|
You cannot scribe a scroll unless you know how much it will cost. You cannot know how much it will cost unless you understand spell level and caster level. This is particularly true knowing you can artificially lower the caster level below your own to make items more price/benefit efficient.Their world's function doesn't actually depend on that understanding. If you want a good example of that read any of the Pathfinder Tales novels. All of those characters exist in the world of the game and none of them think in game mechanics terms.Meta gaming is using out of character knowledge to gain a benefit in game. I happen to believe that my characters should be able to express their level of expertise with their in world understanding.
I'm not privy to how characters conventionally speak about HP, spell levels, character levels, skill bonuses, etc. So I use the only vocabulary available to me which are the numbers on the page. That doesn't mean that those characters don't have a way to be precise and specific about those things. It seems what is really bothering some folks is that preciseness and specificity. Some folks want players to to make mechanical checks (a completely out of game world exercise) based on in character vagaries about how good they are at something.
Guess what? In character making a check or aiding another doesn't really happen either. "The two of us work cooperatively to break down that door" who's aiding? Who's rolling the "real" check. It's already an abstraction. Trying to suggest that how players make that decision is metagaming is ridiculous unless you are prepared to say the entire pathfinder rule set is a "metagame" and the "real" game is "adventures in Golarion" I doubt most people are prepared to make that statement.
I find it completely ridiculous to say that characters don't have any knowledge of character levels, classes, or spell levels because their world's function depends on that understanding.
You can guess at how much ink is going into it, how much paper it takes up, and what the material components are going to cost based on what another scroll tells you or how much space it takes up in your spellbook. I would assume that higher level spells take up more space than lower level, for the simple fact that its harder to cast. I know that for convenience every spell takes up one page in the spellbook, but I'm assuming a spell like light takes up a single line and a spell dimension door takes up significantly more space. You can guess how much energy its going to take out of you to cast said spell or prepare a scroll of it.
The thing that annoys me most about the use of numbers as in character knowledge (mostly hp, but not limited to) is that it makes certain in game things meant to overcome these difficulties completely useless, ie deathwatch, a spell designed to tell a healer how close to death his teammates are can be rendered null and void by saying "I'm down 15 of 20 hit points." Essentially making it a spell that no one ever prepares because "why would I ever prepare that if I can just ask what your hp is at?"
The game has a bunch of bad spells that no one would ever prepare. However, deathwatch is great if you don't want to let your opponents know who on your team is the closest to dying.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...You cannot scribe a scroll unless you know how much it will cost. You cannot know how much it will cost unless you understand spell level and caster level. This is particularly true knowing you can artificially lower the caster level below your own to make itemsTheir world's function doesn't actually depend on that understanding. If you want a good example of that read any of the Pathfinder Tales novels. All of those characters exist in the world of the game and none of them think in game mechanics terms.Meta gaming is using out of character knowledge to gain a benefit in game. I happen to believe that my characters should be able to express their level of expertise with their in world understanding.
I'm not privy to how characters conventionally speak about HP, spell levels, character levels, skill bonuses, etc. So I use the only vocabulary available to me which are the numbers on the page. That doesn't mean that those characters don't have a way to be precise and specific about those things. It seems what is really bothering some folks is that preciseness and specificity. Some folks want players to to make mechanical checks (a completely out of game world exercise) based on in character vagaries about how good they are at something.
Guess what? In character making a check or aiding another doesn't really happen either. "The two of us work cooperatively to break down that door" who's aiding? Who's rolling the "real" check. It's already an abstraction. Trying to suggest that how players make that decision is metagaming is ridiculous unless you are prepared to say the entire pathfinder rule set is a "metagame" and the "real" game is "adventures in Golarion" I doubt most people are prepared to make that statement.
I find it completely ridiculous to say that characters don't have any knowledge of character levels, classes, or spell levels because their world's function depends on that understanding.
In our world we would call that science and would very very quickly determine the exact measurements involved. Why doesn't a world with equally intelligent beings do the same? Because they like vagueness? Because spell casters are known for "just kinda guessing?"
These folks spend year and years in research. They know the exact formulas. They know how to talk about it in their world. I don't know what they say so I use the terms available to me. It's not metagaming.
Once again I point you towards the Pathfinder Tales novels for examples of how people in the game world describe things. A particularly good example would be Nightglass.
You are saying that if someone doesn't role play just like the characters in the novels act that they are metagaming?
I think the entire idea is silly. I severely doubt that the authors of those novels actually took time to think about how mechanics of the game would influence the world they are writing about. And if the characters don't notice how structured their universe is then the author of the book is wrong. There is absolutely no way people with extremely high intelligence who spend time studying their world would not discover the equations that govern their universe.
Also, I'm not sitting around a table telling a story (only) I'm also playing a game with mechanics. Discussing and using those mechanics is definitely part of the game.
|
|
That's not what I'm saying at all. I was just saying that they are a very good example of how characters in a game world think about the world they live in.
