Search Posts
Howdy all! I'm a player in this campaign. We're toward the end of the first chapter, and the player of our party's only even remotely social character recently had to quit. No-one else in the party has a charisma higher than 12, and no-one has any ranks in diplomacy, bluff, or intimidate. Question: is completing this campaign without a socially adroit character going to be extremely difficult?
In my experience "what should people from X sound like" seems to be a fairly common question on these boards. I think that's a great question, but I think that we usually approach it the wrong way. Generally, when people ask that question, they are asking for real-world accents to use for various Golarion locales or real-world languages that are representative of Golarion's languages. I think this might be making things too difficult. Accents are extremely difficult to do well, and too often they sound either silly or indistinct. Foreign languages are great, but leave two hurdles - first, you've got to go look up phrases in the language to add some flavor, and second, you have to either translate for your players or use languages they already know. If you do use a language your players already know, you remove the mystique that the use of a second language is trying to accomplish. In my experience working with language I have found that there are two simple to recognize things that make foreign language "distinct" and "flavorful." The first is the use of prepositions. Languages tend to use prepositions differently enough that improper use of prepositions is an easy way to notice a non-native speaker of a language. Unfortunately for people looking to insert flavor into their game, using the wrong preposition will probably only make your NPCs seem ignorant, and it will be jarring to most players. The second is the use of idiomatic language. Oaths, "foul" language, sayings, proverbs and more are woven into the tapestry of a language and make it distinct and unique. By using this sort of language carefully, you can highlight cultural differences, identify the origin of NPCs, and give your game world a little life, all without having to torture your voice or learn another language. In that vein, I thought I'd collect a few examples of each. In honor of the end of Mummy's Mask and Wayfinder's focus on Osirion, my examples are Osiriani. I have culled my understanding of Osirion from "Osirion, Land of the Pharaohs" and pathfinderwiki.com. I have not yet read Mummy's Mask, nor have I yet purchased "Osirion, Legacy of Pharaohs." Clearly, none of this is canon, it's just some examples and suggestions on how to enliven your world's languages in an easier way. Oaths
D**n or Bloody:
Sands
Oh my God; Holy Cow:
(On) Sphinx's shores Upon seeing/hearing s.th. perverse/disturbing:
Lamashtu's Flowers Foul Language
Sayings/proverbs
Remember when thinking of sayings/proverbs that they stay in use long after the original cause is longer relevant. In time/Everything has its time:
Even pharaohs die Up S**t creek:
In the night without Wadjet
Lion's share:
"Sultan's share" or "Qadira's price" Between a rock and a hard place:
Jackals on the sand and hetkoshu in the water Mind your Ps and Qs:
The Sultan's ears are here A wolf in sheep's clothing:
hetkoshu swim under the lotus Out of the blue:
like an eagle/hawk on jerboa
Sound and fury/a lot of hot air:
A wind in the desert A piece of cake:
Like (taking) coin from a Taldan Get down to brass tacks:
Move the (this) obelisk Asking for it:
Whistling at Lamashtu/jackals Born with a silver spoon in one's mouth:
He has a crook in his hand Caught with your pants down:
Khamsin season and you've no tent Eat glass:
kiss a Qadiran Earning your bread/keep:
taking your lash Other
Copper Lashes:
Derived from a time when day laborers earned their wages under cruel taskmasters. Earning your bread became known as "taking your lash" and the currency used to buy that bread took the name too. Silver Sphinxes:
The Sphinx is the lifeblood of Osirion, and for most of the common people, silver is the currency of every day life. Silver coins also share their color (in ideal conditions) with the river. Gold Flames or Suns:
Both refer to the yellow color of gold. The use of "flames" is more common to strong supporters of Khemet III, who has issued coinage with a stylized flame on the obverse while "suns" is more commonly used by the day-to-day merchant class as well as devotees of Seranrae. Platinum Swords:
Named for the crossed scimitars on Keleshite platinum pieces. While still common, this name for platinum coins has become increasingly de-classé over the past century. Y'all have fun!
