|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've never been a fan, on either side of the player/GM divide, of 'one set of rules for thee, another set for me.' It seems... un-American. :)
I think we need to distinguish between 'rules' and 'options'.
I definitely believe both should be working under the same set of rules. And that the rules should cover both what the PCs are capable of, and what NPCs/monsters are capable of, in the same terminology.
AD&D and B/X frustrated me when the monsters statblocks gave different information from what was on PC and NPC character sheets.
Almost from day one, players got the idea to do things more complex than 'roll to hit with sword', and I as GM was expected to roll with this and rule on the outcome.
Bad enough that there were no rules for much of this, but I coped, using what I thought were neat tricks like 'roll d20+your relevant stat, he rolls d20+his relevant stat, whoever rolls most wins'. And these kind of on-the-fly rulings covered us for a while.
But then someone would try to do the same thing, not to an NPC, but to a monster, and it would fall to bits. What's the Dex of an Orc? What's the Wis of a ghoul? These aren't even wierd monsters, with stats out of mortal comprehension, they are almost human, shouldn't their stats be described in human terms?
It bugged me that the game would be stopped by debates over whether the creature had a 10 or 11, because I knew if I relented and said 'Go on, it's 10' the next guy would miss his roll by one, and we'd be going round again with 'It should really be 9'.
I became aware of Runequest, then Call of Cthulhu, and it was refreshing to see that all the creatures were described in terms that were directly comparable to humans. You could see at a glance, how they compared to the human averages, and play could speed through those odd tactics that players love to try. "Yes, you can lift the Deep One over the railings of the boat (Str vs SIZ)." "Yes, you can see if you or the ghoul gets the last parachute (Dex vs Dex)."
Being able to adjudicate contests between human investigators, Deep Ones and ghouls didn't mean the players had access to Deep One or ghoul characters, but it made the game seem fair, and flow faster, than having to fight against (IMO) the incomplete stats of AD&D.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't let my players play any alignment they desire. It is not from a lack of imagination, I can imagine an evil game. I know how to run a working evil game. I just have zero interest in DMing one, or evil PCs for that matter. I like seeing good triumphing over evil. I deal with icky crud every day of the week, being a social worker, and I don't need to experience it in my fantasy roleplaying.
I am pretty up front about this, I have a friend who is only about evil roleplaying games and we learned our gaming doesn't mesh; so we don't play table top roleplaying games together.
We instead BS about table top gaming and go play pool instead.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
While I think the first paragraph is a bit too snarky for my tastes and doesn't appreciate the flexibility that PF has, the second paragraph has me thinking. GURPS is rather like an extremely broadly stocked supermarket where most of the food is generic/store brand.
Pathfinder is more like a specialty grocery like Asian Midway Foods where you can get anything you need for any kind of Chinese, Korean, or Japanese cooking (it still has a lot of variety) but you'll never be able to support French or Mexican cuisine with it.
Pathfinder is more like a specialty grocery like Asian Midway Foods where you can get anything you need for any kind of Chinese, Korean, or Japanese cooking (it still has a lot of variety) but you'll never be able to support French or Mexican cuisine with it.
Can we make Pathfinder the Mexican store? I prefer Mexican...
|
|
Yep, restriction and expansion are how you make a setting.
Example.
Fantasy
Non-Tolkien.
Similar to the hundred years war, pesky humans kingdoms fighting.
You are villagers, but coming of age.
Suddenly invasion of the mole people!Lot of restrictions, now we know where we are.
To Mole Town and Beyond!
|
|
Oh, and Clint Eastwood started in two films with his biggest co-star being an orangutan.
If only he were also a wizard...
The goal of making all games into cannonball run = fail goal.
Not a wizard; but Use Magic Device goes a long way.
Whatever the system, I know that the best players are the imaginative and creatives ones. Real world charisma and the ability to communicate go a long way to persuading a dm to go with it.
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.
I'm stunned you're the first person to comment on that part of my point.
I thought for sure John McLhooves would have gained more traction by now.
- Torger
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Pathfinder is a grocery store that caters to Medieval Fantasy Setting. Sure, it has a few international rows, but most of the shoppers understand throwing some of the exotic ingredients from those aisles into the mix could cause the meal to suck if it isn't the right recipe.