Also, it has been specifically stated in interviews with the people in charge of the novel line that they have to make sure that, since these books take place in a world that has a set of game rules, that the actions of characters in these books are actually things that could happen using those rules and not just things put in to further the story. I'm not exactly sure which episode but it was on an episode of the Know Direction podcast.
|
The thing that annoys me most about the use of numbers as in character knowledge (mostly hp, but not limited to) is that it makes certain in game things meant to overcome these difficulties completely useless, ie deathwatch, a spell designed to tell a healer how close to death his teammates are can be rendered null and void by saying "I'm down 15 of 20 hit points." Essentially making it a spell that no one ever prepares because "why would I ever prepare that if I can just ask what your hp is at?"
Except, of course, deathwatch doesn't do that either. Its granularity makes it almost useless for a healer tracking his companions
Once again I point you towards the Pathfinder Tales novels for examples of how people in the game world describe things. A particularly good example would be Nightglass.You are saying that if someone doesn't role play just like the characters in the novels act that they are metagaming?
I think the entire idea is silly. I severely doubt that the authors of those novels actually took time to think about how mechanics of the game would influence the world they are writing about. And if the characters don't notice how structured their universe is then the author of the book is wrong. There is absolutely no way people with extremely high intelligence who spend time studying their world would not discover the equations that govern their universe.
Also, I'm not sitting around a table telling a story (only) I'm also playing a game with mechanics. Discussing and using those mechanics is definitely part of the game.
That's fine, but it doesn't make someone who plays differently wrong.
That's fine, but it doesn't make someone who plays differently wrong.Once again I point you towards the Pathfinder Tales novels for examples of how people in the game world describe things. A particularly good example would be Nightglass.You are saying that if someone doesn't role play just like the characters in the novels act that they are metagaming?
I think the entire idea is silly. I severely doubt that the authors of those novels actually took time to think about how mechanics of the game would influence the world they are writing about. And if the characters don't notice how structured their universe is then the author of the book is wrong. There is absolutely no way people with extremely high intelligence who spend time studying their world would not discover the equations that govern their universe.
Also, I'm not sitting around a table telling a story (only) I'm also playing a game with mechanics. Discussing and using those mechanics is definitely part of the game.
I didn't say that it did. I'm not the one accusing people of metagaming.
Edit: if you are playing without mechanics then you aren't really playing pathfinder. Which is fine, but pathfinder is a game of mechanics and they belong in discussions of how the game is played.
|
[post about his wife shyness and playing the role of the diplomat
While I agree that the GM should not pressure the player in explaining exactly what the character is saying, the player shouldn't do the opposite and "Say I roll diplomacy, end of the matter."
The GM need something to work with.Ok, you roll diplomacy and have moved his reaction to friendly.
Have you played the buddy or the cool professional? (if I know the character you are playing the reply can be self evident)
What are trying to get from him?
Your wife seem to have found a very good solution for that, her shy moment speech: "My character is much more diplomatic than I am. I would like her to converse (insert NPC here) to (insert what the group needs from the NPC here)."
give the informations I would want.
She is trying to be amiable and get what the group need without pressuring the NPC.
in her speech she give the GM the informations about the method used and the goal, what is generally needed to judge the outcome in the light of the die roll. (depending on the NPC description a friendly approach can be more or less efficient than a cool professional approach. Sometime one can work and the other can be an automatic failure)
|
|
PC I quickly search the room's then move on (because there is a time frame)
GM that' takes time
PC yeah but I do it quickly
GM so it's more like a spot then search ?
PC nah still search the room but quickly
GM that takes time
PC no because we do it quickly
GM..........Of course that quickly segues into the lack of difference between Spot and Search in PF and exactly how long does a search take?
Officially, intentionally making a perception check is a move action. There is no RAW for making it take longer.
Which still seems odd to me. There should be a difference between a quick look around a room and a careful search, but there's no mechanical way to handle that as far as I can tell.
"Spot" (or a perception cheek without spending time searching) you see what you can see from your position, with the distance modifiers. You don't have x ray vision so you don't know what is behind the curtain, on the other side of the desk, under the carpet or written in the paper on the table (with the exception of the first sheet and only if you are fairly close).
Search: the character is moving along the room, checking the carpet for bulges or signs he is often moved, open the desk drawers, look behind the curtain and other obstacles to vision, check the books in the library.
1 perception check, but several item checked individually, so he is spending time.
At least, i see it that way.
A very good point Jiggy and Nosig raise there, I admit I have never thought of it from that perspective and thank you for illuminating it for me.
Maybe something like asking for bullet points would be an acceptable compromise? Something like asking for the tone? Do you flirt, do you use reason, do you flatter, etc.?
Sure - maybe - but if the player isn't sure how it can be done (because they don't have a +29 Diplomacy themselves), why not supply it as the Judge. Pull the player into the game...
Bashful Bard Player A "I try to intimidate the Mook into telling us what he knows... I got a 34"
Helpful Cleric Player B "Can I assist?! I assist! all I needed was a 10 right! wow I add +2!"
