I think in the end that both sides have to do some bending when it comes to planning ahead. Players need to be willing to plan out a basic background, personality, and goals and the DM needs to find ways to work those aspects of the character into the campaign story whenever possible. Players need to understand that they can plan as much as they want for their character, but their character is still separate from that plan and from the player, and the campaign may take a completely different turn than expected for any number of reasons and the plan will need to change.
As for the Skywalker example, the character did not know his future, but you can bet that Lucas, as the writer, did, so it's not entirely a legitimate example. If that had been a tabletop campaign, you can bet that the DM would have had that story and those encounters set up and expected that a player who gave his character force sensitivity would almost certainly look to become a jedi, even if technically the character did not know what was coming.
I think a lot of the frustration comes from the core assumptions of D&D (and all thus, are carried over to PF) in that you generally pick a class or concept at first level and follow that all the way through the campaign. Other systems don't have the same level of frustration because they offer far more flexibility in terms of character development on the mechanical side that in turn allows for more flexibility on the story telling side. I don't care how often it is said otherwise, mechanics are a major part of the character and how they develop. When you have a class system like D&D has, it will limit mechanical development, and thus, the freedom of the player to try different things with their character. This is why things like retraining, alternate abilities, and similar things are crucial elements if a DM wants to introduce greater narrative freedom into a D&D or PF campaign.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are there any players out there who do not plan out their characters level progression?
I've grown tired of players who have every skill and feat planned to 20th level. It leaves no scope for the character to grow and develop because of the encounters and experiences they face.
A common example is the "I must wield one type of weapon and commit all my feats to it!" then a nice piece of gear is found and they PCs just sell it...
Thoughts?
Yes. Play a different game. There are lots of them out there. Play Savage Worlds or Hero System or any of a million other things you could be playing.
In 3.5, you basically have to plan your progression up to level X, or else there are a million traps that ruin your character. Don't hate the players; hate the game.
Incidentally, even if you do run some other system, I would make it very clear to your players before starting that you view experience increases in the way you do. Many players do not. See, another view is that the character already has, at level 1, all the basic training and resources to become whatever he's going to become at level 20. By levelling up, he's not learning new random things that are completely off his career track. He's growing and developing within the path of skills that he already knows.
I would love a game that allowed for both approaches to experience simultaneously, but 3.5 is just not that game, and I think you'll be employing frustrating pretzel logic if you try to somehow house-rule it into being that.
Another quick point to Reebo Kesh is that Pathfinder might not be the game for you.
3.5 and Pathfinder are truly designed is such a way that for players not to plan ahead can lead to some really messed up builds with feat trees that lead nowhere. Pretty much any game (computer or tabletop) with skill or feat trees you are going to run into this design problem.
As a GM I recently reverted back to 2nd edition D&D and I just don't have this problem at all. It give me as a GM a lot more freedom to just tell good stories and players to better immerse in them.
Now as a player I'm perfectly ok and happy playing Pathfinder because GM'ing this game is someone else's headache.
-MD
As a GM I recently reverted back to 2nd edition D&D and I just don't have this problem at all. It give me as a GM a lot more freedom to just tell good stories and players to better immerse in them.
Even 2nd edition has the same core problem, though. It's just better masked and better balanced between the player and the DM in most cases. It will still likely come up in a long campaign with any major twists though. The major assumption with D&D in general is that you start down a career path and stay on it, so anything that forces a choice that pushes the character off that path is going to require special rules if you don't want the character to end up weaker or less fun than expected, regardless of what edition or version you are playing.
As for the Skywalker example, the character did not know his future, but you can bet that Lucas, as the writer, did, so it's not entirely a legitimate example. If that had been a tabletop campaign, you can bet that the DM would have had that story and those encounters set up and expected that a player who gave his character force sensitivity would almost certainly look to become a jedi, even if technically the character did not know what was coming.
In your example if they were playing Pathfinder you might be right; Luke may have had to map out his entire build. But in other game systems if someone was playing the young jedi they could be swept up in the events of the story without a map of the hero's journey to follow.
I have run many games and had players go on a David Campbell type "Hero's journey" without players or me as GM planning out builds. But I admit I've never been able to run these types of game with 3.5 and Pathfinder due to the way the game is designed. Players just need that freedom. It's a players game and that's ok.
-MD
As for the Skywalker example, the character did not know his future, but you can bet that Lucas, as the writer, did, so it's not entirely a legitimate example. If that had been a tabletop campaign, you can bet that the DM would have had that story and those encounters set up and expected that a player who gave his character force sensitivity would almost certainly look to become a jedi, even if technically the character did not know what was coming.
Well, that's one of the tensions. George, the writer/director, is closer in role to the Game Master than to one of the players (tell me again the scenes Mr. Lucas appeared in?) Mark Hamill got little say if any over what Luke did or didn't. (Carrie Fisher, famously, was not allowed to wear a bra because "there is no underwear in space," something that no doubt astonishes many NASA astronauts....)
