Please stop making the following arguments against changes:


General Discussion (Prerelease)

51 to 100 of 131 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

Psychic_Robot wrote:
1. "My players don't try to do this, so it's not broken."

I've never seen anyone use this argument.

Psychic_Robot wrote:
2. "I don't follow the rules-as-written, so it's not broken."

This argument works just fine if you substitute implied meanings for the exact wording.

Psychic_Robot wrote:
3. "Use Rule 0."

You can always just ignore this argument if you don't like it.

So this is all obviously a non-issue.[/satirical irony]

Liberty's Edge

Psychic_Robot wrote:

1. "My players don't try to do this, so it's not broken."

1. "My players have never had a problem with the difference in power levels between fighters and wizards. Everything is fine; don't change fighters or wizards."

Counterpoint:

"My players made me let them do this, therefore it is broken."

Just because you had a critical failure in controlling your game does not mean everyone else has had the same failure, or even a related failure.
Also note the other, quite simple possibility, that the problem is not with a larger game structure but with a smaller element. In the example given, it could require as little as just modifying a few spells as opposed to completely revising the entire class structure and magic system.

Psychic_Robot wrote:

2. "I don't follow the rules-as-written, so it's not broken."

2. "I took away the druid's ability to [3e] wild shape and cast ninth-level spells, so the class isn't broken. Don't change the druid class at all."

Counterpoint:

"I follow the rules-as-written, no matter what!"

"I do not care what the errata, the FAQ, the authors, everyone and his brother on every messageboard and gaming group I have ever mentioned this on, and every English teacher says otherwise about what the intent and grammar indicate."

Just because you have a constant critical failure in accepting the concept of rules-as-intended as a relevant factor, and refuse to even discuss them in the context of just needing some simple rewording, or that you might actually be wrong about how a sentence is constructed, or how a hierarchy of rules presentation works, does not mean there is a flaw in the game or that the rest of the world is just "dumb".

Psychic_Robot wrote:

3. "Use Rule 0."

3. "One time, one of my players was trying to use [3e] shapechange to turn into a choker to cast an extra spell in the round. I said that he couldn't, so it's not broken."

Counterpoint:

"If the rules cannot save me from my own stupidity by pre-emptively anticipating ever conceivable possible interaction, then they suck beyond comprehension, and the designers are pathetic morons. It must be impossible for me to do anything wrong! (Because you know, it is. So any problems must be all your fault anyway. Stop trying to make me look bad!)"

Just because this continues to be presented as a popular rant explaining the fatal flaws inherent to 3.5 and expanding into 4E in no makes it a legitimate complaint. The game designers cannot come by and run the game for you. At some point you have to take responsibility for the flow of your game, and accept that some elements may work differently for others, and that such a factor in no way indicates a flaw in either the game or the designers.
Expect variation and deal with it.

Psychic_Robot wrote:
Please, for the love of the game, stop making these arguments.

Yes, do please.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

That was beautiful Sam.

Liberty's Edge

Samuel Weiss wrote:
a bunch of lovely stuff i wish i had thought up

zing! yay!


While the main reason I have not participated in the playtest is lack of time and a stubborn unwillingness of my gaming group to try anything other than 3.5 lest they be tempted into switching systems, the other reason is that I have full faith and confidence in Paizo's ability to sift through the playtest to find what they need to make Pathfinder an awesome RPG.

Of course, if they in any way shape or form infringe upon my house rules, then the system is totally broken and useless.

Sorry, couldn't resist. The evil spirit that has infested Paizo's messageboards is starting to affect my subconscious.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

BlaineTog wrote:

This is actually called the Oberoni Fallacy: "just because you can fix the rules doesn't mean they aren't broken." So let's say you have a car, and the car's design is pretty bad such that the door stops closing after you've put around 15,000 miles on it. Now, this is a pretty well-known problem and all you need to do to fix it is tie a piece of string onto the door. The design of the car is still bad, you've just found a way to deal with it.

Not that I condone the OP's tone, far from it, but there's a grain of truth in what he's saying.

