| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
*snipping due to length*Again, I disagree with you and we will have to simply do so.
Also, your comment, "All those people..."
Nice try. It is fairly rare that it happens, but if you've ever run a convention table then you have seen how touchy gamers get at those things about anything. Bear in mind this has only, in recent years, become a real issue. Literally this is a post-WoW phenomena.
In the 90's it was accepted as normal behavior for the GM to customize monsters. Now it is considered rude.
I'm a very experienced GM Tark. I've been doing this for a very long time. I know exactly how far to push when running and my players, of which I have a freaking waiting list, are very happy so I must be doing something darn right.
Or, as I was told by a player 3 weeks ago after a demo, "This was the best game of Pathfinder I have ever played."
So, while I agree that there are different strokes for different folks I would ask that you not attempt to insinuate that I am flawed, inexperienced, or bad at running tabletop games.
Cool story.
Ima mark that off the checklist as "I've been gaming for a very long time so I know what I'm talking about scrub."
Did you know Dr. Deth on these boards is responsible for some of the class design in 1st ed (or was it 2nd)? Regardless of my disagreements with him I actually really like him.
I've also been around a while too. I just don't wave it in people's faces because the people here don't see what I do. Only what I type. And because of that I make better discussion as I pull not simply from my own experience but from many others.
Anyway, there's no need to insinuate anything. I'm analyzing the philosophy to see if it has any merit in game design. Because that's my chosen career.
If I were to write a set of rules based on this gming philosophy it wouldn't be Pathfinder. It would be WuShu. Very few rules that get in the way, full control over the flavor, no point in arguing people over those rules as they are completely free flowing.
I'm actually not surprised you like the storyteller system as that greatly favors that sort of gm work. Though I'm not sure you would like Exalted to the degree I'm in love with it.
I'm sure you're a fine gm. Wouldn't bother to argue otherwise. I'm arguing the philosophy and reasoning behind things as those things dictate what rules actually matter and need changing or writing and those that don't and why there is arguing over any of it.
Pathfinder is incredibly crunchy. When you boil everything down into "Rules 0" and render all other rules irrelevant you remove that aspect and turn it into another game. Whether or not that's good or bad isn't necessarily important in the main discussion here. Since Rule 0 is not the same as dictating game balance across the whole game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the subject of knowing things, I also like to know. I really don't get the mentality "ooooh, it's my big secret, why would you know". I mean I understand that the DM will not reveal the plot twist or the stats of the monster/NPC that's supposed to be mysterious and/or recurring (not that it will stop me from asking or guessing), but we generally talk after sessions and discuss defeated monsters/NPCs (especially builds), missed plots that will not be available in the future, details of worldbuilding and all of the similar stuff.
I mean, I know I feel more appreciated as a GM when one of my players asks me some of those things and makes me more motivated to do more.
I'm not sure what you mean by "If the GM chooses numbers based purely on numbers".
Like, based on a written table or math formula without taking into account subjective things like story or pace.
Regardless, the GM is setting the difficulty of the lock or of the encounter (gorgon) that must be done first or of persuading the guard to let you through. Whether they're handwaved at the time or set ahead of time doesn't really change that.If the GM is doing his job, that difficulty will present an appropriate level of challenge for the group. If he's not it'll be too trivial or impossible. That's where the "illusion of challenge" comes in. The very world is shaped for the PCs to succeed.
The difference being. And the point being made is that one is based on the rules the players are using. The other is not.
One is a game.
The other is mediated freeform.
Both can be construed as roleplaying.
I'm saying I dislike mediated freeform under the pretense of being a game.
Because that's my chosen career.Avoid EA. (Or any of the big guys.) I did EA for 2 years and I hated every single solitary second of it.
I'm not even kidding about that. Stay indie for as long as you can.
The best project I ever worked on was an indie game. It ended up going down in a flaming wreck due to disagreements that arose outside of my area. (Investors, producers, stuff I had no say in.) Regardless, it was probably the most fulfilling, rewarding, life-affirming moment in my career.
