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

[Kalindlara]

Steve Geddes wrote:

Oh, go on.....what bad habits? Don't be coy!

I tend to be rather metagamey if I'm not careful; probably a result of too much GMing. I can also be a bit amoral, even in characters that shouldn't be. My pridefulness and argumentative tendencies leak though too.

The worst one is Character Chaos - my concept's past will try to evolve along with its future, resulting in (at best) wanting frequent rebuilds and retcons, or (at worst) a string of new characters as my interest in each quickly wanes.

I also tend to be an spotlight-demanding diva, but that's not tied to backstory - that happens regardless. ^_^

Specific Occurrences:

Kingmaker - I got rather hung up on being the Ruler, as well as fights with party members over executing prisoners.

Skull & Shackles - Had to be the Captain. Played a heavily-optimized catfolk Dawnflower Dervish; rather snowflakey.

Reign of Winter - Amoral (despite supposedly being CG Desnan). As the healer and Slumber-hex distributor, I also tend to wield my power over the party in unpleasant ways if I'm not careful. Spent part of last session in a pout because other people got to talk to a major NPC and I didn't.

[Kalindlara]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Kalindlara wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Kalindlara wrote:

TOZ wrote:

Trekkie90909 wrote:

I find character backstory to be a waste of time.

I find backstory to be what you build at the table.

I find backstory useful when figuring out how my character responds to events at the table. ^_^

Figuring out how my character responds to events at the table builds his backstory for me.

Each to their own, of course - I'm happy that that works for you. ^_^

In my case, if I don't define a character to some extent before I start, I develop certain bad habits that make the game less pleasant for me (and sometimes others). Backstories and such help me fight those habits.

In my own case, the backstory of the characters are a critical component of worldbuilding and campaign creation. If the characters have nothing behind them defining them and giving them direction, I find it really really difficult to come up with a campaign.

I've been mostly running and playing Adventure Paths for a while, so this hasn't been so much an issue. I do try to integrate PC backstories where appropriate, though.

I do like a GM who involves the PCs' stories. I wish my GMs were more like that. ^_^

[Trekkie90909]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

In my own case, the backstory of the characters are a critical component of worldbuilding and campaign creation. If the characters have nothing behind them defining them and giving them direction, I find it really really difficult to come up with a campaign.

You sound like a good GM; personally have found that most come up with a campaign idea, and then run that. People's background doesn't come up unless it has a significant impact on their personal roleplay.

A couple of other people have brought up some good points: I absolutely think a player needs to have a character concept complete with personality going into the game. Without that it's impossible to RP without falling into the traps Kalindlara has mentioned. Anything beyond "how I play my character," including attempts to tie the character into the game through specific relationships is basically ignored by GMs, and the party doesn't want to get held up while you have some private time bonding with your parents/siblings, so why bother?

[kyrt-ryder]

Trekkie90909 wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

In my own case, the backstory of the characters are a critical component of worldbuilding and campaign creation. If the characters have nothing behind them defining them and giving them direction, I find it really really difficult to come up with a campaign.

You sound like a good GM; personally have found that most come up with a campaign idea, and then run that. People's background doesn't come up unless it has a significant impact on their personal roleplay.

I'd like to think so, but to be honest part of it's lazyness. I have no interest in creating something like that all out of my own head, I'd FAR rather collaborate with players than present some masterpiece I slaved over alone.

Quote:

Anything beyond "how I play my character," including attempts to tie the character into the game through specific relationships is basically ignored by GMs, and the party doesn't want to get held up while you have some private time bonding with your parents/siblings, so why bother?

Part of this is going to depend on where the campaign is currently happening. If you're still in your hometown then there's no real reason that family can't pop up now and then, depending on what they're careers are and whether or not the story might somehow cross paths with them.

[It's also nice to work in some kind of family-related benefit, makes it more justified to put them in danger now and then to motivate a PC.]

[XainMexi]

Matthew Downie wrote:

Durinor wrote:

Whale_Cancer wrote:

The Elusive Trout wrote:

I hate it when the player next to me hasn't bathed properly and will say so to his or her face.

You are a true hero of our hobby (no sarcasm intended).

In the real world this is called being rude.

Rudeness is about how you say it. Letting someone know their flies are undone isn't rude. Pointing and laughing is.

One of the best ways to describe the difference between Diplomacy and Intimidate!

[thejeff]

Trekkie90909 wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

In my own case, the backstory of the characters are a critical component of worldbuilding and campaign creation. If the characters have nothing behind them defining them and giving them direction, I find it really really difficult to come up with a campaign.

