|
So, a recent debate with a GM over a concept (I ultimately ended up realizing he's a worse rules lawyer than I am, which is crazy. Cause I'm a terrible rules lawyer) long story short I thought that since my character was a Gillman who speaks Aboleth (as all Gillmen do), who has the Slimehunter trait (which says, paraphrased, that you are of a lineage that has fought the aboleth and thefore you have a +2 bonus vs. aboleth magic instead of the normal gillman resistances), she still knows absolutely nothing about Aboleth. Nothing. Not even that the are the originators of her native language.
With nowhere else I felt I could turn, I decided to ask James Jacobs (fully knowing, what he says isn't set in stone, but as the creative director, since we're talking about 'fluff' he's more in tune with that).
He said that the average gillman knows nothing other than that they are boogeymen.
Okay, yeah that makes sense. So I told the GM. He latched onto the word nothing, causing me to start to argue (and just to be clear, all the while I've been saying again and again that said character has Knowledge Dungeoneering as a class skill and took Scholar feat tied to dungeoneering) what my character could know. He accused me of not liking what James said, and so ignoring it.
Finally, after he started cussing at me I pretty much said okay, we will never play together again.
Then to add a bit of hilarity, when I further asked James about how the Gillmen speak Aboleth, he said
"Oh... hmm. Nevermind. If they automatically start with Aboleth, then I think perhaps that they DO know about them a bit more, but still think of them as boogyemen. (Honestly, I've not yet really done a LOT of thinking about gillmen.)"
So, that prompted this question now... given this story, how much do you as GM (and players welcome to post too) see fluff like the above vs. rules? Should a gillman who speaks Aboleth know what an aboleth is, even as a myth (kinda like what a non-D&D player knows about dragons) or is it truly "I don't care if you speak their language, you don't know what they are unless you roll at least a 30 on your Knowledge Dungeoneering check" (and that's just me making up a number, based on how my friend suggested their rarity)
Feel free to give other examples of fluff vs. mechanics that you would include or ignore the fluff.
EDIT: Also, I want to be clear since I am quoting James Jacobs here, it is not and never was my intent in asking him to get ammunition against the GM, it was to help get ideas to present.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In a kind of hushed bogey man thing that goes bump in the night knid of thing. Or you know the name, maybe a vague shadowy outline for appearance and some legends. The kind of thing parents say that will get their kids if they dont tidy up their rooms. Not enoguh to pinpoint all its weaknesses altough if your character is a scholar you might know a legend where a weakness gets abused, and know a weakness that way. They might hold status as not existing and are well known to be a myth.
Your GM sucks it sounds like.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Knowedge checks are not necessarily to know what something IS. You might know what a Wolf is without knowing it hunts in packs and Trips people.
Likewise, Gillmen know of Aboleths...the name if nothing else.
That's not a fluff vs mechanics thing, that's just a common sense thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To address that specific instance, I wouldn't see anything wrong with a DM constructing a world in which gillmen originated in an aboleth culture and then migrating away - losing all significant knowledge of aboleth in the intervening centuries but retaining the use of the language. The slimehunter trait is a little more difficult to wave away, I guess, but even that I could imagine the "rebellious tribe" centuries ago being unusually resistant to aboleth magic and their descendants carrying that with them.
As a guiding principle, I allow huge leeway when a DM is world-creating and do my best to accommodate anything which may initially push at my suspension of disbelief boundaries. However, as DM, I think it's also important to try and allow whatever PC concept the players have got fired up over. I think it's best to not form a concrete view about what's "right" but rather remember that it's all preference - often two disparate views can be accommodated with a little rejigging.
So if the DM felt that gillmen knew nothing about aboleth, but it was important to the player that their gillman PC be knowledgeable about and opposed to the aboleth, I think it would be easy enough to have some source of obscure lore in their backstory which provided some of that knowledge. If the whole campaign story was about this "new threat from below" or something then perhaps the character isn't suited for this campaign.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also concerning the trait that gives you a bonus vs aboleth magic, that could just be something that's bred into the species. Same kind of thing happens with dog breeds and dormant hunting genes.
Honestly it could go either way and I think at that point it's up to GM interpretation. That doesn't make his ruling good and especially doesn't justify his actions, but all-in-all it was his call to make and he made it.
Yeah…there's no real answer here. Before Second Darkness, the canon was that Drow were essentially nonexistent, as far as the larger world knew. Even nowadays, it would be entirely reasonable for a GM to rule that large swaths of the population are unaware of their existence. It's kind of the same with Aboleths, Xiomorns, and anything to do with the Age of Serpents, for instance. All that being said, it stands to reason that there are scholarly groups that have information on these topics, and it's not unreasonable for a PC to have access to such information. Deciding how much people know and when is an issue of story-telling, and that is and HAS TO BE a collaborative affair. The GM can't tell a story without players, and the players can't have a story without someone to wrangle them and keep them from strangling each other over a pint in the first tavern they come across. Sounds like you and the GM had a creative disagreement, but neither of you were actually WRONG. Perhaps one or both of you explained yourselves poorly, but that's about it. If you can't compromise, and they can't compromise, then yes, you either need to make a new character (save the one you've been working on for another campaign), adjust your character, or leave the group. There's no point making a huge fuss about it once you've both said your piece. Good luck with whatever you decide. =]
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wish I could get with a group and really help flesh out their characters with the flavor of their selections. However, it seems the players local to me simply like their matrix of options. When I've tried to get feedback on their character's experiences and the like I'm often met with silence. I envy what your GM callously threw away.
|
|
Yeah, I already deleted the character cause I only made her as an idea for that campaign (which IS Golarion, but his biggest problem is he uses d20pfsrd almost exclusively outside of the core books. So it really is a case of me knowing more about Golarion itself than he does... which is frustrating as hell in and of itself... he's using a setting he knows next to nothing about)
Which, now that I think about it I wonder if that was more the problem... HE doesn't know jack about aboleth (and even less about gillmen, as the d20pfsrd site, being stripped of all Golarion IP, has nothing about the Gillmen's relationship to the aboleth) so therefore has no idea what my character should or shouldn't know.