It even beat the Ignition Program for the 2012 Olympics.
Er, appreciate the advice but I was talking tabletop.
Though frankly if I was a huge workaholic I'd learn programming get heavy into video game design and go to Valve.
And on an unrelated note it pleases me greatly to know I'm alive enough to see a massive indie revolution.
Crypt of The Necrodancer and Binding of Isaac is my current crack.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The term in game design is the "Illusion of choice."
(Even the Pathfinder GMG references that.)
Namely, the GM's job is to make the players feel like they are in control of their actions while designing things so that the players do exactly what he wanted them to do without them realizing that they are doing so.
Simply put, you design the scenario so the players do what you wanted them to do. The trick is that you have to make them think it was their own idea.
When I was studying game design many years ago we had to learn more than a little psychology. When I was working in the industry after that we would sometimes bring in psychologists to learn how to influence player behavior.
I don't go that insane when I run tabletop games, of course, but I've adapted a few tricks from the old video game days.
It all makes sense now.
HWalsh is a vampire!Durkon: Ye let Roy learn aboot it on 'is own so 'e wouldnae think twice aboot going.
Vampire HPoH: Uh, I'm a vampire. Letting something appear organic when it's really a cruel unnatural charade is kind of my whole thing.
Based on what written tables or math formulas? What are the inputs to those tables or formulas? Does the GM choose those?
For the second part: "The difference being." Being what?
Based on the formulas for things like AC, HP, Saves, Skills and other stats not dictated by a flat number but the result of a simple math formula.
The second is just me being bad at grammar. It should read "The difference being, and the point I am trying to make, etc. etc."
But if you are serious about it being a career for ya, drop me a line. We may disagree on a forum but I can definitely send you toward some contacts if you are serious about it.
I'll give it some serious thought and let you know. I'm down the street from them and already know one of their freelancers (he convinced me that I'd like exalted, turns out he was right). Knowing more people especially out of another community is only good.
"Illusion of Choice" is a really basic roleplaying trick. And you may be doing it even if you aren't aware. It's not malevolent it's just getting players towards prepared content in order to reduce the amount of improvisation you have to do without railroading.
Because improvisation is a really hard skill for many people.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I consider your attempted pushing to be a negative trait as much as you consider my reluctance to share information that the player does not need to be.This is probably as much related to my own personality as to my gaming style.
"You don't need to know" is one of the most aggravating things someone can say to me. Not to the level of infuriating, but suffice it to say I don't take it well.
I am sorry citizen, you are not cleared for that level of information. Please report to the nearest termination booth.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dammit! But my clone insurance rates just went up!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am sorry citizen, you are not cleared for that level of information. Please report to the nearest termination booth.I consider your attempted pushing to be a negative trait as much as you consider my reluctance to share information that the player does not need to be.This is probably as much related to my own personality as to my gaming style.
"You don't need to know" is one of the most aggravating things someone can say to me. Not to the level of infuriating, but suffice it to say I don't take it well.
You terminate players for having too much information about the game?
You terminate players for having too much information about the game?I am sorry citizen, you are not cleared for that level of information. Please report to the nearest termination booth.I consider your attempted pushing to be a negative trait as much as you consider my reluctance to share information that the player does not need to be.This is probably as much related to my own personality as to my gaming style.
"You don't need to know" is one of the most aggravating things someone can say to me. Not to the level of infuriating, but suffice it to say I don't take it well.
Do you have a contention license for that citizen?
Friend Computer requires it.
How does illusion of free choice have to do specifically with the question "Do martial characters really need better things"?
It doesn't really, but it's a nice conversation to have.
|
A decent not perfect fix would be to have a optional sourcebook where feats scale like spells. Getting better as a Fighter and only a Fighter levels up. Dodge is a good example of a feat that does not scale well. That +1 to my AC is really going to mean that much past level 10 or so.
To me their no real incentive to play a Fighter. Low skill points and skill selection. No cool abilites to look forward to as one goes up in level. Rangers, Barbarians even Paladins get some decent abilites as they go up in level. Bravery is a joke imo. Armor training is boring to me as a ability. So is weapon training. More feats are nice but other classes can take feats as well. Make them exciting and interesting. Which to me at least a Fighter is not.
and thread clones?
