Options, don't use them? Yes and no. If you play in society play or run officially published adventures/modules, then your choice might be more limited to not include them.
Jaçinto wrote: Wait wait. So Conan, a high fantasy hack and slash adventurer, actually was sensible? Ok you are getting my attention. Tell me more. Let me put it this way: The movies and comic books where he always prevailed in battle, even against the eldest of evils? That actually didn't happen in the books; he was actually defeated and captured several times. Nor was he mostly naked; if anything, he was probably more sensibly armored than most of the characters in the Pathfinder books.
He also had a sense of humor in the original stories. Why that's missing from all depictions afterwards is anyone's guess, but Conan in the stories was actually a lot more intelligent than in the comics or movies. And while he is depicted as defeating ancient evils on occasion, it's usually with a lot of help and not alone. And even then, "defeat" and "kill" are two different things.
Overall, Conan was an entirely different character under Howard than in modern media.
Conan was a freaking rogue with high str and con. He stole stuff first, fought second.
Hama wrote: Conan was a freaking rogue with high str and con. He stole stuff first, fought second. For part of his career. Later he was a mercenary soldier and leader and eventually a king. The "Stole first" part was pretty much over by then.
pres man wrote: Options, don't use them? Yes and no. If you play in society play or run officially published adventures/modules, then your choice might be more limited to not include them. In those particular instances, yeah. I even mentioned the bestiaries being semi-required. Even then, if you simply play in Society, you don't personally need anything more than whatever you choosing to play as, which can just be stuff out of the CRB. If you run PFS, you should probably at least be familiar with new options as they arise. The SRD is pretty good for that.
I've just seen the same complaint aired a few zillion times about 3.5/3e, and now PF; "too many splatbooks!" Simple solution; don't buy them. I bought almost the entire 3.5/3e collection, and didn't even get the chance to use 2/3's of it. Just buy what you're going to actually use.
Jaçinto wrote: I don't hate Conan, I just don't like Conan. Just not a fan. It's ok but just never really grabbed me. If you know a Conan story that you think would grab me and bring me in, shoot. I'll give it a shot. Since you ask, I'd recommend "Tower of the Elephant" or "Red Nails" as self-contained Conan stories that are short enough to read all the way through before deciding whether you enjoyed it.
Closing back in on the topic, I share the original poster's worry that Pathfinder is a bit of drudgery to run as a GM. Prep time is up from 3.5, where it was up from AD&D; stats for NPCs and traps, the need to carefully calculate WBL, and other factors put a real dent in adventure writing - I find myself doing one hour of fiery inspiration followed by three of looking up feats and calculating CMBs and such.
I have a particular dislike of the system's focus on accumulating gold and the 'magic item market', though I recognize that you'd have to A) separate magic items from the conventional economy, B) require a resource other than gold for magic item creation (and no, going back to burning XP is probably not the solution I'm looking for, although it might have its uses as an "emergency method"), and C) reward PCs for taking Conan's irresponsible attitude toward riches, rather than taking the Ebenezer Scrooge road. Good-aligned characters should receive mechanical benefits for dumping loot on worthy causes, and evil one should receive mechanical benefits for blowing their loot on bribery, subversion and flaunting their wealth in front of hungry orphans!
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Lincoln Hills wrote: Jaçinto wrote: I don't hate Conan, I just don't like Conan. Just not a fan. It's ok but just never really grabbed me. If you know a Conan story that you think would grab me and bring me in, shoot. I'll give it a shot. Since you ask, I'd recommend "Tower of the Elephant" or "Red Nails" as self-contained Conan stories that are short enough to read all the way through before deciding whether you enjoyed it. I'll second the recommendation for "Red Nails." It's my favorite Conan story, with the possible exception of "Queen of the Black Coast."
You can find the former story (and quite a few others) over on Project Gutenberg.
"I have known gods. He who denies them is as blind as he who trusts them too deeply. I seek not beyond death. It may be the blackness averred by Nemedian skeptics, or Crom’s realm of ice and cloud, or the snowy plains of and vaulted halls of the Nordheimer’s Valhalla. I know not, nor do I care. Let me live deep while I live; let me know the rich juices of red meat and stinging wine on my palate, the hot embrace of white arms, the mad exultation of battle when the blue blades flame and crimson, and I am content. Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content." – Conan of Cimmeria
I was reading Red Nails. I had to pause when she first encountered Conan because of the word used to describe how she shouted at him. I was just..Wat?
