| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I question how much fun you would have in a game with giant flying talking dinosaurs as a major element if a talking non-flying dinosaur as a fellow adventurer would be such a serious concern for you. Have you considered trying a different system that caters to a less fantasy oriented game?
Heh. No need to worry, really, I'm more than happy with my serious fantasy-oriented game. On the other hand, I've got more than enough alternatives such as Bunnies and Burrows or Toon for those occasional talking animal one-shots ;)
All of you talking about verisimilitude... You do realize dragons are giant flying dinosaurs that can talk right. Your issue with a non-flying talking dinosaur comes off as patently absurd. (Seriously wings = ok, no wings = silly?)
Kthulu: My players are mature enough and I'm an experienced/imaginative enough GM that Steve playing an awakened megaraptor does not impact Joe's Wizard, or Bob's Paladin fun. After all, there's nothing stopping an awakened megaraptor from being taken as seriously as a catfolk, or an elf, or a dwarf, cause its... ya know... a fantasy game and all of those things are equally fantastic.
Honestly, these people you play with that can't have fun if Bob is playing an awakened pony wizard seem to me to have a very narrow definition of fantasy and a definition that certainly not in line with the basic expectations of Pathfinder.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, these people you play with that can't have fun if Bob is playing an awakened pony wizard seem to me to have a very narrow definition of fantasy and a definition that certainly not in line with the basic expectations of Pathfinder.
You can't imagine a scenario where people didn't want to include every possibility within a single game? That suggests a lack of experience to me.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Game of Thrones has dragons, undead, etc...It doesn't have awakened pony wizards.
If Winds of Winter opens with an awakened pony wizard, many if not most of us would thing "Well, R.R. Martin lost it...." and abandon the series.
If Tolkien had made Bilbo an awakened megaraptor, I doubt it would have been as popular. I certainly would have no interest it.
Just because you can imagine it doesn't mean other people think it is interesting or fun. I'm glad your group doesn't care about such things, as that means there are 4 people gaming with you and not with us.
So thanks!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Yeah, players could go that way. A skilled and dramatic dm could say to the complaining players: "you are in a horror game now with a seemingly unkillable monster. This book, this bestiary, *picks up book* it doesn't matter anymore. *Tosses book away, hopefully he owns it*. You are in the s!$% with an undying ghoul that loves to swim in filth, and the whole town is going to get eaten if your characters rely on what they know of ghouls. Sink or swim chaps. Welcome to the danger zone."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can't imagine a scenario where people didn't want to include every possibility within a single game? That suggests a lack of experience to me.Honestly, these people you play with that can't have fun if Bob is playing an awakened pony wizard seem to me to have a very narrow definition of fantasy and a definition that certainly not in line with the basic expectations of Pathfinder.
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.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
But at the table of an experienced/imaginative GM, yes every concept absolutely works and will fit into every game run by an imaginative and creative GM.
Actually, it does not. Not exactly.
Some concepts will not fit some games I will run.
This still does not stop me from ensuring the player who proposed the concept will still have his fun.
The way I do it is that I ask him what is important for him in this build and how he will find his fun playing it. In short what his (the player's) goals are with this character. Then I work with him on finding another concept that will better fit in my game while still allowing the player to reach his goals of fun.
After all, a character/concept is only a means to an end. If the same end can be reached with a different means, all is well.
Allowing any concept a player presents, just because, is NOT being imaginative. It is choosing the easy way. Now, building with the player a workable concept that fits both his expectations and your game, that is art.
Crazy absurd characters only work when everyone at the table is okay with including a crazy absurd character in the campaign.
Mind you, one can bend the rules somewhat to meet a concept that is still perfectly sensible (in the context of the fantasy world) and not at all crazy or absurd.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I for one don't really like watching silly movies. I very rarely find them entertaining. Mostly I find them stupid.
Remove Twilight Sparkle from the movie and it's back to being the sweet action movie we all know and love.
Wait -- you're honestly claiming, with a straight face, that Die Hard is NOT ridiculous?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait -- you're honestly claiming, with a straight face, that Die Hard is NOT ridiculous?
