Is she a wood witch, or a bad witch? Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...
Get it?
Ah screw it....
POWER ATTACKS the burning wood witch
She baleful polymorphed me into a newt.
...I succeeded a subsequent save...
I'm going to find my older brother, brickman. He doesn't burn so easily, and will f@$# your shit up.
I seen him get tossed through a window further down the boards.
There's always woodman, though people seem to think his name is some type of sexual innuendo...
Oh yeah, I hear he's real popular.....
Do you only run prewritten adventure? If not, you are just saying "I can't do anything, I've tied my own hands in the matter." Why exactly have you tied your own hands? You are asserting that, as a DM, you can't modify the world such that simple magic is used to solve simple tasks by everyone that can use magic and therefore you, as a DM, are going to say the PCs can't do it.
Indeed, cantrips solve a great many problems. But if I want to have a believable world, I either have to have a society where people are taking every advantage of them, or else I have a world where people are not taking advantage of them, and it's my job as DM to come up with an explanation for why they're not doing this otherwise obvious and sensible thing apart from them being deeply stupid
I never run prewritten adventures, actually, apart from ones I've written myself, and I've tied my hands with a rope called "believable worldbuilding." I'm only willing to suspend disbelief so far. For an example of believable world building, look here:
"Bertha was rather sorry to find that there were no flowers in the park. She had promised her aunts, with tears in her eyes, that she would not pick any of the kind Prince's flowers, and she had meant to keep her promise, so of course it made her feel silly to find that there were no flowers to pick."
"Why weren't there any flowers?"
"Because the pigs had eaten them all," said the bachelor promptly. "The gardeners had told the Prince that you couldn't have pigs and flowers, so he decided to have pigs and no flowers."
There was a murmur of approval at the excellence of the Prince's decision; so many people would have decided the other way.
This is an example of believable world building: The Prince has a choice between having a park with pigs or having a park with flowers, because having a park with both is implausible. Either the flowers are edible in which case the pigs have eaten them up or else the flowers are poisonous in which case the pigs who ate them are dead.
Now, we can come up with various scenarios whereby you could possibly have both with varying degrees of plausibility, but finding edible flowers such as tulips growing in a park with live pigs running around is unbelievable. And with fantasy especially it's important to have things make sense or else people start questioning everything and it all begins to look ridiculous.
Having a desert metropolis irrigated by Decanters of Endless Water is fine for some stories but bad for others. I as DM decide what sort of story I want to tell and allow whatever rules and items support that story and redline or otherwise remove those rules and items that break that story.
That's logically immature. Immature in the sense that the "consistency" stopped at the "lowest common diversion" (I just made that up). Because you cannot keep pigs and flowers in the same location, you can either have pigs or flowers but not both. To translate to my just made up term, the first point at which two things can possibly be considered logically inconsistent, they are made mutually exclusive. In an actually believable and consistent world, the flowers and pigs would not be kept in the same place. Or, you know, a fence would be built between them.
Never mind that your attempt to use "The Story-Teller" as an example doesn't even remotely fit for multiple reasons.
When you make too many exceptions your game becomes arbitrary and story driven.-James
Gee, that sounds familiar. Oh yeah:
The key word is "exceptional," as opposed to "arbitrary." ... Again, the key is to make such situations the exception, not the rule.
And as for "story driven" being used as a pejorative:
The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game is a tabletop
fantasy game in which the players take on the roles
of heroes who form a group (or party) to set out on
dangerous adventures. Helping them tell this story is the
Game Master (or GM), who decides what threats the player
characters (or PCs) face and what sorts of rewards they earn
for succeeding at their quest. Think of it as a cooperative
storytelling game, where the players play the protagonists
and the Game Master acts as the narrator, controlling the
rest of the world.
I feel pretty confident in my assertion that a campaign being "story driven" is actually a good thing. YMMV.
I feel pretty confident in my assertion that a campaign being "story driven" is actually a good thing. YMMV.
Try running a few sessions where you railroad your players and none of their actions matter. Then, when they leave in disgust, tell them that being purely story driven is a good thing.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Try running a few sessions where you railroad your players and none of their actions matter. Then, when they leave in disgust, tell them that being purely story driven is a good thing.
I feel pretty confident in my assertion that a campaign being "story driven" is actually a good thing. YMMV.
Presumably, there's a middle ground between story driven games and railroading, and Mynameisjake (and his players) are capable of navigating that uncharted realm.
Try running a few sessions where you railroad your players and none of their actions matter. Then, when they leave in disgust, tell them that being purely story driven is a good thing.
I feel pretty confident in my assertion that a campaign being "story driven" is actually a good thing. YMMV.
Presumably, there's a middle ground between story driven games and railroading, and Mynameisjake (and his players) are capable of navigating that uncharted realm.