You sound like a good GM; personally have found that most come up with a campaign idea, and then run that. People's background doesn't come up unless it has a significant impact on their personal roleplay.

A couple of other people have brought up some good points: I absolutely think a player needs to have a character concept complete with personality going into the game. Without that it's impossible to RP without falling into the traps Kalindlara has mentioned. Anything beyond "how I play my character," including attempts to tie the character into the game through specific relationships is basically ignored by GMs, and the party doesn't want to get held up while you have some private time bonding with your parents/siblings, so why bother?

Let's not go to far with "needs to" and "impossible". My characters tend to come with pretty sketchy backgrounds and personalities to start with and develop more interesting ones in play - sometimes including more backstory, sometimes just personality depending on the game's emphasis.

I don't have the problems Kalindlara describes, however if I try to define too much ahead of time it interferes with how the character develops, either forcing the character to remain flat or contradicting stuff I determined ahead of time.

People play differently. There is very little "must do it this way" about roleplaying.

[TheMonocleRogue]

I don't ban summoners at my table. Or witches. Or class archetypes.

I also hate campaigns that are homebrewed from scratch.

[Kalindlara]

TheMonocleRogue wrote:

I also hate campaigns that are homebrewed from scratch.

Does this mean you only prefer pregenerated worlds (like Golarion) or pregenerated campaign arcs (like Adventure Paths)?

Just curious. ^_^

[captain yesterday]

We've never had a Paladin in any campaign, we've also never had inter-party squabbles, probably unrelated I'm sure...

We've also never had anyone wear heavy armor, in fact in one Skull and Shackles campaign we don't have anyone wearing armor at all :-)

[captain yesterday]

The rest of my siblings refuse to play in published campaign settings or adventures, its annoying :-)

[Kryzbyn]

I love world building.
I don't like recording world building :)

[Tequila Sunrise]

BigDTBone wrote:

Tequila Sunrise wrote:

GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:

Lee Teague wrote:

I hate level dips. I generally dislike multiclassing, prestige classes, and archetypes. Just pick your class and play it fool.

I hate that I can't create the character I want without multiclassing and level dipping, and I see it as a flaw with the very concept of classes.

I think that 3.x-style multiclassing has the potential to be the perfect marriage of class-based and point-based character creation. Assuming it's balanced, it gives DMs an immediate and accurate measure of character capability and allows players like Lee Teague to write "[class x] [level y]" on their character sheet, fill in a few pertinents, and be done with it; while also allowing players like DarkLightHitomi a degree of freedom to play the organic character which a game world ideally allows.

You may say that I'm a dreamer,
But I'm not the only one

;)

I think the current system is definitely headed in the right direction. I think that there are A BUNCH of archetypes that really should have been PrC's and vise versa. I also think the system needs a better way to stack class features (spell casting in particular) and a better way to express fractional spellcasting (the bard should get its full casting progression when it takes dragon disciple for example.)

If at some point someone takes another crack at the 3.0 ogl framework then I think they could get a bunch closer.

Agreed 100%! I'm not familiar with any particular archetypes, but PrCs, ACFs, feats, and class abilities have been a mess since 3.0. As I'm sure you're aware. (Oh, Spellthief, you were the perfect candidate for being a PrC!) By the end of my 3.5 career, I had started telling players who wanted to take most PrCs "What particular abilities do you want from this PrC? I think we can convert it into a feat..."

So, yeah, someone should get on this multiclassing problem with a new game/clone...*whistles off-key*

[DungeonmasterCal]

I think dice superstitions, especially the not touching someone's dice one, are ridiculous. My group shares dice the way some folks share colds.

[Kthulhu]

One time I was GMing a game, and I said "no" to something a player asked.

[GM Tyrant Princess]

Kthulhu wrote:

One time I was GMing a game, and I said "no" to something a player asked.

You and me both.

They must learn.

[Jaelithe]

Kthulhu wrote:

One time I was GMing a game, and I said "no" to something a player asked.

I bet you still have the scars, too.

[kyrt-ryder]

GM Tyrant Princess wrote:

Kthulhu wrote:

One time I was GMing a game, and I said "no" to something a player asked.

You and me both.

They must learn.

I have yet to say no to anything a player asked for- except really silly stuff the player wasn't taking seriously.

Now, gifts of the GM are seldom free and usually come with restrictions/limitations/obligations, and are always level appropriate.

