| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
1 The players are unique and beautiful snowflakes - there is a reason we are telling this story about your characters. DMs would do well to remember the players should be story-worthy - unless your campaign specifies otherwise.
1a Players would do well to remember that sometimes, the reason no-one else is helping them or lifting a finger to help them is because there IS no one else, or everyone else is busy.
1b Pursuant to 1a, if you as the player have been pretty clearly briefed on what the story will be, and you haven't made a character that has a clear and ongoing investment in that story - THAT'S YOUR FAULT! YOU need to bring yourself into the story as much as the DM. If you aren't interested in the story "because your character wouldn't be" that's your problem
1c As the DM, if you had the players design their characters around a specific motivation, and then change it - it is your fault your players don't care anymore!
2 Golarion, and any basic Pathfinder setting is assumed to be a High Magic world with massive wealth disparity. Magic is everywhere. Money is easy to get if you're powerful. If you as the DM don't think any group of 5 or more people isn't going to have at least 1 magic item among them - you're doing it wrong. If you're playing it differently, you need to apprise the players. Respect Wealth by Level, or make it known that you aren't.
2a Giving out wealth and magic is an exercise in creativity. It is the DM's job to figure out how stuff gets into the hands of the players - so they can have fun with it! Remember fun? The whole reason we play this game? Have some!
What other essential conceits do many players and DMs forget when playing this game?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree about high magic being an essential conceit, but the first part is good and people absolutely should know what they're getting in to.
Another one I'd add to the list would be that everyone should know going in that reality is going to be bent, if not absolutely broken. Some may want more realism, but perfect realism on paper will never happen and really shouldn't. These stories are supposed to be our homes away from home — not more of the same that we experience all the time. Get loose, be free and be immersed. =]
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree about high magic being an essential conceit, but the first part is good and people absolutely should know what they're getting in to.
Another one I'd add to the list would be that everyone should know going in that reality is going to be bent, if not absolutely broken. Some may want more realism, but perfect realism on paper will never happen and really shouldn't. These stories are supposed to be our homes away from home — not more of the same that we experience all the time. Get loose, be free and be immersed. =]
CR, and subsequently Wealth by Level, assumes a certain level of magical gear. While this magical gear could be the absolute only piece of its type in the whole wide world, the APs, Ultimate Campaign, and overall power level of the PCs make it very clear that Pathfinder is meant to be a high magic setting. It is definitely not Low Magic. You could argue that it is Moderate Magic and I wouldn't fight you much. But magic is everywhere. Magic is abundant in Golarion, and relatively simple to acquire according to the game rules. Even a peasant can afford to have a healing potion in the drawer for emergencies.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The most fun adventures are ones where every magical item is something to hold on to, because it's not candy. Players seem to have been cuddled into this belief that the loot has to conform to their 'builds' and that there is a magic Amazon.com in every city where Deckard Cain runs the registers and they can simply exchange the stuff they find for what they want.
Adventures are more fun when the players get creative with the tools they're provided. You don't need 'high magic' for that. No, you can't have that flaming holy two-handed oversized greatsword you specced for. You've got a pile of holy water, a regular greatsword, and a cleric that's bleeding out because you thought the chest in the back of the room was more important.
But, I digress...
I find DM's forget my First Rule of GM'ing: Never let players know when, why, or how you cheat.
I tend to play with close groups (sadly, coworkers I have to work with), and I can't tell you how disruptive it is when the DM simply announces at some point about how he pulled punches and saved so-and-so from dying, or lays out a festival of obscene saving throws and suddenly gets a deer-in-the-headlights look when people don't pass his Save-or-Suck lightshow.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The most fun adventures are ones where every magical item is something to hold on to, because it's not candy. Players seem to have been cuddled into this belief that the loot has to conform to their 'builds' and that there is a magic Amazon.com in every city where Deckard Cain runs the registers and they can simply exchange the stuff they find for what they want.
