When did making sense become wrongbadfun?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 569 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

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

My question is...

Why does this matter?

Well, we have to have SOMETHING to argue about...

Liberty's Edge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
RadiantSophia wrote:

My question is...

Why does this matter?

Well, we have to have SOMETHING to argue about...

Other than the drapes?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

You stay away from my drapes. AND my carpet.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
You stay away from my drapes. AND my carpet.

Do they match?

Back on main topic:
How does Druid make sense, out of no where they can change into animals. Is this an exception because of legacy?
It isn't like they can shift at every level.


ciretose wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Wanting the game to make sense is an unreasonably high bar?
It's a Schroedinger's Bar. You never know exactly where anyone's bar is until you actually hit it.

Except you can't even cite an example of a time when a player has ever needed the leeway of not making sense.

Why are we setting the expectations lower than anything you have ever encountered?

That's because my "bar" is low enough that it's fairly easy to step across so it is generally not even noticed ciretose. It's the higher bars that keep smacking people in the forehead.


Well AD you were right and wrong. There is no mention of rogues, wizards, or fighters in the opening post. He did say this:

ciretose wrote:

no one was saying roleplay it. Just have some basic reason it happened that makes sense.

I was told in that thread that if I asked a player to explain a level of fighter as "My character was practicing with weapons a lot" that even was too much of a burden to put upon them.

But that was a full seven posts in. I didn't reread the whole thread but the only demanding "20 pages" is you. I think people are getting caught up on the word "effort." I haven't seen anyone backbreaking toil, just that you think about it for a second and come up with a character explanation. Someone else asked, and I thought it a good point. What would your character say if another character asked him how he was able to do such things? (I'm paraphrasing)

Liberty's Edge

Adamantine Dragon wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Wanting the game to make sense is an unreasonably high bar?
It's a Schroedinger's Bar. You never know exactly where anyone's bar is until you actually hit it.

Except you can't even cite an example of a time when a player has ever needed the leeway of not making sense.

Why are we setting the expectations lower than anything you have ever encountered?

That's because my "bar" is low enough that it's fairly easy to step across so it is generally not even noticed ciretose. It's the higher bars that keep smacking people in the forehead.

But even you have a bar, which is my point.


My 2 cents:

I want my players to tell me where they learned stuff. If not, I'll work with them to help them fluff it out. I've never denied a multiclass in a game before, but I could see myself doing so if a pc made no effort to work with me in fluffing something out.

For example, a player wanted to be a Aasimar Draconic Sorceror with eldritch heritage granting him fiendish bloodline powers. I didn't like the flavor it, so I shot it down, instead suggesting he look into a cross blooded sorceror as an alternative. Now, judging from the tone of the thread some of you would likely disagree with that call. That's okay, but in my game it just wouldn't make sense, and that's where I stand on the issue.


ciretose wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
ICE COLD BURN!

Icy Hot!.

\

Those are the most awesome dudes I ever done seen! I want to be "Blade," and don't tell me I can't.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jeff Wilder wrote:
Quote:
The GM's job is to adjudicate the rules and narrate the story.
My job? Really? Given the level of effort and dedication the "GM's job" entails, compared to the other players, what do I get out of it, compared to the other players?

You get exactly what you take from it. Nothing more and nothing less. If your enjoyment at the role of GM is contingent on enjoying a power trip over the other players, don't be surprised if a number of those players get up from the table. The best GMs are the ones who enjoy the extra effort itself. If you're not up to it, don't GM. A game of Pathfinder isn't the sole property of the GM; contrary to popular belief, he isn't a deity unto his players. He's simply another player with a specific role in the game. In a game of hockey, what makes the Goalie more important than any other member of the team? What makes the Captain more important? What makes the Coach more important? Answer: Nothing. As a GM, neither you nor your preferences are any more or less important than those of any other player. It'd basically be the equivalent of a bunch of guys playing Halo on a single XBox and one guy saying, "Hey, it's my XBox so I say you can't use that sniper rifle because I don't approve." A game among people is an equitable experience; not one person lording it over the rest. GM Fiat and asshattery are two very, very different things.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So there are 4 spectrums at work here.