Awakened Pony Wizards aren't baked potatoes. They are more akin to Lutefish. Sure, they are in the store, yes they go well in some recipes and some people love them. But others think they are just horrible rotten fish, and it makes them nauseous to have it on the table.
Lutefish and Awakened Pony Wizards exist in well stocked stores/rulesets that cater to a large audience.
That doesn't mean they are welcome at every table, nor should it be a goal to have every item welcome at every table.
Having things available to a niche market is a feature not a flaw, except when people feel entitled to the chef preparing everything in the store at any given meal.
Your 007 gaame is a specialty shop.
Pathfinder is a good grocery store.
Gurps is, IMHO, a dollar store of meh.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder is a grocery store that caters to Medieval Fantasy Setting.
And this is why you're going to keep banging heads with Anzyr.
Because Anzyr, however much his attitude may grate, is basing his evaluation of what fits in Pathfinder, by what genre of gaming the Pathfinder rules support, which is based on what the rules actually say.Not on what genre he'd like them to support, if they said something completely different.
'Medieval Fantasy' is Ars Magica, Chivalry and Sorcery, Pendragon.
Games which seek to replicate the stories of Mallory, Tennyson, Sir Walter Scott.
Cadfael.
The Name of the Rose.
The Lion In Winter.
The Song of Roland.
The protagonists are mortal men, albeit of mighty thew, and the rare magical practitioners (usually of an evil hearted nature) are easily bested by honest steel.
Magic is a fickle tool, which cannot be trusted not to backfire on the user.
It is costly and time-consuming to use, and exerts a toll on the spiritual and physical health of the user.
Occasionally one of these cowardly mystics may accompany the real heroes, to provide advice and aid, if he should need it.
How is that served by Pathfinder?
"So, it's decided. I'm the Wizard, you're being the Cleric. We can lay down some sweet buffs and sick artillery between us. Should be able to steamroller every CR appropriate encounter we meet..."
"Yo guys, sorry I'm late."
"Yeah, we've made our characters. You're going to have to be the Fighter."
"Tchoh. What? Again? I never get to do the good stuff."
"Just be glad we didn't make you play the Rogue. That'll teach Bill not to miss the setup session."
"Poor Bill. Poor, poor Bill."
<all hang heads, in silent prayer for poor, poor Bill>
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
We butt heads with Anzyr because he's the guy who shows up to the dinner party with Lutefish and gets pissed off when the host says not to open it because it smells like rotten fish and says "I told you we were having italian"
"You can get Lutefish in italy" shouts Anzyr!
So... I have to admit; I got here late. I didn't read the entire thread. I don't understand about the grocery store, the lutefisk (up here in MN I'd be stoned if I didn't get it right) or most of the inside jokes going on. I do however know ONE thing from being a GM for a really long time: changing/bending rules is hard.
Its not a matter of imagination. I can imagine cats with swords made out of pure rainbows doing battle in a sea of pudding with the Great Phol-Nar (and I don't even KNOW what that is). But then crafting rules or bending existing ones to make all that PLAYABLE, in a GAME takes work.
Now its not impossible, nor is it never done in my games. However if I or the game's designers set these rules, they define EVERYONE; if the player sets them, they define only that player or their actions.
Something said up thread bears repeating: if a player changes things, this makes the game all about their change, but if the creators change things it becomes a part of the world.
I have had players who asked for unique PrCs, items, and abilities and I accommodated. Invariably these players were the ones who ended up being the ones who then wanted to steal the show, and frankly I can't blame them. If you're playing vanilla PF and a player works their butt off to swap out something and earn themselves a mutant power to command elementals like a variant channeling cleric despite the fact they have no cleric levels, then you better believe that player is going into EVERY room in the dungeon looking for an earth elemental and when they nab one they'll be flaunting their power and constantly commanding the thing. Wouldn't you?
So now, as a GM, I have a choice. Say "yes," help the player define this power, and then not only work in elementals for the player to command or run the risk of being a crap GM by not allowing the player to use their power; I also on a personal level have to factor in an extra elemental when considering CRs and such for future encounters.
Or I say no... and end up the object of ridicule in one of Ravingdork's threads.
If however I make up an interesting template that grants Fast Healing 10 with Weakness: Roses, then that just means the PCs have some new challenge to face. If I give them adequate warning and clues to its weakness, then all I've done is make up an interesting and memorable villain and no one's feelings are hurt.
