When did making sense become wrongbadfun?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 569 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

16 people marked this as a favorite.

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*


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think you have things a little bit off. Making sense isn't badwrongfun, it's playing differently than other posters that often gets interpreted as such.

Liberty's Edge

Grey Lensman wrote:
I think you have things a little bit off. Making sense isn't badwrongfun, it's playing differently than other posters that often gets interpreted as such.

I wish you were right, but here is a link to the other thread..


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Yeah it's just a bunch of people talking past each other on that thread.

And some of the same people who are deriding others and accusing them of imposing BADWRONGFUN on others are pretty much doing the same thing in a somewhat dismissive fashion.

I'm really glad for my own gaming group right now. It seems that if the gamers I see on message boards were the example for all gamers I would give up gaming because gaming with jerks is really no fun.

Like I said, so thankful for my group and thankful that the boards are (hopefully) just a small sampling of gamers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In relation to that thread, even back in 1st and 2nd edition the rules stated that you just assume a character has been practicing in their down time when they level up or learn new skills, rather than trying to force in a roleplay aspect of a new level. In the 2nd ed PHB, it's on the second page of the proficiency chapter.

I would hazard a guess that those who use it would be those who obtained the habit by playing the older editions.

Edit: that is not to say that everyone who played the older editions used that rule.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I haven't dug through that whole thread yet, but the sense I got on the first couple of pages wasn't so much "It doesn't have to make sense" as "I shouldn't have to justify it to the GM".

I should be able to take the feats and skills and classes I want without having to beg the GM for permission.

Liberty's Edge

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.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

Liberty's Edge

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

The question is "why"?


The issue revolves around the central concept of it being a "game". To qualify as a "game", it has to have a set of rules; otherwise, it's simply an "activity". Now these rules can be simple or they can be complicated, but, ultimately, the rules are an abstraction of reality. Certain things are allowed or disallowed to get it more or less close to reality, but the rules will never work as well as reality does. So, inherently, in any game that qualifies for the term, a certain amount of "sense" is sacrificed. More complicated rules can reduce the amount of sense you lose, but that necessitates knowing and adjudicating a multitude of rules. It's the 'Pathfinder Role Playing Game System'; it's a Game, thus it relies on rules, and it's a System meaning that the rules are carefully fine-tuned to work in conjunction with each other. When you start affecting certain rules, the effects aren't isolated; they'll reverberate throughout the entire system to greater or lesser degrees. This can cause unforeseen, unintentional, and undesired changes in other parts of the system. So, in a way, making excessive changes to a system without a relatively clear understanding of how it was put together architecturally means you're just hammering at a delicate piece of machinery with a big mallet hoping to make a desirable change... it's probably not going to work and it will cause problems for other people trying to work with that system.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
bookrat wrote:

In relation to that thread, even back in 1st and 2nd edition the rules stated that you just assume a character has been practicing in their down time when they level up or learn new skills, rather than trying to force in a roleplay aspect of a new level. In the 2nd ed PHB, it's on the second page of the proficiency chapter.

I would hazard a guess that those who use it would be those who obtained the habit by playing the older editions.

See, I tend to think the exact opposite here - most older school gamers that I know tend to be stricter when it comes to role playing and immersion. The players I've seen who imply/expect that they should be able to access any item they want, whenever they want, or take levels in any class they want, whenever they want are new to the system and think that since this is the way it works in many console/pc based role playing games, it should work here. (Mind you, I generally allow my PCs any item they want, but if it's not something they have seen before, they have to spend some time researching it and tracking it down - maybe a level or two at the most.)

