| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Basically, if you have teleport and long range scrying the "long desert journey" campaign is pretty much out. And as long as everyone knows that it doesn't have to be a problem. But if the GM is like "oh no, I statted out this entire desert because it had not occurred to me that you would bypass it with teleport! Now that you have decided to use the spell that is part of your class mechanics and hence something I tacitly approved when you chose the spell, I will punish you!" well, that's bad.
Yep, just so. And this is where GMs who play (the complete version of) Pathfinder need to give teleporters a reason to go into the desert, and not just through the desert. Otherwise, as noted previously, it's not the PC's story -- it's someone else's story.
It's really not hard to give the PCs reason to go into the desert. Here's a simple one: the BBEG casts misdirection and sends a underlying into the desert in disguise. The misdirection points to the underling, so the PCs go to the desert to find the BBEG, but only find the underling. Still in the desert, still having a desert adventure, and still one step closer to the BBEG, if they capture that underling.
I also urge folks to try giving up the "journey through the desert" for this party. If the party wants to Scrye-and-Fry, let them! The battles become scrye vs misdirection, teleport vs dimensional anchors, teleport chases. It's a much more investigation-based campaign, but it works just fine, and is loads of fun, and most importantly, it is that party's story.
I don't understand why people think there is a problem with the magic system. If you want a specific type of adventure adjust experience accordingly. Adventures change drastically as you gain power just as in real life the struggles of a man who lifts boxes while interesting are fairly different from that of a multinational executive.
To me, that's not the problem. My problem is that one class is James Bond, who has a cover as a multinational executive, who is also the greatest computer hacker in the world. His "equal partner" is a paraplegic who struggles to lift boxes, and can't do anything else.
That's a great setup if the executive is Chris Tucker, and the box guy is played by Chris Farley for comic relief. It's a terrible setup if the executive is Tom Cruise and the box guy is played by Daniel Craig and the movie is supposed to be a serious action/spy flick.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My problem is that one class is James Bond, who has a cover as a multinational executive, who is also the greatest computer hacker in the world. His "equal partner" is a paraplegic who struggles to lift boxes, and can't do anything else.
That's a great setup if the executive is Chris Tucker, and the box guy is played by Chris Farley for comic relief.
Can we make this movie
Can we fund this
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's basically impossible to be "poor" in Pathfinder. If you do them maths, any measurable level of any useful skill gives you an "average" lifestyle. The standard trope of starving sons of toil buried under tons of soil? Doesn't hold up if you crunch the numbers.
Sure, everyone with even a little skill can afford an Average lifestyle... right up until the plague hits. Then everyone owes the local priest over a year's salary for remove disease spells. Thanks, Obama.
It's basically impossible to be "poor" in Pathfinder. If you do them maths, any measurable level of any useful skill gives you an "average" lifestyle. The standard trope of starving sons of toil buried under tons of soil? Doesn't hold up if you crunch the numbers.Sure, everyone with even a little skill can afford an Average lifestyle... right up until the plague hits. Then everyone owes the local priest over a year's salary for remove disease spells. Thanks, Obama.
Why would a priest charge to cast a spell that doesn't have any expensive material components?
This isn't resurrection or raise dead.
It's basically impossible to be "poor" in Pathfinder. If you do them maths, any measurable level of any useful skill gives you an "average" lifestyle. The standard trope of starving sons of toil buried under tons of soil? Doesn't hold up if you crunch the numbers.Sure, everyone with even a little skill can afford an Average lifestyle... right up until the plague hits. Then everyone owes the local priest over a year's salary for remove disease spells. Thanks, Obama.Why would a priest charge to cast a spell that doesn't have any expensive material components?
This isn't resurrection or raise dead.
The games rules say to charge for spells, but if we take a story based approached instead of game based then most priest that are not evil would likely do it for free if they were not occupied at the moment.
The games rules say to charge for spells, but if we take a story based approached instead of game based then most priest that are not evil would likely do it for free if they were not occupied at the moment.It's basically impossible to be "poor" in Pathfinder. If you do them maths, any measurable level of any useful skill gives you an "average" lifestyle. The standard trope of starving sons of toil buried under tons of soil? Doesn't hold up if you crunch the numbers.Sure, everyone with even a little skill can afford an Average lifestyle... right up until the plague hits. Then everyone owes the local priest over a year's salary for remove disease spells. Thanks, Obama.Why would a priest charge to cast a spell that doesn't have any expensive material components?
