So Space Above and Beyond is science fiction, so is Str Trek, so everythin that is in one should be in the other? The ruleset and the setting are not one and the same.Pathfinder is not a setting. Pathfinder is a ruleset for running high fantasy. Awakened Pony Wizards are high fantasy (seriously talking horse is not new to the genre) and thanks to the magic of well... magic, High Fantasy settings can include virtually everything (including spaceships and robots which are staples of the Pathfinder's tabletop predecessors).
You can make Pathfinder a low magic setting, or a no magic setting sure, but there are other systems out there to use that are better suited for that, which is why I recommend using those instead of Pathfinder if thats the game you wish to run.
But seriously, Dragons and Awakened Pony Wizards either both make sense, or both don't make sense... Pathfinder is setting where both make sense.
I don't know what Space Above and Beyond is, but you are going to broad. One RPG can have a rule set that lends itself to low fantasy, while another is written for high fantasy. Provided the two science fiction stories in the same setting (Space Exploration) you should be to mix and match them with ease assuming you are experienced/imaginative enough.
Hell, different systems can be geared towards similar settings, and still produce a game with a totally different "feel," because of the way the mechanics work. Marrying the system to the setting requires more than saying "Just play Pathfinder and tweak it."
Dying Earth RPG is a whole lot different than Pathfinder, even if both fall under "high fantasy." The DERPG mechanics are specifically geared to simulate a Dying Earth-style setting way better than Pathfinder's ever could.
James Bond 007 is a whole lot different than d20 Modern, even if both are being used for "modern-day Earth" settings. If you want to capture the "feel" of the Connery-Moore Bond films, the former system is 1000x better than the latter.
As a long time GM, I recognize this is more of a philosophical statement or political position than reality. The truth of the matter is that a GM invests a lot into a game and is pretty much guaranteed to invest more than any single player in time and effort. As a result, when it's my turn to play, I work with the GM rather than against him if I find the game pitch to my liking. And if it's not but the other players want to play, I'm OK with sitting out. Same goes for when I'm GMing. If the players accept my pitch (and I'm OK if they don't), then I expect them to work with me not at cross purposes. If they can't, then it's clear that it's not time to play that particular campaign.
As a long time GM, I view GMs who consider their contribution to be greater or superior to everyone else's with the utmost disdain. Such individuals should really avoid GMing or adopt a better attitude. One of the first things I teach new GMs is to not be the DM of the Rings.
Having done it long enough, I actually can plan and prepare a campaign setting faster than my players can create characters. Some of my players invest quite a bit of time into creating their characters, certainly far more time than it take me to lay out a solid world foundation. Develop relevant factions, decide a campaign theme, establish starting hooks, and add flavor to it. Furthermore, each player invests time roleplaying their PC in each campaign and planning their characters actions for the next session. I am not arrogant enough to assume that I am investing more time than they are and I would caution others against such folly.
Edit: Thank you Kirth, you explained the difference between systems much more succinctly than I was able to and that is precisely what I was trying to say.
The truth of the matter is that a GM invests a lot into a game and is pretty much guaranteed to invest more than any single player in time and effort. As a result, when it's my turn to play, I work with the GM rather than against him if I find the game pitch to my liking.
The kids I grew up with used to say, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime." I extend that to my job as DM as well. If I'm not willing to put in the time and effort, I should step down. They don't give me "special" status among my friends.
The kids I grew up with used to say, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime." I extend that to my job as DM as well. If I'm not willing to put in the time and effort, I should step down. They don't give me "special" status among my friends.
Amen. You should GM because you enjoy it and have the time for it. Same thing with playing a character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still wouldn't let you play an awakened pony unless the other players were cool with it, though. In a group activity, the group consensus trumps the setting AND the options. Yeah, it might be petty of them, but c'est la guerre.
|
Its not BS I'm afraid. I've been gaming for 28 years and I can tell you......nothing at all, if duration is all that counts here, because I've got you trumped there. And, yeah, more than one player disagreeing is the norm in my experience, not the exception, even if the others are too polite to mention it.
But, like I keep saying, any DM should learn in far less than 28 years that it pays to screen your players in advance, so that the one dickwad guy never even comes up. I've somehow successfully avoided him for longer than you've been playing.