  • Do you care?
  • Who's responsibility is it?
  • How much regulation is there when its not there?
  • Does it have to be played out in game?

    The problem is the answer moves from situation to situation.

    As a gm my personal scores on these are

  • Not if the player doesnt
  • All on the player but i'm happy to help if needed
  • I dont regulate it (not having it doesnt diminish my fun but if having it increases the players investment in his character/the game then i'm all for it) and
  • Only if the rest of the group agrees to it

    As a player my answers are

  • Yes! I try hard to make my character concepts make sense!
  • Mine! Its my character and the dm should only make helpful suggestions, not demands
  • Hopefully none. I do it for me, not to satisfy some stalinist gm requirement.
  • Hopefully not because I dont like hogging the spotlight or dragging the other gamers through some required-story-appropriate-personal-swill against their will.

    Our warhammer gm's answer to those questions are

  • Yes! It must both make sense, fit the settting of the campaign and please the gm on an artistic level
  • The players, but if I like what they're doing I'll help them get it done.
  • Even if its a good story, if i don't like what you're doing I wont allow it.
  • Always in game. I dont care about your backstory. If I didnt hear you do it during the game then it didn't happen.

    The point isnt 'is there a bar' or 'where is your bar'...
    The point is the bar is always moving
    The question is "can you adapt to wherever the bar is at the time and still have fun?".

  • Liberty's Edge

    I agree with your description of you as a player and that is the standard I expect from my fellow players, regardless of which side of the table I am on.


    Vincent, very nice summary, and your approach seems to be very similar to mine.

    I take my player characters very seriously and I do my best to constantly expand their backstory and have even taken it to the point that I've created stories about when, where, why and how a character "retired" where they currently live and how they manage their daily affairs.

    On occasion one of those PCs will wander into a game I'm running as an NPC just because I like them and have a handy detailed history and background for that character.

    But I do it for my own satisfaction, not because some GM demanded that I do it in order to move forward in their campaign.

    And as a GM I don't assume that my way is the best way and I do very little to "demand" anything of my players.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Ciretose, yes, we all have bars of what "makes sense", and mine is indeed much lower than yours in dealing with players who play differently than me.

    But to focus on the point of this (and the other) thread, my bar is set low enough that it would be a very, very rare situation where a player wanted to multiclass their character and I'd put any sort of pre-requisites on their doing so. So for the purpose of this particular discussion it might as well be that I have no bar at all.

    Liberty's Edge

    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    I don't see "Make a character that makes sense" any more demanding than "If you have to use the bathroom, please use the toilet and not the sink"

    Liberty's Edge

    How is yours lower. What have I asked that your players couldn't meet?


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    ciretose wrote:
    I don't see "Make a character that makes sense" any more demanding than "If you have to use the bathroom, please use the toilet and not the sink"

    LOL, wow, I guess in my world the difference is that if a player doesn't meet that first expectation, it's no skin off my nose, but if a player doesn't meet the second, he's going to be cleaning my sink.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    ciretose wrote:
    How is yours lower. What have I asked that your players couldn't meet?

    Seriously? I thought this had been covered in intricate detail.

    You insist that players explain their level up choices.

    I don't.

    You seem to think that "a few sentences" is enough to hand-wave away the supposed months or years of training to become a first level member of any class, while I think if you're going to hand wave all that stuff anyway, making the player say "I read a book" is just silly.

    Liberty's Edge

    And to me, if you can't at least try make sense, you are wasting 4 hours of all of our lives we could have been doing something else that maybe you would have a modicum of investment in.

    We have a weekly game night, aside from the roleplaying night. We have Settlers of Cataan, Smallworld, Cards Against Humanity, a Wii, and XBox...options.

    If you want to play a Role Playing Game, there is a basic presumption you want make a character to play. If you don't, cool, we can do something else and still have fun.

