@thejeff, they said they don't have the magicmart at their local market center.So?
Doesn't mean the GM can't drop useful stuff and tailor it for the weaker characters - rather than tailoring to keep WBL even.
oh i thought you meant selling old gear to give to the weaker character.
|
It's an effort to be fair. It's all fun and games until someone dies. The games I run can get pretty violent...and I don't want anyone to be tangibly handicapped.
Some players are more aggressive and/ or charismatic than others...over the course of a campaign a shrewd player can accrue quite an advantage over his or her well intention-ed comrades.
So I make sure that the wallflowers get a chance to have nice things too.
Ok this I understand.
i just want to be able to buy magically enchanted dragon barding... WITHOUT ENSLAVING A TOWN AND A WIZARD!
I don't make a point of dropping +5 magical crutches to patch up peoples non-functioning character designs. Everyone gets the same allotment. It's a resource management game too.
Seems like a form of "Molly-coddling" to basically reward characters for sucking. *shrug*Considering this entire discussion about balancing gear started off about using magic items to help balance the martial/caster divide, that seems a bit of an extreme reaction.
If you're not looking for a way to do that, the last several pages are pretty much moot.
Guess I'll play a druid and not worry about it. :)
I'm just not out to use treasure drops to balance the classes. I have alot of houserules that I use to address the martial/caster disparity...like differing advancements for classes, called shots and killing blows...limited higher level magic etc.. I could go on and on.
That's a whole different can of worms.All those rules exist outside the gameworld, loot division is done by the PCs. I can drop items...but it's up to the players really.
I would be all for martials getting special Items as class features,but I don't think that those items should be given at the expense of others in game.
Some players are more aggressive and/ or charismatic than others...over the course of a campaign a shrewd player can accrue quite an advantage over his or her well intention-ed comrades.
So I make sure that the wallflowers get a chance to have nice things too.
This is definitely one of the issues I've seen when loot division is handled by way of "items go to whoever speaks up about wanting them." That one game I mentioned previously where half the party was loaded down with magical gear while the other half was practically naked is what happens when half the players are very aggressive about calling dibs on loot, and the other half are passive types who don't want to start a confrontation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seems like a form of "Molly-coddling" to basically reward characters for sucking. *shrug*
I think that really speaks to play style. Based on what you've stated, I assume that you are expecting all of your players to make, at a minimum, reasonably powerful characters.
If all of your players are on board with that and enjoy the character creation/optimization angle of the game, that probably works well.
For me, I let the players make whatever character they want, regardless of power level, as I assume that's the character they want to play. In my most recent Pathfinder campaign that I GMed, there was a player that created a ranged rogue based on throwing daggers.
After a few sessions in, it was pretty clear that he was underpowered compared to his fellow PCs. I created a custom magic item that the PC group eventually found, which essentially buffed the ranged rogue up to a point where the player felt like he was able to contribute well again.
The player was happier, the group liked that he was able to contribute more, etc. To me it was a win-win. Maybe it was "molly-coddling" to some degree, but the alternative seems to be "Sorry, you didn't do enough research, your character is going to suck. Sucks to be you."
Seems like a form of "Molly-coddling" to basically reward characters for sucking. *shrug*I think that really speaks to play style. Based on what you've stated, I assume that you are expecting all of your players to make, at a minimum, reasonably powerful characters.
If all of your players are on board with that and enjoy the character creation/optimization angle of the game, that probably works well.
For me, I let the players make whatever character they want, regardless of power level, as I assume that's the character they want to play. In my most recent Pathfinder campaign that I GMed, there was a player that created a ranged rogue based on throwing daggers.
After a few sessions in, it was pretty clear that he was underpowered compared to his fellow PCs. I created a custom magic item that the PC group eventually found, which essentially buffed the ranged rogue up to a point where the player felt like he was able to contribute well again.
The player was happier, the group liked that he was able to contribute more, etc. To me it was a win-win. Maybe it was "molly-coddling" to some degree, but the alternative seems to be "Sorry, you didn't do enough research, your character is going to suck. Sucks to be you."
I think, as is often the case when it comes to GMing issues, it's all about execution. The line between the GM helping one of the players out with a couple special items and outright GM favoritism can be a very fuzzy one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seems like a form of "Molly-coddling" to basically reward characters for sucking. *shrug*I think that really speaks to play style. Based on what you've stated, I assume that you are expecting all of your players to make, at a minimum, reasonably powerful characters.
