When did making sense become wrongbadfun?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 569 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

thejeff wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Or, using the exact words I said "You practiced fighting a lot"
If that's all it takes for you, I'm not sure what the problem is.
I suspect a lot of it is that some people are requiring more than that and that some on the other side are assuming they all must mean more than that because they couldn't imagine anyone having a problem with saying "I practiced in the downtime since last level"

Upon re-reading some of the comments, I suspect this is the answer.

If all you need is "I practiced a little during down time," then I don't understand the purpose of having threads like this. If you require more than that, then I think we need some more definition for what qualifies as an acceptable explanation.

Let me test the waters--in 3.5, I once played a character that ended the campaign as a Spellthief 1/Sorcerer 2/Monk 1/Paladin 2/Abjurant Champion 5/Swiftblade 5.

What sort of story would you require for this character? What if I told you I actually played this character from level 1, with only three levels of downtime (between 2nd and 5th level) for story reasons [the premise was that we had this adventure together early on, split up for a while on our own, then got called on again a bit later to save the world together].

Liberty's Edge

Komoda wrote:

Now someone above made the comment that play styles may just be to far apart for the group/player to continue. This is a valid argument. But that doesn't make either side right. That just means that both sides enjoy a different style and should find different games.

For me, the mechanics are the physics of the world. The Fluff gives me a reason to use the mechanics. I would never want to play without fluff. But fluff is 100% subjective where the mechanics are static.

To me mechanics of the world include the fluff. You get divine powers from divine entities. You become so proficient as a fighter that armor check penalties decrease, etc...

When you divorce the setting from the mechanics, what context do they exist in?

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
But seriously, we can't agree that a player should at least trying to make sense?

We can't agree on the color of the drapes!

Liberty's Edge

mplindustries wrote:
thejeff wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Or, using the exact words I said "You practiced fighting a lot"
If that's all it takes for you, I'm not sure what the problem is.
I suspect a lot of it is that some people are requiring more than that and that some on the other side are assuming they all must mean more than that because they couldn't imagine anyone having a problem with saying "I practiced in the downtime since last level"

Upon re-reading some of the comments, I suspect this is the answer.

If all you need is "I practiced a little during down time," then I don't understand the purpose of having threads like this. If you require more than that, then I think we need some more definition for what qualifies as an acceptable explanation.

Let me test the waters--in 3.5, I once played a character that ended the campaign as a Spellthief 1/Sorcerer 2/Monk 1/Paladin 2/Abjurant Champion 5/Swiftblade 5.

What sort of story would you require for this character? What if I told you I actually played this character from level 1, with only three levels of downtime (between 2nd and 5th level) for story reasons [the premise was that we had this adventure together early on, split up for a while on our own, then got called on again a bit later to save the world together].

Depends on the order it occured.

I could see it being you either started. I can see something like this playing out.

I went to a monastery (monk), discovered I had magical abilites (sorcerer), devoted myself to a deity (Paladin), etc, etc, etc...

What I wouldn't be ok with is "It just happened and I don't have to explain it. Everyone at the table should just accept it."

Liberty's Edge

TOZ wrote:
ciretose wrote:
But seriously, we can't agree that a player should at least trying to make sense?
We can't agree on the color of the drapes!

Maybe you can't :)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
ciretose wrote:
TOZ wrote:
ciretose wrote:
But seriously, we can't agree that a player should at least trying to make sense?
We can't agree on the color of the drapes!
Maybe you can't :)

I disagree with whatever you say as a general rule. It's just easier.


Spellthief 1/Sorcerer 2/Monk 1/Paladin 2/Abjurant Champion 5/Swiftblade 5.

I want to take a stab at this::

Spellthief: You had innate magical talent and were born to fill the role of Sorcerer.

