What has this game become?

[voideternal]

TheRealHoratio wrote:

do the types of gamers that make these characters do so because they want to be able to breeze through the content, or because they want the challenge of seeing what they can survive?

People that make characters using many different sourcebooks are people that are willing to spend hours reading rules. They are people who care about rules mechanics.

They might be optimizers. They might be players who want to actualize a certain roleplaying concept, as Kalindlara says. I don't know.

They might want an easy game where PCs are steamrollers. They might want a big challenge. There isn't enough information to tell.

However, what I can tell is that the PCs care about rules. That's why they spend a lot of time looking through the 5~6 sourcebooks. What this means is that, as a GM, you might want to think twice before using arbitrary handwavium to bend the rules. Otherwise, these players might feel it's unfair that you cast aside hours of pre-planning with only a few words.

Sorry I can't help much. The only thing I'm basing my post off is that your players have (mechanically) complex characters :/

[Scythia]

Taku Ooka Nin wrote:

Scythia wrote:

Taku Ooka Nin wrote:

Ensure that they fight ample NPCs, but don't let them loot the NPCs gear [make it out of b~*$*&$#onium that falls apart when exposed to whatever it is going to be exposed to if the PCs try to sell it if you have to].

The old school Drow approach.

Dm: "By the way, their awesome gear disintegrates in sunlight"

P1: "Ah-ha, I'll just keep it in a sealed container and use it at night"

DM: "Um, also it loses it's power completely when outside the Underdark for a couple days"

I hated the failsafes they used to let Drow have great gear but prevent players from using it.

This isn't really a problem. Just allow crafting feats. Just deus ex machina a means by which the PCs can sell the treasures they've found. Realistically any group with crafting feats is going to hork everything and craft whatever they specifically want.

Maybe they have a bag of devouring that poops gold, but if you write what you want on a note and drop a money bag into the bag of devouring that has the value equal to what you want to buy it poops out the item and an empty money bag.

Ideally it makes a panting sound like it has terrible constipation and diarrhea at the same time. Though, the items might have a small bit of mucus on them, nothing prestidigitation can't fix. Though, I'd bring your own trail rations.

Later on, add a plot point where a wizard wanted to live forever. He evidently got his wish, butt....

I don't really worry about adhering strictly to WBL in my game, and I not only allow crafting feats, I also make sure to introduce a crafter NPC who does efficient commission work, and frequently make use of magical items that grow in power with the character. I even take out the middleman aspect of selling magic items by allowing crafters to essentially mulch a magic item they posses the crafting feat for to change it into 1/2 value worth of crafting materials.

I'm also getting ready to playtest my own boring bonus (all the basic +number gear) magic item replacement system.

So, the congregation is the other way. :P

[avr]

If you want a simpler game, they exist. Savage Worlds might be to your taste. Or maybe D&D 5e.

Pathfinders' selling points are the number of people currently familiar with it and the complexity. If you don't like the latter, and people familiar enough with the complexity to use 5-6 books trouble you, you may not be the target market.

[FLite]

I have nothing constructive to add. But...

TheRealHoratio wrote:

What has this game become?

I've been playing D&D for about 15 years now, through editions 3, 3.5, and 4th...

Is that just how people play the game now? Is it really treated like an adversarial tactical miniatures game...?

You do realize that "this game" is based on D&D, the original tactical miniatures game, that spawned such adventures as Tomb Of Horrors (also known as 40 ways to kill your players that they will never see coming) Throne of Bloodstone (Why use one Terrasque when you could use 40) and Temple of Elemental Evil (Your players will totally feel rewarded when they found out that by defeating everything you threw at them, they have just unleashed a long imprisoned evil on the world. Seriously, would it hurt to throw up a few warning signs guys?)

Not saying you can't tell good stories in it, but it will always be a better wargame than storybuilding set.

[Buri Reborn]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

I will say this: It can get exhausting as a GM to check someone's numbers when those numbers come from five different, interlaced sourcebooks. Make sure the players clearly source each element. If you can get a virtual form, having them link to the PRD/PFSRD can help massively.