It seems to me that a lot of discussions that insist on absolute granularity use PFS as the reason. DMs in PFS aren't allowed to just make judgement calls. They have to use RAW. (I don't know if those statements are true. I don't really do PFS. It's just what I've gathered hanging out on the boards.) But earlier versions of the game were a lot more ambiguous than PF, and they still had organized play. How on earth did the RPGA handle things like 2nd Ed.'s "Hide in Shadows?" How were shadows defined? Did the GMs just have more leeway?
Howdy guys! Hawaii hates my love for Paizo. Seriously, since I've moved here, I've had more issues than I have in my past 12 years buying from y'all. Anyhow, this is showing as declined. I don't understand why. The address is correct, there is plenty of money in the account, and it is the same payment method I have used for other purchases from Paizo that have all gone thru. I tried reentering the credit card number and the address and it still won't work. Suggestions? Thanks again. :-)
I know, I know… Another thread asking for help with problem players or problem GMs. There should be a whole sub-forum dedicated to just this. Anyhow. I just moved long distance. Luckily, I was able to find a group that role-plays days after arriving at my new home. Score! However, there are some really bizarre dynamics in the group, and I was wondering of my wise forum friends could help me out. The first issue - and for me, the hardest to grok - is that game night involves everyone associated with the group. One player has a spouse, an elderly parent, and 4 children (aged 12 to 18). Only he and one kid play. However, the whole crew comes to game night. Another player only plays board games, but still shows up at game night and brings his significant other and her child, neither of whom play any game at all. Every member of the group has this sort of thing going on to some extent or another. I'm the new guy. I realize that. But they want me to DM, and for me, all of these additional people are a huge distraction/mood killer. Add to that the fact that the game is going to be held at my house, where I feel extremely rude not playing the part of proper host. (Let alone not having anything fun for kids to do.) I plan on having a discussion tomorrow with the group as part of my "session 0" with the goal of establishing desires for and expectations of a game, but I'm not sure how to broach this topic specifically. Is there a nice way to say "All right guys, you have to limit camp-followers to the absolute minimum"? The next issue is preference of game. There is one player that will be joining us who hates, HATES, HATES all things D&D, and she considers Pathfinder to be nothing but D&D with a new name. Further, she feels even more strongly about the use of minis and maps in the game. The other players are either ambivalent toward minis and maps or prefer them, but the group has been playing for several months without these props to mollify the player. (note: I use both in my game, and I'm not willing to budge on this issue.) I strongly suspect that the player is not going to enjoy the game, but she insists that she wants to play even though it is a setting, system, and style she won't like. Any words of wisdom for this? What I do know: • Obviously there are going to be differences of expectation and desire (hence tomorrows talk)
What I don't know
--- In the end, I'm mostly just grousing and looking for a place to focus my anxiety (I'm a socially awkward introvert myself, after all). Any wisdom pertaining to dealing with such a gaming shock, however, would be greatly appreciated. This I submit to you all, oh wise and powerful players of Pathfinder!
Is there a way to ensure that my packages don't go through UPS Mail Innovations? Both packages I have been sent thru this mailing system have been lost. UPS claims no responsibility. The USPS claims no responsibility. Both insist that my only option is to go back thru y'all, and I don't think it's fair to Paizo. I'd really like to avoid this service in the future.
Or "Is there any reason not to allow a player to play a NG Paladin?" I've got a player who wants to play a NG Paladin. I've looked at the Paladins of other alignments from 3.5 and earlier editions, and read over the Paladin's abilities a few times, and I just don't see any reason not to allow a player to play a NG Paladin. Sure, the spell list would have to be slightly tweaked, but everything else seems pretty straight forward. Am I missing something? Can anyone suggest good reasons why a standard PF Paladin ought not be NG (other than the bit in the Alignment line of the class description)? I'm a fan of telling player's "yes", but I don't want to accidentally get some weird flavor/mechanics clashes.
Howdy Paizo! Can I print multiple copies of PDFs if those are free PDFs? Specifically, I'd like to get multiple copies of the "Rise of the Runelords Anniversary Edition Player's Guide" printed. However, the FAQ states:
Thanks for the help! John Edited to remove bizarre capitalization.