    My group still tells the story of Booshzilla. Booshzilla was one of our friends Girlfriends characters, the only one. She wanted to play, we said sure, she made a barbarian that tried to rape everything. Literally, tried to rape everything. We all had a horrible time, with the only redeeming value of the evening is now we all have the Booshzilla story to share as an example of why you screen players and concepts before you play.

    And that concept kinda made sense in a weird and twisted way, putting it above the expectation I'm defending here.

    Liberty's Edge

    Adamantine Dragon wrote:
    ciretose wrote:
    How is yours lower. What have I asked that your players couldn't meet?

    Seriously? I thought this had been covered in intricate detail.

    You insist that players explain their level up choices.

    I don't.

    You seem to think that "a few sentences" is enough to hand-wave away the supposed months or years of training to become a first level member of any class, while I think if you're going to hand wave all that stuff anyway, making the player say "I read a book" is just silly.

    Are you calling my relatively low standard silly relative to your no standard?


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    ciretose wrote:
    Adamantine Dragon wrote:
    ciretose wrote:
    How is yours lower. What have I asked that your players couldn't meet?

    Seriously? I thought this had been covered in intricate detail.

    You insist that players explain their level up choices.

    I don't.

    You seem to think that "a few sentences" is enough to hand-wave away the supposed months or years of training to become a first level member of any class, while I think if you're going to hand wave all that stuff anyway, making the player say "I read a book" is just silly.

    Are you calling my relatively low standard silly relative to your no standard?

    More or less, yeah.

    I'd like to point out though that you and I have been engaged in this discussion only for a small portion of this and that most of my comments have been in the context of other posters whose bar, while still laughably low compared to what the game would seem to truly expect, is still somewhat higher than yours.

    You said in another post that if someone can't be bothered to say something like "Yeah, well, he found a book and read it" that has ruined your fun.

    How is forcing such a silly and laughable comment creating more "immersiveness" in your game than everyone just ignoring it and moving on? I mean geez, at least with my approach everyone can pretend whatever they want to explain it, in your case they really have to believe that all it takes to become a wizard is to find a spellbook (without telling anyone) and reading it around the campfire a few nights (without anyone knowing).

    If I'm a wizard in that party such a bizarre discovery is far more likely to make me comment and interact than just ignoring it and moving on.

    Liberty's Edge

    I was pointing out how little is required to just meet a bare minimum as a way to illustrate how ridiculous I think it is to not say "It's got to make sense" is a requirement.

    If a player brought "he read a book to me" I would think that player was a moron, and I would say to him "can't we come up with something better than that" and then we would, unless he is a complete tool.

    Because it's not hard to do if you are actually thinking of your characters as things you are creating to exist in the game...which is exactly what you should be doing.

    You described your non-realistic player as someone who everyone helps. That is great, everyone is working to make something that works. Which is exactly the right way to do it.

    My issue is with the guy who read on the forums about this combo, but doesn't have even the basic courtesy of making a half assed effort to have some logic in the character.

    That is like peeing in my sink. Because in both situations you clearly have no regard for anyone else who has to deal with you.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    ciretose wrote:

    My issue is with the guy who read on the forums about this combo, but doesn't have even the basic courtesy of making a half assed effort to have some logic in the character.

    That is like peeing in my sink. Because in both situations you clearly have no regard for anyone else who has to deal with you.

    This sort of thing intrigues me for some reason. Let me see if I can restate your position here so that we agree that we are on the same page.

    You are saying that if someone finds some uber build on the boards and just essentially copies and pastes it into his own character sheet and comes to the table with no backstory, no character exposition and no real explanation of why he has class X, Y and Z all together in this one character, that means that player "has no regard for anyone else" and that it bothers you as if someone were "peeing in your sink."

    Did I get that right?

    This isn't quite the same as the "I want to take a level of X" without having an explanation for it, but I'll stipulate that it is similar enough that the same general analysis should work for both. Do you agree with that?

    Liberty's Edge

    Pretty much. It is the lack of even a perfunctory effort, combined with the entitlement of indignation with me questioning it.

    The second person is saying "I want this, can I have it? And we will try to find a way to make it work. Even if it is lame, it is at least attempting to fit into the story and the group."