But I also know that he's very annoyed by players that think that since they are an elf they are experts on Elven history, know that the elves fled to another frickin' planet during the Age of Darkness, etc. I agree, that no unless you have a high knowledge arcana, you don't know that. The thing is though, I agree with him. That annoys me too. Which is why as I said, I think he was ignoring that I kept saying I have +8 Knowledge Dungeoneering at 1st level, I can tell you the final total later (also because he asked me about the concept I had, even though he doesn't have room right now for me to join.. which is also why I didnt do the extra work of putting together a full level whatever character) and just concentrating on "I am a gillman who hates aboleth" and being like "You don't know what aboleth are."
That said, again this thread isn't mean to be a direct bashing of him or any other GM, but merely a place for all of us, GMs and players alike, to discuss the ideas of fluff vs. game mechanics.
I wish I could get with a group and really help flesh out their characters with the flavor of their selections. However, it seems the players local to me simply like their matrix of options. When I've tried to get feedback on their character's experiences and the like I'm often met with silence. I envy what your GM callously threw away.
Yeah, I feel that way sometimes. When I GM so many of my players make a really great character on paper, but that's all it is. Bloodrager? Check. Falchion? Check. High ST? Check. I know nothing of who this character IS. History? Nope. Family? Nope. The most fleshed out character is the Primalist, and it was pulling teeth to get him to understand what primal magic even is beyond the mechanics of it. I'm not even sure he still really does. He was very reluctant to be from Alkenstar (and isn't, though I managed to get him to agree that he spent some time there at the college.)
Yet me as a player, I'm the opposite... I overthink my character's backgrounds... I fold my characters abilities into the background, I don't just take a trait because it gives me a mechanical benefit, I take it because it fits my concept. Like my gillman. She's badass vs. Aboleth. Will I ever run into aboleth in his game? Probably not actually... and I knew that when I pitched him the concept. Thing is, I still gave her Slimehunter, losing her bonus to all saves for only a bonus vs. aboleths. Her name was Καλλιστω Θεραπων (which is actually Ancient/Late Greek (respectively), which I see as the closest real world equivalency to Thassilonian. As a rogue Eldritch Raider i put a point in Linguistics for her to know Thassilonian, and so she wrote her name in Thassilonian) But he knows none of this, cause he didn't give me time to tell him. Cause... he wouldn't care.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, a recent debate with a GM over a concept (I ultimately ended up realizing he's a worse rules lawyer than I am, which is crazy. Cause I'm a terrible rules lawyer) long story short I thought that since my character was a Gillman who speaks Aboleth (as all Gillmen do), who has the Slimehunter trait (which says, paraphrased, that you are of a lineage that has fought the aboleth and thefore you have a +2 bonus vs. aboleth magic instead of the normal gillman resistances), she still knows absolutely nothing about Aboleth. Nothing. Not even that the are the originators of her native language.
From 2001 to at least 2008 (and probably still today), Muslims have been the "boogeyman" of America (whether this is morally right or wrong shall be left for another discussion on another day). How many Americans do you think know that the Muslim culture is where we get our numeral system that we use every single day of our lives?
How many English speakers know that their language is derived from the Germanic languages? How many do you think knew that in WWII?
Just because the words you use today derive from some previous language doesn't mean that you know anything about the previous language or the people of that time (or the people that still use it today).
(snip)... He latched onto the word nothing,
Bad move by the GM. He's making a wrong assumption here.
and just to be clear, all the while I've been saying again and again that said character has Knowledge Dungeoneering as a class skill and took Scholar feat tied to dungeoneering
Doesn't really mean much unless you actively put a rank in the skill. You still can't use the skill for anything with a DC higher than 10. Even if the Aboleth was considered a "common" monster for your culture, that's still a DC of 12, which means no skill check for you unless you have access to a library with the relevant information or you have a rank in the skill.
He accused me of not liking what James said, and so ignoring it.
Probably a little bit of truth in this IF you didn't put a rank in your knowledge skill. But he's also basing it off a wrong assumption, as noted above.
Finally, after he started cussing at me I pretty much said okay, we will never play together again.
Definitely a good move by you.
Then to add a bit of hilarity, when I further asked James about how the Gillmen speak Aboleth, he said
"Oh... hmm. Nevermind. If they automatically start with Aboleth, then I think perhaps that they DO know about them a bit more, but still think of them as boogyemen. (Honestly, I've not yet really done a LOT of thinking about gillmen.)"
Eh. I'm not agreeing with this all that much. Americans speak the same language as the British. How much do you know about their culture? Or the Australians (or which ever applies to you depending on where you live)? Now, try to answer that question again if you never saw a movie or television show in your life.
So, that prompted this question now... given this story, how much do you as GM (and players welcome to post too) see fluff like the above vs. rules? Should a gillman who speaks Aboleth know what an aboleth is, even as a myth (kinda like what a non-D&D player knows about dragons) or is it truly "I don't care if you speak their language, you don't know what they are unless you roll at least a 30 on your Knowledge Dungeoneering check" (and that's just me making up a number, based on how my friend suggested their rarity)
Feel free to give other examples of fluff vs. mechanics that you would include or ignore the fluff.
