On a related note I've recently switched to communal character creation in one of my games. Players are allowed access to classes based on their in-game roleplay (they start as a generic commoner at 'level 0' as they put it with 1 hp and no stats), state their preference based on the options given to them (group input is sought but I have final say) and then the group gives feedback as to how well the choice aligns with their style of play and final suggestions are made in the event that anyone feels party balance is important.
Interested in your opinions as players/GMs.
We tried this once- never again. I hated it with a white hot passion. It's a control-phreak thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Based on how long everyone else has been playing, it feels like I'm the youngest person on these boards. ^_^
Get off my lawn!
I have entered my sixth decade, been playing since 1974 or so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ketchup on hot dogs isn't a thing? Guess I'm doing it wrong.
It is a uniquely Chicago sentiment. Putting ketchup on a red hot will get it slapped out of your hand, and get you kicked out of the establishment.
Some hot dog stands refuse to stock ketchup to avoid the hassle.
I love playing Black Crusade, but the pbp players and GM's are completely unreliable. (Note: Before the suggestion "Well why don't you DM, then" is lobbed around: It's because I'm a terrible DM and wouldn't inflict that sort of misery on anyone. I may gripe about reliability, but I do have the common decency to know my own faults as well and admit them.)I'm from the Chicago area, and sometimes I put ketchup on my hot dogs just for spite.
Dont sweat it dude- it's good you are adult enough to recognize that and admit it. Few can or do. Kudos to you sir!
But here- ketchup on hot dogs- eewwwwww. Mustard or chili. Sometimes both.
Guys, this is what a hotdog should look like.
That is: mustard (optional, I personally don't care for it), ketchup, remoulade, onions, fried onions, and pickled cucumber slices.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Based on how long everyone else has been playing, it feels like I'm the youngest person on these boards. ^_^
I've been playing since September 1985. I bow to Dr. Deth's seniority on these boards.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
'78-'79 here, and assuming I don't have another heart attack I might make 50 soon. :) DrDeth gets to be the old man of the boards.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I too begin playing in the 1970s (1976 to be exact), but alas I am only in my fifth decade, and I too bow to DrDeath's seniority.
You and knightnday both started in the 70's so you get Grognard cred.
(Gives secret handshake).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Player 1 (Dick): "Here's my spell list." [Smirks.]
[DM checks proffered paper for ten seconds.]
DM: "Looks good, except you've added Animate Dead, which is, I regret to inform you, on the forbidden list for your character. Remember, your deity, while indeed the lawful neutral goddess of the underworld, is not in the least keen on opposing the natural course of life and death. She finds undead an abomination. So I'm going to disallow that one, and replace it with Searing Light, since her sister is the goddess of the sun, they're on excellent terms and you just may need it where you're going."
Player 1 (Dick) [in his best My Little Pony impression]: "HOW ... DARE ... YOU!
"It's my character! Mine! And I'll have whatever spells I want! It's right here in the book!" [Jams book in DM's face.] "RIGHT ... HERE!"
DM: "Um ... it's one spell, and it makes perfect sense why it's disallowed. I didn't just completely overhaul your selections. I made one change on a 15-spell list."
Player 1 (Dick): "No! This is about my volition! ... my rights! ... MY CHARACTER!"
[DM wipes a bit of Dick's spittle from his face.]
Player 2 (Jenny): "Hey ... take it easy, man."
DM: "This is a homebrew game, not Golarion, and the specific rules of my campaign trump those usually used for Pathfinder, as I've mentioned and explained time and again." [Holds up the House Rules.]
Player 1 (Dick): "I don't care! Your House Rules SUCK! Your games sucks! YOU ... SUCK!!"
DM: [Sighs.]
Setting up another, more blatant, more spitefully written strawman to combat someone else' strawman doesn't help your case any.
Just reading the boards for a day shows how little trust there seems to be between GMs and players. I guess I don't get it? I mean, it really really comes across all too often that people are so gunshy and have had apparently so many bad experiences it is amazing they ever play again. And I just don't buy it.
I don't, I really don't. I think people had A bad experience, maybe a handful, and are now just so jaded that they won't give anyone new a chance without an ironclad contract on what the GM is allowed to do to them, or what the player is allowed to do in the game.
My first GM had not one, but two GMPCs, used critical failure rules, required "training" in order to multiclass, and preferred what "makes sense" over mechanics.
It was enough for me to realize I don't like these things, especially when his idea of "makes sense" was, apparently "My Eidolon should get to Rend multiple times per round", and when I refused to let him do so in the game I was running fr him and some friends, he left that game and shut down the one he was GMing out of spite.