As can simply sourcing the Archives of Nethys. It often has source and page number. Some of them are incorrect as it lists page 1 for a lot of things. It still has a lot of sources at the ready with accurate page references.

[Buri Reborn]

voideternal wrote:

TheRealHoratio wrote:

do the types of gamers that make these characters do so because they want to be able to breeze through the content, or because they want the challenge of seeing what they can survive?

People that make characters using many different sourcebooks are people that are willing to spend hours reading rules. They are people who care about rules mechanics.

They might be optimizers. They might be players who want to actualize a certain roleplaying concept, as Kalindlara says. I don't know.

They might want an easy game where PCs are steamrollers. They might want a big challenge. There isn't enough information to tell.

However, what I can tell is that the PCs care about rules. That's why they spend a lot of time looking through the 5~6 sourcebooks. What this means is that, as a GM, you might want to think twice before using arbitrary handwavium to bend the rules. Otherwise, these players might feel it's unfair that you cast aside hours of pre-planning with only a few words.

Sorry I can't help much. The only thing I'm basing my post off is that your players have (mechanically) complex characters :/

In my case, I simply look for the mesh of mechanics that best represent what I have in my head. It doesn't matter what the concept is. I make it for that regardless. I just want to feel like I've made the best character I can for the role in my head that the system can provide. In that sense, I optimize the shit out of my characters. I don't see optimization in terms of DPR, though.

[LazarX]

TheRealHoratio wrote:

Is that just how people play the game now? Is it really treated like an adversarial tactical miniatures game, where instead of a group of people coming together to tell a story, it has turned into another game that one side feels they have to "win", by getting as much of an edge as possible? That's not my play style at all, so I don't think I'm going to be able to provide the experience these gamers are looking for. I'm not one of those DMs that whines about not getting to "play with their toys", but if all this game is really about now is me setting up bowling pins to be knocked down, then what exactly is the point?

I don't know what cave you and your group had been playing until now, but Pathfinder isn't when this started. This dates back to 3.0 when feats made it possible to customize, to actually have choice in how your character would develop. Prior to that pretty much everyone who took a class was the same save for some racial flavor trimmings.

But as soon as actual choice came into play, it became clear straight out that some choices would be better than others. And so chargen discussion boards were born. So don't blame Paizo for a genie that was loosed by TSR way back in the day, and practically no player has any interest in trying to force back into a bottle.

[Kirth Gersen]

As an old 1e grognard, I think the disconnect is this:

Back in the day, there weren't any actual rules for most of the stuff the characters did -- or at least not any consistent ones (unarmed combat charts in the DMG, anyone? Swimming rules in the A4 module of all places?). So, for the most part, they made up a character with a very limited set of defined abilities, and you spitballed the rest.

There's a lot of freedom in that approach, because the only limit on what you could do was the player's ability to sell the DM on it. To many people, though, this damaged verisimilitude, and made the whole process seem adversarial, because it generally meant the whole game was a frustrating, protracted session of "Mother May I." Everyone wanted to be the DM so they could tell everyone else what they could and couldn't do.

In 3e/PF, there are rules dictating what you can and can't do (sadly, the rules dictating what martial characters can't do seem to have gotten out of hand, but that's another story). This means that the player can't just say, "Before I go into the ball I put a flower in my lapel -- maybe it will give me a bonus to Diplomacy" -- because they know it won't. However, Paizo, seeing this, has probably released a convoluted trait, archetype, or feat chain somewhere that DOES let you do that. So that's where the 15 secondary rulebook references come in.

TL;DR: In a system like Pathfinder, with actual rules for everything, you have to expect that people will make use of them. If you want a system in which you just declare stuff and ask the DM if it works, something like Amber Diceless is ideal for that.

[LazarX]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

As an old 1e grognard, I think the disconnect is this:

Back in the day, there weren't any actual rules for most of the stuff the characters did -- or at least not any consistent ones (unarmed combat charts in the DMG, anyone? Swimming rules in the A4 module of all places?). So, for the most part, they made up a character with a very limited set of defined abilities, and you spitballed the rest.