I also agree with ciretose that people often forget this is a group game. There are many reasons for this ranging from inexperience with table top games all the way to pure immaturity. I also think that PFS contributes to this problem. It's not anything Paizo has done wrong, it's just the nature of playing with different people each and every session - gotta look out for #1, as opposed to being a team player. Also, from where I'm sitting, the message boards often facilitate this problem. I've seen players covet the mechanical benefits of a combination (item, class, feat, etc.) to the extent that they have blatantly compromised their role playing concept to achieve it... For example:

A HIGHLY chaotic aligned wizard who (for 7 levels of game play) refused to engage in any form of combat (he wouldn't even carry a dagger just to threaten for the poor rogue, lol.) Then he's going to take his 8th level in monk. (The player informed of this exactly 2 hours before the first session after the characters reached level 8 was set to start.). Note that the party did not have a monk in the group, and they were currently adventuring through the barbarian lands, so there wasn't a monk within a hundred miles to have taught him "the way of the monk". The player justified his decision by telling me all the mechanical benefits - bonus feat, effective iron will, effective lightening reflexes, and effective great fortitude, wisdom bonus to ac. He also planned to use two archetypes (not sure which ones) to avoid the usual alignment restriction, and gain proficiency with martial weapons so he can take Eldritch Knight next level.

On short notice, I allowed this single level of monk, but after the session, I realized he was stacking archetypes that shouldn't stack. I told the player he had to do away with an archetype, it didn't work mechanically, so he switched to a single level of fighter, which offended me significantly less. It's also worth nothing that 2 of the other players at the table approached me after the game and told me that they didn't think it fit his character - I asked both of them, and neither would have allowed him to take the level of monk in the given situation.

Now, I understand where the 1st & 2nd ed PHB is coming from, and in most instances, I don't see much of a problem with multiclassing into something that your character has some experience with or could reasonably learn from another party member, etc. You have 3 levels of barbarian and have decided to take a 4th level in fighter - so you're a bit more in control than a normal barbarian. You have 3 levels of rogue and have decided to go towards Arcane Trickster by taking levels of wizard - no problem, the party wizard shows you a few tricks here and there and you're good to go. But there are also instances (see the above paragraphs) where changing classes is completely contrary to a character's current path. In this instance, I think the player has asked them self "would this be more fun" and answered "yes" for them self, without considering whether it would offend the sense of immersion of the other players at the table.

All that said, I have also played in other groups where changing classes and concepts on a dime was no problem. I always try to consider what is acceptable at any table by looking at what other players are doing and how the DM responds to it. It's simple really, not every gaming group is going to have the same rules, but you should consider the group (and not just yourself) when trying to determine what is acceptable.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

And let us not conflate the issue.

It is a Role Playing Game. Each player is playing a role, by definition.

The most used example of GM fiat is "Rocks fall". This is generally referred to negatively by players who feel the GM is leaving the logic and reason of the created universe.

Why shouldn't the player be held to even a basic expectation of more than "Rocks fall" when developing a character, if the same expectation of logical reasoning is to be applied to the GM in making story choices?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

@MechE: Do you know what happens when you take a Knowledge check? If you succeed a Knowledge check, it doesn't mean that the character had no knowledge of the subject and suddenly acquired that knowledge. It means that it's something that the character has known all along but this is just now being revealed to the player that the character knows it. The moral of this story is that there are things in a character's background that the player doesn't necessarily know about. Results of a Knowledge check is a common example, but some entry-level multi-class training is a more eclectic variant of this concept. This wizard who is supremely opposed to physical violence may have had some entry-level monk training at some time in the past... this may even have been what turned him off from physical violence in favor of magical violence and a deep-seated desire for personal freedom (the highly chaotic alignment). But maybe, after adventuring in the lands of Barbarians, the epitome of chaotic behavior... he could have had a bit of an epiphany regarding alignment, physical violence, whatever. But taking your first level in a particular multi-class doesn't mean that right there, instantly, you were introduced to and consequently mastered your first level of that class. It means that your past experiences have culminated into an experience level in that class. This could be recent experience from the current adventure at hand... or it could be experience long forgotten and just re-kindled in memory.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder is still a relatively modular system, even though a lot of the need for multi-classing has been eased with class improvements, archetypes and so forth.

Some groups have an easier time running the game with that as a core assumption which is the unusual to people used to the old days where a wizard was a wizard because she took ranks in wizard, a fighter one by taking levels of fighter, etc. That system really didn't exist in the mechanics with the coming of 3rd edition D&D with its multi-classing and secondary classes. That actually caused a lot of house ruling and head shaking back in the day, especially because they for some reason called the secondary classes "Prestige" classes which implied more then what it was supposed to be.