EDIT: Also, I want to be clear since I am quoting James Jacobs here, it is not and never was my intent in asking him to get ammunition against the GM, it was to help get ideas to present.
Personally, I'd simply rule that the DC check for the knowledge role was lower for Gillmen who have actively had contact or dealings with Aboleths. If your character was from such a culture (determined by you and your character background), then the starting DC would reflect that. If you decided that your character's home town didn't have contact, then I'd keep it at a normal DC.
Other than that, as far as roleplaying purposes go, I'd be perfectly happy if your character had some ideas as to what an Aboleth was, and quite a bit more wrong ideas about the Aboleth. Perhaps everyone in his culture knew the name, but there was just a ton of mythology around it. Or maybe the culture had simply lived in an area where the monster was completely unknown (again, I'd leave this up to the player). But either way, unless the character had ranks in a knowledge skill, I wouldn't give them completely accurate knowledge on the monster.
|
|
Right, but see that was the thing ignoring that I had a rank (and would ultimately have more, as I only made her level 1 to start as I did not know what level I would be starting at) in Dungeoneering, he still thought that me knowing Aboleth (English) still meant that I knew nothing other than my language is called Aboleth unless I managed to IN GAME make a knowledge dungeoneering check to know about them when it mattered to his campaign (which it probably never would, therefore this whole concept doesn't fit his campaign)... as I said though, I don't care if I never run into an aboleth and so totally threw away a +2 bonus vs. all magic.
As I said when I realized he's more of a rules lawyer than I am, I realized that he doesn't just think that knowledges should matter (which I agree with) and that in a world without the internet we don't have quick and easy access to knowledge (which I agree) but that... well, it's almost like if you don't have a particular knowledge skill you have an Intelligence of 0. Hmm, is that a human? I'm not sure. I know I'm human (wait, I am human, right?) but I don't have any idea if that girl next to me is.
Of course that's an exaggeration, but... it's not much of one.
Right, but see that was the thing ignoring that I had a rank (and would ultimately have more, as I only made her level 1 to start as I did not know what level I would be starting at) in Dungeoneering, he still thought that me knowing Aboleth (English) still meant that I knew nothing other than my language is called Aboleth.
As I said when I realized he's more of a rules lawyer than I am, I realized that he doesn't just think that knowledges should matter (which I agree with) and that in a world without the internet we don't have quick and easy access to knowledge (which I agree) but that... well, it's almost like if you don't have a particular knowledge skill you have an Intelligence of 0. Hmm, is that a human? I'm not sure. I know I'm human (wait, I am human, right?) but I don't have any idea if that girl next to me is.
Of course that's an exaggeration, but... it's not much of one.
Again, your language is called English. How much do you really know about the other English speaking countries? Just because your language is called English doesn't mean you know anything about it.
Heck, I've met plenty of people who not only speak English as their sole language, but barely know anything about the language itself, their own country, their own country's history, or even their own state!
Think about where you live (or where you grew up). Quick, without looking it up, who's your mayor? Who's your state representative? Who's your congressman? Which district do you live in? How long have you lived where you are or where you grew up without knowing these things?
What about the boogeymen of where you live? What's the most dangerous animal where you live? Could you identify it if you saw it? Can you differentiate it from a similar animal? Do you know how to get away from it? Do you know what to do if it attacks? Do you know its life cycle? Can you tell the difference between a baby one and an adult? What's its primary tactic for attacking? What are it's defensive weaknesses? These are all questions a person with a rank in a knowledge skill associated with monsters would know.
Where I live, the most dangerous animals are the rattlesnake, the black widow spider, and mountain lions. I can identify all of them by sight, and I know what to do around each. But I also have a degree in biology, and I've been fascinated with animals all my life. My wife can't tell the difference between a rattlesnake and a gopher snake unless she hears the rattle. I have a rank in the appropriate knowledge skill, she does not.
Now, if your character had a rank in the skill, then absolutely your character would know something about the creature. At the very least your character should know the name and could identify it by sight - but maybe not much more depending on how common the creature was in your area. As a GM, I'd let the player decide how common the creature was where s/he grew up. Your GM simply made the decision himself.
(Also, I'm still a bit confused as to whether your character actually had a rank in the skill or not).
Yeah, I feel that way sometimes. When I GM so many of my players make a really great character on paper, but that's all it is. Bloodrager? Check. Falchion? Check. High ST? Check. I know nothing of who this character IS. History? Nope. Family? Nope. The most fleshed out character is the Primalist, and it was pulling teeth to get him to understand what primal magic even is beyond the mechanics of it. I'm not even sure he still really does. He was very reluctant to be from Alkenstar (and isn't, though I managed to get him to agree that he spent some time there at the college.)
Yet me as a player, I'm the opposite... I overthink my character's backgrounds... I fold my characters abilities into the background, I don't just take a trait because it gives me a mechanical benefit, I take it because it fits my concept. Like my gillman. She's badass vs. Aboleth. Will I ever run into aboleth in his game? Probably not actually... and I knew that when I pitched him the concept. Thing is, I still gave her Slimehunter, losing her bonus to all saves for only a bonus vs. aboleths. Her name was Καλλιστω Θεραπων (which is actually Ancient/Late Greek (respectively), which I see as the closest real world equivalency to Thassilonian. As a rogue Eldritch Raider i put a point in Linguistics for her to know Thassilonian, and so she wrote her name in Thassilonian) But he knows none of this, cause he didn't give me time to tell him. Cause... he wouldn't care.