There's a lot of freedom in that approach, because the only limit on what you could do was the player's ability to sell the DM on it. To many people, though, this damaged verisimilitude, and made the whole process seem adversarial, because it generally meant the whole game was a frustrating, protracted session of "Mother May I." Everyone wanted to be the DM so they could tell everyone else what they could and couldn't do.

In 3e/PF, there are rules dictating what you can and can't do (sadly, the rules dictating what martial characters can't do seem to have gotten out of hand, but that's another story). This means that the player can't just say, "Before I go into the ball I put a flower in my lapel -- maybe it will give me a bonus to Diplomacy" -- because they know it won't. However, Paizo, seeing this, has probably released a convoluted trait, archetype, or feat chain somewhere that DOES let you do that. So that's where the 15 secondary rulebook references come in.

TL;DR: In a system like Pathfinder, with actual rules for everything, you have to expect that people will make use of them. If you want a system in which you just declare stuff and ask the DM if it works, something like Amber Diceless is ideal for that.

Amber Diceless however is a disaster in the making when players and GMs have a relationship that's based on anything other than absolute trust and a mutual committment to running a game.

Players who can't differentiate the important and subtle difference between "My GM is trying to kill my character" and "My GM's NPC's are trying to kill my character" need not apply.

[thejeff]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

As an old 1e grognard, I think the disconnect is this:

Back in the day, there weren't any actual rules for most of the stuff the characters did -- or at least not any consistent ones (unarmed combat charts in the DMG, anyone? Swimming rules in the A4 module of all places?). So, for the most part, they made up a character with a very limited set of defined abilities, and you spitballed the rest.

There's a lot of freedom in that approach, because the only limit on what you could do was the player's ability to sell the DM on it. To many people, though, this damaged verisimilitude, and made the whole process seem adversarial, because it generally meant the whole game was a frustrating, protracted session of "Mother May I." Everyone wanted to be the DM so they could tell everyone else what they could and couldn't do.

In 3e/PF, there are rules dictating what you can and can't do (sadly, the rules dictating what martial characters can't do seem to have gotten out of hand, but that's another story). This means that the player can't just say, "Before I go into the ball I put a flower in my lapel -- maybe it will give me a bonus to Diplomacy" -- because they know it won't. However, Paizo, seeing this, has probably released a convoluted trait, archetype, or feat chain somewhere that DOES let you do that. So that's where the 15 secondary rulebook references come in.

TL;DR: In a system like Pathfinder, with actual rules for everything, you have to expect that people will make use of them. If you want a system in which you just declare stuff and ask the DM if it works, something like Amber Diceless is ideal for that.

As another old 1e grognard, I rarely had the problems with "Mother May I" that some describe. Nor do I recall everyone wanting to be the DM and tell other people what to do - most people wanted to play, because it was less work. :)

And of course, PF still has plenty of "Mother May I" - especially outside of combat with circumstance bonuses, latitude in setting DCs and even more in the NPCs actions, reactions and attitudes in the first place.

What PF (or really 3.x, with a start in late 2E) has done is add a character building game onto the basic outline of character creation from AD&D. That's where all the splatbooks come in.

As for the OP, the advice is simple and standard: Talk to your players and ask what they're looking for. Don't try to divine it from how they build their characters or how many books they used.

Edit: Of course, I loved the few games of Amber I played, but I don't think more "Mother May I" was why. For a diceless system, it's actually fairly mechanical. It is hard to GM, but fair adjudication is far from the main reason. Keeping dozens of character driven plotlines all in play at the same time in a setting where characters can go create entire new worlds on a whim is much harder. Trying to keep everyone interested and balance spotlight time in a non-party based game is also tricky.

[Nohwear]

Here is the thing though, what may seem to be an ungodly hodgepodge to you may actually be their attempt to build just the right character to fit their concept and background. In other words, using a lot of different books may actually be a sign that your players are trying to build interesting characters as much as much as it can signify character that are nothing but name and numbers.

