| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My point was, and is, that if you change the core assumptions of the game you need to detail it ahead of time.
In another topic, not too long ago I tried to get this point across to people, and it was like I was trying to convince them to stick their hands in hot coals. I don't get it.
I would submit that not using optional rules does not make one be house ruling. Even if you are using those rules, right at the beginning ...
**Since the actual number of people who dwell in a settlement has no impact on game play, the number you choose is largely cosmetic—feel free to adjust the suggested values below to fit your campaign.**
So conversely, I call this settlement whatever the heck I want to call it. If I want to bump all settlement, values down one category I do. Within the rules, just give every town the impoverished disadvantage.
But, to reiterate, not using optional rules doesn't make you be house ruling.
What the hey are you talkin' about, RDM42? Nobody has said not using optional rules was house ruling (that I know of). Sissyl was trying to imply a lot of misinformation (and failed, I think) but I don't think Sissyl said anything like that either.
Color me confused.
Elaborate?
What optional rules, RDM42? You're the only one mentioning any optional rule system or community populations or community-whatevers (presumably from the splat-material in the GMG).
I've been talking about the standard rules for item availability from the Core Rulebook.
What I don't get is why it's like getting people to stick their hands in hot coals to get them to admit that no one I've seen here is suggesting you do big player rule ambushes.In another topic, not too long ago I tried to get this point across to people, and it was like I was trying to convince them to stick their hands in hot coals. I don't get it.
My point was, and is, that if you change the core assumptions of the game you need to detail it ahead of time.
Almost nobody ever clearly says it, but it happens.
Some don't even know they are doing it.
The following guidelines are presented to help GMs determine what items are available in a given community. These guidelines assume a setting with an average level of magic. Some cities might deviate wildly from these baselines, subject to GM discretion. The GM should keep a list of what items are available from each merchant and should replenish the stocks on occasion to represent new acquisitions.
The number and types of magic items available in a community depend upon its size. Each community has a base value associated with it (see Table: Available Magic Items). There is a 75% chance that any item of that value or lower can be found for sale with little effort in that community. In addition, the community has a number of other items for sale. These items are randomly determined and are broken down by category (minor, medium, or major). After determining the number of items available in each category, refer to Table: Random Magic Item Generation to determine the type of each item (potion, scroll, ring, weapon, etc.) before moving on to the individual charts to determine the exact item. Reroll any items that fall below the community's base value.
If you are running a campaign with low magic, reduce the base value and the number of items in each community by half. Campaigns with little or no magic might not have magic items for sale at all. GMs running these sorts of campaigns should make some adjustments to the challenges faced by the characters due to their lack of magic gear.
Campaigns with an abundance of magic items might have communities with twice the listed base value and random items available. Alternatively, all communities might count as one size category larger for the purposes of what items are available. In a campaign with very common magic, all magic items might be available for purchase in a metropolis.
Nonmagical items and gear are generally available in a community of any size unless the item is particularly expensive, such as full plate, or made of an unusual material, such as an adamantine longsword. These items should follow the base value guidelines to determine their availability, subject to GM discretion.
Right here in the text. All nonmagical items and such are considered available in a community unless they are particularly expensive or unusual, in which case the GM can decide whether or not the item is just simply available or is treated like a magic item in terms of availability.
As to spellcasting services, which has been done to death at this point, the equipment chapter gives clear details as to what size community you can expect to find them in, and it's more or less irreverent of GP values and such.
If you are running a campaign with low magic, reduce the base value and the number of items in each community by half. Campaigns with little or no magic might not have magic items for sale at all. GMs running these sorts of campaigns should make some adjustments to the challenges faced by the characters due to their lack of magic gear.
Hmmmm...
The campaign was designed with the following assumptions.
...
Recognizing many of the repercussions and furthering the flavor of the game, a few other changes were made.
...
But all of this was made clear upfront. It was clearly explained where, how, and why, the game wasn't Pathfinder.
