RDM's page

Well, its true. I could just decide not to GM if I am not GMing the thing I want, just like the player could decide to not play if they feel they can't play anything but something nonexistent in the campaign world.

RDM wrote:

They don't exist.

That is the only excuse at all needed. End of line.

Kthulhu wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:

I see a lot of threads on how the GM must be flexible...

But none on Players being flexible.

Man, you haven't even seen the half of it. I remember a thread several months ago where a poster gave examples of the GM and the player reaching a compromise...only the examples that he gave were all of the player getting exactly what he wanted, and the GM not getting any element of what he wanted.

Which seems to be what the majority of posters in these threads think is the ideal resolution for the situation of a disagreement between a player and the GM.

I posted an example drawn from a game I play in one of the previous iterations of these threads, and I want to link to it because not only is it an example of how compromise can mean compromise (and be mutually satisfactory), but it is also an example of why I am wary of the style advocated in RDM's post. Being willing to explain bans or refusals at a level beyond "because I say so" helps.

As a player, even something as simple as "no, because I just hate the hell out of gnomes" gives me a lot more help than "no, end of the line."

Oh, its a good thing to SAY why. Its just not NEEDED as a reason. The only REASON needed is that they don't exist.

RDM wrote:

Anzyr wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

They kind of have a point Anzyr. I myself like giving players that influence on world elements, but many GMs do not. Defining Player Entitlement the way you have defines demanding X race as Player Entitlement. No way around that.

The key is what you can't have not what you can. The GM can have any world element desires. If the players tell him he "can't" have a world element that is player entitlement.

The same is true of player characters. It's the "can't" that matters. Once the GM starts telling the players what character elements they "can't" have that is GM entitlement.

The GM is entitled to have a kingdom run by the Cult of Ythyx. He is not entitled to say that there are no "X, Y, Z." In doing so he treads just as much on what a player is entitled to (the character they want) as much as a player telling a GM what he can't have in his world.

Perhaps my explanation above didn't explain this very well.

SO then you are absolutely fine with the GM adding things to the players character, whether he wants them or not, right?

He "can" make any option available sure. Remember it's about "can't" not can. Just as the player "can" tell the GM to have a village populated by dragons posing as humans. The GM doesn't have to add that.

Hrm... this is so obvious to me that I am not explaining it as well as I'd like. The wordier version:

The GM controls the encounters the players will face, the scenarios they will face and the background they will journey through. The Player's have no right to tell the GM he can't have any of those things.

The player controls the character they make, the actions their character takes and way their character interacts in the world. The GM has no right to tell the player he can't have those things.

You see the player being able to make a Tengu Magus as controlling the GM, but this is not the case. It falls within his sphere of control to have a Tengu Magus.

Likewise the theoretical...

So, in essence, you argue that every world MUST be Golarion or the Forgotten realms in potentia.

Damian Magecraft wrote:

Anzyr wrote:

That would depend entirely on why the GM says Tengu isn't a valid racial choice. Because most of the reasons for it not to be are GM entitlement. But feel free to try one on me. I like to rip apart a good excuse after dinner.

Tengu are not a PC viable race because in this setting they are Yama/Kame spirits. do try to use a believable "excuse" beyond "magic, ta da!"

Magic is a believable excuse in Pathfinder. How did you raise the dead? Magic. How did you turn into a Dragon? Magic. How come everything breaks down into 6 second intervals? Magic. If you can't come up with a reason for that Tengu to be playable, I think the problem is lack of imagination.

@ Arachnofiend - It's entirely possible I am, but imagine the reverse scenario.

GM: I have this great campaign. Its a magical city run by a cabal of wizards that has mandatory education.

Players: No, you can't.

It doesn't hurt that most GMs use "I don't like it." to justify their exclusion. Because a skilled enough GM can make anything work and should do so, even if they don't like it.

SO then you are absolutely fine with the GM adding things to the players character, whether he wants them or not, right?

kyrt-ryder wrote:

They kind of have a point Anzyr. I myself like giving players that influence on world elements, but many GMs do not. Defining Player Entitlement the way you have defines demanding X race as Player Entitlement. No way around that.