Adventures are more fun when the players get creative with the tools they're provided. You don't need 'high magic' for that. No, you can't have that flaming holy two-handed oversized greatsword you specced for. You've got a pile of holy water, a regular greatsword, and a cleric that's bleeding out because you thought the chest in the back of the room was more important.
Um complete and total opinion. The default rules of the game, the premises the game is build on, is that you can have access to the things you think are "cool" for YOUR character. Not what the GM thinks you should have. More options to give the players choices that they can ENJOY. If you as a GM want to break those basic principles of the game so YOU can have fun, realize that isn't everyone's bag of tea and you are in fact not playing the game as they wrote it and it was intended to be.
Your own little mini tyranny if you want.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Um complete and total opinion. The default rules of the game, the premises the game is build on, is that you can have access to the things you think are "cool" for YOUR character. Not what the GM thinks you should have. More options to give the players choices that they can ENJOY. If you as a GM want to break those basic principles of the game so YOU can have fun, realize that isn't everyone's bag of tea and you are in fact not playing the game as they wrote it and it was intended to be.
Your own little mini tyranny if you want.
Completely disagree.
I don't know anyone that I game with that takes for granted that they will have a certain piece of gear by x level, or expect it.That is not a default rule of the game; that is a play style choice in regards to magical items and their proliferation.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fortified positions containing hordes of enemies are best assaulted not with an army laying siege, but by four to six apparently random individuals.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know anyone that I game with that takes for granted that they will have a certain piece of gear by x level, or expect it.
That is not a default rule of the game; that is a play style choice in regards to magical items and their proliferation.
It is a default rule (or at least guideline) of the game that you will have a certain amount of wealth by Level X. It is another default rule of the game that large settlements will most likely sell the items that you want. It's also a default rule that you can teleport around at high levels, making shopping quicker and more convenient. And that you can craft items by taking the right feats, widening your access to desired items even further.
It's far from the only way to play, but it is fairly normal. If you're GM, and you're not going to allow the gnome archer access to appropriately-sized magic composite longbows, you should probably warn the player in advance.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find DM's forget my First Rule of GM'ing: Never let players know when, why, or how you cheat.
This is fine and dandy, and I sort of agree with it, but make sure you hide that your doing it. Many players have a vast knowledge of the rules and will know when you do it.
It is the job of the GM to tailor the campaign to the players. Throwing a ton of role-play at players who prefer combats and visa-versa is a no no.
If you have a player who wants to use a falcata and you refuse to let him have an upgraded version then that is on the GM. If there are no falcatas in the world then the GM should tell the players ahead of time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Um complete and total opinion. The default rules of the game, the premises the game is build on, is that you can have access to the things you think are "cool" for YOUR character. Not what the GM thinks you should have. More options to give the players choices that they can ENJOY. If you as a GM want to break those basic principles of the game so YOU can have fun, realize that isn't everyone's bag of tea and you are in fact not playing the game as they wrote it and it was intended to be.
Your own little mini tyranny if you want.Completely disagree.
I don't know anyone that I game with that takes for granted that they will have a certain piece of gear by x level, or expect it.
That is not a default rule of the game; that is a play style choice in regards to magical items and their proliferation.
The funny thing about WBL is that you can most certainly expect to be roughly around WBL without expecting your GM to pay attention to WBL, as long as the GM is handling treasure correctly. See, the way treasures are set up in Pathfinder, merely by engaging in adventures appropriate for your level you will amass this much gold and then some.
Each NPC has a treasure value, and most are either NPC gear or standard, with some none/incidental, double, and triples thrown in as well. When you check how much XP it takes per encounter to reach the next level vs the treasures awarded by the creatures that you're fighting, you'll find that you're on the WBL track. This is actually why treasure values go down on slow-XP and up on fast-XP, because they are compensating for the extra encounters you need to level up.