My Rise GM is like that. He doesn't really care about backgrounds. I can't help but get the impression he'd rather characters simply poofed into existence, and then, they tried to justify themselves purely by in-game roleplay. While I can see the desire for in-game roleplay, the offhanded nature of disregarding backgrounds is kind of off-putting to me. So, for my latest character I put her life basically in bullet point form with some additional paragraphs after to explain some family history and the more practical stuff she does when she's not doing her normal thing. Thankfully, he read the bullets but admitted he quickly skimmed over the paragraphs. At least he got the broad strokes of who she is enough, I hope, to get a glimpse at her personality.
But, yeah, I'm like you. I could write mini-theses on my characters, if asked. I've recently been spending time with a GM in a couple games who tends to tailor "why is your character here" type questions. It's been a joy, but there's still so much more. Reading what other GMs do, especially Jame's thread, has really given me a kind of confidence about not worrying about players "breaking" a game. I'm more of the mind that such a thing is only possible if a GM actively gives permission for it and really getting a grasp and what the cooperative nature of the game entails. Even if something goes awry, there's no reason why it can't be fixed. Anymore, I find when people try to dig in and entrench themselves in their own ways of thinking of what the game "has" to be is when problems appear.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is why I loathe the word "fluff." What the term refers to is the farthest thing from "fluff" - it's why the game exists. The mechanics are nothing but servitors to it. If the mechanics contradict the source material, then you judge on a situational basis. The key is that everyone needs to be reasonable and equitable, which it sounds like someone in your interaction (maybe both of you) were not.
Speaking as someone who was once honored with the title "the best rules lawyer [my local Pathfinder Society group]'s got" by someone who'd been gaming since the very, very beginning, I'll say that it's one thing to look up the rules and say "okay, there," but if it devolves into stabbing a line of text with your finger, you've probably both lost sight of what really matters. Nitpick semantics and particulars all you like; we should all agree that the rules should NEVER be an impediment to the game they exist to enable.
Again, your language is called English. How much do you really know about the other English speaking countries? Just because your language is called English doesn't mean you know anything about it.
Well, taken in isolation, I would agree. However, that would disregard the educational experience and culture you grow up in.
Heck, I've met plenty of people who not only speak English as their sole language, but barely know anything about the language itself, their own country, their own country's history, or even their own state!
That really takes a measure of willful ignorance in modern America. Which, we no longer embrace the passing of knowledge in an oratory form. Cultures based on oral traditions (basically, every culture before the industrial revolution) are even harder to be dumb in. They're really quite fascinating to read on. It gives a glimpse on how stories are shared and how through stories knowledge is spread. It's a lost art, really.
It also helps grasp the kind of knowledge a character is likely to know even if it's shrouded in myths and tales as the cultures we see in PF, D&D, etc. are modeled after medieval paradigms which operated almost exclusively in oral traditions. Essentially, the more tribal your base culture, the more this is true.
An unfortunate side effect of getting away from an oral tradition is a loss in overall memory capacity. Sure, we might remember a lot, but storytellers of old really put even our modern day brightest to shame in terms of the quantity of information retained. It's not a fair comparison to try to ask someone from the modern age to rattle off facts. We're simply not trained for it, anymore. Someone from an orally based culture could cite you with near perfect accuracy their people's history going back centuries. That's just how that kind of culture works.
So, in games based on those paradigms, "just knowing" things really is the norm. Our idea of requiring libraries, computers, and other stores of knowledge is really quite new historically speaking. That's part of the abstraction behind knowledge skills only getting you what's effectively a very small bonus even with a large library at your disposal. Otherwise, if they were actual stores of information, libraries would basically just give you the answers, but they don't. They simply remove the limits on your own understanding. They don't give you anything new, per se. You could always roll that 30 (20 + 10 mod), for example. It simply took a library for you to piece together information you likely already had. The primary means of sharing knowledge in these games isn't libraries. They're the characters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, your language is called English. How much do you really know about the other English speaking countries? Just because your language is called English doesn't mean you know anything about it.Well, taken in isolation, I would agree. However, that would disregard the educational experience and culture you grow up in.
Heck, I've met plenty of people who not only speak English as their sole language, but barely know anything about the language itself, their own country, their own country's history, or even their own state!That really takes a measure of willful ignorance in modern America. Which, we no longer embrace the passing of knowledge in an oratory form. Cultures based on oral traditions (basically, every culture before the industrial revolution) are even harder to be dumb in. They're really quite fascinating to read on. It gives a glimpse on how stories are shared and how through stories knowledge is spread. It's a lost art, really.
It also helps grasp the kind of knowledge a character is likely to know even if it's shrouded in myths and tales as the cultures we see in PF, D&D, etc. are modeled after medieval paradigms which operated almost exclusively in oral traditions. Essentially, the more tribal your base culture, the more this is true.
An unfortunate side effect of getting away from an oral tradition is a loss in overall memory capacity. Sure, we might remember a lot, but storytellers of old really put even our modern day brightest to shame in terms of the quantity of information retained. It's not a fair comparison to try to ask someone from the modern age to rattle off facts. We're simply not trained for it, anymore. Someone from an orally based culture could cite you with near perfect accuracy their people's history going back centuries. That's just how that kind of culture works.
So, in games based on those paradigms, "just knowing" things really is the norm. Our idea of requiring libraries, computers, and other stores of...
Pathfinder doesn't include a system where characters have wrong knowledge, PF only has a binary system where a character either accurately knows something or simply does not know. There's no wrong information, there's no prejudiced information, there's no misinformation (at least on a character scale). This is why "background" knowledge without ranks in a skill is very difficult to determine.
As such, the rules of the system are in place to simplify it all: if the DC is higher than 10, you simply do not know something unless you have access to a library or you have a rank in the appropriate knowledge skill (and make the DC). And this is true regardless if your character learned what they knew from oral tradition or written works.
