Confessions That Will Get You Shunned By The Members Of The Paizo Community


Gamer Life General Discussion

1,501 to 1,550 of 4,499 << first < prev | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Zhangar - I understand WHY they criticize them, but when they denounce them as unplayable or not fun, that's going way too far. I also enjoy playing those two classes, they are actually my favorite to play in the game.

But to be honest, a gestalt fighter/rogue character is about on part with where the power SHOULD be, especially with Paizo's tendency to give the best options in any given book to the classes that are already the most overpowered, and any decent-to-middling options for the less powerful classes behind a bunch of pee-requisites or about a half-a-dozen levels after they would actually be the equivalent of spellcaster options.

I honestly haven't looked at the unchained rogue too much yet, but really don't expect much improvement. This is, after all, the same company that gave us Sacred Geometry, yet considered the original version of Heirloom Weapon to be far too overpowered an option (for martial characters) to go un-nerfed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like traits. I don't play in Golarion, but I allow the setting specific ones in my campaign.


GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:

Personally, I feel like more and more players are stuck thinking inside the limits that get imposed on them in computer RPGs, even though the advantage of pnp is the lack of such limits.

Nothing wrong with enjoying that style, but it does feel dumbed down sometimes, when people show creativity by doing old things in new combos rather than trying to do new things. I.E. in one game as a cleric in a prison game, we were faced with a lich well above our level. I asked the GM if I could "put all of myself into an attack of positive energy with no holding back, no thought of surviving it." He actually let me attempt it, and all the other players were doubly amazed not only that I tried it, but that I was allowed to try something outside the clearly defined abilities. (The lich unfortunately had 3 HP remaining. I rolled and managed to avoid death.)

I think the other players shouldn't be surprised by such things, even if it isn't their way to play. The fact that I rarely find a player that even attempts anything similar is sad.

Yeah, I agree. They are playing it like it is a specific type of game and that is a limitation on their thought, but worse, on their games.


GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:

I suspect Hiding in Closet is talking about the shift in how players express creativity and follow the limits naturally imposed by computers even when those limits need not apply. You can not ask a computer for a feat that doesn't exist, or to negotiate a modification so a class better fits your character concept. This facet mixed with a few other things leads to players showing their creativity within those limits of the virtual world, and that develops into habit which tends to carry over into the pnp world if gaming.

To some, this new creativity, due to the limits it follows, seems less creative and less expressive, and less accepting of older style creative thinking.

Ah!

There is a way. *stumbles through laboratory*

Worried that this could keep happening and having seen players that seem unable to think beyond the rules I emphasise to my players that they can try pretty much anything. "What are you going to do, what do you want to do?" I have told them this isn't a computer game, you have a great deal of freedom - especially in skills and checks. Whereupon they do try off the wall stuff or making checks that aren't entirely covered by the rules I go with it and try to help them along. My brother did this back in the day of AD&D with d20s and d100s to try and do things outside of the rules. Want to try that, roll a d20.

I think we are really getting somewhere, acknowledging together that in a system with so many things you can do, some will focus upon the mechanics and not think outside the box. This criticism of this version of the system (and the last) has been made through feats - yeah there is a lot of cool stuff you could do, but you have to take feats to enable it. Otherwise it isn't possibly for you scrub. Those rules on what is possibly heavily limit what can be done and what players will even think they can do.

So I really open the options up to my players, and I don't play pathfinder so much because of the heavy limitations. When I d o play pathfinder with a great group of friends we really push the system and try odd-checks beyond the system's purview. BEND the system to make a great fun game of freedom and roleplaying. My players in another simple system prefer to do and try rather than learn the whole complex PF system and what they are allowed to do.

Now if even a maths-obsessed player then DM (training to be a mathemagician in the university of la Trotsky) can acknowledge the limitations of the system and that we can and should try to step past them, then we can all roll the rules and mechanics-fixated gaming, and only playing WITHIN its limited possibilities, back to roleplaying. Thank you all (I have to get back to work).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Often, those who enjoy system mastery see transcending it as breaking the rules because you couldn't win by them, whereas they prove their superiority by accomplishing their goals without going out of the box. One person's 'original thinking' is a second's 'cheating by another name'.