And in the end, isn't that what this whole thread is about? Hurt Feelings?
RD, whatever I can do to minimize your pain, that's what we'll do. Lie down on the couch and tell me all about your GM...
I ♡ lutefisk then. But I'll go with mexican if everyone has a rage on for it. I will not throw bricks through the windows of the lutefisk store, however, and will not want to associate with those who do or advocate that as exemplary or even normal behavior.
Anzyr is arguing that every meal must used every item in the grocery store.
I think he's more arguing that, if the food supply store carries sesame seeds, you have to be allowed to order sesame seeds on your entree, even if the menu doesn't mention them and chef typically only uses black pepper and garlic. The guy next to you might like them, but it's your entree you're eating, and he's got his own.
I'd agree, but with the caveat that if the people you're eating with all can't stand the smell of sesame seeds, it's kind of a dick move to insist on ordering them.
This thread is making me hungry.
Anzyr is arguing that every meal must used every item in the grocery store.I think he's more arguing that, if the food supply store carries sesame seeds, you have to be allowed to order sesame seeds on your entree, even if the menu doesn't mention them and chef typically only uses black pepper and garlic. The guy next to you might like them, but it's your entree you're eating, and he's got his own.
I'd agree, but with the caveat that if the people you're eating with all can't stand the smell of sesame seeds, it's kind of a dick move to insist on ordering them.
Yeah, I see it more as you're ordering one big banquet-style meal together that'll be placed in the center of the table and one person at the table insists on the sesame seeds being added so everyone is going to have to eat them (and that any problems with that are their own fault for hating sesame seeds.)
Honestly, it really is down to individual groups. If a group sees it as a numbers game with miniatures then they're really not going to care what that miniature represents, only that it's killing its share of the bad guys. Groups wanting to tell a story are going to be far pickier.
If a group sees it as a numbers game with miniatures then they're really not going to care what that miniature represents, only that it's killing its share of the bad guys. Groups wanting to tell a story are going to be far pickier.
Please don't do this. Imputing motives to others isn't cool. Wrapping them up in a well-known fallacy while you're at it is even worse.
It's possible to run a very story-oriented, low-combat game and still accommodate player requests. I do, and I don't use miniatures, and in my home game combat accounts for maybe 25% or less of game play time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a group sees it as a numbers game with miniatures then they're really not going to care what that miniature represents, only that it's killing its share of the bad guys. Groups wanting to tell a story are going to be far pickier.Please don't do this. Imputing motives to others isn't cool. Wrapping them up in a well-known fallacy while you're at it is even worse.
It's possible to run a very story-oriented, low-combat game and still accommodate player requests. I do, and I don't use miniatures, and in my home game combat accounts for maybe 25% or less of game play time.
You're right, and I apologize for phrasing it in such black/white terms.
I'll redo it:
If they see it *only* as a numbers game (with or without miniatures) (and some people do, and don't care about the RP aspect at all), then they're not going to care what each character actually represents.
If they see it *only* as a storytelling game with the rules+dice being incidental, then they're going to be extremely picky over it.
If, like the majority of groups, they're somewhere in the middle, then it's going to come down to other factors such as whether the aim of the group was to have fun with a group of friends, whether it is random people drawn together for a common interest, etc.
The point is that some groups are going to care more or less than others about whether or not player X gets to play that awakened pony, and that there's no "right" and "wrong" that fits everyone.
If they see it *only* as a numbers game (with or without miniatures) (and some people do, and don't care about the RP aspect at all), then they're not going to care what each character actually represents.
If they see it *only* as a storytelling game with the rules+dice being incidental, then they're going to be extremely picky over it.
If, like the majority of groups, they're somewhere in the middle, then it's going to come down to other factors such as whether the aim of the group was to have fun with a group of friends, whether it is random people drawn together for a common interest, etc.
I think this restatement is very, very nicely put, and is probably quite accurate as well. It also ties in with what I said earlier about rules systems -- the less a particular group cares about rules, the more easily a given system can be used for other settings/genres without the discrepancy being noticeable/bothering anyone.
I think this restatement is very, very nicely put, and is probably quite accurate as well.
Ye gods. We can't have nicely put and accurate in the same statement, what if the politicians find out that it's possible?
"You can all go to hell, and I will go to Texas!"
