The Gunslinger, Ninja, Samurai, Asian themes in general, post 20 rules, Psionics, etc.
These all get so many people who dislike them so much, they don't even want products created for them. They are soo opposed to whatever it is they don't like that they don't even want the people who do like them to have books containing them.
Why?? Maybe it's because I am so open-minded in my real life that if my D&D/PF game has something I don't really care for in it, I'll just ignore it or suck it up and deal.
I don't really like the Gunslinger, nor do I really like the Lovecraftian elements in Golarion, or least how much there are. And yet, I will not try to stop Paizo from creating or supporting works that contain them. I will be buying Ultimate Combat, even though it contains a class I don't really care for.
Are you purposely flame-baiting, or do you really want to know why people hate things that other people like? Because if you're not flame-baiting and you want an honest answer, then we could be here for awhile. Of course if you are flame-baiting we could be here for a while too. :P
I can see why they might feel like that, but a lot of the arguments do go overboard.
The concerns can be summed up thus:
Paizo makes X books. If Paizo makes Y books about things they dislike, the number of books they might like is X-Y. That is a smaller number of books and they fear the things they do like will receive reduced coverage and support.
My question isn't about not liking something. I get that, I do NOT like the Gunslinger or what to me is the over use of Lovecraftian elements in Golarion.
My question is "Why do people who not like something want to prevent other people from having what they like"
Of course Paizo can do what they want, but why even try to convince them not to make something that others want??
My question isn't about not liking something. I get that, I do NOT like the Gunslinger or what to me is the over use of Lovecraftian elements in Golarion.
My question is "Why do people who not like something want to prevent other people from having what they like"
Of course Paizo can do what they want, but why even try to convince them not to make something that others want??
Opportunity cost, duh. If Paizo puts out five Companion books on the different Fairy Orc tribes of Varisia, that's five books worth of usable content other folks are deprived of.
Also, those splatbook items end up in adventure paths, wasting further page count on expansion (if you hated the alchemist, you hate part of Ultimate Magic too), and you are forced to deal with them in Pathfinder Society games.
My question is "Why do people who not like something want to prevent other people from having what they like"
Study the history of the world... People are selfish, as a rule.
Exhibit A:
Two kids, one has a sucker and is thoroughly enjoying it. The second kid sees that, is annoyed, takes the sucker, washes it (more than likely not, but I would hope so in this germ ridden world), and takes a lick. After licking said sucker kid two realizes he doesn't like the flavor at all, but he is much more satisfied knowing kid one also does not now have a delicious sucker to suck on.
Again, people are selfish, as a rule. They want, what they want, and to hell with everyone else. Sometimes this includes a sadist satisfaction in making sure other people are not happy. I didn't make it up, I'm just reporting it.
My question isn't about not liking something. I get that, I do NOT like the Gunslinger or what to me is the over use of Lovecraftian elements in Golarion.
My question is "Why do people who not like something want to prevent other people from having what they like"
Of course Paizo can do what they want, but why even try to convince them not to make something that others want??
You missed the point of what Umbral Reaver said.
Paizo makes X books. If Paizo makes Y books about things they dislike, the number of books they might like is X-Y. That is a smaller number of books and they fear the things they do like will receive reduced coverage and support.
Guess I'm just too accepting of what others want and don't ever get too worried that what I find fun won't get published.
Never really had a desire to buy the APs, but I know their one Paizo's main strengths, so I never voiced out against them, and now with Jade Regent and the Pirate AP coming out soon, I am about to become an AP subscriber.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's just that some people are spoiled whiners who can't suck it up.
I HATE psionics...To the point of not wanting to play in a game that has psionics allowed. However, i will not b***h about psionics if Paizo decides to do an official rulebook. I will be glad that two of my friends are happy because they got what they like. And i will even buy it to support Paizo.
But, as MendedWall12 said people are selfish.
