| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
there is no obligation on the GMs part to sacrifice their own preferences and possibly the other players as well just to accommodate a single players preference.
Absolutely -- FAQ #1, in fact. ;P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I was deployed to take your mind off being in the middle of the ocean you'll grab a pick up D&D game. You don't get many choices on who sits at the table so you take what you can get. That ranges from LARPers, to Min/Maxes, to Super Special Snowflakes. There are times where in order to came you have to deal with people you don't want to. Or you lay in your rack staring at the one above you waiting for the deployment to end.What we're seeing here is Player A saying, "Hey!!! I am going to play a velociraptor barbarian because the rules say I can!!!" <<Insert gang hand signs and current slang terms and profanity here>> "What? Are you too chicken and too simple to include it? Newb?!?!??!"Yeah, I've never seen that in real life. I'd never have invited that guy to my game in the first place. I'll never understand why anyone else would.
Ah yes, I've run across that as well. It's the gaming equivalent of trying to pick someone to go home with at last call at a bar. You have to decide which choice you'll regret more. :)
Anyway, back to the original question from Ravingdork that has sat all alone: should the GM have extra latitude from the players. We've seen a few comments but we've gotten side tracked by My Little Ponyfinder.
For me, it can be a useful tool for the GM/devs to do something unexpected. Sometimes. Like any spice or idea, too much of it can really throw things off.
For a player to deviate outside the rules (be it as written or as interpreted, your choice), that requires a bit more communication and compromise between the players. Does it require just a bit of reskinning to make something along the lines of what is desired, or are we having to co-op rules wholesale from another game system or create whole cloth in order to make this idea flow?
It's certainly doable, provided that everyone involved is willing to do the work and bend a bit, AND (and this is important) it adds something to the game other than "I get to play my X".
|
What we're seeing here is Player A saying, "Hey!!! I am going to play a velociraptor barbarian because the rules say I can!!!" <<Insert gang hand signs and current slang terms and profanity here>> "What? Are you too chicken and too simple to include it? Newb?!?!??!"Yeah, I've never seen that in real life. I'd never have invited that guy to my game in the first place. I'll never understand why anyone else would.
Well, not everybody's gaming personality is exactly the same as their personality in real life. And I'm not talking about playing their character, I'm talking about how Joe Smith can be a very different person when he's playing the game than he is when he's just hanging out, or at work, etc. People are frelling complicated.
Well I used the pit fiend example as an extreme example of not everything in the rules = character.
As intended, 0HD races are meant to be character choices in the game. I think it's fair game for any player to approach a DM to ask if they can play a 0HD race. The group may decide they don't want to deal with some races, or the DM might consider some options too powerful, such as Drow Noble, but otherwise, fine.
Monsters are really meant to be killed or to interact with PCs as NPCs. The only exceptions being familiar or animal companion options. Just like the Race Builder in the ARG is considered a GM tool. Those options really are not balanced or intended for players to use, and very much exist in the DM toolbox. So a player shouldn't walk in with a monster from the bestiary and expect to play without any qualms from the DM or other players.
|
When I was deployed to take your mind off being in the middle of the ocean you'll grab a pick up D&D game. You don't get many choices on who sits at the table so you take what you can get. That ranges from LARPers, to Min/Maxes, to Super Special Snowflakes. There are times where in order to came you have to deal with people you don't want to. Or you lay in your rack staring at the one above you waiting for the deployment to end.What we're seeing here is Player A saying, "Hey!!! I am going to play a velociraptor barbarian because the rules say I can!!!" <<Insert gang hand signs and current slang terms and profanity here>> "What? Are you too chicken and too simple to include it? Newb?!?!??!"Yeah, I've never seen that in real life. I'd never have invited that guy to my game in the first place. I'll never understand why anyone else would.Point well made sir.
Under the situation you describe I would be willing to play in an anything goes game.
- Torger
While I would pick up a book or another hobby.