--Davey Crockett, U.S. Senator
|
|
Wait, what was insulting about that analogy? I'm genuinely confused as to why my post was deleted.
All I said was that if you have a grocery store and you add a section that caters to specific tastes, that doesn't mean every customer can demand others eat any food sold in the store.
What was the problem?
Your reply quoted a deleted post.
|
|
Your reply quoted a deleted post.
Ok whew, I though saying ethnic food was suddenly insulting. Ethnic food is delicious.
To sum up the deleted post, as I think it is very relevent.
If I am a large grocery store, most of my store is going to cater to what the largest customer base wants.
But if I am smart, I will also include rows and aisles that cater to more narrow portions of my community. I won't stock as much, but I want the business if I have room on the shelf.
However it would be ridiculous for a customer to demand that because it is in the store, everyone must eat it.
Which is the argument being made.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is the argument being made.
No, it's not. What is being argued is that the person at the head of the table, who invited everyone to dinner, has the right to tell the person in Chair #2 that he can't order chicken, even though it's on the menu. Everyone else is still free to order steak or noodles or whatever, but they still have to watch that person eat chicken.
Taking it a step further, the host in chair #1 is sometimes claiming that he, and only he, is allowed to order chicken.
My counter-argument is that, if the smell of chicken makes the other diners ill, then one should get something else instead out of courtesy. Short of that, one person should hestitate before telling the other diners what or what not to order.
|
Christ people. Why are you trying to convince Anzyr of anything? If he/she feels the way he/she does about it, why not leave he/she to it. If you dont run your games the way he/she does then thats okay because you do whats best for your group. You essentially know not to invite Anzyr to your table unless you are running a kitchen sink type of game.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is the argument being made.No, it's not. What is being argued is that the person at the head of the table, who invited everyone to dinner, has the right to tell the person in Chair #2 that he can't order chicken, even though it's on the menu. Everyone else is still free to order steak or noodles or whatever, but they still have to watch that person eat chicken.
Taking it a step further, the host in chair #1 is sometimes claiming that he, and only he, is allowed to order chicken.
My counter-argument is that, if the smell of chicken makes the other diners ill, then one should get something else instead out of courtesy. Short of that, one person should hestitate before telling the other diners what or what not to order.
It isn't automatically on the menu just because it's available at the grocery store.
The rule book isn't a menu any more that a shopping list is a menu.
He has literally said that if you can't fit any concept that can be made by the rules into any game, you have failed as a GM.
That is what was said.
That isn't saying "I'm sorry you can't order chicken at this place that sells chicken". That is saying "If you can't get me Sushi while you at the store preparing for thanksgiving, you have failed."
While the fact that the player couldn't find anything to eat within the list of ingredients placed before them by your metaphorical host is a sign of what exactly?
Respectfully, because you've had to accommodate people to selfish to even make an effort to be part of a gaming group in order to find a game doesn't mean the rest of us need to, or that it should be praised.
If you are part of a gaming group, part of what that entails is you being a part of the group and creating concepts that fit into what the group is running, and to make it the most fun possible for everyone involved.
As a player and as a GM.
Anyone on either side who isn't setting that as the goal, is the problem.
I think the grocery store analogy is very nicely done, however I think the meal is more accurate to the point. To extend your meal analogy, it's not that each person is ordering their own dish when they make a group. They are making a soup and each person contributes their own ingredient (a character). Everyone eats from the same pot (playing the game together). If one person wants to add anchovies (which are an available choice) because they like them, everyone eats anchovies.
On the point of Pathfinder being high fantasy I have a question more than a comment. I have played tabletop DnD since the 80s. I love it as a game and I love medieval fantasy as a genre. DnD is unquestionably high fantasy with fireballs and raising the dead. I feel like there aught to be some descriptor for fantasy that includes awakened animals and talking energy bodies beyond 'high fantasy'. I just don't know what to call it. Tolkien (who I think most people would agree is a good standard for a fantasy setting) had a few talking animals in his work, but they weren't central characters. I think an awakened pony would have seemed out of place among the hobbits and dwarves. There are games that extremely exotic races belong it, but I think they should be the exception and not the rule.
Look, forget about the gorcery stores and restaurants, because not only is the analogy of Pathfinder as a "has everything in the universe" supermarket patently false, it dodges the issue.