Also something came up when someone in my group tried to get me back into the game. Do some people believe that when a player makes a character, it belongs to the group and not the player? I find this very strange. I made the character so I am pretty sure it is -my- character. I made his story, developed him, etc... so why can the group declare the character belongs to them? This is really pushing me hard away from them.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Albatoonoe wrote: bugleyman wrote: Imho even the concept of a stat block for Cthulhu means you've already missed the point. Does not compute. Yeah, the inconceivable stat block for an ancient evil that was knocked out by a boat. Probably had an Elder Sign mounted on the prow. :)
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I've definitely done things with characters of people who've left games. I've also occasionally brought back PCs from previous games in the same setting.
It's not so much "It belongs to the group" as, "The character is part of the world, it would make no sense for him to just vanish when the player leaves."
Especially if, as I prefer, there are plots threads tied to him and NPCs who are linked to him.
An outright declaration of "The character belongs to the group, not to you" would seem very strange to me, but then so does getting upset that he continued to exist in the setting after you left.
Yes the declaration is strange. He can easily be removed form the group as he is in the order of eagle knights in Wrath of the Righteous. Just make it so he has orders to go one way with a squad to do something while the others go do something else. In my experience, when someone leaves this group, they just keep the character around for combat reasons and never acknowledge him in story anymore. I always feel disgusted when I see someone's character get made into a mindless drone npc that exists only so that role is filled in combat.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MagusJanus wrote: Jaçinto wrote: Wait wait. So Conan, a high fantasy hack and slash adventurer, actually was sensible? Ok you are getting my attention. Tell me more. Let me put it this way: The movies and comic books where he always prevailed in battle, even against the eldest of evils? That actually didn't happen in the books; he was actually defeated and captured several times. Nor was he mostly naked; if anything, he was probably more sensibly armored than most of the characters in the Pathfinder books.
He also had a sense of humor in the original stories. Why that's missing from all depictions afterwards is anyone's guess, but Conan in the stories was actually a lot more intelligent than in the comics or movies. And while he is depicted as defeating ancient evils on occasion, it's usually with a lot of help and not alone. And even then, "defeat" and "kill" are two different things.
Overall, Conan was an entirely different character under Howard than in modern media. Red Sonya of Rogatine, a one off character in "The Shadow of the Vulture" who was a sword and pistol wielding Renaissance warrior was severely altered by Marvel Comics. For bonus points does anyone remember that there were actually TWO Red Sonjas?
LazarX wrote: Red Sonya of Rogatine, a one off character in "The Shadow of the Vulture" who was a sword and pistol wielding Renaissance warrior was severely altered by Marvel Comics. For bonus points does anyone remember that there were actually TWO Red Sonjas? In what sense? And in whose version?
Once you leave a game, you really don't get any say on how characters (un)develop in the game setting at that point. Your former character becomes a mindless drone, oh well, if you didn't want that to happen you should have stayed in the group (or had the character commit seppuku before quitting).
Now if the group claims you have to hand over your character sheet (assuming you made it up yourself in the first place and weren't given it), then I'd say bull. They can ask politely and I might, or I might scan it or take a picture and sent it to them. But my property is mine and I can do with it as I wish.
Honestly as a GM though, it is easier to just remove the character from the group and move on.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thejeff wrote: LazarX wrote: Red Sonya of Rogatine, a one off character in "The Shadow of the Vulture" who was a sword and pistol wielding Renaissance warrior was severely altered by Marvel Comics. For bonus points does anyone remember that there were actually TWO Red Sonjas? In what sense? And in whose version? I'm guessing he means that, in the comics, the original Red Sonja died, and subsequent comics picked up with her descendant/reincarnation, who also came to be called Red Sonja.
Alzrius wrote: thejeff wrote: LazarX wrote: Red Sonya of Rogatine, a one off character in "The Shadow of the Vulture" who was a sword and pistol wielding Renaissance warrior was severely altered by Marvel Comics. For bonus points does anyone remember that there were actually TWO Red Sonjas? In what sense? And in whose version? I'm guessing he means that, in the comics, the original Red Sonja died, and subsequent comics picked up with her descendant/reincarnation, who also came to be called Red Sonja. I think he means the Howard character. I know Howard wrote a Red Sonja character, but she had no connection to Conan.