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    OK ciretose, so I think we're on the same page then...

    So, why is it so important for you that another player make even a "perfunctory effort" to build their character? Do you take offense at it because as the GM you have committed to spending a good deal of time and effort into putting the game together and you'd like to see the players put in at least some reasonable fraction of the work and effort you have to do?

    Or is it because you don't like the idea of a player simply assuming that he can build out a specific mechanical build without your buy-in, and the best way to get that buy-in is through character exposition?

    Whichever of those it might be, or something else, just in the interest of time, why does that player's lack of effort indicate to you that he "has no regard for anyone else?" What part of character exposition demonstrates one player's regard for other players or the GM?


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    JUSTIFY THE PLATYPUS!!! DO IT I SAY!


    ciretose wrote:

    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.

    Yeah, ok, my mind is also blown.

    Komoda wrote:

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

    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.

    If you're curious, the actual story was that I started as a self-styled bandit king. In the GM's setting, I was from a region in which merchant guilds had taken over and exploited the people, and I was from a race with innate magical talent the GM made that was essentially like if elves were distantly related to dragons. So, I began as a Spellthief will all intent of just sticking with it and being a magical rogue who robbed from the rich and gave to himself so he could eventually take over the area and be a good and just king. <_<

    One of the other PCs was a Cleric of the setting's goddess of hope, and he had a profound enough impact on my character that I started leaning away from banditry--so, I started going Sorcerer, figuring I'll just stick to that and use the Master Spellthief feat to keep almost all of the benefits anyway.

    When we had the downtime and the PCs split up for a few levels (we just quickly talked about what we had done for a few levels), my character tried to fully atone for the banditry. It was then I had a final "vision" for my character, so I joined a monastery (and took the Ascetic Mage feat). It did not work out, as I was not the sort who should stay locked away from the world like that. I tried to join the Church of the goddess of Hope and, since I would have been a terrible Cleric (I had 8 Wisdom), I moved towards Paladin.

    When the game picked up again, I was a Spellthief 1/Sorcerer 2/Monk 1/Paladin 1. I played another level as a Paladin, but yeah, I would never get their spells, so I turned to Abjurant Champion to provide the same kind of feel as a Paladin, except on an arcane chassis. I was all about protective magic. When I ran out of Abjurant Champion levels to take (there were only 5), I found Swiftblade, and well, Haste was the spell I cast every fight, so it was a natural choice to continue my fighter-mage thing.

    Ultimately, I had an AC approaching 50, saves all over +20, buffs that lasted all day and provided crazy huge bonuses that can't really be dispelled (Master Spellthief brought my caster level up to 24), permanent miss chance from Swiftblade, and Wings of Cover as a last ditch save if something got through everything else. Oh, and my own dispels and Wings of Flurry were tactical nukes.

    It was one of the most fun characters I ever played--basically impossible to hurt and lots of magekilling abilities (I could actually steal spells still and had a Magebane weapon), I could add Charisma to saves and AC, my buffs were excessive (+11 AC from Improved Mage Armor for 48 hours, +9 AC from Shield as a swift action for almost an hour), I could sac spell slots for all sorts of buffs--it was just great all around.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I'd never bar a player taking certain levels for their character, as long as it was within the rules.

    I'd like them to be able to explain how their character grows and changes over time. This also applies to single-classed characters. In general, it's nice to have an idea of why/how a character's powers are increasing and expanding.

    Generally, I like the idea that characters can answer questions like "What did it feel like the first time you cast a spell?" and "That was amazing! How did you manage that move, where you jumped past the guy and backstabbed him?!" in-character.

    Realism isn't a problem. But a degree of verisimilitude is nice.

    If a player is going "meh" to any in-character interaction, that's a bigger problem than multiclassing.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Thomas Long 175 wrote:
    JUSTIFY THE PLATYPUS!!! DO IT I SAY!

    How? What justification could possibly exist for such an ill-conceived monstrosity?