"You can't play that character because it violates my setting purity!" is basically saying "You can't play that character because my imaginary ideas are more important than your imaginary ideas!" It's a bankrupt argument.
Instead, saying "please don't play that character, because Bill, Steve, and I are all asking you not to" is valid.
|
|
It doesn't dodge the issues. As I said above, because you can pull it out of your butt doesn't mean it gets to be in the game.
Anyone can create a lot of really horrible concepts with any rule set. And while you are correct that horrible is subjective, there are 4 or more other people at the table that get a say as well.
When I pick a GM, part of what I am picking them to do is to make the story work so I will enjoy myself. If they think an idea won't work, they know a hell of a lot more about what is going on than I do.
If I don't trust them, I don't pick them to GM. I have lots of friends who are really good players who I would never let run a game I was in because they create stupid, lazy, incoherent settings.
I have other things I can do with those 4 hours.
So if you show up with an awakened pony wizard and don't have the absolutely greatest explanation in the history of mankind as to why it will fit into what was discussed when we were deciding on the next campaign...player fail not GM fail.
Bill, Steve and I all picked John to run the game, not Rufus and his Magical Mystery Pony. So if John vetoes Rufus, we back John. The person we actually picked to be in charge.
Bill, Steve and I all picked John to run the game, not Rufus and his Magical Mystery Pony. So if John vetoes Rufus, we back John. The person we actually picked to be in charge.
Let's just say not everyone is that authoritarian, and needs to have someone "in charge" dictate their opinions for them. If I were John, I'd ask the rest of you what you really thought, not blindly expect you to be a bunch of yes-men to me. YMMV.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Look, forget about the gorcery stores and restaurants, because not only is the analogy of Pathfinder as a "has everything in the universe" supermarket patently false, it dodges the issue.
"You can't play that character because it violates my setting purity!" is basically saying "You can't play that character because my imaginary ideas are more important than your imaginary ideas!" It's a bankrupt argument.
Instead, saying "please don't play that character, because Bill, Steve, and I are all asking you not to" is valid.
It might sound better, but aren't you really saying the former? I'd prefer a honest discussion about it, telling the player why the idea is offensive or not desirable.
And yes, it might come down to something as petty (in some eyes) as "I don't like My Little Pony", or that the idea is taking one out of the experience or any number of less concrete but no less valid (at least to the speaker) reasons why they'd prefer not to have pony wizards or dinosaurs or ninjas or whatever idea it is.
Imaginary or not, people like their ideas. I've never really liked the dismissal of "It's only a game!" I've heard it a lot over the years, and sure, it's a game. People get passionate about those, probably because it's what we cling to and put a lot of effort, time, and love into. Best to be honest and get everything out in the open on both sides so that the problem doesn't fester.
PS: Not saying Kirth or anyone else is being dismissive, I'm saying that just because it is a game or imaginary doesn't make it any less real to the people involved.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bill, Steve and I all picked John to run the game, not Rufus and his Magical Mystery Pony. So if John vetoes Rufus, we back John. The person we actually picked to be in charge.Let's just say not everyone is that authoritarian, and needs to have someone "in charge" dictate their opinions for them. If I were John, I'd ask the rest of you what you really thought, not blindly expect you to be a bunch of yes-men to me. YMMV.
You don't have to be a yes-man to defer to someone else's campaign setting nor does the GM have to be on some kind of authoritarian bender. The answer might very well be "We trust you and want to see how your vision plays out... or we wouldn't have picked your game as the one we want play in now." Some variation on that reasoning is usually a default assumption when the players sign on to a GM's pitch in the first place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bill, Steve and I all picked John to run the game, not Rufus and his Magical Mystery Pony. So if John vetoes Rufus, we back John. The person we actually picked to be in charge.Let's just say not everyone is that authoritarian, and needs to have someone "in charge" dictate their opinions for them. If I were John, I'd ask the rest of you what you really thought, not blindly expect you to be a bunch of yes-men to me. YMMV.
I love how much the two of you argue when it's clear to any outside observer that you're both saying the same thing. If this was a romantic comedy, y'all would be a couple by the end of it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It may only be a game but my time is not a joke.
I like to spend my free time doing something I enjoy. My likes and dislikes are foundational to what I enjoy. Therefore what I like and dislike is important to the game because I spend my time on it. This is not being petty, our likes and dislikes are an important part of who we are.