MagusJanus wrote: Alzrius wrote: thejeff wrote: LazarX wrote: Red Sonya of Rogatine, a one off character in "The Shadow of the Vulture" who was a sword and pistol wielding Renaissance warrior was severely altered by Marvel Comics. For bonus points does anyone remember that there were actually TWO Red Sonjas? In what sense? And in whose version? I'm guessing he means that, in the comics, the original Red Sonja died, and subsequent comics picked up with her descendant/reincarnation, who also came to be called Red Sonja. I think he means the Howard character. I know Howard wrote a Red Sonja character, but she had no connection to Conan. Yeah, but he'd already talked about that.
Alzrius wrote: thejeff wrote: LazarX wrote: Red Sonya of Rogatine, a one off character in "The Shadow of the Vulture" who was a sword and pistol wielding Renaissance warrior was severely altered by Marvel Comics. For bonus points does anyone remember that there were actually TWO Red Sonjas? In what sense? And in whose version? I'm guessing he means that, in the comics, the original Red Sonja died, and subsequent comics picked up with her descendant/reincarnation, who also came to be called Red Sonja. In the current run or at least a fairly recent one, I think, which is why it struck me as odd to say "does anyone remember".
She's appeared in various versions from various companies over the years.
The DM of the pathfinder group I quit found this thread and I think he may be upset with me. Ah well. I have never had a problem being public about my grievances about things.
Talked to my friend, who was the main DM of the group (Not the one that was in charge at the time of my quit) And while he thinks pretty much Pathfinder is the best D&D system so far (Hope I am not getting his context wrong), it does have bad problems. Most are player based and GMs not willing to houserule the things that don't make sense. You know, the GM's second job after making a fun story. Make the rules be just as fun and sensible so it doesn't break immersion.
Some people just don't get that there is not going to be a variant for every rule in the books. The writers have deadlines to put out the books, word limits, etc... But it is the common accepted practice that the GM is supposed to change anything that doesn't fit or pushes suspension of disbelief too far. Yes, we can accept a world that has magic and monsters. The point for me is when you have to ask a player "Wait, when did you show any interest in learning that field of study for those skills or that class you multiclassed in? Don't say it is just assumed you did that."
A story gets so much more immersive when your character is shown to have real character. Make it a person with hopes, dreams, and flaws. Show their interests. Roleplay with the little people. In downtime, if you want an explanation for gaining new skills you never had before like a knowledge, at the very least just say you are going to libraries to study said topic. Even working it in small like that is appreciated because it means you are trying. Your DM will love you for it.
Maybe you think just making a back story is enough, and maybe it is. Develop it and actually try to bring others into your side story. Don't expect them to just come to you, go get them. Maybe something troubles your character deeply in downtime. Play that up by doing things like having your character hesitate in combat. Mess up a bit sometimes because of how much is on their mind distracting them. The other PCs probably will confront you about it and that's your in to really develop a character driven story alongside the main mission based one.
It is not just about having the combat bad ass. Having a character, a PERSON, that actually matters to people for something besides their sword arm really brings a lot to a story. Story immersion is a beautiful thing but all it takes is one videogamey player that calls your story and development attempts meaningless fluff and too combat inefficient to bring the whole thing crashing down and make the game just a boring chore for everyone else. Negative and pessimistic mindsets are strongly contagious and pushing people to the video game aspect is somewhat toxic to real character driven stories.
Sure being the combat monster is fun for a while but it gets old fast. You're great at fighting and killing things, but then what? Can you really call this character a person? Are they believable? Pick up a good novel and look at the characters, then think. What makes them great? All their powers and abilities that make them ultimate in combat, or is it their flaws that make them more like people? If a character never really faces any personal inner challenges, can you really even call them a character? What character do they have?
Red Nails is actually decent. I couldn't read it all in one sitting due to my nephew wanting me to teach him how to play my NES games but yeah, it draws me in to the story. A bit overly sexual in feeling for how Conan looks at Valeria so far but that's the character I guess. Still good. A friend told me his favourite is Tower of the Elephant so I may have to check that out next.