    7 people marked this as a favorite.
    RadiantSophia wrote:
    Thomas Long 175 wrote:
    JUSTIFY THE PLATYPUS!!! DO IT I SAY!
    How? What justification could possibly exist for such an ill-conceived monstrosity?

    Well, I started with a level of otter. That was pretty cool and all, but after a while I realized that otters lacked the "dam-building" feat, and I really wanted that feat because my concept really involved working to create a place where all creatures could interact and frolic, so I dipped a beaver level, plus I got this cool "tail-whack" warning class feature that let me warn the rest of the party when something was about to attack.

    But that really wasn't enough and I got tired of being stuck in this one lake all the time and I thought "wouldn't it be cool if I dipped into a level of duck so I could get their awesome "migratory impulse" class ability so that I could see the world...

    All in all it's been OK, but more and more I think I need to boost my run speed, so I'm seriously thinking about dipping into cheetah for my next level.


    RadiantSophia wrote:


    How? What justification could possibly exist for such an ill-conceived monstrosity?

    Thanks you made me laugh :P


    Adamantine Dragon wrote:
    RadiantSophia wrote:
    Thomas Long 175 wrote:
    JUSTIFY THE PLATYPUS!!! DO IT I SAY!
    How? What justification could possibly exist for such an ill-conceived monstrosity?

    Well, I started with a level of otter. That was pretty cool and all, but after a while I realized that otters lacked the "dam-building" feat, and I really wanted that feat because my concept really involved working to create a place where all creatures could interact and frolic, plus I got this cool "tail-whack" warning class feature that let me warn the rest of the party when something was about to attack.

    But that really wasn't enough and I got tired of being stuck in this one lake all the time and I thought "wouldn't it be cool if I dipped into a level of duck so I could get their awesome "migratory impulse" class ability so that I could see the world...

    All in all it's been OK, but more and more I think I need to boost my run speed, so I'm seriously thinking about dipping into cheetah for my next level.

    I am in awe...

    ...but where did you get the electro-location? Was it a bonus feat, or class progression?

    Otter/Duck/Cheetah hybrid go!


    RadiantSophia wrote:
    Adamantine Dragon wrote:
    RadiantSophia wrote:
    Thomas Long 175 wrote:
    JUSTIFY THE PLATYPUS!!! DO IT I SAY!
    How? What justification could possibly exist for such an ill-conceived monstrosity?

    Well, I started with a level of otter. That was pretty cool and all, but after a while I realized that otters lacked the "dam-building" feat, and I really wanted that feat because my concept really involved working to create a place where all creatures could interact and frolic, plus I got this cool "tail-whack" warning class feature that let me warn the rest of the party when something was about to attack.

    But that really wasn't enough and I got tired of being stuck in this one lake all the time and I thought "wouldn't it be cool if I dipped into a level of duck so I could get their awesome "migratory impulse" class ability so that I could see the world...

    All in all it's been OK, but more and more I think I need to boost my run speed, so I'm seriously thinking about dipping into cheetah for my next level.

    I am in awe...

    ...but where did you get the electro-location? Was it a bonus feat, or class progression?

    Otter/Duck/Cheetah hybrid go!

    Naw, that was a campaign trait from an out-of-print splatbook called "Mysteries Down Under" which had a lot of cool ideas unique to an unexplored continent. My GM let me have it 'cause it was "kewl."

    Liberty's Edge

    Adamantine Dragon wrote:

    OK ciretose, so I think we're on the same page then...

    So, why is it so important for you that another player make even a "perfunctory effort" to build their character? Do you take offense at it because as the GM you have committed to spending a good deal of time and effort into putting the game together and you'd like to see the players put in at least some reasonable fraction of the work and effort you have to do?

    Or is it because you don't like the idea of a player simply assuming that he can build out a specific mechanical build without your buy-in, and the best way to get that buy-in is through character exposition?

    Whichever of those it might be, or something else, just in the interest of time, why does that player's lack of effort indicate to you that he "has no regard for anyone else?" What part of character exposition demonstrates one player's regard for other players or the GM?