Judge "The Bard, in misty Mistmail steps to the door and, as the cleric swings open the door, she steps into the room. Swirling the cape with the continual flame spell on the lining around to her back so the "flames" swirl up around her, she coils her whip and puts it on her belt. Looking at the target sitting on the bed, she points the glove in her other hand and says "So, do we talk? or do we move on to other options?" Target sees a Cheliaxian woman, clothed in fire & smoke. Intimadate check? 35... Target says: "ah... what was it you wanted to talk about? I's can be Real Helpful, yes I's can!"
So the GM should invent the PC actions? I would find that very annoying as the PC is mine, not a property of the GM.
I mean we do this all the time with combat right?
Player A: "I got a 33 to hit with my Kopesh..."
Player B: "and my song adds +2 to hit and damage!"
Player A: "35 to hit then"
Judge: "so, how about some bullet points on how you do that? Give me something to work with here... do you do a sideswing thrust, or overhand chop? 'Butterfly in Flight' with a 'Stong Breeze' finish? what? give me something to work with here! and you Bard, how are you boosting? A rousing martial tone? or what?"
Player A: "ah... what?..."
False analogy.
By consuming illicit substances at the table... without permission...
...and without bringing enough for everyone.
|
|
To be fair, this is realistically what people would do in a hostage situation where raise dead was a reasonable possibility.As a GM you try the classic hostage situation: "Take another step and I'll kill your friend." (Unconscious ally under the BBEGs knife)
Players: "Go ahead and kill him. We'll just pay for the raise dead and at this tier still come out with a good amount of gold."
GM: "You guys suck."
Raise dead isn't an automatic solution. It cost a lot of money, it leave permanent mental/physical scarring (2 negative levels), the dead character can be judged immediately by Pharasma and be unrecoverable, the appropriate cleric can be very far away, you can be in Rahdaun (sp.).
You would touch a live electrical wire because there is a certified nurse near you and he can apply CPR?
|
|
Some time I am not sure if you are simply contrary by nature of you play the part.
Both the search and spot examples make very clear that you are using the perception skill. What change is how you use it.
You use the perception skill for a rapid look-see from a single position: you are trying to spot (normal English word, not game term) interesting things in the room.
You use the perception skill while checking drawers, moving curtains and so on? You are searching (again, normal English use of the word) the room.
|
|
Diego, your posts draw two comments from me, I'll need to give them in more than one post I think.
In reply to:"So the GM should invent the PC actions? I would find that very annoying as the PC is mine, not a property of the GM."We do this all the time. Think about it for a second. Anytime a PC has a skill the player does not have, and the player just rolls to beat the DC. Disable device is a classic example.
Player: "I take 10 and get a 30"
The player has no idea HOW to disable the device - he might not even know WHAT the trap is. And yet if his PC gets a good enough result he not only disables the device, he bypasses it and can rearm it. HOW he does this (if needed) is supplied by the Judge.
possible judge responses include: "Using your #4 lock pick, you jammed the mechanical parts and broke the firing pin."... "You found the bypass switch and turned it off"... "you stepped over the trip wire and disconnected it" ... or a thousand other possibilities. The point is, the PLAYER had NO IDEA how to do this, but he PC has the skill, and therefore must know how. He/she knows what to say - how to say it - from experience/training/natural talent that the PLAYER doesn't (and perhaps the Judge doesn't have any idea either!). I used Disable Device, but it could have been any skill in the example: Acrobatics, Climb, Disable Device, Escape Artist, Heal, Linguistics, Sense Motive, Spellcraft, Survival are just a few of the skills I have little or no ability at - heck for some of those I have NO IDEA how someone would do them. Yet my PCs might do them all the time. And as part of the story, I as the Judge will supply a really good (I hope) sounding way the PC does them.... if it's needed.
Player: "I get a 29 (skill check), what's the result?" (Insert any skill)...
This is the player passing control of the story to the judge... who needs to look at the DC and tell the players the results. If he can (and has the time), he tells them in the language of the story unfolding...
My analogy of the Attack...
Re read your florilegium of text in the diplomacy example. you aren't simply describing an action. You are creating the PC character. If it is your character, fine, if it is my character, you are stepping on my toes. and with heavy boots.
That's fine, but it doesn't make someone who plays differently wrong.Once again I point you towards the Pathfinder Tales novels for examples of how people in the game world describe things. A particularly good example would be Nightglass.You are saying that if someone doesn't role play just like the characters in the novels act that they are metagaming?
I think the entire idea is silly. I severely doubt that the authors of those novels actually took time to think about how mechanics of the game would influence the world they are writing about. And if the characters don't notice how structured their universe is then the author of the book is wrong. There is absolutely no way people with extremely high intelligence who spend time studying their world would not discover the equations that govern their universe.
Also, I'm not sitting around a table telling a story (only) I'm also playing a game with mechanics. Discussing and using those mechanics is definitely part of the game.