SUMMON DISPARITY INDEX!
===Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*snipping due to length*Again, I disagree with you and we will have to simply do so.
Also, your comment, "All those people..."
Nice try. It is fairly rare that it happens, but if you've ever run a convention table then you have seen how touchy gamers get at those things about anything. Bear in mind this has only, in recent years, become a real issue. Literally this is a post-WoW phenomena.
In the 90's it was accepted as normal behavior for the GM to customize monsters. Now it is considered rude.
I'm a very experienced GM Tark. I've been doing this for a very long time. I know exactly how far to push when running and my players, of which I have a freaking waiting list, are very happy so I must be doing something darn right.
No. While it would be nice to attribute things to WoW and other games, it simply isn't true. Gamers have been touchy about all sorts of things, including this, for quite some time. Now, you may have only run across that in the 90s, but I've seen it for some years before. It depends on who you run across, in what groups, and even how they feel that day.
On a second point, how long you've been playing or GMing isn't always the best indicator of how experienced you might be, nor might that matter in the slightest in whether you are right or wrong. I get a sense in your posts -- right or wrong -- that you tend to think that you are right because of your years in the game. Well, that and the various GMGs that you've read, which as an aside are one or two people's ideas on A way to game master. Not THE ONLY BESTEST WAY EVER to game master.
Just something to keep in mind. There are a lot of us here who have similar experience or even more. And none of us are right. We've an opinion, none better than the other.
I am going to blame Jonathan Tweet for the martial-caster disparity. It was not as big a factor in 1st and second edition, so really started with 3.0. If you really want to see a martial-caster disparity take a look at Ars Magica. I will give you three guesses one what name these two games systems have in common.
To be fair, Ars Magicka is literally focused on the Wizards, they don't even make an illusion of caster-martial balance.
I mean... with a name like Ars Magicka do you expect different?
That is like playing Wizards.101 and complaining there are no fighters lol.
To be fair, Ars Magicka is literally focused on the Wizards, they don't even make an illusion of caster-martial balance.
Never claimed it did.
One factor to all of this is that bigger numbers are pointless if the enimies numbers also get bigger.
This guts the point behind most martial class features.
Weapon training is garbage because you need it to hit things. Power attack is garbage because you have to use it. Once a Paladin can pass 95% of saves, further boost are pointless.
Full bab is not a significant class feature if every 3/4ths bab class sans rogue can boost their to hit and damage to match.
One factor to all of this is that bigger numbers are pointless if the enimies numbers also get bigger.
This guts the point behind most martial class features.
Weapon training is garbage because you need it to hit things. Power attack is garbage because you have to use it. Once a Paladin can pass 95% of saves, further boost are pointless.
Full bab is not a significant class feature if every 3/4ths bab class sans rogue can boost their to hit and damage to match.
I've been wondering recently just what the game would look like and how it would play if you removed 95% of the "add number A to statistic X" feats, traits, spells, and magic items from the game. There's way too much of this and it really does get old after a while. If haste give me an extra attack and boosts my speed, it's STILL a fantastic spell. Same with if true strike were to simply treat any non-natural 1 attack roll as a hit and allow normal threat confirmation range while also getting through concealment normally. Honestly, I'm fine with math, but do something new with it all, please? At least make the numbers add up in an interesting way, like how Monkey Style gives you your Wisdom modifier to Acrobatics checks AND makes fighting or standing up from prone perfectly safe.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If 4e was as good as people seem to think it was WotC wouldn't have ditched it, after numerous attempts to rewind it back to 3.5, until they eventually released 5th which is a whole different animal.
They already tried 1:1 balance. They made MMO: The Game (aka 4th Edition) and guess what? People didn't like it. People don't play Pathfinder because of 3PP either, as some suggest. 9/10 GMs that I know don't even allow 3PP at their table, so that can't be the driving factor.
