If they dont even want to publish errata that will push some words onto the next page, I am sure they are much less enthusiastic about having two books that don't match up when trying to reference something. <---I am not saying it is wrong to want a redone CRB, but I am saying this is why it should not be expected.
Some of these misunderstandings in the rules is writing that is not clear. However, some of it is also people either not reading the rules well, or wanting the rules to work a certain way so badly that they refuse to read it any other way.
edit: Sometimes people will tell Paizo they are wrong about their own rules. Then I make ask, well how would it have to be written for them to think Paizo is correct, and they go on about how stupid the ruling is. That just tells me the problem is not the rule is written, but them not liking the ruling.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the only thing added in to the CRB is simple errata and clarification of certain rules. Why would I purchase that. My new rule for core rulebooks of a existing game is 50% new material minimum. Reprints and rehashs need not apply. While I'm looking forward and not to Unchained. I have little desire to buy a CRB that offers nothing new beyond errata. All I would need to do is by the free PDF document that shows all the changes. Or simply take them from the SRD.
A PF 2E with little or no changes is not going to sell well imo. I get that players want to keep their books valid and not suddenly become obsolete. Not that they do really if one plays the current edition. With 5E that fixed some flaws of the 3.5. rules and made the game easier to run. Any later edition of PF will be judged by what ti does worse and better then 5E. Unfair maybe but I don't blame gamers for wanting more than another rehash yet again.
As for some players not wanting to switch to PF. While uncommon it happens more often than you think. While PF does fix some minor problems that 3.5 had. It really does not change much. If it was not for the fact that I like most of the changes. While having sold off my 3.5. material I too would have never made the switch. At most the PF CRB and that's it. If one is happy with 3.5. their really is not big of a incentive to switch over. If a player has most if not all the 3.5 material before 3pp support. There enough material for a lifetime and more of gaming. As well and what no one but myself is going to admit. Gamers are cheap. Notoriously so imo. I still remember being at my LGS and a customer going on a rant about how much the new third edition stuff costs and how greedy Wotc is. The store owner pretty much silenced the tirade by pointing out such a thing as inflation and the rising costs of printing and materials needed to do so. Kind of made me wonder if it was the customers first visit to a game store in 20 years or so.
If they dont even want to publish errata that will push some words onto the next page, I am sure they are much less enthusiastic about having two books that don't match up when trying to reference something. <---I am not saying it is wrong to want a redone CRB, but I am saying this is why it should not be expected.
Some of these misunderstandings in the rules is writing that is not clear. However, some of it is also people either not reading the rules well, or wanting the rules to work a certain way so badly that they refuse to read it any other way.
edit: Sometimes people will tell Paizo they are wrong about their own rules. Then I make ask, well how would it have to be written for them to think Paizo is correct, and they go on about how stupid the ruling is. That just tells me the problem is not the rule is written, but them not liking the ruling.
I am aware of all of this - yet the desire to not upset the formatting I think is a limitation.
That's why I used the poison blog post as an example - and honestly there are plenty of things that carried over with a history of bad language that could be cleaned up. I do know that people often want the rules to read a 'certain' way.
I will state though that some of that (like say vital strike) shows that the language itself even if correct leads the wrong impression on a first read (and or being new) - and honestly the problem with writing technical documentation of any kind (Pathfinder or not) is that if the language (even if clear and non-ambiguous) trips up the average target of your work, it needs revision.
Being the CRB is meant as a player book I think a chapter that focuses on how you as a player can organize yourself and your turn - keep track of your action types, and smooth out your turn and abilities would be helpful as well.
Frankly I'd even be OK with this being a 'new' book that skips or leaves out things that work fine. I'm not sure in general that people would like that however, and I understand the CRB is already a mammoth volume and this type of project wouldn't be easy. I still stand that I think it would be an awesome product.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I had trouble recognizing my game...then I relaized I had the book upside down and everything was good with the world once again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh good strawman hour again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, that's how the player vs GM argument happened. Basically If one or more players want to play other options past what the GM is comfortable with the players will demand to use more options there is argument over who has power of issues of what books and house rules are allowed and what to do if you enter a group with pre-established house rules.Ugh... QUIT WORRYING ABOUT THE BLOAT ALREADY!
Dude, you JUST need the 3 core book the play the game, the rest is just supplementary/not mandatory.
You don't need more classes, more races, more feats, more spells, more monsters, etc... All 3 books cover everything you need.
You take it or you leave it, as simple as that.
Furthermore, what is there to worry about? Too much material? Why again? Too much options? When is it a BAD thing to have "too much options" again?
Occult Adventures is around the corner, feel free to take it, no one forces you to use these rules, let alone buy the book.
Dude, if you're solely use the APs, all you need is the 3 core books and the 6 APs. That's it, because most of the stuff use in the APs are reprinted for your convenience. Same goes with the modules.