Shows what you know. There's only one way to run a story driven campaign, and that is to arbitrarily change rules and railroad your players at every point. You're doing it wrong.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Shows what you know. There's only one way to run a story driven campaign, and that is to arbitrarily change rules and railroad your players at every point. You're doing it wrong.Try running a few sessions where you railroad your players and none of their actions matter. Then, when they leave in disgust, tell them that being purely story driven is a good thing.
I feel pretty confident in my assertion that a campaign being "story driven" is actually a good thing. YMMV.
Presumably, there's a middle ground between story driven games and railroading, and Mynameisjake (and his players) are capable of navigating that uncharted realm.
Ah. I stand corrected.
Try running a few sessions where you railroad your players and none of their actions matter. Then, when they leave in disgust, tell them that being purely story driven is a good thing.
I feel pretty confident in my assertion that a campaign being "story driven" is actually a good thing. YMMV.
Presumably, there's a middle ground between story driven games and railroading, and Mynameisjake (and his players) are capable of navigating that uncharted realm.
Seeing as how this discussion is really about people's opinions on finding a balance between....
A. Everything always going the players way. Why roll dice, the players pick the results of all dice rolls, every plan suceeds perfectly, blah, blah, blah
B. The players choices don't matter. They are trapped in a DMs narrative and everything happens according to his whim.
I was just pointing out that a strict literal interpretation of the rulebook quote MyNameIsJake posted leads you straight toward B.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Seeing as how this discussion is really about people's opinions on finding a balance between....A. Everything always going the players way. Why roll dice, the players pick the results of all dice rolls, every plan suceeds perfectly, blah, blah, blah
B. The players choices don't matter. They are trapped in a DMs narrative and everything happens according to his whim.
I was just pointing out that a strict literal interpretation of the rulebook quote MyNameIsJake posted leads you straight toward B.
Fair enough. I agree with the sentiment that the path to bad gaming is lined with well intentioned storylines (I am a roll-in-front-of-the-screen, house-rules-must-be-in-print kinda guy). It seems like there isn't really a problem at the root of this thread, just the pair of extreme positions you mention above duking it out. If you provide your players with advance notice of house rules or strange campaign features, I'm hard pressed to figure out the harm when you use them.
Fair enough. I agree with the sentiment that the path to bad gaming is lined with well intentioned storylines (I am a roll-in-front-of-the-screen, house-rules-must-be-in-print kinda guy). It seems like there isn't really a problem at the root of this thread, just the pair of extreme positions you mention above duking it out. If you provide your players with advance notice of house rules or strange campaign features, I'm hard pressed to figure out the harm when you use them.
Seeing as how this discussion is really about people's opinions on finding a balance between....A. Everything always going the players way. Why roll dice, the players pick the results of all dice rolls, every plan suceeds perfectly, blah, blah, blah
B. The players choices don't matter. They are trapped in a DMs narrative and everything happens according to his whim.
I was just pointing out that a strict literal interpretation of the rulebook quote MyNameIsJake posted leads you straight toward B.
That, and different groups are going to prefer a different balance between those two extremes.
Fair enough. I agree with the sentiment that the path to bad gaming is lined with well intentioned storylines (I am a roll-in-front-of-the-screen, house-rules-must-be-in-print kinda guy). It seems like there isn't really a problem at the root of this thread, just the pair of extreme positions you mention above duking it out. If you provide your players with advance notice of house rules or strange campaign features, I'm hard pressed to figure out the harm when you use them.
I think the problem is that some players like to rules lawyer and consider the rules printed in some print book to be automatically superior to anything in a house rules bible, even if the DM has actually written things that have been included in print books and been paid for them.
On a related note, they also tend to consider everything in a printed source to be sacrosanct even if it actively contradicts something printed in another printed source.
That's logically immature. Immature in the sense that the "consistency" stopped at the "lowest common diversion" (I just made that up). Because you cannot keep pigs and flowers in the same location, you can either have pigs or flowers but not both. To translate to my just made up term, the first point at which two things can possibly be considered logically inconsistent, they are made mutually exclusive. In an actually believable and consistent world, the flowers and pigs would not be kept in the same place. Or, you know, a fence would be built between them.
Never mind that your attempt to use "The Story-Teller" as an example doesn't even remotely fit for multiple reasons.
I'm of a different opinion because in "The Storyteller," the Prince's park is an artificial pleasure garden and the parallel between that and a made-up fantasy world should be obvious.
Beyond that, I tried following your sentences, but couldn't really make sense of them beyond just refuting me to be contrary.
As they say in the land of my people (that being California) "Whatever...."
I am a roll-in-front-of-the-screen, house-rules-must-be-in-print kinda guy.
I like to hide everything behind a DM screen, so the players don't know what's going on. Sometimes, I even wear a blindfold to keep things secret from myself.
Ha! I make dice noises and choose whatever result I want!
Oooh. Good idea. I'm gonna steal it. In fact, I'll take it one step further and just make up the entire adventure as I go along. I can use a Magic 8-ball to make decisions.