It just so happens that these and very similar mechanics are what a lot of people seem to favor, and they were neither fun nor interesting to me.
My first GM had not one, but two GMPCs, used critical failure rules, required "training" in order to multiclass, and preferred what "makes sense" over mechanics.
Yep.
Strike One*, Strike Two**, Strike Three***- yourrrrre out! ;-)
* DMPCs
** critical failure rules
*** required "training"
None of those are games breakers in of themselves. You can have a game with a DMPC that's great, etc. But all three? Be afraid, be very afraid.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is requiring training such a horribly bad sign? I don't like it myself but I don't see the horror here...
It's another way for the control-phreak DM to control the PC's in every little way.
For example- let's say you level during a quest. Well, you know the quest is super difficult, and the fate of the world hangs on it- so getting better will help you succeed. But then the DM has a time requirement on the quest so that you cant take the time to level.
Or the training costs so much you are stuck at one level for much longer than you should be.
Adventuring *IS* training.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is requiring training such a horribly bad sign? I don't like it myself but I don't see the horror here...
If the GM prevents your character from going to town, then you can never multiclass. Let's say at level 4 you have a planned multiclass going into wizard - and the GM levels you up in the middle of a dungeon; looks like your level 4 class isn't going to be wizard. And if the GM decides that "training" takes five years, then in order to multiclass you either have to have a large jump in game time or you have to ditch your character for a while. And yes, I've seen all of this as a requirement by a GM, so it's not hyperbole.
A planned ditch may be fine. I have a player who wants to multiclass, but he also wants to play a different character for a few levels. So he's bringing in a new character while is old one is "off training." But this is a planned event requested by the player, not a mandate required by the GM.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah; what a perfect combination of posts. Dr Deth covered training to level up and I covered training to multiclass.
High five!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the Advanced Race Guide is a bad book.
I always thought training could be used to serve story. If gaining a level mid-adventure allows for some cool "I'm suddenly more a bad-ass, and know I'm gonna whup yours" stuff, rock and roll. If, instead, traveling to the peak of Mount Distant-and-Obscure, where you must convince Master Sneer to surrender his secrets, followed by a cool training montage would be fun, then go that way. This idea that it has to be consistent is ridiculous. If you think a training adventure could be fun, and all would enjoy it, do it. If you think only the guy training would, cram in a solo adventure if possible. If you think most would hate it, then just let the players level.
Oh absolutely. Training *can* be cool, and it can lead to some great adventures. But that is leagues different than requiring a character to train before being allowed to level up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the Advanced Race Guide is a bad book.
People think it was a bad book? Huh. I liked it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are people on the boards who only speak of it in the most scathing of terms.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't trust Paizo staff to moderate the boards impartially
I roll stats, 4d6, drop lowest, re-roll 1's
I'm with you 376%.
As for get off my lawn cred, I started playing in the late 70s. My father, who is 70, got me into it and we still play together.
I don't trust Paizo staff to moderate the boards impartially
I don't trust anyone (looks around suspiciously)
Yeah I was thinking of GMs who might require training but also facilitate it. A GM who's just a douchenozzle about this sort of thing is definitely a bad GM.Why is requiring training such a horribly bad sign? I don't like it myself but I don't see the horror here...If the GM prevents your character from going to town, then you can never multiclass. Let's say at level 4 you have a planned multiclass going into wizard - and the GM levels you up in the middle of a dungeon; looks like your level 4 class isn't going to be wizard. And if the GM decides that "training" takes five years, then in order to multiclass you either have to have a large jump in game time or you have to ditch your character for a while. And yes, I've seen all of this as a requirement by a GM, so it's not hyperbole.
A planned ditch may be fine. I have a player who wants to multiclass, but he also wants to play a different character for a few levels. So he's bringing in a new character while is old one is "off training." But this is a planned event requested by the player, not a mandate required by the GM.
I know a GM like this. He hated the fact that players could just simply multiclass into a wizard. He believed that the training to be a wizard is something that should take at least a decade. So he implemented a required training rule to multiclass. This effectively made it so no one could become a wizard unless they started the game as one - or abandoned their character for a decade of in-game time.
Certain classes were exempt, like fighter and rogue, because you could train in your "off-time" while adventuring to become one of them.
I'm mildly fond of training, but I certainly don't make it as hard as possible on people. Now I've played with a GM who had a chart to determine if you were able, at all, to learn arcane magic. This was several editions back, mind you, and it was partially to prevent some of the multi-classing I think, and somewhat to limit magic users because many believe they are all powerful. ;)
What else was on the list? Two GMPCs seems excessive to me, but I guess if there was a need? Critical hits and failures have been fun over the years -- we've used different charts on occasion in some games.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
To some degree I agree with you. That would seem to imply no new GMs though? Or new players, since they wouldn't yet have the experience to trust implicitly?Well, I think my group would want someone to play for a while before being given the reins.