Certainly the fact that there will be less material coming out that they dont like factors in, but I dont think that is the bigest issue. I think a lot of people dont have a universal consensus in their group on style and preferences. And so they dont want these things to exist because people in THEIR group might want to introduce them into the games they play in. I think its a pretty selfish way to go about things and find it hard to understand why people cant find a way to compromise. But that seems to me at least to be the primary motivation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because they are desperate to prove their own intellect to themselves by arguing about it on an internet forum.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can speak for no one else but myself, so I will do so.
I have no real objection to Paizo publishing a "mythic" book, or a psionics book, or what have you. I'll give my opinions on them, defend those opinions, ask about someone else's reasoning for their own opinions, and even point out my own thoughts on thier opinions. I try to avoid a confrontational manner as much as I can when I do this, but I'm only human, and occasionally slip. It's also very hard to tell tone on the internet, so sometimes things that were not intended to be confrontational can be taken that way, which usually leads to escalation on both sides.
If, at the end of the day, Paizo decides to publish a "mythic" book, that's their decision. I'll probably even get it, if only to scavenge ideas from. Same with psionics, although my personal preference would be for Paizo to officially license Psionics Unleashed from Dreamscarred.
I'd like to see a book devoted to steampunk / technology type of stuff. Something that manages to be powerful/useful and flashy without being magic, which would put it in a very small list of such things. But I've made small suggestions along those lines, and other than showing a bot pf artwork with a robotic scorpion armed with miniguns and death-rays, I haven't really seen too much in that direction. Again, Paizo's choice. Maybe they'll eventually fill that niche. Maybe a 3PP will (Warlords of the Apocalypse, I eagerly await you...) And maybe I'll come up with something myself if the first two sources hold off for much longer.
Would I rather Paizo focux exclusively on stuff I wanted? Of course. Is this realistic? Hell no. But I can still try to influence them until such time as they commit to making those things I don't particularly want. And even if they do so, then I can still become actively involved in the playtest discussions, to try at steer it towards something I'd at least enjoy MORE than some alternatives.
|
|
I can speak for no one else but myself, so I will do so.
I have no real objection to Paizo publishing a "mythic" book, or a psionics book, or what have you. I'll give my opinions on them, defend those opinions, ask about someone else's reasoning for their own opinions, and even point out my own thoughts on thier opinions. I try to avoid a confrontational manner as much as I can when I do this, but I'm only human, and occasionally slip. It's also very hard to tell tone on the internet, so sometimes things that were not intended to be confrontational can be taken that way, which usually leads to escalation on both sides.
If, at the end of the day, Paizo decides to publish a "mythic" book, that's their decision. I'll probably even get it, if only to scavenge ideas from. Same with psionics, although my personal preference would be for Paizo to officially license Psionics Unleashed from Dreamscarred.
I'd like to see a book devoted to steampunk / technology type of stuff. Something that manages to be powerful/useful and flashy without being magic, which would put it in a very small list of such things. But I've made small suggestions along those lines, and other than showing a bot pf artwork with a robotic scorpion armed with miniguns and death-rays, I haven't really seen too much in that direction. Again, Paizo's choice. Maybe they'll eventually fill that niche. Maybe a 3PP will (Warlords of the Apocalypse, I eagerly await you...) And maybe I'll come up with something myself if the first two sources hold off for much longer.
Would I rather Paizo focux exclusively on stuff I wanted? Of course. Is this realistic? Hell no. But I can still try to influence them until such time as they commit to making those things I don't particularly want. And even if they do so, then I can still become actively involved in the playtest discussions, to try at steer it towards something I'd at least enjoy MORE than some alternatives.
Of course, but you see, you are a reasonable person. You know that stuff will happen, and you know that you have no right to deprive someone of something that they really want. You may not like it, and wish for it not to be made, but you will not actively campaign against it. And that makes you better then most.
We don't like it because they're doing it wrong! ZOMG!!!1one!eleventyone!
While yes, people ARE selfish, I don't think it's nearly that simple. Many, if not most of the people who are playing Paizo games are coming from 3.x Dungeons and Dragons, and have vivid memories of what has come before regarding less popular campaign settings, twinked out characters from Asian-inspired material and psionics in general. Sometimes things get a little drawn out in our memories and we focus on the things we really, really don't like and as such we do everything we can to keep the bad old days from coming back, which makes us seem irrational and selfish to those on the outside looking in.