Yeah, I broke that down a few pages back, including the entirety of the text rather than just a few buzzwords. I also included their definitions, just so someone wouldn't be able to foot-on-head screw it up.
Here, to save everyone some time.
Spellcasting and words.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From Ashiel: "As to spellcasting services, which has been done to death at this point, the equipment chapter gives clear details as to what size community you can expect to find them in, and it's more or less irreverent of GP values and such."
RDM42: "**In addition, not every town or village has a spellcaster of sufficient level to cast any spell. **
**In general** you must travel to a small town (or larger settlement) to be **reasonably assured** of finding a spellcaster capable of casting 1st-level spells, a large town for 2nd-level spells, a small city for 3rd- or 4th-level spells, a large city for 5th- or 6th-level spells, and a metropolis for 7th- or 8th-level spells. Even a metropolis **isn't guaranteed** to have a local spellcaster able to cast 9th-level spells."
Those two statements are in agreement. So RDM42 what point were you trying to make?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem, Ashiel, is that you ARE claiming that someone changing anything about the core game (bags of holding, elves, availability of spellcasting services as direct examples) is not playing the game called Pathfinder anymore.
I play Pathfinder, and I see it as eminently possible to do that even if bags of holding are not available.
At its core, I would say the issue is how big the ruleset people can expect is. I would say that anything about skill and combat resolution as it stands (yes, this means mostly the mundane/nonmagical parts of the system). This is the "laws of physics" for the game, if you will. If you still have AC, CMB, BAB, init, the six stats, resolve skills through d20 plus bonuses over DC, etc etc etc, what exact races and other elements you use do not matter for whether it is PF or not. The GMG is pretty clear that the system CAN be used for, say, primitive campaigns, or SF ones, with appropriate changes. It even gives optional rules for doing precisely this. I honestly don't see a reason why those optional rules are less "worth" than the optional rules about spellcasting services.
Of course, and just to forestall the objection that keeps being thrown at me, the players need to have information about these changes in advance. No sudden removal of expected bags of holding here.
A player has the right to expect someone calling their game PF to follow the basic rules for PF. If you change things in some way, say, no divine casters, you need to account for that, such as removing condition attacks of undead, or provide another way to remove those conditions, say, through a skill or so.
But. If you change the elements used, there are consequences. Say that I want a campaign where the focus lies on martials and their abilities, removal of certain spells could go a long way. Once I do, other spells become most powerful, the go-to choices. Strategies around magic change, and with them the role of arcane casters. Even to someone choosing to play a wizard in such a setting, it's not just a nerf, since it means opponents also do not have those spells. And to me, that is okay. I would still consider the game Pathfinder.
The following guidelines are presented to help GMs determine what items are available in a given community. These guidelines assume a setting with an average level of magic.
Anything else? GUIDELINES, see?
The problem, Ashiel, is that you ARE claiming that someone changing anything about the core game (bags of holding, elves, availability of spellcasting services as direct examples) is not playing the game called Pathfinder anymore.
...
That is not what I read. I think you are reading "modded Pathfinder" as "not Pathfinder".
Unless I have been misreading what Ashiel wrote I saw it as "Pathfinder Variation X(not the Roman number)"
The problem, Ashiel, is that you ARE claiming that someone changing anything about the core game (bags of holding, elves, availability of spellcasting services as direct examples) is not playing the game called Pathfinder anymore.
Citation needed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The following guidelines are presented to help GMs determine what items are available in a given community. These guidelines assume a setting with an average level of magic.Anything else? GUIDELINES, see?
Does everything have to be binary with you? The rules clearly say that while not absolute, these are the standard assumptions, and notes changes to those assumptions, and process for deviating from those assumptions. It says that some cities may deviate wildly from these guidelines (hence, the guidelines are not absolute), but some is not even the majority.