If all of your players are on board with that and enjoy the character creation/optimization angle of the game, that probably works well.
For me, I let the players make whatever character they want, regardless of power level, as I assume that's the character they want to play. In my most recent Pathfinder campaign that I GMed, there was a player that created a ranged rogue based on throwing daggers.
After a few sessions in, it was pretty clear that he was underpowered compared to his fellow PCs. I created a custom magic item that the PC group eventually found, which essentially buffed the ranged rogue up to a point where the player felt like he was able to contribute well again.
The player was happier, the group liked that he was able to contribute more, etc. To me it was a win-win. Maybe it was "molly-coddling" to some degree, but the alternative seems to be "Sorry, you didn't do enough research, your character is going to suck. Sucks to be you."
Especially since the starting point for this discussion was "Can we use items to address caster/martial issues?"
So it's not even "You built a lousy character."
Except they kind of did? And that's the issue. That some classes have an inherent ability to be lousier then others. Your class shouldn't need help to do what the other classes are already doing. Your class should just be able to do things to stay competitive. And as Chengar Qordath states above, this looks a whole lot like favoritism and the best way to dispel that is to come right out and say "I'm propping up X's character with magic items." And if that's the case, why not just fix the class?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your class shouldn't need help to do what the other classes are already doing. Your class should just be able to do things to stay competitive.
IME, there are too many variables to assume that this is always the case. There's player skill in optimization, the amount of time/desire the player has to spend researching/optimizing their character, luck, etc.
If you're playing with 4 or 5 other players who all really enjoy the art of creating a powerful character, I would agree that the GM doesn't need to try to lift anyone up. In that kind of a setup, not having a powerful character is viewed as the player's own fault.
My group is much more casual. The players don't spend a lot of time creating their characters or optimizing them. They pick the options that sound fun or most thematically fit the character concept they're going for.
And as Chengar Qordath states above, this looks a whole lot like favoritism and the best way to dispel that is to come right out and say "I'm propping up X's character with magic items." And if that's the case, why not just fix the class?
For favoritism to be a problem, there sort of has to exist a competitive mindset. Like Player A is trying to create a more powerful character than Player B. If the GM gives player B something above what Player A gets, then Player A can complain of favoritism because Player B's character is now more powerful because of something beyond that player's skill in creating a character.
In my group, we don't have any of this. No one is trying to "beat" the other players as far as character power is concerned. The primary focus is on taking part in the collaborative story that we're creating,
As an example, in the most recent PF campaign I was in (where I was a player), the GM of the group gave one of the players a +1 sword at level 1 as a result of his character's background story. None of the other players complained (some of them got other story rewards, some did not.)
I know there are a lot of players that would go into a rage hearing something like this. Demanding to know exactly why one player got something the other players did not, demanding to know objectively how one background story was better than the other, etc.
That's just never been a problem for us.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For favoritism to be a problem, there sort of has to exist a competitive mindset. Like Player A is trying to create a more powerful character than Player B. If the GM gives player B something above what Player A gets, then Player A can complain of favoritism because Player B's character is now more powerful because of something beyond that player's skill in creating a character.
In my group, we don't have any of this. No one is trying to "beat" the other players as far as character power is concerned. The primary focus is on taking part in the collaborative story that we're creating,
As an example, in the most recent PF campaign I was in (where I was a player), the GM of the group gave one of the players a +1 sword at level 1 as a result of his character's background story. None of the other players complained (some of them got other story rewards, some did not.)
I know...
I think stuff like you describe is pretty common. The messageboards, especially the sections about rules, are going to attract the hardcore people who have the books basically memorized, and play in a lot of games, games with people who they don't know really well. In my past games, I can honestly say they were all with people that I was already friends with, and only about half of the players spent any time looking through rule books outside of the game. I don't think any of us would have recognized if one player got something way more valuable than someone else, or if we were under WBL or not.
Seems like a form of "Molly-coddling" to basically reward characters for sucking. *shrug*I think that really speaks to play style. Based on what you've stated, I assume that you are expecting all of your players to make, at a minimum, reasonably powerful characters.
If all of your players are on board with that and enjoy the character creation/optimization angle of the game, that probably works well.
