No. It's from Salvatore's other Forgotten Realms series. Was there a Haverly in Braveheart?I read Salvatore long before I got into D&D (well maybe not long). I've never made a Drizzt clone but I did name my first character Haverly. (Who can tell me where that is from?)Braveheart!
maybe i blanked on the other movie i was gonna say, the one where brad pitt fights the bear:-D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I read Salvatore long before I got into D&D (well maybe not long). I've never made a Drizzt clone but I did name my first character Haverly. (Who can tell me where that is from?)Oh, I'm blanking, but I want to say... one of the wizards from the strange family. Been a long time... :)
He was the first person exposed to the Chaos Curse and then was immediately beaten to death by an half-ogre. I honestly don't know why that appealed to me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking of which, more blog posts please :)Personally I thought black skinned, white haired elves just looked awesome. Later went ahead and just made them a non-evil but typically insular elven ethnicity in my homebrew.Since my homebrew world doesn't have Drow at all, I stole the whole "Elves change appearance based on their environment" thing from Golarion, and made any Elf that spends a lot of time in a rocky, mountainous, cavernous, subterranean, or otherwise heavy-on-stone environment would eventually look like a Drow, specifically because their appearance is reminiscent of gems - "skin like onyx, hair like diamond, eyes like rubies and amethysts".
>_________>
Yeah I need to get to that when work allows. Loooooots of overtime lately.
Contributor
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I thought black skinned, white haired elves just looked awesome. Later went ahead and just made them a non-evil but typically insular elven ethnicity in my homebrew.Since my homebrew world doesn't have Drow at all, I stole the whole "Elves change appearance based on their environment" thing from Golarion, and made any Elf that spends a lot of time in a rocky, mountainous, cavernous, subterranean, or otherwise heavy-on-stone environment would eventually look like a Drow, specifically because their appearance is reminiscent of gems - "skin like onyx, hair like diamond, eyes like rubies and amethysts".Nice. Really dig that over the original skin color explanation. (love that jewel-based description too!)
Now I'm really interested in the possibilities waiting in those mountain elves...
In mine, they're mostly forest-city dwellers that have a Court of Night thing going.
In my homebrew (which I haven't run in a while for self-confidence reasons) the party captured and redeemed a drow slave early on. Eventually, she started traveling back into the Underworld to rescue more of her sistren*. At the time the campaign went on hold, they'd more or less formed a small forest community (the first redeemed drow had fey subthemes for campaign reasons; kami vs. gods, sort of thing). I mean, they might occasionally polymorph men who wandered too close into stags and hunt them, but... progress.
The regular drow had had a revolution of sorts involving the assassination of Lolth (kami vs. gods again). So the clerics had lost their power, agents of the assassinating entity drove the male drow to take over, things got ugly. So her rescuing other female drow was usually literal.
I always wanted to play an Eilistraee-type character, but nobody would ever let me. Because Drizzt. :(
*As long as we're playing guessing games, where did I learn this word? :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My favorite character name i came up with was Digby Homersson
Digby and Homer were both names my wife shot down when trying to name our son, in fact every character i've made for him since then has been names she shot down (i threw a lot of names out there:-p)
To me, anybody's character that functions according to the rules (and gels with the campaign style/genre) is perfectly "Viable".I'm going to challenge this.
I once played alongside someone who made a rogue with 9 STR and a DEX somewhere in the teens, but didn't know Weapon Finesse existed. So his attack
bonusmodifier was -1. He had to be flanking to make it positive.This character meets your above definition of "viable".
This is exactly the issue I have with the use of the term viable. The expectation that there is a certain numerical value of skills/attacks/damage for a character to deserve the 'Viable' moniker.
In his case, as you said he was new, I would suggest the feat as it seems like the concept he was looking for but didn't know how to make real. However, if the vision he had for his character relied on using his Str over his Dex for attacks, then that was the character he wanted to play.
I once saw a thread where someone was thinking it would be fun (in PFS, where the campaign assumption is that you're a commissioned field agent of an organization of explorers) to play a commoner, but since that wasn't allowed, he'd just play a wizard who was afraid of magic and therefore would never cast spells. (My memory's a little fuzzy, but I think he was even considering having 10 or less INT so he couldn't cast spells.)
This character meets your above definition of "viable".
There is most definitely a threshold where a rules-legal character stops being viable. Folks might disagree about exactly where that line is, but it's most certainly somewhere other than simply being rules-legal.