I didn't say that it did. I'm not the one accusing people of metagaming.
Edit: if you are playing without mechanics then you aren't really playing pathfinder. Which is fine, but pathfinder is a game of mechanics and they belong in discussions of how the game is played.
You misunderstand: I play with mechanics, but I understand they are approximations of a fantasy world.
To use an analogy, if you were playing a 'modern' RPG that had a section in the rule book defining that a 'large sedan' gets 15 miles per gallon, would you consider that a law of physics? That a Lincoln Towncar and Honda Accord have the same mileage, regardless of being different cars, and regardless of how they're being driven? Or would you think that it's a simplification and an approximation to make the game playable and the rule book of finite length?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's fine, but it doesn't make someone who plays differently wrong.Once again I point you towards the Pathfinder Tales novels for examples of how people in the game world describe things. A particularly good example would be Nightglass.You are saying that if someone doesn't role play just like the characters in the novels act that they are metagaming?
I think the entire idea is silly. I severely doubt that the authors of those novels actually took time to think about how mechanics of the game would influence the world they are writing about. And if the characters don't notice how structured their universe is then the author of the book is wrong. There is absolutely no way people with extremely high intelligence who spend time studying their world would not discover the equations that govern their universe.
Also, I'm not sitting around a table telling a story (only) I'm also playing a game with mechanics. Discussing and using those mechanics is definitely part of the game.
I didn't say that it did. I'm not the one accusing people of metagaming.
Edit: if you are playing without mechanics then you aren't really playing pathfinder. Which is fine, but pathfinder is a game of mechanics and they belong in discussions of how the game is played.
You misunderstand: I play with mechanics, but I understand they are approximations of a fantasy world.
To use an analogy, if you were playing a 'modern' RPG that had a section in the rule book defining that a 'large sedan' gets 15 miles per gallon, would you consider that a law of physics? That a Lincoln Towncar and Honda Accord have the same mileage, regardless of being different cars, and regardless of how they're being driven? Or would you think that it's a simplification and an approximation to make the game playable and the rule book of finite length?
The analogy isn't apropos to the situation. The vehicle analogy would be:
PLAYER IN CHARACTER: "let's take my car because it gets better gas mileage and we won't have to stop as often for gas, we need to get to McGuffin as quickly as possible"
GM: "cheat! Metagame cheat! Just because your vehicle sheet says 20 mpg doesn't mean your character knows that! There is no rule for your character to know that! Look at all these shadowrun novels, no one ever talks about MPG! Stop cheating meta gamer! Now take the car that gets 5 mpg or you're a metagame cheater!"
PLAYER: "my character knows that his car goes further on a tank of gas, because he drives it and stuff."
GM: "no, your character (nor the entire rest of the campaign world) never bothered to figure out miles per gallon. All you know is that the when the gas light comes on you need gas. Stop trying to justify your metagaming."
PLAYER: "that doesn't make any sense and this just stopped being fun."
|
|
That's fine, but it doesn't make someone who plays differently wrong.Once again I point you towards the Pathfinder Tales novels for examples of how people in the game world describe things. A particularly good example would be Nightglass.You are saying that if someone doesn't role play just like the characters in the novels act that they are metagaming?
I think the entire idea is silly. I severely doubt that the authors of those novels actually took time to think about how mechanics of the game would influence the world they are writing about. And if the characters don't notice how structured their universe is then the author of the book is wrong. There is absolutely no way people with extremely high intelligence who spend time studying their world would not discover the equations that govern their universe.
Also, I'm not sitting around a table telling a story (only) I'm also playing a game with mechanics. Discussing and using those mechanics is definitely part of the game.
I didn't say that it did. I'm not the one accusing people of metagaming.
Edit: if you are playing without mechanics then you aren't really playing pathfinder. Which is fine, but pathfinder is a game of mechanics and they belong in discussions of how the game is played.
You are assuming that when I say you are metagaming, that I'm assigning some sort of judgement to that--and that the judgement is negative.
The fact is, it is very, very difficult to not play table top RPGs that have actual game mechanics rules (i.e. not free flowing storytelling systems like the Amber system), without some level of metagaming. It will happen.
But just because in your mind, the word metagaming has a negative connotation, does not stop what you are doing from being metagaming. You can't try to redefine the word to make yourself feel better.
If you use game mechanics terms in-character, or have your character react based on out of character discussion of game mechanics terms, then you are metagaming. That's what it is. You can't get away from that.
|
|
The analogy isn't apropos to the situation. The vehicle analogy would be:
PLAYER IN CHARACTER: "let's take my car because it gets better gas mileage and we won't have to stop as often for gas, we need to get to McGuffin as quickly as possible"
GM: "cheat! Metagame cheat! Just because your vehicle sheet says 20 mpg doesn't mean your character knows that! There is no rule for your character to know that! Look at all these shadowrun novels, no one ever talks about MPG! Stop cheating meta gamer! Now take the car that gets 5 mpg or you're a metagame cheater!"