You found that your talents were useful, but just not up to snuff when the combat got close at hand. While defending yourself in battle, you realized you had other, martial talents and started to explore hand to hand combat. As a Sorcerer, you were already quite good at fine motor skills and found martial skills easy to come by. The calming meditation of monks to work well in clearing your mind and opening up new spell casting combinations.

This mix of spellcasting, physical prowess and zen behavior led to an epiphany with (insert god) that opened completely new worlds of skills both magic an martial. Your new revelation made you a Paladin of (insert god)

Yet again, the chaos of combat made you realize that you could see into the weave (or other world magic types) and that enabled you to steal the spells from lesser casters. The Spellthief is born.

(Insert God) Led you further into the melding of martial and magic. You became an expert at combining your skills allowing you to meet your destiny as an Abjurrant Champion.

Through even more combat you became addicted to the speed associated with the Haste Spell. You finally combined all of your martial and magic abilities into one deadly device in servitude to (insert god). You are the Swiftblade.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
ciretose wrote:
TOZ wrote:
ciretose wrote:
But seriously, we can't agree that a player should at least trying to make sense?
We can't agree on the color of the drapes!
Maybe you can't :)
I disagree with whatever you say as a general rule. It's just easier.

No you don't :)


mplindustries wrote:
thejeff wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Or, using the exact words I said "You practiced fighting a lot"
If that's all it takes for you, I'm not sure what the problem is.
I suspect a lot of it is that some people are requiring more than that and that some on the other side are assuming they all must mean more than that because they couldn't imagine anyone having a problem with saying "I practiced in the downtime since last level"

Upon re-reading some of the comments, I suspect this is the answer.

If all you need is "I practiced a little during down time," then I don't understand the purpose of having threads like this. If you require more than that, then I think we need some more definition for what qualifies as an acceptable explanation.

Let me test the waters--in 3.5, I once played a character that ended the campaign as a Spellthief 1/Sorcerer 2/Monk 1/Paladin 2/Abjurant Champion 5/Swiftblade 5.

What sort of story would you require for this character? What if I told you I actually played this character from level 1, with only three levels of downtime (between 2nd and 5th level) for story reasons [the premise was that we had this adventure together early on, split up for a while on our own, then got called on again a bit later to save the world together].

Spellthief to Sorcerer: No problem.

Sorcerer's are easy. Minimum requirements of "I feel my powers growing!"

Ideal picture is you have an idea of what your ancestry was that led you to being a sorcerer as a way to hang a plot hook and make what you are relevant to who you are.

Sorcerer to Monk: Slightly trickier.

Minimum requirement of either talking about focusing your arcane discipline into your physical performance or flavoring the monk abilities into a mind-over-matter deal.

Ideal picture is having some sore of IC reason to focus on your physical stats, and an achievement of some kind of internal harmony.

Monk to Paladin: Eh?

This is the most flavor heavy class in the book, and the one where the flavor bleeds most heavily into mechanics. Becoming a Paladin requires you to adopt a certain play-style.

Minimum is conversion to the ultimate importance of law and justice, and some reason for it to happen.

Ideal would be a reason as above that ties into plot points and character development over the course of the campaign, plus interaction with an order of paladins or divine being in order to get legitimated vested.

Paladin to Abjurant Champion: Back! Back, ghost of 3.5!

I usually play Paizo only with 3rd party Pathfinder pending approval, but apart from that, no problem.

Minimum is mention that the character thinks his magic could be refocused along more martial lines.

Ideal would be to tie it into his new cause as a paladin, letting him focus on protecting the innocent far more capably than he could before.

Abjurant Champion to Swiftblade

Mostly the same as above with speed swapped for protection, only it's even less of a characterization issue since it's just "yet another flavor of magic"

eta: Really, if you care enough to try and it's not breaking the characterizations of classes already established in the gameworld, it's probably ok. But at least make a small effort towards a coherent narrative and world-concept.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
What I wouldn't be ok with is "It just happened and I don't have to explain it. Everyone at the table should just accept it."