I agree.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

BlaineTog wrote:

This is actually called the Oberoni Fallacy: "just because you can fix the rules doesn't mean they aren't broken." So let's say you have a car, and the car's design is pretty bad such that the door stops closing after you've put around 15,000 miles on it. Now, this is a pretty well-known problem and all you need to do to fix it is tie a piece of string onto the door. The design of the car is still bad, you've just found a way to deal with it.

Not that I condone the OP's tone, far from it, but there's a grain of truth in what he's saying.

I assume there is a corollary to the Oberoni Fallacy that goes along the lines of "Just because you can break the rules doesn't mean they need to be fixed"?

Must go google that. Back in 5.

EDIT 1: The WTG Fallacy says that one should present personal experience as an opinion that something is broken in a specific situation, but not use it to declare that it's broken for everyone. Not what I'm looking for but timely.

EDIT 2: And the winner is lich-loved: "Just because someone can find a way to make the system fail does not mean that the system in all cases is a failure. There are things being excluded in these playtest discussions that are impacted by and have an impact on the causality of the game world that cannot be ignored."

Damn, that took 7. I thought I could find it in 5. But, yes, there it is.

Now, can we get back to specifics instead of pompous abstracts, childish insults, and grandiose sounding terms for fairly common-sensical things?

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 16

The arguments that I see here boil down to a basic difference in philosophies.

When balance problems arise in the rules, there are two basic approaches to addressing them. The first approach is to adjust the rules; the second approach involves teaching the gamemasters and players to better control the game.

Adding limits and clauses to the rules can be effective, but can make the rules unwieldy and constricting. Fourth Edition D&D is an excellent example of this: Their rules are carefully balanced, but place substantial limits on available spells and combat options. As players are offered more options, maintaining balance becomes more difficult.

I prefer the second approach, where the rules are stripped of extraneous limits, but prospective gamemasters are encouraged to exercise broad discretion. This philosophy produces simpler, more comprehensible rules, but is subject to abuse. Examples like the "efreet infinite wish cycle" come to mind. While I would never let a player pull such a stunt, I've encountered games where such flagrant abuses ran rampant.


Psychic_Robot wrote:


And often times, the majority of people are dumb.

He Einstein, I'd love to make a comment about this.

Truth is I am not dumb enough to do that.....


Tarren Dei wrote:
I assume there is a corollary to the Oberoni Fallacy that goes along the lines of "Just because you can break the rules doesn't mean they need to be fixed"?

Your implied objection is specious. We don't need to do anything at all. 3.5 exists. Even if the goal of Pathfinder was to make 3.5 playable, it still wouldn't need to do anything, because 3.5 is mostly pretty good. The point of Pathfinder is to make 3.5 better. If there is something which is imperfect and we can make it better, we should, because that's the central design goal, Pathfinder's reason for being. Even given that, is it necessary for us to make 3.5 perfect? No, of course not, that's an absurd goal, impossible. But if we can catch the problem and fixing it would make the game better, we should fix the problem.


Dementrius wrote:
alleynbard wrote:

I am of the opinion that certain "problems" are really only "problems" for a small section of the gaming population. The efreet wish machine is a good example. Is that really an issue that deserves the amount of time that is needed to fix it? When does common sense and DM fiat come into play?

There are a number of issues that have been identified with 3.x that do fall into the “obscure abusable mechanic” category. These corner cases are disproportionately highlighted as examples of how 3.5 is “broken”. This in itself is reason enough to fix these loopholes – as a public relations exercise to quiet the part of the community that is prone to obsessive rules mongering (which is part of the fun some gamers get from the hobby).

While I don't disagree with your point, and I think its interesting, some of these "obscure" abusable mechanics aren't really that obscure. Sure, it may just be one spell used in a certain way which creates a monstrously huge abuse, but because its a spell, the players get to control how often it happens (assuming the spell is allowed in the game at all - if that is the only good solution, then the spell shouldn't exist). Thus while the source of the abuse is arguably obscure, the abuse itself isn't because it can come up as often as the player wants it to. That is a problem.

Now, if the problem is some bizarre rules interaction not invokable at will by the players, it may well be obscure in practice. Then we can start talking about 'when is fixing this going to be too much effort for the real effect it has on the game'. But whenever the players can cause an issue to come up, then it has to be dealt with by someone, and preferably not the poor DM (who may not see it coming if he hasn't been over the PHB with a fine-toothed comb/doesn't frequent message boards/etc...).