It basically comes down to in your world does every person walk around with a name tag that states what NPC and character classes they take? Are people very obviously defined by their class in a way that is completely inseparable form them as people in the world? That mindset doesn't work well with the modular system's intent.

A character taking a level of fighter is slotting that level's worth of abilities and skills into their character to gain certain abilities. That character is what is important. They take on a slightly more martial bent and perhaps gained a new feat. It's just part of the greater whole.

Liberty's Edge

@Kazaan - Actually it doesn't.

"You are educated in a field of study and can answer both simple and complex questions. Like the Craft, Perform, and Profession skills, Knowledge actually encompasses a number of different specialties. Below are listed typical fields of study."

Further

"Try Again: No. The check represents what you know, and thinking about a topic a second time doesn't let you know something that you never learned in the first place."

"Untrained: You cannot make an untrained Knowledge check with a DC higher than 10. If you have access to an extensive library that covers a specific skill, this limit is removed. The time to make checks using a library, however, increases to 1d4 hours. Particularly complete libraries might even grant a bonus on Knowledge checks in the fields that they cover."


5 people marked this as a favorite.
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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Since I started playing I've always been under the assumption that Wizards spent years studying in order to be able to use a wide breadth of magical spells.

I've always thought that whether it was under the tutelage of a hedge mage or a formal apprenticeship or at an academy that it took years for a student to finally be able to cast those 1st level spells (maybe a little earlier for Cantrips and such).

Now it seems that assumption is that ANYONE should be able to peek over the shoulder of another Wizard PC and be able to learn how to cast spells.

In my own games I'm not a huge fan of multi-classing but I dont disallow it especially if a player has an actual concept and backstory.

So a player with a rogue PC who wants to multi-class to Wizard says: My character actually started out as a Wizard but couldn't afford to keep up payments went into a life of larceny in order to pay for his tutelage. He found that he enjoyed the meticulous planning and research in order to commit crimes as much as he enjoyed studying magic, except..you know...CHEAPER. He never forgot his foundation and has been studying with (Random Wizard PC/NPC here) to solidify his base. Fortunately for him, he wasnt far off from mastering those 1st level spells, which makes him wonder if his old teacher was fleecing HIM. Stringing him along to hamper his progress for a larger payday..

That's great and that's not even something that needs to be written. It can be TOLD. As a GM (who is in fact ALSO a player at the table) that's all I need to help enhance my fun at the table. If youre a player who cant even bother with that much minimal effort? Then I'd just as soon as you find another table that will accomodate your style of play.

It's a game. Of course it is. But (and I'm looking right at the cover of the Core Rulebook as I type this) is a ROLE PLAYING game. If you cant even be bothered to meet half way then as much as people get called out on this board for being bad DM's? Then that's the sign of a BAD PLAYER.

NOTE: That background for the rogue PC multi-classing to Wizard? From an actual player who wanst the biggest or best role-player at the table. But still thought that coming up with a justification for his new abilities was important enough for the OVERALL game.


ciretose wrote:

@Kazaan - Actually it doesn't.

"You are educated in a field of study and can answer both simple and complex questions. Like the Craft, Perform, and Profession skills, Knowledge actually encompasses a number of different specialties. Below are listed typical fields of study."

Further

"Try Again: No. The check represents what you know, and thinking about a topic a second time doesn't let you know something that you never learned in the first place."

"Untrained: You cannot make an untrained Knowledge check with a DC higher than 10. If you have access to an extensive library that covers a specific skill, this limit is removed. The time to make checks using a library, however, increases to 1d4 hours. Particularly complete libraries might even grant a bonus on Knowledge checks in the fields that they cover."

Your statement lacks context. Based on the bolded section, it works precisely the way I described. There's an additional rule for active study using resource materials, but the base principal still applies; the player isn't aware from the start of everything his character knows.

Silver Crusade

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?

Liberty's Edge

Kazaan wrote:
ciretose wrote:

@Kazaan - Actually it doesn't.

"You are educated in a field of study and can answer both simple and complex questions. Like the Craft, Perform, and Profession skills, Knowledge actually encompasses a number of different specialties. Below are listed typical fields of study."