For all my talk against this, I can see your point. If that is the case, help the player with something like, "Hey, what if we say he does this because..."

If you want him to play your way than help him. Present it in a way that makes it fun for both of you. He might come back with, "Yeah that is awesome! And then my character thinks..."

My point really is don't be a gatekeeper that says he can't do it because his answer isn't good enough. Help him to craft a good enough answer. Then hopefully it works out for both of you and you can both enjoy the character.

Liberty's Edge

Komoda wrote:
Quote:
What I wouldn't be ok with is "It just happened and I don't have to explain it. Everyone at the table should just accept it."

For all my talk against this, I can see your point. If that is the case, help the player with something like, "Hey, what if we say he does this because..."

If you want him to play your way than help him. Present it in a way that makes it fun for both of you. He might come back with, "Yeah that is awesome! And then my character thinks..."

My point really is don't be a gatekeeper that says he can't do it because his answer isn't good enough. Help him to craft a good enough answer. Then hopefully it works out for both of you and you can both enjoy the character.

This is what I am saying. Literally in the other thread people were saying that any requirement that what happened make even remote sense was unfair to the player.

Asking a player to say "My guy practiced fighting" to become a fighter was an unfair burden on the players.

That example, literally.

This is why my mind was blown.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:

There is another thread that is kind of blowing my mind right now.

I understood that some people feel restrained by things like alignment restrictions of classes. I don't agree, but I get that if you were playing in settings that didn't follow it could make sense to loosen such things for house rules.

Now there seems to be an argument that having your character actually make sense, in the setting you are playing, is to much to ask.

Really? Making sense is now an excessively high bar to reach?

I am not talking about people who want to play in silly concept games, that is almost a completely different sub game where everything makes sense, because of the setting.

I'm talking about people who sit down with the presumed intent of playing a game equivalent of an AP or Module, where there is an immersive world where the characters "exist" as presumably part of the world.

And yet...asking them to make sense is a bridge to far.

I'll just say it, many people on here don't seem to get they don't game alone. That other people don't come to the table to serve their desire to play whatever they want, regardless of if it makes sense or disrupts the game for everyone else.

Making sense should not be an unreasonable expectation in character design. A GM shouldn't have to "house rule" making sense into the pregame. It should be an assumed goal.

Obviously "sense" will vary from table to table. Some will allow things others would forbid.

But seriously, we can't agree that a player should at least trying to make sense?

That is now to much to ask?

*mind blown*

And here I thought this was going to be a discussion of "talking while holding your breath," or "cackling silently," or anyone of the "rules lawyers" saying that RAW doesn't say that I can't do this, so I can. Even if what they claim isn't possible.


ciretose wrote:


This is what I am saying. Literally in the other thread people were saying that any requirement that what happened make even remote sense was unfair to the player.

Asking a player to say "My guy practiced fighting" to become a fighter was an unfair burden on the players.

That example, literally.

This is why my mind was blown.

Not an exaggeration. That and more like it.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
ciretose wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Oh, another "hi, I'm Ciretose and somebody disagrees with me, the world needs to know" thread. ;-)
I liked it better when you liked my threads... :(

I do ... when they're in Gamer Talk, where they belong :)

Liberty's Edge

Gorbacz wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Oh, another "hi, I'm Ciretose and somebody disagrees with me, the world needs to know" thread. ;-)
I liked it better when you liked my threads... :(
I do ... when they're in Gamer Talk, where they belong :)

Come on, this is General Discussion.

Sovereign Court

Wow-an example why it is not fun to play some games! LOL


3 people marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:

No one is saying it can't be role played past.

What everyone is saying it "Dude, you have to at least make something up that resembles sense."

Not everyone ciretose. Everyone on the "it has to make sense to me personally" side is saying this.

In the other thread I pointed out that "making sense" is a personal subjective judgment. You and those insisting that it has to "make sense" to you personally are the ones who are getting upset because you believe that your personal interpretation of what "makes sense" is the guide that all other players have to measure up to.