Unless you run games at a local gaming store where different people show up every week then its assumed you play with a regular group which are in essence "screened" but if thats the case then we wouldn't be having this argument. The people I play with don't hesitate when it comes to saying yes or no to a campaign but 9 times out of 10 the one or two people who say no usually come and play anyway because they don't want to be left out.
Unless you run games at a local gaming store where different people show up every week then its assumed you play with a regular group which are in essence "screened" but if thats the case then we wouldn't be having this argument.
Unfortunately, a lot of well-meaning people invite people to their home games for a "trial period," then refuse to un-invite them (out of fear of offending them) even if they prove disruptive. It's sad, but it happens a lot. This entitled player that everyone keeps talking about, who keeps showing up with disruptive ideas and aggressive demands despite unanimous consensus against him? That's almost the only way he gets into a home game. Otherwise he doesn't really exist.
The truth of the matter is that a GM invests a lot into a game and is pretty much guaranteed to invest more than any single player in time and effort. As a result, when it's my turn to play, I work with the GM rather than against him if I find the game pitch to my liking.The kids I grew up with used to say, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime." I extend that to my job as DM as well. If I'm not willing to put in the time and effort, I should step down. They don't give me "special" status among my friends.
For me, if someone is going to put in the time and effort, I'm not going to buck him for a novelty character. I will respect his effort because I respect the extra effort a friend goes through for our game time. In our groups, willing GMs do have special status because they go the extra mile for the benefit of the rest of us. It doesn't matter if they do it as a labor of love, it's still work.
What exactly does that mean? Does that mean you give absolutely no deference, no respect for the work that a GM does to entertain you? That the time, prepration, and quite likely expense they do to provide that stage means nothing to you? I know Americans in general love to disdain those they perceive as giving them service, but Lords of Kobol help any GM saddled with you at their table if that's the attitude you're looking to convey.
First off, I'm typically the DM, not the player, so let's get that straight right way. And it means that the extra time I put in, I put in because I enjoy it, not because I expect special deference and slavish devotion because of it. If you give a gift and then keep a precise accounting to the dime of when it's been paid back, then it isn't a gift, it's an obligation your imposing on others through dishonest means. If coming to my game meant I expected people to kiss my ass for the "privilege," I'd tell them so up front, not pretend like it's common knowledge that I somehow "deserve" it.
For me, if someone is going to put in the time and effort, I'm not going to buck him for a novelty character. I will respect his effort because I respect the extra effort a friend goes through for our game time. In our groups, willing GMs do have special status because they go the extra mile for the benefit of the rest of us. It doesn't matter if they do it as a labor of love, it's still work.
My players cooperate with me because we're friends, and vice versa. I hope they're not doing it in "payment" for a timekeeping difference.
For me, if someone is going to put in the time and effort making a a character, I'm not going to buck him for a novelty character. I will respect his effort because I respect the extra effort a friend goes through for our game time. In our groups, willingThe truth of the matter is that a GM invests a lot into a game and is pretty much guaranteed to invest more than any single player in time and effort. As a result, when it's my turn to play, I work with the GM rather than against him if I find the game pitch to my liking.The kids I grew up with used to say, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime." I extend that to my job as DM as well. If I'm not willing to put in the time and effort, I should step down. They don't give me "special" status among my friends.GMsplayers do have special status because they go the extra mile for the benefit of the rest of us. It doesn't matter if they do it as a labor of love, it's still work.
Fixed: Do you see the flaw in your logic? (No one ever admits their wrong on the internet... but one can hope)
I do think that giving a person a decent amount of respect for work that's put in doesn't necessarily mean puckering one's lips on their posterior. It means that after I listen to a players reasoning, and arguments about an issue, that I make the final ruling and that's that.What exactly does that mean? Does that mean you give absolutely no deference, no respect for the work that a GM does to entertain you? That the time, prepration, and quite likely expense they do to provide that stage means nothing to you? I know Americans in general love to disdain those they perceive as giving them service, but Lords of Kobol help any GM saddled with you at their table if that's the attitude you're looking to convey.First off, I'm typically the DM, not the player, so let's get that straight right way. And it means that the extra time I put in, I put in because I enjoy it, not because I expect special deference and slavish devotion because of it. If you give a gift and then keep a precise accounting to the dime of when it's been paid back, then it isn't a gift, it's an obligation your imposing on others through dishonest means. If coming to my game meant I expected people to kiss my ass for the "privilege," I'd tell them so up front, not pretend like it's common knowledge that I somehow "deserve" it.
