| 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'?"
The forums are weird.
There's playing a suboptimal build for fun and flavour, and then there's playing a suboptimal build because you don't have the system mastery to make anything better. Helping out a player with less system mastery is not the same as telling a player with an intentionally suboptimal build that they're playing the game wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is what I tried to explain, along with "nobody's forcing the players to do anything, we're just friends trying to give other friends advice". The responses tended to range between acceptance and "you should stop and let them find their own fun, you might be surprised to discover it isn't the same as yours".
(I... I'm a nice GM. Insane, mind, but a nice one...)
| 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 guess my problem with this mentality is what one groups loves, another group loathes. Really the only way to accommodate that viewpoint is to just cease any further production of new books.
I would rather get some products released I am not a huge fan of, than...no new products.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IME, many players enjoy playing the game, but they do not enjoy poring over endless rulebooks. The time required of them to gain system mastery is not something they are ready to put in. Nor are they interested in anyone else making their characters for them. System mastery is not a priority for them. However, if they are continually overshadowed by another player, they do not react well either. In a core only game, this will not be so frequent. So, do I choose to provide for them or for the guy who demands I put in serious hours just to accomodate his desire to play with various obscure and high power combos?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
(I... I'm a nice GM. Insane, mind, but a nice one...)
You just reminded me of a meme that annoys me:
When any mention of it being difficult to find games or players locally is met with exhortations to go to online or virtual interface gaming.
I'm glad it works for them, but it's not my cup of tea.
| 1 person 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.
*BLINKS*
Your response to this is so full of AWESOME I cant stand it.
When I start with new players in a new group as I did a while back everyone started core only. Now granted at the time the CRB was the only release but still. I needed to see how this group worked, if they were into playing fair and moderating themselves and their respective characters and builds or were they going to be abusive and be like "Not my problem the game is designed this way!!"
Basically i needed to see if I was gaming with a bunch of jerks or at least who the jerks were. Because if youre part of a gaming group? and youre only concerned about YOUR fun and ignoring how your fun impacts the other people at the table? INCLUDING your GM? Youre a jerk.
I lucked out with my longtime group. I've said this before here but they are REALLY a good bunch of PEOPLE. I have two players that know the rules pretty well and can whip up some TRULY high damage dealing PC's. And I'm fine with that. WHY? because the one time one of my players created a character and had it play and it proved to be so dominating and untouchable, he said you know what? I'm gonna tone this down a little bit. On his own. Without riding that particular build into the ground.
I think allowing most things into the game should factor in several things: Are there jerk players who are going to abuse the rules almost exclusively their favor and crap on other peoples fun? (We probably shouldn't be playing with those people anyway...) Should the DM be able to adjust difficulty to deal with these powerhouses (and more importantly not have to deal with players COMPLAINING about the difficulty in one or two encounters that actually challenge them...)? Absolutely. Is there mutual respect given between players and Gm's. (For GM's - You know, adapting to a players concept. Them getting to build the character that they want within reason. Player's - Respecting the fact that being a GM is work and takes a fair amount of energy to do in order to help make sure the group IS having a good time).
Personally for me, if we have that balance, I'm good.
| 2 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 guess my problem with this mentality is what one groups loves, another group loathes. Really the only way to accommodate that viewpoint is to just cease any further production of new books.
I would rather get some products released I am not a huge fan of, than...no new products.
~tries in vain to stop laughing~
Wow you so totally missed my point I am going to have to go back and make sure I made one.
I am not saying stop making any product that even a few people disagree with. I am saying don't get upset about people speaking out against an upcoming product or idea, it is literally the best way we fans have to influence a company for the better to actually let everyone know what we want and don't want and then let the company decide if it's still worth pursuing. And if the product still comes out please don't get up in arms if a faction of the GMs ban it. They didn't like the product and so they are not including it in their games.
(Although I suspect there are a small number of players who think any official product is their right to have so the GM better make sure he buys or uses every supplement ever made to please these players.)
Or at least reads up on the rules on the PRD. You don't have to buy them. :)
(Although I suspect there are a small number of players who think any official product is their right to have so the GM better make sure he buys every supplement ever made to please these players.)
Ok true. Make that "buys or uses every supplement".
| 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.
I guess my problem with this mentality is what one groups loves, another group loathes. Really the only way to accommodate that viewpoint is to just cease any further production of new books.