Now, I understand, some instances where it seems someone is actively going out of the way to not be useful or even be a hindrance. That is its own issue, regardless of what type of character or build they bring to the table. All the same, the character is 'viable' as far as I'm concerned.
That's what I hate about the term to the point that it grinds my gears. Where is it written what the expected standards are to qualify as a 'Viable' character? I get what Mikaze was saying, about whether the concept can be built mechanically or not. Sadly, most uses I've seen of it tend to follow the lines of 'do I/does this have enough numerical bonuses?' for the term viable. I can't get behind the idea that someone has to play what others think they should just to ensure they hit the key numerical high points in gameplay.
I stand by the notion, that if your concept is what you wanted to make (and in agreement with rules/genre) then your character is viable. Because, in the end, I firmly believe that as long as you enjoy playing the character* then it is viable.
Regardless, I personally develop a concept, then find whichever mechanics I have at my disposal to make it work best without modifying my concept to fit the mechanics. I try to optimize the effectiveness of every concept I make, and enjoy helping others do the same if they want it. But if a concept doesn't stack up mechanically to whatever the proscribed standard that equates to using the term 'viable' may be, oh well. As long as the character was what I/they wanted to make, then it's perfectly viable to me*.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
"capable of working successfully; feasible."
That is the definition of viable.
If your character cannot properly overcome CR appropriate challenges, he is not capable of working successfully.
"Fun" is a completely separate concept that is more abstract. I know some people who would have fun playing a level 1 Commoner in a game just to see how many times he can die.
That is still not viable.
There is a nice convenient table showing the general saves, AC, and attack bonuses of monsters at a certain CR. If you cannot interact with those numbers in a successful fashion in some way, shape, or form your are not viable.
If you need a 20 to hit and are a martial character, you are not viable.
If the monster needs to roll a 1 to fail a save against your spell and you're a save or suck specialist, you are not viable.
If you cannot contribute to the group meaningfully in some form or fashion, you are not viable.
This is not some groundbreaking statement, and it's not a complex concept.
Your "definition" ignores the actual meaning of the word for some purpose I can't understand. Just come out and say "I don't care whether characters are viable or not" instead of making up some odd definition that doesn't make any sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, "Capable of working successfully".
To which you defined to mean, a martial character needing more than a 20 to hit a CR appropriate threat.
So, a CR 5 creature has 18, meaning that a 19-20 hits for someone with a -1. That menas that the PC is capable of successfully hitting that CR 5 monster.
That same CR 5 monster, has a good save of 8. A caster needs at least a 10 in their stat to cast 0 level spells (going bare minimum here). Barring ability modifiers, the CR 5 would fail only on a 1. So, what if it was a 1st level spell (casting stat 11)? Then they fail on 1 or 2.
Your terms of success are as simple as needing more than a single number on the die? But you wouldn't accept either of those as viable would you?
So, where does the number really lie? 15 or more, 12, 10, 8, 5? Who sets this standard for what counts as success? As long as a nat 20 is an option, there is technically always a chance for success, except that was the one number you discounted. I mean, if 10 is the standard (50/50 seems not too unreasonable), then I think I unintentionally skirt that line fairly often, yet the only times I've died are when I don't roll over 7, so the standard of 10 would have been irrelevant.
More importantly, how do you measure contribution? Only by how well they hit in combat, or how hard their spell saves are? WHat if the PC has total crap numbers, but their plans top anything the rest of the group ever comes up with?
That's why I hate the term. Contributing or even being "capable of working successfully", only requires the ability to be capable of success. Because of 1' and 20's that can be at any level. Not even including what counts as contribution outside the numerical standard.
I understand. I'm sure there are a fair number of people that will not accept characters that do not produce high chances of success based on the die roll. I just don't agree that the term viable is the appropriate one. Why not 'highly successful' or even just 'successful'?
"I want to make this Magus build highly successful"
Or 'Statistically superior'
"What's the best way to make a statistically superior rogue?"
Because that typically what's asked for with the word viable. It doesn't come off as they want one that works. They want one that works the best.
Then again, this thread was about what forum memes bother us. If it doesn't bother you, or even you agree with the term, enjoy. I personally, however, think it's used derogatively to invalidate many a concept that someone may want to play until they find it isn't considered 'viable' by the mechanically superior.
You're just being pedantic at this point.
For one, I never defined "viable" as needing less than a 20. I simply stated that needing a 20 is not viable. Saying "This is not" does not imply "Everything else is".