So my Sylph Street Magician, Liar, Beggar, Thief, Wanderer, Weather Mage, Burglar, and Slum Urchin doesn't fit in a Cheliaxian Urban themed Campaign? because she is a Sylph? which are about as common as tieflings.
What about my Sickly and Manipulative yet seemingly sweet, kind and generous Half-Nymph countess whom seeks to become Supreme Empress the world over through seemingly peaceful means in a political fantasy campaign?
what about my purple haired sickly wizard who runs around in purple pajamas and casts spells, in an anime themed campaign?
what about my nekomimi wearing loli vampire in a moon phase campaign whom happens to be one of Hazuki's other, younger sisters, Tsukuyomi, vampiress of illusion?
what about my Ex Legionary whom became a police officer in a fallout campaign?
what about my Persian Traitor and Exile? in a Roman Empire Campaign?
So my Sylph Street Magician, Liar, Beggar, Thief, Wanderer, Weather Mage, Burglar, and Slum Urchin doesn't fit in a Cheliaxian Urban themed Campaign? because she is a Sylph? which are about as common as tieflings.
What about my Sickly and Manipulative yet seemingly sweet, kind and generous Half-Nymph countess whom seeks to become Supreme Empress the world over through seemingly peaceful means in a political fantasy campaign?
what about my purple haired sickly wizard who runs around in purple pajamas and casts spells, in an anime themed campaign?
what about my nekomimi wearing loli vampire in a moon phase campaign whom happens to be one of Hazuki's other, younger sisters, Tsukuyomi, vampiress of illusion?
what about my Ex Legionary whom became a police officer in a fallout campaign?
what about my Persian Traitor and Exile? in a Roman Empire Campaign?
1) Assuming the elemental themed races are available - Fits
2) Assuming the DM is cool with a 1/2 Nymph - Fits
3) - Fits
4) I don't know what a "moon phase campaign" is. Regardless a Vampire would certainly be subject to DM approval. but probably fits.
5) - Fits
6) - Fits (and I especially like this one)
Most settings making a character that fits is pretty easy.
- Torger
Moon Phase to Explain
a child Vampiress of High Nobility is bailed out of her Father's Castle by a photographer for an occult magazine that is published in a country on the opposite side of the world. ((Japanese Photographer saves a Half-Japanese vampire from a German castle))
Vampiress hides out from her father across the world, staying with the photographer and his family, whom she treats like her servants, the man's Grandpa is a Shinto priest who owns an antique store
Vampiress's Father tries to reclaim his daughter, sending a variety of powerful Vampires
the Photographer, his family, and their friends, try to protect the Vampiress's freedom, the Vampiress wants them to help her kill daddy, because she doesn't wish to be locked in the castle again
a few vampires become allies, and a few Shinto priests offer their help
Daddy dies, little Hazuki gets her freedom, countless Vampires respect the wishes of "Princess Luna" as they call her.
thing is, Hazuki has as many Sisters, as Hercules and Perseus, had Brothers.
the party is mostly human, but there are a handful of powerful vampires with broken powers in the Group.
Hazuki, Elfriede, and Artemis are the main 3 vampires, out of a group of like 10 characters including vampire and nonvampire alike.
the Photographer, has amazing Shinto Powers that were sealed during the first half of the series, because the powers would have driven him insane, but he killed "King Vladimir/Dracula" using the powers of the All Seeing Eye and the gift of Rejection (think Orihime Inoue's ability to reject)
the priests can all be done as Oracles with a handful of sorcerer spells
the Vampires are mostly bards and sorcerers
Moon Phase to Explain
*explanation*
Yup, sounds like the perfect setting for that character then.