Edit: Never ever tell a player not to play a class because you think it is inefficient. If someone wants to be a rogue, shut up and let them do it. Don't even mention that they are underpowered. Just shut up and let them play the rogue. Don't even try to put the doubt in their mind. The moment you do that, you just killed the game for that player.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Jaçinto wrote: Story immersion is a beautiful thing but all it takes is one videogamey player that calls your story and development attempts meaningless fluff and too combat inefficient to bring the whole thing crashing down and make the game just a boring chore for everyone else. Negative and pessimistic mindsets are strongly contagious and pushing people to the video game aspect is somewhat toxic to real character driven stories. Deep in mind that one drama-queen can also ruin the game experience for the group as well.
Also while justifying character design choices is great, it is a pretty douchey thing to do to try to force someone else to meet our own perception of legitimate justification. The general rule is worry about playing your character well, let others play their character as they see fit. Not everyone is a simulationist, some folks are more of gamists. Neither is better than the other despite some views of "If you don't play my way you are doing it badong."
I would add that enforcing a rule that you have to rolelplay all design choices actually leads to people doing a lot of character building out to level 20 versus making more "natural" choices as they progress. Seems to be a counter-intuitive approach to those that value roleplaying versus gaming mindsets.
Jaçinto wrote: The point for me is when you have to ask a player "Wait, when did you show any interest in learning that field of study for those skills or that class you multiclassed in? Don't say it is just assumed you did that." Part of the problem is that PF is a very granular system. I often want at least some ability in more skills than I have skill points at the start of the game. Do I have to roleplay out a whole "learning to Swim" episode when it really fits better as background, but I couldn't fit it in at 1st level?
Or many character concepts are conceived as gestalts, where a unified character is best represented by abilities from different classes. Since you only get one class/level, you have to pick those abilities up one at a time, but that doesn't mean the character is going through a radical change, even if the mechanics are.
Quote: Edit: Never ever tell a player not to play a class because you think it is inefficient. If someone wants to be a rogue, shut up and let them do it. Don't even mention that they are underpowered. Just shut up and let them play the rogue. Don't even try to put the doubt in their mind. The moment you do that, you just killed the game for that player. It depends. Are they aware how underpowered it's likely to be? Are they likely to care? Can their concept be better represented by different mechanics?
If they were thinking "I want to play a sneaky guy who stabs people. Rogue's the obvious choice", it might actually be helpful to suggest a different approach.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Jaçinto wrote: Edit: Never ever tell a player not to play a class because you think it is inefficient. If someone wants to be a rogue, shut up and let them do it. Don't even mention that they are underpowered. Just shut up and let them play the rogue. Don't even try to put the doubt in their mind. The moment you do that, you just killed the game for that player. It's funny. We did this. The poor player is still miserable. Despite putting full ranks, feats,and gold into stealth he still has yet to scout in front of the part without being caught. And I don't mean, "caught in the middle of the enemy camp," I mean "Heard coming down the hallway and the enemy rushes past him while invisible and down to the party, now ambushing the party.
He ends up missing all the buffs, does next to no damage, and when he fails at any skill checks a caster pops a spell after so they can complete it for him.
Because we didn't tell him, he suffers every game based problem the rogue has, as well as a few playstyle ones.
I'd argue the game is dead for him and he's miserable showing up to it because no one bothered to warn him.
I agree with TL. I think one should tell a player if a class is inefficent. Diplomatically of course. Not along the lines of "Rogue suck play something else". A melee vanilla Rogue in this game is difficult to play effectively imo. Low hp and ac. Sneak attack unless your doing ranged requires the rogue to be next to the target. Most enemies target of choice as no npc/pc likes being stabbed in the back repeatedly.
I had two players in two different games who ended up not having as much. One a monk who wanted to multiclass with Bard. Yet wanted tro be as effective as a single classed Monk. Another a Rogue. Both ignored constructive suggestion at the table and suffered in gameplay. Both ended up changing their characters. They actually were happy that we game them advice. Some option in the game are imo not that good in game play. Rgw Rogue player still kept playing as a Rogue. Yet reworked the class to be effective in combat. The other liked playing a Bard more so went with a single classes Bard.