I agree, I respect my players for the amount of work they put into their characters, but that isn't going to save them from potential TPKs.
Where in the Pathfinder rules is the section that covers making an awakened pony wizard? I have all the books but just can't seem to find where that character option is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is possible to not expect special treatment as the GM and to have players that are appreciative of the work the GM has done to set up and run a game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What exactly does that mean? Does that mean you give absolutely no deference, no respect for the work that a GM does to entertain you? That the time, prepration, and quite likely expense they do to provide that stage means nothing to you? I know Americans in general love to disdain those they perceive as giving them service, but Lords of Kobol help any GM saddled with you at their table if that's the attitude you're looking to convey.First off, I'm typically the DM, not the player, so let's get that straight right way. And it means that the extra time I put in, I put in because I enjoy it, not because I expect special deference and slavish devotion because of it. If you give a gift and then keep a precise accounting to the dime of when it's been paid back, then it isn't a gift, it's an obligation your imposing on others through dishonest means. If coming to my game meant I expected people to kiss my ass for the "privilege," I'd tell them so up front, not pretend like it's common knowledge that I somehow "deserve" it.
You're both using extreme examples though (and I'm certain LazarX is doing it to make a point).
The thing is, nobody is wrong.
If your situation is "I want to play X, lets find me some players", then there's no problem with a GM setting the groundrules up front to make sure only players that will enjoy that game will ask to join it.
If your situation is "I'm here with Bob, Steve, Alice, and Gwen. Wouldn't it be cool to play a game?", then there's no problem in giving people a lot more freedom so a group of friends can enjoy a game together.
Usually, the situation is somewhere between the two, and I find the following is a good set of guidelines:
- Everyone in the group deserves a degree of consideration out of common courtesy.
- The GM deserves a degree of extra consideration if they went to a lot of trouble to host the game, in the same way that you don't tell Steve to take his disgusting food away and bring you some chinese when he goes to all the trouble of making enchiladas for the group.
- The group, as a unit, need to work together and not against each other. That usually precludes having conflicting personalities (or wishes) present. A group that are already friends are less likely to come up with ideas that totally repulse each other. A group forming from strangers could well do if the GM didn't give campaign guidelines up front.
Where in the Pathfinder rules is the section that covers making an awakened pony wizard? I have all the books but just can't seem to find where that character option is.
You may have some luck with this :)
Where in the Pathfinder rules is the section that covers making an awakened pony wizard? I have all the books but just can't seem to find where that character option is.You may have some luck with this :)
Ah so it is in a book that isn't part of the Paizo core Pathfinder rules. So an awakened pony wizard character is not part of the core game rules as suggested earlier.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fixed: Do you see the flaw in your logic? (No one ever admits their wrong on the internet... but one can hope)
There is no flaw in the logic. The basis we're starting from is still that the GM is spending more time on the game than I am as a player and I can pretty much guarantee that's the case when I'm GMing as well. You may think, from your remote corner of the internet where you have little or no knowledge of my or my player groups, that's arrogant. But I can tell you that it's true. I spend more time on the PF and 3.5 games I'm running than the players do. Our Mass Effect GM spends more time on it than we do as players. And our Skull and Shackles campaign GM spends more time on it than we players do. So when the Mass Effect GM says no Collector PCs, I'm going to respect that. When the Skull and Shackles GM says that playing an awakened pony would be silly, I'm going to respect that. And when I tell my players that psionicists are off the table as PCs, I expect my players to respect that in turn.
A whole lot is negotiable, but not every option is on the table. You may have a hard time respecting that without impugning someone's creativity or maturity level. But I don't.
Where in the Pathfinder rules is the section that covers making an awakened pony wizard? I have all the books but just can't seem to find where that character option is.
The awaken spell + the bestiary stats for a pony + the bestiary rules for advancing a character by adding class levels easily give you one.
That being said absolutely nowhere does it say "this is an option for a PC".