Howdy y'all, This order hasn't arrived. When I search on the tracker, it says that it was transferred to Honolulu PO on 6 Feb and no further tracking data is available. Does this mean that the USPS should be delivering it? Or do I need to call someone for it? I'm kind of confused, and would love any assistance you can give. Thank you all for your help! - Busby
Howdy y'all! Could I get a clearer estimate than "in the next week or so" on the date that this order will ship? I am moving on 17 Feb and need to determine whether to have you guys change the address or deliver to my new one. Normally it would be easy to just have my mail forwarded, but right now I'm living in a hotel, and I fear they will just "return to sender". Thanks!
Howdy All! I'm a military member who just moved out here. I'm going to be living in Ewa Beach and would love to find some Pathfinder players. What I offer:
What I'm looking for:
I'd love to run a Mythic Rise of the Runelords game, or a Wrath of the Righteous game. As a player, I'd be happy with anything, though I prefer more "serious" games over the "beer and pretzel" variety.
I've got a buddy who has a history of suicidal ideation, up to and including at least one suicide attempt (I know attempt isn't the word they use anymore, but I can't remember the right one). Right now he's going through a really tough time. He's unable to find work. He can't get the mental health care he needs through the VA. He's made several comments that make me suspect he's considering self harm. I live 4,700 miles away from him. I feel completely helpless. I've given him numbers for suicide hotlines and counseling hotlines and things, and my phone is always open to him. But it doesn't feel like enough. Obviously, I don't think the Paizo community is going to magically make things better. But it's the only online community I hang out in that he's not part of, and I wanted to get it off my chest. Thanks for listening, internet.
First, a caveat: There's a lot of things in this post about topics that have generally gotten really heated. Please keep the message board rules in mind when posting and play nice! The actual topic: I don't think it is controversial to say that the question of whether or not the rogue has been completely stripped of viability by other classes is a common one here on the message boards. There is a pretty major thread going on about it right now.
These arguments don't hold that playing a rogue isn't fun. In fact, it is pointed out within the first ten posts in the thread linked above that explicitly stating that that isn't the point.* When 4th Edition was coming out, a common complaint was that it was too video-gamey, and that it was too bland - which was often associated with it being so balanced as to remove any flavor.** So my question is this: how do we fix a problem like that seen in the rogue (or the monk, for that matter) without simultaneously losing flavor to preserve balance? How do we (the community) expect Paizo to fix the problem without becoming a different product. What can our favorite game company (or at least, my favorite game company) do to give the rogue what people want without making it feel like something other than the rogue? *I really don't think responses that just say something along the lines of "I don't like playing rogues" will be helpful. Clearly there are people who enjoy rogues, but maybe they could be made better for everyone. **I REALLY don't think we need to rehash any of the arguments leading up to this statement. This is not about the editions, it's about what the community thinks Paizo ought to do to fix one of the top 10 issues that comes up on the boards.
Over in this thread there's a long aside about whether or not the coup de grace is ever a reasonable tactic for the DM to use against the PCs. I figured that it is an interesting enough topic to warrant its own thread. My take on it: I have GMed for tables where CdG against the PCs would absolutely not have gone over well, but in other "grittier" games, I have used it often, and to good effect. I think CdG is best used in two instances: First, when a bad guy - usually the BBEG - somehow has a character or all of the characters helpless in his clutches. It's pretty rare, but it has happened. Second, when a desperate opponent realizes that they can not win, so they opt instead to just maximize the suffering of their opponent. In a world with magical healing, wounding or critically injuring don't present much of a roadblock. If I know you're going to kill me, I'm taking one of your friends with me. What are your opinions? Is it ever appropriate? Why or why not?
Howdy all! I know that the great Golem sale has y'all behind, but I was wondering if I could get a status on this order. While I know that it is unlikely at this point that it will get here by Christmas, do you know whether I can expect it by 6 January? If it will be later, I will need to change the gaining address. Thanks for your help, y'all rock!
I'd really like to start learning how to draw. Every site I've been to that teaches drawing, says to do the old "draw a bunch of rectangles and ovals and circles and tie them all together" stuff. For those of you who draw a lot (and especially those who draw well) do you actually do that? I just have a hard time imagining Larry Elmore or Wayne Reynolds drawing a bunch of shapes when they are starting a drawing. Is this just a step like training wheels? Or is it some oft repeated bit of nonsense that no one actually does? Or is it the first step in every great bit of art? Thanks for the help.