Further

"Try Again: No. The check represents what you know, and thinking about a topic a second time doesn't let you know something that you never learned in the first place."

"Untrained: You cannot make an untrained Knowledge check with a DC higher than 10. If you have access to an extensive library that covers a specific skill, this limit is removed. The time to make checks using a library, however, increases to 1d4 hours. Particularly complete libraries might even grant a bonus on Knowledge checks in the fields that they cover."

Your statement lacks context. Based on the bolded section, it works precisely the way I described. There's an additional rule for active study using resource materials, but the base principal still applies; the player isn't aware from the start of everything his character knows.

My statement is a citation of the rule. Your character has to study things to know them. That you as a player don't know them doesn't change the fact that your player studied them in game, or you can't have that knowledge.

Liberty's Edge

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.

The point of my game is to have fun.

We enjoy things making sense.

If a player is not willing to try and make sense, they are making the game less fun for the rest of us.


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?

I don't think I'd be playing with someone like that, so it's kind of a moot question. However, if such a thing did happen, I'd probably teach him to build his own win conditions (which is one of the reasons RPGs are so great) so he actually can "win," and caution him to be more careful so he doesn't die.

I've run RPGs for about 20 years, and have always taught caution to my players. As such, without pulling punches, I have had only three PC deaths, not counting transitional deaths like becoming a Vampire or a Ghost in a white wolf game (and none were in D&D--one was Legend of the Five Rings and two were in Godlike).


ciretose wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
ciretose wrote:

@Kazaan - Actually it doesn't.

"You are educated in a field of study and can answer both simple and complex questions. Like the Craft, Perform, and Profession skills, Knowledge actually encompasses a number of different specialties. Below are listed typical fields of study."

Further

"Try Again: No. The check represents what you know, and thinking about a topic a second time doesn't let you know something that you never learned in the first place."

"Untrained: You cannot make an untrained Knowledge check with a DC higher than 10. If you have access to an extensive library that covers a specific skill, this limit is removed. The time to make checks using a library, however, increases to 1d4 hours. Particularly complete libraries might even grant a bonus on Knowledge checks in the fields that they cover."

Your statement lacks context. Based on the bolded section, it works precisely the way I described. There's an additional rule for active study using resource materials, but the base principal still applies; the player isn't aware from the start of everything his character knows.
My statement is a citation of the rule. Your character has to study things to know them. That you as a player don't know them doesn't change the fact that your player studied them in game, or you can't have that knowledge.

I think you misread his original post. If you haven't, then I'm really confused, because it seems like you are arguing the exact same thing as he.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose 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.

The point of my game is to have fun.

We enjoy things making sense.

If a player is not willing to try and make sense, they are making the game less fun for the rest of us.

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.

If that were the case, I think I'd consider you more of a problem player than the one that wants to be a Barbarian in world without mechanical Rage or whatever.

Liberty's Edge

Or, using the exact words I said "You practiced fighting a lot"

Liberty's Edge

bookrat wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
ciretose wrote:

@Kazaan - Actually it doesn't.

"You are educated in a field of study and can answer both simple and complex questions. Like the Craft, Perform, and Profession skills, Knowledge actually encompasses a number of different specialties. Below are listed typical fields of study."

Further

"Try Again: No. The check represents what you know, and thinking about a topic a second time doesn't let you know something that you never learned in the first place."

"Untrained: You cannot make an untrained Knowledge check with a DC higher than 10. If you have access to an extensive library that covers a specific skill, this limit is removed. The time to make checks using a library, however, increases to 1d4 hours. Particularly complete libraries might even grant a bonus on Knowledge checks in the fields that they cover."

Your statement lacks context. Based on the bolded section, it works precisely the way I described. There's an additional rule for active study using resource materials, but the base principal still applies; the player isn't aware from the start of everything his character knows.
My statement is a citation of the rule. Your character has to study things to know them. That you as a player don't know them doesn't change the fact that your player studied them in game, or you can't have that knowledge.
I think you misread his original post. If you haven't, then I'm really confused, because it seems like you are arguing the exact same thing as he.

He seems to be arguing that a player doesn't need to have a reason they knew something, while the game specifically says they had to be trained in a knowledge beforehand to have any chance at all of knowing something.