I would rather get some products released I am not a huge fan of, than...no new products.
~tries in vain to stop laughing~
Wow you so totally missed my point I am going to have to go back and make sure I made one.
I am not saying stop making any product that even a few people disagree with. I am saying don't get upset about people speaking out against an upcoming product or idea, it is literally the best way we fans have to influence a company for the better to actually let everyone know what we want and don't want and then let the company decide if it's still worth pursuing. And if the product still comes out please don't get up in arms if a faction of the GMs ban it. They didn't like the product and so they are not including it in their games.
(Although I suspect there are a small number of players who think any official product is their right to have so the GM better make sure he buys or uses every supplement ever made to please these players.)
Which is fair... except those who are opposed to it should also not get mad about people speaking out in favor of it, in turn.
Which is fair... except those who are opposed to it should also not get mad about people speaking out in turn.
Does that even happen? I suppose if it does then YES each side has a right to speak its own mind. People shouldn't get upset over it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which is fair... except those who are opposed to it should also not get mad about people speaking out in turn.
Does that even happen?
Oh, heck, yes.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never really told another player how to build a character. Offer advice maybe sometimes too blunt. If I get asked my honest opinion on a build and if I think it sucks I will give my honest opinion.
I let players build what they want, Except at the same time if it's not as effective at the table. Then they and they alone are responisble for it imo. If a player wants to build a more combat oriented Bard putting a 12 or even 10 in Charisma. Then expect spells tp fail more often they will succeed imo. A 12 cha vs say a 18 it's a three point difference in DC. Not too much of a difference at mid to high levels. At low levels spells are easy to save against. As long as the player is fine with that as a outcome.
That's my main issue players want to build a character any which way they want. Then when it's not as effective as everyone else. Or they build a skill bases character in a combat oriented game. I don't want to hear any complaints about a lack of effectiveness at the table. Both as a DM and player. Expically if when given advice it's ignored.
Which is fair... except those who are opposed to it should also not get mad about people speaking out in turn.Does that even happen?Oh, heck, yes.
Oh yes. Immensely often.
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! :)
Sure. Take something I can easily rattle off. A Monk. Qinggong, no other archetypes. Unarmed strike using.
Your chassis is meh but you can make a viable Monk even if it isn't a show stopper.
You probably want to either be Str based for damage, or Dex based with an Agile Amulet of Mighty Fists. Choice is mostly made on what Feats you want and what flavor you like better.
Say 5th level. You've swapped out Slow Fall and High Jump for Barkskin and Scorching Ray so you have a buff and some mid range stuff to do damage.
You're hitting at about +8 for 1d8+5 or 6 on a single hit, or +7/+7 on a Flurry with double the damage.
Against a CR 5 target, this makes you hit on an 11-13 for most things, and taking about 1/3 of their health.
This is not great, but it is workable. It is viable. You are contributing significantly against a CR appropriate foe.
AC wise you're sitting somewhere between 20-21 (+2 Dex, +2 Barkskin, +4 Mage Armor from a kind friend, +2-3 Wis) and 24-25 (20 Dex instead of 14). This is less good (best case scenario, Dex build, most CR 5 dudes have a 50% chance to hit).
OPTIMAL on the other hand would be making that 2 levels of Monk (MoMS) and then the rest Brawler with Pummeling and Dragon Styles who charges at the enemy, cares not for their DR or hardness, and is hitting for 2x/1.5x Str on his hits and 3:1 Power Attack, at a higher attack bonus.
Contributor
|
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! :)
Sure. Take something I can easily rattle off. A Monk. Qinggong, no other archetypes. Unarmed strike using.
Your chassis is meh but you can make a viable Monk even if it isn't a show stopper.
You probably want to either be Str based for damage, or Dex based with an Agile Amulet of Mighty Fists. Choice is mostly...
Woke up just in time for your post. Thank you for responding, by the way. :)
So... this is the minimum, correct? (I'm trying to make sure you understood what I was asking about.) You would consider anything less than this unplayable and generally unable to succeed (without GM assistance/luck)?
I can only assume (and please correct me if this assumption is off base) that you consider non-archetyped monks to fall within the unplayable category. What if the character didn't choose those spell-like abilities, but wanted something like poison instead? I don't want to make this all about picking apart your example though, as it's not just about monks or rogues or w/e.