But if George the GM decided for Mark the player that "Okay, now Luke should stop being a Brash Pilot and take levels in the Jedi Knight prestige class instead," that goes beyond what is typically accepted as the authority and role of the GM. Pathfinder is a cooperative game in a way that making a film or putting on a play typically isn't.
It's not, as Muad'Dib put it, "if someone was playing the young jedi they could be swept up in the events of the story without a map of the hero's journey to follow." A player in Pathfinder can always choose to be swept up in the story events if she wants to. Planning a build to make sure it's workable commits her to absolutely nothing, and it's probably sensible for her to look at the jedi mechanics to make sure they're not trap options that would result in an unworkable character (which I seem to recall they were in the D20 Star Wars version). The point is that at a tabletop game, George has no right to expect that (Mark will choose that) Luke becomes a Jedi instead.
I do not understand how it's frustrating at all. Planning out a character does not remove the ability to alter those plans because of in-game events.
GM: I hate it when you plan out your PC!
Player: ...I'm adjusting the plan because the interaction we just had with those celestials is making my character want to take a more divine path.
GM: DIRTY PLANNER!
Player: <facepalm>
In your example if they were playing Pathfinder you might be right; Luke may have had to map out his entire build. But in other game systems if someone was playing the young jedi they could be swept up in the events of the story without a map of the hero's journey to follow.
I have run many games and had players go on a David Campbell type "Hero's journey" without players or me as GM planning out builds. But I admit I've never been able to run these types of game with 3.5 and Pathfinder due to the way the game is designed. Players just need that freedom. It's a players game and that's ok.
-MD
But even if specific builds weren't planned out, the general builds and minimum requirements probably were to at least some extent. If you are playing in the Star Wars universe and take Force Sensitive as a feat, you as a player and the DM are both likely going to have to plan that some kind of force class or force related abilities will follow. Likewise, anyone wanting to play a jedi would understand that Force Sensitive would be a base requirement that would need to be met somehow. Luke's player would not have had to plan out every aspect of his development in PF anymore than he would have had to in Star Wars, but the high points would still have had to been plotted out to ensure minimum mechanical requirements were met to support the story. PF spells out the minimum level required more so than most systems, and therefore does require a touch more planning, but hardly the amount that some people seem to think it does except for highly specialized builds.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a really dumb thing to complain about.Players complain about GM's who railroad. Players who plot out characters so far in advance are guilty of the same thing.I think there's an important difference here.
GMs who railroad are making the players do things the players don't want to do.
Players who plot out characters aren't making the GM do anything she doesn't want to do.
Basically, I can overplan the toppings on my own pizza to my heart's content, but that's not the same as your planning my toppings.
You're not understanding the comparison then.
GM Railroading: in effect, regardless of the actions of the players, them GM is forcing a series of events to take place.
PC 1-20 Planning: regardless of the actions of other players or events that happen in the game, you are making your character this way and no other way.
Both behaviors are ignoring the collaborative effort that is occurring at the table.
I completely understand that characters in this game do require planning to achieve certain goals. At the same time, I see the point about allowing for deviation from that plan to account for events as they unfold. Part of it is a restriction by the game system. Pathfinder rewards specialization and locks you into certain options.
I get why this rubs people the wrong way too. Traditionally in a lot of D&D based games the only control and influence a player has is over their own character. Deciding what feats to take and what skills to grab are the only refuge of player authority often times.
That said, a player who is going to do whatever they're going to do regardless of the actions and wishes of those around them is engaging the same kind of behavior as a DM who railroads the party. It's just that the players influence and control is smaller, so the direct impact is less, but it can be disruptive to a table.
It isn't bad for a GM to plan out a campaign in great detail if he wants to. What is bad is if the GM sticks to the plan even after it stops making sense because the PCs aren't co-operating with the expected narrative.
Similarly, it's a bad idea for a player to stick with a plan for his character if the resulting character turns out not to be appropriate the campaign in question. But I don't know if that's something that happens a lot, and it's not the making of the plan that's the problem.
Can anyone give me an example of what it looks like when someone makes leveling up decisions that do/don't reflect what's going on in the campaign? Am I supposed to have my Ranger start taking levels of Monk because I've met an ancient monkish guru and am staying in his monastery?
If you don't get the comparison fine, if you refuse to even fathom the sentiment behind the comparison then what's the point of talking. I lack the patience and ability to articulate it any better.
In no way does my opinion invalidate yours. Right now it just feels like anything posted will just be broken apart and quoted in an attempt to invalidate. Welcome to the internet...
The OP brought up a great topic of conversation that reaches the heart of why I don't like running PF campaigns. His opinion is certainly not "dumb" as several people have stated and if it is truly dumb than I guess I'm with stupid.
Can anyone give me an example of what it looks like when someone makes leveling up decisions that do/don't reflect what's going on in the campaign? Am I supposed to have my Ranger start taking levels of Monk because I've met an ancient monkish guru and am staying in his monastery?