[LazarX]

Nohwear wrote:

Here is the thing though, what may seem to be an ungodly hodgepodge to you may actually be their attempt to build just the right character to fit their concept and background. In other words, using a lot of different books may actually be a sign that your players are trying to build interesting characters as much as much as it can signify character that are nothing but name and numbers.

Yes that's true, but usually, it IS an ungodly hodgepodge created to exploit a mechanical advantage thinly disguised by a flimsy attempt at creating a background.

[Athaleon]

LazarX wrote:

Nohwear wrote:

Here is the thing though, what may seem to be an ungodly hodgepodge to you may actually be their attempt to build just the right character to fit their concept and background. In other words, using a lot of different books may actually be a sign that your players are trying to build interesting characters as much as much as it can signify character that are nothing but name and numbers.

Yes that's true, but usually, it IS an ungodly hodgepodge created to exploit a mechanical advantage thinly disguised by a flimsy attempt at creating a background.

Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

[Headfirst]

Guys, OP isn't really worried about the players being too powerful. He knows how to dial up the difficulty if need be, all experienced DMs do, so enough with the Stormwind nonsense.

What he's really worried about is everyone using all kinds of rules he's not familiar with, resulting in a confusing, mistake-filled, slow game where he has to stop every few minutes to look stuff up or have it explained to him.

[Mysterious Stranger]

I think you are looking at all the option and feeling overwhelmed by them. All the extra books seem to be a nightmare of complexity and every book altering the balance of power. In reality it is not that bad. Sure there is a lot of new material, but the power level is relatively the same. Unlike 3.x and prestige classes archetypes trade out abilities instead of adding to a class. Strangely enough prestige classes in pathfinder are generally weaker than normal classes. Another weird thing is that most of the more powerful options are actually in the core rule book.

As to the complexity of the system that is not as bad as it might seem. While the sheer number of options is high it is not as bad as you think. You really only need to know the basic rules and any options you or your players will be using. Most of the rules you need are in the core rule book, and maybe the advanced players guide and a few others. If no one is playing a summoner then you can ignore the class.

The rules allow you to create some very unique characters with a wide variety of powers. It used to be you would be able to tell what a character could do just by his class and race. While there are still some things you can count on, like a wizard casting spells, or a martial class being good in combat. Now characters are not as limited as they used to be. Some lack what would have once been considered cored abilities of the class because they have traded those out for something else. To me this leads to more roleplaying and less of a wargaming experience. If your character can actually do the things he should be able to do, that leads to a better game.

The best advice I can give you is to make sure you have a copy of all characters. Also read up on any abilities or rules the players will be using. Also don’t be afraid of optimized characters they allow you to pull out the stops and use some of the more interesting monsters. If your group is a bunch of power gamers then this is your chance to pull out all the stops.

[Malwing]

Frankensteining a character isn't necessarily minmaxing. A lot of people describe it as fighting the system but I sometimes enjoy making a character from multiple sources because I'm treasure hunting for things that fit my schtick or trying to make a interesting crap option work out. That said the game is still pretty diverse within only a few books so I wouldn't put it against anyone if they wanted to play with a certain set of books and disallow the rest.

[Anarchy_Kanya]

Better.

[Milo v3]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

. This means that the player can't just say, "Before I go into the ball I put a flower in my lapel -- maybe it will give me a bonus to Diplomacy" -- because they know it won't.

While I agree with most of the post this is wrong. As the GM can give you a circumstance bonus for doing so. Circumstance bonuses still are sort of based on "Mother May I".

[Bill Dunn]

Milo v3 wrote:

Kirth Gersen wrote:

. This means that the player can't just say, "Before I go into the ball I put a flower in my lapel -- maybe it will give me a bonus to Diplomacy" -- because they know it won't.

While I agree with most of the post this is wrong. As the GM can give you a circumstance bonus for doing so. Circumstance bonuses still are sort of based on "Mother May I".

I increasingly detest characterizing any refereed RPG as "Mother may I". It's just more of one group of players talking down to another or players of one game talking down to players of another.