Blakeus wrote:

Actually, one more point, I was re-reading the last few posts, and I saw something that caught my eye.

Something about the mechanics not being more important than the story.

Now, I don't want to sound self-righteous, or stupid, but what I can't understand how in a rulebook, a book that provides mechanics, the story is more important. The story is more important at the table, more important in planning a character, and in playing, but in a mechanics book, I have to think that the mechanics are most important.

The mechanics must make the story playable, and the reason I don't like 4th ed is that it doesn't give mechanics for the story to work with. It's all combat. The story hangs upon the use of the mechanics. Great games are often ruined by poor mechanical understanding; not knowing what to do, when...

QFT. A rulebook is just mechanics. Anything other than mechanics is irrelevant. At your table your story is important. The rulebook is more than just your table.

Scarab Sages

Psychic_Robot wrote:
Moff Rimmer wrote:
Even if that were going to be true -- which I don't see in the first place -- but if it did happen, that would mean that the vast majority wanted it that way as opposed to the way you want and it wouldn't be a shell to the majority and the majority would be happy.

And often times, the majority of people are dumb.

The majority of people probably felt that shapechange was fine. The majority] of people probably never had any problems with gate. The majority of people probably never had any problems with druids dominating the game because most players don't go through the rulesbooks trying to find the strongest animal to turn into.

As one of the dumb ones, I generally don't have any problems with most aspects of 3.5 as its written. If I encounter a problem with the rule I either use DM judgment or make a house rule but if I can get a system that I have to make less of those type of decisions I and my players would flock to it. Not because the system is "perfect" but because it allows more play time and less rule wrangling. Also my group have "real lives" beyond D&D and don't have the time to do a line by line analysis of potential rule abuses and we don't have the problems you seem to have, perhaps you should play with dumber players.

“Half of being smart is knowing what you're dumb at”

Solomon Short


I can't believe people are arguing this.

Actually, I can.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

At this time, it seems to me that some people are more intent on argueing with the OP than reading what he actually wrote.

There are things in the system which could obviously be better balanced, and we have the chance to help this balance being archieved. And they are not even hard to find... a transmuter with a high primary stat, spell focus and attribute-enhancers will probably kill a low-Fortitude character with a 50+ percent chance. Same goes for an enchanter against low-Will characters.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

magnuskn wrote:
At this time, it seems to me that some people are more intent on argueing with the OP than reading what he actually wrote.

The OP was basically saying an open playtest shouldn't be so open. I understand his points perfectly. I disagree with him vehemently.


DM laziness in the face of player bullying is not a valid reason to adjust the rules.

“I don’t care what you found on the char op boards; you’re a moron if you think I’m going to let you cast Apocalypse from the Sky at level 4.”

However, I would let them do it, IF that's what ALL the players consider fun. Tends to only be fun for so long though, like playing PC games with the cheat codes.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tarren Dei wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
At this time, it seems to me that some people are more intent on argueing with the OP than reading what he actually wrote.

The OP was basically saying an open playtest shouldn't be so open. I understand his points perfectly. I disagree with him vehemently.

Um, no. He was saying that people shouldn´t argue that parts of the system aren´t broken. Which is a perfectly fine statement.

I disagree, though, with him that he thinks that most D&D players are stupid.

There is a marked difference between people who play well with others and therefore do not actively try to break the system, and people who are just ignorant of the problems in the system.

mwbeeler wrote:

DM laziness in the face of player bullying is not a valid reason to adjust the rules.

“I don’t care what you found on the char op boards; you’re a moron if you think I’m going to let you cast Apocalypse from the Sky at level 4.”

I suppose the same GM is also supposed to say "No, you cannot cast Hold Monster against the Fighter, because he needs to roll a 15+ to save"?

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

BlaineTog wrote:
Tarren Dei wrote:
I assume there is a corollary to the Oberoni Fallacy that goes along the lines of "Just because you can break the rules doesn't mean they need to be fixed"?
Your implied objection is specious. We don't need to do anything at all. 3.5 exists. Even if the goal of Pathfinder was to make 3.5 playable, it still wouldn't need to do anything, because 3.5 is mostly pretty good. The point of Pathfinder is to make 3.5 better. If there is something which is imperfect and we can make it better, we should, because that's the central design goal, Pathfinder's reason for being. Even given that, is it necessary for us to make 3.5 perfect? No, of course not, that's an absurd goal, impossible. But if we can catch the problem and fixing it would make the game better, we should fix the problem.