- Torger
i feel the sudden urge to play my Loli Elven Switch Hitting Horse Archer (Urban Ranger with Archery Combat Style and Horse Animal Companion), born with the moontouched curse (Dreamspeaker and Darkvision Alternate Racial Traits) whom fights on Horseback with Curveblade and Composite Longbow using a mongolian inspired style of mounted skirmish Archery.
but i need a way to cram the horse into a dungeon.
her 25 point Array (what i am used to with Weekly William)
Strength 16
Dexterity 17
Constitution 12
Intelligence 14
Wisdom 14
Charisma 7
20 Point Array
Dexterity 16
Wisdom 12
15 Point Array
Wisdom 10
Intelligence 10
BESM...now that brings back memories. I once had a barboroi animal in that system pretty much incapable of doing anything meaningful, but also couldn't be killed by anything short of an atom bomb.
That system took min.maxing to the extreme.
Oh I see how it is... It's fine to ruin a my little pony adventure by attacking them all with zombies but not the other way around huh...
I defy your double standards hyppocrite!
See, to my mind, this brings up the question of where a trope or gimmick or idea belongs. Does it belong to the plot, or does it belong to the mechanic?
For instance, you could write up a low-level adventure where the monster (a ghoul) might be "destroyed" by a party, only to reappear the next night, and reappear every night until they find the amulet or cursed stone, or whatever, to which its existence is tied, and do away with it somehow.
Now, to me, that sounds like a nice little mystery-adventure. But to some players, it's bad/wrong because that's not how ghouls are described in the Bestiary. They have no cursed stones or amulets to which they are tied. There are some posters on these boards who complain about stuff like this, and want us to condemn their GMs for running adventures like these.
Maybe you are running into the same mindset. What does your "bending of the rules" serve? That's what I ask myself. So I am careful to render unto the mechanic what is the mechanic's, and to render unto the story what is the story's.
Problem is, somebody somewhere is going to always take issue with it.
I think the complaint here would be blindsiding. As a player I'd think this was a cool adventure, but other players would feel they were never informed that a cursed stone COULD make a ghoul, so how were THEY to know.
I just re-watched an episode of Supernatural last night. The protagonist did everything he knew to destroy a ghost, but then it came back. He took it to the next level and eventually the thing was handled. The point is: he'd had a bit of experience and knew the basics, so at least he knew HE wasn't to blame; this new wrinkle was something he couldn't have known about.
If you're planning an adventure with a mystery twist like this, give the players a chance to figure it out. If there were clues to the stone they missed, that's one thing; if instead they met the ghoul outside a village in an open field w/out ANY forewarning, killed it, then 3 nights after getting to the next town the one living girl from the village shows up, barricades herself into the inn with 100 ghouls on her tail and begins berating the PCs for their stupidity of letting the ghoul survive... the players are bound to be a little salty.
Except Pathfinder has those rules, you clearly don't like them BiggDawg, but they are there and high fantasy is exactly the sort of place an Awakened Pony Wizard belongs.Rules do not define what characters belong in a setting... Settings do. If my world is Candyland, then Pony Wizards are fine and dandy. If the world I'm running however is based on the Black Company Novels, than Pony Wizards don't belong whether the rules that you are using is Pathfinder, GURPS, or Big Eyes Small Mouth.
The thing is, some rule sets are extremely ill-suited to many settings. Sure, you can use James Bond 007 rules to play in a Greyhawk setting, but they're not meant for that, and the discrepancies are glaring -- those rules do not support that setting at all, and in fact actively work against it. Likewise, you can probably use Mutants & Masterminds rules and play in a no-superpowers Old West setting, but that game is going to suck, because the rules pretty much can't be used to model that setting.
Of course, the more you don't really care about or follow rules, and play mother-may-I story-hour, then the better each rules system seems to fit each setting.
Anzyr is very clearly a guy who cares about what the rules actually say, all the way down the line, in every book. So he correlates the Pathfinder rules with the type of setting they best support, and he ends up with a racial smorgasbord setting with super-powered magic and relatively feeble warriors, because that's exactly the setting that the PF rules strongly mechanically tend towards.
