Paul DiAndrea's page

I'm not sure how so many of the people posting enjoy any part of life. SO many seem to be offended by so much I dont know why they even bother to leave the house and interact with other people. If comments or language from other people effect you so much, then your self esteem needs some work.

Has anyone worked with their players to encourage them to not over-optimize?

To clarify, I'm not looking to apply the "advanced template" to every encounter to provide a challenge. Rather, it's my observation that optimized characters are...dull. Optimized characters tend to be mechanical, so much so that there are "guides" to creating the superior combat engine whose sole goal is to ensure the enemy is not just beaten but shellacked.

Anyone have gentle ideas to nudge characters away from the notion that they must optimize to survive, that they must take the Reactionary trait, that certain spells should never be learned because they are 24% less effective than another, that if you don't take Pounce as a barbarian you're a fool? I'll never impose straight-jackets (play how I want you to play), but I'd like to encourage players that it's ok if they take an archetype or make a build that is only 82% as effective as another.

One thing that YOU as GM can do is to focus more on story so that your campaign is not simply a series of sequential combat encounters. If you tell a good story and present challenges that cannot be solved by fighting alone, then players min-maxing for combat will begin to drift toward less optimized builds when they realize that pure "whoop ass" stats isnt going to win every encounter.

Another useful technique you can use has to do with character creation. Ask the players to submit a character concept or backstory before they roll up stats. After you read their concept/backstory, encourage them to build a character around the story they wrote. Don't let them pick traits and abilities that have nothing to do with their backstory. Or perhaps mandate that one of their traits must be a regional to reflect where they came from.

STORY, STORY, STORY. It's not just for GM's..pass it on.

Even the best chef in the world still serves basic vegetables alongside the mastercrafted meal.

And I'm saying there are way too many vegetables and not nearly enough mastercraft meals when it comes to Golarion culture design. Its way too predictable and doesnt break enough new ground. Its all milk and no crunchberries.

I agree Dark Sun was definitely one of the more creative campaign worlds. And if you recall, one of the reasons it was so good was that it abandoned the hobby's accepted norms for elves, halflings, and dwarves. It wasnt that they played against type, it was about developing interesting cultures for each race that you wanted to learn about. There were few sterotypical norms in that world. It breached new territory, which made it good.

Golarion's human cultures are developed, but they rarely breach any new territory because they are too closely based on their real world cultural equivalent. They dont lack detail, they just lack anything unexpected, with a very few exceptions.

For instance, Galt is based on the French Revolution, all the way down to the clothes and method of execution. It epitomizes the mistake the designers keep making; they stick too closely to the real world equivalent. If you want to base a culture off the french revolution, that's great, but lose the period hats and guillotines so there's at least a visual distinction between the two. Instead of a guilotine, use something that does the same thing story-wise but in a different manner so the inspirations are not so obvious. This is like story writing 101.

Same thing with Andoran, its obviously based on the American Revolution, all the way down to the waving flags, funny outfits, and cultural ideals. Does it work? Yeah, but its boring. Do something interesting with it, like make them all undead or something. A nation of good undead; now that's interesting! In that case, you're mixing the idealism of the American Revolution with the moral quandry that its being run by an undead population. Idealistic zombies that are hated because they exist, despite their amazing new form of government. Then you'd have Cheliax vs. Andoran; but who are the good guys? The undead legion or the army of hell? What do the player's characters feel about it?

Just stop doing the expected ALL of the time. I understand that not everything can be groundbreaking and there needs to be some mundanity to establish some kind of norm, but there's too much that is really dull.

There's not enough effort to develop the human cultures beyond the obvious initial inspiration.

On a positive note, I'd say Cheliax is Golarion's most interesting culture conceptually, but they dont do enough with it. A nation that is a proxy of hell is quite fascinating.

Hey, everytime I see a picture of the Paizo writers and staff all I see are pictures of pasty white guys. How about inserting some diversity into the mix?

I think some diversity could help expand the hobby and introduce some new ideas and viewpoints. I'll give you a perfect example of why you need some diversity:

Explain to me why all of the black people have to come from a jungle-somewhat-tribal civilization around the Mwangi Expanse? Why cant the Chelaxians have been black, or the Taldans, or even the Azlantis? Do we always have to portray black people as tribal jungle dwellers? Hell, they did the same thing in Forgotten Realms with the Jungles of CHult, so dont feel too bad. You arent the first to make this mistake. Sure, there are a few exceptions in Golarion, but the stereotype is there and it really doesnt need to be. Same goes for Asians; do they always have to come from a culture that mimics our reality? Why not make an Asian-influenced culture, but populate it with black or even white people to throw in an interesting curve?