My wife and I are going to play in a very casual beer and pretzels game, and we would like to play a 'couple' from Futurama in the game. Our problem is that we are having a hard time finding a couple where both members translate well to D&D. Here's what we have so far: The Professor (Wizard) and Mom (???)
We'll be 11th or 12th level and pretty much anything published by Paizo or SGG is fair game. So does anyone have any ideas for other 'couples'? Or ideas on how to fill in the blanks for Mom, Fry, Kif, and Zoidberg? Thanks!
Howdy folks! I'm probably going to be starting Rise of the Runelords around the first of the year, and I reckon I'll use the mythic rules. After all, stopping a long banished sorcerer tyrant from reclaiming his ancient throne is kind of quintessentially mythic, yeah? As the rules suggest, I was going to start the party as regular, non-mythic characters. Their moment of ascension will either be the end of Glass and Wrath Erylium and destroy the runewell, or when they defeat Nualia. Anyhow, here's my current track: Chapter 1 - Tier 1 - Either Glass and Wrath (level 3) or Thistletop (level 4)
Notes on why I chose the locations I chose will be in an upcoming post. I could possibly add another tier when they defeat Nualia if their ascension is in Glass and Wrath. What do ya'll think? Any suggestions? Any comments? What I don't want is for the mythic tiers to be the reward for finishing each chapter. Any notes would be appreciated. :-)
The following is an essay I wrote for my D&D group, and I thought maybe some other people would get some use out of it. We play a fairly heavily housruled version of PF, so some of the references may seem a little wonky to people not involved in our game. Names have been changed to protect the innocent. Further, I should mention that I wrote this over a two week period, during which I spent approximately 80 hours a week studying a foreign language, so I apologize if some of the phrasing seems off, or if some of the points seem repeated. Anyhow, enjoy. :) Last week I wrote - at some great length - about what I mean when I discuss expectations, and in what way I believe we can all enjoy our game more fully. However, I didn't cover my own expectations. I suppose that if I'm going to continue harping on about this issue, it would be hypocritical not to do so. So here goes.
D&D is, before anything else, a game. We play it to enjoy each other's company, reduce stress, and generally have a good time. But without a solidly established ruleset, the game is just a bunch of adults playing Cowboys and Indians, and arguing over whether or not our enemies had, in fact, shot us. “No they didn’t!” So in order for the game to be enjoyable, one of my main requirements is a clear and predictable ruleset - one which allows us, the players, to predict with a fair degree of accuracy whether we are capable of performing a task. This clear ruleset is achieved in two ways: description, which allows us to understand the game world with which we are interacting and consistency in adjudication of how our actions affect the world, and how that world affects us. The DM, and his descriptions, are the player’s sole source of input from the game world. Everything we see, taste, touch, hear and smell comes from the DM. So in addition to playing control the world around the characters, they have the important role of playing our senses. Without solid description, we cannot make intelligent and well informed decisions, puzzle out riddles, or react effectively to our environment. A Shadow in the Night Early in the campaign, Verrin - née Ragnar - spent a quiet night alone with a grey-skinned fey with a crazy leer who reeked of blood and pain. This lone wanderer traveled nonchalantly through a dangerous land, carrying a cruel scythe, which had obviously seen a good deal of use. Now, my description of this character alerted almost everyone at the table that a Redcap had entered their midst, but even “Jake”, completely unaware though he was of the legends of these murderers, knew that this was not a creature to be trifled with. He knew this because of effective description. The DM, in his role as our character’s eyes and ears, can paint any picture he wants for us. Did the frail and incompetent Wizard do particularly well with his intimidation check? Then the DM can describe him as dark and powerful, wielding eldritch energy beyond our ken - obviously a being of shadow and nightmare, against whom our only hopes are parley or flight. Perhaps, however, our inquisitor, perceptive as she is, sees through this ruse; the storyteller can describe an entirely different scene for her - an old and frightened man, unfit for a fight, secretly praying that these adventurers will move on, and leave him to his books and petty spells. Obviously, this sort of description - especially multi layered description - takes more work from the DM, but I believe that they will be happier with the game, as will all of the players, if the world is approached in this manner. To borrow from a more recent example, this evening we faced a fight against Tatzyl, a conniving and evil green wyrm. Though weak for her legendary species, her puissance far outstripped our own. But here’s a secret which holds true in almost every incarnation of D&D, and is especially true in the world which we have woven at our table: we don’t run. I mean, we might. It certainly isn’t unheard of. But if the storyteller thinks that running is the best option for the players (as sometimes they do) then they need