But the chance of some catastrophe destroying the amulet approaches 100% as you get closer to infinity. Until you add in magic, then the chance goes down really low.
I agree with this from personal experience, but if most of my experience with atheists were the folks who make a stink about it on the internet, I'd expect us to be, at best, demeaning toward people of faith. People who deride religion as being related to a "made-up sky fairy" to paraphrase what I have seen wouldn't be expected to play nice at church mixers. Just another example of the worst elements being the ones that are memorable or noticeable. There are obnoxious members of all groups, that's a given. As far as militant atheists, a lot of their aggressive style comes from frustration. You can only tell people that words from an ancient selectively edited book don't constitute proof so many times before copping an attitude.
I'll just say that as a player, I hate this technique. Making up world stuff in play breaks me out of character, making me think about the game and setting in way the character wouldn't be. Some of that is unavoidable, but I'd rather not add more than necessary. Agreed. I think everyone has a line in the sand that separates TTRPGs from playing make believe. To me this method moves much closer to playing make believe than I am comfortable with as a player.
I can't speak to Wrath, as I have never run it, but the desire to have the most powerful character possible is something you will encounter frequently in the PF player community. Your best bet is to try talking to the player and explaining your expectations. If the player can't or won't reign it in, then you should part ways. If that is also not an option, then my condolences. As a last ditch effort, I would have the enemies team up against the PC of that player. If his character is incredibly powerful, then surely others are taking notice (especially with all the different sorts of magic out there that provides information.)
The best railroads are invisible.
Thanks to everyone for their input. My hypothesis regarding the lower number of GMs was related to the changing role of the GM over the years. In early editions of D&D, there was a pretty profound GM = the boss, don't question him or her, his or her decision trumps all written rules mentality. While there was a lot of push back over that mentality due to some bad experiences, I was wondering if perhaps the pendulum has swung too far. In the few games I have been able to get into as a player, the GMs have come across as people-pleasers. Anytime a judgment is made, they seek validation from the players regarding their decision. They seem very focused on the players liking them rather than liking their game. It's interesting to see other viewpoints and how there may be other factors in play that aren't so obvious.
The BBEG was a good guy, then discovered a tome of lost lore, which put him in contact with a Great Old One. The BBEG then went on to do some horrible things. When the BBEG discovered the means to travel back in time, he did so to stop himself from getting the tome. So he sends his Dragon to grab himself as a baby and bring him to himself as an adult, with the goal of preventing himself from ever contacting the Great Old One.
The problem I have with 5E starts with that every class is locked in with one of three variations. Not options but variations which you must chose. None of them really all that interesting really. That is like a GM telling me I have to play a class the way he wants. Hate that! Would rather stay home and read a book then do this.As opposed to...? A system that has only one variation? I think he's saying he prefers a system with loads of options. The player then mixes and matches options to create a character. Then he'd consider that character "his." Since 5e is designed around simplified concepts, he feels like he's being given very limited choices without an opportunity to customize and come up with his own character based on selecting a ton of options. While I like a lot of the options for theorycrafting (or building characters for the sake of building characters) - I prefer 5e's simplified approach for actually playing the game.
One of the things I didn't like about 3.5 or PF was the overabundance of humans. It was almost exclusively due to the bonus feat (at my table). When I saw the 5e variant human for the first time, I envisioned the same problem. As such it makes more sense to me to disallow the variant. If the result of that is no one picks human (which hasn't been the case with my 5e experience so far), I'm okay with that. The change of pace would be refreshing.
I don't think it's nearly as simple as "new players are happy with classic and long time players want something new." Definitely not. In my mind, if you try to bring a cyborg into the fantasy world that I am used to for TTRPG, you're doing it wrong. At no point in the past twenty five + years that I have been playing have I gotten bored with the traditional fantasy setting and wanted to bring in anything obviously anime inspired. I'd rather not play than play in a world like that. That being said, it's cool that there are so many different game systems which allow for different types of games. While I don't want to mix traditional fantasy and sci fi, I think some of the sci fi settings look cool in their own right (Monte Cook's new one looks interesting and I assume it is sci fi.)
