That's logic.
If you've been using them interchangeably, then that explains what you mean.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone knows what common sense means, it's just common sense!
Putting the party in a situation where failed rolls will kill them, but they have no choice in the matter: In that situation, the chance is too great that a character will be lost for nothing more than flavor text. No rolls there; the PCs succeed because getting to the other side is where they need to be.
Swimming through a flooded tunnel is a key element of module A4. It's a major challenge in the adventure, important enough to include a sidebar for, with all kinds of ways to boost your success rate. (And that whole sidebar existed because of the lack of a Swim skill in the game.) It's not "flavor text" any more than fighting a main villain is "flavor text." Note that a similar flooded tunnel situation exists in the first Savage Tide adventure, but the existence of a Swim skill in 3.5 eliminates a lot of what would otherwise be another lengthy sidebar. In both cases, DM fiat would be an entirely unacceptable solution for most people.
The problem with the common sense excuse is that it assumes that everyone thinks like you, and thus will come to the same conclusions. Which, of course, could not be more wrong. Hence why it makes a terrible reason or justification. What is obvious to you may not be even on my radar, much less in plain sight.
Common sense says you can't step out from a roof top; you'll fall.
No; the laws of physics say that. That's akin to your half damage example, but not to your swimming one.
Common sense is the thing that makes you put your pants on before you go out.
No; fear of incarceration is what does that. But people in nudist colonies, or in countries that are more laid back, don't have to worry about it. There's no "common sense" there at all: some people see nudity as evil and sinful; others don't. Claiming "common sense" there is like claiming it's "common sense" that red is better color than green.
Common sense is the thing that makes you put your pants on before you go out.No; fear of incarceration is what does that.
Or embarrassment. Which in other cultures, as Kirth mentioned, also isn't an issue.
Note that a similar flooded tunnel situation exists in the first Savage Tide adventure, but the existence of a Swim skill in 3.5 eliminates a lot of what would otherwise be another lengthy sidebar. In both cases, DM fiat would be an entirely unacceptable solution for most people.
But which was the better game in practice?
|
I despise DMs who put them in situations that are unwinnable.
As I said, in this day and age, I know that this view of DMing is unthinkable, but to each their own.
I just feel that a game world should be a living breathing place, and that means there is going to be places and things that will kill characters; take a party of 1st level adventurers, they hear rumor of an ancient red dragon living on the mountain-top. The party decides to go and slay this dragon (despite being warned by various NPCs that it'd be suicide). So the party gets to the mountain-top...
Guess what the dragon is having for dinner!?
Likewise, if a party hears of the fabled “Dungeon of Death” and decides to go check it out, they had best be prepared to encounter traps that they might not be able to defeat…
I don’t reward stupidity, nor do I coddle players...
I've never had problems keeping players either...
It's the thing that makes you brush your teeth before you kiss someone.
Fear of rejection.
It's what makes you realize you have to turn on the lights so you can see when you enter a room.
No, that's lack of ability to see in the dark.
It's doing the sensible thing.
Define sensible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just feel that a game world should be a living breathing place, and that means there is going to be places and things that will kill characters; take a party of 1st level adventurers, they hear rumor of an ancient red dragon living on the mountain-top. The party decides to go and slay this dragon (despite being warned by various NPCs that it'd be suicide). So the party gets to the mountain-top...
Guess what the dragon is having for dinner!?
That's the result of a stupid decision on the players' part, not the DM sticking them in an unwinnable situation. I'm good with this.
1. I already mentioned that my example was not the same as yours.
2. It isn't a challenge, it's simply a way of culling party members who don't make the die roll.
1. Some of the details vary slightly, but the fundamental example is the same -- the party gets themselves into a situation that they need to escape by swimming. Swimming out is a challenge.
2. Again, you could say the exact same thing about combat with the BBEG at the end of the adventure.
I'm done. Thread hidden. This has ceased to be entertaining.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But which was the better game in practice?
1e had some things I liked better; 3e has a lot of things I prefer. I wouldn't say that either one is "better," but I would say that 3.X is a lot less arbitrary.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the cavern situation, you did not choose to be trapped in a room filling with water.