Edit: I decided to remove the part of my post that was not relevant to Pathfinder.
The trait is assuming that your character had a life that would lead to it being taken. I see no reason not to allow it. It is not something you have to justify with knowledge checks. I think the GM just does not want you to have it, and if that is the case they should just say so instead of making up excuses.
Have a read. You seem to pretty blatantly conflate oral tradition with "ancient knowledge" theories. They're very different.
Have a read. You seem to pretty blatantly conflate oral tradition with "ancient knowledge" theories. They're very different.
Thanks for the link! I had read through that while making my last post before the edit. :)
I decided to remove a lot of it because I do not think this forum is an appropriate place to get into that particular conversation.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, your language is called English. How much do you really know about the other English speaking countries? Just because your language is called English doesn't mean you know anything about it.
Heck, I've met plenty of people who not only speak English as their sole language, but barely know anything about the language itself, their own country, their own country's history, or even their own state!
Think about where you live (or where you grew up). Quick, without looking it up, who's your mayor? Who's your state representative? Who's your congressman? Which district do you live in? How long have you lived where you are or where you grew up without knowing these things?
What about the boogeymen of where you live? What's the most dangerous animal where you live? Could you identify it if you saw it? Can you differentiate it from a similar animal? Do you know how to get away from it? Do you know what to do if it attacks? Do you know its life cycle? Can you tell the difference between a baby one and an adult? What's its primary tactic for attacking? What are it's defensive weaknesses? These are all questions a person with a rank in a knowledge skill associated with monsters would know.
Where I live, the most dangerous animals are the rattlesnake, the black widow spider, and mountain lions. I can identify all of them by sight, and I know what to do around each. But I also have a degree in biology, and I've been fascinated with animals all my life. My wife can't tell the difference between a rattlesnake and a gopher snake unless she hears the rattle. I have a rank in the appropriate knowledge skill, she does not.
Now, if your character had a rank in the skill, then absolutely your character would know something about the creature. At the very least your character should know the name and could identify it by sight - but maybe not much more depending on how common the creature was in your area. As a GM, I'd let the player decide how common the creature was where s/he grew up. Your GM simply made the decision himself.
(Also, I'm still a bit confused as to whether your character actually had a rank in the skill or not).
While I can't tell you who the mayor of Topeka is (mostly cause I don't care much, living in the state capital... state politics matter much more than local,) I can tell you that the governor of Kansas is Sam Brownback and I hate him. I can also tell you other things about the senators and corporate lobbyists out to destroy the state of Kansas to fuel their own greed, but that's not the point.
As for English, am I an expert on British culture? I don't know, probably not but I do watch a lot of British shows, so I know a lot of the slang even if I don't use it myself.
And lastly, yes the character had a rank (again, she was only level 1 because I didn't know what level the campaign was yet, though I know it was 11 last time I talked to him before he asked me "So, what is this concept you had?" See, and that's the problem I made it clear that this wasn't just a concept, I actually knew how to make the character work in his game knowing how critical he is about players not having knowledge skills to back up what they say. She also had the Scholar feat that gives you a +2 to two knowledge skills of your choice and it goes up to a +4 at like level 8. I was planning to take Skill Focus Knowledge Dungeoneering, but he never gave me a chance to tell him that.
"You are not the GM, you don't get to decide what your character knows and does not know. You don't set the DC for knowledge checks, the GM does."
Which, yeah that's true.
But then does that mean that I need to make a character with NO background and no CONCEPT... then make a knowledge dungeoneering roll. Great, I rolled a 28... Do I know about the Gillmen's history with Aboleth? I do? Awesome! Now let me actually come up with my concept. Crazy as that sounds, that's really what I feel like I needed to do... which, hey if I was one of his other players, they don't even have backgrounds from the complaints he's made to me.
I almost think he's gotten too used to a bunch of min-maxing powergaming hack and slash players that is all he looks for and expects... so when someone with an actual well-thought out background and concept, with or without an actual character sheet to back up the background/concept, he just dismisses it out of turn.
And with that, this thread is starting to turn more into a thread about "concept and background" which hey that's cool too.
Plus, just to make it clear again, I'm trying my best to present things as I see them without unnecessarily bashing him. We're still friends, just... looks like our roleplaying styles have severely misaligned since the last time we played together.
|
|
We have absolutely no idea how the Gillmen were created. (yes we know the who, but that's not the same as knowing the how. and the gillmen themselves aren't that more knowledgeable about the topic.) Remember that aboleth are consummate manipulators very good at keeping their hands in while remaining hidden.To this day, I did not know that Gillmen spoke Aboleth.
Right, but a gillman with ranks and feats to increase their History and Dungeoneering skills?
As for the language, see that's the other problem... he didn't say "I know nothing about Gillmen, so I'd have to look more up on them before I can approve that.." he just said "The Gillmen's SRD entry says nothing about Aboleth" and well, no it doesn't. You know, other than that they get penalties (or bonuses as I told him I took Slimehunter) vs. them and speak the aboleth language. But that's because all IP is stripped.
As I said, it really sounded like he expected me to make a character living in a bubble prior to the first game session.. just make a gillman (or elf, or whatever) as nothing other than numbers on paper until after I've made rolls to see what I know about gillmen (or elves, or whatever) then i can do background and concept based on my roll.
And, lets try to broaden that and tie it more into the overall INTENT of my thread, and not just concentrate on my examples, please.
My intent is to discuss fluff vs. mechanics, and now that it's kind of been added, concept and background vs. numbers on paper.
|
|
Oh and actually we do know the how, it's in one of the books, though I forget which one... the Aboleth used fleshwarping (silly drow think they invented it, but the Aboleth were doing it millennia before) to create the gillmen from the Azlanti they rescued after Earthfall.