I think people play Pathfinder because it is good, offers many options, and is fun.
I don't think you understand.
4e is by far and away a much more superior tabletop game. Emphasis game. How many threads have there been (and that's just the people who care enough to complain) about the utterly byzantine rules this game often employs?
That never happened with 4e. People dropped 4e because as good at being a game as it was, it had a terrible out of combat skill system, crappy campaign design/writing, and limited sense of consequence (good and bad) to player choice - which was when it wasn't being railroady as all hell. In short, it was bad at being DnD.
And yeah, some people complained about "fighters being wizards without spells." But Wotc was never going to get those people anyways because too much of the DnD community is hard core traditionalists who loathe change. 4e did great with people new to DnD, and probably would have done better if wotc hadn't been greedy f+@&s with some of their shadier business practices.
The thing is the system isn't languishing. It is a massive success with many players. It has a dedicated and diverse fan base.
The people complaining about this issue are, truly are, a very small minority. If the game was as bad as you say people wouldn't be playing it.
Because the constant complaints about this says otherwise yeah?
You seem to keep laboring under a few delusions. 1) That I think Pathfinder isn't any good or it isn't worth playing. 2) That just because something is popular means it must be fine the way it is (Hey, Donald Trump is popular *eyeroll*) 3) That the people who are complaining about this don't have a point - indeed you haven't said a ONE thing refuting any of my claims, 4) That Pathfinder isn't suffering from traditional edition decay, what with its old, clunky rules system, obvious class imbalances, power creep, and splatbook bloat.
It's way too late for Pathfinder to change enough to address the most serious issues, but Pathfinder 2.0 is inevitable, because no edition is for forever. And I'd like to see Pathfinder 2.0 not suck. But in the meantime I wouldn't mind some erratas that address the obvious caster imbalance of the game and give martials their own Sacred Geometry (should I even talk about how much of a damn ruckus had to be made for even a limited version of dex to damage?)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If 4e was as good as people seem to think it was WotC wouldn't have ditched it, after numerous attempts to rewind it back to 3.5, until they eventually released 5th which is a whole different animal.
They already tried 1:1 balance. They made MMO: The Game (aka 4th Edition) and guess what? People didn't like it. People don't play Pathfinder because of 3PP either, as some suggest. 9/10 GMs that I know don't even allow 3PP at their table, so that can't be the driving factor.
I think people play Pathfinder because it is good, offers many options, and is fun.
I don't think you understand.
4e is by far and away a much more superior tabletop game. Emphasis game. How many threads have there been (and that's just the people who care enough to complain) about the utterly byzantine rules this game often employs?
I not sure about that.
There is an important difference between role-playing games and games of all other types. RPGs are inherently meant to simulate life in an alternate world, and however strange and magical that world may be, there is a basic expectation of cause and effect.
I imagine my hero achieving X by doing Y. If there is no causal connection between X and Y, then even the generous suspension of disbelief necessary to play a fantasy RPG eventually breaks down. 4th ed. had archers moving people 5' in any direction by hitting them with non-magical arrows. How, pray tell? Because reasons.
4th edition failed the most basic test of cause and effect, most specifically when dealing with martial characters. It asked us to accept things that didn't make any damn sense, and didn't attempt to paper over the gap with even the thinnest of explanations. 4th ed. is not unique in this sense. The breakdown in cause and effect started mainly in 3rd edition, and we still have some of it in Pathfinder. The Rogue can perform his non-magical defensive roll once per day because reasons. Ok.
But 4th ed. took what was essentially a flaw in 3rd ed. and made it the central design principal of the game. It became extremely difficult for people to imagine their heroes doing heroic things because they couldn't understand the underlying rules of a world in which archers toss people around with their arrows. The game demanded a suspension of disbelief that is normally reserved for other types of games, like monopoly and video games.
So in that sense, you may be right. Maybe 4th ed. was a better game than 3.5/Pathfinder. I dunno. What I do know is that it was a vastly inferior role-playing game.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
RPG writing isn't all about rules. The PF team has done rigorous analysis and has simply disagreed with your conclusion.