As for new players, if they can't make a leap of faith based on the testimony of long-time players, that's their problem. I can't be held responsible for the fact that someone else screwed them. Play a fighter or rogue the first time around, I suppose. Alternately, leave your comfort zone and take a chance.
Just reading the boards for a day shows how little trust there seems to be between GMs and players. I guess I don't get it? I mean, it really really comes across all too often that people are so gunshy and have had apparently so many bad experiences it is amazing they ever play again. And I just don't buy it.
I don't, I really don't. I think people had A bad experience, maybe a handful, and are now just so jaded that they won't give anyone new a chance without an ironclad contract on what the GM is allowed to do to them, or what the player is allowed to do in the game.
I've played with people like this. One guy refused to allow anything outside of his control to happen to his character. He would just get up and leave a game if he took more damage than he thought he should, or if there was a chance of death, or if he was denied what he wanted.
I don't care to play with people like that, be they a GM or player, don't get me wrong. Entitled isn't a word that I'd associate with them -- most I would associate are banned here.
But for the love all all the Gods, people need to get a bit of trust for their fellow gamer. I dunno how much of this is the boards exaggeration or just people don't want to associate with "those" people -- the ones who do it "that way." But just like a relationship, if you got burned a few times that doesn't mean everyone of your mating preference are evil and bad...
So much projecting of old grievances. People also love to use the forums to complain (and I've done it, too often). I don't quite get the personal attacks against the dms though, and the proud assertions that "well I wouldn't play in your games... or with those house rules... or with those interpretations... or with those restrictions!"
Yes shrill and extremely agitated player, you probably wouldn't be welcome.
Respect and trust are crucial, and not flipping out over what are really minor things compared to how much enjoyment and wonderful times can be had in games.
Since your post was so excellent and on point. I'm going to stop complaining about past dms and poor previous experiences. There really weren't that many and they aren't worth bringing up or projecting to attack other dms. Cheers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Played in Night Below with a DM that was a stickler for the training rule.
We spent most of that module the same level once we headed into the underdark.
There was also a rule that said you can only progress so far in one session, like 1 level and up to the threshold of the next but not crossing over.
Add those two things together, we lost some XP.
The DM was a great story teller, so we didn't mind so much, tbh. But, wow, I don't think I'd readily go with that scenario today.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like 2E even though it has it flaws and merits. Though I really dislike how demi-humans have level limits and humans can go to any level. Started my dislike of too many rpg settings where humans even when surronded by more stronger, better races. Always seem on top of the food chain in a variety of rpgs.
While I am not optimizer I don't like building a less effective character because everyone else has. I just don't have fun at the table. And yes I understand it's a group activity. But if I don't put decent points into str, con at the very least. My fighter is simply not going to be able to move or take a hit. Which defeats the purpose imo.
Gamers who are naive or act naive about the hobby. While Paizo main focus is more than just a profit. You can beleive they started the company both to continue a edition they liked and to make money. Gamers who think rpgs companies espcially those they like are some kind of non-profit. While those they dislike are greedy just don't know how the really world works as far as I'm concerned.
I wish the Paizo devs would find the proper middle ground for new material. Either a option is good perhaps too good. Or full of flavor and simply not worth taking and/or too situational.
Gamers who refuse to shower regularly or even semi-regularly will not be allowed at my tables. I don't care which obscure study found on the internet that tells you underarm deodrant gives you cancer. Or if I was a "true" friend I would ignore the fetid disgusting stench. Either shower next game or don't expect a invite back.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And don't drink my motherf+$!ing milk.
- Samuel L. Jackson
Ketchup on hotdog? What about syrup?
Oh absolutely. Training *can* be cool, and it can lead to some great adventures. But that is leagues different than requiring a character to train before being allowed to level up.
This is the key. It CAN be fun... it CAN be included... it should NOT be 'required'. If I have a fighter who hears about a certain master and wants to meet him and train under him... Work it into the story. Claim it happens during downtime... something.
MAKING a player track down a master EVERY SINGLE LEVEL, instead of rescuing the princess is tedious an annoying. If you have four or five players, multiply that tediousness by four or five (or maybe tediousness grows exponentionally...)
I love the idea of heroes having lives outside of adventuring, but that 'level up time' never lands in a convenient place for the story to make sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ketchup goes on everything.
EVERYTHING!!!
Well, most things, but anything that was once alive or considered meat*!!
*And Hot dogs.