It's not specious. The efreeti thread has all been about players with permissive DMs attempting to milk 'loopholes' in order to chainbind efreetis. The OP has started this thread from that one.

There are checks and balances there already to prevent such players from getting out of hand. The fluff text on the efreeti is a check on that. But ... just because the players can abuse the system doesn't mean it is an OMG IF EVERBODY DOZN'T DO EXACTLY WHAT I SAY THE WORLD IS GOING TO FRIGGIN' END RIGHT NOW!!!

Thank God we play at seperate tables. He can go break his. Mine is fine.


magnuskn wrote:

At this time, it seems to me that some people are more intent on argueing with the OP than reading what he actually wrote.

I think the main problem is with the delivery, not the message. As BigDaddyG said so succinctly upthread:

BigDaddyG wrote:
It's unfortunate because PR, you probably do present some great ideas. The presentation however is like serving up a great steak on a plate of dog sh*t. I just can't get past the dog sh*t.

I have a degree in Communications/Public Relations and Comm 101 is that if your information is great but your delivery is bad then your information gets lost. Bringing insult-neutral constructive criticism to the table is key to a playtest. Insulting and ridiculing everyone for disagreeing/not taking your rants seriously isn't helping people take an honest look at your suggestions.

Or as an old saying goes:

"You catch more flies with honey than vinegar."

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

magnuskn wrote:
Tarren Dei wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
At this time, it seems to me that some people are more intent on argueing with the OP than reading what he actually wrote.

The OP was basically saying an open playtest shouldn't be so open. I understand his points perfectly. I disagree with him vehemently.

Um, no. He was saying that people shouldn´t argue that parts of the system aren´t broken. Which is a perfectly fine statement.

And if he stopped there, this whole thread would have been better off. But he didn't. He said that if we talk about our different styles and preferences ... if we so much as make an argument that disagrees with his ... we are ruining the game.

That idea -- if listened to -- makes the playtest less open.


magnuskn wrote:
I suppose the same GM is also supposed to say "No, you cannot cast Hold Monster against the Fighter, because he needs to roll a 15+ to save"?

In what universe does that make sense?

The Exchange

There's a section right at the beginning of the dungeon masters guide that says "The DM defines the game". Page 4 - the dungeon master

Also on page 4 - Final note
It states "The power of creating worlds, controlling deities and dragons, and leading entire nations is in your hands. You are the master of the game - the rules , the setting, the action and ultimately the fun. This is a great deal of power and you must use it wisely."

Note the emphasis is mine.

The rules say the DM can arbitrate to makea game fun.

The rules say you must use them wisely.

I suggest a whole bunch of posters who keep telling people how to change the rules need to think a hell of a lot more about the using them wisely bit. After all, its in the rules.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Patrick Curtin wrote:
magnuskn wrote:

At this time, it seems to me that some people are more intent on argueing with the OP than reading what he actually wrote.

I think the main problem is with the delivery, not the message. As BigDaddyG said so succinctly upthread:

BigDaddyG wrote:
It's unfortunate because PR, you probably do present some great ideas. The presentation however is like serving up a great steak on a plate of dog sh*t. I just can't get past the dog sh*t.

I have a degree in Communications/Public Relations and Comm 101 is that if your information is great but your delivery is bad then your information gets lost. Bringing insult-neutral constructive criticism to the table is key to a playtest. Insulting and ridiculing everyone for disagreeing/not taking your rants seriously isn't helping people take an honest look at your suggestions.

Or as an old saying goes:

"You catch more flies with honey than vinegar."

True that. I know that Psychic_Robot, Logic_Ninja and some others maintain that they don´t need to be nice to have their arguments heard, but they should see by now that their mode of bringing forth their ( very valid in most cases ) arguments is producing so much negative feedback, due to their sometimes very rude method of delivery, that the arguments themselves are being ignored, while the delivery itself becomes the argument.