The key is what you can't have not what you can. The GM can have any world element desires. If the players tell him he "can't" have a world element that is player entitlement.

The same is true of player characters. It's the "can't" that matters. Once the GM starts telling the players what character elements they "can't" have that is GM entitlement.

The GM is entitled to have a kingdom run by the Cult of Ythyx. He is not entitled to say that there are no "X, Y, Z." In doing so he treads just as much on what a player is entitled to (the character they want) as much as a player telling a GM what he can't have in his world.

Perhaps my explanation above didn't explain this very well.

SO then you are absolutely fine with the GM adding things to the players character, whether he wants them or not, right?

Arachnofiend wrote:

Anzyr, I think you're going overboard here. As much as I'm all for the players having free reign with their creativity, the fact remains that it's the GM that's building the story and is doing quite a bit more in the downtime than any of the players.

This is a playstyle thing. Not all of us 'build the story' as GMs. I prefer to run games where the stories are built by the actions on each side of the table without any downtime labor on my part.

The Story is built by player actions. The starting state of the setting, however, is already built. The characters exist in it and their actions define the story that takes place. They also change the setting, through their actions.

Or Anzyr, are you saying the GM should be allowed to FORCE additions to the players character, because apparently that isn't defined as entitlement the other way? So, I insist your character have a wasting disease. After all, I didn't take a choice away from you, I just added something, and you should adjust your conception of your character to accommodate.

Yes! Player entitlement would be telling the GM he can't an evil chancellor in his campaign, because functionally those are equivalent. And I've never heard a player suggest that. I'll break down to make it simple.

GM controlling a player's choice in character = GM entitlement.

Player controlling GM's choice in world elements = Player entitlement.

It's pretty simple to understand this way. And I never hear players try and dictate what the GM can't have in their campaigns.

Except by adding Tengu you ARE controlling the GMs choice in world elements.

A race that did not previously exist was made to. Its not even remotely arguable.

World is not connected to that sort of plane. Not every world shares the same multiverse. Sorry, sometimes no is indeed no.

They don't exist.

That is the only excuse at all needed. End of line.

No, but if you are using the Pathfinder rules, it should be a Pathfinder campaign. And Pathfinder has Plane Shift... or hell just the fact that it has magic can justify a lot of stuff that (and this may surprise you) are part of the Pathfinder rules. Like Tengu Magi (That's the right plural right?)

... that is pretty close to the worst argument I have ever seen.

Kthulhu wrote:

Anzyr wrote:

It would be like the player telling the GM there's a village of Dragons disguised as humans somewhere and I've never met that player.

I'd wager he would get a lot of defenders in this type of thread.

But not me.

I assume he would get the same defenders that seem to think players shouldn't be able to play the character they want. So... you would defend them I would assume Kthulu, kind of confused why you aren't.

So, in essence, every world must by necessity potentially be Golarion or the Forgotten realms.

Kthulhu wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:

I see a lot of threads on how the GM must be flexible...

But none on Players being flexible.

Man, you haven't even seen the half of it. I remember a thread several months ago where a poster gave examples of the GM and the player reaching a compromise...only the examples that he gave were all of the player getting exactly what he wanted, and the GM not getting any element of what he wanted.

Which seems to be what the majority of posters in these threads think is the ideal resolution for the situation of a disagreement between a player and the GM.

The GM gets the whole world. The Player gets their character. Therefore not letting the player have the character they want is inflexibility on the GM's part. It would be like the player telling the GM there's a village of Dragons disguised as humans somewhere and I've never met that player.

And the character isn't really the players unless every singe option in all the books without exception is available to them?

Plane Shift can be cast by a 9th level Cleric, there are areas that have permanent gates and sometimes things manage to slip in. If demons/devils/angels/azatas and others can get in no reason Joe's character can't make sense. Sure its not as simple as going to the corner store but its pretty normal in Pathfinder-verse. Even more normal for an already exceptional PC.

And yes... players who are inflexible do tend cause problems... even if that player is the GM.

Which of course presumes that the only valid setting is one that connects to the normal planar multiverse.