And no, "capable of working successfully" does not mean "can succeed 5% of the time at bet". That is not successful, that is occasionally getting lucky.
This is a word that most everybody knows and understands the meaning of. You choosing to misunderstand it because it is not 100% rigid in what it means in any specific scenario is a problem with you, not the term.
In any given situation you can look and say "This character is not viable here" very easily. There is an acceptable rate of success for most people. The range may vary, but generally it is 50% or better to be viable.
You can look at how it applies to everyday life. If someone only succeeds at a task less than half the time they attempt it, they are not a viable worker. You do not say "Yeah, good job Jim, keep up the good work" after Jim fails 9 times in a row but gets the simple task right on the 10th. You fire Jim and hire someone who doesn't suck.
The pedantery was for the fact that you only indicated the 1 or 20 as not viable. I had been asking thus far what the standard was set at, and who makes that decision.
I'm saying, viable is too loose of a term, and too often used to say that someone not meeting hard set numerical expectations did not make a viable character. Regardless if it's what they wanted to play.
I despise the very idea, that what people may enjoy is subverted by others' expectations of where their numbers are 'supposed' to be. I don't care if said feat, or class option gets someone over that 10 point bump or just a little closer to the standard. If it doesn't meet the concept of the character, I don't think it's necessary. Even worse, for someone to think that their character or concept is not playable or not 'viable' because the heavy number crunchers say it doesn't meet the standard.
I don't like the term, plain and simple, same as many of the people I play with. As long as they are working as a part of the team (regardless of die result), and helping to advance the story forward, they are viable in my book.
And by viable, I mean capable of working successfully.
This entire language is "loose". Yes, I get it, you don't care what other people say, whatever. That has nothing to do with the word itself.
The whole point is the word itself.
Viable, meaning 'capable of success' as you clarified. Is being used to imply achieving the highest chance of success.
Not capable, not feasible, the best possible for what they are attempting.
That's the whole issue I have. Viable allows for a LOT of leeway. But it's not being used that way. It's being used incorrectly. That's my point.
It never is, though. Viable is always used as a term for the minimum reasonable success rate for a character.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But... but.... but if Tacticslion stops favoriting how will i know my jokes are funny?
no seriously i also favorite tons of s!!@, whether its jokes or a well made point:-)
as far as things that grind me ole gears people that start threads where they seek advice but they don't really want to hear any advice, just someone telling them what they want to hear, which of course everyone has to guess at:-p
Also when someone starts a thread seeking advice on what modules or APs to run and lists a bunch he won't run (lets say kingmaker) and then the first 5 posts are people saying he should totally run kingmaker and then they get pissed when he says no.
also i inadvertently created Artemis Entreri when i played first edition:-) but in my defense i was going more for an evil Aragorn:-)
It seems that I am going that route now, but it is not completely by accident. I am however trying to keep him non-evil, but I think I am slipping.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I stand by the notion, that if your concept is what you wanted to make (and in agreement with rules/genre) then your character is viable. Because, in the end, I firmly believe that as long as you enjoy playing the character* then it is viable.
Shouldn't be able to survive, and help the party survive factor into this since it is kinda hard to play a dead character?<---That is a serious question.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The whole point is the word itself.
Viable, meaning 'capable of success' as you clarified. Is being used to imply achieving the highest chance of success.
Not capable, not feasible, the best possible for what they are attempting.
That's the whole issue I have. Viable allows for a LOT of leeway. But it's not being used that way. It's being used incorrectly. That's my point.
When other people say viable they mean mechanically viable with regard to being successful as an adventure. You mean viable as in portrays the concept well.
Instead of just using the word "viable" what you maybe should have said was their mechanical abilities do not matter. What matters is they are having fun. Of course people would still agree for various reasons, but at least they would know you were using the word in a different manner.
More accurately you should state their mechanical prowess does not matter at the table of a GM who will help them to stay alive and/or not shift their weight onto the party. <---In those games you can make whatever you want without any problems.
Real life example: I was running a game, and a certain player was not doing well at all, so I counted him as two level lower when determining the party APL, since he was not always useless. That took the burden off of the other players, and allow him to have some success.
Now in a games where I have not had time to do a lot of customization, and you(a player) have to get by on what you have, his character would have been a problem, and not mechanically viable, and likely dead.
I understand the fun is a part of the game, and being viable to acheive your concept is important, but it is also important at many tables to be viable as an actual adventurer who is helpful because otherwise your lack of helpfulness(lack of being viable mechanically) may indirectly lead to someone else being killed. That is what people mean when they say "viable" or "not viable" on the messageboard.