This isn't resurrection or raise dead.
Honestly, if there is a plague going around the town, it would seem that the only thing the priest would be busy with would be curing their parish of the plague.
Honestly, if there is a plague going around the town, it would seem that the only thing the priest would be busy with would be curing their parish of the plague.The games rules say to charge for spells, but if we take a story based approached instead of game based then most priest that are not evil would likely do it for free if they were not occupied at the moment.It's basically impossible to be "poor" in Pathfinder. If you do them maths, any measurable level of any useful skill gives you an "average" lifestyle. The standard trope of starving sons of toil buried under tons of soil? Doesn't hold up if you crunch the numbers.Sure, everyone with even a little skill can afford an Average lifestyle... right up until the plague hits. Then everyone owes the local priest over a year's salary for remove disease spells. Thanks, Obama.Why would a priest charge to cast a spell that doesn't have any expensive material components?
This isn't resurrection or raise dead.
I missed the plague part. I would guess the lower level priest(clerics) would be kept away from the general public. In the event of a plague making someone pay gold is less important than fixing the problem however unless the deity is Abadar.
It's basically impossible to be "poor" in Pathfinder. If you do them maths, any measurable level of any useful skill gives you an "average" lifestyle. The standard trope of starving sons of toil buried under tons of soil? Doesn't hold up if you crunch the numbers.Sure, everyone with even a little skill can afford an Average lifestyle... right up until the plague hits.
Well, that's a pretty heavy-handed way to break an economy. If the only way you can make a measurable number of poor people in the economy is a plague or similar-scale event, I consider my point proven.
But if you might need emergency funds in the event of a plague to pay the level 5 cleric to visit your tiny village, or to hire adventurers to rescue your daughter from the goblins, or whatever, a sensible villager will be setting aside money every week, rather than blowing it all on riotous living - or even average living.
Anyway, the economics rules aren't really sophisticated enough to include with things like sudden crop failures that would realistically cause poverty. I wouldn't expect them to be.
Anyway, the economics rules aren't really sophisticated enough to include with things like sudden crop failures that would realistically cause poverty. I wouldn't expect them to be.
So,.... it's unreasonable to expect the economics rules to handle crop failures, but it's a critical flaw that they don't handle characters with portable holes and boots of teleportation?
On the level of labor the only thing that needs to change is what is required to be a skilled labored. Instead of craft being untrained it should be trained. DC 10 can be done in trained skills with no ranks so basic crafting is still covered. Require a +5 modifier to engage in skilled work. A first level character with skill focus, a trait and a rank can still do it but it is much less common. Skill focus represents apprenticeship and many a peasant would give up their life savings to get their kid one. Also means a guy with an 18 and rank can also do it.
Except this would be less fun, since it would mean that the player characters, who aren't peasants, wouldn't have the option of doing skilled labor, which in turn means that a lot of the standard plans ("we'll pretend to be washerwomen and sneak in through the castle laundry"/"we'll get jobs as waitstaff at the bar and then no one will notice us sneaking around"/et cetera) aren't available.
There's a pretty fundamental reason that the economic system in Pathfinder is broken -- because it's a game about adventuring and not about economics. The price of spells and equipment is ludicrous because Gary Gygax wanted to capture the feel of "dragons sleeping on mounds of coins" and "gems the size of a man's fist" and "it's worth was greater than the value of the whole Shire and everything in it." Crafting magic items is easy so that PCs can actually make gear they want/need instead of commissioning it years in advance, but crafting mundane goods is slow to encourage PCs to buy stuff instead of just setting up shop as tinsmiths and rug merchants.
So nothing actually "needs to change" except the idea that a working economic system is necessary or desirable. In an economic system that worked, people wouldn't be adventurers -- we've done that experiment in the Real World. If Batman really wanted to fight crime, he wouldn't be wearing a cape and cowl, but instead would be cooperating with the Gates Foundation to solve the unemployment problem. But that would be a very dull comic book that no one would read.