It´s very sad that for some people social graces and brilliance of thought don´t seem to go along very well. A lot of insightful posts are lost this way.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

magnuskn wrote:
It´s very sad that for some people social graces and brilliance of thought don´t seem to go along very well. A lot of insightful posts are lost this way.

Actually, if you look at intelligence from a "Multiple Intelligence" perspective, lack of social graces would indicate lack of intelligence in one area.

The Exchange

Psychic_Robot wrote:
I can't believe people are arguing this.

I think you will find it is called debate. Seriously, if you post something up, it will get discussed. The fact that it has gone to two pages suggests that it is worth discussing, and therefore an interesting point. Your desire to suddenly close down the conversation suggests that actually you were simply presenting us with your comments and assumed that there was nothing more to say on the subject but as you see, actually it is a bit more nuanced than maybe you thought.

Unfortunately (for you) this is an open play test. That's not just open to you, but to everyone with an interest. Telling people not to post and suggesting they are "dumb" if they don't agree with you suggests that, actually, you simply want to discuss these things with a little clique who are unlikey to disagree with you. That runs counter to what the thing is about and Paizo's stated aims.

The point is that the playtest should be a Darwinian struggle between different ideas, with the fittest surviving, like D&D super-rats immune to all the pesticides known to man and able to live from the tropics to the arctic. Your desire to reduce the input from other posters, or the type of arguments they present, suggests that instead you want to reduce the competition, and are mollycoddling D&D pandas in a closed environment, ever hovering on the brink of extinction and barely fit to survive on their own. Moreover, a PFRGP designed by panda-lovers might not survive either once let loose. I would have thought that, with your apparent confidence in your own rightness, competition of ideas would not bother you - it's obvious, right?.

In addition, people are entitled to be dumb. So what if you don't like their arguments, or consider them baseless? It is a free country, and people can post here what they like. Ultimately, it isn't up to you what gets posted, what gets read, and what gets in the final PFRGP - that is down to Jason and the Paizo team.


magnuskn wrote:


True that. I know that Psychic_Robot, Logic_Ninja and some others maintain that they don´t need to be nice to have their arguments heard, but they should see by now that their mode of bringing forth their ( very valid in most cases ) arguments is producing so much negative feedback, due to their sometimes very rude method of delivery, that the arguments themselves are being ignored, while the delivery itself becomes the argument.

It´s very sad that for some people social graces and brilliance of thought don´t seem to go along very well. A lot of insightful posts are lost this way.

Indeed. If there is a real desire to see their suggestions discussed I would suggest that they speak their posts aloud before posting, preferably in a mirror, and think on how they might be recieved if they were speaking face-to-face with someone.

The Internet gives many the feeling that they can post whatever and it is OK. Truth is, you can, but don't expect people to take you seriously when you obviously don't take other's feelings into consideration. Manners and consideration aren't 'outmoded' values, they are the grease that keeps the axles of human society rolling smoothly.

Yelling obscenities and insulting folks might get you attention, but it rarely gets you approval. It's a catastrophic communication mode to take when you are trying to convey information to people, especially strangers, because you set them up automatically on the defensive.

Instructive example wrote:


Example 1: I think that wizards are overpowered, and I would change them thusly:

Example 2: O.M.G. you idiots can't even wrap it around your microcephalic skulls that wizards are broken! If you were 1/10 as smart as me you would change them thusly:

Both have the same informational package, but which one is more likely to be looked at in an open value-neutral way?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
mwbeeler wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
I suppose the same GM is also supposed to say "No, you cannot cast Hold Monster against the Fighter, because he needs to roll a 15+ to save"?
In what universe does that make sense?

Because you argue that because some arcane class and ability combinations can be easily curbed by the GM. While I say that some very easy and obvious things, like very high DCs against very low saves, are just as effective and can not as easily be brought under control.

Which is due to the very nature of how saving vs. spells works. I can hardly tell my players to not work to make their spells be hard to be saved against.


magnuskn wrote:


Because you argue that because some arcane class and ability combinations can be easily curbed by the GM. While I say that some very easy and obvious things, like very high DCs against very low saves, are just as effective and can not as easily be brought under control.

You’re attempting to juxtapose “happens in every game” with “patently ridiculous rules interpretation.”

The Exchange

Psychic_Robot wrote:
1. "My players don't try to do this, so it's not broken."