PLAYER: "my character knows that his car goes further on a tank of gas, because he drives it and stuff."
GM: "no, your character (nor the entire rest of the campaign world) never bothered to figure out miles per gallon. All you know is that the when the gas light comes on you need gas. Stop trying to justify your metagaming."
PLAYER: "that doesn't make any sense and this just stopped being fun."
And you accuse him of a false analogy? <blink>
If my character rolls a d100 to figure out what the weather is like today then he would be metagaming.
If my character goes to a hedge wizard and asks, "do you have any first level scrolls?" He is not metagaming.
I do not accept that metagaming is a necessary evil of gameplay, but I also (apparently) don't define it as broadly as you do. It is safe to say that when 90%+ of players/gm's talk about metagaming that they see it as a bad thing. Also, the original point was brought up in a thread called "ways to annoy your GM."
|
|
If my character rolls a d100 to figure out what the weather is like today then he would be metagaming.
If my character goes to a hedge wizard and asks, "do you have any first level scrolls?" He is not metagaming.
I do not accept that metagaming is a necessary evil of gameplay, but I also (apparently) don't define it as broadly as you do. It is safe to say that when 90%+ of players/gm's talk about metagaming that they see it as a bad thing. Also, the original point was brought up in a thread called "ways to annoy your GM."
2nd example above is metagaming.
The game rules are not what the characters understand.
And again, just because you are trying to redefine what metagaming is, doesn't suddenly mean that you aren't metagaming anymore.
That's how our financial system collapsed a few years back.
The investment firms and insurance underwriters didn't want to make sure they had a certain percentage of their policies in immediate capital, so they just decided they'd create the policies by calling them something else.
Still didn't make it not insurance.
You don't get to redifine something just because you, yourself, have assigned a negative connotation to what that means.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And you accuse him of a false analogy? <blink>The analogy isn't apropos to the situation. The vehicle analogy would be:
PLAYER IN CHARACTER: "let's take my car because it gets better gas mileage and we won't have to stop as often for gas, we need to get to McGuffin as quickly as possible"
GM: "cheat! Metagame cheat! Just because your vehicle sheet says 20 mpg doesn't mean your character knows that! There is no rule for your character to know that! Look at all these shadowrun novels, no one ever talks about MPG! Stop cheating meta gamer! Now take the car that gets 5 mpg or you're a metagame cheater!"
PLAYER: "my character knows that his car goes further on a tank of gas, because he drives it and stuff."
GM: "no, your character (nor the entire rest of the campaign world) never bothered to figure out miles per gallon. All you know is that the when the gas light comes on you need gas. Stop trying to justify your metagaming."
PLAYER: "that doesn't make any sense and this just stopped being fun."
The original complaint was that DM's get annoyed when the guy with a +8 to diplomacy makes a skill check instead of the guy with a +5. The players were called meta gamers and we're accused of doing something bad/wrong.
My reply was that certain mechanical things must be known to characters because they are core functions of their universe. To suggest that characters haven't figured out stuff like caster level/spell level is dumb.
Someone then said that characters don't know about caster level and spell level because: books.
I said that was completely ridiculous (both the argument AND the conclusion)
Then Ross said that I was wrong because: vague perceptions that yield exact results.
I would say my analogy reflects all of that pretty closely actually.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If my character rolls a d100 to figure out what the weather is like today then he would be metagaming.
If my character goes to a hedge wizard and asks, "do you have any first level scrolls?" He is not metagaming.
I do not accept that metagaming is a necessary evil of gameplay, but I also (apparently) don't define it as broadly as you do. It is safe to say that when 90%+ of players/gm's talk about metagaming that they see it as a bad thing. Also, the original point was brought up in a thread called "ways to annoy your GM."
2nd example above is metagaming.
The game rules are not what the characters understand.
And again, just because you are trying to redefine what metagaming is, doesn't suddenly mean that you aren't metagaming anymore.
That's how our financial system collapsed a few years back.
The investment firms and insurance underwriters didn't want to make sure they had a certain percentage of their policies in immediate capital, so they just decided they'd create the policies by calling them something else.
Still didn't make it not insurance.
You don't get to redifine something just because you, yourself, have assigned a negative connotation to what that means.
If you can tell me how characters refer to the scalability of power within the magic system then I will happily use those terms. Until then I assume that characters use the same terms that I do because that's all the game gives us.
It seems that you are suggesting that using a precise term or technical term is metagaming. Are real-world physicists metagaming the real-world?
Why do you have to ask about a first level spell? Ask about a specific spell.
I've got 25gp burning a hole in my coin pouch and I want to see what scrolls I could afford. And before you say "why not just ask about what he has for 25gp?" Because 1) maybe I want to negotiate. 2) maybe I don't want to tell the npc how much gold I'm carrying. 3) I don't want him to tell me about all the stuff he has for 25gp that isn't a scroll. 4) I wanted to ask the question the way I did and why do you care?