- Torger
P.S. If I were being truly pedantic I would point out that Twilight Sparkle is in fact a unicorn.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a long time GM, I recognize this is more of a philosophical statement or political position than reality. The truth of the matter is that a GM invests a lot into a game and is pretty much guaranteed to invest more than any single player in time and effort. As a result, when it's my turn to play, I work with the GM rather than against him if I find the game pitch to my liking. And if it's not but the other players want to play, I'm OK with sitting out. Same goes for when I'm GMing. If the players accept my pitch (and I'm OK if they don't), then I expect them to work with me not at cross purposes. If they can't, then it's clear that it's not time to play that particular campaign.
As a long time GM, I view GMs who consider their contribution to be greater or superior to everyone else's with the utmost disdain. Such individuals should really avoid GMing or adopt a better attitude. One of the first things I teach new GMs is to not be the DM of the Rings.Having done it long enough, I actually can plan and prepare a campaign setting faster than my players can create characters. Some of my players invest quite a bit of time into creating their characters, certainly far more time than it take me to lay out a solid world foundation. Develop relevant factions, decide a campaign theme, establish starting hooks, and add flavor to it. Furthermore, each player invests time roleplaying their PC in each campaign and planning their characters actions for the next session. I am not arrogant enough to assume that I am investing more time than they are and I would caution others against such folly.
Edit: Thank you Kirth, you explained the difference between systems much more succinctly than I was able to and that is precisely what I was trying to say.
Sounds like you don't put much work into your campaigns or settings and just like to run things off the cuff. Nothing wrong with that. When you get some more imagination and experience I am sure you will be able to put work into your campaigns and settings. Keep practicing I am sure you will get there!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where in the Pathfinder rules is the section that covers making an awakened pony wizard? I have all the books but just can't seem to find where that character option is.The awaken spell + the bestiary stats for a pony + the bestiary rules for advancing a character by adding class levels easily give you one.
That being said absolutely nowhere does it say "this is an option for a PC".
- Torger
P.S. If I were being truly pedantic I would point out that Twilight Sparkle is in fact a unicorn.
Hmm yeah don't see that in the character creation section of the rules. Sounds like it would be playing a different game. Maybe they should look into another game that has character creation options for the awakened pony wizard since they are going outside the rules. After all if its sound advice for people that want to play low magic Pathfinder then it must be sound advice for people that want to play with awakened pony wizards.
Ah so it is in a book that isn't part of the Paizo core Pathfinder rules. So an awakened pony wizard character is not part of the core game rules as suggested earlier.Where in the Pathfinder rules is the section that covers making an awakened pony wizard? I have all the books but just can't seem to find where that character option is.You may have some luck with this :)
That's odd, my Core has a section on monsters as PCs. You should check your books again and make sure they aren't knockoffs. My books also have stats for ponies, and a spell called awaken, which has a cost that is listed in my books which should be subtracted from the player's wealth by level, which is also in my books. I would return your copy if you don't have those things in your book.
Edit: Those Monster as PCs are part of the rules of the game, written down in the core rules and everything. Hate to tell you but just because you don't like a rule BiggDawg doesn't mean it isn't one. Maybe you should find a game that doesn't have such rules?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like you don't put much work into your campaigns or settings and just like to run things off the cuff. Nothing wrong with that. When you get some more imagination and experience I...As a long time GM, I recognize this is more of a philosophical statement or political position than reality. The truth of the matter is that a GM invests a lot into a game and is pretty much guaranteed to invest more than any single player in time and effort. As a result, when it's my turn to play, I work with the GM rather than against him if I find the game pitch to my liking. And if it's not but the other players want to play, I'm OK with sitting out. Same goes for when I'm GMing. If the players accept my pitch (and I'm OK if they don't), then I expect them to work with me not at cross purposes. If they can't, then it's clear that it's not time to play that particular campaign.
As a long time GM, I view GMs who consider their contribution to be greater or superior to everyone else's with the utmost disdain. Such individuals should really avoid GMing or adopt a better attitude. One of the first things I teach new GMs is to not be the DM of the Rings.Having done it long enough, I actually can plan and prepare a campaign setting faster than my players can create characters. Some of my players invest quite a bit of time into creating their characters, certainly far more time than it take me to lay out a solid world foundation. Develop relevant factions, decide a campaign theme, establish starting hooks, and add flavor to it. Furthermore, each player invests time roleplaying their PC in each campaign and planning their characters actions for the next session. I am not arrogant enough to assume that I am investing more time than they are and I would caution others against such folly.