Can you name a better Christmas film?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All of you talking about verisimilitude... You do realize dragons are giant flying dinosaurs that can talk right. Your issue with a non-flying talking dinosaur comes off as patently absurd. (Seriously wings = ok, no wings = silly?)
Kthulu: My players are mature enough and I'm an experienced/imaginative enough GM that Steve playing an awakened megaraptor does not impact Joe's Wizard, or Bob's Paladin fun. After all, there's nothing stopping an awakened megaraptor from being taken as seriously as a catfolk, or an elf, or a dwarf, cause its... ya know... a fantasy game and all of those things are equally fantastic.
Honestly, these people you play with that can't have fun if Bob is playing an awakened pony wizard seem to me to have a very narrow definition of fantasy and a definition that certainly not in line with the basic expectations of Pathfinder.
Wow. Can't avoid trolling the badwrongfun accusations, can you?
The simple truth of all of this is that people enjoy different things and playing toward the things they enjoy isn't a sign of immaturity nor lack of imagination or experience.
As far as the issue of verisimilitude and dragons, just because there are some fantasy elements in a Pathfinder campaign doesn't mean it's open season for all possible fantasy elements. That simply does not logically follow. With a toolkit game like D&D and Pathfinder, there are usually far more options than any single game or setting will use and thus each game or setting is partly defined by what it excludes as well as what it includes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait -- you're honestly claiming, with a straight face, that Die Hard is NOT ridiculous?
Remove Twilight Sparkle from the movie and it's back to being the sweet action movie we all know and love.
Being ridiculous doesn't preclude Die Hard from being the sweet action film we all know and love. In fact, all action films have a certain amount of ridiculousness to them. But, in this case, it's Bruce Willis action film ridiculousness rather than My Little Pony ridiculousness.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To the op, as far as the double standard.
A dm creates a cheeze npc and 99 times outta 100, its for 1 encounter because they players usually will beat it.
A player with a cheese character plays it in EVERY encounter.
Usually they don't bat an eye at devs or dms for this, because its usually for 1 encounter whereas the player gets hate because their cheese character is for EVERY encounter.
So its not really a double standard because u have to take in the amount of time the cheese is going on. For a dm/dev created cheese moment, its usually very short. For a player created cheese moment will last the entire campaign.
No one is saying *all* fantasy elements, just the ones your PCs want to play. Furthermore, how is a awakened pony wizard any more or less serious than Die Hard? You can make it less serious (somehow) sure, but... you can also make it more serious than Die Hard.
Alright so question for people:
Can you honestly tell me that an experienced/imaginative enough author *couldn't* make an awakened pony wizard work in Game of Thrones?
Because I'm really pretty sure an experienced/imaginative enough one could.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But, in this case, it's Bruce Willis action film ridiculousness rather than My Little Pony ridiculousness.
Well, let's follow that line of reasoning, then. Pathfinder does some things really well, and others not so well, and others quite poorly. It does high fantasy really well. It does low fantasy not so well, because magic permeates the system rules from top to bottom, with skills mostly a poorly-developed tacked-on afterthought, and the entire challenge rating system predicated specifically on the assumption that the PCs are loaded down like Christmas trees with magic items. It does Lovecraftian horror quite poorly, because although it includes the critters, it lacks the loss of sanity and inevitable doom for the protagonists.
What Pathfinder does really well is the type of scenario that Anzyr is describing. Using it for other stuff is exactly like making Die Hard into a cartoon -- it can work, but not the same way, and arguably not as well. If we're trying to avoid pounding square pegs into round holes, "use a different system" is equally as reasonable a suggestion as "play a more standard race."
That said, Pathfinder is still a group activity, and that implies a level of consent with group decisions, regardless of whether they're illogical or inefficient. As the odd man out, you can make your case, but if the other four people still want to play humans-only Pathfinder Modern spies (even though you have Top Secret and James Bond 007 and Spycraft all sitting on the shelf, unused), then that's what game is being played. Suck it up and deal with the fact that group activities require some level of group cooperation!