That's where the "badwrongfun" charges come in. Not because you "want the world to make sense" but because you insist that EVERYONE has to conform to YOUR ideas of what "makes sense" or else THEY are "playing wrong".

Liberty's Edge

The question was

"When a player wants to multi class, do you require that the class in question make sense during the course of the game?"

Your answer was

"No. Player owns character."

If a player is under no obligation to make sense, that blows my mind.

How can you not set, as a baseline, attempt to make sense.

As I said, I get there may be disagreements about what "sense" is, and different groups will define it differently, but isn't there a basic assumption in the social contract that you will try to, at the bare minimum, make sense.

Because that was the question asked.

Liberty's Edge

Just a couple of observations:

PFRPG itself explicitly requires what (I think) ciretose means by "making sense" in many of its prestige classes. I don't think it's unreasonable for a GM -- or a circle of players more generally -- to expect something similar outside the prestige class realm, and ...

... speaking for myself, I think I agree that at my table a player has to have some kind of roleplaying justification for any kind of abrupt mechanical shift in the character. How strong the justification would need to be is mostly a function of the new skill-set itself and its juxtaposition with the character's existing skill-set.

And that gets at something that seems to be somewhere near the core of this: I consider classes to be "bundles of stuff my character can do," not actual titles and careers in the game. (They can also be that, but not necessarily.) When I'm at the table, in character, my tank inquisitor will be a "warrior blessed by Desna to hunt down and destroy followers and spawn of Lamashtu." Out of character, "inquisitor" sums that up.

But if my PC adds a level of cleric and then a level of fighter, my in-character description need not change in the slightest, and if a player did this, I wouldn't need much (if any) justification at all, because the new "bundle of stuff my character can do" has barely changed.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Jeff Wilder wrote:

And that gets at something that seems to be somewhere near the core of this: I consider classes to be "bundles of stuff my character can do," not actual titles and careers in the game. (They can also be that, but not necessarily.) When I'm at the table, in character, my tank inquisitor will be a "warrior blessed by Desna to hunt down and destroy followers and spawn of Lamashtu." Out of character, "inquisitor" sums that up.

But if my PC adds a level of cleric and then a level of fighter, my in-character description need not change in the slightest, and if a player did this, I wouldn't need much (if any) justification at all, because the new "bundle of stuff my character can do" has barely changed.

Yep, this right here.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Ciretose, I don't "require" that the player "make sense". I usually don't even request that from players I know aren't interested in it. For our "poker night" guy I'll even make up the "make sense" part myself if I feel it's interesting and would add to the game.

The reason this has become such a contentious thread is because of the use of the word "require" and other comments those on your side have made about things like investing appropriate effort into the game or other comments that appear to indicate that you feel a certain level of justification of immersivity is required for your own fun.

Most of us on the "player owns character" side of this discussion have repeatedly said that we have no problem if the GM requests that the player "explain themselves" but when that request becomes a requirement that's when the GM is imposing their goals for fun on the goals of the player.

Sure, perhaps there are times that this boils down to a completely irreconcilable difference in game approach and that means someone is finding a new game.

I can play in either type of game. And I can have fun and enjoy myself for hours with friends in either environment.

It strikes me that if that's the case, then those who can only have fun in one type of setting are perhaps the ones who are missing out on more opportunities for fun.

Just my $.02.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

How about, if my character concept makes sense and all the abilities work within that scope, what difference does the build I used to make that happen matter? Why can't my character be organic within his own concept?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
mplindustries wrote:
I just think it's a weird hard line that you can't have fun if someone else gets +1 BAB, +2 Fort, and a bonus feat without having joined the military or studied sword fighting or something like that.

I would counter that it is weird that the player of that character is not wanting to contribute a little story creativity to the game just like the GM does.