That however, is something I would not let a character know without a DC 50 Knowledge (History) AND Knowledge (Dungeoneering) roll. Gillmen could have a +2 circumstance bonus for being Gillmen.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me, the fact that your character had a rank in the skill combined with being from a culture with the Aboleth as a boogeyman and had a trait to boost that skill should be more than enough to say that your character knows at least something about it.
However, your original post tried to claim that just because the character could speak a language called "Aboleth" means that the character knows something about the monster. And this is what I disput. As an example, I asked how much you (or any given English speaker) would know about the culture from whence their language was derived (without watching TV). This is a concept you haven't yet grasped. It is very possible for a character to have grown up in a bubble completey oblivious to the world around them. Heck, I once new a woman who had never run in her life, until she was in her kid 20s. Her mother forbade running anywhere, and wouldn't let her even play outside (her mother believed it was too dangerous, and yes, her mother was crazy).
But since you put a rank in the skill, then I feel that your GM was in the wrong.
As for fluff vs numbers, well - the point of the game is the fluff, but pathfinder as a system wouldn't exist if it weren't for the numbers. While the numbers are static, the fluff can easily change. I've always been an advocate of never letting the fluff prevent you from using the numbers to make the character you want. So while I think both are important, one is a backbone which allows everyone to understand each other and play by the same rules, and the other is a description that ignites our imagination. Arbitrarily changing one can damage the game, arbitrarily changing the other can enhance the game.
|
|
However, your original post tried to claim that just because the character could speak a language called "Aboleth" means that the character knows something about the monster. And this is what I disput. As an example, I asked how much you (or any given English speaker) would know about the culture from whence their language was derived (without watching TV). This is a concept you haven't yet grasped. It is very possible for a character to have grown up in a bubble completey oblivious to the world around them. Heck, I once new a woman who had never run in her life, until she was in her kid 20s. Her mother forbade running anywhere, and wouldn't let her even play outside (her mother believed it was too dangerous, and yes, her mother was crazy).
No, that's not what I said. I said what my character was, then mentioned the language thing as a funny afterthough based on what James Jacobs said (and I clarify, in that context and the context of which I was asking him as I made clear to JJ, I was asking him as A GM (who happened to create a lot of the setting) but still, only as a GM) after I'd already been told by the GM to GTFO. But then I also clarified later in the thread that I DO have the ranks in knowledges and the Scholar feat to back it up, even beyond the fact that I am a Gillman who speaks Aboleth.
As for growing up in a bubble, yeah it's very possible as it was for the woman you knew. But that wasn't my concept. The skills I gave the character did not reflect the concept of someone who grew up in a bubble.
As for the British thing... Am I an expert on British culture? No. Do I have a rank or two in Culture (British?) Maybe 1, at most. Did I expect my character to be an expert on Aboleth? No. Did I want her to know what they were and how they had oppressed her people and be paranoid as hell that they might return? Yes. Did I give her ranks in Knowledge Dungeoneering AND Knowledge History AND take the Scholar feat linked to those skills when as a frickin' dex based rogue I should have been taking weapon finesse? Yes.
So again, it goes to concept vs. mechanics... I specifically made a sub-optimal rogue to try to make sure I wasn't metagaming by knowing more than I should... which is again, why I say I think he's just gotten too used to the min-maxed powergamer that only cares about that max damage in combat to notice a concept that isn't all about that one-shotting the big bad.
And you know, I think now that's really why I fought him like I did. I was taking the Scholar feat to make sure I had the requisite knowledges. I very much would have been a better rogue if I had just taken Weapon Finesse. But he wasn't looking at that... he was just looking at and harping on "You know nothing about Aboleth even as a Gillman who speaks Aboleth as your native tongue." and dismissing me entirely, even though I kept telling him about my ranks and my Scholar feat... then when he finally did acknowledge it near the end, that's when he told me "You don't set the DC, I do."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You definitely made a good decision in leaving that table.
And as I've said, I would have ruled in your favor as a GM. I think you made all the right choices for you character to be able to know something, and as a gillmen from a culture with some interactions with Aboleths, the DC should have been set lower. That's kind of how knowledge DCs are supposed to work, the rarity of a creature is relative to the area and to the character.
I'm English. Ask me about British culture. And then I'll giggle a fair bit.
|
|
What the average Gillman knows of Aboleths should have little impact on what your PC knows of Aboleths. This is because your PC is the protagonist of the story, and is special. Even if the word "Aboleth" is not known in Gillman society, maybe your PC does know something, from whatever backstory you have.
On the other hand, let's say the Aboleths are the main villains of the campaign, and revealing their very existence is an important plot point. In this case, it would disrupt the flow of the story for you to have foreknowledge of Aboleths. In this case, the GM should have discussed this with you and come to some form of compromise.
As for Knowledge DCs, I side with your GM. The game is silent on what constitutes a "rare" monster, and Aboleth rarity is dependent on setting, which your GM controls.
True, but Aboleths have nothing to do with his game from all that he's told me. It's not even set in the main part of Golarion (from what I understand, they are in Osirion right now,) something else I took into account when I made her (and if he'd bothered to ask how I expected a Gillman to be so far from the water, I'd have told him she's Riverfolk, but he didn't give me the chance.)