I'm from the first school, in which rules are made to enhance the gaming experience and are to be dispensed with whenever they threaten to limit it. That doesn't mean I don't comprehend the other side of it.


Is it cheating if my players want to do something that isn't in the skill list and isn't a feat, and I let them roll to see if it works or not?

If you say no to that type of request, it can damage the game.

An example from many years ago
A really high hp but low level toughness-fighter enters a room, the enemy is on the other side shooting at the party and the fighter. There is jagged broken glass everywhere across the stone floor. There are also broken tables, chairs and the like. Walking across would be painful and slow. The player declares on their initiative that they want to take a table, push off and slide across the room (which does have smooth floors, the glass is the problem) somewhat like they are surfing. They have a lot of hp, so they can take any cuts, and they have a whole lot of strength to push themselves forward.

"No, you can't do that. It isn't in the rules."
*Player argues it is what he wants to do, even if it doesn't have much chance of succeeding, they also don't mind taking damage to do it*
*Dm says no and prevents the roll*
So now the player has to meander about and can't daringly get into the action in the fashion they wanted to, according to the way they they thought their character would daringly get into combat. Nope, rules say no, don't even think about it.

Every player was getting excited for the attempt, dm shut it down.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's also true that once you change the rules [and the more you change them the further it goes] you start drifting away from playing the same game.

I'm painfully aware of this, with a growing document of houserules that essentially revamps PF entirely.


DM Under The Bridge wrote:

Is it cheating if my players want to do something that isn't in the skill list and isn't a feat, and I let them roll to see if it works or not?

If you say no to that type of request, it can damage the game.

An example from many years ago
A really high hp but low level toughness-fighter enters a room, the enemy is on the other side shooting at the party and the fighter. There is jagged broken glass everywhere across the stone floor. There are also broken tables, chairs and the like. Walking across would be painful and slow. The player declares on their initiative that they want to take a table, push off and slide across the room (which does have smooth floors, the glass is the problem) somewhat like they are surfing. They have a lot of hp, so they can take any cuts, and they have a whole lot of strength to push themselves forward.

"No, you can't do that. It isn't in the rules."
*Player argues it is what he wants to do, even if it doesn't have much chance of succeeding, they also don't mind taking damage to do it*
*Dm says no and prevents the roll*
So now the player has to meander about and can't daringly get into the action in the fashion they wanted to, according to the way they they thought their character would daringly get into combat. Nope, rules say no, don't even think about it.

Every player was getting excited for the attempt, dm shut it down.

This sort of thing really needs to be taken on a case by case basis though.

IMO in such a highly specific scenario as that, it's worth allowing (roll me a CMB check to "Bull Rush" the table), but if it's something that could be repeatedly exploited I'm not inclined to allow it (such as when a player wanted to "dive bomb" an enemy using his permanent flight capabilities to gain extra damage on, essentially, any Charge he made from above.),


That can actually be a really good thing, because then you have a game more suited to your players and allowing what they want to do.

After a while you may take those houserules and create a whole new system to express them - which can be magnificent and I say that as someone that has made two games and rules' systems.


Rynjin wrote:
if it's something that could be repeatedly exploited I'm not inclined to allow it (such as when a player wanted to "dive bomb" an enemy using his permanent flight capabilities to gain extra damage on, essentially, any Charge he made from above.)

This was actually Baked into the 3.5 rules [see Dive] granted it was restricted to very specific attacks [which is weird, there's no good reason a Spear or Lance or even a Rapier couldn't benefit equally from a Dive


Rynjin wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:

Is it cheating if my players want to do something that isn't in the skill list and isn't a feat, and I let them roll to see if it works or not?

If you say no to that type of request, it can damage the game.

An example from many years ago
A really high hp but low level toughness-fighter enters a room, the enemy is on the other side shooting at the party and the fighter. There is jagged broken glass everywhere across the stone floor. There are also broken tables, chairs and the like. Walking across would be painful and slow. The player declares on their initiative that they want to take a table, push off and slide across the room (which does have smooth floors, the glass is the problem) somewhat like they are surfing. They have a lot of hp, so they can take any cuts, and they have a whole lot of strength to push themselves forward.