With pleasure. All my examples come from 2nd edition games.
When GM'ing I had a player who of their own accord switched classes to cleric or paladin (I can't recall which) only because they were moved by witnessing a holy might of a god. They decided then and there that they would dedicate their lives to that deity. In no way shape of form did I influenced this player other than have them be witness the gods holy wrath.
Also while GM'ing I've had a player freely switch from Ranger to Druid after encountering a old power deep in the woods. He felt shame for his hunting ways and devoted himself to the preservation of all life. Again, this was the players choice to evolve. He had no plan of switching prior to that game session but felt that this was part of his hero's journey.
I personally played a cleric that I envisioned being a melee based wreaking machine. from level 2 onward I went on a string of pathetic hit dice rolls and before long I realized that melee...was not for me. So I adapted to the role of a healing/buffing priest. And it worked out for the best and is one of my favorite characters. In this case it was not so much the story telling me but the dice telling me that I should adjust my character concept.
I honestly have countless stories like this. It's just how I grew up playing D&D. I don't think it's the norm, but it's normal to me. I just found this style of gaming very hard to do with 3.5 and Pathfinder.
Can anyone give me an example of what it looks like when someone makes leveling up decisions that do/don't reflect what's going on in the campaign? Am I supposed to have my Ranger start taking levels of Monk because I've met an ancient monkish guru and am staying in his monastery?With pleasure. All my examples come from 2nd edition games.
When GM'ing I had a player who of their own accord switched classes to cleric only because they were moved by witnessing a holy might of a god. They decided then and there that they would dedicate their lives to that deity. I in no way shape of form influenced this other than have them witness the gods holy wrath.
Also while GM'ing I've had a player freely switch from Ranger to druid after encountering a old power deep in the woods. He felt shame for his hunting ways and devoted himself to the preservation of all life. Again, this was the players choice to evolve. He had no plan of switching going into that game session but felt that this was party of his hero's journey.
I played cleric that I envisioned being a melee based wreaking machine. from level 2 and on I went on a string of pathetic hit dice rolls and before long I realized that melee...was not for me. So I adapted to the role of a healing/buffing priest. And it worked out for the best and is one of my favorite characters. In this case it was not so much the story telling me but the dice telling me that I should adjust my character concept.
And in most of these cases the rules were not even vaguely supported or maintained, which is the inherent problem I have with this argument whenever it comes up regarding any version of D&D (and to a lesser extent any other system). Every version of D&D has hardcoded classes, abilities, and points at which major decisions need to be made. So too does even the freest of gaming systems to at least some extent. I have yet to see a system that easily allows one to suddenly and completely change direction with zero penalty.
What you are arguing for isn't a system that allows you to play the hero's journey, but rather a DM and group that is willing to ignore any relevant rules the system may have in the name of story whenever it is necessary, and that can be done in any system. I personally hate that style of play because if you are going to treat the rules so casually, why bother have them in the first place? I personally think that D&D or PF with rules for retraining as well as liberal use of giving out skill points, feats, moments that allow retraining, and similar mechanisms as rewards rather than gold is a more effective means of telling a story that has structure without being overly restricted by the structure in the process. Building the process of free flowing stories into the rules rather than only using the rules when you feel like gives a far more consistent experience, and thus, ultimately usually more fun experience overall, for everyone involved.
It requires a fairly generous set of retraining / multiclassing rules for a character to be able to switch classes for role-playing reasons without severely weakening themselves.
There's nothing to stop you becoming a vegetarian or dedicating your life to a god without switching classes.
As for the last example - I made a Pathfinder druid who was intended to fight in melee but wasn't good enough to go toe-to-toe with the types of monsters we were fighting, so he stayed at the back and cast spells instead. So, my bad planning led to character development, I guess?
As for the last example - I made a Pathfinder druid who was intended to fight in melee but wasn't good enough to go toe-to-toe with the types of monsters we were fighting, so he stayed at the back and cast spells instead. So, my bad planning led to character development, I guess?
Your druid or his cleric are generally the types of character development I expect to see in any game system, not the "I am now a cleric despite being a fighter five minutes ago" that his first few examples were. There will always be adjustments, tweaks, and modifications, but full fledged core changes need to be either planned out or rare, otherwise they tend to undermine the story in the long run. Spontaneous major changes as a common thing don't work all that well. Even Star Wars really only has no more than one or two, the most notable being Luke working to become a jedi, and that was still at least partially planned out given the story leading up to that point and how the story developed after he made that decision, as it took him most of three movies to actually accomplish that task.
You're not understanding the comparison then.GM Railroading: in effect, regardless of the actions of the players, them GM is forcing a series of events to take place.
PC 1-20 Planning: regardless of the actions of other players or events that happen in the game, you are making your character this way and no other way.
Oh, I understand it. I just reject it.
GM railroading happens in the present tense; the GM is forcing a series of events to take place in real-time.