Edit: Thank you Kirth, you explained the difference between systems much more succinctly than I was able to and that is precisely what I was trying to say.
Aha... ha.. ha... ha. Off the cuff... oh ho ho hee hee. Ah! Thanks I needed a good laugh. When you have enough experience and imagination I find that the longest part of campaign design is actually writing stuff down, which if you can type fast won't take you long at all. Keep practicing and and broadening your horizons and eventually, a campaign history is a 20 minute short writing exercise. If you aren't there yet, trust me you'll get there eventually if you just keep working at it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah so it is in a book that isn't part of the Paizo core Pathfinder rules. So an awakened pony wizard character is not part of the core game rules as suggested earlier.Where in the Pathfinder rules is the section that covers making an awakened pony wizard? I have all the books but just can't seem to find where that character option is.You may have some luck with this :)That's odd, my Core has a section on monsters as PCs. You should check your books again and make sure they aren't knockoffs. My books also have stats for ponies, and a spell called awaken, which has a cost that is listed in my books which should be subtracted from the player's wealth by level, which is also in my books. I would return your copy if you don't have those things in your book.
Edit: Those Monster as PCs are part of the rules of the game, written down in the core rules and everything. Hate to tell you but just because you don't like a rule BiggDawg doesn't mean it isn't one. Maybe you should find a game that doesn't have such rules?
Hmm where does it say that you can have the awakened spell cast on you and then have it subtracted from your future WBL? Wouldn't that come out of your starting cash which would be insufficient? Can I start with level 20 WBL at 1st level cause its creative? It sounds like you are the one who doesn't like the rule that there is no option to make an awakened pony wizard in the character creation section. You are the one going outside the rules. Maybe you should try a different game like the HERO system or GURPS which is more modular and you can come up with your own rules.
I never claimed Stever could play an Awakened Pony Wizard at level 1. And I would absolutely make him subtract the cost of an Awaken off his WBL.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never claimed Stever could play an Awakened Pony Wizard at level 1. And I would absolutely make him subtract the cost of an Awaken off his WBL.
Really sounds like you are looking for a different system. GURPS seems perfect for you, it can simulate any kind of setting with anything your advanced imagination and experience can come up with!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's odd, my Core has a section on monsters as PCs. You should check your books again and make sure they aren't knockoffs. My books also have stats for ponies, and a spell called awaken, which has a cost that is listed in my books which should be subtracted from the player's wealth by level, which is also in my books. I would return your copy if you don't have those things in your book.
Edit: Those Monster as PCs are part of the rules of the game, written down in the core rules and everything. Hate to tell you but just because you don't like a rule BiggDawg doesn't mean it isn't one. Maybe you should find a game that doesn't have such rules?
You mean the Monsters as PCs rules that contain the following statements?
Monsters are not designed with the rules for players in mind
GMs should carefully consider any monster PCs in their groups.
Some creatures are simply not suitable for play as PCs
Wow, it sounds like the core rules on the subject advocate DM discretion.
- Torger
OR I could play a game that has rules for running Awakened Pony Wizards along side Paladins and Alchemists already written up for me with no need to change anything. A game like say... Pathfinder.
That's odd, my Core has a section on monsters as PCs. You should check your books again and make sure they aren't knockoffs. My books also have stats for ponies, and a spell called awaken, which has a cost that is listed in my books which should be subtracted from the player's wealth by level, which is also in my books. I would return your copy if you don't have those things in your book.
Edit: Those Monster as PCs are part of the rules of the game, written down in the core rules and everything. Hate to tell you but just because you don't like a rule BiggDawg doesn't mean it isn't one. Maybe you should find a game that doesn't have such rules?
You mean the Monsters as PCs rules that contain the following statements?
Monsters are not designed with the rules for players in mindGMs should carefully consider any monster PCs in their groups.Some creatures are simply not suitable for play as PCsWow, it sounds like the core rules on the subject advocate DM discretion.
- Torger
Yes, that is why they require an experienced enough GM. I have been very consistent with that fact. GMs that lack enough enough experience to include such PCs should exercise the aforementioned discretion.
How 'bout a dex-based, unarmed fighter who's been Baleful Polymorph-ed into a horse before starting play? They've certainly got barding listed in the equipment chapter of the CRB! :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OR I could play a game that has rules for running Awakened Pony Wizards along side Paladins and Alchemists already written up for me with no need to change anything. A game like say... Pathfinder.