Which goes back to magic services thing, Sissyl. That there may be exceptions is not the same thing as there not being a standard. That's what makes these exceptions. Sometimes you will find, subject to GM discretion, variations, but these are clearly not the norm.
Yes, if you're removing stuff from the core rules like Elves and bags of holding, you're not playing Pathfinder so much as modded Pathfinder. Because you have actually removed material that is normally available in default Pathfinder.
Here. You make a clear distinction between "playing pathfinder" and "playing modded pathfinder". Then you muddle things further by distinguishing "default pathfinder", admittedly.
So, Ashiel, a city can deviate wildly from the guidelines for availability of goods. Can a Large town also do so, or would that mean that the GM in question is making a house rule, and needs to inform the players specifically about this before playing?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In other words, "Sometimes different from" does not equate to "ignore this", nor does it equate to "always different from", or anything along the same line of reasoning.
Which is why that if you change it from the standard expectation, you should let players know. Because it's not like Pathfinder is generally expected to be played otherwise, and it's considerate to everyone involved to let them know that if the core rulebook cannot be trusted on the norms of the game on certain topics.
And how those things actually work in someone's modded game would be good to explain.
Of course, like our dear Illithid notes, this is irrelevant to whether or not it's even a good idea to deviate from the norm on a whim anyway (it usually isn't).
Not trying to put words in Ashiel's mouth, but if I am understanding their argument correctly, they're saying that if a town sells wizzisticks (made up piece of candy), that is a house rule.
To me, defining a house rule in that way makes it lose a lot of its value. The goal should be that players are aware of all house rules.
If I as the GM am required to provide equipment availability lists for every town in the game world, then the list of house rules is going to be incredibly long.
To qualify as a house rule, the impact on the players should be significant enough that it actually affects them to such a degree.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not trying to put words in Ashiel's mouth, but if I am understanding their argument correctly, they're saying that if a town sells wizzisticks (made up piece of candy), that is a house rule.
To me, defining a house rule in that way makes it lose a lot of its value. The goal should be that players are aware of all house rules.
If I as the GM am required to provide equipment availability lists for every town in the game world, then the list of house rules is going to be incredibly long.
To qualify as a house rule, the impact on the players should be significant enough that it actually affects them to such a degree.
I didn't read it that way.
Adding wizzisticks is not something you need to point out. Things that have a major impact on the game should. <---That is how I understood his statement. That would mean your wizzisticks would not need to be mentioned.
Basically any deviation from the normal guidelines or rules should be presented up front, such as only being able to buy magic items or spellcasting services in a metropolis.
Not trying to put words in Ashiel's mouth, but if I am understanding their argument correctly, they're saying that if a town sells wizzisticks (made up piece of candy), that is a house rule.
To me, defining a house rule in that way makes it lose a lot of its value. The goal should be that players are aware of all house rules.
If I as the GM am required to provide equipment availability lists for every town in the game world, then the list of house rules is going to be incredibly long.
To qualify as a house rule, the impact on the players should be significant enough that it actually affects them to such a degree.
Let me make it simple for you then.
The rules say that most mundane items are simply assumed to be available more or less anywhere. If it's a particularly rare or valuable items, such as full plate or an adamantine sword (or I guess wizzisticks if they're unbelievably expensive magical candy or something), then you may (at your discretion) test their availability as though they were a magic doodad.
Where you got the idea that buying candy was a house rule is beyond me. Whether or not you can buy something is covered in the rules. Whether or not you choose to include "wizzisticks" is your call (assuming wizzisticks are a fill in for "random splatbook item #3267" or something).
Player: "Can I buy some candy in this own?"
GM: "Of course,"
Player: "Can I buy a chair in this own?"
GM: "Absolutely."
Player: "Can I buy a statue made out of solid adamantine?"