You'd probably be shouted off the forums :p
Techno-pirate cyborgs shooting laser beams. Catfolk/fox people prancing around feudal Japan. These are the kind of things I read about on the forums. So I ask, is the classic European medieval inspired fantasy setting dead? As others have mentioned, you'd have to define that term first. That being said, if you mean more limited race selection, standard fantasy weapons, etc., then no, it's alive and well.
Really? We haven't noticed that. Not have I. I was attributing the lack of complaining to the relative newness of 5e more than anything else, but I have yet to have anyone complain that their character is useless, underpowered, or can't do the things they were expecting.
I don't think I did anything to deserve this? This is your classic DM sets up hostage situation, expects moral dilemma, players don't bite scenario. My guess is that the DM was expecting some heart-wrenching RP over this scenario, and I'm going to furthermore guess that the players didn't RP much at all, decided out of character quickly how to respond and then proceeded. This struck the DM as poor roleplaying, and the first solution that came to his mind was divine judgment. Any chance that could be how your DM is perceiving the situation?
I can't for the life of me understand such a view. It's probably due to starting with Basic D&D and roll 3d6 in order stat gen method. In that method, rolling an 18 was very rare. Even when it switched to 4d6b3, an 18 was still fairly rare. So having an 18 put a character in an imaginary little elite club. When people started using PB and buying an 18, that imaginary little elite club became a free-for-all that anyone and everyone could enter. People use to tell stories about that one time Bob rolled an 18 - it was an event. No one tells stories about that time Bob bought an 18.
I can't remember the edition, but at one point there was a subtract 2 points from a score to add 1 point to a different score rule floating around. It definitely put a premium on getting the scores you want. I think that's one of my biggest dislikes of PB - If someone rolls an 18 I feel like they earned it, if someone buys an 18 it cheapens the value of an 18 IMO.
I love rolling in order - it feels more authentic to me for characters and avoids cookie-cutter concepts. That being said, I've seen people fiercely argue against rolling stats, and rolling in order they rank up there with criminal behavior. Sounds like you have a good group of players.
For example, if the player is confronted by a minor noble on the way to deliver an important massage to the queen... This is my favorite typo of the day :)
I think people are assuming too much with this poster. We don't know if other PCs have stolen stuff in the past. We don't know if PVP fighting has happened in the past. We don't know if the player that made the character spoke with the GM and explained that his character might steal, etc. If the PC was able to attempt to steal, then there was at least passive acceptance of the tactic from the GM. So rather than try to paint the poster as a bad person IRL, let's just say that in general PVP is a bad idea as many people are unable to separate IC from OOC. Bottom line, have an OOC conversation with the group and figure out what is acceptable behavior at that table, and then abide by it.
I hate when players call out to the healer how much health they have lost. There isn't a freaking health bar bouncing over your character! I know this is Air your Grievances, and I'm not trying to invalidate your grievance, but I'm curious as to what your preferred method is? Is role-playing the pain and having your character demand/request/plead/beg (as appropriate for the character's personality) for healing what you're after? I'm DMing a 5e roll20 campaign and use the red health bars above icons as a means of providing a visual indicator to others as to the health of a character. Seems reasonable to me that a character in the game world would be able to tell that another character has suffered wounds (but not the exact # of hp.)
Okay, yeah, that's different. I'll share your displeasure on that one. And ye, let the heralds document, on this thirteenth day of April, in the year two-thousand and sixteen, Jiggy agreed with Tormsskull on something. Let us hope this is a sign of things to come :P But basically, yeah, ebook production doesn't have to pay for the printing, shipping, or warehousing, so they should be cheaper. And in fact, lots of ebooks are cheaper, but those are typically self-published, indie, and small press books. Yeah - that's what has actually encouraged me to buy books of authors I have never heard of. So I guess the optimistic way of looking at it is that unknown authors might get more opportunities due to this shake-down pricing policy.
There's no official answer, just whatever the GM and group agree on. Sometimes I do a % of their previous character's experience, other times I do one level lower than the lowest PC in the group. Makes PC death more meaningful IMO.
Why are Kindle books so expensive!!! $10 for a digital book when you can often get the paperback for $5 is infuriating.