I am suggesting that instead of engaging in an argument that you inform them of what you mean.
PS: I am aware that I may have repeated myself a few times, but I wanted to be sure we were on the same page.
With that said I will leave this sub-topic and try to think of another meme.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Next meme:
Poster 1: Logical argument
Poster 2: Nitpicks argument with semantics when they know exactly what someone means.
It does nothing to further the conversation. I can deal with snark as long as there is some level of intelligence behind it, but when it is all snark, and nothing relevant it is it just annoying.
edit: This is not related to the post I just made. It just reminded me of other debates I have seen.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Minor annoyance for me: asking how Ability A works with Ability B but not giving the descriptions of the abilities in question.
|
Contributor
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
It never is, though. Viable is always used as a term for the minimum reasonable success rate for a character.
I mean no offense, but I've seen people play, enjoy, and succeed with characters that would be laughed off these forums - or, more likely, given various recommendations about how to play something else.
By the standard of the post I'm quoting, I've seen many rogues that are viable. One of my players has a character who essentially specialized in greatclubs, and another who is a bloodrager that has forsaken armor. In Reign of Winter, I'm playing a winter witch with 14 Str who routinely engages in melee combat. We're doing fine. :)
In fact, as a GM, I find that "forum-viable" characters are a lot of work, since they tend to blow through regular encounters without a scratch or a drop of sweat. This forces me to expend a ton of preparation on developing encounters that are fun, thematic, logical, and at least slightly challenging - rather than putting that time into the rest of the adventure.
So I've been wondering about "viable" for a while myself. The cutoff can't be as simple as "fighter who only hits on 20". That example seems a bit... unrealistic, at least for anyone who's been playing for a little while. On these forums, it more often seems to mean "not fully optimized", as in, you would be even stronger if you were/had (thing).
Could you, please, give me an example of what you consider to be a minimum-success character? Not a full build, but enough to illustrate the point. I'd like to know what you consider to be the minimum a character can be and still be viable.
Thank you! :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wraithstrike, I totally get where you're coming from, as well as what is meant on the forums by the term viable. I was not confused or mistaken by what they are asking, just to be clear.
It's not a matter of how 'I' use the term. I don't use the term viable at all in regards to PC's, as I don't actually measure them as a GO/NO-GO (or viable/non-viable) standard.
I was saying, the reason I don't think it's an appropriate term, is because there is too much leeway in what it actually means to be viable or not based on the reader or interpretation, especially from table to table.
More appropriately, there should be a term with a more rigid meaning, since it is being used for a rigid measurement. Do these numbers meet these benchmarks? That's what is being asked.
Since that is the question, I think a word that more effectively means just that should be used, but that word is not 'viable'.
Overall, there are a lot of forum terms and practices that I personally disagree with, but accept as how others play the game their way. My issue is the choice of using the word 'viable' to mean meeting a high mechanical standard. When that's not what viable means.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It never is, though. Viable is always used as a term for the minimum reasonable success rate for a character.
I mean no offense, but I've seen people play, enjoy, and succeed with characters that would be laughed off these forums - or, more likely, given various recommendations about how to play something else.
By the standard of the post I'm quoting, I've seen many rogues that are viable. One of my players has a character who essentially specialized in greatclubs, and another who is a bloodrager that has forsaken armor. In Reign of Winter, I'm playing a winter witch with 14 Str who routinely engages in melee combat. We're doing fine. :)
In fact, as a GM, I find that "forum-viable" characters are a lot of work, since they tend to blow through regular encounters without a scratch or a drop of sweat. This forces me to expend a ton of preparation on developing encounters that are fun, thematic, logical, and at least slightly challenging - rather than putting that time into the rest of the adventure.
So I've been wondering about "viable" for a while myself. The cutoff can't be as simple as "fighter who only hits on 20". That example seems a bit... unrealistic, at least for anyone who's been playing for a little while. On these forums, it more often seems to mean "not fully optimized", as in, you would be even stronger if you were/had (thing).
Could you, please, give me an example of what you consider to be a minimum-success character? Not a full build, but enough to illustrate the point. I'd like to know what you consider to be the minimum a character can be and still be viable.
Thank you! :)
I think you saw success in that scenario because of that GM and group. What I think Rynjin was getting at was in a game where the GM is assumed to not intentionally use bad tactics or fudge for players. I am sure he is aware that some GM's will do whatever they can do make sure you stay alive, because some groups enjoy that.