GM: "Err, gonna test that one. They probably don't have a bunch of those just lying around."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd just like to say I love you Wraithstrike. My clerics will protect your pilgrims. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be perfectly honest, I would find it ridiculous if I traveled to an arctic settlement and could buy tigers, no matter the size of the settlement. Equally, if I found myself in a tyrant-ruled town with a highly efficient town guard with severe prohibitions about drinking, and could buy alcohol at the CRB prices. A metal-starved country would not likely sell me a full plate at standard prices. And so on.
And this has a point: The equipment lists, even those in the CRB, are SUGGESTIONS. All sorts of things would throw these lists off, and that is not even an issue to me. It is not a house rule for all that, or a bad idea, or whatever negative connotation you wish to attach to it. A GM who did not protest if one of my fellow PCs wanted to buy a tiger in an arctic town would lose a lot in my eyes.
Player: "Can I buy some wizzisticks in this town?"
GM: "Wtf is a wizzistick?"
Player: "It's a super rare piece of candy worth over 1,000 gp."
GM: "Where the hell did you come up with that?"
Player: "It's in this issue of Dragon magazine,"
GM: "Does it do anything?"
Player: "Nah, but it's apparently favored by super rich nobles and I want it because I can get it,"
GM: "Well, Buckleberry Barrows doesn't really have anything that exotic. You'll need to travel to a bigger city with a higher GP limit to find some of your wizard-sticks if such a thing exists,"
Player: "Wizzisticks!"
GM: "...Yes, those things."
Player 2: "Speaking of wizzie sticks, can I get a masterwork longspear here?"
GM: "Yep."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be perfectly honest, I would find it ridiculous if I traveled to an arctic settlement and could buy tigers, no matter the size of the settlement. Equally, if I found myself in a tyrant-ruled town with a highly efficient town guard with severe prohibitions about drinking, and could buy alcohol at the CRB prices. A metal-starved country would not likely sell me a full plate at standard prices. And so on.
And this has a point: The equipment lists, even those in the CRB, are SUGGESTIONS. All sorts of things would throw these lists off, and that is not even an issue to me. It is not a house rule for all that, or a bad idea, or whatever negative connotation you wish to attach to it. A GM who did not protest if one of my fellow PCs wanted to buy a tiger in an arctic town would lose a lot in my eyes.
Do you plan on addressing anything I actually say sometime in this thread today? Or maybe tomorrow? How about next Friday?
On a side note, a "tiger" in such a climate might be a snow leopard or something. Most of the animal statblocks are built to be used for different variations of animals (I think the 3.5 animal statblocks were better than Pathfinder's for much of this).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GM: "We don't have any wizzisticks in this town."
Player: "But this town has a GP limit of 1002 gp. According to the guidelines for availability of goods, I can buy wizzisticks here."
GM: "Whatever a wizzistick is, it's obscure enough not to have made its way to Buckleberry Barrows."
Player: "Buckleberry Barrows is not listed as a City. Thus, if it is not available here, you are making a house rule. I never signed up to play your modded pathfinder game. I have never been interested in playing in GM whim campaigns like "magic ages you 20 years if you use it" or the like. You said nothing about this houserule when I made my character. HOW DARE YOU???!!!???"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GM: "We don't have any wizzisticks in this town."
Player: "But this town has a GP limit of 1002 gp. According to the guidelines for availability of goods, I can buy wizzisticks here."
GM: "Whatever a wizzistick is, it's obscure enough not to have made its way to Buckleberry Barrows."
Player: "Buckleberry Barrows is not listed as a City. Thus, if it is not available here, you are making a house rule. I never signed up to play your modded pathfinder game. I have never been interested in playing in GM whim campaigns like "magic ages you 20 years if you use it" or the like. You said nothing about this houserule when I made my character. HOW DARE YOU???!!!???"
The real question is, why doesn't the town have wizziesticks if their GP limit is 1002?
EDIT: I appreciate your attempt at satire but you're going to need to do a little better than this, Sissyl.
Because as a GM, I decided that Buckleberry Barrows is a pretty harsh frontier community, with little time for nonsense stuff like candymaking?