Since this is a group endeavor we need to try to align our likes and dislikes so that everyone can have fun. Usually this works as we all agree on playing a game using the Pathfinder rules in an agreed upon setting. Everyone has the option to opt in or out of this social contract and to request certain aspects. The group agrees upon whatever arrangement of likes and dislikes works best for them and if a compatible arrangement can be agreed upon then the game proceeds. You have to accept that the group may impose restrictions on you so that the likes and dislikes of everyone can be made compatible. This is true for players and GMs.
Imagination and experience are not necessarily involved because this is not a question of how but why. Because we are all seeking to have fun peoples dislikes are generally going to hold more weight as a single dislike, if it is strong enough, can ruin that persons fun. Where a persons likes are a bit more flexible as people generally have multiple things they like so if they have to exclude something they like as long as there is something else they like they can still have fun.
The group should endeavor to include as many likes of its members while mitigating the presence of dislikes. Again this has nothing to do with immagination, it is arranging preferences so that everyone can enjoy themselves. This is done in order to create an environment where everyone present will find value or fun in spending their time in the group activity. This process will be different for every group as each group will have their own unique combination of likes and dislikes and no one arrangement will work for everyone. Sometimes this means that certain people have incompatible likes and dislikes and they may not be able to play together. Usually a middle ground can be reached but not always, and that is okay and it is not petty.
Not everyone has fun imagining the same things.
We butt heads with Anzyr because he's the guy who shows up to the dinner party with Lutefish and gets pissed off when the host says not to open it because it smells like rotten fish and says "I told you we were having italian"
"You can get Lutefish in italy" shouts Anzyr!
I'm going to pick back up the food metaphor since its the easiest way to make my point.
Pathfinder isn't a grocery store system, that'd be something like GURPS, HERO, or FATE where the ingredients to make many styles of food (campaigns) are present, but you have to actually put it all together yourself to make the food (campaign) you want.
Pathfinder is a restaurant that serves High Fantasy style food (campaigns). Now, if you and your friends say, "Hey let's go to Pathfinders." it seems rather strange that a group of fellow diners (players) would complain that you order the Surf and Turf (Some mix/mash character concept), when all they ordered was burgers and fries. You eating Surf and Turf shouldn't make them ask you to eat elsewhere, just because they enjoy Burgers and Fries. Both menu options are high fantasy style food (campaign) choices and you are eating at a high fantasy style restaurant.
You all agreed to come to Pathfinders after all which serves high fantasy style food (campaigns). If they only wanted everyone to order Burgers and Fries (for some odd reason), they should have gone to Ars McAgica down the street where Surf and Turf is not a menu option.
We butt heads with Anzyr because he's the guy who shows up to the dinner party with Lutefish and gets pissed off when the host says not to open it because it smells like rotten fish and says "I told you we were having italian"
"You can get Lutefish in italy" shouts Anzyr!
I'm going to pick back up the food metaphor since its the easiest way to make my point.
Pathfinder isn't a grocery store system, that'd be something like GURPS, HERO, or FATE where the ingredients to make many styles of food (campaigns) are present, but you have to actually put it all together yourself to make the food (campaign) you want.
Pathfinder is a restaurant that serves High Fantasy style food (campaigns). Now, if you and your friends say, "Hey let's go to Pathfinders." it seems rather strange that a group of fellow diners (players) would complain that you order the Surf and Turf (Some mix/mash character concept), when all they ordered was burgers and fries. You eating Surf and Turf shouldn't make them ask you to eat elsewhere, just because they enjoy Burgers and Fries. Both menu options are high fantasy style food (campaign) choices and you are eating at a high fantasy style restaurant.
You all agreed to come to Pathfinders after all which serves high fantasy style food (campaigns). If they only wanted everyone to order Burgers and Fries (for some odd reason), they should have gone to Ars McAgica down the street.
No Anzyr, you're the guy going to a Sushi place and demanding why he doesn't serve Hamburger even though he buys his supplies from the same guy who services Johnny Rockets.
No, I'm the guy who thinks that the people who are upset that Steve ordered the Surf and Turf at Pathfinders shouldn't have come to Pathfinders if someone eating Surf and Turf prevents them from eating (playing). Unless you care to elaborate on why that is not the case?