For me, I let the players make whatever character they want, regardless of power level, as I assume that's the character they want to play. In my most recent Pathfinder campaign that I GMed, there was a player that created a ranged rogue based on throwing daggers.
After a few sessions in, it was pretty clear that he was underpowered compared to his fellow PCs. I created a custom magic item that the PC group eventually found, which essentially buffed the ranged rogue up to a point where the player felt like he was able to contribute well again.
The player was happier, the group liked that he was able to contribute more, etc. To me it was a win-win. Maybe it was "molly-coddling" to some degree, but the alternative seems to be "Sorry, you didn't do enough research, your character is going to suck. Sucks to be you."
hmmm, i make players feats in those situations not magic items.
Seems like a form of "Molly-coddling" to basically reward characters for sucking. *shrug*I think that really speaks to play style. Based on what you've stated, I assume that you are expecting all of your players to make, at a minimum, reasonably powerful characters.
If all of your players are on board with that and enjoy the character creation/optimization angle of the game, that probably works well.
For me, I let the players make whatever character they want, regardless of power level, as I assume that's the character they want to play. In my most recent Pathfinder campaign that I GMed, there was a player that created a ranged rogue based on throwing daggers.
After a few sessions in, it was pretty clear that he was underpowered compared to his fellow PCs. I created a custom magic item that the PC group eventually found, which essentially buffed the ranged rogue up to a point where the player felt like he was able to contribute well again.
The player was happier, the group liked that he was able to contribute more, etc. To me it was a win-win. Maybe it was "molly-coddling" to some degree, but the alternative seems to be "Sorry, you didn't do enough research, your character is going to suck. Sucks to be you."
Yeah, I and most of my players are also wargamers. I try to address any imbalance with houserules. The goal is for the players to have the same types of opportunities. We do play rather competitively though.
And that's the issue. That some classes have an inherent ability to be lousier then others.
This.
Yes, I did it. I quoted Anzyr and said he's right. :)
I think stuff like you describe is pretty common. The messageboards, especially the sections about rules, are going to attract the hardcore people who have the books basically memorized, and play in a lot of games, games with people who they don't know really well. In my past games, I can honestly say they were all with people that I was already friends with, and only about half of the players spent any time looking through rule books outside of the game. I don't think any of us would have recognized if one player got something way more valuable than someone else, or if we were under WBL or not.
I'm glad to hear that. I was starting to wonder if my group and I were off on an island and 80-90% of people play as described by some of the posts on here.
When comparing the two different play styles, it is sort of like each side is speaking a different dialect of the same language - a lot of confusion.
Edit:
Yeah, I and most of my players are also wargamers. I try to address any imbalance with houserules. The goal is for the players to have the same types of opportunities. We do play rather competitively though.
Okay, that makes a lot of sense. Thank you for clarifying. I was really confused for a short while.
If I was to play competitively, I would want as close to zero GM involvement as possible in order to level the playing field between the players.
Sounds like you guys have it set-up well with house rules that are known about beforehand.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm really amused by the way this discussion has gone over the last few pages:
"Martials can't really keep up with casters, especially with all the utility stuff casters can dop."
"They can do all that stuff with magic items."
"But WBL means casters get just as much gear, so they stay ahead."
"Well, you could divide up the loot differently."
"Nobody would accept dividing the loot unfairly."
"My group does."
"So, in such a group, you could use gear drops to help balance."
"Molly-coddling to reward characters for sucking!"
you ignored me and Chengar Qordath.
I think stuff like you describe is pretty common. The messageboards, especially the sections about rules, are going to attract the hardcore people who have the books basically memorized, and play in a lot of games, games with people who they don't know really well. In my past games, I can honestly say they were all with people that I was already friends with, and only about half of the players spent any time looking through rule books outside of the game. I don't think any of us would have recognized if one player got something way more valuable than someone else, or if we were under WBL or not.I'm glad to hear that. I was starting to wonder if my group and I were off on an island and 80-90% of people play as described by some of the posts on here.
When comparing the two different play styles, it is sort of like each side is speaking a different dialect of the same language - a lot of confusion.
I've played many times under several different groups with the dibs method, it just doesn't end well for many people. look get's divided unequally and the type of people who aren't going to call dibs on that fancy new sword because someone else did, are also the same people who aren't going to talk to their GM about the issue.
you NEED a lot of trust and mutual respect between the people or it just doesn't work. you basically need a gentleman's agreement to make the system work.