That training occurred, how you explain it is up to the player. Except some are arguing for not explaining at all.


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.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
ShinHakkaider wrote:

Yeah it's just a bunch of people talking past each other on that thread.

And some of the same people who are deriding others and accusing them of imposing BADWRONGFUN on others are pretty much doing the same thing in a somewhat dismissive fashion.

I'm really glad for my own gaming group right now. It seems that if the gamers I see on message boards were the example for all gamers I would give up gaming because gaming with jerks is really no fun.

Like I said, so thankful for my group and thankful that the boards are (hopefully) just a small sampling of gamers.

Pretty much the same scenario for me there as well, yeah.


ciretose wrote:
bookrat wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
ciretose wrote:

@Kazaan - Actually it doesn't.

"You are educated in a field of study and can answer both simple and complex questions. Like the Craft, Perform, and Profession skills, Knowledge actually encompasses a number of different specialties. Below are listed typical fields of study."

Further

"Try Again: No. The check represents what you know, and thinking about a topic a second time doesn't let you know something that you never learned in the first place."

"Untrained: You cannot make an untrained Knowledge check with a DC higher than 10. If you have access to an extensive library that covers a specific skill, this limit is removed. The time to make checks using a library, however, increases to 1d4 hours. Particularly complete libraries might even grant a bonus on Knowledge checks in the fields that they cover."

Your statement lacks context. Based on the bolded section, it works precisely the way I described. There's an additional rule for active study using resource materials, but the base principal still applies; the player isn't aware from the start of everything his character knows.
My statement is a citation of the rule. Your character has to study things to know them. That you as a player don't know them doesn't change the fact that your player studied them in game, or you can't have that knowledge.
I think you misread his original post. If you haven't, then I'm really confused, because it seems like you are arguing the exact same thing as he.

He seems to be arguing that a player doesn't need to have a reason they knew something, while the game specifically says they had to be trained in a knowledge beforehand to have any chance at all of knowing something.

That training occurred, how you explain it is up to the player. Except some are arguing for not explaining at all.

Hmmm. Methinks you don't know the knowledge rules very well. A character can make a knowledge check without having ranks in it. Specifically if the CR is 10 or less. There are other situations, as well, such as being in a library.


Having a knowledge skill doesn't explain the circumstances in which you learned the information... just just determines that you know it now. Gaining a level doesn't explain the circumstances in which you learned the necessary knowledge to qualify for that level, just that you qualify. As a player, you're perfectly free to leave it ambiguous if you don't feel competent enough to come up with a good story for it. Like you said, "That training occurred, how you explain it is up to the player." As a player, he chose to explain it with, "Just cuz." That's his right.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

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."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The character could be like Shepherd Book. A pacifist religious man leaving the abbey to walk the world, but as the story progresses, it's hinted that he used to be a government sponsored assassin. Translate to pathfinder, that could be like gaining a level of monk or fighter in the middle of a campaign.

Silver Crusade

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.


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"


Ultimately, why is it important? Are you going to disallow a character to do something completely within the rules because the player is unwilling or unable to justify the fluff of it? Sounds like a good way to drive away players. Making sense isn't inherently bad. But telling someone they must justify the rules with RP sense, I'd say is badwronggming. People will RP to a greater or lesser extend based on their preference... not yours.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kazaan wrote:
Ultimately, why is it important? Are you going to disallow a character to do something completely within the rules because the player is unwilling or unable to justify the fluff of it? Sounds like a good way to drive away players. Making sense isn't inherently bad. But telling someone they must justify the rules with RP sense, I'd say is badwronggming. People will RP to a greater or lesser extend based on their preference... not yours.

See what we have a reached is an element that is outside the rules but is part of the nature of the game itself. It is called a role playing game for a reason, there is a reason why classes have a section in the books that describe what the classes mean outside of the mechanics.

Being told it's "badwrongfun" every time you are told you can't do something is the throwing the "card" in the mix so you can get your way. "Oh I'm not having fun if I can't do this", well then find yourself a group that plays that way because this one doesn't.


bookrat wrote:
The character could be like Shepherd Book. A pacifist religious man leaving the abbey to walk the world, but as the story progresses, it's hinted that he used to be a government sponsored assassin. Translate to pathfinder, that could be like gaining a level of monk or fighter in the middle of a campaign.