"No, you can't do that. It isn't in the rules."
*Player argues it is what he wants to do, even if it doesn't have much chance of succeeding, they also don't mind taking damage to do it*
*Dm says no and prevents the roll*
So now the player has to meander about and can't daringly get into the action in the fashion they wanted to, according to the way they they thought their character would daringly get into combat. Nope, rules say no, don't even think about it.

Every player was getting excited for the attempt, dm shut it down.

This sort of thing really needs to be taken on a case by case basis though.

IMO in such a highly specific scenario as that, it's worth allowing (roll me a CMB check to "Bull Rush" the table), but if it's something that could be repeatedly exploited I'm not inclined to allow it (such as when a player wanted to "dive bomb" an enemy using his permanent flight capabilities to gain extra damage on, essentially, any Charge he made from above.),

On dive bombing there was much consideration when we were looking up the rules on weight and falling for a centaur pc wanting to attack an enemy with his plummeting bulk. Certainly not the most effective means of attack, but at low level the heavy centaur could do pretty nasty damage for his level by falling on someone from height. THAT was by the rules, but working out the reflex dc was something I the dm had to do.

I wouldn't go with a bull rush because then it invokes a feat tax. Yeah you could do that (something really cool and inventive) and have a chance of succeeding - if you had the feat. Those type of restrictions is what I am against. I would go a strength (for distance) and dex check (to stay on) with damage ranging from 1d4 to 3d4. Every character has strength and dex, and if they want to do odd feats of athleticism not covered by the rules then we can use what everyone has and make a check of that to work out how it goes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For what it's worth DM-Under, Bullrushing doesn't require a feat. Doing it without provoking Attacks of Opportunity does and under the described circumstances there weren't any enemies within reach [unless I missed something.]

Granted it's pretty ridiculous that PF cut the Improved Combat Maneuver feats in half, doubling the number of feats for the same bonus.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
To defuse the political aspects, maybe people aren't "offended" by any particular message, but just don't like that touchy-feely hippy dippy crap?

Hm, possibly, but that might be a touchy subject too.

Just last month I was griping to a couple of guys about a paper I had to write, and how the professor wasn't being overly helpful -- it was an advanced course, to be fair -- when one of them exclaimed "Oh yeah, I hate professor whatshisname, and his hippy dippy crap!" And my thought was "Whoa, dude, you just took this from first gear straight into fifth!" I didn't question the guy, but the following questions did cross my mind:

1. What do demanding professors have to do with hippy dippy crap?
2. What's crappy about hippy dippy stuff?
3. And what's to hate about hippy dippy stuff, even if you think it's naive? The goodwill to all mankind? The 'live the change you want to see' idealism? Not having a simple moralistic answer firmly rooted in traditionalism to all of life's issues? Or maybe it's the fear of bell-bottoms making a comeback?

I'm sure there are answers, but I'm somewhat of a second-generation hippy myself, so this attitude is always bizarre to me when it crops up.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:

On dive bombing there was much consideration when we were looking up the rules on weight and falling for a centaur pc wanting to attack an enemy with his plummeting bulk. Certainly not the most effective means of attack, but at low level the heavy centaur could do pretty nasty damage for his level by falling on someone from height. THAT was by the rules, but working out the reflex dc was something I the dm had to do.

I wouldn't go with a bull rush because then it invokes a feat tax. Yeah you could do that (something really cool and inventive) and have a chance of succeeding - if you had the feat. Those type of restrictions is what I am against. I would go a strength (for distance) and dex check (to stay on) with damage ranging from 1d4 to 3d4. Every character has strength and dex, and if they want to do odd feats of athleticism not covered by the rules then we can use what everyone has and make a check of that to work out how it goes.

Improved Bull Rush merely gives a +2 to the check (and avoids an AoO from the target, which isn't an issue here unless the table is secretly an Animated Object), it's not what allows you to do it in the first place.

Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
To defuse the political aspects, maybe people aren't "offended" by any particular message, but just don't like that touchy-feely hippy dippy crap?

Hm, possibly, but that might be a touchy subject too.