Fair enough - one game group isn't the entirety of the community and won't be impacting on all the rules in play, probably due to preferences in style of play.

Psychic_Robot wrote:
2. "I don't follow the rules-as-written, so it's not broken."

Quite - if it needed house-ruling, at the very least it was causing problems even if they were aesthetic.

Psychic_Robot wrote:
3. "Use Rule 0."

I don't really agree here. Where stuff isn't a corner case then it needs fixing, where it is then it boils down to priorities and how much impact it has. Ultimately, the rules only need the DM for Rule 0. Irrespective of the rules in their final form, a DM will have to use Rule 0 to determine what happens. The rules are far too complex, with too many interconnections, for that not to be the case. If you are assuming that you can create a system where you eliminate Rule 0, then you are bound to fail.

Psychic_Robot wrote:
These are the kinds of things that drive people who understand some of the more intricate aspects of the system away. We are forced into the situation where we are fighting an ever-incoming tide of ignorance and fail. Paizo cannot make a better game with this nonsense polluting their boards--what we will be left with is a shell of a game whose merit was blown because a bunch of "yes-men" dumped all over everyone who had good ideas.

This is silly. How are different arguments dooming you to fail? How are different ideas driving you away? There's conflict on the boards, for sure, but it doesn't have much to do with a clash of ideas but instead of styles. See my post above, but if your ideas are good then they should prevail. It's not a democratic process where weight of votes matters. Jason is choosing the best ideas, so you need to be the best, not the most numerous, nor making the biggest fuss.

Psychic_Robot wrote:
Developer worship is bad. It's what caused a large number of problems in 4e--especially when the developers themselves took the stance that they could do no wrong.

I can't comment about what the 4e guys think, and I suspect you can't with any accuracy either. However, WotC coming on board with a new edition and saying, "Er, hi, this is it but we think it might be crap" probably would not shift too many units. I would separate the marketing from what the designers thought. I would also question if that is what the "problem" with 4e is. The problem, such as it is, is that it radically reworked what PCs could do, but on the other hand they actually fixed a lot of the balance problems prevalent in 3e by completely abolishing a lot of the stuff casters can do. To the extent that there is a problem, it is that 4e has a different design philosophy to 3e emphasising such balance, but it is more a question of preference and familiarity v novelty than designer arrogance.

As to the general comment, it is about quality of ideas again.

Psychic_Robot wrote:

Allow me to restate all this succinctly:

If you make these arguments, you are ruining the game.

Yes. You read that correctly. You are literally ruining the game for everyone who wants a solid, more balanced system than what 3.5 offered. You are literally ruining the game for everyone who wants to avoid a slew of house-rules that he or she had to adopt to make 3e function properly. You are literally ruining the game for people who see the potential that Pathfinder has.

I think that comment is hyperbolic, to say the least. Ruining the game? Most of us were happy with 3.5, and had lots of "unruined" fun with it. PFRPG is a tidied-up version of 3.5, which may or may not clear up certain problem areas. But either way, 3.5 is a solid game, so it is arguably unruined now, albeit that it may be imperfect. The potential PFRPG has is pretty much what 3.5 currently does - it will be backwards compatible after all, and likewise not perfect. The system you want would maybe require less in-the-fly DM'ing. That's about all it will do, or indeed is intended to do. The huge qualitative difference you suggest is neither borne out by what came before or by what is intended after.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
mwbeeler wrote:
You’re attempting to juxtapose “happens in every game” with “patently ridiculous rules interpretation.”

Actually, I want to emphasize that some things in the game should be fixed, because they result in less fun for everyone. High DCs vs. Low Saves with insta-death results are one such thing, and they are very common.

Your post seemed to indicate to me that you only consider the very arcane super-class combinations to be a problem. If I was wrong, I apologize.

Dark Archive

Psychic_Robot wrote:

I can't believe people are arguing this.

Actually, I can.

Of course you can. I mean you started it off. You knew that people were going to argue about it. The tone of the original post and calling most of the gamers here "Dumb" is evidence of that alone.

Sovereign Court

Okay, let's try it. Opening Post with manners;

Title changed to; Three arguments that are hindering the debate.