If the setting is of paramount importance to you, and the setting is best supported by using a different set of rules, then discussing how that setting forces you to limit the Pathfinder rules is exactly demonstrating pounding a round peg into a square hole. Limiting the players' options in order to better support the setting, in essence, is recruiting them to help shove the peg in harder, because it's not fitting as-is.
Again, that's just from a mechanical standpoint. From the standpoint of a social contract, if everyone wants "no ponies," then the game has no ponies -- regardless of how well the rules support them. Because the majority doesn't always make the most efficient decisions, but it does provide a means of gauging how well the group as a whole is able to tolerate those decisions.
Kirth, I'm not quibbling, but you are the one who worked up a swords and sorcery version of Victory Games 007, right? Of course, if you're going to use RAW to define setting, homebrewing is how the world ends.
Kirth, I'm not quibbling, but you are the one who worked up a swords and sorcery version of Victory Games 007, right?
I did! And found it didn't work, so I added in a bunch of 2e D&D stuff, and eventually ended up with a hybrid that supported James Bond in Greyhawk very well (but was still a poor system for dungeon crawling).
Of course, if you're going to use RAW to define setting, homebrewing is how the world ends.
Which is why I now play a homebrew version of Pathfinder, because the straight-up PF rules didn't really support the settings and games that houstonderek and I really wanted to play. For most of the settings people are referencing -- Black Company, Game of Thrones, etc. -- there are game systems already out there that are geared specifically to support those settings, and which, by most reports, seem to do an excellent job of it.
Game rules are not one-size-fits-all, unless of course you ignore them anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given how much I house rule and homebrew, I'm not sure game systems are one-size-fits-one. :P
If the setting is of paramount importance to you, and the setting is best supported by using a different set of rules, then discussing how that setting forces you to limit the Pathfinder rules is exactly demonstrating pounding a round peg into a square hole. Limiting the players' options in order to better support the setting, in essence, is recruiting them to help shove the peg in harder, because it's not fitting as-is.
What I think this analysis is missing is that RPGs like PF have elements within them, built according to the rules, that are extremely modular - specific races, creatures, character classes, weapons, armor types, spells, magic items, traps, and more. In most cases, when a specific setting is being adhered to these are the game elements being affected by limitations and as such don't really change the shape of the peg going into the hole. Removing the awaken spell, removing vorpal weapons, removing catfolk and kender, removing polearms, removing mithril armors, or removing good dragons are not similar to using Mutants and Masterminds for a Shootout at the OK Corral or Unforgiven-style western game (though I might be persuaded that M&M might be an OK engine for a Wild, WIld West game since most of the fighting was via fisticuffs and James West bounces back from them very easily).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(and I'm back 'cause it seems this thread is now about discussion again :D)
Given how much I house rule and homebrew, I'm not sure game systems are one-size-fits-one. :P
I have to agree here. I haven't met a system yet that I enjoy more as written as I do after at least tweaking it a bit.
Someone is bound to say to me "you've picked the wrong system", but thing is... I can't find the *right* system. Maybe I'm just too much of a perfectionist there.
Nothing I've found yet works exactly the way I want it to, and even when I think I've found the perfect system it ends up not working out how I hoped. Therefore I end up using the best fit I can find, and fixing the rest myself.
Another issue here is that people can't necessarily afford to go get a new system every time they want to switch genres. Sometimes you have a desire to play genre X as a one-shot, but only have books that cover Y and Z, and you just end up making the rest up yourself.
Or perhaps you've already got 90% of the things you need covered in books for a particular system, but you want your game to deviate from the standard setting somewhat. For example, if you want a Song of Ice and Fire game with lots of magic. It does exist in the setting, but isn't a big part of the story and is so obscure in the setting itself that it doesn't really get covered in the official RPG.
Finally, sometimes you just know system X inside-out, and don't see the point in learning something else just for one evening or to try out a setting you're not sure you want to stick with. Some people thrive on switching rulesets to change things up a bit. Others would prefer to stick to one ruleset and just change settings for variety.