If you didn't reduce the amount of treasure that creatures have, on the slow XP track you'd be rolling in cash, and starving on the fast-track. Now if your GM just isn't giving you any treasure, why the **** are you an adventurer? :P
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That said, expecting certain gear isn't really smart either. It's one of the reasons I think falcatas and similar exotic weapons are overrated. You're basically assuring yourself that your odds of looting good gear off of your enemies is nil. Unless other NPCs are willing to barf up some feat slots for it, they're certainly not using them. Which binds you to the realm of shopping. You can buy, at best, a +2 weapon in the core game from communities (+3 weapons are too expensive to find easily without intervention from the dice gods, and even if you can find a +3 or better weapon, it's probably not the one you want).
This is one of the reasons most of my martial characters pick up item creation feats. If I was going to be using some off the wall weapon it would be downright mandatory.
I don't know anyone that I game with that takes for granted that they will have a certain piece of gear by x level, or expect it.
That is not a default rule of the game; that is a play style choice in regards to magical items and their proliferation.It is a default rule (or at least guideline) of the game that you will have a certain amount of wealth by Level X. It is another default rule of the game that large settlements will most likely sell the items that you want. It's also a default rule that you can teleport around at high levels, making shopping quicker and more convenient. And that you can craft items by taking the right feats, widening your access to desired items even further.
It's far from the only way to play, but it is fairly normal. If you're GM, and you're not going to allow the gnome archer access to appropriately-sized magic composite longbows, you should probably warn the player in advance.
To play a fighter and expect a magic word is one thing...
To expect to have specific items for each slot by x level is going too far I think, unless magic shoppettes are readily available.| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, if someone is playing Pathfinder, you can expect to be able to find the following items for trade without fellating the dice gods.
+2 weapons
+3 armors
+4 stat boosters
+2 rings of protection
+4 cloaks of protection
+2 amulets of natural armor
Any scroll / potion / most wands
Anything else is beg, borrow, steal, craft, or quest.
Or pray the dice gods are favorable. However with the sheer quantity of magic items floating around in the world, getting the exact one you want is like winning the lottery.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly my point, Wise One ;)
With my players, someone always plays a crafter (they usually take turns, like playing the healer) so that they can have said items. They do not rely on me as the GM, except to provide the time and money to do so.
Key items, like weapons or armor for a martial, spell books or staves for a caster, etc. I usually craft specifically for the character, and drop it in as treasure at key points.
Rest is random or module decided.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
According to this thread, GM's should ignore WBL, cheat, and give players magic items they aren't interested in. Lots of focus on petty tyranny, not so much on fun.
Now admittingly finding uses for random magic loot can be fun, but purposefully not handing out gear your players are hoping for is pretty lame.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
purposefully not handing out gear your players are hoping for is pretty lame.
I find it a bit contrived and unrealistic if the group randomly finds the exact items they want. I prefer crafting or magic item shops or similar.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Depends on what the perceived job of the GM is. Which, is almost always, group specific.
My players expect me to give them a fair shake, and not to leave the success of the campaign entirely to chance. So, I cheat. I have to. But in the capacity of being a GM, it's not cheating. It's Rule Zero.
Their trust comes in trusting that I will not abuse Rule Zero to screw them. But they are all aware that I will fudge die rolls, and lightly bend mechanics to make sure things go smoothly.
I do not know of any GM that does not do this.
|
|
purposefully not handing out gear your players are hoping for is pretty lame.I find it a bit contrived and unrealistic if the group randomly finds the exact items they want. I prefer crafting or magic item shops or similar.
Almost every game I've been involved in doesn't allow players to craft. Obviously this isn't the case for everyone, but it's colored my perception of the game a bit. If you don't tailor loot to your players that's fine, but let the guy get his magic sword somehow. If that's through crafting or whatever.
purposefully not handing out gear your players are hoping for is pretty lame.I find it a bit contrived and unrealistic if the group randomly finds the exact items they want. I prefer crafting or magic item shops or similar.