That is GURPS except you could also use it to play other genres and you don't need to go outside the rules like you are forced to with Pathfinder to get your awakened pony wizard! It really is the perfect system for someone with advanced imagination and experience. No need to change anything like you have to with Pathfinder, just unlimited freedom to use anything you can think of. Just imagine it!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, that is why they require an experienced enough GM. I have been very consistent with that fact. GMs that lack enough enough experience to include such PCs should exercise the aforementioned discretion.Wow, it sounds like the core rules on the subject advocate DM discretion.
- Torger
You do understand that there are DMs out there who have been doing it for decades, creating huge well thought out cohesive worlds with consistent mythology and a real sense of history. They've chosen Pathfinder as the system they wish to use to express this vision.
Every time you call them inexperienced and uncreative for not wanting to include a silly character it's a giant slap in the face.
- Torger
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. Now if I wanted to create an awakened pony wizard from scratch rather using the conviently provided rules of Pathfinder, I would probably use HERO (5th Edition), since it has handled my Drum Island ex-patriate doctor (A REAL DOCTOR!) who has the Tick-Tock Fruit in my friends One piece campaign and allowed me run to pretty fantastic Full Metal Alchemist one shot.
Yes, that is why they require an experienced enough GM. I have been very consistent with that fact. GMs that lack enough enough experience to include such PCs should exercise the aforementioned discretion.Wow, it sounds like the core rules on the subject advocate DM discretion.
- Torger
You do understand that there are DMs out there who have been doing it for decades, creating huge well thought out cohesive worlds with consistent mythology and a real sense of history. They've chosen Pathfinder as the system they wish to use to express this vision.
Every time you call them inexperienced and uncreative for not wanting to include a silly character it's a giant slap in the face.
- Torger
If they gave me their well thought out worlds I'm confident I could incorporate an Awakened Pony Wizard as a matter of course (since again high fantasy means magic and other planes of existence really its the easiest setting to add virtually anything to with very little effort).
And I only say they are inexperience or unimaginative, because if they are experienced and imaginative enough to include an Awakened Pony Wizard, but don't even though its what Steve wants to play, they are just petty and I try to assume personal failings before malevolence.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You do understand that there are DMs out there who have been doing it for decades, creating huge well thought out cohesive worlds with consistent mythology and a real sense of history. They've chosen Pathfinder as the system they wish to use to express this vision.
When DMs start talking about their personal homebrew settings as having a "mythology," and then start talking about their "vision" without any trace of sarcasm, I always feel like they've passed the GRRM Barrier: At this point, your setting is better suited for fiction written by you, and is no longer really well suited to a game in which the players' actions really matter.
I love my homebrew setting. Been working on it since 1981 or so. Maps on continent, national, regional, and city scales (geologically consistent with tectonics, and the climate correlates with the latitudes and terrain, and the rivers correlate to the terrain and precipitation...). Millenia of recorded history. Local industries, trade details, local customs. Detailed down to the names and descriptions for the various currencies used by different nations. And guess what? When I run a game in that setting, it's almost always a "franchise reboot," and I'm willing to ignore what's "canon" in favor of what that particular group of players needs, and I don't mind incorporating their ideas into the new version.
I think of it like Zelazny's Shadow, from the "Amber" novels: every campaign iteration using the setting is actually in a slightly different version of the same place.
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. Now if I wanted to create an awakened pony wizard from scratch rather using the conviently provided rules of Pathfinder, I would probably use HERO (5th Edition), since it has handled my Drum Island ex-patriate doctor (A REAL DOCTOR!) who has the Tick-Tock Fruit in my friends One piece campaign and allowed me run to pretty fantastic Full Metal Alchemist one shot.
I never stated that I don't like awakened pony wizards, I asked where in the character creation section the rules for making one is (since you stated it was core and since you are so experienced and imaginative I figured you knew what you were talking about).
When I realized there were no such rules I came to the conclusion that you were going outside the rules using advanced imagination and experience. Since with your advanced imagination and experience you also recommended that anyone doing anything outside the rules (such as a low magic game) should find a more appropriate game system I applied that to your situation in order to help you achieve even greater imagination and experience!
GURPS is the perfect system to utilize imagination as it can be whatever you want it to be. No need to cobble together and stretch the rules for Pathfinder, it has everything needed to harness your advanced imagination and experience.