I'm certain that there's something between "fighter who needs 20s to hit" and this. I guess maybe this really is what you consider "rock bottom" for success, and I might just be taken aback. :)
I guess I could try some examples of my own. They'll be a little less detailed (I have to get ready for a session).
1. A Dex-based rogue (Knife Master/Scout) with an agile dagger.
2. A sorcerer with the draconic bloodline and a heavy (but not myopic) focus on her element.
3. A mutation warrior fighter building for Dervish Dance.
4. A fighter (no archetype, uses greatsword) going into Hellknight.
Could you tell me where each of these fall, please? Also, just to note, the question is not "could this be done better?" I'd just like to know if you consider these below the line, as your example seems to suggest. Sorry if I'm misinterpreting. :)
Thank you.
|
Contributor
|
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...
Thank you for all this! I have to go play my witch, so I can't respond in full right now, but this is very useful. I'll try to look things over. :)
Woke up just in time for your post. Thank you for responding, by the way. :)So... this is the minimum, correct? (I'm trying to make sure you understood what I was asking about.) You would consider anything less than this unplayable and generally unable to succeed (without GM assistance/luck)?
Pretty much. There's a bit of leeway if the character brings something else to the party (necessary skills, buffs, and so on) but for a melee fighter? Yeah.
I can only assume (and please correct me if this assumption is off base) that you consider non-archetyped monks to fall within the unplayable category. What if the character didn't choose those spell-like abilities, but wanted something like poison instead? I don't want to make this all about picking apart your example though, as it's not just about monks or rogues or w/e.
Not "unplayable", but much less viable. The Qinggong Monk is basically the "official patch" for all of those abilities that were tossed in willy-nilly for no apparent reason. You can get by with Slow Fall and High Jump, or grabbing Ki Arrow and Deny Death instead or what have you (Poison isn't available until 8th level), but Barkskin is pretty much the standard Qinggong trade-out ability since it negates the major drawback of the AoMF (unable to get an Amulet of Natural Armor, which IS necessary for AC to remain worthwhile later), and I like Scorching Ray because my Monk shooting fire out of his hands is cool, and useful. =)
I'm certain that there's something between "fighter who needs 20s to hit" and this. I guess maybe this really is what you consider "rock bottom" for success, and I might just be taken aback. :)
Not "rock bottom" but close to it. The attack/damage, AC, and saves (which I didn't mention) are the big factors. Can you take a hit? Can you dish it out? What happens if you get hit with a save or lose effect?
The answers to at least two of the three need to be "I can handle it relatively well" for you to be viable, because otherwise you'll contribute nothing either due to being worthless combat-wise, being dropped in a few hits, or being Dominated or something.
I guess I could try some examples of my own. They'll be a little less detailed (I have to get ready for a session).
1. A Dex-based rogue (Knife Master/Scout) with an agile dagger.
Viable, but barely. I don't like Rogues, but Scout is a pretty rad archetype and Knife Master is neat too. You get a good alpha strike and Dex based you probably have a decent AC, so once that's all online you contribute well. Saves still suck though.
2. A sorcerer with the draconic bloodline and a heavy (but not myopic) focus on her element.
Unless you go out of your way to make yourself bad, a Sorcerer is viable by default. A blasting focus can be that way, though. I would say at a minimum you need Empower and Intensify, and more importantly Elemental Spell later on to STAY viable (when everybody and their grandma has SR and resistance or immunity to 3 of 4 elements).
Early levels, especially 5-8 though? You'll rock it.
3. A mutation warrior fighter building for Dervish Dance.
Mutation Warrior is good, Dervish Dance is solid. You'll be viable I COMBAT as long as nobody targets your saves.
4. A fighter (no archetype, uses greatsword) going into Hellknight.
Hellknight actually shores up a good bit of the Fighter's weaknesses (giving a +2 and scaling bonus to saves against everything that matters, and some cool abilities. I'd pick Compulsion, Charm, and Pattern in that order), so this could run the gamut from "viable" to "awesome".
| 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.
I guess my problem with this mentality is what one groups loves, another group loathes. Really the only way to accommodate that viewpoint is to just cease any further production of new books.
I would rather get some products released I am not a huge fan of, than...no new products.
~tries in vain to stop laughing~
Wow you so totally missed my point I am going to have to go back and make sure I made one.