It's basically impossible to be "poor" in Pathfinder. If you do them maths, any measurable level of any useful skill gives you an "average" lifestyle. The standard trope of starving sons of toil buried under tons of soil? Doesn't hold up if you crunch the numbers.Sure, everyone with even a little skill can afford an Average lifestyle... right up until the plague hits. Then everyone owes the local priest over a year's salary for remove disease spells. Thanks, Obama.Why would a priest charge to cast a spell that doesn't have any expensive material components?
This isn't resurrection or raise dead.
Ask the priests of Abadar in Curse of the Crimson Throne, those stingy b&$#@!*$.
Well, that's a pretty heavy-handed way to break an economy. If the only way you can make a measurable number of poor people in the economy is a plague or similar-scale event, I consider my point proven.
With the possible exception of war, disease is the biggest cause of financial ruin in human history. It has been since ancient times, and medical expenses due to illness remain one of the single largest impediments to economic growth to this day.
When world building, unless you plan on ignoring all of human history and numerous current events, you really do have to factor the costs of dealing with diseases into your economic calculations.
Well, that's a pretty heavy-handed way to break an economy. If the only way you can make a measurable number of poor people in the economy is a plague or similar-scale event, I consider my point proven.With the possible exception of war, disease is the biggest cause of financial ruin in human history. It has been since ancient times, and medical expenses due to illness remain one of the single largest impediments to economic growth to this day.
Don't confuse "disease" and "plague." That's like confusing "tide" and "tsunami."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I'd say that the Pathfinder system isn't doing too badly with basic peasants if it's economic model is "Can maintain an average lifestyle so long as they have regular employment and nothing goes wrong." As a very rough and vague general rule, poverty usually comes about from folks either not having a well-paying job, or having some additional expenses/problems.
Personally, I'd say that the Pathfinder system isn't doing too badly with basic peasants if it's economic model is "Can maintain an average lifestyle so long as they have regular employment and nothing goes wrong." As a very rough and vague general rule, poverty usually comes about from folks either not having a well-paying job, or having some additional expenses/problems.
However, under Pathfinder economics, any and all jobs are equally well-paying, and if your job is Profession (farmer), regular employment is guaranteed as long as there is land to work. (In fact, there aren't even rules for employment not being available -- on the contrary, you specifically can earn the appropriate amount even if your job is "ski goggle salesman" and you work on a deserted tropical island.)
Pathfinder would have far few problems IMO if the devs assumed that only a small fraction of the available races/classes/spells/feats/etc. will be used in any one campaign and gave GM and players the tools to help them decide what that fraction should be in their particular game world. Like GURPS does with its myriad of world books.Put another way, the system has gotten so complex that it really needs an easy way to let people just use the parts they want.
The longer this thread goes, the more it seems that people simply don't want to play Pathfinder, but aren't willing to admit it.
Pathfinder is what it is because that's what the market wanted, and when Wizards decided to stop supporting 3rd Edition, Paizo stepped into the breach and continued to support what the market wanted. The market has continued to speak, which is why 4th Ed. is now a dreaded "historical footnote" and Pathfinder/Paizo are still going strong.
If you want a rules-light RPG, there's FUDGE. I've played it, it's not a bad game, and it may be closer to what you (JoeJ) are looking for. Good luck finding a group, though. Because despite the fact that FUDGE has been around since 1992, almost no one plays it. TriStat dX, Savage Worlds, and Fate are in similar situations (although not for as long).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please allow a quick recap.
(a) People want to use Pathfinder to create several flavors of adventure story.
(b) The Pathfinder rules provide many options for how to create characters.
(c) The Pathfinder rules provide almost no guidance for how to subdivide or restrict those options to support a desired flavor of adventure.
In other words, Pathfinder tries to allow creating everything. But it does not guide you towards composing anything.
And that lack of guidance is not "freedom", it is "confusion" and "lack of balance".
We are trying to ask for books such as Pathfinder: Hardboiled Noir Flavor or Pathfinder: Wuxia Flavor or Pathfinder: Destined to Save the Kingdom Flavor that have no new options but simply collect all the relevant archetypes, traits, feats, spells, items, etc. for that particular flavor in one place concluded by a few chapters about how a Player and GM can contribute at the table to creating that type of flavor.