Pardon my pedantic observation, but I think the problem is less realism and where some peoples' verisimilitude is compromised.
Because verisimilitude is tied to peoples' paradigms of what 'fits' and what doesn't.
Which is highly subjective, to be fair, but also subject the strident not-racism that is 'no wuxia/Eastern style action', when they are just fine with, say, the principles of alchemy that touch on Eastern mysticism, or magic based on said region, but not the martial mythos that is just as integral.
While I disagree vehemently with that view, I at least understand it in the same way I understand people being unwilling to parse Gunslingers in their high fantasy.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
you ignored me and Chengar Qordath.I'm really amused by the way this discussion has gone over the last few pages:
"Martials can't really keep up with casters, especially with all the utility stuff casters can dop."
"They can do all that stuff with magic items."
"But WBL means casters get just as much gear, so they stay ahead."
"Well, you could divide up the loot differently."
"Nobody would accept dividing the loot unfairly."
"My group does."
"So, in such a group, you could use gear drops to help balance."
"Molly-coddling to reward characters for sucking!"That's fair. Though I think we agree it's a flaw in the system. Dividing loot differently can be used to mitigate that flaw.
So can house rules, but those also require trust and system knowledge.
EXACTLY WHY I WANT PEOPLE TO STOP DENYING IT EXISTS BECAUSE THEIR GROUP THEY'VE PLAYED WITH FOREVER HASN'T SEEN IT.
it;s out there, it is a thing, and it does create problems, so paizo should realize it exists so they can stop the system from making it hard on new players. the system should work as written, not work as written after you've made several unspoken rules on code of conduct.
Wit groups I play in it tends to be less a 'dibs' method as a 'first look for the obvious best use as a party. Then ask who has an open slot of the kind required, then look for dibs - if someone ends up low on items they either move to the front of the crafting queue, or the group donates money either from the party fund or their personal stashes to help get them something nice.
"This requires a lot of trust and game knowledge, which isn't usually found in new players, making the system harder on new players while not harder on vets, this is a flaw in the system"
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
EXACTLY WHY I WANT PEOPLE TO STOP DENYING IT EXISTS BECAUSE THEIR GROUP THEY'VE PLAYED WITH FOREVER HASN'T SEEN IT.
it's out there, it is a thing, and it does create problems, so paizo should realize it exists so they can stop the system from making it hard on new players. the system should work as written, not work as written after you've made several unspoken rules on code of conduct.
I wish I could "like" this post a hundred times.
If the game works fine with all these unspoken agreements, let's speak them. Let's print them right there in the rulebook where they need to be. Instead of a wealth-by-level table, the book should have a chapter on what custom items you have to give out to certain classes in order to make them viable -- or better yet, include those items in the class description. If every fighter always gets an artifact sword at around 10th level, and that's why fighters rock in your games, then put that right there in the fighter table:
Level 10 - BAB +10/+5 - Fort +7/Ref +3/Will +3 - Special: artifact sword (Su).
If crafting isn't a problem because you keep everyone on tight schedules that don't allow it -- then why not just remove the crafting feats in the first place?
If the game works fine with all these unspoken agreements, let's speak them. Let's print them right there in the rulebook where they need to be. Instead of a wealth-by-level table, the book should have a chapter on what custom items you have to give out to certain classes in order to make them viable -- or better yet, include those items in the class description.
I would argue that doing so is impossible, because each group is so different. Even if you play 100% RAW with no house rules, and only play Paizo APs, I'd be willing to bet there is a large difference in what people experience.
Even if Paizo took your suggestion, and printed a new rule book and wrote all of these unwritten reasons why things balance out, there would still be balance issues.
The best solution is to put out a best effort at balance, and then leave it in the hands of each GM and each group to make the rules fit their group. And that is what Paizo did.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The best solution is to put out a best effort at balance, and then leave it in the hands of each GM and each group to make the rules fit their group. And that is what Paizo did.
oh lordy no they didn't
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
EXACTLY WHY I WANT PEOPLE TO STOP DENYING IT EXISTS BECAUSE THEIR GROUP THEY'VE PLAYED WITH FOREVER HASN'T SEEN IT.
it's out there, it is a thing, and it does create problems, so paizo should realize it exists so they can stop the system from making it hard on new players. the system should work as written, not work as written after you've made several unspoken rules on code of conduct.