Everyone gets on about how GM own's world, players own their characters and they get on like the PLAYERS'S responsibiity is only to themselves. A players responsibility is differnt from a GM's sure but they are responsible to make the game fun for everyone just like the GM is.

I am a player in 99.9% of the games I have ever played and I try my best to ADD to the story my GM makes and give her fuel by contributing more than a killing machine to her game.

The GM loves it because she gets entertained. The other players love it because they are also evertained. Everyone wins.

Why should a player not at least give a line or two of SOME sort of explanation? Ciretose is not saying a player cannot get what they want. He is asking the player to add to the game, JUST LIKE HE DOES, with any story and color to make it more fun for everyone and have their character grow within the setting.

It is not like working with the GM for a minute or two to come up with an interesting factoid to explain things is going to kill the player. That would go along with the 'internal consistancy' arguments as well.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Ciretose, I don't "require" that the player "make sense". I usually don't even request that from players I know aren't interested in it. For our "poker night" guy I'll even make up the "make sense" part myself if I feel it's interesting and would add to the game.

The reason this has become such a contentious thread is because of the use of the word "require" and other comments those on your side have made about things like investing appropriate effort into the game or other comments that appear to indicate that you feel a certain level of justification of immersivity is required for your own fun.

Most of us on the "player owns character" side of this discussion have repeatedly said that we have no problem if the GM requests that the player "explain themselves" but when that request becomes a requirement that's when the GM is imposing their goals for fun on the goals of the player.

Sure, perhaps there are times that this boils down to a completely irreconcilable difference in game approach and that means someone is finding a new game.

I can play in either type of game. And I can have fun and enjoy myself for hours with friends in either environment.

It strikes me that if that's the case, then those who can only have fun in one type of setting are perhaps the ones who are missing out on more opportunities for fun.

Just my $.02.

If you start running Kingmaker, can I play an Ancient Gold Dragon in it?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Funky Badger wrote:
If you start running Kingmaker, can I play an Ancient Gold Dragon in it?

Sure!

*edits statblocks*


3 people marked this as a favorite.

It is posts like this one that are so vexing to those of us who are supporting the "player owns character" side. Let me break this down.

Gilfalas wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
I just think it's a weird hard line that you can't have fun if someone else gets +1 BAB, +2 Fort, and a bonus feat without having joined the military or studied sword fighting or something like that.
I would counter that it is weird that the player of that character is wierd for not wanting to contribute a little story creativity to the game just like the GM does.

So, you are saying that it is "weird" if a player gets something out of the game other than what you get out of the game. To be more precise "not wanting to contribute a little story creativity to the game, just like the GM does" strikes you as "weird."

OK, I understand that this is possible, although I find this to be a pretty "weird" idea of what makes another person "weird." The question is why does this go beyond "hmm. Joe's a little weird" and become what you say below?

Gilfalas wrote:
Everyone gets on about how GM own's world players own their characters and they get on like the PLAYERS'S responsibikity is only to themselves.

So you are now saying that a player has some responsibility to "contribute a little creativity to the game." Do you inform all new players of this up front? How far does this "responsibility" go? Who is the arbiter of whether the "responsibility" has gone far enough?

Gilfalas wrote:
I am a player in 99.9% of the games I have ever played and I try my best to ADD to the story my GM makes and give her fuel by contributing more than a killing machine to her game.

You are an excellent RPG player Mr. Gilfalas. I would be happy to have you at my table. So long, that is, that you didn't start telling my other players that their idea of fun has to match your idea of fun.

Gilfalas wrote:
The GM loves it because she gets entertained. The other players love it because they are also evertained. Everyone wins.

Yay Gilfalas! I salute you dear gaming brother! A gamer to mine own heart you are!

Gilfalas wrote:


Why should a player not at least give a line or two of SOME sort of explanation? Ciretose is not saying a player cannot get what they want. He is asking the player add to the game, JUST LIKE HE DOES, with any story and color to make it more fun for everyone and have their character grow withing the setting.