Thing is though, I'm one of those "meh, rules are incidental anyway" type of people. I have a game world to play in and I'll use the rules like I would a toolkit, taking out the specific tools I need at the times I need them, and ignoring the fact there's a bunch of other stuff in there too until I need those (Zombies might be in the Bestiary, but that doesn't make them exist in my setting, same goes for every individual spell, resurrection, and magic items). I don't pick up a Pathfinder rulebook and say "lets play Pathfinder". I pick up a Golarion sourcebook and say "lets play a game set in Varisia, where [insert storyline here] has just happened." and my choice of Pathfinder rules is due to the fact I have so much of Golarion statted up over various books, ready to use, and pre-written adventure paths set there.
Given random setting X, chances are I'll be using d20 rules simply because I have such an extensive d20 library (and I count amongst that various d20 spinoffs such as Babylon 5, Spycraft, Judge Dredd, etc). Any other systems I have (with the exception of BECMI D&D, TSR's Marvel Super Heroes, WFRP 2e, CoC and D&D 4e) I just tend to own a core rulebook and perhaps a supplement or two (and for many that's all that exists anyway.) (Oh, yeah, I'm also aware just how weird that sounds to want a pile of rulebooks for someone that says "meh, rules are incidental.", what I mean is _choice_ of rules is incidental for me, I'll go with anything I can find, but whatever I choose better have a hefty pile of books ;) )
Far more likely though, what I'll be doing is taking bits and pieces I've picked up from various systems over the years in order to make things work how I want to.
Want to know what I feel my perfect system would look like?
d20, with skills from BRP and a complete overhaul of the hit point system to de-abstract it and allow for hit locations and injuries (and yes, I'm well aware exactly how difficult changing hit points will be), probably with a set of usable super powers addon rules.
So if you've actually seen that anywhere, please let me know :D (otherwise, it's one of my own next big projects!)
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh I see how it is... It's fine to ruin a my little pony adventure by attacking them all with zombies but not the other way around huh...
I defy your double standards hyppocrite!
If as a group we all sat down and said "We are playing in a my Little Pony setting full of sunshine and friendship" and I brought a zombie invasion in...that would be a bit jarring.
If I said we are going to play Ravenloft and you wanted to play a sparkling pony of friendship, that would be a bit jarring.
Jarring can be fun. It can also get really old really quick, particularly since the people who like the shocking snowflake builds tend toward being attention wh...er....um...seekers.
Know your audience is important. Don't put the wished of one player above the happiness of the whole group is even more important.
Because if that one player can't just play something else and have fun, that is the person who lacks creativity and experience.
|
|
Anzyr is very clearly a guy who cares about what the rules actually say, all the way down the line, in every book.
Uh....Anzyr is very clearly a guy who cares about what he thinks the rules say and who is ironically not interested in having rules that define a setting.
In order to make a ruleset with broad appeal, you creates as many options as possible within the framework. People like options.
But not all options are compatible, in the same way that Peanut Butter and Jelly is awesome. Grilled Ham and Cheese is awesome, Hot Dogs with Bratwurst are awesome, but there are many combinations of these items...not so awesome.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In order to make a ruleset with broad appeal, you creates as many options as possible within the framework. People like options.
Absolutely! A good ruleset should be able to handle whatever a GM wants to throw at it (even things outside the genre, should they decide to drag them in) without breaking because it can't handle something, while a good story can easily be ruined by dragging in things that don't fit.
Interesting and weird points. Not that I agree with everything said, mind.
Also, Matt, just make your own system.
Absolutely! A good ruleset should be able to handle whatever a GM wants to throw at it (even things outside the genre, should they decide to drag them in) without breaking because it can't handle something.
That brings us back to GURPS then, because by your definition, it's a far, far "better" ruleset than Pathfinder, because it can handle different genres much better than PF does.