Actually in Pathfinder that would be the equivalent of always having the class and not telling anyone


Also, from the subtext of a few comments, I expect there's a deeper play style difference at work.

If the GM is building the campaign more around the characters, he may need/want more background and info on the characters intentions and plans, even the ones reflected in mechanics, than a GM running a AP basically straight from the book.


SwnyNerdgasm wrote:
bookrat wrote:
The character could be like Shepherd Book. A pacifist religious man leaving the abbey to walk the world, but as the story progresses, it's hinted that he used to be a government sponsored assassin. Translate to pathfinder, that could be like gaining a level of monk or fighter in the middle of a campaign.
Actually in Pathfinder that would be the equivalent of always having the class and not telling anyone

I can see the flavor working with both mechanics.

Liberty's Edge

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.

Neither am I, but I was told that was unreasonable to request in another thread. Two, actually if you count the one where I was told "Maybe they are the chosen one"

Liberty's Edge

bookrat wrote:
Hmmm. Methinks you don't know the knowledge rules very well. A character can make a knowledge check without having ranks in it. Specifically if the CR is 10 or less. There are other situations, as well, such as being in a library.

Because those are circumstances where you just know things without any reason?

I came upon my knowledge common to pretty much everyone (under 10) without any interaction with the world.

A wild library appeared while I was fighting a Gazebo...

Under 10 means the average person who knows nothing about that topic, still likely knows that (as they could take 10). There is no reason to explain that, there is no training required. Just existing gives you that.

Liberty's Edge

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"

Two different threads. Two different people. Both argued it was to much for the GM to ask.

And another group coming to defend them.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

My point is there is no possible way that there is any mechanical build that "makes no sense what so ever".

As a MP in the Navy I don't have to become a Marine to learn how to drive a tank. I can just go learn. Or, if I could get a hold of one, I could just jump in and try for myself. Eventually I will get it (or blow the thing up!)

But in Pathfinder I have to become a monk to gain Flurry of Blows. As a Fighter in Pathfinder, no matter how much fluff and RP I do, I cannot gain Flurry of Blows without becoming a Monk. I can even train with a monk for years! I just won't get it. I could use TWF to get the # of attacks. I can gain some damage bonuses and attack bonuses that the monk can't. But without actually switching classes, I could never increase the damage die the way a monk does.

I do not feel it is fair to take this mechanical limitation that cannot be RPed past and apply it to a character and then tell the same character they can't use the mechanic that allows them to use that ability, which is well within the rules, because you don't like the RP or lack of RP that they use.

If the player sucks at making up an RP situation that works for you, then my suggestion is to give him one rather than tell him no. There are plenty of people in the world that are a Jack of All Trades but a maser of none. The character may just be great a picking up new skills, even discovering them, but suck at sticking to things.

Anything can "make sense".


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm with the justify it crew. If it doesn't make sense, then don't do it. Unusual class combination, odd feat selections, and weird races are all fine by me, if you just give it a story. Tell me why the character is doing it. If you'd just like to play the build, but don't know why it would happen IC, just ask around the table. See what ideas people have. A role-playing game is a storytelling game. If there isn't a story, you lose a lot of the game.


ciretose wrote:
bookrat wrote:
Hmmm. Methinks you don't know the knowledge rules very well. A character can make a knowledge check without having ranks in it. Specifically if the CR is 10 or less. There are other situations, as well, such as being in a library.

Because those are circumstances where you just know things without any reason?

I came upon my knowledge common to pretty much everyone (under 10) without any interaction with the world.

A wild library appeared while I was fighting a Gazebo...

Under 10 means the average person who knows nothing about that topic, still likely knows that (as they could take 10). There is no reason to explain that, there is no training required. Just existing gives you that.

You specifically said that the game requires training before you can know anything at all. Now you're saying that no training is required to know some things. Both cannot be true. One of them is wrong, which means that one of your arguments is wrong. Which is it?

Liberty's Edge

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."

Stop adding goalposts no one is calling for.


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.

1 to 50 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.