However if the GM is keeping you alive instead of you keeping you alive then many people would not consider you viable(mechanically). Basically can the character likely survive without GM intervention(fudging or intentional bad tactics?
Yes the ability to actually play the game is important also, since you can give a strong character to a new player and still see it die a horrible death due to bad decisions. <---In before someone brought it up.
Minor annoyance for me: asking how Ability A works with Ability B but not giving the descriptions of the abilities in question.
Yeah I see this in the rules forum. It annoys me, especially when it is from a new book.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can definitely say my bare-handed monk in Skull and Shackles never felt viable.
:(
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, and meme:
"Hay guys can you help me intentionally ruin the game for the GM/other players?"
Like, not even disguised sometimes. Just outright asked.
Edit-And the flip side too:
OP:
Posters: GET OUT STOP TRYING TO CHEESE/RUIN THE GAME/CHEAT/HAVE BADWRONGFUN
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I get really annoyed when other people make an alias just to make a joke, or prove their point.....
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When a thread is started with a purpose in mind, say for example pointing out forum memes that grind your gears, and it gets off tangent for a dozen or more posts about a subject that really should have it's own thread if you're going to get that serious about it, that really grinds my gears.
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you saw success in that scenario because of that GM and group. What I think Rynjin was getting at was in a game where the GM is assumed to not intentionally use bad tactics or fudge for players. I am sure he is aware that some GM's will do whatever they can do make sure you stay alive, because some groups enjoy...It never is, though. Viable is always used as a term for the minimum reasonable success rate for a character.
I mean no offense, but I've seen people play, enjoy, and succeed with characters that would be laughed off these forums - or, more likely, given various recommendations about how to play something else.
By the standard of the post I'm quoting, I've seen many rogues that are viable. One of my players has a character who essentially specialized in greatclubs, and another who is a bloodrager that has forsaken armor. In Reign of Winter, I'm playing a winter witch with 14 Str who routinely engages in melee combat. We're doing fine. :)
In fact, as a GM, I find that "forum-viable" characters are a lot of work, since they tend to blow through regular encounters without a scratch or a drop of sweat. This forces me to expend a ton of preparation on developing encounters that are fun, thematic, logical, and at least slightly challenging - rather than putting that time into the rest of the adventure.
So I've been wondering about "viable" for a while myself. The cutoff can't be as simple as "fighter who only hits on 20". That example seems a bit... unrealistic, at least for anyone who's been playing for a little while. On these forums, it more often seems to mean "not fully optimized", as in, you would be even stronger if you were/had (thing).
Could you, please, give me an example of what you consider to be a minimum-success character? Not a full build, but enough to illustrate the point. I'd like to know what you consider to be the minimum a character can be and still be viable.
Thank you! :)
Well, for the first two, I am the GM in question, and despite how sugary-sweet I am here, I'm not doing either of those things on any sort of regular basis. If I were, I wouldn't have cited the characters as evidence. :)
If the situation arises, whether it's poor tactics, overconfidence, or bad luck, I will not hesitate to kill a player character. (I called myself GM Tyrant Princess for a reason.) I won't target weaknesses unless I can justify the enemy's awareness of them, whether it takes special knowledge or just good perception, and enemies will act as their nature demands (hungry animals stop to eat, etc). I also have a tendency towards well-optimized encounters, although what I'm optimizing for is usually theme over power (e.g., making a thug the best thug he can be rather than an out-of-place antipaladin). If you have any questions about my GMing style, I'll gladly fill you in. :)
I talk to the Reign of Winter GM frequently about GMing, as I'm trying to encourage him. He's not pulling punches either. If we mess up our tactics, he's not going to save us. He rolls in the open, for the record.
So I guess, based on my rant there, we've found another meme that bothers me (and, I suspect, some others): the idea that our characters only succeed because the GM let us, rather than because they might not actually be that bad. I don't mean this as an attack on you personally; I hope it doesn't sound that way. :)
Also, would you be willing to answer the question at the end of my post, please? It was directed at Rynjin, but I'd like to hear your take on it as well. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, for the first two, I am the GM in question, and despite how sugary-sweet I am here, I'm not doing either of those things on any sort of regular basis. If I were, I wouldn't have cited the characters as evidence. :)
LOL. Sorry, it is just that I see so many ____ is viable. Then I ask for a run down and I see some houserule in play*, a rules error, the GM using bad tactics, lucky rolls were involved**, or the player was exaggerating.