Psychic Robot could have written wrote:


1. "My players don't try to do this, so it doesn't need tweaking."
2. "I don't follow the rules-as-written, so it doesn't need tweaking."
3. "Use Rule 0."

I know that we all want to be positive and support Paizo, but Jason and co. have asked for feedback and suggestions on the rules, so let's give it to them.

I want to see a solid, more balanced system than what 3.5 offered. I want to avoid the slew of house-rules that players and GMs have to adopt to make 3e function properly. Pathfinder has great potential to make the game work better "out of the box" but only if we can really debate 3e (and the Beta's) flaws.

I know that the people making these comments are sincere and probably have other concerns that they'd rather focus on, but PathfindeRPG is a chance to improve and tidy-up all angles of the game.

Incidentally, the efreeti summoning = wish machine thread now has half-a-dozen effective fixes posted on it (I favour the extra two sentences excluding wishes and miracles in the summoning rules option myself.) So it might be worth noting that people making any of these three arguments has not actually undermined the debate, and may perhaps have persuaded people to work a bit more on their fixes.

Dark Archive

Patrick Curtin wrote:


BigDaddyG wrote:
It's unfortunate because PR, you probably do present some great ideas. The presentation however is like serving up a great steak on a plate of dog sh*t. I just can't get past the dog sh*t.

I have a degree in Communications/Public Relations and Comm 101 is that if your information is great but your delivery is bad then your information gets lost. Bringing insult-neutral constructive criticism to the table is key to a playtest. Insulting and ridiculing everyone for disagreeing/not taking your rants seriously isn't helping people take an honest look at your suggestions.

Or as an old saying goes:

"You catch more flies with honey than vinegar."

In other words...what I said...just with a bit more tact. I agree with you.


So we need 'rule fixes' to 'fix' 'broken rules', 'broken players', and 'broken DMs'? Don't want that job!

I'd rather wallow in my 'dumbness'. I hear ignorance is bliss.

Seriously though, the OP has a habit of alienating the 'people' he's posting to right from the get-go. Not sure why he feels it necessary to do so, but it kills the chance for a groundswell of support.

Maybe start a thread that says 'Super Geniuses Roundtable Groupthink Discussion on how to Perfect Paizo'. The webmaster could administer IQ tests to see who can participate in said forum.

Scarab Sages

It is worth knowing that the O.P. on other boards seems to be taking a certain amount of delight in the chaos and arguments he is causing on this board.

I hate to accuse anyone of being a troll, because I generally try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. Yet his own actions elsewhere seem to brand him as belonging to that family.


Don't feed the trolls.


Hey, I'm kind of new around here and was wondering... what is "Rule 0?"

Thanks!

Scarab Sages

Iziak wrote:

Hey, I'm kind of new around here and was wondering... what is "Rule 0?"

Thanks!

In a nutshell rule 0 is the understanding that the DM has the last word and can change anything he wants.


Wicht wrote:
In a nutshell rule 0 is the understanding that the DM has the last word and can change anything he wants.

Ahh... I get it now. Thanks for the fast reply!

The Exchange

Wicht wrote:
It is worth knowing that the O.P. on other boards seems to be taking a certain amount of delight in the chaos and arguments he is causing on this board.

You don't really have to go to other boards to get the impression that his stated desire to simply improve PFRPG is, shall we say, disingenuous.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
Wicht wrote:
It is worth knowing that the O.P. on other boards seems to be taking a certain amount of delight in the chaos and arguments he is causing on this board.
You don't really have to go to other boards to get the impression that his stated desire to simply improve PFRPG is, shall we say, disingenuous.

I´d be more convinced if his posts would contain more obviously outrageous b%&@&!~*. However, he generally makes very good points.

I´m just detecting that some people are wasting a lot of time to attack the OP, rather than his arguments.


Indeed, just pointing to "Rule 0" as a cureall for any rules problem is short-sighted. Game designers should aim at their rules being playable for the majority of gamers using them with little fuss. That the rules won´t work for everyone is just the nature of the beast, but just pointing to that fact and denying the necessity of changes is a cop-out IMO.

But trolling, playing mother to the list and being rude does nothing to further the design efforts and may drown valid points in ... well, I won´t elaborate further.