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. Now if I wanted to create an awakened pony wizard from scratch rather using the conviently provided rules of Pathfinder, I would probably use HERO (5th Edition), since it has handled my Drum Island ex-patriate doctor (A REAL DOCTOR!) who has the Tick-Tock Fruit in my friends One piece campaign and allowed me run to pretty fantastic Full Metal Alchemist one shot.I never stated that I don't like awakened pony wizards, I asked where in the character creation section the rules for making one is. When I realized there were no such rules I came to the conclusion that you were going outside the rules using advanced imagination and experience. Since with your advanced imagination and experience you also recommended that anyone doing anything outside the rules (such as a low magic game) should find a more appropriate game system I applied that to your situation in order to help you achieve even greater imagination and experience! GURPS is the perfect system to utilize imagination as it can be whatever you want it to be. No need to cobble together and stretch the rules for Pathfinder, it has everything needed to harness your advanced imagination and experience.
The location of the rules for playing an Awakened Pony have been given to you by two people. You can feign ignorance, but the fact that you should be aware that Pathfinder has those rules makes your post amount to little more than repetition of irrelevant points and advice that is flawed, since as previously stated said rules for playing a pony do exist. Had they not I would agree a different system would be in order, but as that is not the case your advice is quite useless.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
When DMs start talking about their personal homebrew settings as having a "mythology," and then start talking about their "vision" without any trace of sarcasm, I always feel like they've passed the GRRM Barrier: At this point, your setting is better suited for fiction written by you, and is no longer really well suited to a game in which the players' actions really matter.
When I see comments like this on a message board, I can't help but see it as you telling another gamer he's having badwrongfun because he (and apparently his players) like that kind of setting continuity.
Edition warring may be frowned on here, but we sure do get a lot of campaign and play style warring.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When DMs start talking about their personal homebrew settings as having a "mythology," and then start talking about their "vision" without any trace of sarcasm, I always feel like they've passed the GRRM Barrier: At this point, your setting is better suited for fiction written by you, and is no longer really well suited to a game in which the players' actions really matter.
When I see comments like this on a message board, I can't help but see it as you telling another gamer he's having badwrongfun because he (and apparently his players) like that kind of setting continuity.
Edition warring may be frowned on here, but we sure do get a lot of campaign and play style warring.
It's the "(and apparently his players)" bit that Kirth's statement takes issue with. If your setting continuity can't withstand player involvement, you're better off writing a book than playing RPGs, given the cooperative nature of RPGS.
Edit: The other side of that is, you're wasting your time if you detail anything but what your players have direct, in-game experience of. Yes, I said players, not characters, and I ended that sentence with a preposition; Nuts to you, Strunk and White!
Oh, there's no badwrongfun. And Kirth isn't saying that playing in the DM of the Rings campaign is badwrongfun (though I can't personally imagine who would enjoy playing it other than to mock it viciously), but rather said DM should consider writing novels rather than railroading. Because let me tell you, no campaign, adventure, plot hook, BBEG, or McGuffin survives contact with the PCs, nor should it. Plot Armor is a bad writing tool, sure you can have fun, but it makes for a less compelling story and an inexperienced writer should learn to not to use it as they improve. The same is true of DMing.
[I can't help but see it as you telling another gamer he's having badwrongfun because he (and apparently his players) like that kind of setting continuity.
More like, I'm advising another gamer not to take himself so seriously, or at least not to automatically expect others to share his personal reverence for his personal imaginary setting that they get no part in defining.
Look, we all love our imaginary settings. Myself most empahtically included; see the part of my quote you excised above. But hopefully we still love our real-life friends more, or maybe this hobby isn't a healthy outlet after all.