I think people are way too quick to throw around the words "house rule." A house rule is supposed to be used to modify an existing rule in the game or add a new rule entirely. For example, house rule: Scrolls have a 10% chance of failing. Not a house rule - This large town doesn't have any tigers for sale. IMO, item/race/class/service availability fall into the "not a house rule" category.
I still don't get argument that "in Pathfinder, spellcasting services are available in every hamlet, just look at the GP limit of the settlement". I would guess that people that say that tend to play APs and modules where things are fixed. Based on my experience on these forums, it seems as if a lot of people don't even bother determining item availability, they just assume you can get your hands on any item in the books as long as you have the money. Some add in a component of ordering the item from some far away merchant, or hiring someone to craft it for you, but its mostly hand waved away. Different style of game play than I am used.
But like I said before the best thing to do is talk to the player. If the player knows the game pretty well he will catch on that he is being countered, and that may not end well. I've found the easiest way to convey this kind of info is with the following blanket statement: "All rules are guidelines. The GM is free to ignore a rule or make up his/her own rule(s) in order to facilitate better gameplay." That way someone expecting a RAW-only game will know to steer clear or at least adjust their expectations.
I had always used bonuses until I started seeing boni in a lot of places online. I happened to be in a Mythology class at the time, and the professor of the class spoke English, Greek, and Latin. I mentioned this to him at the time and he said he didn't understand why people were using boni - in English it was clearly supposed to be bonuses. Good enough for me.
All you can talk about, as far as I understand, when talking about RAW, is simply stating what the RAW is, and then you can have a discussion about what it means, which means, to me, all rules discussions are RAI, ultimately, because ultimately you and the people you play with must agree on what the RAW means (does that make sense?). I guess what I am trying to say is I do not understand how anyone can play by the RAW? Yes, that's basically it. There are a lot of RAW that aren't contested - everyone basically has a clear understanding of what they mean. Like fighters get 1d10 hp/level. There are a lot of other rules that, while RAW, require application of common sense. This is when people start arguing as to what is RAW and what isn't RAW. I'm thinking specifically of WBL, magic item availability in towns of a certain size, etc. While the book may say a 2nd level character should have 1000gp, if it turns out they have 5000gp, are you no longer playing by the RAW? Depends on who you ask. The concept of always wanting to stick to the RAW seems to derive from the thought that playing by the RAW gives a game a higher amount of legitimacy than games that don't. Personally, that's never mattered to me.
I think it's important to remember that every table is it's own little world. Even if we're all playing the same game, when you add in varied players, DM rulings, houserules, etc., what is a "fact" at one table isn't necessarily a fact at another. It's been mentioned before, but the problems that the forumgoers identify don't always occur at each individual table. Especially when you have a lot of casual players that don't spend a lot of time away from the game researching character options.
The hallmark of good design is the GM not having to say no all the time. While I agree with this, I'd also say: The hallmark of good players is the GM not having to say no all the time.
I would love to find a decent gaming group around the Southwest Michigan area that runs Pathfinder in real life or via roll20. Anyone know of any? The beauty of roll20 (or another online platform) is that you can game with people around the world. I DM a game right now with the following: Belgian
It's a blast.
Trying to invalidate other people's experiences happens a lot as well. As in someone says "I've noticed a problem with x, so I don't allow x anymore in my games." Then someone else will come along and say "x? Are you kidding me? x is not a problem." Where a better answer would be "Interesting, I've never encountered a problem with x at my table."
And I agree with you, but that is a fairly cut and dry example. My suspicion is that there are times when people aren't arguing in bad faith, but there has instead been a miscommunication. In addition, the longer a thread gets, the less likely that it remains coherent. Several posters are going off on tangents and then people reply to the tangents without making it clear that they are doing so, which in turn causes another person to think they're commenting on the original topic of the thread. Rinse/repeat.
Hyperbole is one of the biggest problems on the rules forum, in my opinion. When people encounter an opposing view, it's extremely common to extrapolate that view to the most absurd interpretation possible and then criticise the extremist position - regardless of where the original poster actually sits on the spectrum. They then come in to defend themselves and often retaliate by resorting to hyperbole themselves. Agreed, and I don't think people even realize that they're doing it most of the time. Plus there are times when people post things that they think are funny, but in turn simply distract from the topic at hand. Ultimately, its each person's responsibility to use their best judgment and when a post seems to be baiting or even is actual baiting, not to respond to it. Easier said than done most of the time.