*this also includes the "rule of cool" which I have no problem with, but when the GM is helping it does not count.
**Something crazy like someone with hot dice that session. If I go deeper then they don't normally do that well.
To answer your question I am assuming the GM is not holding hands, and there is not any other corner case nonsense going on.
A lot of this depends on what you are trying to do because I really won't hold a cleric to the same standard as a full BAB class for DPR, and I don't expect for a fighter to have the same options in game as a ranger.
For my characters I like for the weak save to have a 50% chance at making a save vs my weak save vs APL=CR opponents. <--ok, so that is over the minimum needed for a game, but it what I prefet.
For DPR: It should take you no more than 2 rounds worth of full attacks to end a APL=CR opponent. So 2 rounds is fine, and yes I know that you may not actually get 2 rounds in a row of full attacks.
AC: I like to have 15+ my level for AC for 2nd line combatants, and combatants not really trying to go for a very high AC. 20+ level if they are trying to get a high AC. At higher levels that number will need to be higher.
Skills: for opposed checks I like to be able to take 10 and beat most APL=CR opponents.
If you are a caster build around making enemies fail saves then enemy that is at APL=CR should have at least a 50% chance to fail on their good save.
If you are not focused on making the enemy fail saves then this is less important. Personally I prefer buffing, debuffing(does not have to be SoS), and battlefield control so that your actions are less likely to be wasted if the GM has hot dice.
I also like for my characters to have a ranged weapon and a melee weapon, and a backup weapon(at least one). <--ok, so this is not really "needed", but it makes me feel better.
Note to anyone else:This is my experience with the game because most GM's I have played under have had no issues ending my character. If your GM is going to be nice to you, and there is nothing wrong with that, then you may not need to concern yourself about certain things.
I know tactics matter, but that is not the topic..<--In before someone brings it up.
I am sure I missed a few things so feel free to ask questions.
PS: I have never played Reign of Winter past a certain section in the first book. I do know that in other AP's running around with no armor will get you killed unless you have other ways to avoid attacks*, even if that is using magic for your AC. A poor BAB caster in melee becomes a worse idea as you level up barring some things I have not thought of.
*A party caster shutting them down will also work for this.
PS2: I suspect certain scenarios of having nice GM's, but I don't outright say it until I get evidence. Sometimes there is cleverness at play or good teamwork.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
(I... I'm a nice GM. Insane, mind, but a nice one...)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since I am taking this off course I will post a meme as part of my atonement:
Meme:Long and heated discussion on topic X
FAQ:Here is your answer
People who did not agree with the FAQ:
Some say the FAQ is wrong, and others take it further by calling names and other immature behavior.
I understand the annoyance especially if you are in PFS, but that is not helping.
edit:added "not"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Meme: I dont like product X so Paizo should not make it
Your group is not the only group that exist. Another group might like it. I don't like Words of Power, but if Paizo ever decided to make another add-on for it I would not make a thread to speak against it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've got a few more:
People who always post in a favorite alias, rather than their original name. How am I supposed to know it was you who favorited my post, Wraithstrike?
:-P
Obsessing over whether favorites matter or not, as if it's really even a big deal
Obvious favorite-bait posts
Self-referential meta-posts that call out something they themselves are actually guilty of.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've got a few more:
People who always post in a favorite alias, rather than their original name. How am I supposed to know it was you who favorited my post, Wraithstrike?
If you hover over the name link in your favorites, and a person's alias(es) has(/have) a significantly large number of posts compared to their main account, it will also pop up that little information as so. So hovering over the name "concerro" in the favorites list will pop up some text that says "concerro aka wraithstrike".
It works on the forum too. Hover your mouse over a portrait and name link of an alias here on the forums - it will tell you who the alias belongs to. For example, hover over my name/portrait here and a popup text will tell you "alias of Orthos".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've got a few more:
People who always post in a favorite alias, rather than their original name. How am I supposed to know it was you who favorited my post, Wraithstrike?
If you hover over the name link in your favorites, and a person's alias(es) has(/have) a significantly large number of posts compared to their main account, it will also pop up that little information as so. So hovering over the name "concerro" in the favorites list will pop up some text that says "concerro aka wraithstrike".
It works on the forum too. Hover your mouse over a portrait and name link of an alias here on the forums - it will tell you who the alias belongs to. For example, hover over my name/portrait here and a popup text will tell you "alias of Orthos".
Bah, I'm using a phone.