[Quark Blast]

Scythia wrote:

Taku Ooka Nin wrote:

Ensure that they fight ample NPCs, but don't let them loot the NPCs gear [make it out of b~*$*&$#onium that falls apart when exposed to whatever it is going to be exposed to if the PCs try to sell it if you have to].

The old school Drow approach.

Dm: "By the way, their awesome gear disintegrates in sunlight"

P1: "Ah-ha, I'll just keep it in a sealed container and use it at night"

DM: "Um, also it loses it's power completely when outside the Underdark for a couple days"

I hated the failsafes they used to let Drow have great gear but prevent players from using it.

Yes, and so our PCs stayed and now rule the world from Menzoberranzan! ;p

[Steve Geddes]

Bill Dunn wrote:

I increasingly detest characterizing any refereed RPG as "Mother may I". It's just more of one group of players talking down to another or players of one game talking down to players of another.

I sometimes wish there was a forum rule against hyperbole (and sarcasm, for that matter).

Nobody's game is ever the caricature that other people describe it as. But it's so much easier to dismiss the extremist position.

[Gisher]

thejeff wrote:

As another old 1e grognard, I rarely had the problems with "Mother May I" that some describe. Nor do I recall everyone wanting to be the DM and tell other people what to do - most people wanted to play, because it was less work. :)

And of course, PF still has plenty of "Mother May I" - especially outside of combat with circumstance bonuses, latitude in setting DCs and even more in the NPCs actions, reactions and attitudes in the first place.

What PF (or really 3.x, with a start in late 2E) has done is add a character building game onto the basic outline of character creation from AD&D. That's where all the splatbooks come in.

As for the OP, the advice is simple and standard: Talk to your players and ask what they're looking for. Don't try to divine it from how they build their characters or how many books they used.

Edit: Of course, I loved the few games of Amber I played, but I don't think more "Mother May I" was why. For a diceless system, it's actually fairly mechanical. It is hard to GM, but fair adjudication is far from the main reason. Keeping dozens of character driven plotlines all in play at the same time in a setting where characters can go create entire new worlds on a whim is much harder. Trying to keep everyone interested and balance spotlight time in a non-party based game is also tricky.

I think the bolded part gets to the heart of the difference. Back in 1st edition customizing our character's mechanics was very limited.

"What kind of character are you playing?"
"I'm a dwarven fighter."
"Ok, are you going to use an axe or a hammer?"*

Now we have large numbers of archetypes, skills, traits, and feats that can be layered on to dozens of classes. In my opinion, you can roleplay equally well in either system, but in Pathfinder you have more ways to match the game mechanics to your character's story.

*Do not take this example seriously.

[thejeff]

Gisher wrote:

thejeff wrote:

As another old 1e grognard, I rarely had the problems with "Mother May I" that some describe. Nor do I recall everyone wanting to be the DM and tell other people what to do - most people wanted to play, because it was less work. :)

And of course, PF still has plenty of "Mother May I" - especially outside of combat with circumstance bonuses, latitude in setting DCs and even more in the NPCs actions, reactions and attitudes in the first place.

What PF (or really 3.x, with a start in late 2E) has done is add a character building game onto the basic outline of character creation from AD&D. That's where all the splatbooks come in.

As for the OP, the advice is simple and standard: Talk to your players and ask what they're looking for. Don't try to divine it from how they build their characters or how many books they used.

Edit: Of course, I loved the few games of Amber I played, but I don't think more "Mother May I" was why. For a diceless system, it's actually fairly mechanical. It is hard to GM, but fair adjudication is far from the main reason. Keeping dozens of character driven plotlines all in play at the same time in a setting where characters can go create entire new worlds on a whim is much harder. Trying to keep everyone interested and balance spotlight time in a non-party based game is also tricky.

I think the bolded part gets to the heart of the difference. Back in 1st edition customizing our character's mechanics was very limited.

"What kind of character are you playing?"
"I'm a dwarven fighter."
"Ok, are you going to use an axe or a hammer?"*

Now we have large numbers of archetypes, skills, traits, and feats that can be layered on to dozens of classes. In my opinion, you can roleplay equally well in either system, but in Pathfinder you have more ways to match the game mechanics to your character's story.[/i]

The flip side to that though is that you have to match the mechanics to your character's story.