PC 1-20 planning happens in the future tense, precisely because there is literally no way you can guarantee to make your character the way you envision. (For example, if your character is killed at level 8, that makes it very difficult to fulfill your level 20 plan.)
Matthew asked for examples, I gave them. Jesus man, you do have to complain about every post I make?
My players at the time just did not care if it "weakened themselves" and we never really never gave it a thought. As a group we were really more interested in the group narrative. If they qualified for the class and they wanted to switch then more power to em. I don't run modules so they are really not in any sort of danger with the module being too tough. Encounters are designed to be challenging no matter what level or gear they have.
Sunshadow you assume a lot. At no point did I ever say I treat the rules casually and I'm not sure how you even inferred that. You have been giving the middle finger to all my posts so why would this one be any different?
-MD
Sunshadow you assume a lot. At no point did I ever say I treat the rules casually and I'm not sure how you even inferred that. You have been giving the middle finger to all my posts so why would this one be any different.
-MD
I'm sorry that you see my posts that way, but it's hard not to infer that there is a fair amount of disregard of the rules in those stories and most of the stories that claim to highlight the "freedom of storytelling" that people claim can be found in earlier editions or other systems. 2nd edition had race restrictions on who could multiclass into what and attribute restrictions on who even technically qualified for a class; the only real difference between those and what people did in 3rd was that in the earlier editions, those rules simply ignored, and the underlying rules went unused, which is probably a large reason they were eventually dropped. Most other systems have their own limitations that would largely prevent most of your examples from being entirely rules legal.
I don't have a problem with those kinds of stories, but claiming that PF is somehow worse at them than other systems is problematic to me, as they require a certain amount of bending the rules, regardless of the base system. The PF player community may be less willing to flex that far, and that is a genuine hurdle, but that's still not the system itself. It's still the people you are playing with, which is always going to be the biggest hurdle you have, with the base system having remarkably little impact in the end.
When a player plots out so far ahead it makes the GM adhere to the players train tracks. Now it's the GM who has to plot and plan out encounters specifically so that the player can get his/her prestige class or whatever.
No, it really doesn't. All the player needs is grab the right feats/skill points/whatever when he levels up. It has zero impact or dependency on what the GM does with his campaign.
But more importantly locking your character into a "build" prevents many players from being spontaneous and responding to the (hopefully) dramatic events that happen to them.
Only if those players want to. They can always change their mind and follow a different path or grab a different feat instead. Planning ahead doesn't remove anyone's agency.
Luke Skywalker did not know he was going to be a Jedi knight when he was shooting Wamprats with Bigs at Beggers canyon.
Luke didn't, but the guy controlling him (i.e.: the writer/director/whatever) sure as hell did.
When a player overplans they tend to not be as open to possibilities and IMO are on some level playing outside the narrative of the campaign.
They aren't playing outside the narrative of the campaign anymore than a GM who plans encounters instead of throwing random scenarios and battles at the players. Planning a character has nothing to do with the player's ability and willingness to roleplay.
You're not understanding the comparison then.
GM Railroading: in effect, regardless of the actions of the players, them GM is forcing a series of events to take place.
PC 1-20 Planning: regardless of the actions of other players or events that happen in the game, you are making your character this way and no other way.
Both behaviors are ignoring the collaborative effort that is occurring at the table.
Not really. Planning your character only affect you and no one else. And you can always change your mind later. The GM railroading the group affects all players, not just the GM, and since the railroading is happening in real time, it can't be changed.
There a huge difference between "I decide what my character will be" and "I decide what your characters do".
I'm sorry that you see my posts that way, but it's hard not to infer that there is a fair amount of disregard of the rules in those stories and most of the stories that claim to highlight the "freedom of storytelling" that people claim can be found in earlier editions or other systems. 2nd edition had race restrictions on who could multiclass into what and attribute restrictions on who even technically qualified for a class; the only real difference between those and what people did in 3rd was that in the earlier editions, those rules simply ignored, and the underlying rules went unused, which is probably a large reason they were eventually dropped. Most other systems have their own limitations that would largely prevent most of your examples from being entirely rules legal.
I don't have a problem with those kinds of stories, but claiming that PF is somehow worse at them than other systems is problematic to me, as they require a certain amount of bending the rules, regardless of the base system. The PF player community may be less willing to flex that far, and that is a genuine hurdle, but that's still not the system itself. It's still the people you are playing with, which is always going to be the biggest hurdle you have, with the base system having remarkably little impact in the end.
And again you back up your non apology with inference about how I run my games.
I make no claim that Pathfinder is worse than other systems. I absolutely love playing Pathfinder, it does many things very well. But it is no secret that I do not enjoy GMing the game. I have personal preferences as do we all or am I not allowed to have an opinion?
Do me a favor and just stop with the conjecture.
It's still the people you are playing with, which is always going to be the biggest hurdle you have, with the base system having remarkably little impact in the end.And again you back up your non apology with inference about how I run my games.