Unless the DM straight-up railroaded me into that cavern, I did have a choice.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not stepping out from a rooftop because you'll fall has nothing to do with the laws of physics. It has to do with the fact that you know you'll fall. Even a crawling infant knows that falling is bad, without the benefits of physics class. Common sense.
If they know that, why do we baby-proof houses? Why don't we let them dance on ledges?
Because they DON'T know the danger until they have been exposed to it. And a baby that learns by falling off a rooftop tends to not survive to learn it.
If common sense existed, we wouldn't have to post warnings everywhere. People would naturally apply what they know and realize what NOT to do.
But they don't.
|
|
If they know that, why do we baby-proof houses? Why don't we let them dance on ledges?
Because they DON'T know the danger until they have been exposed to it. And a baby that learns by falling off a rooftop tends to not survive to learn it.
Actually, they have done tests, and those tests have shown most babies that have learned to walk or crawl, know not to go over drop off that were too big for them...
If common sense existed, we wouldn't have to post warnings everywhere. People would naturally apply what they know and realize what NOT to do.
Most signs of this nature (e.g. "Warning: Coffee may be hot") are due to frivolous lawsuits...
Interestingly, some animals (not humans) are born with a wariness of heights. You can plop them on a stool straight out of the womb and they won't fall off. They call this "precociousness" I think. I took a developmental psychology course once!
Actually, psychological experiments in the 70s proved this notion false; babies are born with an innate fear of heights. The experiment proved that a baby will not crawl out onto a sheet of glass over an obvious drop, even though he can feel the solid surface.
Yeah, I've seen that experiment. Only after a certain age. Really young babies crawl across that thing just fine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And just so you know, Kirth, saying that common sense is a myth doesn't make it true. It's doing the sensible thing.
OK, consider another real-life example: the statement "human life begins at the moment of conception, and must be protected at all costs." We have roughly half the U.S. agrees wholeheartedly that this is just "common sense;" they seek to overturn Row v. Wade, outlaw morning-after pills, cut funding -- and some are willing to kill doctors to enforce it (never mind the obvious contradiction there). The other half of the U.S. thinks it's just "common sense" that a 1-day zygote is not a "person." They invented the morning-after pill, passed Roe v. Wade, and seek to uphold them.
Given a very contentious issue and a 50-50 split, can you really just count on "common sense" to sort it out? Which is the "sensible" side?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Putting your pants on to avoid incarceration means you know incarceration is bad, and you want to avoid bad things. Common sense.
Sounds logical. Oh wait...
|
The fact is, GM fiat is much, much faster than looking up a rule or rolling a die everytime someone does something in a game. As a GM you just decide if something's possible or not, based on common sense.Your ideal system consists of DM fiat? How exactly is that different from story hour, then -- or, at best, "Mother May I"? To me, that's not really a "game" as much as a storytelling exercise. If that's what you're after, more power to you, but again, there's no reason in the world to use a complex system like Pathfinder as a base for that.
Your problem seems to be that you only see in binary. Either a system has a codified rule for EVERYTHING, or it's got no rules whatsoever. Of course, I can understand this coming from a guy who's personal set of house rules that he stacks on top of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook is already several times thicker than my ruleset of choice (Swords & Wizardry: Complete Rulebook, for those who care).
Speaking of house rules, I think they are the best way to see the true difference between a rules-light game and a rules-heavy game. A rules-light game tends to have house rules that provide a system for something that a particular group does commonly. A rules-heavy game tends to have house rules that attempt to fix the broken portions of that ruleset.
*looks at Kirthfinder*
Yup.
Oh, and the GM still has "complete dictatorial power" in a rules-heavy game as well. He just has to stop play more often in order to do so.
Your problem seems to be that you only see in binary. Either a system has a codified rule for EVERYTHING, or it's got no rules whatsoever.
Let me ignore your sniping at our personal houserules, and just address this bit. While it may seem that way in this discussion, I'm fine with fewer rules, if the remaining ones actually accomplish the goal of having rules in the first place. I can easily envision a game in which there's a single task resolution system for everything (combat, diplomacy, swimming, whatever) that's quick and easy, and that depends on a very limited number of variables -- and it would probably be a fun game. It would certainly be easier to master.