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is the responsibility to make it work not on the player?
Why does everyone else have to accommodate the player with the odd concept?
Why isn't the player experienced/imaginative enough to make a concept that works?
You seem to be saying if a player shows up with an awakened pony wizard, they have completed their job and now it is everyone else's job to figure out how that is going to work.
That is both selfish and ridiculous.
You seem to be saying...
Who is "you"? And is it singular or plural? You haven't named anyone, and your post isn't shown as a reply to anyone in specific. Is this "you" Anzyr? Or me? Both of us? Everyone in the thread except yourself?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let us use Die Hard as an example.
Die Hard requires a high level of suspension of disbelief. But even within that there is an understanding that the Die Hard universe follows at least somewhat the understood universe.
If Bruce Willis were replaced with, say, an awakened pony wizard...not sure it would have done as well.
Similarly if you have all sat down and agreed to play in a world or setting with understood rules, and you show up with something that doesn't fit, and you can't find a way to convince others you can make it fit...
The failure does not lie with the audience. You are proposing an idea to the group, in the same way the GM proposes a setting, concept, campaign to the group.
If you can't convince your friends the concept can work, that is your failure, not theirs.
Got to say, I am liking the continued use of the awakened pony wizard.
I don't think Anzyr is going to be convinced of anything at this point. Maybe it's time to let it go?
Ciretose, see my post about Die Hard being a cartoon. I think that's the disconnect. Pathfinder as a system is like a Warner Brothers cartoon as a medium. In contrast, Die Hard was shot as a live-action movie, with actual actors and sets. I know that CGI has blurred the lines between "movie" and "cartoon", but hopefully you can still see that, for a zany cartoon medium, most zany cartoon characters are quite at home. You could add Yosemite Sam to Animaniacs without too much difficulty, I think -- and so, too, you can add Catfolk to almost anything the Pathfinder system does well.
Arguing "no My Little Ponies in Die Hard!" is akin to arguing "No Catfolk in a James Bond 007 game," and I don't think even Anzyr would have a problem with that. But it's not at all like saying "No Catfolk in Pathfinder."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alright so question for people:Can you honestly tell me that an experienced/imaginative enough author *couldn't* make an awakened pony wizard work in Game of Thrones?
Because I'm really pretty sure an experienced/imaginative enough one could.
Make it work?
Yes, if they're good enough. They'd have to be better than GRRM, but sure it's within the faint realms of possibility.
However, they'll end up with a different audience that it works for, and that's what tends to matter to most of us - that our group will get along with the idea.
Generally, when I put a game together, I either know in advance the people who I'm putting it together for and can tailor it to something they'll enjoy, or I'm putting it together and asking for players in which case I really have zero qualms about turning someone away if they can't work within the framework I'm providing. I'd rather they found a game and a group more suitable to their style, everyone will be a lot happier that way and everyone gets to enjoy their game more.
Here's the question you didn't ask:
Would an experienced/imaginative enough author really be interested in the hassle of making an awakened pony wizard work in Game of Thrones, along with the inevitable turn-off it would be to some of their current loyal audience, especially if they themselves simply didn't like the idea?
Also note we're talking about a long-term series of books here, not just a short story for publication on the internet (to give it the proper equivalence to a campaign that the players in the RPG example above would be in for the forseeable future.)
Most authors tend to at least enjoy what they're writing about - if they don't then it tends to show in what they've written. Most seem quite happy to go crazy with experimental ideas in their world for a short story (usually accompanied with a disclaimer that they wrote it just for fun and that it shouldn't be considered canon), or a scene where (for example) a character is dreaming or hallucinating. Not many seem that interested in doing so permanently with their pride and joy setting they've spent so much effort developing.
