|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Roleplaying games are an escape. Pathfinder society you get a Tolkien-esque fantasy. I see a ton of hates towards people that play the game with different fantasies. This completely baffles me. The reason why that is there are rules already laid out of what you can and cannot do, and we are expected to follow those rules. So before we start we know that people can gunslingers, summon undead, play paladins, minmax, purposely combat characters, and a slew of other options.
PFS is an open game that allows anyone that follows the rules already established to join in a social shared fantasy. So knowing this why do so many get upset when someone brings their defined fantasy that is different? For me, I find this the GREATEST fun you can have in the game. Roleplaying with someone opposite of you allows you easily to define your character and allow them to grow. You do not have to accept that PC choices as valid or correct. You just have to work with them for whatever you character defines the greater good as.
When I first sat down to play PFS I knew that you needed to cooperate with everyone at the table playing with you and that you were a team. I had no idea about the “explore, report, and cooperate”. No matter what someone can to the table with that was now part of my shared fantasy at that game. If someone wanted to be a time traveler from the future, awesome. A gunslinger like Clinton Eastwood, great. Something else completely wacky or polarizing, wonderful. Because in the end anything you bring to the table is for you and my character can choose to understand it however I choose him too. I get the opportunity to role-play a new situation. If you do not have fun with that person just finish the scenario and never play with them again.
As a side note when it comes to creeds and codes I find it ignorant to tell another player how to define these. It is extremely common for people to understand the same words vastly different. If a PC says their paladin’s feels X and they present a somewhat reasonable explanation then how are they definitely wrong? You will find every religion has disagreements. The only people that say that player’s defendable definition is the author.
In the end the hatred towards play of table legal characters baffles me. If you have a problem sharing your fantasy with someone else then why play where anyone can join your fantasy? You can do PFS at private places. You can play home games. Why be the bigot that cannot accept other people that are different from you? I am sorry, but I feel like this is a racist getting upset that there are different races at the supermarket they go to. Why can’t we just get along and give each other a chance to love what we all bring to the table and have fun. Please give others a chance and let them surprise you. The worst thing that could happen is you waste a few hours of your life. You could make a life long friend.
|
Anyone who likes things I dislike is silly and should go home!
That's a nice TLDR summary.
I think the answer is that we are a diverse community with different backgrounds, playing experience and expectations. That's a good thing.
We all have different boundaries to what we like in our fantasy settings. That's inevitable.
Trying to get everyone to accept that all things are equal is counterproductive. You can get them to accept and play along for one scenario. You cannot guarantee they will like it or that they will extend their boundaries.
Some folks don't have home games, so game days and conventions are the only game in town. I can see that to them, when playing significantly outside their fantasy boundaries, they are wasting a few hours of their only available gaming experience, which must be unpalatable.
However, I haven't come across this behavior in any notable way at the table, other than people expressing their preferences.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"There's only two things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures and the Dutch."
"I don't like you either. You best watch yourself. We're wanted men. I've got the death sentence on twelve systems."
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Roleplaying games are an escape. Pathfinder society you get a Tolkien-esque fantasy.
I think this is where people run into problems.
Pathfinder is *not* Tolkien-esque fantasy.
It is a pulp setting.
As such it has all the over the topness of that genre.
As such, pretty much anything within the rules goes.
|
|
The problem with 'my fantasy' and everything goes comes when there is a conflict
PFS is set in Golarion and players and GMs need to have some idea about how it works to be able to interact in a meaningful way.
Dog loving goblins seem not that far fetched as far as fantasy goes. I don't think goblins in Tolkien hated dog? But a player who makes this part of 'his fantasy' can cause problems in several scenarios.
So where do we draw the line?
Do you mean this applies only to the character himself? Someone with a goblin boon who loves dogs and that might be the reason he was thrown out of his tribe or why he applied for the Pathfinder Society - great fantasy and role play - I have no problems with that.
Someone who applies this to other goblins - now we have a problem.
Interestingly this shows that players have much more freedom as they might get away with it - as a GM you would be in trouble.
|
|
I might not build the witch I have in mind yet, but if I do, I am not interested in people telling me I am ruining the fun of others when I put the oppositin to sleep. Instead, I will bluntly tell them that if they have a problem with the sleep hex, they should spend their time petitioning campaign management to get it banned. They have already done that before with both the vivisectionist and synthesist.