I'm all for players what they want. Yet at the same time if they keep complaining about their characters over and over again it's time to give them some constructive advice as well.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Jaçinto wrote: (Numerous paragraphs dripping with condescension) Good thing we have you here to tell us all what's what. I'm sure no one else in the last 40 years has ever thought of actually role playing before.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Kirth Gersen wrote: Jaçinto wrote: (Numerous paragraphs dripping with condescension) Good thing we have you here to tell us all what's what. I'm sure no one else in the last 40 years has ever thought of actually role playing before. Kirth, I do believe this is the first time we've ever agreed with each other. Now don't you just feel dirty all over?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Ok fine I get it, I'm wrong I guess. It's wrong to even try to get non-roleplayers to even try to roleplay to add to the story. Shouldn't do that. It's fine for them to push the gamist perspective but no, wanting people to roleplay is bad. Gotcha.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Jaçinto wrote: Ok fine I get it, I'm wrong I guess. You're not wrong...
I suggest considering your tone and how you would feel being addressed in the manner that you have addressed these players. Is it conductive to your goal of encouraging roleplay? Are there better ways to get your message across?
Your most recent post here is a sarcastic admission of error that in no way concedes anything and is only meant to ridicule and insult anyone who disagrees with you. Can you see how that will only array people against your position rather than persuade them to it?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
TOZ wrote: Jaçinto wrote: Ok fine I get it, I'm wrong I guess. You're not wrong...
I suggest considering your tone and how you would feel being addressed in the manner that you have addressed these players. Is it conductive to your goal of encouraging roleplay? Are there better ways to get your message across?
Your most recent post here is a sarcastic admission of error that in no way concedes anything and is only meant to ridicule and insult anyone who disagrees with you. Can you see how that will only array people against your position rather than persuade them to it? In fairness, Kirth's was also sarcastic and likely to produce exactly the response that it did.
My long post was in no way meant to be condescending. Possibly people put a tone in it where there wasn't due to it being text instead of speech. I was trying to ease people into the idea of just giving roleplay a try with tiny little things. Also pointing out that if you are in a group of roleplayers and push the gamist attitude, the those roleplayers are going to not have a very good time. If you are in a gamist group, then fine whatever.
I basically got smacked down for saying that. I see tons of threads pushing the gamist mind set and that is fine. I suggest trying the roleplaying side and I get crap for it, so I legitimately was saying fine, I give up. If the feel on these forums are gamist priority then fine and I really must be wrong to suggest otherwise. It wasn't sarcasm in that second post, it was really what I was saying. I was truly conceding. I really was agreeing that I guess I am wrong for wanting roleplay. This is a rollplay game now.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Jaçinto wrote: Ok fine I get it, I'm wrong I guess. It's wrong to even try to get non-roleplayers to even try to roleplay to add to the story. Shouldn't do that. It's fine for them to push the gamist perspective but no, wanting people to roleplay is bad. Gotcha. You're not wrong, but ...
You seem to have a very strong idea of what roleplaying should be like. You seem to denigrate gamers who do not play in the style you prefer. There's nothing wrong with knowing what you like in the hobby and seeking out and promoting it.
But you really do have to accept that different people have different tastes and priorities when gaming. And that's not a bad thing. They're not wrong.
There is no One True Way to play. There's no wrong way to do it. Unless the people playing aren't having fun.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
thejeff wrote: TOZ wrote: Jaçinto wrote: Ok fine I get it, I'm wrong I guess. You're not wrong...
I suggest considering your tone and how you would feel being addressed in the manner that you have addressed these players. Is it conductive to your goal of encouraging roleplay? Are there better ways to get your message across?
Your most recent post here is a sarcastic admission of error that in no way concedes anything and is only meant to ridicule and insult anyone who disagrees with you. Can you see how that will only array people against your position rather than persuade them to it? In fairness, Kirth's was also sarcastic and likely to produce exactly the response that it did. Mostly because the original post that he responded to was antagonistic b.s. that had, "i am teh best roleplayer evah. i shall teach everyone teh way and teh truth!" oozing from every metaphorical pore.
He goes so far as to suggest that people that don't play his way don't have real characters, aka anyone not playing his style game is playing in an inferior manner. Its downright rude and arrogant.
I've built characters with flaws, backstories, character interaction. I also have a level 5 pfs character that doesn't have a voice, backstory, or even personality traits! Heck, he didn't even have an appearance until 4th level. I still have plenty of fun with him.
The last thing we need is another person running around the forum flapping their arms screaming at everyone that roleplaying is "the one true way." Its hard enough getting the people here to accept other playstyles as valid as it is.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Jaçinto wrote: My long post was in no way meant to be condescending. Possibly people put a tone in it where there wasn't due to it being text instead of speech. I was trying to ease people into the idea of just giving roleplay a try with tiny little things. Also pointing out that if you are in a group of roleplayers and push the gamist attitude, the those roleplayers are going to not have a very good time. If you are in a gamist group, then fine whatever.