I make no claim that Pathfinder is worse than other systems. I absolutely love playing Pathfinder, it does many things very well. But it is no secret that I do not enjoy GMing the game. I have personal preferences as do we all or am I not allowed to have an opinion?
Do me a favor and just stop with the conjecture.
Note the bolded section, as it is highly relevant to this discussion and my replies. If the people you are playing with are happy, that's all that matters. Also, you do imply that PF is worse, at least for you, because you keep saying that you prefer other systems, at least for DMing, which again takes us back to the bolded line.
I am simply pointing out that your issue seems to be one of wanting a specific type of play style or story, which in my experience relies more on the people in a specific group than the base system, and that rule bending is still rule bending; even if it's in a system or group where that isn't seen as a major problem, the fact that you are still having to bend the rules becomes very relevant when having a larger discussion that involves others that may see it as a much larger concern.
Am I supposed to have my Ranger start taking levels of Monk because I've met an ancient monkish guru and am staying in his monastery?
No, but let's take a different possibility. You have a Fighter character in a custom world. Your Fighter adventures, helps a city, and as a reward, the city's leadership grants your Fighter access to special skills (a prestige class.)
Members of this prestige class are known for their ability to deflect attacks. Mechanically, this is an ability that is granted at level 1 of the prestige class.
Does your Fighter accept the training and take a level in the prestige class?
If your answer is "no, because the character doesn't want to feel like he's indebted to the city," or any other number of reasons that make sense in-character, there's no problem.
But if your answer is "no, because that means I won't get a feat this level and I really want this other feat by level 9," then it seems like you're prioritizing the character's mechanics over the story line.
Or perhaps you try to fake it, and call yourself a (insert name of prestige class here), but don't actually take levels in it.
To each their own, but option 2 or 3 seem like they really detract from the imaginative style of the game.
Am I supposed to have my Ranger start taking levels of Monk because I've met an ancient monkish guru and am staying in his monastery?No, but let's take a different possibility. You have a Fighter character in a custom world. Your Fighter adventures, helps a city, and as a reward, the city's leadership grants your Fighter access to special skills (a prestige class.)
Members of this prestige class are known for their ability to deflect attacks. Mechanically, this is an ability that is granted at level 1 of the prestige class.
Does your Fighter accept the training and take a level in the prestige class?
If your answer is "no, because the character doesn't want to feel like he's indebted to the city," or any other number of reasons that make sense in-character, there's no problem.
But if your answer is "no, because that means I won't get a feat this level and I really want this other feat by level 9," then it seems like you're prioritizing the character's mechanics over the story line.
Or perhaps you try to fake it, and call yourself a (insert name of prestige class here), but don't actually take levels in it.
To each their own, but option 2 or 3 seem like they really detract from the imaginative style of the game.
That is a reasonable response, and I completely agree with it. Those who make a plan and insist that they must follow it to the letter and every detail are just as annoying as those that claim they never do any planning at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Luke Skywalker did not know he was going to be a Jedi knight when he was shooting Wamprats with Bigs at Beggers canyon. Young Skywalker had not planned out his future beyond going to Tashi station to pick up those damn power converters. He got caught up in the story and adapted to the events that unfolded.
Here's the thing, if being a Wamprat Pilot 3/Jedi 3 makes Luke *significantly* weaker than being either Wamprat Pilot 6 or Jedi 6 (or realizing all your Wamprat Pilot feats are useless now, etc.) then Luke's player is likely going to have a lot less fun - unless there's something to mitigate that (awesome opportunities for RP, retraining to fix power level, GM mitigating some of the "weaker" skills are really coming in helpful, etc.)...
Same deal if the player envisioned played a scoundrel who piloted ships, and the GM keeps hinting that he'd better listen to the goofy old man's mysticism or else... that player wants to play Han Solo, not Luke. Maybe that player would get excited about jumping paths to Jedi - or becoming a Bounty Hunter - but why get upset at that player if they don't? Changing paths isn't the only way to be creative and roleplay.
--> Regarding some of your other posts here, Muad'Dib, look, I agree to a certain extent: I'm currently playing a Witch who envisioned himself as an ex-thief doing lots of illusions - and I accidentally set off a trap, an illusion really backfired - so that character made some other choices. I didn't take Spell Focus: Illusion for one thing. He also recently had a "spiritual" encounter that made him take a feat choice that wasn't on my plan. One of our most experienced players, whose character is a Skald who loved fire magic, is now obsessed with electricity because he drained the soul of a mad storm wizard into his sword and had an awful dream encounter with him. That player has made ability choices since then based on that. But it would have been equally valid for him to "redouble" his obsession with fire and continue on whatever his plan was.
Oh, and my awesome GM still managed to have me end up in a death feud with the local thieves' guild, with me having to face the leader, who it turns out, was an illusionist all along! Did he get frustrated with me, that I changed my focus away from illusion, even though he planned that plot levels back? No! That's why I agree that the OP's problem is silly - being frustrated about this is useless. Use what people bring to the game and play.
