

I'd like a formal definition for the word using in the P2 rule book. Otherwise, if one were to use the formal English definition of the word they would be able to use a replacer word for things like Point-Blank Shot.

Using: take, hold, or deploy (something) as a means of accomplishing a purpose or achieving a result; employ.

When using a ranged weapon without the volley trait, you gain a +2 circumstance bonus to damage rolls on attacks made within the weapon’s first range increment.

When holding a ranged weapon without the volley trait, you gain a +2 circumstance bonus to damage rolls on attacks made within the weapon’s first range increment.

While it may be common sense that the word using in terms of gameplay for this example is to shoot a weapon. There have been situations in which wordings have been debated much more.

Greetings to everyone. I am currently in the process of writing a program that creates NPC's for me. The end goal is to have something I can go to, so that I may create a quick obstacle for my PC's or a NPC that can be fully worked out beforehand easily. This way fudging rolls can be kept to a bare minimum.

I plan to have the NPC's scale via level with attributes, saves, BAB, skills, hit dice, abilities, spells, feats, etc. Things like base stats can be simply worked out, by basing base stats off of a selected preexisting race, class, template goal, and level at the start of the program.

So far my main issue is deciding on which spells, abilities, and feats to give my NPC's. Hence the reason why I am here. The plan is to create a bucket system, in which each bucket will contain higher level abilities, spells, and feats. In which there will be synergistic groupings of these inside each bucket given out to an NPC. In theory this should make a character that works seamlessly. The only problem is, is that there is a massive amount of fluff when it comes to these things.

I'm here to ask the Paizo community for help on this matter. You may post any constructive feedback you might have below, but the main goal of this post is to assemble groupings of these abilities, spells, and feats that may go into each bucket at different levels of the game.