I am not saying stop making any product that even a few people disagree with. I am saying don't get upset about people speaking out against an upcoming product or idea, it is literally the best way we fans have to influence a company for the better to actually let everyone know what we want and don't want and then let the company decide if it's still worth pursuing. And if the product still comes out please don't get up in arms if a faction of the GMs ban it. They didn't like the product and so they are not including it in their games.
(Although I suspect there are a small number of players who think any official product is their right to have so the GM better make sure he buys or uses every supplement ever made to please these players.)
Hypothetically I don't have a problem raising such objections, if done in a polite way. I especially encourage people to cancel subscriptions temporarily, since ultimately money makes more an impact than viewpoints of vocal posters (who may or may not be a minority)
But on the other hand, some people just don't LET IT GO, or can't raise that objection without accusing the people who want that material as wanting to ruin their game or being Weebos/Furries/Munchkins etc. Its especially aggravating in product threads, playtests, and the 3PP forum. Do you honestly think that Paizo is going to cancel an AP or book if you post multiple replies about how lame that product is going to be?
People also sometimes just take the hyperbole up and suggest that because such a product exists, the game will be broken for ever, or that Pathfinder will stop being fantasy, etc.
Do you honestly think that Paizo is going to cancel an AP or book if you post multiple replies about how lame that product is going to be?
If just I post it? Nope. If there are a LOT of similar posters I sure hope they would have the wisdom to rethink what they are doing. If they go ahead with a rather unpopular expansion then they risk creating different factions in their customer base and dividing their profits downward.
As for not spending any money in the lead up to the new product? Not very useful as the company will have no idea why you aren't spending any more. Actually posting in forums they read is far clearer.
Dude, it's amazing how many variations I've seen of my username.People misspelling usernames.
It's RIGHT THERE, people!
"Rynjyn", hmph.
This has even happened to me... there was this one poster who wanted to add a 'c' and remove a 'n' turning my name into Arcana.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
WAIT, CONCERRO IS WRAITHSTRIKE?!
*Massive revelation and feels bad for not favoriting more of his posts*
I'd like to chime on the "Viable or Not" discussion.
I'd describe viable as having a 40% minimum chance of success that only gets better as the situation gets more favorable. This metric to me is played around in regards to certain things(Like DCs vs Strong Saves/Weak Saves).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This has even happened to me... there was this one poster who wanted to add a 'c' and remove a 'n' turning my name into Arcana.
Wut?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kthewlu and Rynjyn complain too much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You tell 'em, Scabs!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh the stories I could tell...
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which is fair... except those who are opposed to it should also not get mad about people speaking out in turn.Does that even happen?Oh, heck, yes.
Yeah, it's hard to settle on the most shining examples because there are so many. Heck, one that came to mind is a no-go because it would mean dredging up drama over one of our rare banned posters.
But you name it: psionics, epic, Asian themes, space lasers, support for non-evil X, even simple inclusiveness, and so on, there has always been someone wanting to quiet those that wanted them even when it did them no harm.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rogue/Monk threads,
Pro, Con, it doesn't matter, nothing is ever gained, ever.
Also people that constantly change their avatars, those people really bug me :-p
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you honestly think that Paizo is going to cancel an AP or book if you post multiple replies about how lame that product is going to be?If just I post it? Nope. If there are a LOT of similar posters I sure hope they would have the wisdom to rethink what they are doing. If they go ahead with a rather unpopular expansion then they risk creating different factions in their customer base and dividing their profits downward.
As for not spending any money in the lead up to the new product? Not very useful as the company will have no idea why you aren't spending any more. Actually posting in forums they read is far clearer.
By the time a product announced here, it is usually so far along that canceling it isn't feasible. The same for hardcover books when play tests are released.
And really the sales data tends to be most useful. Your only getting a vocal minority on any issue, and I think some of the vocal complaints (and to be fair some of the gushing praise) are not indicative of the broader community
Yeah, it's worth noting that by the time a product is announced, odds are extremely good Paizo has already gone past the point of no return as to whether they could conceivably cancel it.