Your Fighter adventures, helps a city, and as a reward, the city's leadership grants your Fighter access to special skills (a prestige class.)
Are we assuming restricted access to prestige classes? Standard prestige classes are achieved through planning your character build, not through being offered 'access to special skills' by people you meet.
If your answer is "no, because the character doesn't want to feel like he's indebted to the city," or any other number of reasons that make sense in-character, there's no problem.
But if your answer is "no, because that means I won't get a feat this level and I really want this other feat by level 9," then it seems like you're prioritizing the character's mechanics over the story line.
Or perhaps you try to fake it, and call yourself a (insert name of prestige class here), but don't actually take levels in it.
If you're playing a Fighter, then dipping into another class doesn't usually do much harm. But I can see a player refusing because, say, he's really close to finally getting the class ability that allows him to move at full speed in the full plate he's been wearing.
Another reasonable response might be, "Dude, if I wanted to play a Duellist I'd have said so. Why are you trying to choose my levels for me?"
If you're not playing a Fighter, the situation is exacerbated. I'm playing a Sorcerer. For the first four levels or so, their options are really limited. If the GM told me I should take a level of Rogue to infiltrate the thieves' guild, I'd be annoyed at the fact that it would postpone for weeks my ability to learn the fun spells I wanted to cast.
To each their own, but option 2 or 3 seem like they really detract from the imaginative style of the game.
Option 3 would be compatible with what I consider to be the imaginative style of the game. Nothing to stop you reflavoring a near miss as deflecting a blow using the special training you received. If players aren't allowed do that, then it seems like the GM is the one prioritizing the character's mechanics over the story line. (I'm one of those people who thinks class mechanics should be separated from character theme as much as possible - that a Barbarian doesn't have to be a barbarian and a Samurai doesn't have to be a samurai.)
If I was the GM and the special training was supposed to be a boon, I'd probably do it by giving the Fighter some fighting style feats / abilities as a free bonus.
Does your Fighter accept the training and take a level in the prestige class?If your answer is "no, because the character doesn't want to feel like he's indebted to the city," or any other number of reasons that make sense in-character, there's no problem.
But if your answer is "no, because that means I won't get a feat this level and I really want this other feat by level 9," then it seems like you're prioritizing the character's mechanics over the story line.
Except that the feat that you want is itself an in-game and in-character behavior.
Saying "I want to learn Improved Critical (unarmed combat) at level 9" is using game terminology, but saying "I want to learn the secret Dim Mak pressure point techniques as soon as I can" is exactly the same desire, for exactly the same reason, just expressed more politickly. If you want to be a good pilot, becoming a Jedi isn't necessarily the way forward.
Being a Jedi in Pathfinder terms is more like gaining Mythic powers than it is like switching class.
If the people you are playing with are happy, that's all that matters. Also, you do imply that PF is worse, at least for you, because you keep saying that you prefer other systems, at least for DMing, which again takes us back to the bolded line.
Preference is not implication that a game system is worse. Saying "Pathfinder is worse" is a statement of fact. Saying "I prefer Pathfinder" is a statement of opinion.
I am simply pointing out that your issue seems to be one of wanting a specific type of play style or story, which in my experience relies more on the people in a specific group than the base system, and that rule bending is still rule bending; even if it's in a system or group where that isn't seen as a major problem, the fact that you are still having to bend the rules becomes very relevant when having a larger discussion that involves others that may see it as a much larger concern.
This is a complete fabrication. I never at any point stated that I bend rules and you continue to state I do. Right now you are the Steve Emerson of the Paizo forums.
This is a complete fabrication. I never at any point stated that I bend rules and you continue to state I do. Right now you are the Steve Emerson of the Paizo forums.
Either you didn't tell the complete story or didn't tell the complete story clear enough, and the actual change did not occur immediately, or you bent the heck out of some rules. If it's the former, then you need to refine how you are describing your examples, because the way you described them, it definitely sounded like it was more or less an instant thing that had no major lingering side effects, which is definitely not going to work in even the loosest of rulesets that I am aware of, and if it's the latter, even if it was a perfectly reasonable thing for that group and campaign, it is still bending rules and needs to be recognized as such for the purposes of the wider discussion.
This is a complete fabrication. I never at any point stated that I bend rules and you continue to state I do. Right now you are the Steve Emerson of the Paizo forums.Either you didn't tell the complete story or didn't tell the complete story clear enough, and the actual change did not occur immediately, or you bent the heck out of some rules. If it's the former, then you need to refine how you are describing your examples, because the way you described them, it definitely sounded like it was more or less an instant thing that had no major lingering side effects, which is definitely not going to work in even the loosest of rulesets that I am aware of, and if it's the latter, even if it was a perfectly reasonable thing for that group and campaign, it is still bending rules and needs to be recognized as such for the purposes of the wider discussion.