Accurate recap?
I've come to the conclusion that games with a great many options for player characters really need to have some explicit text in the rules explaining that the GM is not just allowed but expected to carefully pick and choose which options are available. Players should not expect to create a character without firm guidance from the GM and probably cooperation from the other players as well.
Pathfinder would have far few problems IMO if the devs assumed that only a small fraction of the available races/classes/spells/feats/etc. will be used in any one campaign and gave GM and players the tools to help them decide what that fraction should be in their particular game world. Like GURPS does with its myriad of world books.
Put another way, the system has gotten so complex that it really needs an easy way to let people just use the parts they want.
Pathfinder is too complex for that. There are a lot of different ways to play the game. You as the GM have to decide what is ok, and what is not ok.
The only thing that should probably be put out is that a new GM should be sure he is comfortable before moving beyond the CRB.
It is not the devs place to tell someone how to run the game or make assumptions on what people will do. The fact that there are so many ways to play the game, even if I don't agree with some of them, is one of its strengths.
I also personally don't want to play "mother may I" when it comes to options as a GM or player. As a GM I let them know you can use certain books. As a player I ask for houserules and which books are open for use.
As players we should be the ones to help each other out. There are posters here who know the rules and how to optimize as well as some devs or close to it.
PS: I have heard of a book that does what you want, but it is not out yet. Just to clarify I am saying they can't comment on every option and how it relates to other options. That book, whose name I cant remember, will likely offer general advice, but don't expect for every piece of source material to be spoken about.
Personally, I'd say that the Pathfinder system isn't doing too badly with basic peasants if it's economic model is "Can maintain an average lifestyle so long as they have regular employment and nothing goes wrong." As a very rough and vague general rule, poverty usually comes about from folks either not having a well-paying job, or having some additional expenses/problems.However, under Pathfinder economics, any and all jobs are equally well-paying, and if your job is Profession (farmer), regular employment is guaranteed as long as there is land to work. (In fact, there aren't even rules for employment not being available -- on the contrary, you specifically can earn the appropriate amount even if your job is "ski goggle salesman" and you work on a deserted tropical island.)
Granted, but there does come a point where the background economic model might just be more complex than it's worth. Do we really need mechanics for peasants doing job searches, and supply/demand curves for various goods and services?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Granted, but there does come a point where the background economic model might just be more complex than it's worth.
And we may well already be there.
Do we really need mechanics for peasants doing job searches, and supply/demand curves for various goods and services?
Only if you want a realistic economy. I'd rather have an economy that supports a fun storyline, but there are a number of people in this thread for whom "fun" seems to be a secondary, or perhaps even a tertiary, consideration.
Perhaps there are people who consider that kind of stuff not "fun".
Only if you want a realistic economy. I'd rather have an economy that supports a fun storyline, but there are a number of people in this thread for whom "fun" seems to be a secondary, or perhaps even a tertiary, consideration.
Yes. Gamemasters trying to enforce their vision of "fun" on their players. Which is poor GMing.
The reason I say that is because if the players didn't consider exploiting economic loopholes to be "fun," they wouldn't be doing that. (People generally don't choose to do things they don't consider to be more fun than not-doing them.) So if it's an issue at all, it's an issue because the players are having fun and the GM wants to stop them.
I can't really think of any situation where I would list "Your players are enjoying themselves; this must be stopped" among a list of recommended techniques for running a game.
Perhaps there are people who consider that kind of stuff not "fun".
Only if you want a realistic economy. I'd rather have an economy that supports a fun storyline, but there are a number of people in this thread for whom "fun" seems to be a secondary, or perhaps even a tertiary, consideration.Yes. Gamemasters trying to enforce their vision of "fun" on their players. Which is poor GMing.
The reason I say that is because if the players didn't consider exploiting economic loopholes to be "fun," they wouldn't be doing that. (People generally don't choose to do things they don't consider to be more fun than not-doing them.) So if it's an issue at all, it's an issue because the players are having fun and the GM wants to stop them.