I want to say that we don't hear about a product until Paizo's already gotten the submissions in from the freelancers. I could be wrong though.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, I should probably do something funny with all the "Tacticslion favorites stuff" posts, but I can't really come up with any one thing (there's really just way too many angles to take on it!), and now it's just sitting there all awkward and not doing something funny like "I shall take over the world!" or something... dang it! :P :D
Do we need a ">>*Tacticslion* favourites ALL your Posts HERE!!<< thread?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
I get it too. You are missing my point. Just to be clear there is a difference between saying
A: "I don't like this because it is bad for the game" whether or not it is true is another story.
OR
B: "This is not good for my game", and assuming that "My game is the default game so I am correct and Paizo really should not make this sucky supplement."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is what I tried to explain, along with "nobody's forcing the players to do anything, we're just friends trying to give other friends advice". The responses tended to range between acceptance and "you should stop and let them find their own fun, you might be surprised to discover it isn't the same as yours".
Sometimes no matter how you try to get a point across some people here will read between the lines and see things you never said. Another meme I don't like.
Then when you ask for a quote they will say something like "You did not say it, but that is what you meant" as if they can read your mind across the internet.
(I... I'm a nice GM. Insane, mind, but a nice one...)You just reminded me of a meme that annoys me:
When any mention of it being difficult to find games or players locally is met with exhortations to go to online or virtual interface gaming.
I'm glad it works for them, but it's not my cup of tea.
I have seen it suggested, but I have yet to see it really pushed once someone says they don't like it. In that case I would say again that "I only prefer to game in person". Hopefully the person will come back with something like "Did you try it" or "You wont know until you try".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then when you ask for a quote they will say something like "You did not say it, but that is what you meant" as if they can read your mind across the internet.
Which is essentially "fixed it for you" without the "courtesy" of actually taking the effort to change your text.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Reading peoples' minds over the internet is QUITE overrated. =( =( =(
You know, I should probably do something funny with all the "Tacticslion favorites stuff" posts, but I can't really come up with any one thing (there's really just way too many angles to take on it!), and now it's just sitting there all awkward and not doing something funny like "I shall take over the world!" or something... dang it! :P :D
Do we need a ">>*Tacticslion* favourites ALL your Posts HERE!!<< thread?
... my... my poor... favorites button. (
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person 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"
I wouldn't say I get angry about this, but it does prompt a rueful shaking of the head. This is similar to when there is a hotly debated topic, where it's clear that both sides have merit(as opposed to a one vs. many debate). We finally get a FAQ answer for the question, and the side that was wrong immediately complains about "stealth errata" and such. No, you were just interpreting the rule differently than the devs. It happens. It doesn't mean the rule suddenly changed. It's okay to be wrong.
Now the one on many debate, where one poster comes in with some way-out-there rule interpretation and the entire forum community disagrees with one voice - and their response is "dev post or it doesn't count," yeah, that one annoys me. For bonus points they get their dev post and ignore it because they disagree with it.
On a personal note, I try to concede points when I've been convinced. If someone's argument works I'll post a concession where I admit they are right. I feel it should lend some closure and show respect for the person I'm debating. Invariably someone will keep trying to argue with me, and I want to post something like "look, I've already admitted you win, let it go."
I guess these can be summed up as I try to remember these are other people posting in these threads, people who have good reasons to think what they do. My potential incredulity at what they think doesn't make their belief irrational, and I can certainly be wrong about things. I think if more people posted with these ideas in mind the forums would be a happier place. We can have a disagreement without it getting vicious or insulting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, I should probably do something funny with all the "Tacticslion favorites stuff" posts, but I can't really come up with any one thing (there's really just way too many angles to take on it!), and now it's just sitting there all awkward and not doing something funny like "I shall take over the world!" or something... dang it! :P :DDo we need a ">>*Tacticslion* favourites ALL your Posts HERE!!<< thread?... my... my poor... favorites button. (
not to mention the people that will be purposely distasteful just to see you favorite it, it could get weird.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(
"Rynjyn", hmph.
It... it may be worth noting that I was actually actively trying to avoid misspelling it. I looked at it, like, three times before writing it down. Stupid dyslexia... always getting in the way of people's names*! Sorry!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rogue/Monk threads,
Pro, Con, it doesn't matter, nothing is ever gained, ever.Also people that constantly change their avatars, those people really bug me :-p
Yeah, and those people who talk to themselves with different avatars, those are the worst, man, the worst!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
MATT DAMON!!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, Matt Damon puppet, that's telling him!