Very simple solution: "I'm not comfortable using those rules yet. Let's keep with the rules we have for this campaign and revisit this issue when we start our next campaign. If I'm still not comfortable by then, maybe someone else can GM."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stop whining about bloat! If you don't like it, don't use it.
vs
Any GM that denies a player anything they want is a tyrant!
You seriously CANNOT win on these boards if you are a GM.
Funny how neither of these options included the one thing I recommend every time I participate in a discussion like this: talk with your group as an adult and come to a decision together about which books you want to use, what rules you want to use, and what kind of campaign or game you all want to play. It's as if a false dochotomy is presented with no other option anywhere else.
|
|
Nor has anyone said that disallowing something at the table makes a DM a tyrant. Coming to the table and discussing as adults what is or not allowed. With a player accepting that a DM may disallow domething they want. not should a DM demand or expect special treatment simply by virtue of being a DM. It's a table of equals imo.
Can we also get past the " I'm not getting what I want as a player equals DM is a tyrant." BS. No one has said it. I'm getting sick and tired of being demonized as a player.
|
|
Again no one us saying that a DM can't have any control. A reason I think is needed Imo. Even if it simply "I don't think guns belong in fantasy." If say I'm playing a Gunslinger. If as a DM your showing up and expect to put yourself on some sort of pedestal simply because your the DM . Well your not getting that treatment from me. My players would desert me in a heartbeat if I demanded special treatment.
I don't get this fear by certain members of this hobby as expecting to be treated as a equal. Again since I feel like I'm talking to a wall. A DM has the right to refuse and disallow what he wants at the table. He is still a equal imo. Being a DM equals being a masochist. Seriously we're going there. hive me a break.
|
|
I was using the Gunslinger as a example. I can't believe I actually have to point it out. If for example I show up to a character building session. I ask go play a Gunslinger. if he refuses because he tells me that he thinks gun don't belong in fantasy. While disappointed I accept the decision. If all I get is "no because I'm the DM that's why!" Is not exactly being respectful. Do hopeful this clears up the apparent confusion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was using the Gunslinger as a example. I can't believe I actually have to point it out. If for example I show up to a character building session. I ask go play a Gunslinger. if he refuses because he tells me that he thinks gun don't belong in fantasy. While disappointed I accept the decision. If all I get is "no because I'm the DM that's why!" Is not exactly being respectful. Do hopeful this clears up the apparent confusion.Do you ever run into people to actually say that?
I have. On the threads and in real life at gaming tables. Of all the ones in real life that I've met like that, they were all over 40 and have been playing since first edition. One of them wasn't like that when she was in her 30s; but for some odd reason she grew into a less mature person over the decade and a half I knew her. I do not associate with her anymore.
[Yeah, that's how the player vs GM argument happened. Basically If one or more players want to play other options past what the GM is comfortable with the players will demand to use more options there is argument over who has power of issues of what books and house rules are allowed and what to do if you enter a group with pre-established house rules.Quite frankly, I've only seen it as a message board problem than the real thing. Perhaps it's because I insist that anyone who wants to play at my tables, have a mental age of at least five and be housebroken.
Probably. I was building a monk for a game and wanted to use a Monk of the Four Winds. I got my elemental damage changed for force damage because "the setting's ki techniques are not advanced enough to do elemental damage." I express disappointment that my Captain Falcon build was less Captain Falcon without fire and questioned how the followup style feats would work thematically but I went along with it. I've also been in situations where there are house rules that I was uncomfortable with that I quit respectfully and offer to do a session to kill of my character so that the story still flows.
I've also made my own house rules and never had any real opposition to them. The worst things to happen were that the players were not all comfortable with scaling feats from Kobold Press so I took those out. There were people that were uncomfortable using third party material so they didn't use it. One person wanted to change the witch's casting stat to Charisma and I refused because I didn't know the rules well enough to know the consequences of agreeing to that, and they went with it. When I played the beginner box one player expressed that he felt limited by not playing the full rules but went with it until we graduated to the core rulebook.
Overall I've only had two actual in person rule disputes. One with my sister-in-law about allowing archetypes from Ultimate Combat. This was shot down without much incident because I was GMing for the first time and did not own or reviewed Ultimate Combat and had only just went from the Beginner Box to the Core Rulebook and didn't fully understand all the rules. She had argued that I would be gimping fighters to not allowing rules but I still felt like I was responsible for rules disputes so would not allow it until I could comprehend the game more so she relented. The other time my girlfriend wanted the domain that gained Leadership which I wanted to ban. This was the fiercest dispute and I allowed the feats Squire and Torchbearer to replace Leadership.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
LazarX on this very thread. So, one person at least.I was using the Gunslinger as a example. I can't believe I actually have to point it out. If for example I show up to a character building session. I ask go play a Gunslinger. if he refuses because he tells me that he thinks gun don't belong in fantasy. While disappointed I accept the decision. If all I get is "no because I'm the DM that's why!" Is not exactly being respectful. Do hopeful this clears up the apparent confusion.Do you ever run into people to actually say that?No... I don't say that. And I didn't say that. What I tell my players is that I"m thinking of running a this and that type of campaign and these are the things I'll incorporate. Believe it or not, subsequent conversation on the topic generally bears a lot of resemblance to adults talking politely and intelligently to each other. Probably because no one in our group subscribes to the belief that GMs and Players must live in an atmosphere of perpetual animosity.