    Not even as the GM. As someone taking the time to sit at the table and as the person who could have been in that slot who would at least make an effort to try and be a part of the story and the game, rather than coming in to test drive something completely without context, as if we all came together for his benefit.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    ciretose wrote:
    Not even as the GM. As someone taking the time to sit at the table and as the person who could have been in that slot who would at least make an effort to try and be a part of the story and the game, rather than coming in to test drive something completely without context, as if we all came together for his benefit.

    I kinda want to show up at one of your games with a xenophobic mute dwarven barbarian/wizard/oracle.

    Stay in character the whole game except to say I rage or I cast x. and see what you do when someone who refuses to let you look at their character sheet and has no possible way of explaining themselves casts divine and arcane spells, as well as raging.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    ciretose wrote:
    Not even as the GM. As someone taking the time to sit at the table and as the person who could have been in that slot who would at least make an effort to try and be a part of the story and the game, rather than coming in to test drive something completely without context, as if we all came together for his benefit.

    Are you usually privy (as a player obviously) to other PCs' back stories?


    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    ciretose wrote:
    Not even as the GM. As someone taking the time to sit at the table and as the person who could have been in that slot who would at least make an effort to try and be a part of the story and the game, rather than coming in to test drive something completely without context, as if we all came together for his benefit.

    Well, I don't think I quite got an answer to my question, so I'm going to go with "all of the above" and work from there.

    Honestly ciretose, I hear ya. I really do. There's a lot of history and cultural rationale behind the "if you don't earn it, you can't enjoy it" sort of attitude. I totally used to be that way myself. "This is a collaborative story, so you need to do your part" sort of idea.

    But the more I thought about it the more I wondered how much of that approach was helping my gaming and how much was hurting it.

    My first decade of gaming was really serious stuff. I built worlds, created NPCs, I had an entire army of dragons speced out. I would take my notebooks to work and work on them when I had a chance between customers or on breaks. If you wanted to be in my game, by gum, you had to be INVESTED dude! That meant backstory, motivation, personality... the works.

    Then I got married, moved away, spent a decade pretty much away from the game and then got back into it with a bunch of other married guys.

    And somehow that level of intensity never seemed to develop again. Luckily I had all my massive campaign setting work to fall back on and expand at my leisure, but my days of staying up all night working on the lowest level of the dwarven tunnels are over.

    And I discovered something interesting. First, I discovered that the game was still just as much fun, if not more so, because I had a whole lot more to get away from than I did back in my college days where we might play all weekend. I had mortgages, bills, work problems, family squabbles, sick relatives.... And so did all the guys I play with.

    We just discovered this week that one of our players has a serious illness. Serious enough to make all of us think about our own priorities. Gaming is one of his stress outlets. Do I care if he games the way I prefer?

    Nope. I just care that he has a chance to have some fun.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Adamantine Dragon wrote:


    We just discovered this week that one of our...

    That sucks. I hope he is going to be o.k.


    RadiantSophia wrote:
    Adamantine Dragon wrote:


    We just discovered this week that one of our...
    That sucks. I hope he is going to be o.k.

    Thanks, we're all crossing our fingers.

    One of the hardest lessons I've learned in my life is about priorities. I guess one of the reasons that I have become very "liberal" about things like player investment in the game is that for our gaming group the rules of the game are one of the least important things about playing. They just give us an excuse is all. The real priority is getting together and having some laughs and making personal connections to each other. That's all that really matters in the end. Am I going to let a little "you didn't explain that last level option" get in the way of spending time with a good friend I've known now for almost 20 years?

    Nope. More important things to worry about. Like how his kid is doing now that he's moved off to college.


    Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
    Adamantine Dragon wrote:


    We just discovered this week that one of our players has a serious illness. Serious enough to make all of us think about our own priorities. Gaming is one of his stress outlets. Do I care if he games the way I prefer?

    Nope. I just care that he has a chance to have some fun.

    I'm going to guess that you already approved or at least tolerated the way he games long before you knew he had a serious illness. He was, after all, already in your gaming group. But what if his style was substantially different when he first joined the group? Would you have encouraged him to find a set of gamers more in line with the way he prefers to game?