to hit us with a clue-by-four. And that clue-by-four is drawn from the scabbard of description. We should have run. How could “Bob” have convinced us of this without relying on the rather boring and dissatisfying tactic of saying “ya’ll should run”? Description. “Tatzyl lands near Andwyn and lazily - almost disinterestedly - swats at her with a single wingtip, and lands a blow which makes Andwyn’s knees buckle under the force - take 27 damage.” Would we have run even then? Maybe, maybe not. We, the players, weren’t working with the assumption that the forest whose canopy we had just left was thick enough that pursuit by Tatzyl from above was not a real issue - again, this rests on description - but had we not, then at least it could never be said that we had failed to flee simply due to lack of information; the ensuing TPK would have rested squarely on the shoulders of the players. Description is our life. And as such, it should be given a spot of importance and honor at the table. A is A Consistent application of the rules is, as far as I’m concerned, the most important factor of rules adjudication. We can discuss balance and flavor and RAW and RAI, but at its heart, the important bit is consistency. I honestly don’t care if a large monster with ten foot reach can hit that corner shot - I just want to be able to predict with some degree of accuracy whether they will be able to or not. This gives the players a more intelligible world, and also makes for an actual surprise when the DM introduces “The Large Monster with the Slightly Longer Arms!” who can hit a further corner or reach a bit farther. Consistent application of the rules does not mean that we need to follow RAW, follow the suggestions of the designers, or play in a style similar to that played in Pathfinder Society games. It just means that we as players need to understand how the world works, regardless of whether our characters understand the world. Of course the system hasn’t equipped us for every possibility or corner case, but I do rather strongly believe that all of us at the table will agree to a spur of the moment adjudication, perhaps later illuminated by research of the rules when we are not in the thick of things, so long as it does not irrevocably damage our characters. Of course some of us - here I point fingers squarely at myself and “Alice” - need to be reminded not to argue back in the heat of battle; I accept that, and I don’t feel any shame in admitting that I need to be reminded of this rather basic concept with startling regularity. It’s a social game, we’re all friends, we can police each other to ensure a happier table. That all being said, we do, of course, need to be careful in the way that we twist the rules to twist our needs. I say this mostly to acknowledge the fact that “Jim” prefers a game closer to RAW. If moving too wildly away from RAW calls into question one of the core expectations of a player, then we need to walk the line carefully. But even a player who cleaves to RAW religiously - which is not what I believe “Jim” to be - will, in my opinion, be happier with a “fair” off the cuff adjudication than with grinding the game to a halt. We all have very little time to play. We can write down rules disputes and research them in the intervening weeks. In essence, all I am trying to say with this point is that I would like to know what is going to happen to me when I jump off of a 30 foot cliff, I would like to see similar results in similar opponents, and I would like to see a game table ruled more by democratic process than autocracy in the long run, though in the heat of the moment autocracy is fine. Specialization Not Required My next point is something which I have talked about before, at some great length, with anyone willing to indulge me the time. It is absolutely one of my core expectations of the game, and like several of my other expectations it is multi-faceted. I strongly feel that specialization should not be required - by which I mean that a character ought not be required to expend one of their very limited number of feats to perform each and every little action - and that the response when a player tries to do something should be closer to “let’s figure out how to make that work” than “you can’t do that.” Feats in D&D are one of a character’s most important resources. They can’t get more simply by raiding more treasure troves - though feat acquisition through level gain is an obvious byproduct of treasure hunting - and they are pressed to make every feat they get count. Even in PFRPG, where characters get half again as many feats as they did in 3.5, they are a guarded resources which must be carefully watched. With this in mind, what genius was it that decided that each and every thing needs a feat? Feats are one of the greatest sources of bloat in the game, and it seems that once a feat for a particular capability is published, everyone wants to say that the feat is required to perform the action. I understand that a person who has spent a feat to improve their tiddlywinks playing skill should be better at tiddlywinks than my non-specialized character, but a feat shouldn’t be required to sit down at the tiddlywinks table. I’ve been guilty of this feat bloat, just as every other DM I know. We are torn between permissiveness, fairness, balance, and fun - but if a player approaches a DM and requests to take a feat which allows him to perform a fairly banal task, the DM should - in my opinion of course - either disallow the feat and explain to the player