I wish I could "like" this post a hundred times.
If the game works fine with all these unspoken agreements, let's speak them. Let's print them right there in the rulebook where they need to be. Instead of a wealth-by-level table, the book should have a chapter on what custom items you have to give out to certain classes in order to make them viable -- or better yet, include those items in the class description. If every fighter always gets an artifact sword at around 10th level, and that's why fighters rock in your games, then put that right there in the fighter table:
Level 10 - BAB +10/+5 - Fort +7/Ref +3/Will +3 - Special: artifact sword (Su).If crafting isn't a problem because you keep everyone on tight schedules that don't allow it -- then why not just remove the crafting feats in the first place?
I think there are several tangled issues at work here. One...fixing martial-caster disparity presents 2 options. One...you fix it in future hardcovers. Unfortunately, doing this may lead to definite power creep, as suddenly you are obsoleting sections of the core rulebook. And if the fix that is required is say...more elemental to the game system, like changing buff durations or action economy, there might be further ripple effects that can create problems elsewhere in the game.
Alternatively, you can do a new edition, but that presents all of its own issues, and economically it isn't feasible to do this while a game is still successful.
The Caster-Martial problem is real, I don't doubt that. However it's severity varies from table to table, depending on GM and play style, optimization, level played, experience, houserules, and reading of the rules. In the games I have played it really hasn't been a huge issue, for the above listed reasons. I am sure that applies to many other people. It's basically a problem that hasn't hampered playability of the game for most, and because of that isn't hampering sales.
At the moment, core rule book sales grow every year, so this problem isn't dramatic enough for Paizo to consider it in need of a major fix. I do hope fighters get boosted and 9 level casters get nerfed in the next edition, but until then I don't expect the issue to be addressed.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The best solution is to put out a best effort at balance, and then leave it in the hands of each GM and each group to make the rules fit their group. And that is what Paizo did.
I would counter-argue that the Paizo staff are so used to the gentleman's agreements and unspoken nerfings and so on that they aren't even consciously aware of them anymore. Most of those guys started playing when I did, and from what they've reported they play the way we used to, so I can totally sympathize. But the downside is that, since the unspoken fixes are second nature, they're never pointed out in the rulebooks. Down the line, people are not able to see where those practices are, in fact, being used to sidestep massive imbalances that are written directly into the rules.
I think they therefore make no effort to balance anything at all, not even a token one, and that "The DM will fix it" is more a guiding principle than a last-ditch resort.
I think that a fair amount of the fanbase has been brainwashed into thinking that "The DM fixes everything" is the most divine, noble principle ever enshrined -- to the point where they actively want the rules to be as imbalanced as possible, to give them more opportunity to enact that principle. I also think that a fair proportion of those aren't honest enough to admit it -- maybe not even to themselves -- and therefore claim that there is no imbalance to begin with.
The best solution is to put out a best effort at balance, and then leave it in the hands of each GM and each group to make the rules fit their group. And that is what Paizo did.I would counter-argue that the Paizo staff are so used to the gentleman's agreements and unspoken nerfings and so on that they aren't even consciously aware of them anymore. Most of those guys started playing when I did, and from what they've reported they play the way we used to, so I can totally sympathize. But the downside is that, since the unspoken fixes are second nature, they're never pointed out in the rulebooks. Down the line, people are not able to see where those practices are, in fact, being used to sidestep massive imbalances that are written directly into the rules.
I think they therefore make no effort to balance anything at all, not even a token one, and that "The DM will fix it" is more a guiding principle than a last-ditch resort.
I think that a fair amount of the fanbase has been brainwashed into thinking that "The DM fixes everything" is the most divine, noble principle ever enshrined -- to the point where they actively want the rules to be as imbalanced as possible, to give them more opportunity to enact that principle. I also think that a fair proportion of those aren't honest enough to admit it -- maybe not even to themselves -- and therefore claim that there is no imbalance to begin with.
OTOH, it's unclear to me how much these problems come up in novice games. They seem to me more linked to a certain kind of optimization/build focused game. Really it's only when the guy playing the caster starts figuring out all the God Wizard tricks that you really run into problems.