    Bill Dunn wrote:
    Adamantine Dragon wrote:


    We just discovered this week that one of our players has a serious illness. Serious enough to make all of us think about our own priorities. Gaming is one of his stress outlets. Do I care if he games the way I prefer?

    Nope. I just care that he has a chance to have some fun.

    I'm going to guess that you already approved or at least tolerated the way he games long before you knew he had a serious illness. He was, after all, already in your gaming group. But what if his style was substantially different when he first joined the group? Would you have encouraged him to find a set of gamers more in line with the way he prefers to game?

    I've already described all of the playstyles of the players in our main group for the past three years or so. They range from one player who really doesn't even think about the game between sessions to players like me who are very much role play oriented.

    Somehow we've been able to make that work for going on a decade now.


    Adamantine Dragon wrote:
    Bill Dunn wrote:
    Adamantine Dragon wrote:


    We just discovered this week that one of our players has a serious illness. Serious enough to make all of us think about our own priorities. Gaming is one of his stress outlets. Do I care if he games the way I prefer?

    Nope. I just care that he has a chance to have some fun.

    I'm going to guess that you already approved or at least tolerated the way he games long before you knew he had a serious illness. He was, after all, already in your gaming group. But what if his style was substantially different when he first joined the group? Would you have encouraged him to find a set of gamers more in line with the way he prefers to game?

    I've already described all of the playstyles of the players in our main group for the past three years or so. They range from one player who really doesn't even think about the game between sessions to players like me who are very much role play oriented.

    Somehow we've been able to make that work for going on a decade now.

    And I'm glad you have, but the reality is that not everyone can, and trying to treat it as if that's the norm just really doesn't work all that well. I've seen more groups that get it wrong than groups that get it right in that regard.

    And to me, it's not just the group, but the individual campaign as well. You could have two campaigns in the same group/DM combination and if one is heavily story based, plot driven and the other is free style, shape it as you go, than what is acceptable for the latter may well very not fit at all for the former, and vice versa. I actually tend to be fairly easy to get things by because as long as I get what I need to keep my end running smoothly, I really don't care what the players take, but I've also played in campaigns where pulling a complete surprise without warning or explanation would cause a great deal of headache for everyone, including the person pulling the surprise.

    That is why when I am speaking in general terms, I tend to discount arguments like "the player doesn't need to give a reason," or "the DM doesn't need to give a reason." In the broad scale, both are absolutely correct, but when applied to actual situations, even if both are still technically correct, they can still cause a great deal of problems if applied incorrectly.


    shallowsoul wrote:
    mplindustries wrote:
    ciretose wrote:

    Or put another way, you've decided to make them meaningless.

    The question is "why"?

    I do not wish to penalize people mechanically for their non-mechanical concepts. If someone likes concept X, but the corresponding mechanics are weak, that player has two choices:

    1) Be weak mechanically
    2) Change their concept

    I don't want to force either option on a player, because the point of any game is to have fun.

    What if a player always wants to "win" and never ever die?

    Thats a valid(and somewhat common) playstyle. I know GMs who will fudge rolls and modify monsters if they think party members are going to die. Most players prefer at least the illusion that they can fail though.


    shallowsoul wrote:
    Komoda wrote:

    Making sense from an RP standpoint is mostly just point of view.

    Someone stated that a character wanting to be a Monk (core class) was basically not cool because there was not another Monk around for miles. Yet it was cool for him to take a level in Fighter (core class) without the training.

    Yet I could say just the opposite. I could justify it by saying the Monk class fits better because the character had an epiphany about the meaning of life and all his experiences in life finally "clicked" well enough to allow him to use the abilities of the Monk. I could also be shocked at the idea that he dare think his character has practiced with enough weapons, gained enough muscle memory or how dare he think he think he is now proficient with complicated heavy armor even though he has never in his life worn a set!

    The problem with this is that any one can justify it some way at some time. It is a shared world. The core classes especially, are there for any one to pick up as they wish. Prestige Classes have RP prereqs like killing someone for no reason or something like that.