Arssanguinus wrote:

Since pcs aren't going to be using the NPC classes, just house rule a reducing of one dice type or so for each of the NPC classes, for example, move the commoner from d6 to d4 and leave the rest the same. You still get the skills to make that room you want, but you reduce the hit points; I doubt the pcs will complain you are being unfair to them by reducing the hit point dice of NPC classes.

That's a good idea. Nice and simple.

I feel I may be doing a poor job articulating what I'm hoping to get. When I say "scenarios that make the low-level NPCs more challenging," I mean the entire plot situation surrounding them, not necessarily the actual, face-to-face encounter. The combat is going to be a breeze, so how can I make it NOT a breeze to arrive at the encounter? That's more what I'm after. Sorry if that was unclear. But the ideas I've gotten so far have been helpful, so thanks!

Well, then to the other ones I'm positing add, naturally, Social. Social and political power. A relatively low level adept who has made a compact with a demon or outsider, granting them power not their own. Someone who is a high level aristocrat in a country where the Head of State is the head of the church as well, giving them immense power among the faithful. Attacking that King would not only be a regicide with all of the problems that might bring about - both in that country and in other nations which might say "If him, why will they not try me too?" but also with adherents of that religion - which could well stretch beyond that one nation and still view that killed monarch as their spiritual leader, leading to massive groups of people being against the PC's.

To dip back ...

For me, both CG and lg are good to the tune of; the interests of others are at least equal to if not more Important than their own. However, to put it in simple terms, when confronted with a large conglomeration of tall woody plants, the lg sees a forest and works for its gestalt good, where the CG sees a bunch of individual trees and finds their individual good more important. An lg would say "what brings the most good to the most people". Where a CG is more - what is good for those people suffering right in front of me right now. I don't know that you could say that either is inherently morally superior per se, but lg IS more likely over time to bring good to a larger amount of people by sheer dint of its organizing principles than CG.

A magical shield that provides insane damage reduction against bludgeoning weapons?

In other words, using the carrot instead of the stick to get people to create characters with hooks in the campaign.

Largely, I'm a buff/debuff and archery bard.

Have bard, paladin, oracle, witch, barbarian, summoner. Yes, I realize having the summoner makes the summon monster superfluous, but the summoner is a recent addition and I haven't swapped it out yet.

RDM wrote:

Have an opportunity to gain a lesser metamagic rod of whatever type ... With this bard spell list, what type would be most beneficial?

1st
Cure light wounds, touch of gracelessness, lock gaze, grease, saving finale, hideous laughter

2nd: invisibility, blur, cure moderate, versatile weapon, sound burst

3rd:
Good hope, mad monkeys, summon monster three, dispel magic

I'll cast a vote for Quicken as well. Quicken Summon Monster so you aren't standing around for a whole round doing nothing, get the thing out and attacking right away, and still have a standard action to lay down a buff spell or some bardic music. On that note, you should really look at picking up Haste.

Have a companion that has haste. Not doubling up. And was thinking quicken ... But kinda trying to see if I was missing something.

Actually, good hope is one minute per level. So it lasts a really long while.

Would any of them effect the "no two of which can be more than thirty feet apart" bit of a spell?

That is indeed a nice combo.

Well, haven't asked, but is suspect whatever type. And actually twelve on the level ... Although only listing applicable spells for a lesser rod.

Have an opportunity to gain a lesser metamagic rod of whatever type ... With this bard spell list, what type would be most beneficial?

1st
Cure light wounds, touch of gracelessness, lock gaze, grease, saving finale, hideous laughter

2nd: invisibility, blur, cure moderate, versatile weapon, sound burst

3rd:
Good hope, mad monkeys, summon monster three, dispel magic

I remember reading somewhere on the message boards this,

instead of just intelligence dictating skills, each ability score modifier granted a set of skill points only spendable in skills that use that modifier. there was also general skill points that can be used for anything equal to half the class' normal ability score modifier. it seemed pretty cool and supported more thematic skill sets.

They do ... Its called the bonus granted by the attached ability score.

To be clear, I do not like Vancian magic. For me though it has less to do with flavor and more to do with restrictiveness. Maybe that's the lesser argument but there it is.