What's got me heated up here is the claim that basically everything but combat should be hand-waved, but that combat itself is somehow sacrosanct and requires rules; that makes no sense to me.
Oh, and the GM still has "complete dictatorial power" in a rules-heavy game as well. He just has to stop play more often in order to do so
Maybe when you're the DM. I would not say that has to be the case, however.
I didn't read it as sniping, Kirth. I think he meant to illustrate the difference in preference, is all.
I didn't read it as sniping, Kirth. I think he meant to illustrate the difference in preference, is all.
He could have toned the snark down from 11 to 3 and still accomplished that. Besides, the fact that I personally like a game that allows me to spend hours fiddling with character creation misses the fact that games I run tend to be quick and smooth -- I've already limited the number of stacking bonus types, for example, and unified a number of awakward sub-systems.
Not stepping out from a rooftop because you'll fall has nothing to do with the laws of physics. It has to do with the fact that you know you'll fall. Even a crawling infant knows that falling is bad, without the benefits of physics class. Common sense.
Putting your pants on to avoid incarceration means you know incarceration is bad, and you want to avoid bad things. Common sense.
Virtually everything you've said is common sense. Except when you said common sense is a myth. :D
If there were no laws of physics why would your brain stay in your head for you to make that decision? I don't really understnad that.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a lot of ways to simplify the game and speed up play.
Number 1: Use the take 10 and take 20 rules. They exist so you can expidite unnecessary die rolls. (For example unless my monsters have a reason to be super alert they take 10 on their Perception checks. Which means if my PCs are focused on Stealth they'll usually beat them by taking 10).
Limit Options: During character creation I only allow Campaign Traits for the AP, Traits from the Player's Companion (Pirates of the Inner Sea for example), and the Traits list from the APG.
I only allow classes and feats from the CRB, APG, UM and UC. Other GMs might not want to deal with all that information and cut it down to CRB and APG, or CRB alone. You are the GM and you can decide the kind of game you want to run.
Just make a roll: A trivial check is DC 5, an easy check is DC 10, a tricky check is DC 15, a hard check is DC 20, a difficult check is DC 25 and a really hard check is DC 30+. With those guidelines if the PCs try something unusual ask them to make a skill check, attack roll, CMB check or Saving Throw appropriate to the situation. If the players know what's applicable, and what the relative difficulty is they'll be happy to do so. If someone knows the specific rule that applies then it's okay to say: "Okay cool, so how does it actually work?"
Do a little Prep: If you know that the PCs need to break open a sarcophagus to reach the mummy that is locked inside then bookmark the Damaging Objects rules. If you know the PCs are going to be fighting monsters with a weird ability that's not used very often like: Capsize, Engulf or Strangle Look them up. Bookmark them and refer to them when that combat comes up.
Yes 1ed was in some ways a simpler game, but in many ways it was an inconsistent game. As from week to week the rules governing climbing or swimming would change depending on the whims of the GM, it meant that choices you made about your character were diminished.
That's what this game is all about remember choice. Your choice of skills, your choice of feats and your ability to make meaningful decisions.
|
Might as well weigh in on GM fiat:
The main objective is consistency and predictability, which is more easily accomplished with codified rules. My view is that their is value in attempting to strike a balance between this objective and ease-of-use.
But in the end, the entire game is DM fiat. Doesn't matter how the DM resolves swim checks, if he puts a water-trap in the game that has impossibly high DCs, it is tantamount to the same thing as arbitrarily saying the characters choke on a fly and die. In other words, what Kirth and Jerry seem to be debating is bad DMing and establishing trust, regardless of the system (and I don't think Jerry is advocating having no system).
Your ideal system consists of DM fiat? How exactly is that different from story hour, then -- or, at best, "Mother May I"? To me, that's not really a "game" as much as a storytelling exercise. If that's what you're after, more power to you, but again, there's no reason in the world to use a complex system like Pathfinder as a base for that.
I'll admit, I'm more a fan of DM fiat and Rules lite systems. Too many rules limits options.