Why should a player HAVE to do this. You enjoy it. You seem to exult in it. You clearly feel that this is part of what makes a gamer a gamer. My question isn't why you enjoy such activities, my question is why do you feel it is required for everyone to get the same enjoyment from the game that you do? As for the GM, he took on the role of being the "story teller" it is assumed that the GM will have duties and responsibilities to the group. If you want to post some "Table Rules" and enforce them, that's your game, knock yourself out. I certainly would be willing to play under them, because I like to play that way. But I know a lot of players that would exclude, and somehow I manage to have fun with those players. Weird, I know, but there it is.

Gilfalas wrote:


It is not like working with the GM for a minute or two to come up with an interesting factoid to eplain things is going to kill the player.

This is a perfect example of the attitude that is driving some of us nuts. The condescension and assumed gamer superiority is fairly dripping off this sentence. It makes me thing that if I were to game at your table I'd constantly be looking over my shoulder to see if my behavior was passing the Headmaster's scrutiny.

Oh well, play as you like. I will too. Luckily I seem to have a much larger player population to choose my play group fun. That's a feature, not a bug, in my own opinion.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Funky Badger wrote:


If you start running Kingmaker, can I play an Ancient Gold Dragon in it?

Let me translate this argument:

"Ah, so since you allow some things to happen that I personally would not allow, therefore your game is total chaos and anything goes!"

Let's stick to the subject at hand OK Badger? Let's stick to debating the pros and cons of: "no, you can't add a level of Cavalier unless you can explain, to my satisfaction, how and why you managed to achieve this strange shift in your character's goals and concept."

We don't have to pretend that the question was "I want my halfling thief to suddenly change into an adult red dragon." We have enough to talk about with the actual question before us.

(Note, it strikes me that this is a "straw dragon" argument...)


That is now to much to ask?

*mind blown*

No, I don't think you are asking too much. If you're running the game, you are the Gaming Operations Director. If you got someone who is playing like a dumb*ss, with some silly concept that is disrupting your game, whether it is a home brew world, or in Golarion, you have ultimate power, at the very least, to take the disruptive player aside and ask him or her to cut the crap... or, if you've a more devious streak, you can turn the tables on them, and maybe at least the other players can get some entertainment value out of all the hassle they have had to go through.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
R. Kurt Kier wrote:

That is now to much to ask?

"" wrote:
*mind blown*
No, I don't think you are asking too much. If you're running the game, you are the Gaming Operations Director. If you got someone who is playing like a dumb*ss, with some silly concept that is disrupting your game, whether it is a home brew world, or in Golarion, you have ultimate power, at the very least, to take the disruptive player aside and ask him or her to cut the crap... or, if you've a more devious streak, you can turn the tables on them, and maybe at least the other players can get some entertainment value out of all the hassle they have had to go through.

Oh yeah, that approach will get players flocking to your game in droves...

If I am in a game and the GM takes this sort of vindictive retributive approach to a player, I'd just walk on general principles. I've got more fun things to do with my time than sit on the sidelines in a fantasy penis length contest.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Funky Badger wrote:


If you start running Kingmaker, can I play an Ancient Gold Dragon in it?

Let me translate this argument:

"Ah, so since you allow some things to happen that I personally would not allow, therefore your game is total chaos and anything goes!"

Let's stick to the subject at hand OK Badger? Let's stick to debating the pros and cons of: "no, you can't add a level of Cavalier unless you can explain, to my satisfaction, how and why you managed to achieve this strange shift in your character's goals and concept."

We don't have to pretend that the question was "I want my halfling thief to suddenly change into an adult red dragon." We have enough to talk about with the actual question before us.

(Note, it strikes me that this is a "straw dragon" argument...)

So... you're not going to answer the question then?

That's cool.

:-)

(And its not a straw dragon, its reductio ad absurdum)

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I thought it was a slippery slope fallacy.