Just last month I was griping to a couple of guys about a paper I had to write, and how the professor wasn't being overly helpful -- it was an advanced course, to be fair -- when one of them exclaimed "Oh yeah, I hate professor whatshisname, and his hippy dippy crap!" And my thought was "Whoa, dude, you just took this from first gear straight into fifth!" I didn't question the guy, but the following questions did cross my mind:

1. What do demanding professors have to do with hippy dippy crap?
2. What's crappy about hippy dippy stuff?
3. And what's to hate about hippy dippy stuff, even if you think it's naive? The goodwill to all mankind? The 'live the change you want to see' idealism? Not having a simple moralistic answer firmly rooted in traditionalism to all of life's issues? Or maybe it's the fear of bell-bottoms making a comeback?

I'm sure there are answers, but I'm somewhat of a second-generation hippy myself, so this attitude is always bizarre to me when it crops up.

To me it's less about the content, and more the sheer PREACHINESS of it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I recently played in a Call of Cthulhu game where a player had a pretty good idea for subduing his opponent, but because it wasn't covered EXACTLY by the rules the GM wouldn't allow it. Sitting there, irritated, I came up with 3 different ways it could be accomplished. If something isn't covered in the rules, I'm gonna figure out a way for my players to do it. Period. It's not fair to them if I don't. They often come up with some pretty nifty ideas and I'm not the type to quash a creative moment.


Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
To defuse the political aspects, maybe people aren't "offended" by any particular message, but just don't like that touchy-feely hippy dippy crap?

Hm, possibly, but that might be a touchy subject too.

Just last month I was griping to a couple of guys about a paper I had to write, and how the professor wasn't being overly helpful -- it was an advanced course, to be fair -- when one of them exclaimed "Oh yeah, I hate professor whatshisname, and his hippy dippy crap!" And my thought was "Whoa, dude, you just took this from first gear straight into fifth!" I didn't question the guy, but the following questions did cross my mind:

1. What do demanding professors have to do with hippy dippy crap?
2. What's crappy about hippy dippy stuff?
3. And what's to hate about hippy dippy stuff, even if you think it's naive? The goodwill to all mankind? The 'live the change you want to see' idealism? Not having a simple moralistic answer firmly rooted in traditionalism to all of life's issues? Or maybe it's the fear of bell-bottoms making a comeback?

I'm sure there are answers, but I'm somewhat of a second-generation hippy myself, so this attitude is always bizarre to me when it crops up.

In regards to Imagine, it's just a matter of preference for me. I don't like John Lennon for the same reason I don't like Katy Perry, The Mamas and the Poppas, System of a Down, Beyonce, Dave Matthews Band, Chuck Berry or Cannibal Corpse. Sometimes the message has nothing to do with it.

Silver Crusade Contributor

Simon Legrande wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
To defuse the political aspects, maybe people aren't "offended" by any particular message, but just don't like that touchy-feely hippy dippy crap?

Hm, possibly, but that might be a touchy subject too.

Just last month I was griping to a couple of guys about a paper I had to write, and how the professor wasn't being overly helpful -- it was an advanced course, to be fair -- when one of them exclaimed "Oh yeah, I hate professor whatshisname, and his hippy dippy crap!" And my thought was "Whoa, dude, you just took this from first gear straight into fifth!" I didn't question the guy, but the following questions did cross my mind:

1. What do demanding professors have to do with hippy dippy crap?
2. What's crappy about hippy dippy stuff?
3. And what's to hate about hippy dippy stuff, even if you think it's naive? The goodwill to all mankind? The 'live the change you want to see' idealism? Not having a simple moralistic answer firmly rooted in traditionalism to all of life's issues? Or maybe it's the fear of bell-bottoms making a comeback?

I'm sure there are answers, but I'm somewhat of a second-generation hippy myself, so this attitude is always bizarre to me when it crops up.

In regards to Imagine, it's just a matter of preference for me. I don't like John Lennon for the same reason I don't like Katy Perry, The Mamas and the Papas, System of a Down, Beyonce, Dave Matthews Band, Chuck Berry or Cannibal Corpse. Sometimes the message has nothing to do with it.