And that some of that customization, while it might match your story, is much less effective than other customization. There's a very strong incentive to match your story to the mechanics you want.

I may be even less fond of systems that promise me I can build any character I want, but don't actually deliver effective characters when I try than I am of systems that just ban things.

[Milo v3]

Bill Dunn wrote:

Milo v3 wrote:

While I agree with most of the post this is wrong. As the GM can give you a circumstance bonus for doing so. Circumstance bonuses still are sort of based on "Mother May I".

I increasingly detest characterizing any refereed RPG as "Mother may I". It's just more of one group of players talking down to another or players of one game talking down to players of another.

I should say that I put mother may I in quotation marks since while I disagree with it (unless your playing Paranoia), he was saying that the subjective GM decisions that give bonuses were removed, which isn't true.

[chaoseffect]

Bill Dunn wrote:

Milo v3 wrote:

Kirth Gersen wrote:

. This means that the player can't just say, "Before I go into the ball I put a flower in my lapel -- maybe it will give me a bonus to Diplomacy" -- because they know it won't.

While I agree with most of the post this is wrong. As the GM can give you a circumstance bonus for doing so. Circumstance bonuses still are sort of based on "Mother May I".

I increasingly detest characterizing any refereed RPG as "Mother may I". It's just more of one group of players talking down to another or players of one game talking down to players of another.

I can see your point about the term seeming condescending (it doesn't quite strike me that way, but I can see why it would for others), but I do find it apt in many ways. It is the difference between knowing that you can do something because there are rules that explicitly allow it and having to ask the DM (DM may I...) about your intended action.

In some ways I like "DM may I" as if you have a DM that is willing to work with you then the sky is the limit as long as you can justify your actions; that is true of any tabletop RPG really, but is often less emphasized in rules heavy systems. On the other hand, that lack of consistency can be a major annoyance in a game like Pathfinder. Finding out that the DM changed something seemingly innocuous could lead to your solid character build ceasing to function or it being unexpectedly dominant; in a mechanics heavy game, a single not fully thought out rules change really can be the proverbial butterfly that started the typhoon on the other side of the world.

Rules heavy games tend to lead to more consistent rulings, but systems like that also have their own problems like needing an ability to do literally anything. With everything spelled out players may not bother trying to get "creative" in their play as they know that as per the rules it means nothing; DM's can still apply bonuses and penalties based on circumstance and such or come up with rules on the fly, but in a rules heavy game the players gunning for those is an afterthought instead of a primary goal.

Concerning rules heavy systems defining the minutiae of what characters can and cannot do,Helpless Prisoner is pretty much the ultimate example of that downside; as per the rules, sweet talking your captor into loosening your bonds is now a distinct mechanic tied to a specific feat. Since there is a feat for it, arguably no one without the feat can now do said action. That of course is a rather extreme example of the principle at work as many reasonable DMs would still allow you to do that with diplomacy or bluff without needing that feat, but it does set a bad precedent and not all feats-that-shouldn't-be-feats are quite as obvious.

[Gisher]

@thejeff

Good point. Everyone has a different sense of how to balance mechanics and story. It's part a matter of personal taste and partly about who you play with so it is very difficult to generalize about this issue.

Pathfinder has let me make characters that I never would have been able to make in 1st edition. And yes, sometimes the mechanics push me in slightly different ways than I thought I would go. But I haven't felt like the mechanics have taken over a character.

[Kthulhu]

chaoseffect wrote:

It is the difference between knowing that you can do something because there are rules that explicitly allow it and having to ask the DM (DM may I...) about your intended action.

It's mean to be a game where imagination and creativity are encouraged. Ifyou limit all choices to options that have been explicitly spelled out, then why bother playing a tabletop RPG? You can just play a computer RPG instead.

The straight jacket might be very attractive, and maybe even comfortable; but you still can't move your arms while you're wearing it.