I basically got smacked down for saying that. I see tons of threads pushing the gamist mind set and that is fine. I suggest trying the roleplaying side and I get crap for it, so I legitimately was saying fine, I give up. If the feel on these forums are gamist priority then fine and I really must be wrong to suggest otherwise. It wasn't sarcasm in that second post, it was really what I was saying. I was truly conceding. I really was agreeing that I guess I am wrong for wanting roleplay. This is a rollplay game now.
I bolded the items that come across as condescending.
You might have the same issue I do: The way you word things and the way you present posts comes across as having emotion it does not. I'm told I often come across as sarcastic, condescending, and generally hostile. I've long since given up trying to fix that, though it would be nice if people could suggest alternate wordings.
If that is the case, then you will either have to work on rewording things to not come across that way (I hope you have better luck than my efforts did), or just give up and accept people will see you as a jerk. At the very least, it's a wording issue.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Jaçinto wrote: My long post was in no way meant to be condescending. Possibly people put a tone in it where there wasn't due to it being text instead of speech. I was trying to ease people into the idea of just giving roleplay a try with tiny little things. Also pointing out that if you are in a group of roleplayers and push the gamist attitude, the those roleplayers are going to not have a very good time. If you are in a gamist group, then fine whatever.
I basically got smacked down for saying that. I see tons of threads pushing the gamist mind set and that is fine. I suggest trying the roleplaying side and I get crap for it, so I legitimately was saying fine, I give up. If the feel on these forums are gamist priority then fine and I really must be wrong to suggest otherwise. It wasn't sarcasm in that second post, it was really what I was saying. I was truly conceding. I really was agreeing that I guess I am wrong for wanting roleplay. This is a rollplay game now.
It came across as pretty heavily condescending. As if people who might play PF ("it's a rollplay game now") had never even considered roleplaying and just needed to be shown the light.
Maybe it's us reading something into it that wasn't there, but when multiple people misread you, you really should consider the possibility that the problem isn't with them, but with what you wrote.
For what it's worth, I'm personally far on the roleplaying side and deemphasize the gamist. Sessions often go by without combat or traps or much mechanics at all. And I still dislike a lot of the things you've argued for in this thread.
Personal taste. Not rollplay vs roleplay.
From what I've seen and stories I've read hanging around these boards most of the people responding in this last exchange aren't pure gamist either.
Yeah MagusJanus. Over the years I have noticed that even when I am being straightforward, people are assuming there are undertones, if that is the right word, when there aren't any. I always try to live by "say what you mean, mean what you say." I don't like sarcasm. People look for a meaning that isn't there and I don't get that. But hey, I guess that is just how people are. Maybe my mind is weird in that I take people at their word I guess, I don't know anymore. It can be frustrating when people pull the "so you're saying that.." thing and I have to reply with "No, what I am saying is word for word what I actually said. Stop putting a spin on it."
Jaçinto, don't think that your way is no good. I do suggest that you dial it back a notch to be a little closer to your group's baseline, though. With any luck, some of the gamist element will pick up on your roleplaying style and dial it forward a notch.
Anyway, as for the title of the thread, "Pathfinder problem. Is it just me?" I don't think that it has anything to do with the game system; you would have the same issues if you were playing GURPS, Palladium, D&D, or pretty much any other system.
Good luck.
When part of my group tried the Palladium TMNT game, there weren't really any problems actually. Maybe because we were still knew, I don't know but it ran fine and we had a good time. It felt ok, a little meh, but I still had good time that took me back to my mindset when I played AD&D 2E for some reason.
Haha. I never really liked Palladium's system, despite having some awesome content (TMNT being my first Palladium game).
Maybe it's time to pick up a different system (I know I said that the issue was system irrelevant) just to break things up a bit. Couldn't hurt, right? Maybe your videogame-style friends just associate fantasy roleplay (with a rules emphasis on combat) with, well, videogame-style play. I'd suggest something like TMNT, actually, since is so unlike D&D or PFRPG. Other possible games that are dissimilar to PFRPG: Star Wars, Iron Kingdoms, or Mage: the Ascension.
Just a thought.