It's both a straw dragon and reductio ad absurdum Badger.

This thread has gone off on enough tangents already without going down the black hole of "if you don't follow my sense of the rules, then you must allow anything at all to happen or else you're being inconsistent" path.

Liberty's Edge

Jarl wrote:
How about, if my character concept makes sense and all the abilities work within that scope, what difference does the build I used to make that happen matter? Why can't my character be organic within his own concept?

I don't think anyone is arguing you can't.

What I am saying is if you are going to be a player who expects the GM to create a setting that "makes sense" the minimum you can do in return is make a character that "make sense"


2 people marked this as a favorite.

And again ciretose, there will be times that the GM's "makes sense" will not match the player's "makes sense" and at that point the GM can either accept the player's approach and move on, or dictate what the player has to do to satisfy the GM's definition. This means the player now has to fulfill the GM's dictates to continue to play, whether the player has any desire to do so themselves. Which is where this debate needs to stay focused.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I've only once expected a DM's setting to make sense, and that was because he explicitly called it out as not having a lot of magic.

I don't expect it, but am pleasantly surprised when it does. Like mdt's homebrew.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

all i have to say is this, logic needs to be applied to ALL aspects of the game equally.

that means if a lizard can fly and breath fire, then its ok with me if the barbarian can jump 150 feet in the air and sunder spells with his sword. the concept of "you cant do that because its not realistic" is the most bull s$!* mentality to have in D&D.

this is a true story:

my group and i changed GM's. the new gm sent a adult red dragon after our party as a "hi im your new gm, let me throw my power in your face". the archer was able to hurt it, the 2 handed fighter was able to hurt it, but when it came time for my monk to try and deal damage, the gm said "the dragon doesn't even flinch".

now the 2 handed fighter hit for about 50 point in 2 hits, the ranger (3.5) hit with his bow once for about 30 points, and i dealt over 75 in 3 hits... something is wrong here i thought.

after the game i talk to the gm about it, he tells me that "it isn't realistic that you can punch a dragon and hurt it, its to big. that why i don't like monks, they shouldn't be in the game because if they only use there fists they shouldn't be able to deal damage against most creatures."
-------------------------------

now if your gm says "i want you to role play learning that language, i have no issue about that, its minor. now if a gm told me i couldn't multiclass because "i didn't show any interest prior to that path" then i would get up from that gm's table.


I know this is a novel concept, but somehow I've managed to keep a living, breathing campaign world active for 30+ years, a world which every player who has ever played in it says is the most complete, compelling and interesting home brew world they've ever played in.

And that world has managed to survive the threat of a player picking a class of wizard without having "explained" it more than saying "I just thought a wizard level made sense."


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Funky Badger wrote:


If you start running Kingmaker, can I play an Ancient Gold Dragon in it?

Let me translate this argument:

"Ah, so since you allow some things to happen that I personally would not allow, therefore your game is total chaos and anything goes!"

Let's stick to the subject at hand OK Badger? Let's stick to debating the pros and cons of: "no, you can't add a level of Cavalier unless you can explain, to my satisfaction, how and why you managed to achieve this strange shift in your character's goals and concept."

We don't have to pretend that the question was "I want my halfling thief to suddenly change into an adult red dragon." We have enough to talk about with the actual question before us.

(Note, it strikes me that this is a "straw dragon" argument...)

But I don't recall anyone saying "to my satisfaction" in that other thread. You added that (and a 20 page background requirement-all you). You are saying they don't have to even attempt to justify it because it is their character. So why can't his character be a dragon? Is it badwrongfun like you always say? Why are you trying to ruin his game night?

Liberty's Edge

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I've only once expected a DM's setting to make sense, and that was because he explicitly called it out as not having a lot of magic.

I don't expect it, but am pleasantly surprised when it does. Like mdt's homebrew.

Rocks fall.