If you and your buddies pick up the game for the first time and start playing characters like your favorite fantasy characters, you're generally not going to see the real problems. At least until high level. Which your early campaigns aren't going to reach most likely.It's...
oh lordy no it's heightened by inexperience, fighters rogues and monks need to be fine tuned to be good in combat let alone out of combat. then you mix in the balanced 2/3 casters or the 1/2 casters and they're just so much better simply because they have class abilities that can be magical.
wizards even have a higher starting floor than those classes, you just pump your casting stat in no-nonsense way and then pick all the generic/thematic wizard spells and it just works. you can pick any feats you want at that point, the wizard prepares spells that work for him and doesn't prepare the spells that didn't work for him.
And that's the issue. That some classes have an inherent ability to be lousier then others.This.
Yes, I did it. I quoted Anzyr and said he's right. :)
*swivels chair, steeples fingers, smiles like a shark*
Do not worry Mr. Just a Guess, I can assure you it is much like everything else. It gets easier the more you do it.
(Sorry been wanting to use that line =P)
As someone who has gotten into D&D around the beginning of Pathfinder, all of the unspoken assumptions just drive me up the wall. It's like there is a giant elephant in the corner of the room and all of the oldtimers and developers act like it isn't there at all and even get upset if you mention it. This game has a huge amount of pitfalls that the more experienced players navigate around without even thinking about.
That's some valuable feedback, thanks for sharing. It sounds like you want in black and white some of the more common interpretations / house rules. My concern would be that if that was done, and let's say a new version (Pathfinder 2,) I believe the same kind of arguments or issues would then crop up from that new baseline.
I'll use an exaggerated example here. Should the CRB have to say something like "While it might be easy to acquire a lot of gear quickly by killing merchant NPCs (or perhaps your comrades,) you shouldn't do that?"
I'd be curious to see, from your point of view, what a few of these unspoken assumptions are though.
This is a game, not an imagination book.
Ah, but it is an imagination book. Every rule, every bit of descriptive text, every part of the book is designed with the goal of allowing you to imagine a character adventuring in another world.
Based on your separation of these two, you seem to have a lot of disdain for "imagination books." Why? Do you feel that if there is not a concrete rule for something, then the game loses its value?
Obviously the Game Master is meant to handle some of these situations, but if you feel that a Game Master having to make a ruling or wing it causes the game to not be as fun, I would suggest that a different rule set would work much better for you.
And I don't mean that in the dismissive "go play something else" manner, I mean that the game is literally designed around the concept that there will be a GM in place handling these things.
If you're looking for a fixed game system, with hard-coded rules in place, which you then can master once you learn all the fiddly bits, TTRPGS are generally not going to be able to provide that kind of environment.
"allowing you to imagine a character adventuring in another world."
I would say that no the book isn't designed for you to imagine a character in another world, it allows you to play a character in another world. once again pathfinder is a game, games have rules, a win-lose condition. imagination does not. if you pay for a book with a bunch of rules you definitely want them to be good rules.
you don't play imagination, you play a game, you want things with in the game to mechanically make sense, when something is level 12, everything else level 12 should have the same power, it's on the same level. when that isn't there it makes it hard to play meaningfully. it becomes hard to trust the rules and thus hard to put effort into playing with those rules.
basically, think of paizo as a 2nd game master helping you game(it tries to give your guidelines on how to play, when this happens, you should roll this to determine how successful it is), if his game mastering is poor then you want to move onto something else. this just leads to the decay of the industry.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ideally, the imagination stuff and the rules are mutually reinforcing -- that is, playing by the rules as written leads to exactly the kind of imaginary stories you're trying to create. The old Victory Games 007 rules were the best at that I've ever seen -- a lot of the rules, upon reading them, were apparently nonsensical or even asinine, but if you followed them, game play almost inexorably had the "feel" of a James Bond movie.
Pathfinder is sort of the opposite -- the rules don't actually support the kinds of stories that the APs are trying to tell. As a result, it's a lot of extra work to get them to mesh, and in some cases that's detrimental to the immersion (the level of railroading that's needed in some of the APs goes beyond anything that a lot of people are comfortable with, for example).
PF doesn't support everything, but it does cover a lot and thus can't drive any one style as forcefully as you say the Bond game did.
GURPS covers a lot more than Pathfinder does, if that's your thing -- but in many cases, it does so poorly, and I don't think it has anywhere near the fanbase that Pathfinder does. Chess does one thing and one thing only, but it does that well enough that the fanbase is worldwide, and the nation of Iceland was willing to offer Bobby Fischer citizenship on the strength of his playing.