[chaoseffect]

Kthulhu wrote:

chaoseffect wrote:

It is the difference between knowing that you can do something because there are rules that explicitly allow it and having to ask the DM (DM may I...) about your intended action.

It's mean to be a game where imagination and creativity are encouraged. Ifyou limit all choices to options that have been explicitly spelled out, then why bother playing a tabletop RPG? You can just play a computer RPG instead.

The straight jacket might be very attractive, and maybe even comfortable; but you still can't move your arms while you're wearing it.

I'm pretty sure no one, especially me, said that players should only be able to do actions specifically listed in the rules. Rather I'm saying that it is nice that the DM does not have to make up rules on the fly for most situations because there are already rules. That adds consistency, lets players know where they stand, and can allow the DM to focus on other matters. As I said in the rest of post you quoted, that can lead to issues but then again so can anything, including DM fiat, taken to extremes.

[Larkspire]

Embrace the customization....it really is great. The game is infinitely re-playable. You could make a character a day, every day, for a year, and still not even come close to exhausting the mechanical variations available.
I enjoyed the simpler games...but one can only play so many "Bob the Fighter" characters....however you fluff the bones.

[Anzyr]

Kthulhu wrote:

chaoseffect wrote:

It is the difference between knowing that you can do something because there are rules that explicitly allow it and having to ask the DM (DM may I...) about your intended action.

It's mean to be a game where imagination and creativity are encouraged. Ifyou limit all choices to options that have been explicitly spelled out, then why bother playing a tabletop RPG? You can just play a computer RPG instead.

The straight jacket might be very attractive, and maybe even comfortable; but you still can't move your arms while you're wearing it.

Having played a lot of EDH, I can tell you that creativity flourishes under limitations. Having rules to determine things isn't a straight jacket, it's a support structure. Having rules for say Disable Device doesn't limit anything. It simple tells you how your actions work in the system. This allows a player to make informed decisions rather then making decisions that may have results based on a whim. When your decisions are resolved based on whims, it reduces the value of your decisions as compared to decisions that are informed.

[Steve Geddes]

What's EDH?

[Kalindlara]

Steve Geddes wrote:

What's EDH?

Elder Dragon Highlander, aka Commander. A Magic: the Gathering format where you can use only one of any card (other than basic lands), and decks are exactly 100 cards. The deck's colors must match your "commander", chosen from the game's legendary creatures.

[Nicos]

Anzyr wrote:

Kthulhu wrote:

chaoseffect wrote:

It is the difference between knowing that you can do something because there are rules that explicitly allow it and having to ask the DM (DM may I...) about your intended action.

It's mean to be a game where imagination and creativity are encouraged. Ifyou limit all choices to options that have been explicitly spelled out, then why bother playing a tabletop RPG? You can just play a computer RPG instead.

The straight jacket might be very attractive, and maybe even comfortable; but you still can't move your arms while you're wearing it.

Having played a lot of EDH, I can tell you that creativity flourishes under limitations. Having rules to determine things isn't a straight jacket, it's a support structure. Having rules for say Disable Device doesn't limit anything. It simple tells you how your actions work in the system. This allows a player to make informed decisions rather then making decisions that may have results based on a whim. When your decisions are resolved based on whims, it reduces the value of your decisions as compared to decisions that are informed.

Nothing is black and white, there are limitation and there are pointless limitations. There is the bluff skill sand there is the strikeback feat.

[Milo v3]

Nicos wrote:

Nothing is black and white, there are limitation and there are pointless limitations. There is the bluff skill sand there is the strikeback feat.

Bluff makes sense to exist as a skill..... though strikeback really shouldn't exist since IS already be doable by default with the ready action.... So that isn't a case of adding rules when it should be flavour, this is a case of someone having misunderstood the ready action rules.

[Jaunt]

Milo v3 wrote:

Nothing is black and white, there are limitation and there are pointless limitations.

Orzhov?

[HeHateMe]

To the OP: I'm not sure I even understand what the problem is, or if there even is a problem. All that happened was you saw some character sheets, is that right? You have no idea what the players' gaming style is, or how they plan to play these characters, is that correct?