:(

Silver Crusade

DungeonmasterCal wrote:
I recently played in a Call of Cthulhu game where a player had a pretty good idea for subduing his opponent, but because it wasn't covered EXACTLY by the rules the GM wouldn't allow it. Sitting there, irritated, I came up with 3 different ways it could be accomplished. If something isn't covered in the rules, I'm gonna figure out a way for my players to do it. Period. It's not fair to them if I don't. They often come up with some pretty nifty ideas and I'm not the type to quash a creative moment.

Table-top role-playing has advantages and disadvantages.

Computer role-playing has its own advantages and disadvantages.

One of the strengths of TTRP is that the DM is not limited by a computer program; he can use his judgement.

If the DM refuses to use his judgement to adjudicate an action that is not expressly written in the rules, then you are taking away one of the key strengths of TTRP, while not replacing that loss with any of the strengths of computers.

It would be like playing a computer RPG and being limited by the program, while refusing to look at the cool graphics or allow the computer to rapidly resolve the maths of the rules so quickly. All of the disadvantages while throwing away the advantages.

I can't believe people choose to do this; I believe it's done out of ignorance.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
It would be like playing a computer RPG and being limited by the program, while refusing to look at the cool graphics

Like a MUD?


MUDs have other advantages, such as easy to find people to play with.

Silver Crusade

MUDs also have their own strengths and weaknesses. The specifics of that are not in dispute, but one of the key advantages of TTRPGs is that a human can judge the action, therefore any player can attempt any action he can imagine, and the DM can judge it. Games limited by computer programs can only allow the actions programmed into it.

If the DM refuses to consider anything that is not specifically written in the rules then he is simply throwing away a key advantage of TTRPGs, for no benefit. I believe that the reason DMs do this more frequently over the years is that they are so used to playing computer RPGs, where you are only allowed certain choices, that they find it hard to get out of that habit and realise that players have literally infinite choice in TTRPgs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like D&D 5e.

I feel that Feats have tied my hands more than freeing me to make choices.

I would like a "classless" system where the defined classes and archetypes are simply models, not limitations, and you don't have to wait for Paizo to finally create one that mixes enough of the features you want before you can play one.

I like Rogues. In fact, I want to run an entirely Rogue-centric campaign!

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
I like traits. I don't play in Golarion, but I allow the setting specific ones in my campaign.

I agree with this. Also, I allow certain campaign traits that fix issues I have with the game for characters not in said campaign (Trap Finder from Mummy's Mask, for instance).

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
To defuse the political aspects, maybe people aren't "offended" by any particular message, but just don't like that touchy-feely hippy dippy crap?

Hm, possibly, but that might be a touchy subject too.

Just last month I was griping to a couple of guys about a paper I had to write, and how the professor wasn't being overly helpful -- it was an advanced course, to be fair -- when one of them exclaimed "Oh yeah, I hate professor whatshisname, and his hippy dippy crap!" And my thought was "Whoa, dude, you just took this from first gear straight into fifth!" I didn't question the guy, but the following questions did cross my mind:

1. What do demanding professors have to do with hippy dippy crap?
2. What's crappy about hippy dippy stuff?
3. And what's to hate about hippy dippy stuff, even if you think it's naive? The goodwill to all mankind? The 'live the change you want to see' idealism? Not having a simple moralistic answer firmly rooted in traditionalism to all of life's issues? Or maybe it's the fear of bell-bottoms making a comeback?

I'm sure there are answers, but I'm somewhat of a second-generation hippy myself, so this attitude is always bizarre to me when it crops up.

4. Surely it should be 'hippy-*trippy* crap'? :P

Sovereign Court

LazarX wrote:
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
Two years ago I posted that "psychic magic" would have no place in my games because I liked the Dreamscarred Press psionics. Now, after the playtest and the feedback I've read, I've changed my mind and look forward to Occult Adventures coming out this summer. Now, having said that, I still love psionics.
But there's basically nothing "psychic" about it. It's just magic. They're no different than any other spellcaster released.
Probably one of the reasons I'm looking forward to it.
As a few of the Paizo people themselves have said, Psychic Magic and DSP psionics can happily live together in the same world.

In fact, I'm kinda pumped for the idea of an only Occult Adventures classes and DS Psionics classes campaign. The divide would be similar to the arcane/divine divide, I think.