The issues I have with Kirthfinder is that it is probably way too dense in options for a good game for beginners and there are still issues with how it is organized (since it was based on the CRB organization structure). There's also missing pieces where it refers to the CRB. It also means that if I play it, I'm limited to a small group of personal friends and I can't go out and expect others to know how to play it.
EXACTLY WHY I WANT PEOPLE TO STOP DENYING IT EXISTS BECAUSE THEIR GROUP THEY'VE PLAYED WITH FOREVER HASN'T SEEN IT.
it's out there, it is a thing, and it does create problems, so paizo should realize it exists so they can stop the system from making it hard on new players. the system should work as written, not work as written after you've made several unspoken rules on code of conduct.
I wish I could "like" this post a hundred times.
If the game works fine with all these unspoken agreements, let's speak them. Let's print them right there in the rulebook where they need to be. Instead of a wealth-by-level table, the book should have a chapter on what custom items you have to give out to certain classes in order to make them viable -- or better yet, include those items in the class description. If every fighter always gets an artifact sword at around 10th level, and that's why fighters rock in your games, then put that right there in the fighter table:
Level 10 - BAB +10/+5 - Fort +7/Ref +3/Will +3 - Special: artifact sword (Su).If crafting isn't a problem because you keep everyone on tight schedules that don't allow it -- then why not just remove the crafting feats in the first place?
Lol, now that's a class ability!
It's been interesting to see all the forum activity lately on the martial-caster disparity, the gaming den had this discussion years ago, and so did paizo, balancing the divide was one of the original pitches behind Pathfinder.
3.0 was a sea change in terms of rules clarity and being explicit, reducing the need for gentleman agreements and whatnot. 3.5 then Pathfinder made various changes that have mostly resulted in a better game but have made it more complex and difficult for new players to immediately access.
Paizo should re release the corebook with updates, collect all the FAQ errata, answer some outstanding questions like weapon size damage, and consider a few cosmetic tweaks and rewrite a couple spells.
Bigger changes need to be made as well, like feats, feats always sucked and feats chains suck and having a thousand feats that are mostly terrible really hurts new player retention. Instead they seem to be making new classes with a tailored feat list, which is ok but somewhat disingenuous, a new player shouldn't be buying the core book and rolling up a fighter and then having an awful experience which is what happens without gentleman agreements and experienced players essentially telling them to ignore those rules and do something different instead.
Thanks for your reply.
It makes for a huge burden on the GM, and makes it extremely daunting for a new group. Our original plan was for rotating GMs, but all of the gentleman agreements and balancing the game offloads onto the GM means that people without a strong sense of balance and understanding of how the game functions cannot do the GM role.
I will definitely agree with you there. In the past, bringing in new players to the hobby was sort of a rite of passage, passed down from experienced GM to newbie players. In my case I actually learned from my dad. I've heard similar stories of people learning from older brothers, cousins, etc.
Learning PF from scratch with all new people would definitely be a lot of work and a lot of mistakes would be made.
I'm not sure what the solution here is - I personally love playing with new, uninitiated people, as you get to see them learn the game and try doing things with a fresh viewpoint. A lot of times after various experiences, good and bad, people become jaded and they're less interested in the story part of the game, and more focused on the mechanics.
One attraction of TTRPGs is the freedom to do things that the rules/computers don't anticipate and having a GM there to adjudicate. The problem is how frequently it isn't something that arises for an odd edge case or corner case, but fundamental aspects of the game design.
I agree that fundamental aspects of the game actually require a GM, but I would say that's a feature rather than a bug. I like the fact that each different GM has a different style, different strengths, different weaknesses.
I like when I sit down to game that I am getting (aside from APs) a truly unique experience that only a handful of people have been able to experience. Its almost like a custom-tailored game just for me.
When I GM (which is most of the time) I try to offer this same experience to the players. I find that rules-heavy systems like PF really bind my creativity.
I'd guess it all goes back to personal preference. Some players like to have concrete rules because that's what they expect, some like concrete rules as a hedge against a GM's discretion, and others prefer that all of the rules are viewed only as guidelines.
I want to be able to be inspired by a movie or a story and to have a game framework that lets me play out an alternate storyline in one of those settings with a group of friends.