I would also say that there is an increasingly sharp divide with respect to what players (or people who habitually think like players) are looking for vs. what game masters (or people who habitually think like game masters) are looking for- an invisible hand, if you will- with respect to the balance of power in the game on a social level. Some material published may really cater to one side of the equation at the cost of the others. The best example I can think of here would be the old school Psionics Handbook that really created its own ruleset to the point that the DM had to revisit adventures they were planning to run to make sure that the psionic character(s) were not just going to steamroll their way through. Another example might be deckers in older editions of Shadowrun who ended up monopolizing the GM's time while the rest of the party twiddled their thumbs waiting for them to succeed on their various checks.
People should realize that because something is allowed in a game, they don't have to play that.
Or that just becasue something is in a book it's not automatically allowed in a particular GM's game.
I dont have a problem with the Gunslinger or Monks. But I know there are people who dont like guns or asian archetypes in thier fantasy. If theyre at all rational they'll deal with it and move on if it bugs them to the point where they cant shut up about it they'll have to find another game.
Also and I feel that this needs to be adressed, does everyone use every part of every book that they buy for an RPG? I know that that's not the case for me. I dont know of anyone in my group that's remotely interested in playing a Cavelier (sp?) (APG), or I know that at least half the spells in both the APG and Ultimate magic will more than likely NOT see in any use in my games. That doesnt mean that the books overall are useless.
I guess my point is, well, there are things that I dont care for in some of the PFRPG books that I know other people like. Their enjoyment of these things doenst effect me at all. I dont own all of the Companion line, I own some of the books. If Paizo releases Fae of Golarion, and someone else enjoys it? GREAT. It's not for me and I'll wait until they put out something that I Do want to buy. (*Cough*DUNGEONSOFGOLARION*Cough*)
People should realize that because something is allowed in a game, they don't have to play that.Or that just becasue something is in a book it's not automatically allowed in a particular GM's game.
I dont have a problem with the Gunslinger or Monks. But I know there are people who dont like guns or asian archetypes in thier fantasy. If theyre at all rational they'll deal with it and move on if it bugs them to the point where they cant shut up about it they'll have to find another game.
I'd also say there seems to be an issue nowadays with players recognizing the GM's authority in game. I've been in games that fell apart because the GM didn't want certain classes or races in the game for whatever reason, and the player(s) insisted on taking their ball and going home as a result. There also seems to be a "not it!!" factor with respect to Game Mastering in general with this type of player- they want to play their character and instead of deciding to run a game with perhaps this character as a prevalent NPC, they will seek out a GM who will let them run the character.
Short version is many people, who are other wise wonderful, just can't pass up the chance to be a scum bag. Allow me to explain.
Many people feel so strongly about it because it has a influence on the games they play, and the communications they have about those games. If something they hate to deal with comes out either they get dragged into running it or they are just a player and can't ban it. So no matter how much trouble it has caused a large number of PCs keep doing the same stupid things. So we read the announcement as "Lumberjacks of Glorion" they see, "Hey the game you play in is going to suck for a month, and after it implodes you get to play something else but at least your buddy will talk about something you hate for a while when you aren't playing."
As for not letting stuff you don't like into your games that's a great theory, but sometimes you're a player.
I'd also say there seems to be an issue nowadays with players recognizing the GM's authority in game. I've been in games that fell apart because the GM didn't want certain classes or races in the game for whatever reason, and the player(s) insisted on taking their ball and going home as a result. There also seems to be a "not it!!" factor with respect to Game Mastering in general with this type of player- they want to play their character and instead of deciding to run a game with perhaps this character as a prevalent NPC, they will seek out a GM who will let them run the character.People should realize that because something is allowed in a game, they don't have to play that.Or that just becasue something is in a book it's not automatically allowed in a particular GM's game.
I dont have a problem with the Gunslinger or Monks. But I know there are people who dont like guns or asian archetypes in thier fantasy. If theyre at all rational they'll deal with it and move on if it bugs them to the point where they cant shut up about it they'll have to find another game.