that *anybody* can toss a sword, or they should alter the feat to instead merely grant a bonus to sword chucking. Once you have taken a step down the dark alley of allowing feats to grant such banal skills, the DM is pressed to continue the trend. If you required “Jim” to take a feat to do some niggling little thing, would it be fair to allow “Alice” to perform some equally niggling little task without taking a feat? We paint ourselves thus into a corner. We can easily avoid this position by telling an inquisitive player: sure you can do that - anybody can; you may need to take a feat to really shine at it though. An example that springs to mind is attacks of opportunity against passing opponents when wielding a bow. Why shouldn’t the bowman be able to merely stab the passerby with an arrow? He may get a penalty on his attack roll if she isn’t proficient in “Arrow,” but it should not be off the table. There was actually a feat established for this very act in 3.5 - and in unmodified games the act of taking “Weapon Proficiency: Arrow” would of course be a feat - but why ought it be? In what way does it increase the fun of the game to disallow a player to, as a last ditch effort at self defense, stab out with the pointy ended stick they already have drawn in their hand? They may not be able to perform the Legolasian task of felling an orc with a melee wielded arrow and going on to drop another orc at range with the same piece of ammunition, but what’s the harm in allowing the actual melee strike to occur? This of course, ties neatly into the second part of this point: the DM should search for ways to allow player actions, as opposed to searching for ways to disallow them. I know that this very idea is abhorrent to those who prefer a style of play which has come to be known as “Gygaxian Naturalism,” but I feel that it makes the table a happier and more enjoyable environment if, when we come up with some clever or awesome thing not specifically addressed in the rules, or even an action which has been ruled against in the RAW, we can at least attempt it. Do you want, as part of a charge, to jump over the difficult terrain posed by a hedge standing midway between you and your quarry? Allow it. Maybe the player takes a -2 on their jump check - they are, after all, swinging a weapon around and focusing on their opponent’s weaknesses while making this leap - but it ought not merely be declared as impossible because the rules don’t specifically grant you the ability to perform such an action. Look, we are playing a game in which we impersonate heroes engaged in mighty quests to save worlds. We all grew up watching Conan and Red Sonya, reading The Lord of the Rings and the Elric stories ... we want to play heroes. If we wanted to play normal boring people, we’d go play a Ghoul in Vampire: The Masquerade. I’ll address my opinions of the status of PCs in the world later in this essay, but I have yet to meet a person with whom I’d like to share a game table who’d prefer to play a character who isn’t a badass at what they do. The one player I did know who preferred to play regular people instead of heroes fell out of our group of players after storytelling for a devastatingly bad game of GURPs played in the real world in the Arabian Peninsula at the time of Mohammed. He actually made players roll checks to free their horses from the hitching post. Do any of us really want to play that game? Find the Fun My final expectation in the rules section of this essay overlaps rather nicely with the material in my previous point. Rules should increase the fun of the game. This is, above all others, my absolute most basic expectation from the rules - without a doubt, failure to cleave to this expectation is the thing most likely to drive me away from a game. It has driven me, I admit to my great chagrin, to intentionally ruin more than one game. If a rule only serves to make the game more boring, tedious, or burdensome, then it should absolutely not be applied. Of course, we all have different definitions of what rules reduce fun, and what rules increase it. Do any of us doubt that Brad could probably have a pretty darn good time playing a form of the game that “Jake” would quickly call “Accountants and Acquisitions” and walk away? One of my main points in writing this series of essays is to try to pinpoint what I would like to see in the game, what I could do without, and what my absolute most basic needs are to continue at a table. I apologize in advance for picking on him a second time in a single essay, but my most recent memorable example of this type of play is “Bob’s” adjudication of craft skills. In my opinion, the level of granularity which he wants to see in the Profession, Craft, and Perform skills does nothing to bring fun to the table, and actually significantly quashes it. Yes, Profession:Brewer is mentioned in the books, but that does not mean that there ought not be other ways to arrive at a fair level of skill in making beer. Why *not* Craft:Beer? Why not, for that matter, Craft:Alchemy? Historically alchemists created liquors with great regularity, can they not apply this skill toward making a weaker drink? “Bob” handled this in a fairly positive way. Realizing that his adjudication on this matter was significantly reducing the fun of at least half of his players, he brainstormed with us and we came to a compromise. Of course, it is the nature of compromised that I am mollified by the new ruling instead of being happy with it, but compromise with the expectations of