I mean, isn't it a bit early for a rant like this? Shouldn't you at least attempt to run a few sessions to see how things go before you decide there's a huge issue and you can't run this group? If you're really that concerned, I would recommend you have a group discussion with them and let them know what your expectations are and what kind of game you want to run. Open communication is your best friend in this case.

[Steve Geddes]

Kalindlara wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

What's EDH?

Elder Dragon Highlander, aka Commander. A Magic: the Gathering format where you can use only one of any card (other than basic lands), and decks are exactly 100 cards. The deck's colors must match your "commander", chosen from the game's legendary creatures.

Thanks. I can even guess what some of those words mean... :)

[Liz Courts]

Removed some posts and some replies. Please be civil to each other!

[Nicos]

Milo v3 wrote:

Nicos wrote:

Nothing is black and white, there are limitation and there are pointless limitations. There is the bluff skill sand there is the strikeback feat.

Bluff makes sense to exist as a skill..... though strikeback really shouldn't exist since IS already be doable by default with the ready action.... So that isn't a case of adding rules when it should be flavour, this is a case of someone having misunderstood the ready action rules.

"You can ready an action to make a melee attack against any foe that attacks you in melee, even if the foe is outside of your reach."

The bolded part can't be done with just redying an action.

[kyrt-ryder]

TheRealHoratio wrote:

I'm not putting anyone down, cause everyone is certainly entitled to play whichever way is going to allow them to have the most fun, but I will say that my excitement over meeting for our first session has been severely diminished. Are there people out there that still want a good story, with challenges to be overcome, where victory might seem uncertain at first, but eventually the day is won through hard work and a little bit of luck? My personal feeling is that the game has become more of "What can I get away with chaining together for my benefit?" rather than making a believable character that fits into the story.

Sure there are.

Just like there are people out [such as myself] who prefer a good story with minimal risk of defeat. Even if the risk of defeat is only 1% over repeated encounters odds are good that someone is going to die just due to probability, lady fate being the b%%@@ she is known to be.

Speaking for myself only, I don't RP for challenges. I RP for RP, and build a character to overcome challenges rather than struggle against them. Where the trial isn't combat, but the stories in which combat occurs.

Quote:

Maybe I'm overthinking things. I've never played with people like this before, so I really don't know what to expect.

The only way you're going to discover what to expect is to start asking questions.

Quote:

I know it is my job to make encounters interesting, but I feel like my only options are to slap the Advanced template on everything, max out the hp, and double the number of monsters per encounter in order to rise to the level that these players need/want, but again, that just isn't my style. I don't know if it is worth doing all that extra work, or seeking a group that is more my speed.

Are you sure they want challenging encounters? Obviously many do, but there are also people who want interesting encounters. Encounters where it's about the story- about who is doing what and why and who it impacts and how- rather than about whether it's going to be the 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 30th encounter that kills them.

EDIT: now, to address a point you made earlier in your post that I didn't quote. If you feel that their characters lack the depth of identity you want to see, tell them about it.

Please don't restrict their build choices, but tell them the degree of character depth you want. Tell them how much backstory and how much personality development a character in your campaign is expected to have.

And then let them create it. Even if their story bends/breaks the established flavor of their mechanics- so long as the story is good and makes sense with itself and the mechanics do logically fit with the new flavor- let them have it. This game is supposed to be a story you all create together, IMHO its better when the players get in on it.

[Berti Blackfoot]

I agree, if it seems bad, it is still nothing compared to 3.5 (Outside of full casters, I don't think anyone took more than 2 or 3 levels in a class the multiclassing was so ubiquitous in our group) And all of the 2e splatbooks were insane. You sound like you played with a core group that wasn't interested in all that, which is great.

But what you are seeing now has nothing to do with Pathfinder and everything to do with the Players.

Or if you aren't sure, say you want to do a one-off first to help you get into the game and used to the rules. Maybe something fun like the We Be Goblins series, that will introduce you to the rules and let people play crazy characters that are supposed to be crazy and so won't break immersion for you or others.