I'll close here with a mention of Ed Greenwood fixing the Forgotten Realms after the changes made in 4e that he didn't agree with, in the upcoming series The Sundering. People may have had fun in 4e FR, but that doesn't mean he has to like it (although I'm sure I'll get arguments here from people that feel all that matters is that people bought the books.) Oh, and that was something that (arguably) made sense in the setting, yet still went against the overall vision he had for the Realms.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Huh, I would think a good roleplayer would see all sorts of opportunity in an awakened megaraptor whether they were the one playing it or playing along side it. I question how much fun you would have in a game with giant flying talking dinosaurs as a major element if a talking non-flying dinosaur as a fellow adventurer would be such a serious concern for you. Have you considered trying a different system that caters to a less fantasy oriented game?I can see where players who are playing a game of stats and killing things wouldn't care what the other characters are. Those who care more for the narrative are likely going to want to ensure their game isn't ruined by characters that just don't fit in. That's why it's important at the beginning for a group to define what their expectations are before putting too much effort into the campaign.
The best way I know of doing that is for the GM to decide on the setting and general flavor, and to ask who wants to come and play in it. If they get enough players, then the idea was a good one. There's enough other games out there for everyone who wasn't interested in that idea to hopefully find one they like.
Obviously that approach doesn't suit everyone, sometimes you have a group that have already decided they want to play together and it needs to be a more co-operative approach.
Personally, the aforementioned awakened megaraptor will have me leaving the table if it's anything more than a one-shot. I don't see that as being a problem for anyone - if the game allows that type of thing, I don't play in it, find a game I'd rather be in, and everyone ends up happy. If it doesn't, then the megaraptor player gets to either fit in or go elsewhere, and again everyone ends up happy. Nobody gets to decide for any of us that we have to enjoy it. On the other hand, for the sake of enjoying a game with friends, I'll happily play and enjoy pretty much anything as a one-shot.
So if you like ANY fantasy options you are required to like ALL fantasy options?
Talk about "slippery slope" …
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Arguing "no My Little Ponies in Die Hard!" is akin to arguing "No Catfolk in a James Bond 007 game," and I don't think even Anzyr would have a problem with that. But it's not at all like saying "No Catfolk in Pathfinder."
James Bond would just sleep with the catgirl. And then she would die.
Unless she also was a Warhammer 40K Space Marine with Thor's superpowers. They she would just kill King Arthur and take Excalibur and England for herself.
No one is saying *all* fantasy elements, just the ones your PCs want to play. Furthermore, how is a awakened pony wizard any more or less serious than Die Hard? You can make it less serious (somehow) sure, but... you can also make it more serious than Die Hard.
Alright so question for people:
Can you honestly tell me that an experienced/imaginative enough author *couldn't* make an awakened pony wizard work in Game of Thrones?
Because I'm really pretty sure an experienced/imaginative enough one could.
Tha t pretty much IS saying "all" - if an exclusion only exists until someone asks for it, the. It isn't an exclusion at all.
I'm curious Anzyr why it is not on the player to accommodate a DM if the DM lays out the nature of their setting prior to character creations.
For example I give my group of four players the following outline. The world you are adventuring in is in the infancy of magic and a few city-states throughout the land they are in. The highest known magical spells range in around 3rd level spells, and those are mostly known by elves that aren't inclined to share due to strong racial tensions. Half Orcs and Half Elves are both treated with disdain and very rarely welcomed anywhere, and Dwarves have a habit of getting so obsessed with a single task that it is common for their families/clan to kill a dwarf that becomes lost in their obsession. The Gods of this world are just as fickle and self-absorbed as a stereotyped Greek god. Druids are so reclusive that people think they are a myth. Because all forms of magic are extremely rare and still being developed the spell lists will be augmented to reflect this, but a player can “research” on their on time and develop the spells that I left off. I purposely won't gimp a player that wants to be the first caster that has a 9th level spell, but it will be a touch difficult to go that route for story/world purposes. As far as the PCs both in and out of the game are aware the strongest spell in the world is fireball.
After eveyone agrees to go forth and play this game a player asks me if there are any awakening spells or ways anthropomorphizing an animal for a PC. I tell them no that area of magic hasn't been developed yet, they say “cool” and go off to create their character not asking or bring up any other questions in regards to their character. Day of the game they show up with either their antho-awakened pony wizard or an awakened megaraptor barbarian. Why should I as a DM allow or accommodate this when the player agreed on the terms of the setting?
