Vistarius's page

I have a thing or two to say.

Sean is and always will be, in my opinion, one of the most over-opinionated developers out there. His way or the highway, which is fine. He has the job at the big gaming company, not us so talking down on him is pointless as the rest of us are ants. Also, he doesn't listen to what the players want, he gives them what HE wants, and then tells complaints to shut up.

Now this isn't a personal attack, this is quite simply what he demonstrates.

There is a severe problem with "flavor" vs. power. And that is playability. I want to play Eli from Book of eli. But I couldn't do that. I have a severe physical disability, I'm dead session one. I've always wanted to play a blind character. I've wanted benefits (as flaws should always give benefits to create balance) but not things that replace sight. Maybe I want to have a keen sense of smell and hearing and be able to feel magic in the air. I can't do that. If I play a blind character, I'm dead.

So moving on from that, that's just what you have to accept. Quite simply, if you're playing Pathfinder, you're playing in someone else's sandbox. This isn't your game, this is theirs. IF you don't like it, don't complain, houserule. If you're not the GM, talk it over with your GM. Most GMs will give you a second to state your case and if it doesn't impede balance, will house rule it in. Because quite simply, if you play everything by the book, you're playing the game as SKR wants it played, not as you want it played. If you want more flexibility, I recommend Mutants and Masterminds, Neccessary Evil (Savage worlds) and other rpgs that actually listen to their players. Otherwise, just play Pathfinder.

*Note, I play Pathfinder every week and love the system. But we do feel the need to houserule some things because lack of creativity, or at least play testing. Now this isn't an attack, though it will be responded to as such, but more like a plea for the pathfinder developers to LISTEN TO THEIR PLAYER BASE INSTEAD OF BEING ARROGANT. Neil Spicer says something, people listen because he's not arrogant about it. People like SKR however are, and let their jobs go to their heads. Which is fine, that's their choice.

Wow. First of all, a GM cannot cheat. It's their game, their story. Your players are simply a part of that story and are contributing in that manner.

That doesn't mean your players have to do nothing to affect the story, but certain things are done for a reason. Reacting to the players means the players have full control of the story, and that's not how it goes. You have no clue how many times in the past 10 years I've been GMing other games that I've had to steer players in the right direction. Allow me to explain why:

Bad guy Vik is a behind the scenes kind of guy. He has everything he needs to become a great, evil god save for one object. This object will come to the Pc's attentions through information obtained by a specially gifted oracle. But wait, when the PCs are meant to save that oracle, a dick rogue kills the oracle and she dies. So the DM is supposed to let everyone continue the story up until the point where the enemy becomes a god and destroys the world because a player decided to be a dick?

Or should the DM compensate and give them a free hand out to know this is going to happen?

Most of the time, this game isn't a sandbox. It isn't run by the players. A player plays to get involved in a pre-made story and to influence it, but over-all most players know they are the most important characters in this story and that if they mess up, alot is at stake. They are given a reward, that reward is leveling up and gold and the power to influence the story in crucial moments, but they can't control everything and you have to learn to deal with it.

Now to answer your dumb question "When did this become story hour?" How about when the game was invented? Read a module. Does the module say: "If your players decide not to kill the stag lord and take control of the stolen lands, that's ok this isn't you telling the story." No. It says that if players don't do something, X happens. X is usually bad. The PCs have the power to influence world events, but they have to realize the DM is putting alot of time and effort into running this game. It's his/her game, and you're just playing in it. A DM cannot cheat.