I loathe the idea of GMPCs.

Silver Crusade Contributor

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
I loathe the idea of GMPCs.

I don't know if that will get you shunned - based on the current thread, it's looking about 50/50. ^_^


Simon Legrande wrote:
In regards to Imagine, it's just a matter of preference for me. I don't like John Lennon for the same reason I don't like Katy Perry, The Mamas and the Poppas, System of a Down, Beyonce, Dave Matthews Band, Chuck Berry or Cannibal Corpse. Sometimes the message has nothing to do with it.

Okay, cool. It's all about the melody/tune/whatever for me, so no judgments here. Though I have no idea what all of those artists have in common.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I hate when a GM provides the guidelines for character creation, and then complains when my character shines in the area he was designed to shine in because he easily overcomes challenges in that category the GM throws at him...

A lot of GM's can't come up with creative ways to change up combat, so if the fighter with the great-sword is hacking everything to bits, throw something at him he can't hit with his giant sword...?

Don't hate a class or character for being good at something. Period. The whole point is that everyone is good at something and poor at others. The game would completely suck otherwise.


Caryth Derellis wrote:
Don't hate a class or character for being good at something. Period.

So, much, this.

[I don't quite agree with the Every Character must be good at something and poor at others though. A character must be poor at other things to be OH MY GOD THAT'S F$$+ING AWESOME at something, but I don't see anything wrong with certain characters being generally good at just about anything.]


Sissyl wrote:
I loathe the idea of GMPCs.

Me too. They are NPCs. If you say'"Metagamed NPCs" we can avoid the flame war that would destroy yet another topic.

An NPC that adventures with the party should not know all the command words to avoid the traps. If they do, the other adventurers should rightly assume that they are a plant put there by the enemy.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
I loathe the idea of GMPCs.
I don't know if that will get you shunned - based on the current thread, it's looking about 50/50. ^_^

I shun Sissyl for completely unrelated reasons.


TOZ wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
I loathe the idea of GMPCs.
I don't know if that will get you shunned - based on the current thread, it's looking about 50/50. ^_^
I shun Sissyl for completely unrelated reasons.

I can never tell when you're joking.

Shadow Lodge

Oh man I know


Goth Guru wrote:
An NPC that adventures with the party should not know all the command words to avoid the traps. If they do, the other adventurers should rightly assume that they are a plant put there by the enemy.

Agreed.

And then there are those times when a Player's PC IS a plant put there by the enemy.


Jaelithe wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
I loathe the idea of GMPCs.
I don't know if that will get you shunned - based on the current thread, it's looking about 50/50. ^_^
I shun Sissyl for completely unrelated reasons.
I can never tell when you're joking.

I shun anyone who can't tell when TOZ is joking!


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Goth Guru wrote:
An NPC that adventures with the party should not know all the command words to avoid the traps. If they do, the other adventurers should rightly assume that they are a plant put there by the enemy.

Agreed.

And then there are those times when a Player's PC IS a plant put there by the enemy.

I hate that. Do not abuse to PC glow to screw over the party.


Sarcasm Dragon wrote:
Jaelithe wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
I loathe the idea of GMPCs.
I don't know if that will get you shunned - based on the current thread, it's looking about 50/50. ^_^
I shun Sissyl for completely unrelated reasons.
I can never tell when you're joking.
I shun anyone who can't tell when TOZ is joking!

I can never tell when you're joking.


Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:
In regards to Imagine, it's just a matter of preference for me. I don't like John Lennon for the same reason I don't like Katy Perry, The Mamas and the Poppas, System of a Down, Beyonce, Dave Matthews Band, Chuck Berry or Cannibal Corpse. Sometimes the message has nothing to do with it.
Okay, cool. It's all about the melody/tune/whatever for me, so no judgments here. Though I have no idea what all of those artists have in common.

It's just a list of artists across the musical spectrum whose music I don't care for. I do like other artists who are similar to the ones I don't like, but preferences are weird like that.


thejeff wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Goth Guru wrote:
An NPC that adventures with the party should not know all the command words to avoid the traps. If they do, the other adventurers should rightly assume that they are a plant put there by the enemy.

Agreed.