"Yes... but" can work magic.

[Kalindlara]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

GM Tyrant Princess wrote:

Kthulhu wrote:

One time I was GMing a game, and I said "no" to something a player asked.

You and me both.

They must learn.

I have yet to say no to anything a player asked for- except really silly stuff the player wasn't taking seriously.

Now, gifts of the GM are seldom free and usually come with restrictions/limitations/obligations, and are always level appropriate.

"Yes... but" can work magic.

In truth, I'm way more on the "yes, but..." side of the spectrum. (I let someone play an elf/duergar in Wrath of the Righteous!)

I have the type of players who'll try to push the boundaries, though, so I tend to be a little cagey about giving them carte blanche to ask until I say yes. ^_^

[kyrt-ryder]

Kalindlara wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

GM Tyrant Princess wrote:

Kthulhu wrote:

One time I was GMing a game, and I said "no" to something a player asked.

You and me both.

They must learn.

I have yet to say no to anything a player asked for- except really silly stuff the player wasn't taking seriously.

Now, gifts of the GM are seldom free and usually come with restrictions/limitations/obligations, and are always level appropriate.

"Yes... but" can work magic.

In truth, I'm way more on the "yes, but..." side of the spectrum. (I let someone play an elf/duergar in Wrath of the Righteous!)

I have the type of players who'll try to push the boundaries, though, so I tend to be a little cagey about giving them carte blanche to ask until I say yes. ^_^

Once played a Dwarf Mineral Warrior Ninja working undercover for a player-created cult-of-Lolth within the Dwarven Kingdom my character grew up in.

[Trekkie90909]

I enjoy critical failures so long as I'm allowed to roleplay them out.

[LazarX]

In my future games, I may only allow mythic to NPCs and monsters.

Let the shunning begin.

[kyrt-ryder]

LazarX wrote:

In my future games, I may only allow mythic to NPCs and monsters.

Why?

[kyrt-ryder]

Confession: I intend to hand out free Mythic Ranks as part of the leveling up process in a future game [and depending on the results, perhaps most future games.] 1 rank at level 5, 2 more ranks at level 9, 3 more ranks at level 13 and four more ranks at level 17

[Kalindlara]

LazarX wrote:

In my future games, I may only allow mythic to NPCs and monsters.

Let the shunning begin.

In at least one campaign, I'm planning to give the PCs assigned mythic abilities. Players getting options... that they didn't choose for themselves.

Now you'll see some shunning. ^_^

[knightnday]

Kalindlara wrote:

LazarX wrote:

In my future games, I may only allow mythic to NPCs and monsters.

Let the shunning begin.

In at least one campaign, I'm planning to give the PCs assigned mythic abilities. Players getting options... that they didn't choose for themselves.

Now you'll see some shunning. ^_^

I've done something like that in a few games, albeit with feats and traits and other such things. It has gone well overall.

[Kthulhu]

Jaelithe wrote:

Kthulhu wrote:

One time I was GMing a game, and I said "no" to something a player asked.

I bet you still have the scars, too.

I didn't really expect such a violent reaction to my answer to the question "Is the door locked?"

[Kthulhu]

knightnday wrote:

Kalindlara wrote:

LazarX wrote:

In my future games, I may only allow mythic to NPCs and monsters.

Let the shunning begin.

In at least one campaign, I'm planning to give the PCs assigned mythic abilities. Players getting options... that they didn't choose for themselves.

Now you'll see some shunning. ^_^

I've done something like that in a few games, albeit with feats and traits and other such things. It has gone well overall.

The secret would be to just tell them "You're getting this bonus extra ability". Instead of telling them "I've giving you a mythic rank, and you're taking THIS option."

Ignorace sometimes really is much more blissful.

[Snowblind]

Kthulhu wrote:

One time I was GMing a game, and I said "no" to something a player asked.

I do this sometimes.

It probably helps that I have a player that will happily take really wild interpretations if he can get away with it.

He seriously tried to argue that because I was interpreting the size increase from goz mask as only applying for the purpose of wind effect, I should be consistent and say that Snapleaf is not single use only because they have similar wording.

I do be nice to him when he doesn't push it though. Like by letting weapons that are kind of like punching (such as the cestus) count as unarmed for pretty much all purposes. Which is important, since he is a monk. I still blocked his attempt to stack amulet of mighty fists enhancements with weapon enhancements, though.