With regard to the fluff, I can actually get behind the idea of spellcasters having discovered a "formula" for creating a given magical effect. It fits in nicely with the idea of researching new spells too. Divine casters would be an example of the formula being largely shortcut with the power simply channeled to them by their divine source. Spontaneous casters would be genetically different, having a means of imprinting the formula on themselves and not having it go away, but lacking capacity to impress very many such formulae.

For an interesting take on the "formula" angle, check out Rick Cook's "Wiz" series, starting with "Wizard's Bane". Especially fun if you are a Forth programmer. :)

Anyway, having spent some time playing Shadowrun and Rolemaster, I am not tied to Vancian magic and much prefer the ability to cast from my entire repertoire with no limits based on what I happened to memorize that morning.

I think some of the concern folks have with regard to moving away from Vancian magic is about overpowering Wizards/Clerics. For example, even though Sorcerers/Oracles are spontaneous full casters, able to cast from anywhere on their list as long as they have the spell slots available, they are not considered OP compared to Wizards/Clerics because of the limits placed on them, namely the number of spells they have access to.

Moving to, for example, a power point system would allow similar tweaking. At the extreme case, imagine that a Wizard was switched to a power point system where casting a spell required PP equal to the spell level. Now imagine they only get as many PP to spend per day as their max level spell. So, you can cast 9th level spells? You get 9 PP. 1 Wish or 9 Magic Missiles, take your pick. Pretty weak. But it gives you a pretty fine tuned dial you can play with. Turn the number of points up a bit. Add...

The other problem is that you have exacerbated the "Swiss army knife I can step on anyone else in their own niche whenever I feel like it" aspect. They don't have to choose their payload of reality altering effects ... All of the ones they know are always available.

If I have a random encounter chart, I usually take each entry and make a three by five card of it, with a few details of the creatures involved. Just one to five facts about why they are there, motivations possible relations to other things they might encounter etcetera. They aren't randomly encountering "a goblin" but randomly encountering George and his war and from the east forest out looking for their chieftains runaway daughter .. Or something.

Don't make it an ally. Make it a recurring enemy, or set of enemies.

Then you won't have the problem of "gm pic out shining pcs".

If they then say 'hey, why can he do that sort of thing?" Say 'you can too. Think of things and pitch them to me and ....

If you let them just be random, sure. But you don't have to. You can tie them into various groups or entities within the area and make the random encounters related to the rest of the world ...

The ability to do days and days of highly skilled labor in an instant and turn it into pure monetary gain is what is broken with Fabricate. There is no cost to the spell other then raw material.

Are the crafting rules borked too? Yeah. But Fabricate is definitely not guilt-free here.

==Aelryinth

S as a house rule if you want just add some variety of additional material component cost to fabricate to compensate and call it a day.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0026.html

dirge of doom, inspire heroics, inspire greatness ?

Despite being higher level abilities they seem to be less useful than the lower level inspire courage.

If you do use them ... In what situations would you substitute using inspire courage for one of these others and why?

27. A thousand years ago, Evil rose up and conquered the world; now the last dying god of good chooses the players to try and resurrect his pantheon.

28. At an archeological dig, a time capsule has been found, from a mythic age of wonder. The kingdoms of the world rush to try and open it and claim the valuables inside.

The dying god picks the pics to BECOME the new pantheon, but first there are quests and many things that have to be done ... Epic adventure spanning level one to past twenty, ending in becoming the new pantheon for a world ...

... That you then play in next campaign.

I've seen one where you have a base set of scores and then instead of assigning points to different scores you assign dice. So say you have a base of seven for all scores, from that base you can assign 12 d sixes, one dice at a time, to each ability score, can't go above 18 before modifiers.

So, for example, you could assign 3d6 to strength if you wanted a fair certainty to have that attribute high, and 1d6 to something you didn't care about. Assigning more dice has the risk of wasting points, but its weighed against the certainty of a higher score.

Rynjin wrote:

I'll say this about that: If your game falls apart because you let someone (or everyone) be a "special snowflake" you did something wrong.

Demonstrably. You let someone be a "special snowflake," and it was wrong to do so.