And then there are those times when a Player's PC IS a plant put there by the enemy.

I hate that. Do not abuse to PC glow to screw over the party.

Can you rephrase that?

Just to clarify on my end, I'm talking about when a normal player is a working for the enemy without the knowledge of anyone except himself and the GM.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Put me in the 5e camp as well. As far as I'm concerned, it's vastly superior to any 3.x version including PF.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think any music with lyrics is trash not suited for listening. Instrumental music is better for imagining things and suiting battles. I have to mute modern Persona games because of this.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
thejeff wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Goth Guru wrote:
An NPC that adventures with the party should not know all the command words to avoid the traps. If they do, the other adventurers should rightly assume that they are a plant put there by the enemy.

Agreed.

And then there are those times when a Player's PC IS a plant put there by the enemy.

I hate that. Do not abuse to PC glow to screw over the party.

Can you rephrase that?

Just to clarify on my end, I'm talking about when a normal player is a working for the enemy without the knowledge of anyone except himself and the GM.

PCs tend to get a lot of leeway that isn't extended to NPCs. You meet them randomly and bring them along on the quest. A lot of their quirks get overlooked because you all know out of character that if Bob's going to play in the game, Bob's character needs to come along with the party.

It's a party based game. It's metagaming, but it's necessary to a point.

Having a PC be a secret bad guy is abusing that trust.

Now, if it's an open PvP game, where it's acknowledged ahead of time that all the PCs are going to have their own, probably conflicting agendas and it's perfectly fine to reject PCs or to have them go off and do their own thing, that's a different story, but that's not the usual PF game. In Amber, for example, it's perfectly normal - though it's more likely the enemy will be working for one of you than vice versa.


thejeff wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
thejeff wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Goth Guru wrote:
An NPC that adventures with the party should not know all the command words to avoid the traps. If they do, the other adventurers should rightly assume that they are a plant put there by the enemy.

Agreed.

And then there are those times when a Player's PC IS a plant put there by the enemy.

I hate that. Do not abuse to PC glow to screw over the party.

Can you rephrase that?

Just to clarify on my end, I'm talking about when a normal player is a working for the enemy without the knowledge of anyone except himself and the GM.

PCs tend to get a lot of leeway that isn't extended to NPCs. You meet them randomly and bring them along on the quest. A lot of their quirks get overlooked because you all know out of character that if Bob's going to play in the game, Bob's character needs to come along with the party.

It's a party based game. It's metagaming, but it's necessary to a point.

Having a PC be a secret bad guy is abusing that trust.

Now, if it's an open PvP game, where it's acknowledged ahead of time that all the PCs are going to have their own, probably conflicting agendas and it's perfectly fine to reject PCs or to have them go off and do their own thing, that's a different story, but that's not the usual PF game. In Amber, for example, it's perfectly normal - though it's more likely the enemy will be working for one of you than vice versa.

What do you mean by 'open PvP'? PvP in general certainly isn't something I would encourage in a group, but I view characters independent people with their own goals and motivations and such.

If a character happens to be working for the other side [say for example when I once played the Sith Apprentice masking his nature in a Starwars Saga game during the era of the Rule of Two, who manipulated the party into helping me kill off my master so as to become the new Sith Lord, or when I once played an evil Dwarf Ninja working for a strange Dwarven Cult of Lolth towards the upheaval of Dwarven Lands and- in the long run- the world, or a few times I've GM'd for PC groups with spies or sabateurs among them] then so be it. It enriches the story- in my opinion- that when a band of adventurers is formed they don't have some sort of hivemind about their intentions or goals.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
thejeff wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
thejeff wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Goth Guru wrote:
An NPC that adventures with the party should not know all the command words to avoid the traps. If they do, the other adventurers should rightly assume that they are a plant put there by the enemy.

Agreed.

And then there are those times when a Player's PC IS a plant put there by the enemy.

I hate that. Do not abuse to PC glow to screw over the party.

Can you rephrase that?

Just to clarify on my end, I'm talking about when a normal player is a working for the enemy without the knowledge of anyone except himself and the GM.

PCs tend to get a lot of leeway that isn't extended to NPCs. You meet them randomly and bring them along on the quest. A lot of their quirks get overlooked because you all know out of character that if Bob's going to play in the game, Bob's character needs to come along with the party.