[kyrt-ryder]

@ Snowblind: did you give him both as treasure drops, or was he attempting to purchase both for stacking purposes? There is a difference.

Personally I'd totally let him stack them, however only the highest +X counts [those don't stack] and he has to choose which one's special abilities he uses. [Think of it sort of like a more limited equivalent of magic arrows on a magic bow]

[TheMonocleRogue]

Kalindlara wrote:

TheMonocleRogue wrote:

I also hate campaigns that are homebrewed from scratch.

Does this mean you only prefer pregenerated worlds (like Golarion) or pregenerated campaign arcs (like Adventure Paths)?

Just curious. ^_^

Campaign settings, APs, and modules. The published campaigns are good source material not just because they are pregenerated, but because months of work and playtesting were put into them. The worlds have great lore woven into them, heroic/villainous characters you sometimes get to meet in the campaigns, areas unexplored, artifacts yet to be uncovered. All tools for an aspiring GM to use in their campaign.

Yes, constructed campaign settings can be fun at times, but over the years I've found them to be one-dimensional if not enough time is put into them. And that trope of 7/10 homebrewed campaigns starting in a tavern? It's true.

[Snowblind]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

@ Snowblind: did you give him both as treasure drops, or was he attempting to purchase both for stacking purposes? There is a difference.

Personally I'd totally let him stack them, however only the highest +X counts [those don't stack] and he has to choose which one's special abilities he uses. [Think of it sort of like a more limited equivalent of magic arrows on a magic bow]

He was planning his character build, and when he mentioned it I said yeah...no, you just get one of them at a time. The reason being that allowing it gives him a significant discount on bonuses.

He also just seriously suggested that he should be able to wear one of these on his forehead or toe so he can get it's enhancement on a style strike, so I wasn't exactly feeling like being liberal with the rules. Especially since this conversation was the result of me allowing punch-like weapons with a 19-20 crit range scale with monk unarmed damage for a character that plans to get pummeling charge (which I am allowing him to take with his bonus feat at level 6 so it turns on when he is level 8).

[xeose4]

I confess I'm always surprised when someone who says they hate Pathfinder and prefer another system posts on the Paizo boards. I mean, *I* think the boards are awesome but I enjoy the system too? I don't understand.

[kyrt-ryder]

Who said they hate Pathfinder? [Incidentally, there are very prominent facets of Pathfinder I DO hate, but I love the core system.]

[bugleyman]

Shifty wrote:

Hiram_McDaniels wrote:

I left Pathfinder for D&D 5E and have never looked back.

...except to look back at the Forums for it, for no reason :p

Yes, because clearly heathens who play 5E should be banished. They couldn't possibly have interest in other Paizo products, or friends here, or anything like that.

Unclean!

Edit: And your post has garnered several favorites. Score another one for petty human tribalism. :-/

[TOZ]

None of that guys posts were really contributions to the community either.

[Quiche Lisp]

I hate that paladins are immune to fear.

No one human is immune to fear.

The fact that paladins are immune to fear by RAW makes me want to bludgeon someone with a wet sock while screaming "Oy ! You immune to that, you [redacted] ?"

Apart from that, I love paladins and I rarely make them fall from grace because that's overused and... unfair I guess.

[kyrt-ryder]

Immunity to fear is awesome and other Martial characters should have ways of acquiring it.

[knightnday]

bugleyman wrote:

Shifty wrote:

Hiram_McDaniels wrote:

I left Pathfinder for D&D 5E and have never looked back.

...except to look back at the Forums for it, for no reason :p

Yes, because clearly heathens who play 5E should be banished. They couldn't possibly have interest in other Paizo products, or friends here, or anything like that.

Unclean!

Edit: And your post has garnered several favorites. Score another one for petty human tribalism. :-/

Less petty tribalism and more that a favoriting of the post was less effort and probably less antagonistic than asking if he wanted a cookie. It came across sort of "I picked the right game hah!" At least to me anyway.

It is great to prefer other games, music, whatever. Less so to go to their home, so to speak, and try to stir things up.

[LazarX]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

LazarX wrote:

In my future games, I may only allow mythic to NPCs and monsters.

Why?

I have spoken upon this at length on several occasions. Feel free to search my posts,

[Quiche Lisp]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Immunity to fear is awesome and other Martial characters should have ways of acquiring it.

I shunnnnnn you !

[HyperMissingno]

Quiche Lisp wrote:

I hate that paladins are immune to fear.

No one human is immune to fear.