Down with "special snowflakes"!

If your enjoyment of a game falls apart because you can't BE a special snowflake, you did something wrong.

My players discovered the value of the magic item economy early on in their kingdom's life. The first 10-12 months of kingdom building were a bit rough while they saved every BP to buy their first magic item producing building, but those early turns quickly paid off. Now, some 50 months into things (kingdom size of 102), they produce 8 major items and 28 medium items, and have 13 city districts in which to sell said items (well, 13 items at least). Barring the odd under-4000gp items which pop up, selling items generally nets them 100+ BP per turn.

While this has created explosive growth in the nation, this isn't the problem. I'm more than willing to roll with the players loving their growing kingdom (they're having more fun than they were when they were struggling to buy a graveyard...). The problem is that they managed to get a loyalty score 72 above their command DC, mostly through building lots and lots of monuments.

I didn't see this coming at all. They kept building monuments to all the NPCs I killed, and after running Carnival of Tears set in their capitol city, there were a whole lot of dead NPCs.

So now I'm facing this scenario:

Kingdom Building turn 1: Don't bother expanding (much). Collect BPs by selling magic items. End turn with buffer of over 120BP.

Kingdom Building turn 2: Limited expansion. Wait until withdrawl phase and withdraw 52 BP with absolutely no chance of failing the loyalty check (command DC + BP withdrawn < Loyalty + 20). Then, use your 110,000gp to buy the major items sitting in the shops.

Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

Since I'm not using XP in the game, I can offset this a bit by keeping them at a lower level then recommended. And considering that the players are at the mercy of my random item generator, the munchkin potential is somewhat limited.

It's way too late in the campaign (just finished the 30th session) for me to change the magic item economy, but in a few sessions I think I'm going to be desperate to stuff this genie back into the...

Late in the game, but I would almost rule that a monument needs to be to something that might be significant to the Kingdom at large, or at least to those cities; if the people there say 'Who IS that?" its not likely to give much Loyalty?

RDM wrote:

stuff about standard deviations

I like this idea to describe a population. Of course, I'd probably go with 68% as being the stated alignment then go to 95% for those one step away and so on.

For kobolds, you can expect in a large enough population that the distribution would be:

68.0% - LE
13.5% - NE
13.5% - LN
1.66% - LG
1.66% - N
1.66% - CE

and any other alignment being exceptionally rare or even absent.

You could also use two or more "base" alignments such as a LG/NG human settlement which would give the following breakdown:

34% - LG
34% - NG
9.0% - LN
9.0% - N
9.0% - CG
1.5% - CN
1.5% - NE
1.5% - LE
0.5% - CE

(with some rounding, of course)

Something like that, yes. The main part being. . while the alignment descriptor would still give a good general broad picture, and might well describe how the race is perceived it wouldn't be a straight-jacket. . it would haver, tend to mean that in a community it would tend to be made up of people who were at least somewhat compatible. However, it would allow for necessary variety. I would tend to say that would apply even among humans.

In that example population I wouldn't say so much they don't exist, if the population is large enough, but that being so diametrically opposed to the rest of their society they have probably either left or gotten themselves killed.

I would view the racial alignments thusly:

The stated alignment is the 'base' alignment.It woudl be the middle section of the bell curve. . . 68* of the population will be within one remove of that alignment,. For example: If the species alignment were Neutral. . . 68% would be N, LN, CN, NG or NE. . It it were "NG" then 68% would be "N, CG or LG. If it was CE, then 68% woudl be CE, CN or NE. If LE then. . . 68% LE, LN or NE. Then 95% of the population would be within TWO removes of the base. For example from CE to plan N. Anything further than that accounts for five percent of the population. Then the racial alignments aren't really a straightjacket. .they are just a description of their culture. So somewhere in that CHaotic evil race there are, indeed, LN or NG members. They are just rather rare and tend to have unique circumstances. Of course, if an entire large group of the species moves to unique circumstances. . . . then the base alignment of _That group_ could shift. Usually, likely, not more than about sone step. .

If its something like "Chaotic evil' naturally, what you would end up with is a normal distribution with a heavy directional skew. . . .