I usually go for flavor and RP over mechanical usefulness, but its all a balancing act. Is your character's goal to be the best strings player in the world (and perhaps others)? If so, dedicate as many resources to it as you can.
And do you, Trogdar, truly feel like you in fact always represent your opponent's position in the best possible light? A quick review of your posts could lead some to believe that you, on occasion, post a reply using a snarky tone and appear to be very dismissive of the poster that you're replying to when you disagree with them.
To be fair, the idea of everyone doing what they want, there is no wrong way of playing the game, is a fairly newer idea. Wrongbadfun is a reductive argument that attempts to silence anyone that disagrees with a particular playstyle.
I generally don't read posts that long, but yours was intriguing. Near the end there I felt like I was watching Stand By Me with the narrator voice. Thanks for sharing.
I am all with you, Tormsskull, but that doesn't change the fact, that even to me, Freehold DM comes across as very hostile against optimizers and he hasn't done anything to clear up, that he doesn't consider all (or at least most) optimizers to be jerks. Well, I'm obviously biased, but what I am seeing is that anytime someone says that optimizers have caused a problem, the response is "Then they weren't optimizers." This sets up a dichotomy where "good optimizers" are optimizers and "bad optimizers" aren't allowed to be called optimizers. I completely reject that definition.
It's incredibly silly to imply that because someone doesn't like to game with optimizers that they're a bad person. Everyone has their preference of who they like to game with, what style of game they like to play, etc. Saying that optimizers have ruined actual game sessions and campaigns I've been apart of is simply a statement of fact. Not in the "they were jerks that also happened to be optimizers" way, but in the "they viewed the game entirely different than the rest of the group, which caused a lot drama" sort of way. If those optimizers were with other gamers who viewed the game the way they do, they'd probably all have a blast trying to make better characters than one another. Doesn't change the fact that I don't want to game with them, or that I am going to discourage the behaviors I associate with optimizers. Trying to elevate this to a hate crime is absurd.
Finally, if one is wondering why my posts suddenly increased in size, it's because obviously, if someone couldn't understand my post before, perhaps I need to be more wordy about it with a longer explanation. IME, it's the reverse. Short and concise statements have the best chance of effectively communicating an idea.
Tormmskull has basically already said there are two ways to do things. "His way" and "The wrong way". Since anything that isn't done "his way" has a "negative connotation" There are many things I can tolerate, people mischaracterising my position, people exaggerating, but spelling my name wrong? Inexcusable.
Agree with the long list of people saying GM issue. Trying to find a workaround never really works in the end. Its important to find which elements of the game are most enjoyable for the GM. If the GM creates a "deadly" encounter and the PCs turn it into a cakewalk, then the GM may feel pressure to use gimmicks and deny PC abilities. I've found this can be the case when there is a "GM hands off chargen" rule. As in, it is expected that the GM has to accept whatever character a player brings to the table. The GM may not like the character concept or character build, but feels powerless to reject it, and then lashes out passive-aggressively during game time.
I would probably abandon the idea all together to be honest. Usually in these situations it becomes obvious to the players that the GM is railroading the PCs into a certain area.
The odds of this mutiny resulting in everyone at the table having fun is worse than the odds of winning the lottery.
I think it is the GM's responsibility to make sure each member of the party can contribute in a meaningful way. I also don't play competitively, so optimization doesn't mean a whole lot when I GM. Optimization and the way people talk about optimization are a good indicator of playstyle preference though, which is helpful in trying to put together a solid group of players. So in short, no, if you have the right kind of players.
To the OP, since you said it is valuable for people to say "I wouldn't allow it in my game," count me in that group.
I don't use any negative status effects on PCs, as I've found the players don't like that. Where possible, I have each enemy attack a separate PC so as not to gang up on any one PC. I think the overall idea is to make the players feel like their character's are in a little bit of danger without actually hurting their character's in any significant way. They are the heroes of the story, after all.
|