Neither the pony wizard or the raptor barbarian fit in this world, neither is the platypus rogue, the misunderstood mindflayer or the charitable troll cook, but I should make an exception to the world created when the other three players came up with conceptually and thematically acceptable characters to this world? That doesn't sit well with me as a DM.
This might be a difference in playstyle and campaign desires, but if a player isn't willing to work within a few boundaries given, even if that boundary is just core races and core classes plus magus and gunslinger, why should I as a DM start work to accommodate that one individual?
The highest known magical spells range in around 3rd level spells...
I'm not Anzyr, but personally I'd argue that at that point, you're not really playing Pathfinder, so we're back to Catfolk sorcerers in a James Bond 007 game.
Also, why is the DM specifying a setting that the players don't want to play in?
And why do the players agree to play in a setting that they don't want to play in?
There's a lot in your post that makes no sense to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
James Bond would just sleep with the catgirl. And then she would die.
Too true... and I set myself up for that one!
The setting is using the rules presented in the Pathfinder books, but not the Golarion setting books. Nowhere does it say the players didnt want to play in the world. Three players made characters that they wanted and where following the conditions set. One player decided to just bring a character that didn't fit in with what they agreed on.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ciretose, see my post about Die Hard being a cartoon. I think that's the disconnect. Pathfinder as a system is like a Warner Brothers cartoon as a medium. In contrast, Die Hard was shot as a live-action movie, with actual actors and sets. I know that CGI has blurred the lines between "movie" and "cartoon", but hopefully you can still see that, for a zany cartoon medium, most zany cartoon characters are quite at home. You could add Yosemite Sam to Animaniacs without too much difficulty, I think -- and so, too, you can add Catfolk to almost anything the Pathfinder system does well.
Arguing "no My Little Ponies in Die Hard!" is akin to arguing "No Catfolk in a James Bond 007 game," and I don't think even Anzyr would have a problem with that. But it's not at all like saying "No Catfolk in Pathfinder."
What would be akin would be saying no Tribal Pygmies in Die Hard.
Or Amish in 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Or Koko, the sign language chimp in Saving Private Ryan.
Because it is theoretically possible doesn't mean it makes sense. And it certainly doesn't mean it adds to the quality of the game, which should be goal.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ciretose, see my post about Die Hard being a cartoon. I think that's the disconnect. Pathfinder as a system is like a Warner Brothers cartoon as a medium. In contrast, Die Hard was shot as a live-action movie, with actual actors and sets. I know that CGI has blurred the lines between "movie" and "cartoon", but hopefully you can still see that, for a zany cartoon medium, most zany cartoon characters are quite at home. You could add Yosemite Sam to Animaniacs without too much difficulty, I think -- and so, too, you can add Catfolk to almost anything the Pathfinder system does well.
Arguing "no My Little Ponies in Die Hard!" is akin to arguing "No Catfolk in a James Bond 007 game," and I don't think even Anzyr would have a problem with that. But it's not at all like saying "No Catfolk in Pathfinder."
What would be akin would be saying no Tribal Pygmies in Die Hard.
Or Amish in 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Or Koko, the sign language chimp in Saving Private Ryan.
Because it is theoretically possible doesn't mean it makes sense. And it certainly doesn't mean it adds to the quality of the game, which should be goal.
But if you don't shoehorn it in, you aren't creative.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait -- you're honestly claiming, with a straight face, that Die Hard is NOT ridiculous?I for one don't really like watching silly movies. I very rarely find them entertaining. Mostly I find them stupid.
Remove Twilight Sparkle from the movie and it's back to being the sweet action movie we all know and love.
Die Hard is not ridiculous *face cracks a bit*
Fine. Fair point. but you will admit it stays within the conventions of the action movie genre and that which makes it awesome would be wrecked by Twilight Sparkle.
- Torger
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can you honestly tell me that an experienced/imaginative enough author *couldn't* make an awakened pony wizard work in Game of Thrones?