other players, including the DM, is an important part of creating an environment conducive to enjoyable gaming. This does not mean, of course, that the DM should allow the players to steamroll them, that every campaign should be a monty haul, or that every pile of treasure should be specifically tailored to the PCs. But it does mean that if a player wants to do something which does not significantly change the balance of their character, the rules should be bent to allow it. Why not allow Verrin’s Magic Missiles to be unerring balls of fire. The guy’s a pyromaniac - it fits the flavor, and has no mechanical effect. This also mean that the players and the DM must have a frank discussion (discussion?) - such as this essay - about what fun means to them. If my core evaluation of “fun” required that I be able to play a fighter who by 5th level wields a Vorpal sword, then I should not expect to find a welcome place at a table where the rest of the players prefer low magic and low treasure. We should all look out for each other at the table. We are all friends, and there’s no reason, when we notice that one of our members is unhappy with the game, to continue without trying to address their discontent. We should be willing to compromise our secondary expectations for the good of another player’s core expectations. We should, in other words, try to increase the enjoyment of all of the players at the table - and in order to do so, we must communicate with each other.
In an effort to keep this essay shorter than Moby Dick, I’ll hop right into this section without a lengthy intro. The Character are Exceptional One of my basic expectations - an important secondary, at least - is that the PCs are exceptional. Though Verrin may not be the smartest man alive, he’s almost certainly the smartest man in the backwater burg where he spent his youth (granted, this incarnation of Verrin grew up in a magical metropolis, so my statement probably isn’t true, but had he been raised in Rand al’Thor’s Three Rivers, it almost certainly would be). This harkens back to my previous comments - we are here to play heroes. To quote Louise Glück “No one wants to be the muse; in the end, everyone wants to be Orpheus.” Obviously I understand that the game’s rules already support this idea. There is a reason that PCs start with higher stats than average commoners. If a character with a 24 Intelligence and a +23 on Knowledge: Architecture and Engineering wants to spend time in game inventing things such as vulcanized rubber tires so that his cart fares better on poorly paved roads, there is no reason to stand in their way - especially if the other players at the table are getting a kick out of it. Such a person is literally superhuman. In the real world, he would be one, if not the, greatest mind the world had ever known. So he invents something ahead of his time - big deal. If the character wanted to invent the 747, perhaps we could talk about game impact, flavour, and fun, but a rubberized tire is well within the bounds of a superhuman genius. We encounter this, and roll with it, constantly in the course of our games. Monks fall hundreds of feet without being hurt. Wizards literally throw fire from their fingertips. Barbarians bash down iron doors with their bare fists. These are exceptional actions, in an exceptional world - why do we insist that other things remain strictly in the realm of the real? I’m harping on this - but since its the point of the essay, I am not chagrined to do so. We need, as a group, as a community, to honestly discuss our expectations of the game. Maybe allowing Verrin “The Mad Inventor” Bellstopper to invent something which makes the game world a little too modern severely hampers the fun of one of our players. If this is true, then speak up! Let us know, at the table, that Verrin is getting Chocolate in your Peanut Butter! We all have our sacred cows, and we are all willing to allow our friends theirs. The Solving of Riddles My final two points can be wrapped up very quickly: the first is that every problem (or almost every problem) should have more than one solution - if we come up with an unexpected answer, roll with it; the second is that there should be more than one clue to problems, and the acquisition of vital information should never be left up to a single die roll. For investigative players, little is worse than a riddle which we know we haven’t solved because we botched a perception check. Maybe a single clue was missed, but later on new information should come to light which allows us to continue our investigation of the problem. This is especially true of times when the players are actually champing at the bit, obviously intrigued by a feature in the game world, and are eager to explore it. These final two points have been discussed at some length by the Alexandrian, and as I neither see the point in duplicating effort nor believe that I could express the concept better, I will leave you with a link to his remarkable essays on the subject. (I regrettably don't know how to linkify things on these boards) http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1118/roleplaying-games/three-clue-rule
I love D&D. It’s my longest lived hobby, and I’ve made my closest friends while playing it. But even for a fanatic like me, the fun can run out of the game. I’ve sat in campaigns where I dreaded the weekly session. This should never happen. And so long as we speak clearly about what we want from the game, I don’t believe that it will. Thanks for bearing with me.