I actually prefer the Magic Mart because it gives me a reason to specifically ban players from taking crafting feats. If you can find what you want anyways then you don't need to craft and cannot use crafting to break WBL.
I like magic items. I dislike boring stat boosting. I want items to allow your character to do new things, not be required for the Fighter to successfully swing his sword and other things he was doing just fine before the levels increased.
I don't think the big 6 is essential for PF. A fantasy setting is not essential for PF. From what I can tell this is what you NEED.
1) The GM's world
2) Players with agency to interact with it
3) Fixed rules to that allow 1 & 2 to happen
4) Chance
I'm trying to appreciate the chance aspect more, to me it seems to fight against the idea of player agency.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What other essential conceits do many players and DMs forget when playing this game?
The fact that there aren't any.
If there's one thing we can all learn from the paizo forums, it's that there's a bazillion ways to play the game. No matter what feature/approach/concept you think is essential, non-negotiable, definitely right, incontrovertible, etcetera, etcetera....There's someone else who likes the opposite.
That's only a problem if you're both at the same table.
There is only one essential conceit for playing Pathfinder/D&D/d20 related games,or even any RPG really. That is the gamemaster discusses with their players what type of story they would like to play in, the gamemaster presents their story they have prepeared, and the two agree on what gets run. It is less work on the GM's part to use premade game assumptions such as WBL, 4 encounters per day, and so on, but they and the players ultimately decide on what's best.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another conceit: within a few days' travel of every adventuring location is a friendly (or at least neutral) cleric capable of casting Raise Dead and any other non-plot-related status removers.
And another: the PCs will encounter challenges suitable for their level, and any that are too dangerous will be suitably flagged to some extent.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The most memorable campaigns are with characters that grew in
unexpected directions based on the challenges and tools available. My favorite is the elf who wished for fire resistant skin because he was tired of getting fireballed by the mage and fire cleric .
At the end he was a reptilian elven rogue with a blood drinking axe.
Note: the axe was not his chosen weapon but grew into it.
WBL are guidelines. If a player mentioned them to me, he wouldn't be invited back.Sit back and enjoy the ride and help me tell the story of your characters.
WBL are guidelines. If a player mentioned them to me, he wouldn't be invited back.
Seems a tad hostile. Depends what you mean by mention.
"God GM get your act together and give us some WBL loot" -- OK response understood
"Are we going to get WBL gear this campaign?"
GM: "Get back munchkin!"
1 The players are unique and beautiful snowflakes - there is a reason we are telling this story about your characters. DMs would do well to remember the players should be story-worthy - unless your campaign specifies otherwise.
1a Players would do well to remember that sometimes, the reason no-one else is helping them or lifting a finger to help them is because there IS no one else, or everyone else is busy.
I absolutely disagree with 1).
In the real world, no-one is a beautiful and unique snowflake, and to believe as such is foolish at best. Humans invariably fall into various archetypes - in personality, in job, etc. - and there are always multiple people who're, for all intents and purposes, identical to others.
Characters at low levels are nothing special. Characters at mid levels are starting to become special. Characters at high level are special, but in no way unique. Until you hit higher Epic levels, you are neither unique nor truly special.
In a medieval world, with a population of only 500 million, even if level 20 characters are 1% of 1% of 1% of the population of the whole planet, that means that there are 500 such individuals running around at any moment.
Imagine a world more like our own, with upwards of 7 BILLION sentient beings on the planet, and that number jumps to 7000.
And that's level 20. Characters of significantly lower levels, even lv15, are so unremarkable as to fill an entire stadium.
There's a reason why there are hundreds to thousands of superpowered characters in worlds like Marvel and DC.
Characters won't get help in 1a) because, like in the real world, many times people just do not care or, as stated, are too busy.
If you even want to think that somehow lv20 makes you entirely unique, remember that the Gods are infinitely more powerful than any mortals, and a lv20 character doesn't even pale in comparison.