No Steve I don't need to explain or refine anything for you since you did not ask the question. And given how contrary you act to give you more detail is a fools errand. Matthew politely asked for some examples and I tried to keep them as concise as I could not be burdened him with a wall of text.
This is a complete fabrication. I never at any point stated that I bend rules and you continue to state I do. Right now you are the Steve Emerson of the Paizo forums.Either you didn't tell the complete story or didn't tell the complete story clear enough, and the actual change did not occur immediately, or you bent the heck out of some rules. If it's the former, then you need to refine how you are describing your examples, because the way you described them, it definitely sounded like it was more or less an instant thing that had no major lingering side effects, which is definitely not going to work in even the loosest of rulesets that I am aware of, and if it's the latter, even if it was a perfectly reasonable thing for that group and campaign, it is still bending rules and needs to be recognized as such for the purposes of the wider discussion.No Steve I don't need to explain or refine anything for you since you did not ask the question. And given how contrary you act to give you more detail is a fools errand. Matthew politely asked for some examples and I tried to keep them as concise as I could not be burdened him with a wall of text.
But in this case, the details actually do matter, so you left out a lot of relevant information, and than took it as a personal attack when someone didn't react exactly the way you were expecting. I have no real problem with your base position, but at least with what you have posted on this thread, you have not supported it all that well where others have. If you want to take that as a personal attack, be my guest, but it was not intended as such.
In the end, you seem to be arguing that zero planning of any kind is required where something like switching from ranger to druid is always to going to require some kind of planning to avoid long term problems, even if it comes after the decision to have it happen. That is what I am responding to. If that is not your argument, than I apologize, but you could be doing a lot better at making your actual argument much clearer, and yes, I fully understand that I often need to do the same. This can still be a very interesting and fruitful conversation, but only if you stop insisting on taking everything so personally right off the bat.
it definitely sounded like it was more or less an instant thing that had no major lingering side effects, which is definitely not going to work in even the loosest of rulesets that I am aware of
I don't find it particularly difficult to imagine that someone else's game could have events like 'since our last gaming session, this character has spent a few months retraining, and now all his ranger levels are druid levels' or 'this character is restarting from level 1 as a druid in accordance with whatever rules made sense to Gary Gygax at the time, and since our adventures don't involve balanced classes / levels in the first place that's not a big problem for us'.
it definitely sounded like it was more or less an instant thing that had no major lingering side effects, which is definitely not going to work in even the loosest of rulesets that I am aware ofI don't find it particularly difficult to imagine that someone else's game could have events like 'since our last gaming session, this character has spent a few months retraining, and now all his ranger levels are druid levels' or 'this character is restarting from level 1 as a druid in accordance with whatever rules made sense to Gary Gygax at the time, and since our adventures don't involve balanced classes / levels in the first place that's not a big problem for us'.
That's still a bit of rule bending, though, and while not bad, needs to acknowledged as such. It's not necessarily bad, but it requires a break from the rules, both written and unwritten, that the group had been following. Some groups will be far more comfortable with that than others, so it does need to be acknowledged as part of the discussion.
Ok it's been acknowledged plenty by now, I believe. This isn't the Spanish inquisition.
Ok it's been acknowledged plenty by now, I believe. This isn't the Spanish inquisition.
By most, yes, and I haven't had a problem with most, just the one who decided that I was obviously attacking him personally.
But in this case, the details actually do matter.
Clearly details do not matter as proof in the fact that you seem perfectly ok with making s&*t up.
so you left out a lot of relevant information,
Relevant only to you, but you did not ask the question.
In the end, you seem to be arguing that zero planning of any kind is required where something like switching from ranger to druid is always to going to require some kind of planning to avoid long term problems, even if it comes after the decision to have it happen.
And yet again with more conjecture. lol
It's not a problem, and he is not required to confess anything, is my point. Not worth dwelling on.
I give up. You have clearly already decided to not listen to anything I say, so congratulations, you win, I am an ass, and you are clearly completely in the right on everything. Happy now? Can we please get back to the interesting conversation?
Sorry to everyone else for this one, but when people choose to bite at me, I'm not going to simply roll over.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is not an attack on a PC.
This is an attack on a Player.
You could easily have two PCs, identical, and one was planned out by the player, and other was not. No difference.
This says, that the player who planned their PC, is wrong.
This is a DM, looking at a player, and attacking their thoughts.
There is no excuse, for this sort demand to control a player's thoughts.
You are a DM, not Big Brother.
Players don't need to doublethink past the DM, just because they have dreams, and aspirations.
It nauseatingly foul, for anyone to condone the attack on the minds of players.
These are your friends and family.
How can you look at them, and tell them that by looking ahead to tomorrow, makes them a bad person?
No.
You are the bad person.
Are we assuming restricted access to prestige classes? Standard prestige classes are achieved through planning your character build, not through being offered 'access to special skills' by people you meet.