What I have said is that the DM does have a unalienable right to set the character of his game world which is defined more by what's not included than by what is. And some folks just get all bent out of shape by that assumption.
I'm guessing he might be referring to this post?
No GM is obligated to allow anything. GM's should, however, accept that they ought to allow everything they don't have a good reason for banning.As far as asking beyond the first, "No," it depends whether it was "No, because [insert rational reason here]" as opposed to "No." In the latter case, "Why not?" is a very acceptable question that the GM should have an answer to:...
I categorically disagree with the first statement. As far as I'm concerned, "It doesn't fit, or I'm not familliar with that material are both good reasons, as well as "I don't wish to include it."
Whether you want to use the word or not, your statement has been that by default, GM's are obligated to use everything unless they justify an exclusion.
My bolding. While I think a GM is perfectly entitled to allow or disallow whatever content he wants, I think it's reasonable that the GM offers the player an explanation for why said material is off the table. "Because I don't wish to include it" is a poor answer to a reasonable question.
It also means that the player doesn't know what the problem is with whatever material was "cut", and so can't avoid the same problem in the future. Let's say I show up at Lazar's home game with a gunslinger and Lazar tells me "I don't wish to include gunslingers in my campaign". Why not? I have no idea. So...
Did he cut gunslingers because he doesn't like firearms? Okay, I'll make a bolt ace instead!
Did he cut gunslingers because he thinks they're overpowered? Okay, I'll make a swashbuckler/fighter/investigator who uses guns instead!
Did he cut gunslingers because he hasn't read Ultimate Combat? Okay, I'll make a ranger archer instead!
Communication is important. Giving a reply that boils down to "because I said so" is frustrating at best, and has a good chance of annoying or driving away a player who might be perfectly willing to accept the limitation if he understands why it is in place.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
As has been stated before, for a great many people, a "reasonable" reason translates to "a reason I agree with".
There's also the fact that sometimes people just don't like something, and they don't have any rational explanation for why. Maybe they just don't like gunslingers. Or catgirls. Why is the impetus in these threads always on the GM to change HIS likes and dislikes, despite the fact that the game offers such a huge number of choices for the players?
Why is the GM who refuses to rewrite his campaign around one special snowflake a control freak, but the player who refuses to play anything except for that special snowflake isn't deemed a control freak?
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
GM - You guys can pick any race except catfolk. They went extinct 400 years ago in my setting.
Player1 - Waaa! Yer a tyrant! I wanna play a catfolk!
GM - OK, fine, you can be the last catfolk of the one family that escaped the catfolk Holocaust.
Players 2-6 - How come Jim gets to play a catfolk, but we can't?!? We ALL want to be catfolks!
GM - Fine. Whatever. All the catfolk in the setting are dead, except there are apparently enough left that six of them can randomly meet in a tavert. F#~~ it, not gonna bother putting any more effort into the setting from now on.
If I were a GM that had that golden, golden plot-hook, I'd not have them meet randomly in a tavern: they'd know each other. Heck, they'd probably be related! Literally the last of a dying species! PLOT CENTRAL, BABY! This is players just giving me material to work with! It's like free inspiration! :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Me: "Last of your species huh? So a rare and valuable commodity?"
My PLayers: "Oh f!++ is it too late to change our race? I hear elven archers are in style again."
Me: "Oh no I'm sold on it now. What would your character look like in a collar with a clown nose I wonder..."
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Of course.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As has been stated before, for a great many people, a "reasonable" reason translates to "a reason I agree with".
There's also the fact that sometimes people just don't like something, and they don't have any rational explanation for why. Maybe they just don't like gunslingers. Or catgirls. Why is the impetus in these threads always on the GM to change HIS likes and dislikes, despite the fact that the game offers such a huge number of choices for the players?
Why is the GM who refuses to rewrite his campaign around one special snowflake a control freak, but the player who refuses to play anything except for that special snowflake isn't deemed a control freak?
Why is it that when a middle ground solution is presented it turns into an invisible post and people act like post with extreme viewpoints are the only ones that exist?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because that strawman was asking for dressing like that in this part of town!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
More like:
Player 1: Can I play a catfolk?