There is Always a Bigger Fish is in full effect even in games like Pathfinder, and the players are best to remember that the DM is completely within his rights to introduce them to several of such individuals should the players' hubris lead them to believe that they really CAN do whatever they feel like.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
WBL are guidelines. If a player mentioned them to me, he wouldn't be invited back.Seems a tad hostile. Depends what you mean by mention.
"God GM get your act together and give us some WBL loot" -- OK response understood
"Are we going to get WBL gear this campaign?"
GM: "Get back munchkin!"
Shrug. The GM bears the weight of the campaign world on his shoulders. The GM places far more investment in his/her world than players who explore it.
Players are welcome to vote with their feet, but do not complain about loot. Encounters are balanced accordingly.
A discussion about long terms plans are one thing, but breaking out a WBL chart is another matter entirely as it implies entitlement vice trust in the GMs ability.
A discussion about long terms plans are one thing, but breaking out a WBL chart is another matter entirely as it implies entitlement vice trust in the GMs ability.
Or you are dealing with a player invested enough in the game that she knows what kinds of items at which level certain concepts need to be effective. A player that is trying to make a character that will both thematically and mechanically fit into your world.
|
|
A discussion about long terms plans are one thing, but breaking out a WBL chart is another matter entirely as it implies entitlement vice trust in the GMs ability.Or you are dealing with a player invested enough in the game that she knows what kinds of items at which level certain concepts need to be effective. A player that is trying to make a character that will both thematically and mechanically fit into your world.
And the other 99% of the time they are min maxing to optimize their effectiveness leading to encounter escalation that some characters can't handle leading to fudging dice rolls described above.
For a world where every spell, every item is near unique in subtle ways, breaking out the WBL is childish.
Characters who can craft or custom order leads to levels of ridiculousness as the npc's must do the same, except the GMs time is far better spent making a memorable world than hyperoptimizing every encounter to scale with the PCs.
The PCs should trust the GM or find another game. Its not heartlessness, it's clarity to see the disease under the symptoms.
Its not heartlessness, it's clarity to see the disease under the symptoms.
What you consider wisdom, I see jadedness.
You're saying a lot of right things, but reading too much into perceived "tells" is not one of them.
I find DM's forget my First Rule of GM'ing: Never let players know when, why, or how you cheat.He's right though. If you do fudge, it's critical to not let the players know.
Maintaining the illusion is everything.
Cheating GMs?
Well...if you don't cheat it can make some encounters more deadly than normal, and others can turn into a cakewalk because dice are fickle.
On the otherhand, actually surviving can be more memorable...of course it would stink if you found out the GM was cheating and that's why you survived.
So I suppose I can see if the DM DOES for some reason cheat...you'd never tell your players because it cheapens the moment.
On the WBL thing, that's largely a PF thing. No other game really has that. 3e had a WBL dimension built in to it, but that was for beginners. This is why the CR was even created, to be a malleable tool which the DM could modify to their campaign dependant on what they wished for in wealth, challenge, ability, and other factors.
Once you got past the beginner stage, there were abundant rules with myriad suggestions on how to modify the CR to match what type of campaign you wanted to run. You could easily run a low magic campaign as you could one that had so much wealth you broke WBL by level one.
WBL was a guideline for beginning DMs in 3e, not a restriction to hold them tight.
I see that there were some changes in thought when 3.5 came about and it was a LOT more restrictive in regards to WBL, but it still wasn't the law.
Only in PF and how I see it played more regularly have I seen WBL as something to be strictly adhered to. I think a LOT of that comes from Society play and expectations of individuals...but to tell the truth, it's really on a PF thing where WBL is a gold standard to be held to.
ANY other RPG (those outside of D&D and even the older editions of D&D and D&D itself) don't really have WBL as a thing, and in fact is sort of something against the flow of most RPGs out there.
It's basically just a PF thing where people have this WBL expectation.