Sissyl I am sure that Ashiel never intended for every item to be available in every settlement of the same size without regard to factors such as weather. As an example a penguin might be really hard to find in a city that is in the middle of a desert.
PS: I have no idea why a player would ask for a penguin. It was just an example.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want a race of desert penguins now. A playable one.
Because as a GM, I decided that Buckleberry Barrows is a pretty harsh frontier community, with little time for nonsense stuff like candymaking?
Then it probably isn't a community large enough to have a GP limit like that. Or else it's large enough that there's a few pieces floating around (mind you, if it's rare enough to test, there's only about 3 wizzie sticks on average floating around the entire community that could be purchased, and that average includes a decent probability of 0).
Our illithid's five whys seem like a pretty good system right about now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Were-Penguins. :)
I want a race of desert penguins now. A playable one.
One second, we just need some tar and feathers.
Likewise, in all cases, the rules have made it clear that there can be exceptions to these norms but that they are supposed to be norms. It's a good way to make a certain area seem more or less unique or interesting, such as if an area has an embargo on something.
It's okay to have exceptions. The rules say as much, but there's a difference between having exceptions and making the exceptions the norm, or throwing the rules out entirely.
One will actually increase immersion by creating a reasonable anomaly, the other leads to unnecessary frustration when you've wandered five towns and can't find an oil of magic weapon or someone to life the blindness on your party's rogue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I started writing a post about how I would see the five whys to your views, Ashiel. I decided it was unnecessarily confrontational, and worse, made assumptions about what you think. So, no.
I suppose my main point is that as a player, there needs to be some sort of trust in the GM. You know, I might not get a wizzistick in Buckleberry Barrows, but now the GM knows I want one, hopefully I will get a chance later. Or, the GM banned divine magic, maybe that will make for a different game that could be fun? Or, perhaps I could enjoy an underwater campaign? And so on. If you don't trust the GM to provide you with a fun experience, why play at all with that GM? Calling everything that doesn't include everything ever written for Pathfinder, or indeed assumes even everything in the CRB, a "whim campaign" and the like, and claiming it's a "bad idea" is needlessly restrictive. And if you do get what you want, it's all going to happen in very similar settings.
To me, at least, the kitchen sink style lost its appeal quite some time ago. I am well aware that that's a matter of taste.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose my main point is that as a player, there needs to be some sort of trust in the GM.
Prior to that, as a GM, there needs to be some reason for the players to trust you. A lot of GMs are unnecessarily adversarial and should not be trusted for that reason.
When the first thing you do is take the standard assumptions and throw them out to the players' loss, .... that's not a good way to establish that you're a nonadversarial GM. Quite the opposite, I'd say.
"Well, yeah, last night, we went out, and I got drunk and punched your best friend in the nose. So, you wanna go out tonight?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I started writing a post about how I would see the five whys to your views, Ashiel. I decided it was unnecessarily confrontational, and worse, made assumptions about what you think. So, no.
Thanks for that.
I suppose my main point is that as a player, there needs to be some sort of trust in the GM. You know, I might not get a wizzistick in Buckleberry Barrows, but now the GM knows I want one, hopefully I will get a chance later.
Even in the core rules, you're not guaranteed to find a wizziestick (geeze, this is becoming a running gag) if it's rare so you might not (like I said, it's very easy for the result to come up 0 when seeing if there's any available).
Or, the GM banned divine magic, maybe that will make for a different game that could be fun?
It could, but this is the sort of thing you tell up front. Which is what I've been saying this whole time. It's not normal Pathfinder if you just gutted a major part of Pathfinder out of the game, and you need to let players know that before they want to play a cleric (and if they have their heart set on cleric, they might be better suited finding a different game where they can play what they want).
Or, perhaps I could enjoy an underwater campaign?
Sure, why not?
If you don't trust the GM to provide you with a fun experience, why play at all with that GM?