GM: No, You guys can pick any race except catfolk.
Player 1: Why?
Alternative a:
Gm: Because I am the GM and I want to shove it in your face by reminding you that I can ban stuff!
Player 1: Waa! You're a tyrant!Alternative b:
GM: Because they went extinct 400 years ago in my setting.
Player 1: Okay then, could I play a ratfolk?Alternative c:
GM: Because I dislike the idea of talking cats--I can't think about it without being reminded of that annoying talking Meowth.
Player 1: Okay then , could I play a ratfolk?Alternative d:
GM: Because player 2, player 3, and player 5 have expressed a strong distaste in having a PC with fur in the party.
Player 1: Okay then, could I play a gnome?
More like:
Player 1: I'm playing a catfolk.GM: Actually, that's not a playable race in this campaign.
Player 1: Why?
Alternative a:
Gm: Because I am the GM and I want to shove it in your face by reminding you that I can ban stuff!
Player 1: Waa! You're a tyrant!
Alternative b:
GM: Because they went extinct 400 years ago in my setting.
Player 1: Okay then, I'm playing an undead catfolk.
GM: No, all the undead catfolk were destroyed 400 years ago.
Player 1: Okay then, I'm playing a 500-year-old catfolk who was true res'd.
GM: Please stop looking for loopholes and just pick something else.
Player 1: Waa! You're a tyrant!
Alternative c:
GM: Because I dislike the idea of talking cats--I can't think about it without being reminded of that annoying talking Meowth.
Player 1: Okay then, I'm playing a mute catfolk who knows sign language.
GM: But cats who convey words using gestures are just as silly as talking cats.
Player 1: Okay then, I'm playing a mute catfolk psion telepath.
GM: We're not even using the rules for psionics.
Player 1: Waa! You're a tyrant!
Alternative d:
GM: Because Player 2 has expressed a strong distaste in having a PC with fur in the party.
Player 1: What? Player 2, why do you dislike races with fur?
Repeat Alternatives B and C, substituting "Player 2" for "GM"
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is it that when a middle ground solution is presented it turns into an invisible post and people act like post with extreme viewpoints are the only ones that exist?
I am beginning to feel the same way. Myself yourself and others have repeatedly said that a DM does not have to accept every character concept. As long as a reason is given. Even if not as long as the DM is respectful. Apparently a DM who gives any ground means to some on this forum as a sign of weakness. With the players always acting unreasonable. I think some are so stuck one side of the issue that they refuse to willingly see the middle ground.
GM - You guys can pick any race except catfolk. They went extinct 400 years ago in my setting.
Player1 - Waaa! Yer a tyrant! I wanna play a catfolk!
GM - OK, fine, you can be the last catfolk of the one family that escaped the catfolk Holocaust.
Players 2-6 - How come Jim gets to play a catfolk, but we can't?!? We ALL want to be catfolks!
GM - Fine. Whatever. All the catfolk in the setting are dead, except there are apparently enough left that six of them can randomly meet in a tavert. F~+& it, not gonna bother putting any more effort into the setting from now on.
I have never seen such a example happen. Maybe one two players at most. i have yet to see any table in all my years of experience never seen a table display. Such a extreme unrealistic behavior. Why would a player who likes playing Bards suddenly get a lobotomy and want to play a Catfolk as well.
You know a suggestion to all on these boards come up with realistic examples. When a entire table of player sudden displays hive mind mentality. Well your not helping your cases imo.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Same thing from the other side.Basically, I just think players who'll push back against even GMs who give reasons are a lot more common than GMs who'll say (or even mean) "Because I am the GM and I want to shove it in your face by reminding you that I can ban stuff!"
While it does happen. I think when a player is given a good reason. While possibly being unhappy accept it. More often then they argue with the DM. I'm not saying it happens. It certainly not the epidemic that it's made out to be. Same with DMs being unreasonable. It happens. Yet again it's not the epidemic that it's made out to be either.
So that means you need to stretch your skills as a GM. You think your group is stomping through an AP? Change it! or introduce some new complications. That's what my spouse is doing with Wrath of the Righteous and we all have a better gam from it.I can't get my head wrapped around the collector's value of an AP. I don't buy my gaming material with the intention of flipping it as an investment some time down the road. The previous material you purchased has't changed. CRB is still the CRB and the AP is still the AP. The only real issues are the AP's that were published for D+D, not Pathfinder.Again, we both know I'm not talking about speculative investment or 'flipping' AP's as a collector... I'm talking about modules and adventure paths that were written, balanced against what options there were in the game at the time they were written becoming gradually more obsolete as those options gets swallowed by a host of new ones the original adventure could never have taken into account.
Isn't this the same fallacy of "You can change it as a GM so there's no issue" that people talk about when it comes to rules?