I can't really think of any situation where I would list "Your players are enjoying themselves; this must be stopped" among a list of recommended techniques for running a game.
Sure...some people have an innate need to turn everything into a competition. However, I would still argue that people who enjoy that sort of fun in RPGs are really hard to game with, and might be better of playing Magic the Gathering or some other game where players clearly compete with each other, not a cooperative game.
Not disagreeing with you, but just wanted to say that some people value "winning" over "having fun". Now, you can say that "winning" is "fun" for some of them, but for some it isn't, they're just very competitive.
Not disagreeing with you, but just wanted to say that some people value "winning" over "having fun". Now, you can say that "winning" is "fun" for some of them,
I can't really think of any situation where I would list "Your players are enjoying themselves; this must be stopped" among a list of recommended techniques for running a game.
... and I do. In fact, I think that "winning" is "fun" for most people.
But that's a particularly inane comment in an RPG, because the GM can't "lose." If a player is particularly competitive, it's literally not possible to "compete" with the GM, since the GM can always simply say that the ghost of the tarrasque or something similarly overpowered dropped by and killed you in a single shot.
"Winning" and "losing" an RPG don't even make much sense, since defeating the GM's opponents is only because she let you, and the rest of the party is a cooperative endeavour. A GM who lets herself get trapped into a "winning"/"losing" mentality is already an adversarial and therefore poor GM.
Now, there is a very important sense in which successfully defeating the challenges placed before you by the GM is more fun than failing to defeat them, but this is something that even a semi-skilled GM recognizes is true for her as well, and in fact one of her primary responsibilities. As SKR put it, "the party is supposed to win," and the GM is therefore supposed to be putting interestingly winnable encounters in front of the group.
But if the party's preferred method to "win" encounters is to exploit economic loopholes, then that's fun for them, and we're back to "if you think your job is to stop the players from having fun, you're wrong."
As a player I will eventually ask questions of the DM as to why things are not the way I would expect. If there is not a good answer it hurts my fun. I would actually be okay with the game having no economic model at all bust since it does I want it to make sense.
You do know that you're holding Pathfinder to a higher standard than the real world, yes? Economic models that make sense generally don't match the actual data, which is why you can get Ph.D.'s in economics.
Sorry, but all that stops competitive people from competing... how again?"Winning" and "losing" an RPG don't even make much sense, since defeating the GM's opponents is only because she let you, and the rest of the party is a cooperative endeavour. A GM who lets herself get trapped into a "winning"/"losing" mentality is already an adversarial and therefore poor GM.
By preventing them from having a co-competitor. Competing is mutual, and if I'm not competing with you, you're not competing with me, you're merely trying to do as well as you can.
But if the party's preferred method to "win" encounters is to exploit economic loopholes, then that's fun for them, and we're back to "if you think your job is to stop the players from having fun, you're wrong."But the thing I am saying is that some people don't find it fun.
Well, then, you're just wrong. People don't want to "win" instead of having fun; they want to win because winning is fun.
|
But the thing I am saying is that some people don't find it fun.Well, then, you're just wrong. People don't want to "win" instead of having fun; they want to win because winning is fun.
LOL, terrible advice and extremely limited concept of what the term "some people" means.
"Some people" means "not you".
Please stop offering terrible advice and insights with all of your absolutes. Stop.
Not everyone equates exploits or playing the game with "winning" or "losing" as part of their mindset - if they had a good time but they all died then they felt like they won - which defeats the concept of winning or using exploits because its all about winning and winning is fun.
Just trash...
---
Many players (you know...some people) don't like exploits in an TTRPG because its a game they are serious about playing and they are mature players. It would be different if it was a game they couldn't control or change - then they would run with exploits because that's human nature (mostly).
If its in an RPG game they have any input over they tell me "you should fix this".
Many players (you know...some people) don't like exploits in an TTRPG because its a game they are serious about playing and they are mature players.
And those people don't use exploits, even if they're available, because they don't consider them fun.
When you're playing a game, you're doing (or trying to do, unless prevented) what you consider fun.
You will (try to) use exploits if-and-only-if you think using exploits is more fun than not using exploits.