That's logically immature. Immature in the sense that the "consistency" stopped at the "lowest common diversion" (I just made that up). Because you cannot keep pigs and flowers in the same location, you can either have pigs or flowers but not both. To translate to my just made up term, the first point at which two things can possibly be considered logically inconsistent, they are made mutually exclusive. In an actually believable and consistent world, the flowers and pigs would not be kept in the same place. Or, you know, a fence would be built between them.
Never mind that your attempt to use "The Story-Teller" as an example doesn't even remotely fit for multiple reasons.
I'm of a different opinion because in "The Storyteller," the Prince's park is an artificial pleasure garden and the parallel between that and a made-up fantasy world should be obvious.
Beyond that, I tried following your sentences, but couldn't really make sense of them beyond just refuting me to be contrary.
As they say in the land of my people (that being California) "Whatever...."
The park in the story had nothing to do with the story except that it was the most simple answer from the storyteller for a couple of children
i.e....Befuddlement = EPIC F+#+ING WIN!!!
The park in the story had nothing to do with the story except that it was the most simple answer from the storyteller for a couple of children
Wrong.
The ending of "The Storyteller" was the fact that the storyteller had kept the children engaged in his tale because he'd told "an improper story," which is to say, one that defied the conventions of children's morality fables and the Sunday school twaddle of the time. The fact that the Prince had chosen pigs over flowers when so many people would have done otherwise -- and in fact that he'd chosen to have the most traditionally "unclean" animal in his pleasure garden at all -- both foreshadows and contributes to the final outcome, that of the children forever pestering their aunt to tell them "an improper story."
So, who's better: Prince and the Revolution, or Prince and the New Power Generation?
I guess I should have known
by the way you parked your car sideways
That I wouldn't last. See you're the kinda person
That believes in makin' out once
love 'em and leave 'em fast.
I guess I must be dumb 'cos had a pocket full of horses
Trojan and some of them used
but it was Saturday night
I guess that makes it all right
and you say what have I got to lose".
And honey I say:
Little red corvette
baby
you're much too fast.
Little red corvette
you need a love that's gonna last.
Guess I should have closed my eyes
when you drove me to the place
Where your horses run free
'cause I felt a little ill
When I saw all the pictures of the jockeys
that were there before me.
Believe it or not I started to worry
I wondered if I had enough class.
But it was Saturday night
I guess that makes it all right
And you say
baby have you get enough gas?" oh yeah.
Little red corvette
baby
you're much too fast.
Little red corvette
you need to find a love that's gonna last. - oh no -
A body like yours ought to be in jail
'Cause it's on the verge of bein' obscene.
Move over baby
give me the keys.
I'm gonna try to tame your little red love machine.
Little red corvette
baby
you're much to fast. . .
Little red corvette
honey you gotta slow down.
Little red corvette
'cos if you don't you're gonna run into the ground.
|
Story driven does not mean that player actions don't have to matter. Sometimes you do need to channel player actions more than usual. If the expedition is to the Barrier Peaks, you really can't have your players hop off to Blackmoor.Frequently however most players will be looking for hints as to where they should be going next. The art of GMing is giving players as much opportunity to find those hints for themselves. Sometimes campaign circumstances will demand a railroad. As long as players don't come to feel that the railroad is the normal way the campaign will run, it's usually not a problem.
Most players however are more than satisfied if they're given a reasonable illusion of control.
I've found most players want to be led by the nose. I'm guilty of it myself. I try to let them drive the story, but they end up asking me where to go next. Admittedly, my plot hooks could probably use work. But I disagree that they can't go to Blackmoor instead of the Barrier Peaks. It's harder on you, but you shouldn't veto it outright.
As much as I have enjoyed the 3 hours required to actually read this thread. I actually had to set up my Forum information to respond. Having started with 3.0 just before 3.5 and continued up into Pathfinder, I find most of the 'it used to work this way' arguments confusing at best.
More to the point of this thread, I have to agree that the arbitrary changes would leave me questioning why I was playing in the campaign in the first place.
If you want to screw with the spell lists of your spell casters, you need to give fair warning. This is not 'in the great desert water spells are at +1 level' either. This is AT CHARACTER CREATION "I will be rewriting your spell lists to suit the setting and my whim at my leisure, so don't get to attached."
Most of this thread seems to be confusing DM fiat with house ruling. If you give me fair warning AT CHARACTER CREATION that the world does not follow the rules in the books. I don't have any excuse to complain later that the world does not follow the rules in the books.
The Giant Slaying example a page back, can be tackled fairly easily. Did the PCs make any knowledge check? If not, then the DM should be asking why they cast 'Slay Giant' on some random monster. There are several issues being mixed in together here, might we separate issues for separate discussion?
I cleaned up some flamebait, some flaming, and some otherwise out-of-context derailing.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I cleaned up some flamebait, some flaming, and so otherwise out-of-context derailing.
Can you explain the context? I'm not getting it. It seems like a pissing contest and I'm having a hard time imagining how it becomes something productive.
It's the poster, not the posts, that are the problem.