But sometimes I think the opposite definition is the case: a good ruleset is one that does the genre and theme you're interested in extremely well, at the expense of not being able to do other stuff.
I keep mentioning Victory Games 007 rules because they're my all-time favorite in that regard. They can't really do anything except games that play like the old Bond movies. That's it. But they support those sorts of games so perfectly that it's hard to use them and NOT end up with the right "feel."
Also, Matt, just make your own system.
I have considered it a few times. Usually I run into the problem that I have far too much out-of-game writing to do to sit down and write an entire rulebook in my spare time too :) I want to spend as much as possible of that time playing rather than working :D
And yeah, I could do it under my own 3PP label, but an entire rulebook is a big project not to be getting a paycheck for and being reliant on others actually wanting to buy it ;) As it's been about four years since I wrote anything professionally it's not easy for me to walk up to a publisher and throw a 320 page proposal at them, alas :(
That, and I've already run into the issue of feeling the campaign setting I'm working on really needs its own rulebook, and how far that will set me back in doing the writing I really want to do (the setting) and having to get bogged down in system mechanics first. Meh :)
d20 does about 80% of the things I want, the way I want them done... so it seems easier to graft the bits I want onto that than reinvent the wheel when all I really need to reinvent is the doors on the car ;) The important part for me is the skill part (as I feel a more complex skill system encourages people to look beyond combat solutions to every problem), and at the end of the day I'm willing to live with abstract hit points as that's more a personal preference thing for me (and would probably put lots of d20 players off buying the thing.)
I may just put the skill thing aside as an optional supplement, too. At the end of the day (as this thread proves) people prefer to have options than be told "this is how thou shalt play." Then anyone that wants to do straight dungeon crawls in my setting can happily do so without feeling I'm forcing them to RP ;)
That brings us back to GURPS then, because by your definition, it's a far, far "better" ruleset than Pathfinder, because it can handle different genres much better than PF does.
I really do need to take a proper look at GURPS some time. I've not done much other than gloss over the core 4e rules.
|
This of course goes both ways. Live action John McLean is ridiculous in colorful animated ponyville.
John McLhooves, hard boiled street clomping Manehattan police pony on the other hand fits right in.
You realise, you just created an unstoppable meme, don't you?
I expect it to be all over deviantArt by tomorrow.
Mrs Snorter replaced an outgoing admin of a Bladerunner group there, and her first act was to delete the Roy Batty and Deckard ponies.
I didn't see them all, but it wouldn't surprise me if some of them were pictured romantically enjoined.
Brrrrrrrr.
This of course goes both ways. Live action John McLean is ridiculous in colorful animated ponyville.
John McLhooves, hard boiled street clomping Manehattan police pony on the other hand fits right in.
You realise, you just created an unstoppable meme, don't you?
I expect it to be all over deviantArt by tomorrow.
Mrs Snorter replaced an outgoing admin of a Bladerunner group there, and her first act was to delete the Roy Batty and Deckard ponies.
I didn't see them all, but it wouldn't surprise me if some of them were pictured romantically enjoined.
Brrrrrrrr.
mrs freehold is a bladerunner fan too. Did mrs snorter like the american dadseason premiere?
Deleting the ponies seems a bit mean, but I guess one could go to the artists pages if they so wish.
Would love to see pony mlp die hard.
I almost said clop hard, but that would be...different....
At the price of being so generic, that the system feels absolutely the same whether you are doing fantasy, supers, or mundane. Generic systems bring a neccessary coarseness to the ruleset.That brings us back to GURPS then, because by your definition, it's a far, far "better" ruleset than Pathfinder, because it can handle different genres much better than PF does.
Which is exactly what I went on to explain, if you read the rest of the post.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At the price of being so generic, that the system feels absolutely the same whether you are doing fantasy, supers, or mundane. Generic systems bring a neccessary coarseness to the ruleset.That brings us back to GURPS then, because by your definition, it's a far, far "better" ruleset than Pathfinder, because it can handle different genres much better than PF does.