In 2E it seemed whenever I wanted to try something 'cool', A special attack, a fancy move, anything creative and heroic... the DM gave me a chance to try it.
There were penalties, it wasn't easy, and often times he failed. But as a player I LOVE the option to be creative.
In pathfinder, there are SOOOOOO many rules, that what I hear NOW... is 'nope, you can't do that.'
Rules lite = Snap that potion of his hands with a whip? That'll be a -8 to your attack.
Rules heavy = Ohhhh Sorry, That's an ability you get with whip mastery, which you need at XXX level, with this minimum stat, and these three prerequistes...
so, nope... Per the rules, you don't even get to try.
|
|
If a GM says: "No you can't do that." That's unfortunate I do find the "paywall twice" feats annoying- Power Attack, Combat Expertise, Lunge, Cleave all Metamagic Feats.
If a player wants to emulate power attack without the feats he should have the option of taking -1 to attack to deal +1 damage.
As a GM if my players ask to do something awesome I let them, basically I allow them access to option feats but at a lesser power.
If a player asks to climb a giant, I don't say "no" I say make a Climb check vs CMB, and pray your allies can keep it distracted.
This was not any more or less true in older editions. The assumption is that because there is such a preponderance of rules that GMs are no longer empowered to make rulings. That's simply not true. A game is always better if a GM says "Yes" when the players try something even Pathfinder's extensive rules don't cover.
I liked Earthdawn's Rule of Three, 3 modifiers, take your pick as to which one you want to use. Kept it simple....Another option is to use modifier cards, or chips or what not. Such as White chips for +1s and red chips for -1s...not too hard, if you're organized.
|
|
The thing is, almost every argument I hear against "retro" D&D (and similar games) seems to be based in a deep-seated and inherent distrust of the GM. I mean, I've had a GM or two that I wasn't perfectly happy with, but damn....if you have THAT MUCH inherent distrust of anyone that sits behind the screen, maybe roleplaying games aren't for you...even in rules-heavy games, if the GM wants to screw you over, he can.
|
|
If a GM says: "No you can't do that." That's unfortunate I do find the "paywall twice" feats annoying- Power Attack, Combat Expertise, Lunge, Cleave all Metamagic Feats.
If a player wants to emulate power attack without the feats he should have the option of taking -1 to attack to deal +1 damage.As a GM if my players ask to do something awesome I let them, basically I allow them access to option feats but at a lesser power.
If a player asks to climb a giant, I don't say "no" I say make a Climb check vs CMB, and pray your allies can keep it distracted.
This was not any more or less true in older editions. The assumption is that because there is such a preponderance of rules that GMs are no longer empowered to make rulings. That's simply not true. A game is always better if a GM says "Yes" when the players try something even Pathfinder's extensive rules don't cover.
The thing is, if there's a feat devoted to doing something, but you let anyone try it regardless of whether or not they have the feat, players who actually bothered to invest in the feat feel cheated.
|
|
The thing is, if there's a feat devoted to doing something, but you let anyone try it regardless of whether or not they have the feat, players who actually bothered to invest in the feat feel cheated.
If a GM says: "No you can't do that." That's unfortunate I do find the "paywall twice" feats annoying- Power Attack, Combat Expertise, Lunge, Cleave all Metamagic Feats.
If a player wants to emulate power attack without the feats he should have the option of taking -1 to attack to deal +1 damage.As a GM if my players ask to do something awesome I let them, basically I allow them access to option feats but at a lesser power.
If a player asks to climb a giant, I don't say "no" I say make a Climb check vs CMB, and pray your allies can keep it distracted.
This was not any more or less true in older editions. The assumption is that because there is such a preponderance of rules that GMs are no longer empowered to make rulings. That's simply not true. A game is always better if a GM says "Yes" when the players try something even Pathfinder's extensive rules don't cover.
Indeed that's why I allow it at half strength: power attack the feat is -1/+2. a player without the feat tries it at -1/+1. there is precedent for this in Fighting Defensively, Full-Defense actions. Taking the feat makes you better at it.
Like I said this is only for "pay twice" feats. Paying with a feat and then again with a penalty/bonus is the worst carry over from 3.0. it's the problem with Metamagic.