Edit: asking about a specific spell isn't any better anyway. Unless spell level and caster level have meaning in the campaign world then the difference between cure light wounds and cure moderate wounds is nonsensical.
7 points of damage for a level 1 commoner is a critical wound, but could be healed by cure light wounds spell.
20 points of damage on a level 10 barbarian would be a light wound but would need a cure serious wounds spell (on average) to patch up.
If the characters or campaign world really have no concept of level (spell/class/caster) then the very idea that a series of spells called cure xxx wounds is dumb.
Wouldn't spells with expensive material components mess up the system?
Wouldn't spells with expensive material components mess up the system?
I think they are the exception that proves the rule. Expensive material components are well known to spell casters. Their addition to the price of items would be easily predictable and noticeable.
Wouldn't spells with expensive material components mess up the system?I think they are the exception that proves the rule. Expensive material components are well known to spell casters. Their addition to the price of items would be easily predictable and noticeable.
No, they wouldn't, because nothing in the price is predicable and normal at all. 50 gp of crushed ruby dust is, for example, an abstraction for a certain amount of ruby. I'm pretty sure someone is paying 48 gp for the same amount, and someone else is paying 54. (and the gem shop is probably paying his dealer 25, who is paying the mine 10, who is paying the miner a silver a day). If you get those 50 gp rubies for 48 gp you don't have to go back and pay more for them
Likewise, not every wizard is getting the inks, special quills (roc feather) special parchments, at the same costs, nor are they all doubling their costs to get the sell price. Scroll scribers might be aware of the differences but the general public probably isn't.
Enough people with high intelligence spend years of their life dedicated to the study of magic. People who have intelligence and experience far beyond what people in our world have. Entire colleges and guilds are dedicated to unlocking the mysteries of their craft. Experimentation is done, over and over ad nauseam.
And you are telling me that they can't figure out spell level x caster level x (certain amount of stuff roughly equal to 12.5gp) = how much a scroll costs?
Dude, we have atomic super-coliders and found String particles. No one on earth has a 30 INT. The idea that millennia of study by entire societies can't come up with a simple axbxc+m=d formula is ridiculous. THAT is immersion breaking.
My annoyance with 'levels' in a game... is A) that its not as innate as it should be.
You can call yourself a 5th level wizard... but where did you get that rank? Who gave it to you? Did you go back to the tower and take a placement exam?
If you focus a lot on training rules, then that works just fine.... but I don't see anyone in any book referring to themselves as '3rd level fighters...' so i'm not a fan of it tossed in with casters either.
and...
B) It sounds kind of stupid. Claiming your a 5th level wizard is much more dumb sounding then claiming to be a master of the Fifth ring of the Order of light....
Means the same thing, but I don't know... I just don't care for 'level-speak'
I think in-game, we currently refer to spells as being of certain 'circles'. Our sorcerer can currently cast a single spell of the fifth circle...
It's petty, but we like it ;)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My annoyance with 'levels' in a game... is A) that its not as innate as it should be.
You can call yourself a 5th level wizard... but where did you get that rank? Who gave it to you? Did you go back to the tower and take a placement exam?
If you focus a lot on training rules, then that works just fine.... but I don't see anyone in any book referring to themselves as '3rd level fighters...' so i'm not a fan of it tossed in with casters either.
and...
B) It sounds kind of stupid. Claiming your a 5th level wizard is much more dumb sounding then claiming to be a master of the Fifth ring of the Order of light....
Means the same thing, but I don't know... I just don't care for 'level-speak'
I think in-game, we currently refer to spells as being of certain 'circles'. Our sorcerer can currently cast a single spell of the fifth circle...
It's petty, but we like it ;)
And that works fine, in a closed group, where you are metagaming the meaning. The instant someone new joins your group, you either have to step out of character to explain it, or you have someone who is totally confused, and probably not having a bunch of fun.
OGL core refers to a bunch of things by the word level. Many of us either have been using the term for years as Gary & Dave defined it, or grew up using it that way.
Remember that what your group uses if it is non-standard, is fine for your group, but you need to remember taht visitors and new members will need to be brought up to speed on it.
For PFS, since it is an open campaign, using the standard terms is not metagaming, it is playing the game as written.
Can your PC tell the difference between a Fighter, a Ranger, a Paladin, and a Samurai? At times, they can all look almost identical to a casual viewer.