Possibly, similar to the core prestige class Assassin which has the following requirement:
Special: The character must kill someone for no other reason than to become an assassin.
or the Pathfinder Chronicler:
Special: Must have authored or scribed something (other than a magical scroll or other device) for which another person (not a PC) paid at least 50 gp.
In making campaign-specific prestige classes, certain special requirements could certainly be in place.
If you're playing a Fighter, then dipping into another class doesn't usually do much harm.
I think you're missing the point though as you're clearly looking at this from a mechanical standpoint. If your first thought is "Well, I'm a Fighter and taking a level in a prestige class won't do much harm," then you're clearly placing the mechanics above the story line. Again, nothing wrong with that, just different play styles.
Another reasonable response might be, "Dude, if I wanted to play a Duellist I'd have said so. Why are you trying to choose my levels for me?"
How would being offered a prestige class cause this reaction? Are you suggesting that the GM should review the player's build, see what the player expects to have by certain levels, and then never have anything in the game occur that isn't part of the plan?
If the GM told me I should take a level of Rogue to infiltrate the thieves' guild, I'd be annoyed at the fact that it would postpone for weeks my ability to learn the fun spells I wanted to cast.
This is not the GM telling someone they have to take a level of a class. I think we can all agree that wouldn't be right. This is the GM offering the PC a special prestige class based on the character's actions during game play.
Option 3 would be compatible with what I consider to be the imaginative style of the game. Nothing to stop you reflavoring a near miss as deflecting a blow using the special training you received.
I'd completely disagree, but like I said, to each their own.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a player is complaining that they didn't get the gear they wanted, enemies they wanted, etc., then that is a player complaining problem.
If a player decides to choose Weapon Focus(Falchion), and not Weapon Focus(Longsword), despite the DM dropping tons of magical Longswords, then that's a railroading problem.
Every single problem, I have seen used as an example, is not with planning, as these same problems can occur with those who don't plan any of their build.
Planning, is just the thoughts of the player, and where they dream, and aspire to go with their PC.
When you attack the planning itself, then you attack the thoughts, dreams, and aspirations of that player.
This isn't attacking someone's eating of chocolate, but their desire to eat chocolate.
This is looking at Martin Luther King Jr., and not showing disapproval of his actions, or the telling of his dream, but the fact that he even had a dream in the first place.
This is looking at Martin Luther King Jr., and not showing disapproval of his actions, or the telling of his dream, but the fact that he even had a dream in the first place.
Wow...lol, just wow. I think you just won the internet.
No, but let's take a different possibility. You have a Fighter character in a custom world. Your Fighter adventures, helps a city, and as a reward, the city's leadership grants your Fighter access to special skills (a prestige class.)
Members of this prestige class are known for their ability to deflect attacks. Mechanically, this is an ability that is granted at level 1 of the prestige class.
Does your Fighter accept the training and take a level in the prestige class?
If your answer is "no, because the character doesn't want to feel like he's indebted to the city," or any other number of reasons that make sense in-character, there's no problem.
What if my answer is "No, because I don't think it's as effective as the training I'm currently undergoing". That can be said totally in character. Why would the character care about picking up useful skills any less than his player does?
But if your answer is "no, because that means I won't get a feat this level and I really want this other feat by level 9," then it seems like you're prioritizing the character's mechanics over the story line.
No. It means the player wants his character to be able to do the thing he wants to do. If I want my character to get the cool stuff that a class gets at higher level, there is nothing wrong with it. It's no more story-derailing than accepting whatever offer a NPC makes. It's perfectly valid for both the player and his character to refuse the offer for practical reasons.
Or perhaps you try to fake it, and call yourself a (insert name of prestige class here), but don't actually take levels in it.
There is nothing "fake" about it! Do players have to play a Fighter to be a armored warrior? Do they have to play a Rogue to be a sneaky scoundrel? Or a Hunter to be able to hunt? Because that is what I'd consider unimaginative.
Characters don't have their classes advertised on a big neon sign on their forehead. If you think the class' names matter more than the characters actions, personality and abilities, then it's you who lack imagination, not the player doing the planning.
I give up. You have clearly already decided to not listen to anything I say, so congratulations, you win, I am an ass, and you are clearly completely in the right on everything. Happy now? Can we please get back to the interesting conversation?
Sorry to everyone else for this one, but when people choose to bite at me, I'm not going to simply roll over.
Fair enough, thank you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cripes, this thread blew up didn't it?
It's just a game folks. Admittedly a game I spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about and preparing for, but still. Just a game.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does it even matter that it's a game?
In what circumstance is it justified to attack the hopes, dreams, aspirations, and desires of another human being?
When you raise yourself to a position to police thought crime, you do so, with the justification that you are allowed to violate freedom of thought.
Most of those who condemn freedom of thought, do so with the justification that a higher power supports them. Sins of the mind.
Who would dare declare themselves so righteous, that they themselves have deity level of power, to judge that which exists in the mind of their fellow man?
What we do, and what we say, is free to be judged, but our minds, our are own.