And yeah, I'm a GM myself (and part of the reason this frustrates me so much is that I am ONLY a GM... so I come up with all these great concepts, but...I can't play them... and I can't really make them all NPCs either... so then when I do finally maybe get the chance to play in a game... it always seems like screw background just show me hack and slash... oh but dont' min-max cause min-maxing is bad, mkay? Well, seriously? You don't let me make a concept character, you won't let me throw concept out the window and min-max... what do you expect me to do? Concept is the only thing keeping me from making a fighter where I have an 18 STR 16 DEX etc, Dump CHA to 7. If you take concept away from me, there is nothing left for me to do than to make the fighter horror story that one shots dragons at level 10), so I know how the rarity works, however your former paragraph is more how I see it.
Like for example, once my PCs ran into a Black-Blooded Oracle who had just come into her abilities and even she didn't know about her "black-blooded" status and was kinda scared like OMG my blood is all black and I'm kind cold... what's wrong with me? Now, Black-Blooded Oracles are rare. VERY rare outside The Darklands. So, after we got past the rage of the player oracle because I had not allowed him to play a black-blood oracle (I don't remember telling him no, so not sure why I would have... it wasn't to reserve it for an NPC I hadn't created yet, I do know that)... I let him (and only him) make a roll vs. Religion (cause oracles) to see if he knew what she was. He rolled 29. Nope, sorry DC was 30. Went into another rage when he failed because Knowledge DCs never go higher than 25. I had to pull out the book and show him the DC can be 30+CR if I want it to and that the only reason I even let him roll at all was because he was playing an oracle.
All that said, anyone else have any other examples to share? I really don't want to keep making this thread all about my gillman character, that was never my intention from the beginning (which is why I chose General Discussion instead of Rules or Advice) LOL
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As per way above, what is frequently called Fluff is the point of playing, so I've been mystified by the constant usage of this in the message boards. I would generally have used background, or context, or any number of other words, instead of Fluff. I think this is the difference between people who just play games and people who see the game as a way of participating in a story, of experimenting with ideas and feelings. We come from literature and history, and even from philosophy and science. The Fluff is the sense of the real intruding upon the game. Again, of course, that means it's not really Fluff. The game mechanics are what is totally unreal, except in the game.
As per way above, what is frequently called Fluff is the point of playing, so I've been mystified by the constant usage of this in the message boards. I would generally have used background, or context, or any number of other words, instead of Fluff. I think this is the difference between people who just play games and people who see the game as a way of participating in a story, of experimenting with ideas and feelings. We come from literature and history, and even from philosophy and science. The Fluff is the sense of the real intruding upon the game. Again, of course, that means it's not really Fluff. The game mechanics are what is totally unreal, except in the game.
I can assure you that the fluff is only real in the game as well. And that it is very very mutable with only the smallest effort of one's imagination.
Anzyr, that's pretty much the standard viewpoint. That's where the usage of fluff as a term comes from. That the fluff is irrelevant. But my point is fluff is where the player attaches the character. If they don't, then they have no interest in playing. Mutability isn't the issue. Everyone has different ideas of their characters, beginning with the names of the classes, and all the other details. And, pointing to the start of the thread, when the fluff didn't make sense to our thread initiator, she bugged out. Fluff trumps mechanics. Mechanics provide narrative unpredictability, meaning suspense.
Anzyr, that's pretty much the standard viewpoint. That's where the usage of fluff as a term comes from. That the fluff is irrelevant. But my point is fluff is where the player attaches the character. If they don't, then they have no interest in playing. Mutability isn't the issue. Everyone has different ideas of their characters, beginning with the names of the classes, and all the other details. And, pointing to the start of the thread, when the fluff didn't make sense to our thread initiator, she bugged out. Fluff trumps mechanics. Mechanics provide narrative unpredictability, meaning suspense.
How does the non-mutable thing get trumped by something that is different for everyone? I don't care you envision your armor to work, I only care that the people playing the same game are using the correct mechanics for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fluff > Rules > Logic
Rule -1: Fluff overrides mechanics and rules, including this one.
Fluff > Rules > Logic
Rule -1: Fluff overrides mechanics and rules, including this one.
Flavor only trumps rules at certain tables, and even then only with a GM's permission. Otherwise the rules are ahead.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The crunch is the car.
The fluff is the driver.
A car without a driver makes for a dull story.
A driver without a car makes for an interesting plot hook.
We are the ones telling the story about the road trip.
The crunch is the car.
The fluff is the driver.
A car without a driver makes for a dull story.
A driver without a car makes for an interesting plot hook.
We are the ones telling the story about the road trip.
That is a matter of opinion. What is a fact is that the rules can allow or disallow certain flavor from taking place in a certain game system.
The crunch is the engine.
The flavor of the setting is the vehicle that is being propelled by the engine.
The flavor of the player's is the driver, unless you have a GM who treats you like characters in a story he is telling, but that is another topic. :)
Yes there is GM/dev provided flavor and player provided flavor, and they do different things.
Sometimes the GM will alter the engine so the vehicle runs better. Sometimes they will adopt the story so it fits better with the original engine(mechanics).
Sometimes they will use another engine or system if the current one is not going to do the story justice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Flavor only trumps rules at certain tables, and even then only with a GM's permission. Otherwise the rules are ahead.Fluff > Rules > Logic
Rule -1: Fluff overrides mechanics and rules, including this one.
Rules only trump at certain tables, even then only with a GM's permission. Otherwise the fluff is ahead.
Rules only trump at certain tables, even then only with a GM's permission. Otherwise the fluff is ahead.Flavor only trumps rules at certain tables, and even then only with a GM's permission. Otherwise the rules are ahead.Fluff > Rules > Logic
Rule -1: Fluff overrides mechanics and rules, including this one.