I'm kinda in the middle.
A good GM wants his players to be happy. Happy players = happy game experience = successful campaign.
However, you have to have players at your table that are willing to meet you halfway. It's their character, but it's your campaign. Both sides are working together to create that wonderful social experience called the RPG.
As long as you set the ground rules (aka house rules) at the beginning, you should be able to avoid most of these problems.
In my current (3.5) campaign, I told them that multi-classing and/or prestiege classes had to fit into the story. They couldn't just appear out of nowhere. So my rogue hung out a lot with the NPC druid to pick up some Ranger levels, and the cleric spent a lot of downtime kissing up to his church in order to take the Morning Lord prestiege class. The others stayed with Fighter and Wizard.
Problem solived.
For the record, I wouldn't have let that character take a monk level, either. Both I don't like to play with power gamers who constantly min/max so he probably wouldn't have ended up at my table, anyway.

Liberty's Edge

Adamantine Dragon wrote:
And again ciretose, there will be times that the GM's "makes sense" will not match the player's "makes sense" and at that point the GM can either accept the player's approach and move on, or dictate what the player has to do to satisfy the GM's definition. This means the player now has to fulfill the GM's dictates to continue to play, whether the player has any desire to do so themselves. Which is where this debate needs to stay focused.

This isn't what you argued. You argued that the player has no obligation to try and make sense in the setting.

If a GM says "Rocks Fall" with no reason or justification, you would protest as a player a lack of reason or logic.

Why isn't the player expected to, at minimum, attempt to make sense.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
ciretose wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:

I've only once expected a DM's setting to make sense, and that was because he explicitly called it out as not having a lot of magic.

I don't expect it, but am pleasantly surprised when it does. Like mdt's homebrew.

Rocks fall.

Yes they do, when they are unsupported in an area of normal gravity.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
ciretose wrote:
But seriously, we can't agree that a player should at least trying to make sense?
We can't agree on the color of the drapes!

I've heard that they sometime, but not always, match the carpet.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
So why can't his character be a dragon? Is it badwrongfun like you always say? Why are you trying to ruin his game night?

Purely for the sake of argument, since this entire branch is clearly an attempt to mischaracterize the debate.... But just because I'm curious.

What would your acceptable in game backstory rationale be that you would submit to your GM to explain why your first level rogue suddenly became a dragon?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:


Now there seems to be an argument that having your character actually make sense, in the setting you are playing, is to much to ask.

Really? Making sense is now an excessively high bar to reach?

One man's making sense is another man's making nonsense.

Also commonsense isn't common, neither is it sensible sometimes.

Just because one person thinks it is reasonable doesn't mean it really is.

Funky Badger wrote:


If you start running Kingmaker, can I play an Ancient Gold Dragon in it?

Ancient Wyrmling only, but sure. You will also gain EXP lower since your CR is higher than other PC's level for a while.

Let us say magic turned your ancient back into a Wyrmling.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
ciretose wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:

I've only once expected a DM's setting to make sense, and that was because he explicitly called it out as not having a lot of magic.

I don't expect it, but am pleasantly surprised when it does. Like mdt's homebrew.

Rocks fall.
Yes they do, when they are unsupported in an area of normal gravity.

You mean normal to you. Don't hold me to your definition of normal.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
You mean normal to you. Don't hold me to your definition of normal.

I was using the definition listed in the rules of the game we are all playing.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
So why can't his character be a dragon? Is it badwrongfun like you always say? Why are you trying to ruin his game night?

Purely for the sake of argument, since this entire branch is clearly an attempt to mischaracterize the debate.... But just because I'm curious.

What would your acceptable in game backstory rationale be that you would submit to your GM to explain why your first level rogue suddenly became a dragon?

Wait, I thought it didn't have to make sense. I thought I "owned the character." Why am I held to standards no one else is?

51 to 100 of 569 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / When did making sense become wrongbadfun? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.