Even then, in homegames, I don't see any reason why one couldn't use CR as it was originally designed to be used in 3e and modify it to match whatever type of campaign they want to run.
I know I do it all the time. As long as you let the players know what you are going to do, it gives them ample opportunity to decide if they want to play the game that way or not. In PF, with WBL as the default, however, it may be a little rude just to spring something different on them than what the standard expectation is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you fudge rolls, you're essentially invalidating the purpose of using random action resolution in the first place. If you're going to nudge things so that the result you want is the one that happens... stop jerking your players' collective chain and write the novel you really wanted to write.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you fudge rolls, you're essentially invalidating the purpose of using random action resolution in the first place. If you're going to nudge things so that the result you want is the one that happens... stop jerking your players' collective chain and write the novel you really wanted to write.
I suspect the people advocating fudging rolls aren't talking about ensuring they get the outcome they've preordained at all costs. Perhaps they are talking about degrees of fudging - or that it should be limited to specific circumstances, even though most outcomes are left unadjusted. It doesn't follow that because you fudge sometimes as a DM, you are therefore jerking your players' chain and really wanted to write a novel.
I like a real risk of PC death. As such, at our table, PCs sometimes die. However, most of the group like setbacks but not death as a consequence. If they asked me to (and they easily could) I'd be happy to run a game where they didn't die, no matter what I rolled. I wouldn't consider it cheating to do so - even if I had to adjust enemy hit points, critical confirmation checks or damage rolls, from time to time.
To say it's sometimes right for the DM to ignore dice rolls and determine a result by fiat (and that this is, by definition, not cheating) is specifically called out as a legitimate stance to take in the gamemastery guide. There's little point insisting that the DM fudging is cheating and therefore forbidden if doing so means that the people playing the game are going to enjoy it less.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't have to be at all costs. By altering die rolls, you are intentionally ignoring the influence of the RNG to try and acquire the result you personally want. To whatever degree. That alone is seriously dishonest and defeats the point of using the system.
We're not talking about setting up a game where both the players and the GM agree that PCs won't die ever. That's a specific house rule for a specific kind of game. We're talking about a GM taking it upon themselves to change an outcome that's been determined fairly using the rules.
It doesn't have to be at all costs. By altering die rolls, you are intentionally ignoring the influence of the RNG to try and acquire the result you personally want. To whatever degree. That alone is seriously dishonest and defeats the point of using the system.
We're not talking about setting up a game where both the players and the GM agree that PCs won't die ever. That's a specific house rule for a specific kind of game. We're talking about a GM taking it upon themselves to change an outcome that's been determined fairly using the rules.
But if doing so results in a less fun experience for all concerned, what's the point?
The goal of everyone having fun should (according to the rules) trump the goal of "following the rules".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the rules get in the way of you having fun, then you simply don't like the rules, and should stop using them.
"Roll a d20 and add some stuff" is literally the basis of 90% of this game's mechanics.
If that lessens your fun...stop pretending you want to play a game where you roll dice to determine what happens, and just make it a collaborative storytelling experience.
Pretending to follow the rules and then breaking them when it suits you defeats the purpose of following the rules at all. At least for rules as basic as the chassis an entire classification of RPGs is built on.
If the rules get in the way of you having fun, then you simply don't like the rules, and should stop using them.
"Roll a d20 and add some stuff" is literally the basis of 90% of this game's mechanics.
If that lessens your fun...stop pretending you want to play a game where you roll dice to determine what happens, and just make it a collaborative storytelling experience.
Do you really think it's so all-or-nothing? I suspect the fans of fudging do enjoy the random element the d20 provides in almost all cases - just not all the time.
Pretending to follow the rules and then breaking them when it suits you defeats the purpose of following the rules at all. At least for rules as basic as the chassis an entire classification of RPGs is built on.
The purpose is for everyone to have fun. If fudging a die roll advances that goal then it most definitely doesn't "defeat the purpose" of following the rules most of the time.