Which, if that's what makes them happy, is exactly what they should do. What it comes down to for me personally is this: dont be a jerk at the table. If youre going to pick some combination of things that are going to break the game and YOU KNOW that it's going to break the game and cause headaches? Youre being a jerk. If you create your character in a way that is going to limit the effectiveness of other players characters at the table? Youre being a jerk. It's okay to have a jack of all trades character that can step in and pinch it for another class type if it's needed. That's cool. But to purposely create a a character that is can out fight the party's fighter, or out rogue the rogue character? That's jerkish behavior of the highest order.
And I think in some cases that's what makes some DM's really ban somethings from thier games. It's not the only or main reason. But for some people it's easier to ban the material than to ban the player when they really should just ban the jerk player. Freind or no.
My question isn't about not liking something. I get that, I do NOT like the Gunslinger or what to me is the over use of Lovecraftian elements in Golarion.
My question is "Why do people who not like something want to prevent other people from having what they like"
Let's say that Paizo produces nothing but material involving gunslingers vs. Cthulhu from now on. Would you still be a fan of Paizo's products? Or would you rather have them produce something else?
Why are people so opposed to what others find fun?
Hmm. Generally because they're small, weak and irrational, easily squash-ied beings, not appreciative of the fact that a dragon has the natural right to take whatever it wants from inferior species and to make them squeal and hurt for fun.
If more frail, puny, humanoid things were prepared to acknowledge that they exist solely for the convenience of the Greater Races (the greatest of which is naturally Dragonkind) - to be tormented, to labour, and to suffer at our pleasure - we'd all get along much better. -Smagnavast the Black, giving a dragon's perspective...
Opinions are like farts.... anyway.
The problem is a few folks have a habit of mashing together "giving feedback on what I would buy" and "someone is wrong on the Internet."
It is good to give feedback. If someone crosses the line, just ignore them. Of course, I always give that advice and no one ever listens.... wait......
Also and I feel that this needs to be adressed, does everyone use every part of every book that they buy for an RPG? I know that that's not the case for me. I dont know of anyone in my group that's remotely interested in playing a Cavelier (sp?) (APG), or I know that at least half the spells in both the APG and Ultimate magic will more than likely NOT see in any use in my games. That doesnt mean that the books overall are useless.
The problem is that those people will then have to actually talk and discuss things with their group. So lets say I HATE gunslingers, and my group picks up Ultimate combat. Then one of the players in my group wants to play a gunslinger. Even if that is say 10 pages in a rather large book, that 10 pages i dont like is now IN MY GAME OMG!!1. I think some people dont actually play with friends or something, and cant come to some kind of agreement about the nature of their game.
The other problem, and it comes up alot, is organized play. I hate organized play with a passion. For me organized play should mean encouraging and organizing dms to run their own games. Not a living campaign like PF Society. The reason is dms are handcuffed to RaW. And now, if paizo wrote it, its in, and you can't pick and choose what you want in your game.
It makes it very hard to dm (on any given day players could be using any option available and you may or may not be familiar with how it works) and it means people cant stick to games of a style they like (no ninjas, all ninjas, heavy rp, monty haul, etc). And every time I see people complain that pathfinder publishing x, or creating option y is a problem for Pathfinder Society, I want to break something.
And yet, I will not try to stop Paizo from creating or supporting works that contain them.
"Try to stop..."?
I don't think you know what you're talking about. I don't think anyone here has even heard of anyone breaking into Paizo's offices or attempt to hold an employee hostage. We'd certainly see something in the news.
Oh, wait... are you instead complaining about people expressing opinions and preferences on an internet messageboard? Really?
Yeah, I'm going with flamebaiting.
Is it that time of the month already? :P
In case this isn't a troll: It's not that I don't want people to have the gunslinger, or post level 20 rules, or anything else. It's that:
1. I personally would rather see those resources used to produce something more to my liking (read: settings and adventures).
2. I'd prefer not to have to deal with an endless stream of new crunch in organized play.
and (this is the big one)
3. Bloat is unhealthy for a system. Eventually a game begins to creak under its own weight as the number of unforeseen, unbalanced rules interactions grows. Books pile up. Complexity increases. And for what? I defy anyone to come up with a character concept that cannot be executed with as a Fighter and possibly a feat or two rather than a Samurai. Or Cavalier. Or _________.