Because I'm really pretty sure an experienced/imaginative enough one could.
I'm done talking to you.
Have a nice day.
- Torger
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But if you don't shoehorn it in, you aren't creative.Ciretose, see my post about Die Hard being a cartoon. I think that's the disconnect. Pathfinder as a system is like a Warner Brothers cartoon as a medium. In contrast, Die Hard was shot as a live-action movie, with actual actors and sets. I know that CGI has blurred the lines between "movie" and "cartoon", but hopefully you can still see that, for a zany cartoon medium, most zany cartoon characters are quite at home. You could add Yosemite Sam to Animaniacs without too much difficulty, I think -- and so, too, you can add Catfolk to almost anything the Pathfinder system does well.
Arguing "no My Little Ponies in Die Hard!" is akin to arguing "No Catfolk in a James Bond 007 game," and I don't think even Anzyr would have a problem with that. But it's not at all like saying "No Catfolk in Pathfinder."
What would be akin would be saying no Tribal Pygmies in Die Hard.
Or Amish in 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Or Koko, the sign language chimp in Saving Private Ryan.
Because it is theoretically possible doesn't mean it makes sense. And it certainly doesn't mean it adds to the quality of the game, which should be goal.
So..putting Wolverine and Deadpool on every Marvel Team, and adding Batman to every working title in DC is just being creative, not money grabbing. I knew I misjudged those two companies :)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So..putting Wolverine and Deadpool on every Marvel Team, and adding Batman to every working title in DC is just being creative, not money grabbing. I knew I misjudged those two companies :)But if you don't shoehorn it in, you aren't creative.Ciretose, see my post about Die Hard being a cartoon. I think that's the disconnect. Pathfinder as a system is like a Warner Brothers cartoon as a medium. In contrast, Die Hard was shot as a live-action movie, with actual actors and sets. I know that CGI has blurred the lines between "movie" and "cartoon", but hopefully you can still see that, for a zany cartoon medium, most zany cartoon characters are quite at home. You could add Yosemite Sam to Animaniacs without too much difficulty, I think -- and so, too, you can add Catfolk to almost anything the Pathfinder system does well.
Arguing "no My Little Ponies in Die Hard!" is akin to arguing "No Catfolk in a James Bond 007 game," and I don't think even Anzyr would have a problem with that. But it's not at all like saying "No Catfolk in Pathfinder."
What would be akin would be saying no Tribal Pygmies in Die Hard.
Or Amish in 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Or Koko, the sign language chimp in Saving Private Ryan.
Because it is theoretically possible doesn't mean it makes sense. And it certainly doesn't mean it adds to the quality of the game, which should be goal.
It improves them by opening all of our minds to new possibilities...
So..putting Wolverine and Deadpool on every Marvel Team, and adding Batman to every working title in DC is just being creative, not money grabbing. I knew I misjudged those two companies :)
Nowhere near creative enough. Now, get Batman on every Marvel team and Wolverine in a tutu for the next six years, then we can talk.
|
|
Nowhere near creative enough. Now, get Batman on every Marvel team and Wolverine in a tutu for the next six years, then we can talk.
So..putting Wolverine and Deadpool on every Marvel Team, and adding Batman to every working title in DC is just being creative, not money grabbing. I knew I misjudged those two companies :)
Wolverine could wear a tutu, nothing forbids it. So you must allow it or you are uncreative.
But, in this case, it's Bruce Willis action film ridiculousness rather than My Little Pony ridiculousness.Well, let's follow that line of reasoning, then. Pathfinder does some things really well, and others not so well, and others quite poorly. It does high fantasy really well. It does low fantasy not so well, because magic permeates the system rules from top to bottom, with skills mostly a poorly-developed tacked-on afterthought, and the entire challenge rating system predicated specifically on the assumption that the PCs are loaded down like Christmas trees with magic items. It does Lovecraftian horror quite poorly, because although it includes the critters, it lacks the loss of sanity and inevitable doom for the protagonists.