The location of the rules for playing an Awakened Pony have been given to you by two people. You can feign ignorance, but the fact that you should be aware that Pathfinder has those rules makes your post amount to little more than repetition of irrelevant points and advice that is flawed, since as previously stated said rules for playing a pony do exist. Had they not I would agree a different system would be in order, but as that is not the case your advice is quite useless.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. Now if I wanted to create an awakened pony wizard from scratch rather using the conviently provided rules of Pathfinder, I would probably use HERO (5th Edition), since it has handled my Drum Island ex-patriate doctor (A REAL DOCTOR!) who has the Tick-Tock Fruit in my friends One piece campaign and allowed me run to pretty fantastic Full Metal Alchemist one shot.I never stated that I don't like awakened pony wizards, I asked where in the character creation section the rules for making one is. When I realized there were no such rules I came to the conclusion that you were going outside the rules using advanced imagination and experience. Since with your advanced imagination and experience you also recommended that anyone doing anything outside the rules (such as a low magic game) should find a more appropriate game system I applied that to your situation in order to help you achieve even greater imagination and experience! GURPS is the perfect system to utilize imagination as it can be whatever you want it to be. No need to cobble together and stretch the rules for Pathfinder, it has everything needed to harness your advanced imagination and experience.
Yeah I read those though there is still nothing in there about awakened pony wizards (nor are they in the bestiary). The section you refer to lists a number of possible races and warnings about using these or any other monster as a PC, still no mention of awakened pony wizards or awakened velociraptor barbarians. If the concept was core you would think it would be mentioned at least once explicitly like the racist dwarves you refer to. Maybe you just imagined it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still wouldn't let you play an awakened pony unless the other players were cool with it, though. In a group activity, the group consensus trumps the setting AND the options. Yeah, it might be petty of them, but c'est la guerre.
Or not so petty. While the idea might hold water, or the awakened barbarian whatever or a sharkman or a battlemech or increasingly more fantastical ideas, the players have to decide if the cool factor of allowing Player A to play his creation is worth being run out of most towns (if they are lucky) and the associated headaches.
Were I to put some thought into it, I'd be hard pressed as a player or GM to just smile and nod at the oft-spoken of Party of Freaks. Every town and city is a trial, every social encounter becomes a little more difficult.
So yes, you certainly could have anything you can talk the rest of the gang into allowing. Should you might be a pertinent question, however.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, there's no badwrongfun. And Kirth isn't saying that playing in the DM of the Rings campaign is badwrongfun (though I can't personally imagine who would enjoy playing it other than to mock it viciously), but rather said DM should consider writing novels rather than railroading. Because let me tell you, no campaign, adventure, plot hook, BBEG, or McGuffin survives contact with the PCs, nor should it. Plot Armor is a bad writing tool, sure you can have fun, but it makes for a less compelling story and an inexperienced writer should learn to not to use it as they improve. The same is true of DMing.
Having some few things not in the game isnt even remotely similar or related whatsoever to a railroad campaign. And if you can't see that … well, thennit isnt me lacking imagination.
[I can't help but see it as you telling another gamer he's having badwrongfun because he (and apparently his players) like that kind of setting continuity.More like, I'm advising another gamer not to take himself so seriously, or at least not to automatically expect others to share his personal reverence for his personal imaginary setting that they get no part in defining.
Look, we all love our imaginary settings. Myself most empahtically included; see the part of my quote you excised above. But hopefully we still love our real-life friends more, or maybe this hobby isn't a healthy outlet after all.
They have loads of input into defining it - through their actions as players, which could bring down kingdoms(and have)among other things. Not being able to play evey single possible race/class combo is not close at all to not having influence on the setting.
|
|
When DMs start talking about their personal homebrew settings as having a "mythology," and then start talking about their "vision" without any trace of sarcasm, I always feel like they've passed the GRRM Barrier: At this point, your setting is better suited for fiction written by you, and is no longer really well suited to a game in which the players' actions really matter.
When I see comments like this on a message board, I can't help but see it as you telling another gamer he's having badwrongfun because he (and apparently his players) like that kind of setting continuity.
Edition warring may be frowned on here, but we sure do get a lot of campaign and play style warring.
It's the "(and apparently his players)" bit that Kirth's statement takes issue with. If your setting continuity can't withstand player involvement, you're better off writing a book than playing RPGs, given the cooperative nature of RPGS.
Edit: The other side of that is, you're wasting your time if you detail anything but what your players have direct, in-game experience of. Yes, I said players, not characters, and I ended that sentence with a preposition; Nuts to you, Strunk and White!
What I want to know is since when does complete player involvement only refer to being able to play that special snowflake? Sounds like Kirth is being offended for no real reason. You can always play another character and still become involved with how the game develops.
I think a few people here need to go to a workshop on gaming. You can have a specific type of game while leaving it open so players can be involved and shape the contents of the game.