It's a party based game. It's metagaming, but it's necessary to a point.

Having a PC be a secret bad guy is abusing that trust.

Now, if it's an open PvP game, where it's acknowledged ahead of time that all the PCs are going to have their own, probably conflicting agendas and it's perfectly fine to reject PCs or to have them go off and do their own thing, that's a different story, but that's not the usual PF game. In Amber, for example, it's perfectly normal - though it's more likely the enemy will be working for one of you than vice versa.

What do you mean by 'open PvP'? PvP in general certainly isn't something I would encourage in a group, but I view characters independent people with their own goals and motivations and such.

If a character happens to be working for the other side [say for example when I once played the Sith Apprentice masking his nature in a Starwars Saga game during the era of the Rule of Two, who manipulated the party into helping me kill off my master so as to become the new Sith Lord, or when I once played an evil Dwarf...

What it leads to, IME, if applied enough, is players not being willing to accept new characters into the group. Why should they? Part of the tacit contract is "this character is a PC, he's not going to just screw us over". Without that, it's much harder to justify bringing the next randomly encountered appropriately levelled stranger along with you.

And I'm curious how you work "PC working for the bad guy" with "no PvP". What happens if they figure it out? Or when you finally betray them?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
HyperMissingno wrote:
I think any music with lyrics is trash not suited for listening.

Shunned. Vocals are just instrumentals with meaning attached.


thejeff wrote:
And I'm curious how you work "PC working for the bad guy" with "no PvP". What happens if they figure it out? Or when you finally betray them?

The PCs can have conflicting goals while still having little or no reason to actually attack each other.


Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
To defuse the political aspects, maybe people aren't "offended" by any particular message, but just don't like that touchy-feely hippy dippy crap?

Hm, possibly, but that might be a touchy subject too.

Just last month I was griping to a couple of guys about a paper I had to write, and how the professor wasn't being overly helpful -- it was an advanced course, to be fair -- when one of them exclaimed "Oh yeah, I hate professor whatshisname, and his hippy dippy crap!" And my thought was "Whoa, dude, you just took this from first gear straight into fifth!" I didn't question the guy, but the following questions did cross my mind:

1. What do demanding professors have to do with hippy dippy crap?
2. What's crappy about hippy dippy stuff?
3. And what's to hate about hippy dippy stuff, even if you think it's naive? The goodwill to all mankind? The 'live the change you want to see' idealism? Not having a simple moralistic answer firmly rooted in traditionalism to all of life's issues? Or maybe it's the fear of bell-bottoms making a comeback?

I'm sure there are answers, but I'm somewhat of a second-generation hippy myself, so this attitude is always bizarre to me when it crops up.

I've always wondered. What's so funny about peace, love and understanding?

There's a certain darkness to hating on people who want a kinder world, and wouldn't hate on you.


137ben wrote:
thejeff wrote:
And I'm curious how you work "PC working for the bad guy" with "no PvP". What happens if they figure it out? Or when you finally betray them?
The PCs can have conflicting goals while still having little or no reason to actually attack each other.

There's a long distance between "PCs have conflicting goals" and "a Player's PC IS a plant put there by the enemy."

It's really hard to see how that's not going to lead to conflict. Or potentially redemption, but that didn't seem to be the way he was going.


Simon Legrande wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:
In regards to Imagine, it's just a matter of preference for me. I don't like John Lennon for the same reason I don't like Katy Perry, The Mamas and the Poppas, System of a Down, Beyonce, Dave Matthews Band, Chuck Berry or Cannibal Corpse. Sometimes the message has nothing to do with it.
Okay, cool. It's all about the melody/tune/whatever for me, so no judgments here. Though I have no idea what all of those artists have in common.
It's just a list of artists across the musical spectrum whose music I don't care for. I do like other artists who are similar to the ones I don't like, but preferences are weird like that.

Ah, gotcha. There are songs where I love one half but hate the other half, so...right, there's no accounting for taste.

1,501 to 1,550 of 4,499 << first < prev | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Confessions That Will Get You Shunned By The Members Of The Paizo Community All Messageboards