Its just so damn predictable that it's painful. Its a racial stereotype carried over from the world we live in, but its fantasy, so why cant we challenge the norm?

I'm sure it wasnt intentional at all, but this is why I think you need some diversity. I understand that its a hobby mostly dominated by whites and run by whites, and so alll human beings naturally create things in their own image (without malicious intent), but it doesnt have to be. You're thinking too much inside the neat little prepackaged boxes called stereotypes.

I played Pathfinder last night with a party of three/four characters - an 11th level sorcerer, his cleric companion (~8th level?), a 10th level barbarian, and a 10th level fighter/rogue. They were tracking a 13th level barbarian who'd managed to raise 16 skeletal warriors using a magical artifact sword. The players are smart, so they broke out the old Invisible Flying Party chestnut - everyone in the group was suited up with Greater Invisibility and Fly. Here's how combat went:

Me: The skeleton archers attack!
*roll Perception check*
*pause to discuss whether Perception check is passive or active, try to determine modifiers to Perception check, ultimately conclude that the DC to find the location of an invisible opponent is DC 40, but with a -20 to the DC because the person is in combat*
*roll miss chance twice for every skeleton (two iterative attacks)*
*roll attack and damage for each attack that goes through*
*remind targets to make Fly checks*
*targets make Fly checks*

And so on.

After two hours of grinding combat, the party won the battle, but also defeated my desire to ever run a game in which the party gets to 10th level.

I'm not sure I have a point, except to say how much I hate the invisible flying party and high level play generally. Any encounter with an opponent without a ranged attack or ability to fly, might as well read "give PCs xp, don't bother rolling dice." (This applies even in dungeons because the sorcerer has a spell to create a pit beneath a foe, trapping them and removing them from combat unless they have a ranged attack, a fly or climb speed, or awesome climb skill).

Again, I don't really have a point to all of this, I just wanted to whine.

I have run several campaigns from 1-18th level, and so I can tell you with some certainty that you need to expect this to happen as smart player's get access to more and more powerful magics. If the players know the spells better than you, they are going to own you until you get a better grip of what tactics/magic counters what. Yes, I know its frustrating, but sometimes its the best teacher for a new DM. Being a DM is never about winning or losing, its about telling and refereeing a story. If you are getting upset when the player's honestly and fairly beat one of your encounters, then you are not being a good neutral referee. You are trying to "win" too much.

You are not frustrated at high level play, you are frustrated because you don't know how to counter their magical tactics and use the monsters at their maximum effectiveness. Your experience is not uncommon for DM's who are having their first high level experience. There's a simple fix for that: go back to the rulebooks and the forums and learn how to counter what they are doing.

Its just a fact I have learned from years of being a DM.

He's laughing all the way to the bank because he actually got people to pay such a ridiculous amount for that thing.

Of course there's a wrong way to DM. That's one of the reasons they publish a DMG, to help people who aren't good at DM'ing or need to learn about how the game should be run. The DM is a performer, so get used to being evaluated by your audience.

If you can't take the heat, get out from behind the screen. Man up.

This kind of notion that all DM styles are equal is just a way for those that suck to protect their fragile egos from criticism. There are plenty of good styles and plenty of bad styles.

Well, if you are running a campaign that is about environmental flavor, such as an asian style campaign, you may not want to accept someone's Swedish Alchemist because it doesn't fit the flavor of the game.

Ultimately, its the DM's call, and if you don't like his style you can try another game. Keep in mind, just because a DM runs a campaign where anything goes doesnt make him a good DM either. If you want "anything goes" try playing Rifts or Gurps.

I have no issue banning player's from certains options for story/campaign based reasons. On the other hand, banning something just because you don't like gnomes or bards is a bit amateurish on the part of the DM. It demonstrates a non-objective personality which has trouble seeing things in a referee-style role. This kind of DM has a "Me vs. Players" attitude that usually ruins a game.

Oops_I_Crit_My_Pants wrote:

Its simple. The government has no choice but to cut because it is so overbudget (1.6 trillion this year alone). You are correct when you say that will increase unemployment, but what you fail to consider is that if the government goes bankrupt (which is where its heading), even more people lose their job. So its kind of like cutting off a limb to save the patient. Its ugly and nasty, but necessary to save lives. Do thousands suffer? Yes. Does it save millions of others? Yes.

And almost no one paid the 91% rate you mentioned above. If you ever tried to raise taxes that high on the rich, they'd simply move their business/home overseas to countries with lower tax rates and all the people they employ in the US would be out of work.

And no one is going to expand a business and hire new workers if they only get to keep 9 cents of every dollar they make.

And actually, when people only get to keep 9 cents on the dollar they hire more. A lot more.