Fighter with a bow
Ranged Ranger
Divine Hunter (I think it is) Paladin
Zen Archer Monk
Overall, from a distance, they will look very similar.
|
|
Oh, and back on the original subject:
Groups that have trouble with basic tactics. You know, things like focused fire, and going after the most dangerous target first.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I sort of get the impression that to some people, if the rulebooks said "tier" instead of "level", then we'd be having a discussion of how "tier" is metagamey and it might be more setting-appropriate to say "level". That is, it seems like some people think that certain terms wouldn't be used in-character for no other reason than that they're used in the rules; like a term can't be used both in-character and out? A given word can only exist on one side of the line somehow?
|
The thing that annoys me most about the use of numbers as in character knowledge (mostly hp, but not limited to) is that it makes certain in game things meant to overcome these difficulties completely useless, ie deathwatch, a spell designed to tell a healer how close to death his teammates are can be rendered null and void by saying "I'm down 15 of 20 hit points." Essentially making it a spell that no one ever prepares because "why would I ever prepare that if I can just ask what your hp is at?"
because deathwatch is far more useful for other things and horrible for detecting hit point totals in PCs (you get to know they are down an unknown number of hit points, or they are dying or they have 3 or less hit points left - but you also - perhaps more importantly know if something is living, undead, dead - or non-of-those.
Its a little disconcerting when the walls detect as dead and not none-of-the-above (limestone) though.
I think Status is the spell that tracks the condition of your party members - rather than the necromacy spell deathwatch.
|
|
I sort of get the impression that to some people, if the rulebooks said "tier" instead of "level", then we'd be having a discussion of how "tier" is metagamey and it might be more setting-appropriate to say "level". That is, it seems like some people think that certain terms wouldn't be used in-character for no other reason than that they're used in the rules; like a term can't be used both in-character and out? A given word can only exist on one side of the line somehow?
While the novelization and cinematizing of the game doesn't necessarily represent the only in character way to represent various game mechanics, the fact that authors, whose works are vetted by the publisher of the game, do not have the characters using numbers and level language in their dialogue, is telling.
The fact that table top RPGs are often defined as the GM And players developing a shared story together, leads me to believe that the dialogue portrayed in the novels from TSR, WotC, and Paizo are how characters think and talk and interact with the world in character.
Using game rule terms or any synonym is not in character and therefore is metagaming.
I am fully aware that some metagame conversation between GM and Player or even Player and Player needs to happen to make things run more smoothly. Especially in a time sensitive situation that is often prevalent in Organized Play.
But as I've said many times, this doesn't make it "not metagaming".
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@Andy: I haven't read any of the novels, so I can't really speak to that. I was more responding to some of the comments that "5th-level spell" is bad but "a spell of the 5th circle of arcana" (or whatever) is fine. The only difference seems to be using "circle" (or "tier", or whatever) instead of "level", but meaning the exact same thing. Or instead of saying "3rd-level wizard", it's "an initiate of the 3rd tier of wizardry"; again, still talking about levels, just with a different word.
Some folks (sounds like this includes you) seem to be saying that even the concept of levels and such doesn't exist in the game world; though I'm not sure I agree, the idea makes sense. Other folks, though, seem to believe that characters are fully aware of things like spell levels, except that using the word "level" is metagamey while a more long-winded synonym somehow is not. That is what seems weird to me.
Either the characters are aware of the level structure or they aren't; but if they are, then one term shouldn't be any more or less metagamey than any other, you know?
|
|
I agree that just using a synonym doesn't solve the problem. I think the disconnect for many people is that the word metagame has taken on a very negative connotation.
Therefore they try to define certain metagame interactions as in character actions. This is the crux of this argument right now.
There are some real life pass times and organizations that use some synonym of level or some leveling concept within their ranks. You can be a blue or red or black belt in martial arts. You can be a junior or senior apprentice in many trade unions. You can go from janitor to CEO in some companies.
But unless this paradigm is artificially crafted for that specific organization, you never refer to a person as a level of anything with skill ranks and bonuses and what not.
Not in regular non-nerd gamer society.
Therefore impressing this concept of levels and ranks and bonuses and numerical hit points as in-character isn't creating a realistic 3D world paradigm. Your characters are just a 2D pen and paper set of game mechanics.
That isn't the imagination of what in character conversations happen that I want to have. If you want to see how a fantasy character interacts in character read any fantasy novel. The ones that would have the most impact would be the novels written in the game world itself.
That all being said. Some level of metagaming is necessary to make the game run smoothly.
|
|
leaving stuff out....to see if I can figure out when we should impose a penality...
situation one:
Player: "using Intimidate (skill) to convense the Mook to leave town (desired outcome)... I take 10 and get a 35."
Judge: "who is?"Situation two:
Player: "Katisha (the PC) is convenseing the Mook to leave town (desired outcome)... I take 10 and get a 35."
Judge: "you get 35 in what?"Situation three:
Player: "Katisha (the PC) is using Intimidate (skill) to convense the Mook ... I take 10 and get a 35."
Judge: "convense him to do what?"In which of those would the judge say "you get a -2 circumstance penality to that skill check"?
Sorry, I've been away for a couple days. I figured I owed you the courtesy of a response.
I would simply ask for the missing information in these cases. I don't think I'd levy the penalty at all here. I talked to the players that usually game with me several days ago. We discussed this topic and again, nobody had a problem with it per se (unless of course I had intimidated them in real life). Interestingly, in PFS, we can't remember ever levying the penalty.