No, I'm the guy whose confused why people are upset that Stever ordered the Surf and Turf at Pathfinders. Unless you care to elaborate on why that is not the case?We butt heads with Anzyr because he's the guy who shows up to the dinner party with Lutefish and gets pissed off when the host says not to open it because it smells like rotten fish and says "I told you we were having italian"
"You can get Lutefish in italy" shouts Anzyr!
I'm going to pick back up the food metaphor since its the easiest way to make my point.
Pathfinder isn't a grocery store system, that'd be something like GURPS, HERO, or FATE where the ingredients to make many styles of food (campaigns) are present, but you have to actually put it all together yourself to make the food (campaign) you want.
Pathfinder is a restaurant that serves High Fantasy style food (campaigns). Now, if you and your friends say, "Hey let's go to Pathfinders." it seems rather strange that a group of fellow diners (players) would complain that you order the Surf and Turf (Some mix/mash character concept), when all they ordered was burgers and fries. You eating Surf and Turf shouldn't make them ask you to eat elsewhere, just because they enjoy Burgers and Fries. Both menu options are high fantasy style food (campaign) choices and you are eating at a high fantasy style restaurant.
You all agreed to come to Pathfinders after all which serves high fantasy style food (campaigns). If they only wanted everyone to order Burgers and Fries (for some odd reason), they should have gone to Ars McAgica down the street.
No Anzyr, you're the guy going to a Sushi place and demanding why he doesn't serve Hamburger even though he buys his supplies from the same guy who services Johnny Rockets.
Because not everyone likes Surf and Turf and this isn't individual entrees it is gumbo that everyone has to eat. That is why when going out to eat gumbo you need to make sure everyone likes the same things in the gumbo.
No one is making anyone else eat (play) the Surf and Turf (mix and match character concept), they just have to watch you eat (play) it and getting offended over that is the definition of petty (to say the least), since they knew it was a menu item at Pathfinders before they agreed to go there.
No one is making anyone else eat (play) the Surf and Turf (mix and match character concept), they just have to watch you eat (play) it and getting offended over that is the definition of petty (to say the least), since they knew it was a menu item at Pathfinders before they agreed to go there.
That's where we come down to group variance again.
The way some people play, they want a shared experience, rather than each person having their own experience, and I think that's the gap between your game and mine. Your group are ordering six individual plates, mine is ordering a big pot of something to be shared out.
The other thing is, you went to the big branch of Pathfinders. My group didn't, we went to a smaller one with a more limited menu to avoid having to eat things not on the menu at the larger branch. Maybe, for example, we are vegetarians :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Na. This is not about a restaurant. The argument (lack of imagination and creativity) is more akin to everyone bringing something for a pot luck dinner, the individual ingredients that when mixed together are dinner for everyone.
The charge here is the chef (The GM) is less of a chef because he cannot or will not bring in clashing ingredients that will bring down the overall dish.
Chopped on the Food Network is an interesting show and illustrates that you can toss all sorts of things together and get something resembling a dish .. just not all of them are as successful or delicious as they might be if you didn't include certain items. Sometimes, there is brilliance, but that is less the ability of the chef but rather sheer dumb luck in many cases.
The problem is less the chef or the individual ingredients, but picking the right chef for the meal, the the right ingredients for the table.
|
|
Bill, Steve and I all picked John to run the game, not Rufus and his Magical Mystery Pony. So if John vetoes Rufus, we back John. The person we actually picked to be in charge.Let's just say not everyone is that authoritarian, and needs to have someone "in charge" dictate their opinions for them. If I were John, I'd ask the rest of you what you really thought, not blindly expect you to be a bunch of yes-men to me. YMMV.
And we would all say "Dude...why can't you just not be that guy."
All of us.
And then we would ask the GM what they think and if there are changes they might suggest that might make it better.
Because none of us assume we know everything or our ideas can't be improved.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love how much the two of you argue when it's clear to any outside observer that you're both saying the same thing. If this was a romantic comedy, y'all would be a couple by the end of it.Bill, Steve and I all picked John to run the game, not Rufus and his Magical Mystery Pony. So if John vetoes Rufus, we back John. The person we actually picked to be in charge.Let's just say not everyone is that authoritarian, and needs to have someone "in charge" dictate their opinions for them. If I were John, I'd ask the rest of you what you really thought, not blindly expect you to be a bunch of yes-men to me. YMMV.
I call big spoon.