It sounds like you want to play a game where there isn't much of a role for a GM - where you don't have to guess what the GM is going to think or if what you want to attempt will be successful based on the whims of one GM or another. And you also don't want to have to burden one of your friends with doing the work that is required of the GM.
That is understandable, but kind of comes with the territory of TTRPGs. GMing is definitely a lot of work, and having a GM in a game definitely requires players to be reasonable and flexible.
To me it is a matter of a trade off. You can find online games where you and your friends can play together (some for free.) Those games provide a mostly stable rule set that doesn't regularly change. No one has to put a whole lot of work into playing.
On the flip side, millions of other people have already experienced those games, completed the same quests, acquired the best items, etc. Its a static experience.
I'm not sure you can get the second kind of experience in a table-top format.
GURPS handles multiple genres, which is different.
When one 3.X game is the Age of Worms, and another one is the carnival adventure that Nick Logue did a while back, I think it can be argued that different styles vs. different genres is a gray area, not a firm dividing line.
It's not like the Bond game you mentioned took the rpg world by storm. It was successful, but didn't dislodge D&D.
That's the point -- it didn't try to. It did its own thing, well enough that all the Top Secret players I knew very quickly abandoned that system in favor of 007 -- but it didn't try to do D&D's thing at all. Like Eastwood said, "A man's got to know his limitations."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The best solution is to put out a best effort at balance, and then leave it in the hands of each GM and each group to make the rules fit their group. And that is what Paizo did.I would counter-argue that the Paizo staff are so used to the gentleman's agreements and unspoken nerfings and so on that they aren't even consciously aware of them anymore. Most of those guys started playing when I did, and from what they've reported they play the way we used to, so I can totally sympathize. But the downside is that, since the unspoken fixes are second nature, they're never pointed out in the rulebooks. Down the line, people are not able to see where those practices are, in fact, being used to sidestep massive imbalances that are written directly into the rules.
I think they therefore make no effort to balance anything at all, not even a token one, and that "The DM will fix it" is more a guiding principle than a last-ditch resort.
I think that a fair amount of the fanbase has been brainwashed into thinking that "The DM fixes everything" is the most divine, noble principle ever enshrined -- to the point where they actively want the rules to be as imbalanced as possible, to give them more opportunity to enact that principle. I also think that a fair proportion of those aren't honest enough to admit it -- maybe not even to themselves -- and therefore claim that there is no imbalance to begin with.
I never thought about it that way before, but it's true. The reason I don't see alot of the issues people bring up on here in my own home games is because I've been a DM for so long that I know what to do to make the game work the way I like. I hadn't considered how much of that was due to my experience.
I never thought about it that way before, but it's true. The reason I don't see alot of the issues people bring up on here in my own home games is because I've been a DM for so long that I know what to do to make the game work the way I like. I hadn't considered how much of that was due to my experience.
And it's exactly that experience that I'd like to see spelled out for the newer players. I never argue with success! If you're able to get the game to work, you're doing something right -- something that a lot of people would also very much like to know how to do.
I think stuff like you describe is pretty common. The messageboards, especially the sections about rules, are going to attract the hardcore people who have the books basically memorized, and play in a lot of games, games with people who they don't know really well. In my past games, I can honestly say they were all with people that I was already friends with, and only about half of the players spent any time looking through rule books outside of the game. I don't think any of us would have recognized if one player got something way more valuable than someone else, or if we were under WBL or not.
My experience does not match yours. Things have improved over the years but even as a group of friends we had favoritism. Not just in which characters got which items, but which characters were put in favorable positions and which got punished regularly for the choices they made (regardless of whether they were good/bad, or in/out of character).
By group of friends, I mean:
-some have known each other since middle school, all of us since high school (we graduated late last century)
-everyone has been in the wedding party of at least one other person
-everyone who is married, the wives are all friends and regularly hang out together
To compare two characters:
Paladin 15/Cleric 1
+3 sword
+3 armor
Belt of Strength +4
Headband of Charisma +4
Boots of Speed
Cleric 11 (13 with racial adjustment, this was back in 3.0/3.5)
+1 Flaming Greataxe, but it required a standard action (and access to a fire, like a torch or campfire) to make it flaming, so really it was a +1.
We helped fix this issue by sitting down and talking. We insisted on a closer (but not absolute) adherence to the rules to try and balance things out. It took a few years to adjust, but our campaigns have gotten fairer and as a result, been more enjoyable as well.