The fluff can never be ahead. Nobody sits down to a game of Pathfinder for the magical tea party. They sit down to play Pathfinder, because they like the mechanics of Pathfinder. Otherwise you would be playing a different system. Rules > all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fluff can never be ahead. Nobody sits down to a game of Pathfinder for the magical tea party. They sit down to play Pathfinder, because they like the mechanics of Pathfinder. Otherwise you would be playing a different system. Rules > all.Rules only trump at certain tables, even then only with a GM's permission. Otherwise the fluff is ahead.Flavor only trumps rules at certain tables, and even then only with a GM's permission. Otherwise the rules are ahead.Fluff > Rules > Logic
Rule -1: Fluff overrides mechanics and rules, including this one.
The rules can never be ahead. Nobody sits down to a game of Pathfinder for the spreadsheets. They sit down to play Pathfinder, because they like the collaborative story telling elements of Pathfinder. Otherwise you would be playing a different system. Fluff > All.
The rules can never be ahead. Nobody sits down to a game of Pathfinder for the spreadsheets. They sit down to play Pathfinder, because they like the collaborative story telling elements of Pathfinder. Otherwise you would be playing a different system. Fluff > All.The fluff can never be ahead. Nobody sits down to a game of Pathfinder for the magical tea party. They sit down to play Pathfinder, because they like the mechanics of Pathfinder. Otherwise you would be playing a different system. Rules > all.Rules only trump at certain tables, even then only with a GM's permission. Otherwise the fluff is ahead.Flavor only trumps rules at certain tables, and even then only with a GM's permission. Otherwise the rules are ahead.Fluff > Rules > Logic
Rule -1: Fluff overrides mechanics and rules, including this one.
Uh, you actually *can* play a different system with the same fluff (or play magical tea party). So this is demonstrably untrue.
I've seen both... I've participated in the so-called magical tea party and I've participated in pseudo-board game tables. They were both fun. To call one game Pathfinder and not the other seems bizarre to me especially when every game has so much table variance.Flavor only trumps rules at certain tables, and even then only with a GM's permission. Otherwise the rules are ahead.Rules only trump at certain tables, even then only with a GM's permission. Otherwise the fluff is ahead.
By definition, only a game using Pathfinder rules is a Pathfinder game. So it makes sense to me to only call a game using Pathfinder Rules a Pathfinder game, and a game using 3.5 rules a 3.5 game, even though both rule sets are very similar. Even exactly the same in some places!
This is what Anzyr is trying to say:
If you take away all the fluff and only use the mechanics, you're still playing Pathfinder the system. This is because Pathfinder is a set of rules meant to enable whatever fluff you want to use (if any).
If you take away all the rules and only use the fluff, then you're no longer playing Pathfinder. You may be using the same fluff, such as the description of Golarion, but you are not playing Pathfinder. You're playing make-believe.
Neither is wrong or right. Neither is badwrongfun. Both can be very enjoyable for different people (and some people love to do both!). But if you take away the rules, you stop playing Pathfinder as a game system; the same is not true if you take away the fluff.
Here's a real world example: if I were to take all the Golarion fluff and interject D&D 4E rules, I would not be playing Pathfinder - I'd be playing D&D 4E, just using the Golarion fluff. If I were to keep the Pathfider rules but not use Golarion - instead interject the D&D 2E Planescape fluff, I'd still be playing Pathfinder; I'm just using different fluff.
Hence, he claims that rules > fluff, because the rules determine which system you're using. The fluff helps enhance your imagination, but does not determine which rule set you're using.
Uh, you actually *can* play a different system with the same fluff (or play magical tea party). So this is demonstrably untrue.The rules can never be ahead. Nobody sits down to a game of Pathfinder for the spreadsheets. They sit down to play Pathfinder, because they like the collaborative story telling elements of Pathfinder. Otherwise you would be playing a different system. Fluff > All.The fluff can never be ahead. Nobody sits down to a game of Pathfinder for the magical tea party. They sit down to play Pathfinder, because they like the mechanics of Pathfinder. Otherwise you would be playing a different system. Rules > all.Rules only trump at certain tables, even then only with a GM's permission. Otherwise the fluff is ahead.Flavor only trumps rules at certain tables, and even then only with a GM's permission. Otherwise the rules are ahead.Fluff > Rules > Logic
Rule -1: Fluff overrides mechanics and rules, including this one.
Uh, you actually *can* play a different system with the same rules (or spreadsheet party). So this is demonstrably true.
Nobody sits down to a game of Pathfinder for the spreadsheets.
Some people do. They're usually referred to as munchkins or power gamers who care nothing for roleplaying (and this generalized characterization is what brought about the Stormwind Fallacy). Also, some people only care about the mathematics of the game, like one of my old calculus teachers.
So quite literally, some people do sit down to play a game of pathfinder for the spreadsheets.
This is what Anzyr is trying to say:
If you take away all the fluff and only use the mechanics, you're still playing Pathfinder the system. This is because Pathfinder is a set of rules meant to enable whatever fluff you want to use (if any).
If you take away all the rules and only use the fluff, then you're no longer playing Pathfinder. You may be using the same fluff, such as the description of Golarion, but you are not playing Pathfinder. You're playing make-believe.
I agree with the logic above. But when I imagine somebody claiming "Fluff > Mechanics", I imagine the table to generally follow this flow:
1) By default, rely on base mechanics of game.
2) If any rules disagreements occur, or if rules disagree with fluff, prioritize fluff.
I have doubts that people who say Fluff > Mechanics are so extreme that they play without the Core Rulebook. But the internet and world is vast. Maybe there are some "Pathfinder" tables that play without Core. In such a case, I agree with you.
I was trying to figure out a way to characterize the other side of the argument, but I couldn't think of anything to my satisfaction. I think you nailed it perfectly.
I believe that Rhedyn and Anzyr are debating from two very different assumptions and that's why neither can see the other's point.