One videogame-style friend, Abyssian. Over the years he has shut down people that do things "superfluous" and has pushed his "I am player one" mindset so hard that the rest of the group is broken. They wont challenge him anymore and he always gets his way. Heck, he barely would let others actually play. In Kingmaker, he wouldn't let the player with the spymaster do his job. he kept arguing that since -he- wanted to do that (he was a court assassin) that he should get to do it. The guy playing the spymaster got pissed that he wasn't allowed to do his job. He did the same thing to the diplomat. Dude pushed control so much that now nobody tries cause he does everything, but nobody wants to say anything to his face cause they don't want him to feel bad. With him in the group, the other players really have given up. We all gave up and get him to help optimize our characters and just fall in line because simply, we can't compete. He just does everything, always wins pretty much on his own in every combat or non combat situation, etc... it's infuriating. All flavour is meaningless fluff to him, save for when he says it applies. Any rule in the game is BS, unless it benefits him. He wont even try other games really if he can't build a fully optimized character. It seems he always has to have control and I am the only one that ever opposes him, which puts me in the wrong in our group.
|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
That's not a rollplay vs roleplay conflict. That's not videogamey-style. That's one player being a dick. And the rest letting him.
That's a metagame issue. Rules and game systems and playstyles aren't going to fix it.
As pres man said aways back, drama-queens can ruin games essentially the same way. Steal the spotlight. Always be the center of every scene. Keep the other chracters from being able to do anything.
Different symptom. Same problem.
You have a good point thejeff. He does play the videogamey way so it is possible that it is just association. Hate the way he does things, hate everything about his style of play in the games.
Oh and even when he is DM, I had to call him out on BS that gave us too much of an advantage. We were leading an army and there was a saboteur. Because we were more focused on finding this person as soon as possible rather than just pushing on and fighting more battles, he told us right out that our army has X score and loses 1d3 moral a day. At the rate of how we do in combat, we would totally win before the loss becomes an issue. That really got to me because the players shouldn't be able to treat that like a manageable tangible resource. It is like putting visible health bars on everything or flat out telling us everything the enemy has prepared on their sheet and letting is track it compared to ours. It turns the game into playing spreadsheets and really taking away all feel of urgency in the game. Do something because you are worried about the welfare of your troops, or do it because of how many points it reads as?
Edit: Whenever you try to add flavour to a mechanic in the game to explain it, he will do what he can to shut you down because if the system doesn't explain it, then you shouldn't either.
Yeah, just a problem player. How do the other players feel about VGG? (VideoGame Guy- just made that up, so proud)
Three of them have major problems with him but are afraid to say anything to his face. They don't want to hurt his feelings. The other one player has problems but he doesn't play often enough to really care that much. He did say that if he played more often, he would be totally burned out from this guy.
I have also just now again realized said problem player/dm is probably reading this.
Edit: Thanks to some people here. Helped me have a mental breakthrough in realizing that it probably isn't the system, it's association with this problem player and how he uses the system. He games the system so hard that I associate his bad playing with it being a bad system for letting him do it.
Well...good luck. Maybe, if he is reading along, he'll make an effort to rein it in now that he should know how you feel.
pres man wrote: Jaçinto wrote: Story immersion is a beautiful thing but all it takes is one videogamey player that calls your story and development attempts meaningless fluff and too combat inefficient to bring the whole thing crashing down and make the game just a boring chore for everyone else. Negative and pessimistic mindsets are strongly contagious and pushing people to the video game aspect is somewhat toxic to real character driven stories. Deep in mind that one drama-queen can also ruin the game experience for the group as well.
Also while justifying character design choices is great, it is a pretty douchey thing to do to try to force someone else to meet our own perception of legitimate justification. The general rule is worry about playing your character well, let others play their character as they see fit. Not everyone is a simulationist, some folks are more of gamists. Neither is better than the other despite some views of "If you don't play my way you are doing it badong."
I would add that enforcing a rule that you have to rolelplay all design choices actually leads to people doing a lot of character building out to level 20 versus making more "natural" choices as they progress. Seems to be a counter-intuitive approach to those that value roleplaying versus gaming mindsets. They may not be wrong per se in an inherent sense, but they can be wrong for a particular group. Every group has a "culture" every gm has a certain type of game they feel like running. You should probably try to fit the culture of the group you game with rather than trying to force them to fit you.
|