Given the dev team's consistent and vehement opposition to "armchair analysis", and the general sloppiness of design (including the continued existence of things like Powerful Sneak and Death or Glory), what makes you think that they have, in fact, done rigorous analysis?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does a disagreement over the rules -- which you can fix at home! -- make the game material less enjoyable or useful?
Objectively terrible design like Powerful Sneak or Sacred Geometry is not "disagreements", and the fact that I need to fix them at home (by changing or banning) makes the game less useful, in the same way that a bicycle I need to oil and adjust is less useful to me than a well-olied machine.
In the end , people that got to posting in the forums are already "deeper" than most players will ever be.
I go to play with my "casual" friends who dont really spend much time reading every book , only the core ones... all they care about is picking a class that gives them the feeling they want and in table with "casuals" most of the issues wont ever appear since even full casters arent that powerful if they dont know how to pull it. No crazy class/trait/feat/rules... wombo combo.
Ofc , you ask people who have been digging in it for years and it is broken and unbalanced , you must "punish" and cut spellcaster players at every turn otherwise they will break the game... Ask the people who didnt and are just in it for the fun and they are having a blast.
Go figure , ignorance is really a bliss sometimes.
The fact that low optimization covers up the issues doesn't mean that the issues aren't there, it just means that they're less obvious. Spackling over the holes in the rules doesn't fix them, it just covers them up for a little while.
The thing is , issues to whom? And really , i could ask my friends and they probably dont see the issues that you see.
Unlike what many people seem to believe in this forums , there is no universal game rule that says everything must be balanced... Plenty of games dont even try to go for this.
That said , many want a balanced game , sure go for it , i see nothing wrong with it myself , all im saying is that this game is working just fine for plenty of its players currently and if asked what the OP is asking in the title , they would probably say yes only because they want even more nice things , not because they see a balance issue.
There is an important difference between role-playing games and games of all other types. RPGs are inherently meant to simulate life in an alternate world, and however strange and magical that world may be, there is a basic expectation of cause and effect.So, what alternative world is Pathfinder trying to simulate?
The one you want it to.
What are hit points, how does Power Attack work, why do people not adapt the technique they're using to stop an opponent spamming the same trick, how is it that anything you know how to do can be performed at any time regardless of the situation and will succeed or fail based entirely on how well you perform it and not at all on how someone defends it, how do the rules handle the interaction between armour and weapons in a rational way, why don't people with no training ever hurt themselves with their weapons?
Pointing out the imperfections in Pathfinder (many of which I, and I'm sure many other GMs, have long since dispensed with) does not change the essential nature of RPGs, nor does it pull 4th ed. out of the dustbin to which it has been deservedly consigned.
I think 4th ed. is a perfect example of designers taking the easy way out in terms of game balance. Balancing limited-use magic with at-will martial abilities is hard, but that doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be done.Yes it's hard. From some approaches it's even impossible, as the entire idea from certain angles is that limited-use magic is more powerful than at-will martial abilities (SKR explains it very good here).It's interesting that he specifically states that getting rid of Vancian magic is the way to get out of the nova-wizard-now-we-rest paradigm. I pretty much agree, and have long since instituted changes in my game which take that tack.
I like the idea that casting spells deals nonlethal damage which some RPG systems use. Shadowrun has it but with the ability to reduce the damage to 0 (and a high chance for that) its not enough of a drawback/a limit to spells cast per day. I like it best when combined with the fact that magic can not heal nonlethal damage.
Midgard, a german RPG, uses a variation of spellcasting = nonlethal damage.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For example, the mentioned, "Cinder Troll" that is one of my staples is nothing but a normal troll with one small change.They look like a normal troll but have a darker reddish skin that gives off steam.
Its amazing how many characters, who have no Knowledge: Nature, seem to instinctively know to go with fire against a Troll.
So if something that's normally green suddenly has red skin and is steaming I'd instinctively assume it's a fire variant and act accordingly. Often fire variants of monsters are red. Would you consider that meta-game?