Which is the problem. When everything is special, nothing is special.
Which, again, is why you often want a system that is meant to support a specific setting/feel, not a more generic one. Pathfinder is a system that very specifically supports a high-fantasy setting -- ones with wizards and dragons... and talking ponies, for that matter. It's a lot less useful when shoehorned into service for low-fantasy settings.
So, when we all discuss "Pathfinder," Anzyr is discussing high-fantasy settings, not Joe Schlepp's Perfect Low-Fantasy World in which spells only go up to 3rd level and kitsune and awakened animals can't exist. His comments have no relevance to those settings, and, likewise, those settings have no relevance to his comments. With this in mind, hopefully we can all agree on terms and stop talking past each other.
|
|
mrs freehold is a bladerunner fan too. Did mrs snorter like the american dadseason premiere?
We don't watch American Dad, mainly because I don't watch much TV, and Mrs Snorter is watching Scandinavian Murder Hour.
THIS is the Bladerunner group, if she's interested.
And I think this sums up the stance on ponies in other genres.
mrs freehold is a bladerunner fan too. Did mrs snorter like the american dadseason premiere?We don't watch American Dad, mainly because I don't watch much TV, and Mrs Snorter is watching Scandinavian Murder Hour.
I think this sums up the stance on ponies in other genres.
re: link-its too late. We're EVERYWHERE.
Also, you may get a laugh out of American dad season premiere.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which, again, is why you often want a system that is meant to support a specific setting/feel, not a more generic one. Pathfinder is a system that very specifically supports a high-fantasy setting -- ones with wizards and dragons... and talking ponies, for that matter. It's a lot less useful when shoehorned into service for low-fantasy settings.
So, when we all discuss "Pathfinder," Anzyr is discussing high-fantasy settings, not Joe Schlepp's Perfect Low-Fantasy World in which spells only go up to 3rd level and kitsune and awakened animals can't exist. His comments have no relevance to those settings, and, likewise, those settings have no relevance to his comments. With this in mind, hopefully we can all agree on terms and stop talking past each other.
But then you have a very narrow setting for a very narrow audience/market.
The only reason this would be a goal is to prevent people like Anzyr from causing problems when they feel entitled to sit down at every table and get exactly what they want rather than seeing what is offered and adapting.
Pathfinder rule set is a grocery store, and the table you sit at is the restaurant. You don't get to be indignant if you walk into a steakhouse and order sushi, but you can get ingredients for both from the same grocery store.
And the solution isn't to get rid of grocery stores because they aren't specialty shops.
OK, but Pathfinder is a grocery store that has maybe one jar of mayo. The rest of the shelves are stocked with sushi rice, and a hundred kinds of fish, and smoked eels, and tofu paste, and avocados and cucumbers, and maybe some slivers of Kobe beef. Sure, you can use it to supply your steak house AND your sushi restaurant, but anyone in the former who orders a baked potato will be told "Sorry, can't get potatoes at this time," and when you don't include any fish on the steakhouse menu, at some point you start wondering if maybe you should either switch grocery stores or switch restaurants.
In contrast, GURPS is like a giant supermarket. They've got every generic ingrient imaginable, but you're not going to get 100% Certified grass-fed Angus filet mignon with exactly the right degree of marbling, butchered and flown in from Nebraska that morning; you'll get whatever steaks they happen to have.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've said this before (elsewhere on these forums), but concerning all of this "square peg/round hole" business; it's all about the expectations and preconceptions that are brought to the table by those involved.
I mean sure, there are some one-trick pony systems that do one type of game better than another, but I have been gaming for a little over 30 years, and in that time I have played a myriad of game systems, and I have found that time and again D&D (pick an edition, including Pathfinder) can be used to play any type of game or genre you can imagine without hassle or problem...