My position is simple: Pathfinder started as a way to keep the rules in print so Paizo could continue to tell stories. Somewhere along the way that changed, and the RPG has become an end in itself. I wish that weren't the case, but that doesn't make me a self-centered jerk out to deprive others of their fun (whilst I twirl my black mustache, no doubt).
In short, your question is flawed.
Also and I feel that this needs to be adressed, does everyone use every part of every book that they buy for an RPG? I know that that's not the case for me. I dont know of anyone in my group that's remotely interested in playing a Cavelier (sp?) (APG), or I know that at least half the spells in both the APG and Ultimate magic will more than likely NOT see in any use in my games. That doesnt mean that the books overall are useless.
The problem is that those people will then have to actually talk and discuss things with their group. So lets say I HATE gunslingers, and my group picks up Ultimate combat. Then one of the players in my group wants to play a gunslinger. Even if that is say 10 pages in a rather large book, that 10 pages i dont like is now IN MY GAME OMG!!1. I think some people dont actually play with friends or something, and cant come to some kind of agreement about the nature of their game.
The other problem, and it comes up alot, is organized play. I hate organized play with a passion. For me organized play should mean encouraging and organizing dms to run their own games. Not a living campaign like PF Society. The reason is dms are handcuffed to RaW. And now, if paizo wrote it, its in, and you can't pick and choose what you want in your game.
It makes it very hard to dm (on any given day players could be using any option available and you may or may not be familiar with how it works) and it means people cant stick to games of a style they like (no ninjas, all ninjas, heavy rp, monty haul, etc). And every time I see people complain that pathfinder publishing x, or creating option y is a problem for Pathfinder Society, I want to break something.
Let's consider, for a moment, that in the process of chiding people for being opposed to something others find fun ("It's not a big deal if Paizo releases X because you don't have to have X in your game!") you have actually made it clear that you are opposed to something others find fun (the philosophy behind Pathfinder Society and other living campaigns).
Let's consider, for a moment, that in the process of chiding people for being opposed to something others find fun ("It's not a big deal if Paizo releases X because you don't have to have X in your game!") you have actually made it clear that you are opposed to...
I dispise it, i dont think it shouldn't exist. I dont pop up on pfs boards and say i dont want this to exist because I dont like it, stop making it and focus on things I want. I think paizo SHOULD do it, because others want it. That is the difference, I dont like it, I wont use it, and I put myself in a position with my gaming group where I dont have to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For me, this is what it all comes down to.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Often the reasoning goes something like this:
--"That fun is not the fun I want to have, and so not the fun others should have."
--"That fun is WrongFun. WrongFun is to be discouraged at every opportunity."
--"If people begin to enjoy WrongFun, all fun will be destroyed, so it is important to stop WrongFun before it infects those who are having RightFun."
Feel free to replace all fun variants above with various lifestyle choices. The concept is not just limited to gaming.
Because you are all doing it wrong!!!! ;)
Basicly the more books the more stuff you have to know. like in 3.5 they had so many books it was impossible to keep up with them all and they were all very "niche" i could care less what books paizo publishes what i hate is having to find the book and read about a strange class that doesn't really fit into your campaign with strange maybe raw breaking abilities. and having to incorporate it.
I dispise it, i dont think it shouldn't exist. I dont pop up on pfs boards and say i dont want this to exist because I dont like it, stop making it and focus on things I want.
And yet, even if you did, it would not matter one bit, because you (or I, or anyone) don't have the power to stop something from existing when making a post on an internet messageboard.
Those people who think people do, and/or want to stop them from saying it (for whatever reason), are nothing more than scary delusional. They are, what we call in the business, "crazy".
Basicly the more books the more stuff you have to know. like in 3.5 they had so many books it was impossible to keep up with them all and they were all very "niche" i could care less what books paizo publishes what i hate is having to find the book and read about a strange class that doesn't really fit into your campaign with strange maybe raw breaking abilities. and having to incorporate it.