    I don't feel that the "make sense" argument is a good argument because everyone has a different opinion of what "makes sense."

    The whole point is the attempt. If you actually attempt to create a story where it makes sense then we can work from that but if you are trying to take several classes because of a mechanical build that make no sense what so ever RPG, current campaign fluff wise, then that is the problem.

    Unless the player is tied to a specific concept, its possible to make any set of mechanics make sense.

    The only people being affected will be players who aren't good at coming up with stories. And I wouldn't want to punish a player because of that.

    Liberty's Edge

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Thomas Long 175 wrote:
    ciretose wrote:
    Not even as the GM. As someone taking the time to sit at the table and as the person who could have been in that slot who would at least make an effort to try and be a part of the story and the game, rather than coming in to test drive something completely without context, as if we all came together for his benefit.

    I kinda want to show up at one of your games with a xenophobic mute dwarven barbarian/wizard/oracle.

    Stay in character the whole game except to say I rage or I cast x. and see what you do when someone who refuses to let you look at their character sheet and has no possible way of explaining themselves casts divine and arcane spells, as well as raging.

    You lost me at "refuses to let you look at their character sheet".


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    ciretose wrote:
    You lost me at "refuses to let you look at their character sheet".

    I enjoy my characters not making sense. Makes it more realistic for me.

    Liberty's Edge

    Adamantine Dragon wrote:
    Stuff

    Sincerely sorry to hear about your friend, however I think you missed my point.

    I have lots of friends who don't game. I can do lots of things with them that don't involve gaming. If a player doesn't have an interest in making a character that makes sense, why are they gaming? We could be doing something else that perhaps you would have investment in doing, and still hanging out as friends and enjoying our time together.

    The people I game with like to game. They enjoy making characters and getting invested in them.

    The people I don't game with, don't. Or at least they don't enjoy it as much as other things we could be doing with that time.

    I'm married, I have a kid, I work a long hour job, don't have a lot of empty time in my life. So if I am going to block out a 4 hour chunk, I want everyone involved to enjoy it.

    Otherwise, lets go play a board game, or Mario Kart, or have a few drinks on the patio and start a fire in the back yard, etc...

    We don't need to play if you aren't interested in making the game fun for everyone, and I'm not interested in playing with someone who isn't willing to do the bare minimum.

    I'd rather just hang out and play pool.

    Liberty's Edge

    Thomas Long 175 wrote:
    ciretose wrote:
    You lost me at "refuses to let you look at their character sheet".
    I enjoy my characters not making sense. Makes it more realistic for me.

    And if that works for your group, great. But that "you" enjoy it and it makes it better for "you" isn't the same as "I bring something to the game that makes it more enjoyable for everyone"


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    ciretose wrote:

    And if that works for your group, great. But that "you" enjoy it and it makes it better for "you" isn't the same as "I bring something to the game that makes it more enjoyable for everyone"

    I actually find your argument confusing. Most people you talk to irl, their skills will be a hodgepodge and mishmash of this and that. I have a friend whose father got a masters in Bio Chemistry. He went on to work as a weather man with that degree. When he left that job he decided to work at a school as kind of a career aide kinda guy.

    Logical? I think not. Your insistance that people in a game have some logical continuation is confusing because thats actually contrary to whats realistic.

    Call me crazy I like my players and characters to act like real people.


    mplindustries wrote:

    The problem is the disconnect between the game world and classes. Having a level of fighter doesn't have any implied meaning in world except that you're pretty good at fighting. That's it. There's no special training a fighter needs to receive, there's no special fighter membership card.

    All multi-classing always makes sense, because classes mean nothing to the game world except what you make them mean.

    One level 1 fighter concept that was in a game of mine, blacksmith's daughter. A tough young lass, from a rough part of the country. Helped in the forge, but was more interested in swinging around weapons and donning crude armour than feminine arts and crafts or actually learning blacksmithing properly. Squabbles a lot with the local boys, is a very guarded woman, and then sets off on adventure after causing an injury.

    An amateur who it turns out, has what it takes to survive.

    151 to 200 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.