Also, I thought my post was blatantly facetious, as evidenced by the last non-ooc sentence.
I've got a few more:
People who always post in a favorite alias, rather than their original name. How am I supposed to know it was you who favorited my post, Wraithstrike?
If you hover over the name link in your favorites, and a person's alias(es) has(/have) a significantly large number of posts compared to their main account, it will also pop up that little information as so. So hovering over the name "concerro" in the favorites list will pop up some text that says "concerro aka wraithstrike".
It works on the forum too. Hover your mouse over a portrait and name link of an alias here on the forums - it will tell you who the alias belongs to. For example, hover over my name/portrait here and a popup text will tell you "alias of Orthos".
He already knew who I was. That is why he mentioned my name. :)
I can't tell sorry. I'm really really bad at picking up on sarcasm. And there's too many people who have been on these forums seemingly forever who still don't know you can do that.
I hesitate to call this a meme, but it's a behaviour I've seen before. At least twice that I can recall.
Poster weighs in on debate (Could be any, but is often an interaction between fluff and crunch) rather heavily, loudly proclaiming RAW and insisting othewise is houseruling. They frequently refer to RAW and RAI, and insist saying otherwise is ignoring the rules or the spirit of them.
If, however, a rule or (even better) developer note is pointed out that disproves their side, they brush it off and ignore it, making excuses like "that doesn't count" or "they don't know what they're talking about." (Yeah, saying a person who made the game and explains the decision making process behind the decision doesn't know the game works well)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wraithstrike... there is a valid reason to resist the production of a product you will not enjoy. Why? Because that product isn't something you can just ignore and it will go away. That product will start to taint other future products by becoming official and being included in many future products down the road from adventure paths to future rules supplements which rely on it. Before long you will be forced to start swinging the ban hammer far and wide to remove the tainted rules or options from the game you wish to play. And that can get really old really fast especially when you have some players who want it and think since it's official that they should get their way.
Ok I have a meme to present. That poster type who will obstinantly challenge every single thing someone else posts. If they try to debate them they will simply continue to do so to every post they make. It is the worst sort of trolling I have ever encountered and I have even seen one of them drive a moderator away from a thread. Why is it the worst trolling? Because it doesn't violate CoC; it is just pure rudeness down to it's very core.
I hesitate to call this a meme, but it's a behaviour I've seen before. At least twice that I can recall.
Poster weighs in on debate (Could be any, but is often an interaction between fluff and crunch) rather heavily, loudly proclaiming RAW and insisting othewise is houseruling. They frequently refer to RAW and RAI, and insist saying otherwise is ignoring the rules or the spirit of them.
If, however, a rule or (even better) developer note is pointed out that disproves their side, they brush it off and ignore it, making excuses like "that doesn't count" or "they don't know what they're talking about." (Yeah, saying a person who made the game and explains the decision making process behind the decision doesn't know the game works well)
I see this one a lot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wraithstrike... there is a valid reason to resist the production of a product you will not enjoy. Why? Because that product isn't something you can just ignore and it will go away. That product will start to taint other future products by becoming official and being included in many future products down the road from adventure paths to future rules supplements which rely on it. Before long you will be forced to start swinging the ban hammer far and wide to remove the tainted rules or options from the game you wish to play. And that can get really old really fast especially when you have some players who want it and think since it's official that they should get their way.
Not every product is included in future products so that is not true. As an example I have never seen words of power in any product. The Occult book is one I don't care for either. Now it will likely be in an AP at some point, but if I don't like the final version I will sub-in someone from another AP or use an NPC from the NPC codex.
While I think you have valid concerns even I don't agree with them, the people I was talking about normally just mention "their" game, as if their game was the only one that mattered. At least your idea is trying to protect the game as whole.
As for having to tell players no, that does not happen in every group. It is a possibility, but not a foregone conclusion for everyone. Every book can have something you dont like, even if you have like the book as a whole. Players need to also learn to respect the GM's wishes. Some GM's allow anything. If the GM is the type to check everything before allowing it the player needs to get with the program. That is not not the fault of those who may like the product so they should not have to do without it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wraithstrike... there is a valid reason to resist the production of a product you will not enjoy. Why? Because that product isn't something you can just ignore and it will go away. That product will start to taint other future products by becoming official and being included in many future products down the road from adventure paths to future rules supplements which rely on it. Before long you will be forced to start swinging the ban hammer far and wide to remove the tainted rules or options from the game you wish to play. And that can get really old really fast especially when you have some players who want it and think since it's official that they should get their way.