But why do you have to incorporate it though? See what I'm saying? If you're running the game and it's something that you feel doesn't fit in the tone or whatever of the game you're kind of obligated to communicate this to your players.
I'm not a huge fan of what I call monster races as PC's. and by "not a huge fan" I mean I dont allow them. If you want to play a thri-kreen monk/paladin/assassin you really need to find another game to be in. When we were starting our Pathfinder Campaign I had one player who wanted to be a tiefling and another who wanted to be an Aasimaar (sp?). I was against it at first but we talked about it and eventually I allowed it. Later on one of the same players wanted to know how I felt about a Centaur PC and I was like "nope. Sorry not happening."
Based on our prior conversation about my distaste for monster PC's and how many problems that would cause in the general area they PC's would be adventuring in? They understood.
Basicly the more books the more stuff you have to know. like in 3.5 they had so many books it was impossible to keep up with them all and they were all very "niche" i could care less what books paizo publishes what i hate is having to find the book and read about a strange class that doesn't really fit into your campaign with strange maybe raw breaking abilities. and having to incorporate it.But why do you have to incorporate it though? See what I'm saying? If you're running the game and it's something that you feel doesn't fit in the tone or whatever of the game you're kind of obligated to communicate this to your players.
I'm not a huge fan of what I call monster races as PC's. and by "not a huge fan" I mean I dont allow them. If you want to play a thri-kreen monk/paladin/assassin you really need to find another game to be in. When we were starting our Pathfinder Campaign I had one player who wanted to be a tiefling and another who wanted to be an Aasimaar (sp?). I was against it at first but we talked about it and eventually I allowed it. Later on one of the same players wanted to know how I felt about a Centaur PC and I was like "nope. Sorry not happening."
Based on our prior conversation about my distaste for monster PC's and how many problems that would cause in the general area they PC's would be adventuring in? They understood.
yeah sure i was just giving you the basic answer, you as the dm set the rules for what is allowed. thri-keen monks are super rad by the way
The other problem, and it comes up alot, is organized play. I hate organized play with a passion. For me organized play should mean encouraging and organizing dms to run their own games. Not a living campaign like PF Society. The reason is dms are handcuffed to RaW. And now, if paizo wrote it, its in, and you can't pick and choose what you want in your game.
I feel the almost exactly the same way about organized play. When I first started running games at our local meetup a couple of the local Pathfinder GM's asked if I wanted to run games for PFS. I declined, when they asked why I told them. I feel that Organized Play is too constricting, but even if that wasnt the case I dont want to have to deal with random personalities every time I go to DM a game. People who are only there for loot and to build status and who arent even making the attempt to RP. Not that I'm a huge RP feind, but I at least like to pretend that it's important to the game. Also I've been witness to too many JERKS at Organized Play events. So no thanks.
On the other hand Organized Play is the only way that some people can get any real play time because they may not have a dedicated group or the time to put one together. For those people who like it more power to them. I wouldn't want to take that away from them because I dont care for it. I'd really have to be some sort of real DBag to think like that.
But why do you have to incorporate it though? See what I'm saying? If you're running the game and it's something that you feel doesn't fit in the tone or whatever of the game you're kind of obligated to communicate this to your players.
The Adventure Path now regularly features APG classes and Bestiary 2 monsters, making the centerpiece of Paizo's product line less useful to folks who do not wish to cope with the added complexity. And while it is awesome that Paizo makes that material available for free online, that doesn't make it something that can simply be ignored.
I feel the almost exactly the same way about organized play. When I first started running games at our local meetup a couple of the local Pathfinder GM's asked if I wanted to run games for PFS. I declined, when they asked why I told them. I feel that Organized Play is too constricting, but even if that wasnt the case I dont want to have to deal with random personalities every time I go to DM a game. People who are only there for loot and to build status and who arent even making the attempt to RP. Not that I'm a huge RP feind, but I at least like to pretend that it's important to the game. Also I've been witness to too many JERKS at Organized Play events. So no thanks.