Stefan


magnuskn wrote:
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
Wicht wrote:
It is worth knowing that the O.P. on other boards seems to be taking a certain amount of delight in the chaos and arguments he is causing on this board.
You don't really have to go to other boards to get the impression that his stated desire to simply improve PFRPG is, shall we say, disingenuous.

I´d be more convinced if his posts would contain more obviously outrageous b&%&@#&%. However, he generally makes very good points.

I´m just detecting that some people are wasting a lot of time to attack the OP, rather than his arguments.

That's the dilemma. The OP needs to stick to the points and avoid the extraneous.

BTW, there are a number of threads that have already discussed certain of the good points in a better manner (Gate, Shapechange, Efreet, etc.). Rehashing them in a rude manner is really just trolling.


magnuskn wrote:

I´d be more convinced if his posts would contain more obviously outrageous b##*!&*#. However, he generally makes very good points.

And? Let me quote JB:

JasonBulmahn wrote:


[...]However, I am going to post a bit about politeness on these forums. I really need everyone here to understand a few things. First off, don't think you can post up rude comments and abrasive posts to get noticed. With a playtest of this size, I see the same comments numerous times across many threads. As such, if you are rude and condesending, I can usually ignore you and get the exact same feedback from a poster that is polite and reasonable. Second, do not think that the excuse of "I don't have time to be polite" is sufficient to excuse rude behavior. It does not take any additional time to be polite than it does to be rude. [...]
magnuskn wrote:


I´m just detecting that some people are wasting a lot of time to attack the OP, rather than his arguments.

What do you expect when he attacks everyone with a different opinion. Calling people dumb is never a good idea.

Edit: Smurf

Scarab Sages

magnuskn wrote:
I´d be more convinced if his posts would contain more obviously outrageous b@!%*~!#. However, he generally makes very good points.

Okay...

So saying that the average posters here are dumb, whiney idiots who are full of fail doesn't seem a touch outrageous to you? :/

As to how good his points are, I think that is debatable. He makes some valid points but I find many of his basic assumptions about the game to be specious.

Scarab Sages

While I really can't stand most of his posts, PR is right about one thing: just because a problem doesn't appear in most games doesn't mean it shouldn't be fixed. I just think it isn't top priority to fix these somewhat obscure leaks while there are other topics to be discussed and tinkered with, topics that affect the playability and the feel of the game for most (and no - I don't mean dumb by that) players.
Thus said I think, fixes to "obscure issues" should be maid if
- the adressed leak ist fixed easily without interfering to much with the rule system as a whole (all the better if the poster finding the leak already found and posted a viable fix)
- fixing the adressed leak doesn't affect the "feel" aka fluff of the game to much (i believe the game is meant't to play stories, so the fluff should't need to be adjusted to fit the rules).
In other words - fixes are valid if the fix does't affect the game more than the leak does.
Since I and at least some of the posters above seem to see no immediate need to search for loopholes and fix them and I'm sure Jason and the Paizo Team still work on topics in the PRPG that are - let's say more accessible for most playtesters, perhaps it would be a valid Idea to make a thread jsut for discussing discovered loopholes so Jason can look through them when he feels to have the time to do so without neglecting other work. Since there are many playtesters unconcerned about things like "effreeti granting unlimited wishes" it would also give them (us) the chance to participate in most of the playtesting without adressing issues that never showed up in our games.


Aubrey the Failformed: You apparently think my character has some bearing on my mathematical analysis of the system, so...no.

Shadow Lodge

Samuel Weiss wrote:
Stuff I wanted to write but am too lazy and not nearly as articulate.

Kudos and well said.

The Exchange

Psychic_Robot wrote:
Aubrey the Failformed: You apparently think my character has some bearing on my mathematical analysis of the system, so...no.

Don't think I do, actually. I think your character, which appears to prefer dealing in absolutes, is inclined toward mathematical analysis without acknowledging the qualitative issues. I also think your character likes to draw attention to itself with an abrasive posting style. I don't think it affects the actual analysis, though obviously the base assumptions may be faulty.

Failformed? What are you, five?

Dark Archive

Obvious troll is obvious.

DNR this thread.

51 to 100 of 131 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / General Discussion (Prerelease) / Please stop making the following arguments against changes: All Messageboards