If you don't think using exploits is fun, and the GM forces you to (because she's imposing HER vision of the game on yours), then she's depriving you of fun and a poor GM. Fortunately, I've never heard of anyone doing this.
If you think using exploits is fun, and the GM forces you not to (because she's imposing HER vision of the game on yours), then she's depriving you of fun and a poor GM. Unfortunately, I see a lot of people doing this, some on this very thread.
And if a player says "Let me use my game-wrecking exploits" and the GM says no, Who's being the poor sport here? Your answer is the GM?
First tell me how the exploit wrecks the game. I'm willing to bet that, most of the time, the only thing it wrecks is the GM's sense of fitness and desire to run a level-inappropriate story. You know, "you can't teleport into Mordor, because I want to run a crossing-the-desert survival story."
So, yes, in the majority of cases, I'd say the GM is the one being the poor sport.
|
|
And if a player says "Let me use my game-wrecking exploits" and the GM says no, Who's being the poor sport here? Your answer is the GM?
First tell me how the exploit wrecks the game. I'm willing to bet that, most of the time, the only thing it wrecks is the GM's sense of fitness and desire to run a level-inappropriate story. You know, "you can't teleport into Mordor, because I want to run a crossing-the-desert survival story."
So, yes, in the majority of cases, I'd say the GM is the one being the poor sport.
Game wrecking exploits don't have to be about wrecking the GMs plans. There are game wrecking exploits that just wreck the game balance between the players - and yes in the real world beyond the internets they do complain about.
And not counting the GM, since you know - he isn't a player or there to enjoy himself or have fun.
B. I have already pointed out multiples ways to stop scry and fry by RAW. Apparently having a evil wizard with superhuman intelligence actually act like a person with superhuman intelligence is somehow trying to screw the players.I think the problem here is that the original question was "why would they go on a long desert trek full of danger when they could just teleport past it?" Note that "just teleport past the desert" is not the same as "scry and fry the final boss". They might teleport past the desert and then have to get into the bosses base using other methods.
You're talking about warding the bosses base like it's reasonable, and it is. But teleporting past the desert rather than taking a long, potentially dangerous, and really itchy journey is also reasonable. If the boss can't teleport-trap an area the size of the desert then teleport is till a better idea than walking. And if the boss is smart and can teleport-trap an area the size of the desert, then there's no reasonable plan for the PCs - they're going to lose and there's no point even trying to take that boss down.
Basically, if you have teleport and long range scrying the "long desert journey" campaign is pretty much out. And as long as everyone knows that it doesn't have to be a problem. But if the GM is like "oh no, I statted out this entire desert because it had not occurred to me that you would bypass it with teleport! Now that you have decided to use the spell that is part of your class mechanics and hence something I tacitly approved when you chose the spell, I will punish you!" well, that's bad.
There were multiple question, scry and fry was one of them, but lets take your desert journey example...
1. Has the party wizard seen anything on the other side of the desert? No.2. Does anyone in the part know someone on the other side of the desert they can scry reliably? No.
3. Does the party have any was to view something on the other side of the desert? No
4. Under these conditions, can the party teleport across the desert? Nope.
This is my point. Your hypothetical party can only teleport across the desert if you do not enforce the restrictions already on the teleport spell. At best, teleport would allow for a quicker return trip, which line of with fiction. In LOTR, the trip to Mordor took 3 books, the return took like 2 chapters.
There were multiple question, scry and fry was one of them, but lets take your desert journey example...
1. Has the party wizard seen anything on the other side of the desert? No.
Yes. Elrond was there, on the slopes of Mt. Doom, when Elendil fell and Isildur cut the ring from Sauron's hand with the shards of Narsil.
There were multiple question, scry and fry was one of them, but lets take your desert journey example...
1. Has the party wizard seen anything on the other side of the desert? No.Yes. Elrond was there, on the slopes of Mt. Doom, when Elendil fell and Isildur cut the ring from Sauron's hand with the shards of Narsil.
And teleport spells do not exist in LOTR. My point was that returns trips in fiction often get abbreviated, so it is perfectly ok narrative wise for the teleport spell to make the return trip faster.
Teleport as written in RAW cannot bypass a desert that the players have never crossed.