What Pathfinder does really well is the type of scenario that Anzyr is describing. Using it for other stuff is exactly like making Die Hard into a cartoon -- it can work, but not the same way, and arguably not as well. If we're trying to avoid pounding square pegs into round holes, "use a different system" is equally as reasonable a suggestion as "play a more standard race."
That said, Pathfinder is still a group activity, and that implies a level of consent with group decisions, regardless of whether they're illogical or inefficient. As the odd man out, you can make your case, but if the other four people still want to play humans-only Pathfinder Modern spies (even though you have Top Secret and James Bond 007 and Spycraft all sitting on the shelf, unused), then that's what game is being played. Suck it up and deal with the fact that group activities require some level of group cooperation!
I would argue that (to use Anzyr's language of choice) an experienced/imaginative enough GM can, with a little work get more setting choices out of Pathfinder than just anything goes "high" fantasy. Not only that but it doesn't take that much tweaking for some of them.
I would also suggest that most of us don't have Top Secret and James Bond 007 and Spycraft all sitting on the shelf, unused. Gaming's not cheap.
For me it takes less effort (and certainly less money) to make Pathfinder low fantasy than it would to wade through all the low fantasy RPGs out there to find one that doesn't suck.
And pretty much everything else your third paragraph said I heartily concur with.
- Torger
Wolverine could wear a tutu, nothing forbids it. So you must allow it or you are uncreative.Nowhere near creative enough. Now, get Batman on every Marvel team and Wolverine in a tutu for the next six years, then we can talk.
So..putting Wolverine and Deadpool on every Marvel Team, and adding Batman to every working title in DC is just being creative, not money grabbing. I knew I misjudged those two companies :)
#wolverineinatutu
Join the Revolution!
- Torger
I would argue that (to use Anzyr's language of choice) an experienced/imaginative enough GM can, with a little work get more setting choices out of Pathfinder than just anything goes "high" fantasy. Not only that but it doesn't take that much tweaking for some of them.
I would also suggest that most of us don't have Top Secret and James Bond 007 and Spycraft all sitting on the shelf, unused. Gaming's not cheap.
For me it takes less effort (and certainly less money) to make Pathfinder low fantasy than it would to wade through all the low fantasy RPGs out there to find one that doesn't suck.
Lets not forget that Pathfinder and Spycraft share the same roots, too!
So did Star Wars Saga Edition and D&D 4th edition. Doesn't mean I'm going to let someone sit down for a game of 4th ed Dark Sun as a Bothan Jedi.
Ciretose, see my post about Die Hard being a cartoon. I think that's the disconnect. Pathfinder as a system is like a Warner Brothers cartoon as a medium. In contrast, Die Hard was shot as a live-action movie, with actual actors and sets. I know that CGI has blurred the lines between "movie" and "cartoon", but hopefully you can still see that, for a zany cartoon medium, most zany cartoon characters are quite at home. You could add Yosemite Sam to Animaniacs without too much difficulty, I think -- and so, too, you can add Catfolk to almost anything the Pathfinder system does well.
Arguing "no My Little Ponies in Die Hard!" is akin to arguing "No Catfolk in a James Bond 007 game," and I don't think even Anzyr would have a problem with that. But it's not at all like saying "No Catfolk in Pathfinder."
What would be akin would be saying no Tribal Pygmies in Die Hard.
Or Amish in 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Or Koko, the sign language chimp in Saving Private Ryan.
Because it is theoretically possible doesn't mean it makes sense. And it certainly doesn't mean it adds to the quality of the game, which should be goal.
Exactly correct! I'm not arguing you should have catfolk in James Bond. I'm arguing you should have catfolk in a system that has catfolk (like say... Pathfinder). Your examples would be trying to run a character in a system that isn't made for it. Like a catfolk in Mouseguard. A person who wants to play a catfolk in Mouseguard though is very different from a person who shows up to a Pathfinder game with an awakened pony wizard. One of those is viable option in the system, the other isn't. Can you tell me which?
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
People!
Are we really continuing to argue this? The creativity of a DM is not measured based upon how much he can shove into a campaign, it is measured by how much fun you and the group had during the game. Who ever thinks differently really needs to step back and take another look at that belief.