I sometimes get little chance to do something in a game myself. Somtimes the fighter clogs up the only spot of good action in a bottle neck and others refuse to move out from behind him so I can step in and attack through him at -4 for cover penalties with my reach. Somtimes the barbarian crits for 60 damage (average roll at level three) and cleaves another 60 to end combat turn one. Sometimes the wizard or cleric casts hold person and someone else executes a coup de gras. I suck those experiences up and am thankful nobody died that combat. These are all legal choices until the campaign bans them and no one should be angry at the barbarian or wiz/clr. I would say the person behind the fighter should strike/cast and move out so others can move in and strike, then strike and move out on the second turn. I will not be sympathetic if someone dislikes me useing the sleep hex. At least I will play it correctly instead of cheating like one player who claimed it was.like the spell and hit multiple people at a tiime with minute durations instead of how the hex is supposed to be done.
|
The problem is what happens when you have people disagree what Golarion is. For example, I see Golarion as *largely* a Tolkien style fantasy, with a few nations/regions that are seriously different (Alkenstar and Numeria). What happens when people try to insist that things from one specific part of the world represent the whole? Eventually, we run into base level differences.
Now see I dont see it as Tolkien. in a scenario we faught constructs, Non magical. Thy where clockwork robots, those dont appear in Tolkien. I see Golorian and Steampunk and fantasy.
Lets take gunslingers, I haven't seen it, but i know people do not like them. Why? Because they dont like guns in their fantasy, but for some reason other things are allowable.
Its like political parties to be honest, peoples own internal logic is the only right way, because to them it is their own logic and unfalliable.
|
|
Roleplaying games are an escape. Pathfinder society you get a Tolkien-esque fantasy.I think this is where people run into problems.
Pathfinder is *not* Tolkien-esque fantasy.
It is a pulp setting.
As such it has all the over the topness of that genre.
As such, pretty much anything within the rules goes.
Moreover, the predecessors to Pathfinder were not Tolkien-esque either, nor were they intended to be. AD&D had as much pulp as Pathfinder.
There were adventures with gunslingers, robots, psionics, Lovecraftian horrors, radioactive mutants, time travel and alternate histories, lost worlds, dinosaurs, mezoamerica-inspired cultures, pirates, space travel, alien technologies, classic Gothic horrors, ...
And those are just the adventures I remember off the top of my head.
|
|
Now see I dont see it as Tolkien. in a scenario we faught constructs, Non magical. Thy where clockwork robots, those dont appear in Tolkien. I see Golorian and Steampunk and fantasy.
Lets take gunslingers, I haven't seen it, but i know people do not like them. Why? Because they dont like guns in their fantasy, but for some reason other things are allowable.
Its like political parties to be honest, peoples own internal logic is the only right way, because to them it is their own logic and unfalliable.
Most of the people who have an issue with gunslingers is that by lore, they are all from Alkenstar, out in the middle of the Mana Wastes. Guns aren't really a part of the culture of the rest of the world, yet gunslingers are treated as just a part of everyday life, down to being able to buy new guns etc.
And I agree, there are a few things that aren't Tolkien in style. But most of it is, to me. See? Just a few simple things, and we have disagreements on what our collective fantasy should look like.
But the problem is when we let them get in the way of mutual enjoyment. How does someone playing a gunslinger, lore-wise, hurt your enjoyment?
|
|
But the problem is when we let them get in the way of mutual enjoyment. How does someone playing a gunslinger, lore-wise, hurt your enjoyment?
The problem starts when you go against the lore.
I still remember the very first game of my wife - playing a dwarven fighter. As part of a mission she felt she could solve it by cutting of a bit of a beard from a just rescued dwarf (who had been tortured prior to that).
Being a fighter and not stealthy she failed the roll - and the whole group noticed. In 'her' fantasy there was no problem - it was just a few hairs. For the other 5 players (one paladin included) and the GM this was a problem against the lore. I should add she was new and played in a slot zero game with a bunch of GMs two weeks after Dwarves of Golarion came out and details the relationship of dwarfs and beards.
So 5 players (with the paladin leading) did prevent the mission.
I should add the paladin went out of his way to help her later in the game to solve her mission in a lore abiding way.
|
|
Whether or not it's a Tolkien-esque fantasy, it's a setting. A setting and rules set that we all agreed to play in when we sit down at the table.
Now, I'm of the personal opinion that paladins don't make good Pathfinder agents, because the things that our characters have to do as Pathfinder agents rarely match up with the codes of conduct and oaths as established in campaign sources (lying and stealing being the big issues).
Does this mean that when a paladin sits down at a PFS table I'm on or running that I tell them that they can't or shouldn't play the paladin?
No.
Because we're playing PFS. A legally built and played character is a legally built and played character. *Especially* if it's an open game at a public space/event.