On the other hand Organized Play is the only way that some people can get any real play time because they may not have a dedicated group or the time to put one together. For those people who like it more power to them. I wouldn't want to take that away from them because I dont care for it. I'd really have to be some sort of real DBag to think like that.
Until organized play rules start leaking into the Adventure Path and other products, your analogy is flawed.
I'm pretty sure I'm going to can my AP sub after next month. Why? I have zero interest in samurai or ninja stat blocks, because I have zero interest in Ultimate Combat. The story of Jade Regent could have been told using fighters and rogues, and remained accessible to everyone, but that isn't how it panned out. Yet everyone expressing displeasure that the AP is no longer meeting his or her needs is a DBag? Sorry, I just don't see it. Likewise, lamenting the apparent demise of content for "core-only" GMs doesn't make one selfish. In fact, I think this conversation would be a lot more productive if we refrained from calling one another names.
Or we could just bundle up a few more "Ur funz r bad" straw men. :)
I don't see anything provocative at all about the OP's original question. Simply put, it read as this:
Why not just take what you want from the books and leave what you don't like for people who do like it?
Though it is fun to argue sometimes, the question is not only valid, but a reminder that there are more important things, and we ought not let a rule in an RPG we might happen to disagree with, and the angry comments of somebody who does agree with it, make us into jerks.
And no, the idea is not "flawed" just because there is tournament play. It may be that a certain rule must apply for tournaments per the publisher. But that is no case for me having to use something I don't like in my game at home. Thus, the argument may be conditional. But it is not flawed, since Paizo cannot force me into organized play.
I don't see anything provocative at all about the OP's original question. Simply put, it read as this:
Why not just take what you want from the books and leave what you don't like for people who do like it?
Though it is fun to argue sometimes, the question is not only valid, but a reminder that there are more important things, and we ought not let a rule in an RPG we might happen to disagree with, and the angry comments of somebody who does agree with it, make us into jerks.
And no, the idea is not "flawed" just because there is tournament play. It may be that a certain rule must apply for tournaments per the publisher. But that is no case for me having to use something I don't like in my game at home. Thus, the argument may be conditional. But it is not flawed, since Paizo cannot force me into organized play.
Provocative stuff. Uhh, no, but not provocative in that way....
If it weren't that you might take it as an invitation to go on a date I'd tell you to 'play nice'.
As it is... Just Ick.
I feel the almost exactly the same way about organized play. When I first started running games at our local meetup a couple of the local Pathfinder GM's asked if I wanted to run games for PFS. I declined, when they asked why I told them. I feel that Organized Play is too constricting, but even if that wasnt the case I dont want to have to deal with random personalities every time I go to DM a game. People who are only there for loot and to build status and who arent even making the attempt to RP. Not that I'm a huge RP feind, but I at least like to pretend that it's important to the game. Also I've been witness to too many JERKS at Organized Play events. So no thanks.
On the other hand Organized Play is the only way that some people can get any real play time because they may not have a dedicated group or the time to put one together. For those people who like it more power to them. I wouldn't want to take that away from them because I dont care for it. I'd really have to be some sort of real DBag to think like that.
Until organized play rules start leaking into the Adventure Path and other products, your analogy is flawed.
I'm pretty sure I'm going to can my AP sub after next month. Why? I have zero interest in samurai or ninja stat blocks, because I have zero interest in Ultimate Combat. The story of Jade Regent could have been told using fighters and rogues, and remained accessible to everyone, but that isn't how it panned out. Yet everyone expressing displeasure that the AP is no longer meeting his or her needs is a DBag? Sorry, I just don't see it. Likewise, lamenting the apparent demise of content for "core-only" GMs doesn't make one selfish. In fact, I think this conversation would be a lot more productive if we refrained from calling one another names.
Or we could just bundle up a few more "Ur funz r bad" straw men. :)
Actually I'm looking at what I wrote and I'm seeing:
"I'd really have to to be some sort of real DBag to think like that"
I'd = referring to myself. So I'm not really calling anyone else a DBag here.
But that aside you do make a good point that I overlooked about this stuff being added into the AP's. Personally that's still not an issue for me, but I could see how that could be an issue for someone else.