I do remember the discussions around when we decided to start using it. The penalty was to be used for people who were intentionally vague in the player to GM communications (not character to NPC) so as to artificially avoid potential negative consequences. We had a player who confessed to doing just that although I don't recall what scenario we were playing (Kaer Maga comes to mind).
I see the penalty as being for people who are in essence gaming the system by saying too little or nothing, not because they are shy or inexperienced, but because the player knows there is a land-mine and is unable to identify it in game. They try to avoid it by being vague, in essence, meta-gaming by omission. As I said above, a couple of quick questions usually puts everything on the right track.
Andy
|
As a GM you try the classic hostage situation: "Take another step and I'll kill your friend." (Unconscious ally under the BBEGs knife)
Players: "Go ahead and kill him. We'll just pay for the raise dead and at this tier still come out with a good amount of gold."
GM: "You guys suck."
This is risking the departed being on a fast track to final judgement and being unressurectable by normal magics. Or just meeting lost loved ones and deciding to stay with them in the afterlife.
edit to add to the thread: Fellow PC searches a door for traps, rolls anything, says it looks safe. My PC "You need to do more than look at it for a second before I trust anything you say" OoC take 20, its only a minute.
also it would be great if the GM described the effect we are saving against, it matters to what abilities my PC uses (rerolls etc) and can answer the is x,y,z type of effect to some extent.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8
|
That's not what I'm saying at all. I was just saying that they are a very good example of how characters in a game world think about the world they live in.
Also, it has been specifically stated in interviews with the people in charge of the novel line that they have to make sure that, since these books take place in a world that has a set of game rules, that the actions of characters in these books are actually things that could happen using those rules and not just things put in to further the story. I'm not exactly sure which episode but it was on an episode of the Know Direction podcast.
Then whoever was overseeing Winter Witch had an epic fail, because there is some serious wish-level magic used repeatedly by a 5th to 6th level wizard.
|
|
but then the penality would be just that they are being intentionally vague and failing to mention those things that give them a bonus wouldn't it? I mean, I have encountered the situation where the judge drops broad hints that the player should do or say XXX ("look under the bed", "mention the King sent you", "remind the target that they asked for your help", etc). If nothing else, they are NOT getting the bonus you are giving for "good role playing" (which almost bothers me as much - even though I often get this bonus, and have asked the judge NOT to give it to my PCs before). So, because they are "intentionally vague" they are not getting the bonus right?
Scenarios written with penalities for players Role Playing? ouch! I hadn't considered that. Any chance someone could spoiler an example? Somewhere where the PCs get a penality for "stepping on a land mine phrase"?
To your first paragraph: you get a bonus for role-playing a situation well. My call, but I'm the GM. This bonus will be +2 maximum.
An attempt at role-playing that is marginal or bad or just giving me the minimum information (check our previous posts for that) gets no bonus or penalty.
Trying to beat the system by saying as little as possible so as to avoid "saying the wrong thing" can get a penalty up to -2 maximum.
The Hellknight's Feast: When trying to influence Lady Dyrianna, "Lady Dyrianna is partial to the plight of elves, and elves receive a +2 bonus on checks to gain Influence Points when dealing with her. She is also cautious about her espionage services and is affronted by any mention of her network; a PC who tries to broach the subject takes a –4 penalty on checks to gain Influence Points when dealing with Lady Dyrianna."
Stuff like this is what I was referring to.
Andy
|
|
To your first paragraph: you get a bonus for role-playing a situation well. My call, but I'm the GM. This bonus will be +2 maximum.
An attempt at role-playing that is marginal or bad or just giving me the minimum information (check our previous posts for that) gets no bonus or penalty.
Trying to beat the system by saying as little as possible so as to avoid "saying the wrong thing" can get a penalty up to -2 maximum.
I'm not sure if you've changed your opinion or if it was just badly stated originally, but that's very different than the impression everyone got from your early posts on this.
If somebody role-plays a conversation and then rolls the diplomacy check, I give a +2 bonus (unless they hit a hot button topic like telling somebody who hates Pathfinders "I'm with the Pathfinder Lodge..." in which case they get a -2). If they role-play poorly, I give no modifier because at least they tried. If they choose not to role-play the conversation, they get the -2 (or a -4 if they hit the hot button) but I explain that as rushing through the conversation, sort of "fast-talking".
Or
If you'd like to just rush through it and roll without saying anything, you take a -2 for speed.The way you are currently explaining seems much more reasonable. But I suspect people are still confused by the difference between the two.
I see what you mean. I could have stated that better, earlier. I consider the minimum role-playing to be a straight up statement of I'm saying X to Y to achieve Z. It's not much of a stretch for most people. That nets no bonus or penalty.
But, if a character says nothing so as to avoid the "hot-button" or "land mine", they can't get penalized twice as I said above in what you quoted. If that is a source of confusion, then I apologize.
I consider the penalty as analogous to trying to complete the conversation quickly. That is something I tell the players in advance and even at the point of conversation. But that is more of an explanation of the mechanic.
Thanks, Jeff.
Andy