Trust is built through honesty, integrity, and consistency. Trust is built through not randomly changing stuff around, or seemingly randomly. Which is why I keep stressing to remark about major changes to the game up front. If your game has rarer *insert thing here* than usual, let them know about it.
I gave an example of where I did this very same thing. I changed a lot about the system for the campaign I wanted to run and I let the players know ahead of time and we worked together to make characters and stuff that fit that particularly thing. I told them where Pathfinder ended and campaign-customization began and trust was maintained. It would have been an entirely different story if I just didn't include any casters or magic item dealers in the game without telling them ahead of time (they rightfully would have lost trust), and trust is something a GM has to earn.
Calling everything that doesn't include everything ever written for Pathfinder, or indeed assumes even everything in the CRB, a "whim campaign" and the like, and claiming it's a "bad idea" is needlessly restrictive.
Yet I've never said anything of the sort, Sissyl. You're seriously attacking a windmill here. You keep coming back to this phantom that does not exist. I even said - repeatedly - that whether or not you use splatbook material wasn't even something I was concerned with and was individual preference.
To me, at least, the kitchen sink style lost its appeal quite some time ago. I am well aware that that's a matter of taste.
I feel like we're getting somewhere, but we really need to figure out why you keep seeing these dragon-like windmills, dear Sissyl.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It amazes me that you find anyone to play with if that is what you expect of everyone, Orfamay. And I don't see why changing some parts of the game necessarily means "to the players' loss", or why it has any bearing on what kind of GM you are.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It amazes me that you find anyone to play with if that is what you expect of everyone, Orfamay. And I don't see why changing some parts of the game necessarily means "to the players' loss", or why it has any bearing on what kind of GM you are.
Because transparency is not only easy but it's also very obviously, very honestly, trust building. And we're talking about the standard assumptions like the players being able to exchange treasure for spellcasting services. Not telling them that those services do not exist as described in the manual is factually at their loss.
When the rogue needs blindness removed and there's no remove blindness to be found, that is at their loss.
When the players are wanting to kick butt and find treasure, the campaign I ran with a very minimized focus on treasure would be to their loss.
When players want to play a cleric, suddenly finding out that divine magic is banned is at their loss.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thing is, Ashiel, why don't you drop the use of your own windmill about the GM not telling the players about what is different about their campaigns?
Pretty much everyone involved in the conversation has said that of course you tell the players about the things which are special or distinctive about your campaign up front, so why are you bringing it up repeatedly as if it's a breathtaking mic dropping point?
Because every time I've mentioned that "X is okay but needs to be said up front because, like with Y campaign, because it changes Z assumption of the game", I keep getting posts back that don't seem to acknowledge that at all, or randomly saying that I said things I never did (such as "allow everything published for Pathfinder or you're not playing Pathfinder", which I never even implied).
Likewise, if these things were discussed up front, they wouldn't be an issue in the first place. Because everyone would be aware of what was going on. Just like with the game I was discussing.
By the way, Wraithstrike asked you a question and I don't think you answered it.
Deviating from Pathfinder much is actually a pretty good way to get most anyone I know to bow out of a game. Most of us want to play Pathfinder (ideally Pathfinder + Dreamscarred Press material). Most of the players I know have no interest in someone's GM whimsy adventures, nor someone's "magic makes you age 20 years when you use it" adventures, or whatever else.
Of course, like our dear Illithid notes, this is irrelevant to whether or not it's even a good idea to deviate from the norm on a whim anyway (it usually isn't).
Here are the clearest examples you've given in this thread, Ashiel. I feel it is pretty dismissive of anyone changing what is used in the game to produce a campaign that is not "everything included kitchen sink". Dragon-sized windmills? Perhaps.
So to clear things up everyone in this discussion is on board with letting players know about major changes before the game starts.
Yes or no?
Ashiel I am counting you as a yes.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Absolutely. AS I HAVE REPEATEDLY STATED.