Why would anyone invest in anything if they only got to keep 9 cents on every dollar of profit? You're not thinking rationally and have absolutely no clue about the basic principals of economics.

Businesses would collapse en masse.

I love how rules lawyers try to turn a 1st level spell like CHARM into some horrid game breaker. Give them enough time and they'll try and convince you that WIZARD MARK is just an understated version of SYMBOL OF DEATH.

Selgard wrote:

Again with the Ally thing. Drowning your children? A no go.

Using charm to get you to murder strangers, rob from people and all that- fine. But using charm to get you to kill your loved ones, friends, and such?
I guess it depends on how you define "ally".

Dictionary.com says as its 2nd definition:
to associate or connect by some mutual relationship, as resemblance or friendship.

IMO? It wouldn't work.

-S

See that's the thing. The Succubus is using the skill Diplomacy to convince the mother her children aren't children, that they have, instead, been replaced by demons. Once she is convinced they are demons, then the Succubus orders the mother to drown the demons, not her children.

You are right, the succubus absolutely could ordee the mother to kill her children if the mother was convinced/deceived they were demons. But the succubus could not just simply tell the mother to kill her children outright without deceiving her first, because the charm will not invaildate the charmed individual's (the mother) prior allegiances and it is an action that she would be viloently opposed to. If you want people to do crazy crap against their alignment and allegiances with CHARM, you basically need to lie to them first so you alter their perception of a situation. OMG..that might lead to ROLE-PLAYING.

Oh, and before it was called "Mexican American Studies", it was called "La Raza Studies". "La Raza" stands for "the Race" in Spanish. And here's another video that shows the racist agenda they were teaching in this class.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-Ha5ZQGJ-w&feature=related

You guys should stop taking headlines at face value and look a little deeper. Just from the headline, it makes it seem that Arizona schools are trying to deny these children the chance to learn based on some fascist agenda.

What you don't understand is that the teachers who were teaching these Mexican Studies programs were actually teaching these kids to hate based on cultural differences instead of giving them a proper education about Mexican culture. Unfortunately, the only fair way to stop these whacko teachers from delivering their message to impressionable youth is to suspend ALL ethnic studies so no one can claim MExican Studies was unduly singled out. You can't fire the teachers because the teacher's union wont let you. Here's a few of the topics being taught under the guise of "Mexican Cultural Studies":

1. Hispanic students refuse to say the Pledge of Allegiance
2. Hispanic students accuse America of stealing Mexican land (claiming Nex Mexico and Arizona are stolen Mexican lands)
3. Hispanic students calling White Americans racists
4. Hispanic students refusing to speak English

Do these seem like healthy topics to teach impressionable children? These facts of the curriculum are not in dispute. Here's also a video link to testimony from a teacher in an Arizona school who witnessed these behaviors.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vT4FHUet988

You see, they gave the class a benign name (Mexican Cultural Studies), but they are actually teaching more than just Mexican Culture, they are teaching a political agenda geared dividing people through racial hatred. Its no different than if I started a class called "White Cultural Studies" and then taught that Jews were the cause of white folk's problems. So before you all jump up and down and swear that Nazism is sweeping back into style, you may be surprised to learn that the people preaching racial hatred are actually some of the teachers in this class and not the administration. WHat you are seeing is the administrations attempt to stop kids from being indoctrinated into prejudicial behaviors. SO you may not lilke their approach, but you also need to come to terms that what was being taught was not just "Mexican Cultural Studies", it was racial division and prejudice.

Gailbraithe wrote:

I also think it's going to be very, very hard to find decent GMs for 4E. There doesn't seem to much reward for running the game. Almost all of the creative power the DM traditionally has has been stripped away, and there no support for doing any of the things that players can't do in computer games.

Gailbraithe, can you elaborate on the above statement? I thought 4th was meant to give the DM more power the easy create adversaries (easy monster creation) and social & skill based encounters (skill checks).

I do not have the books, so this is a real question.

I consider 3.5 to be a superior game system in all aspects, but one critique I have of 3.5 is that the rules were not organized well which increased the learning curve for new DM's and I think frustrated some people. In 4e they did a good job of organizing things cleanly.

I ran 4e for the 1st time the other day. Its not bad, but its not great. If you like a game with lots of depth, play 3.5. If you just want to sit down and play a hack and slash WoW-style, than play 4e. Its a simplified version of 3.5 IMO with some tweaks to encourage faster play.

I ran 3.5 since it came out and played WoW for 3 years as a raiding guild leader. It's way too much like an MMO for my taste. I personally think that 4e is just a setup so Hasbro can eventually start their own MMO.

All the abilities remind of the bars you set up in your WoW interface. The old school players will play 3.5 and Pathfinder. The new people will play 4.0.