My group is about 3/4 of the way three the first chapter of Kingmaker, and due to a scheduling conflict, one of my players has had to quit. The down side is that he was playing the group's only arcane character. I don't want the group to be without arcane capability, so I am planning (at this point) to continue running the character as a DMPC. I haven't run a DMPC in years, and I've never run one as an arcane character. Anyone have any ideas on builds and how to run an arcane character in a way that gives the group a nice variety of basic arcane keystone spells, but is simple for me to keep tabs on, and doesn't really overshadow the group? Essentially, during combat I plan on using him as a simple blaster, or perhaps even just an archer, and out of combat casting spells as requested by the party. No data, suggestions, or "this spell solves all of your problems" kind of builds. Thanks!
It's my understanding that when the Eidolon is dismissed, it leaves any/all carried gear behind. The reasoning for this is that it is a "Summon" effect. The thing is, I can't find an actual line anywhere that specifies that summoned creatures leave behind gear that they were given when their servitude is over. Anyone know where this is actually explained?
Howdy all, One of my players sent me this as a bloodline idea for a sorcerer in Legacy of Fire. This particular player always seems to have crazy-powerful character ideas, so I'm a bit nervous about his stuff, and I'm therefore a bit biased against anything he writes. Anyhow, please let me know what you think. Is this overpowered? Is the flavor appropriate? I've already given him some feedback, but I'll hold off on repeating it, as I'd rather not poison the well any more than I may have already. Thanks for the help!
This may be a silly question, or even one that has been asked before, but here goes: Are there any chances of collecting the adventure paths into hardcovers when they are done? Or would that be competition with yourselves? I know that I, for one, prefer the tactile feel of a hardcover enough that I'd be willing to pay the $120 or more for an entire path's collection in one place. Anyhow, figured it would be worth asking.
Howdy All! I'm about two months out, at my current rate of play, from the Test of the Smoking Eye. Unfortunately, 3 people in my group have played through that section of the AP, and I want to change things up so that everyone is surprised. On the other hand, I don't want to significantly change the plot of the path after the test (and bumming around the planes is always fun). The way I see it, any three part test that judges integrity, dedication, and moral fortitude ought to do it. Anybody out there have any ideas for tests of this type? Published adventures, fairy tales, literature, and good old fashioned imagination are all fair game.
thefool
So I'm trying to make a wiki for my D&D game, to replace livejournal as my group's online interactive information system. Sadly, my current level of computer literacy floats somewhere around the "computers are magical" level. So, do any bright and brave paizoians have any hints or tips for someone just starting out? Anything would be appreciated. Thanks thefool
Over the past week or two, I've run repeatedly into comments indicating that they are taking the realms in some wild new direction with 4th ed. However, I've not been able to determine what this is based on, or what this new direction might be. I have, of course, heard about the Succubi, and understand the change there, but will any patient altruist help me understand the rumoured fate of the realms? Thanks in advance, The fool
Is a DM ever justified in the imposition of a double standard (concerning the prosecution of rules and materials available for character creation/development) on his players? Specifically, if a player is a known (or historically has been known to be) a game breaker, is it preferable (both morally and philosophically) to simply ban a player (knowing they would have little or no chance of finding an alternate game in the area, due to both a dearth of players and the person's "foibles") or to impose a stricter ruleset upon him in order to ameliorate his less desirable traits? Additionally, if allowing the player is the route to take, would it more appropriate to inform the player beforehand of his handicap, or to allow him to figure things out after he has joined the game (i.e., tell him up front he is a suspected cheater, or break the news to him after he has realized he is being treated differently (of course I understand that either way, the topic should be broached tactfully))? Perhaps I'm overthinking this, but comments would be appreciated. |