For example:
My cleric of Pharasma has the leeway from the goddess to be on the same team as an undead raising bones oracle and not have to tiptoe to avoid a PVP problem or get an atonement because the goddess put her into the Society for a reason (which is my personal take on that situation). So that paladin can have the same leeway to not turn the party into the local authorities within 5 minutes of entering any given city or town because they were put into the Society by their god/goddess for a reason.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tabletop RPGs are a niche hobby. One thing that attracts people to niche hobbies is the ability to be doing something everyone else isn't doing. This makes them feel special. If it doesn't make these people feel special enough then they turn to elitism and start creating artificial parameters on the game to define the 'right' way of playing it (their way) and the 'wrong' way of playing it. Limiting the fantasy of the setting is one way to do this. I have seen people turn their nose up at gunpowder, Asian-themed classes & races, and even dinosaurs because they don't feel it belongs in their defined sense of a fantasy setting.
Of course, even if you aren't particularly elitist, you are still going to have SOME limit on what you consider acceptable. I think I would have a hard time with PFS if they allowed you to play Bugs Bunny and run around with a Sonic Screwdriver.
|
|
Of course, even if you aren't particularly elitist, you are still going to have SOME limit on what you consider acceptable. I think I would have a hard time with PFS if they allowed you to play Bugs Bunny and run around with a Sonic Screwdriver.
If someone found a way to make themselves look like a 6 foot tall bunny witht he name harvey and said they used wands that looked like a screw driver.
I would love to play wityh that guy...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I agree, there are a few things that aren't Tolkien in style. But most of it is, to me. See? Just a few simple things, and we have disagreements on what our collective fantasy should look like.
The magic users in pathfinder aren't very tolkeinesque either. What's with all these non Istari calling themselves wizards anyway? And this Jack Vance casting doing at my Tolkein-esque game, eh!?
Anyways, over the years I've played with a lot of groups. I've played with a clown, several prostitutes, a giant flying polar bear and a giant flying super gopher on two separate occasions, a monkey with a gun, and even a guy who could've been mistaken for the Tick. That list could go on for a long while. I might make a shocked face now and then, but I know I'm not in charge of their creativity and that's probably what they have fun with. PFS isn't much different in that regard. People are ideally just playing what they have fun with, and that's all I should care about. Then again, I've never been the sort to dislike someone's character unless they're directly messing with mine, but that's a whole different story.
|
|
+1 for Kyle Baird.
Besides, Pathfinder is not a Tolkienesque setting.
How else would you explain all the hate versus halflings?
That shows in the canon and in the crunch. Go dig for it.
Then, to add some more diversity:
There are a lot of people here who steadily cry about circus effects and freakshow parties because of some races.
On the other side it´s totally ok to have someone summon something supergrotesque and powerful from who knows where, a knight, a sargavian colonystyle safari-hunter gunslinger, a messenger of some god and a necromancer running around together, killing other people and creatues in one hit if possible?
The flavor of Golarion is not necessarily the flavor of the PFS campaign.
And just because something exists in Golarion, it´s not necessarily in the campaign. Most often part of it becomes legal anyway because else some never stop complaining.
There are some people who put on a massiv request for steampunk and technical things, which, when introduced, definately shift the flavor and feeling of the campaign and world. So, when those people can express their opinion, all the people who don´t like that are free to do the same.
Staying civil and not being a jerk is a different discussion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder, and general pulp fantasy/DnD/Forgotten Realms/etc, is NOT Tolkienesque. Not even close. Tolkien didn't write power-trip-sympathy-fantasy full of people throwing fireballs and bouncing around like medieval versions of superheroes. Tolkien belongs to an older age of fantasy/heroic literature where more realistic people do more plausible heroic things, and magic is generally subtle and/or reserved for otherworldly beings.
I'm not knocking pulp fantasy, just pointing out what its not. If someone wants to bring a cowboy wielding a six-shooter to a game I may die a little inside. But I'll have to live with it, and be nice, and find somewhere else to go once steam-airships and Orcs with derby hats speaking in Victorian accents enter the picture. Its not MY fantasy, no matter how much I may want it to be; its a communal fantasy where you don't get to pick - or dictate to - the community.
EDIT: oh... that was a rather dead thread. Oh well.
|
In my opinion, Golarion fantasy as defined in the Pathfinder Society organized play campaign is very far from Tolkien-fantasy, at least as far as within the fantasy genre itself. As pointed out before, Pathfinder is more pulp, Tolkien is more semi-ordinary people (called 'hobbits'!) becoming extraordinary through bravery and other things, rather than epic athleticism, mystical power, etc. Even Gandalf did not use magic beyond what would be cantrips very often at all. Also, in spite of epic themes, Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit felt 'grittier' for the most part.