If you want your special snowflake and the DM says no then don't play if you are that adament about it. Nobody can force someone to play just like no one can force a DM to allow something he doesn't want in his game.
But, in this case, it's Bruce Willis action film ridiculousness rather than My Little Pony ridiculousness.Well, let's follow that line of reasoning, then. Pathfinder does some things really well, and others not so well, and others quite poorly. It does high fantasy really well. It does low fantasy not so well, because magic permeates the system rules from top to bottom, with skills mostly a poorly-developed tacked-on afterthought, and the entire challenge rating system predicated specifically on the assumption that the PCs are loaded down like Christmas trees with magic items. It does Lovecraftian horror quite poorly, because although it includes the critters, it lacks the loss of sanity and inevitable doom for the protagonists.
What Pathfinder does really well is the type of scenario that Anzyr is describing. Using it for other stuff is exactly like making Die Hard into a cartoon -- it can work, but not the same way, and arguably not as well. If we're trying to avoid pounding square pegs into round holes, "use a different system" is equally as reasonable a suggestion as "play a more standard race."
That said, Pathfinder is still a group activity, and that implies a level of consent with group decisions, regardless of whether they're illogical or inefficient. As the odd man out, you can make your case, but if the other four people still want to play humans-only Pathfinder Modern spies (even though you have Top Secret and James Bond 007 and Spycraft all sitting on the shelf, unused), then that's what game is being played. Suck it up and deal with the fact that group activities require some level of group cooperation!
I would argue that (to use Anzyr's language of choice) an experienced/imaginative enough GM can, with a little work get more setting choices out of Pathfinder than just anything goes "high" fantasy. Not only that but it doesn't take that much tweaking for some of them.
I'm glad to see you agree with me that Pathfinder is a high fantasy system and things are very easy to fit into, glad to see we finally agree that showing up with an awakened pony wizard in a high fantasy game is easy to include. I knew you'd come around!
Now, you are also in luck as there are several good free systems that work much better with less than high fantasy. Have you looked into FATE or Risus?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly correct! I'm not arguing you should have catfolk in James Bond. I'm arguing you should have catfolk in a system that has catfolk (like say... Pathfinder). Your examples would be trying to run a character in a system that isn't made for it. Like a catfolk in Mouseguard. A person who wants to play a catfolk in Mouseguard though is very different from a person who shows up to a Pathfinder game with an awakened pony wizard. One of those is viable option in the system, the other isn't. Can you tell me which?Ciretose, see my post about Die Hard being a cartoon. I think that's the disconnect. Pathfinder as a system is like a Warner Brothers cartoon as a medium. In contrast, Die Hard was shot as a live-action movie, with actual actors and sets. I know that CGI has blurred the lines between "movie" and "cartoon", but hopefully you can still see that, for a zany cartoon medium, most zany cartoon characters are quite at home. You could add Yosemite Sam to Animaniacs without too much difficulty, I think -- and so, too, you can add Catfolk to almost anything the Pathfinder system does well.
Arguing "no My Little Ponies in Die Hard!" is akin to arguing "No Catfolk in a James Bond 007 game," and I don't think even Anzyr would have a problem with that. But it's not at all like saying "No Catfolk in Pathfinder."
What would be akin would be saying no Tribal Pygmies in Die Hard.
Or Amish in 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Or Koko, the sign language chimp in Saving Private Ryan.
Because it is theoretically possible doesn't mean it makes sense. And it certainly doesn't mean it adds to the quality of the game, which should be goal.
Everything I listed exists in the setting in which it occurred. There are Pygmies in the Die Hard Universe, Amish in the 2001 Universe, Chimps capable of learning sign language presumable could exist during WWII.
Because in one corner of a fantasy universe something exists doesn't mean it makes sense for it to exist in the campaign on the table.
Just like just because there are native tribes in the rain forest with little or no human contact, that doesn't mean if I team one up with Bruce Willis in a buddy cop movie that it will make any sense.
The goal is to make something better. Not worse.