I will admit, personally, the more a GM bans, the less likely I am to want to join their game even if they're banning something I'm not interested in using.
Personally it's because my experience with GMs who run heavy on banning is they don't want creative thinking players who dominate their games, and rather than simply escalating the challenge, they tend to say no to stuff I come up with...or worse, because they can't wrap their heads around the idea of that concept, so it's out. For example no samurai, because they are Eastern, this is a Western setting, and Westerners couldn't possibly have developed the same fighting style in a different part of the world, for example. It's just indicative of a close-minded GM. I KNOW there are exceptions, but it's happened often enough to me where my reaction is to look at a list of "no"s and immediately stop reading and move on...and I'm positive that I'm not the only one who thinks that way.
So yeah, I can understand not liking when a product you disagree with comes out. I'm not saying I think Paizo should stop, as the needs of the many, blah blah blah, but it can make you look less appealing as a GM when you wave your ban stick all willy-nilly.
See thegreenteagamer gets it, wraithstrike. And I am not saying all supplements will see wide spread future inclusion. But there is no way of knowing which products will and won't be widely used going forward BEFORE the product is even published. So the best thing to do when a company takes an interest in a product you won't like IS TO SAY SO as publicly as possible in the hopes that so many people join you to cause the company to seriously reconsider their interest.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
People who see that a GM is banning things and conclude that the GM is close-minded because the GM could "simply escalate the challenge".
Option bloat has made the game quite different since the beginning, as illustrated by the difference between core only and expanded PFS play.
"Simply escalating the challenge" is a pretty massive heap of work. You don't volunteer to do it yourself, you don't get to dismiss it as "simply" anything. Do your GMing for a while, and see if you still think it's as easy as "simply escalating the challenge". Not to mention not everyone has oceans of time, and even if they do, time spent "simply escalating the challenge" for one player is time that could be better spent working on everyone's fun.
Finally, and most damning, the normal situation is that one or maybe two players push the envelope with the characters while the others do not, leading to intractable power imbalances between the players.
Solve all the above, and that complaint starts to carry water.
Banning willy-nilly isn't fun for the GM or the players who's toys he is removing. But that is the path people who say "You can simply not buy the product" are forcing everyone else down.
|
Witn myself it's not so much Drizzt clones. So much wanting to play a Drow and immediately acquire social acceptence. I was in a game where the player accused the DM of being racist. Simply because the player expected at first level to not face anti-Drow racism. Assuming that all it took was "I'm like Drizzt I'm a good Drow" in a Forgotten Realms campaign. With the player being afro-american. Suffice to say he was never allowed back into the game. And really accusing a gay person of racism.
Playing a Kender like Tasselhoff and doing a piss poor job of it. Bad enough the race as a whole is written as a bunch of kleptomaniacs who are given a free pass for doing it. Players seem to think that robbing people blind simply because of being a Kender is acceptable. Yeah not so much. In all my years in the hobby. I can count on one hand the number of times I have seen a Kender roleplayed properl.y
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have GMed quite a lot, actually. I don't volunteer for it unless I'm prepared to do the extra homework associated with it.
I think you misunderstood my position. I was stating that I understand why people don't want products they don't like to be released, not that I approve. There's a vast difference.
I am also not saying "GMs shouldn't ban stuff", but rather, if you do, you get filtered pretty quickly by myself and players like me based upon previous experiences I have had. Yeah, I probably shouldn't lump groups of strangers in together with what I've dealt with, but it's human nature, and it's a quick and dirty means to narrow down a vast selection. Should I instead ignore my previous experiences, ad infinitum, and just continue to go on faith that certain actions are not indicative of certain mindsets?
I mean, honstly, I even took the time to specifically point out that I know there are exceptions.
Anyway, when I have unbalanced groups, I usually ask the heavy hitters to help the weaker players learn - every time without exception everyone wins - weaker players get more powerful, stronger players brag about their knowledge in a subtle manner that is socially acceptable, and the party achieves balance.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyway, when I have unbalanced groups, I usually ask the heavy hitters to help the weaker players learn - every time without exception everyone wins - weaker players get more powerful, stronger players brag about their knowledge in a subtle manner that is socially acceptable, and the party achieves balance.
This is typically what I prefer to do as well.
But when I mentioned so on this forum, I got lambasted by people saying "how dare you suggest that your play style is better than your friends', what if they don't WANT to learn your way is 'better'?"