Personally, after having played a minimum of 5 scenarios or more in six different organized play campaigns (LC, LG, Legacy of the Green Regent, LFR, an Eberron-set one I cannot remember the name of, and PFS), I find I'm not big on pulp style fantasy in organized play. In a home game, I tend to love pulp fantasy -- part of that is because the GM seems to have a tighter control on the level of over-the-topness (or, for brevity's sake, 'the silly'). That said, Paizo is driving this bus and they define what 'type of fantasy' world we're playing in together (no matter how much some of us sometimes like to think that we have a say. :-p ). All in all, I think they do a very good job of presenting an 'early Renaissance-era' type of pulp setting (the one notable exception that comes to mind is the Gunslinger, and, not for the presence of guns in the setting, more for how the mechanics make mid to high level gunslingers appear more like revolver/repeating rifle wielding cowpokes than barrel-loaded gun-wielding muskateers or buccaneers -- but that subject has been covered elsewhere, ad nauseum).
/end inflationary $0.02
There are some things that I really don't think belong, bug me, or just seem to cause trouble so that I wish it wasn't there. The concept of the drunken master, most of the specials in the buccaneer, much of the implementation of the bard buffs, most of the firearms stuff, etc... But that is all internal to me. Although I will admit sometimes I find it very difficult to abstain from at least an eye-roll at some guys. I virtually never tell someone else how to play their game, what they can or can't do with their PC, or what is or is not setting appropriate at a PFS event.
However, if they ask me what I think (Do you like my kitsune quad wielding 8 double pistols while pouncing?). Well then I will tell them that even if legal, it is too far from sensible for me to enjoy. I will try to word it as politely as possible. But hey, you asked. If you don't want to know, don't ask.
Or if someone is doing something just too far out in space from what is allowed. My paladin is allowed to torture this guy to death by crushing body parts with my maul, because I intend to use the information for the greater good. My monitor lizard animal companion is also going to sign up for the chess tournament.
Other than that, I let it fly. It might not be what I want for my PC, but you are welcome to it. I don't tell you how to run your PC, you don't tell me how to run mine.
|
|
TBH, Ive never really considered Golarion your typical Fantasy setting. I got into Golarion kinda late, and was pleasantly surprised to see things like guns in the setting.
To me a setting needs to have something that differentiates it from another. For me for Golarion at least thats the amount of attention paid to setting up very interesting locales ie Rahadoum and Galt/Hermea and the fact that they brought in a divisive concept like guns/gunpowder.
(which in itself is present in other settings.. FR actually has/had it with the gnomes of Lantan)
I have to agree with many of the posters above. Golarion is not Tolkein Fantasy, not even close. Greyhawk is more Tolkein that any other setting that comes to mind and even that setting has a full cadre of very powerful Wizards who use some mighty magics to get things done. Golarion however does draw similarities though (Iggilwiv with Baba Yaga, Iuz with some elements of Aroden/Razmiran) and the stongly defined countries of Greyhawk with the strongly defined countries of Golarion.
Golarion also appeals for me because they made the canvas so big at the start. They have a nation constantly in the throes of revolution, a nation put together by a Dragon to be the best of the best, a nation 'ruled' by devil licensed humans, a nation of freedom fighters and so on. For me the fact that you start 'big' is great. You dont need world shattering events to shake things up, as technically everything is 'shook up' at the start. You have enough variation to provide an almost limitless number of ideas and dont need to bring in totally new concepts (although you can if you so wish)
|
|
If I recall correctly, Dragonlance during the 5th age (no gods/clerics) is more akin to Tolkein. Most of the heroes are just highly trained "common-folk." Tanis v. Aragorn, Gimli v. Flint, Draconians v. Uruk-hai, etc. Of course Raistlin is a bit more overtly magical than Gandalf, but at least he used the magic sporadically outside of things that could be considered cantrips. In fact, I've heard people claim (I disagree) that Dragonlance is a rip-off of LotR. I think its clear they borrowed heavily from it, but hardly a rip-off, IMHO.
To digress, IMO, Golarion borrows from many of it's ancestral campaigns (Greyhawk, Realms, Eberron, etc.) and Paizo did that purposely to attract the widest possible audience. Just about everyone can find something they like. Outside of PFS, you can chose to just ignore aspects you don't really like for your home campaign, but its nice to have details written out if you do find you need something more edgy (like guns) to make an appearance without having to do huge amounts of research and creation.
|
|
Bob:
Raistlin actually put me off Dragonlance to some extent. Her uber power, his personality (his character personality) reminded me of a 2nd ed Wizard player I used to game with and some of the stuff he did just got to me.
I actually was hoping Caramon (who lets face it Raistlin badmouthed most of the time) would just kill him in his sleep.
I do however see the similarities there.
However all this Dragonlance talk brings up painful memories of a card system they used for the rpg for some time.
Ignoring "Tolkien-esque" - agree OP.
In the end the hatred towards play of table legal characters baffles me.
Couldn't have said it better.