The fact that paladins are immune to fear by RAW makes me want to bludgeon someone with a wet sock while screaming "Oy ! You immune to that, you [redacted] ?"

Apart from that, I love paladins and I rarely make them fall from grace because that's overused and... unfair I guess.

One of my GMs is the exact opposite and can't stand paladins that aren't immune to fear. I'm honestly more on your side in that I feel they should have a big bonus against it, but not an immunity.

[Quiche Lisp]

That sounds like a cool idea. Maybe a +4 or a +6. I'll apply it to my games.

[Rynjin]

The immunity fits the class more than a lot of its other abilities IMO.

The entire point is the knight who can stand up against evil. When every Fiend and their grandma can cast Fear (and the Grandma does it with a higher DC), and Dragons have a fear aura, it kinda ruins the image when one time in 10 the great shining knight is quaking in his boots (or running away in abject terror) from the thing he's supposed to be fighting.

It's embarrassing for other classes too, but the Paladin most of all.

[HyperMissingno]

Rynjin wrote:

The immunity fits the class more than a lot of its other abilities IMO.

The entire point is the knight who can stand up against evil. When every Fiend and their grandma can cast Fear (and the Grandma does it with a higher DC), and Dragons have a fear aura, it kinda ruins the image when one time in 10 the great shining knight is quaking in his boots (or running away in abject terror) from the thing he's supposed to be fighting.

It's embarrassing for other classes too, but the Paladin most of all.

On this note, I'd probably be more okay with the immunity if it came at a later level. Like 7ish. 3 is a bit too early for my tastes to be completely immune to all types of fear and anxiety.

[DrDeth]

knightnday wrote:

New confessions: I despise the overuse of the word "fallacy" on the boards and the Internet in general.

So true, look most "logical fallacies' are not. They are not fallacies in logic at all. They are informal fallacies. Mostly, using a informal fallacy is perfectly OK outside your high school debating team.

For example, take the ad hominem 'fallacy". Not acceptable in a formal debate, but sometimes/often OK IRL, as wiki sez:"When used inappropriately, it is a fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized.[2] Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning.[3]"

Similar things can be said about "Argument from authority" which can not be used in formal debates but is a normal thing to use IRL. Once, for example the Design team makes a ruling on rules, it's pretty much over, and citing them is technically a "Argument from authority" , but that's by no means a 'fallacy".

Generally, when on a message board, in this informal setting, the poster who attempts to rebut another poster by pointing out the "logical fallacy" is just being a jerk.

[Kryzbyn]

The design staff certainly is the authority. <- not a fallacy
A fellow gamer citing 30 years of experience as the reason for his authority. <- fallacy

[Rynjin]

HyperMissingno wrote:

Rynjin wrote:

The immunity fits the class more than a lot of its other abilities IMO.

The entire point is the knight who can stand up against evil. When every Fiend and their grandma can cast Fear (and the Grandma does it with a higher DC), and Dragons have a fear aura, it kinda ruins the image when one time in 10 the great shining knight is quaking in his boots (or running away in abject terror) from the thing he's supposed to be fighting.

It's embarrassing for other classes too, but the Paladin most of all.

On this note, I'd probably be more okay with the immunity if it came at a later level. Like 7ish. 3 is a bit too early for my tastes to be completely immune to all types of fear and anxiety.

I don't think it is. Just because Bravery sucks doesn't mean this has to.

Besides, it doesn't mean the Paladin (as a character) can feel no fear...that's a roleplay thing. It just prevents Fear from being induced IN HIM, and him losing control because of it.

He is unaffected by the negative aspects of fear through an iron will, not turned into an emotionless robot.

[Jaelithe]

I've never agreed with the paladin having damage resistance except against evil. That's the only thing against which he or she should have it, in my opinion.

On the other hand, I don't think evil beings should be particularly resistant to good powers. Good should have that advantage because it's good.

[Steve Geddes]

xeose4 wrote:

I confess I'm always surprised when someone who says they hate Pathfinder and prefer another system posts on the Paizo boards. I mean, *I* think the boards are awesome but I enjoy the system too? I don't understand.

Perhaps they like paizo but not pathfinder? Perhaps they like Golarion or adapt paizo's adventures to another system? Perhaps they posted here before pathfinder existed and are comfortable with the forum and part of the community?

Lots of reasons to post here, even if you do hate pathfinder.

[Hima Flametinker III]

I hate that I have to roll a 19-20 just to hit tanky pc's that aren't meant to be tanky to begin with. );