| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are a lot of intelligent people who believe this game is broken at high levels. Actually the only serious disagreement on this is where you draw the line. E12 seems to be the standard, but even E6 doesn't really raise any eyebrows. I believe the problem is always there, it is just at what point it breaks it for you.
I don't think hyperoptimization is the problem, though I do think it is a symptom/effect of the problem. I think the problem goes down to a basic common assumption. The assumption is that everything written always and only works as written. We get hundreds of posts on various threads in the forums on how even first level spells MUST always work.
I have seen intelligent people bemoan the fact that the create water Cantrip breaks desert games, but if you suggest that water magic may not work well in a desert you should probably have your lawyer present.
What do you think?
Can you think of other reasonable situations that certain types of magic should be unreliable?
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
what's causing the unreliability?
there's no rule to suggest spells suddenly stop working because of where you are to adding a houserule to do so is viewed as petty, Often because there's not a reasonable reason for the change in the story world.
| 18 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can you think of other reasonable situations that certain types of magic should be unreliable?
No. If the storyteller cannot conceive of stories beyond "scarcity is a problem", it's not the game's fault.
We see these threads with "detect magic means I can't hide magic stuff" or "now the wizard can fly so walls don't stop him" or your example of "create water is ruining my there's-no-water adventure". They're the result of lack of creativity, not a broken game.
This isn't the game where the only way over a wall is Climb. If you can't write a story that embraces the abilities of the player characters instead of relying on inabilities, this isn't the game for you to DM in.
Magic shouldn't be unreliable any more than swinging a sword should. Beyond hit & miss, we'd be introducing a "well, you can only make so many attacks a day because if you can just keep swinging every six seconds, you'll break my story, where a few bad guys tire you out!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, reliability isn't an issue. Ignoring any balance issues, abilities that arbitrarily don't work sometimes are frustrating to the player, so it affects the out of game experience more than the in-game experience.
Plus, if you have a hypothetical power that can overcome any problem...doesn't matter if it only works 50% of the time. You still have a cosmic do anything power. It doesn't fix the balance problem.
Likewise if you have a power that barely does anything, it doesn't matter much if it works 100% of the time as compared to the one that only works half the time but solves any problem when it does work. There's still an inter-option balance problem there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am entirely uncertain what the point of your post is. If you are saying the game is broken at high levels (which I only sort of agree with, it is certainly different at high levels) because people play by the rules, I guess I agree with you. The rules do make high level play quite game changing. There are of course other rule sets that handle things differently (and they have their strengths and weaknesses.)
I certainly don't have any issue with campaign or setting specific house-rules. I don't think most players would have an issue with someone running a desert game and saying in this world (or even just certain regions) conjuration [water] spells do not function. Springing that on them after the game started would cause some players to get aggravated, but very few would mind that going in.
There are of course fun games where magic is unreliable to a greater or lesser degree. The flavor of Pathfinder (and D&D) is that magic is a reliable scientific style discipline and it works the way it works. Other games have different flavor, and mechanics that support it, but while preferences vary, I don't know that such a thing intrinsically makes one system better than another.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh well, Heer is my Lawyer.
"I am the Waraxe and I speak for the Frees"
The bird suggested that water magic might not work as well in a desert, because in a magic pervasive world you really wouldn't have deserts if water magic worked well there. Alternately, the inherent dryness of the desert might reasonably interfere with water magic.
The rather naive bird also asked a simple question, could other people think of REASONABLE situations that might affect a type of magics reliability, you know like lightning and fire spells underwater.
I told the poor deluded bird that the very concept would overtly anger people, and be treated as an attack on everything magic, which I assure you was not his intent. I advise my client to remain silent on this issue, though I doubt his ability to do so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The bird suggested that water magic might not work as well in a desert, because in a magic pervasive world you really wouldn't have deserts if water magic worked well there.
There's already a built-in explanation for why this isn't the case: Created water disappears after 24 hours. More powerful spells dissipate even faster.
Alternately, the inherent dryness of the desert might reasonably interfere with water magic.
In a different system, reasonable, but Create Water is a Conjuration spell, so it just snatches a few gallons form the Plane of Water.
In a setting where it is instead something like drawing water molecules out of the air and collecting them, I'd agree this makes more sense, but still wouldn't implement it in most games because it just wouldn't be fun.
REASONABLE situations that might affect a type of magics reliability, you know like lightning and fire spells underwater.
These are also "unreasonable" just due to the rules of this system. Fire spells create superheated steam underwater, for instance, but otherwise function normally.
The only reasonable scenario in this system is to create pockets of wild magic like what exist in some places on Golarion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
theres a specific thing covering create water and deserts, it doesn't work because the water from create water disappears
"This water disappears after 1 day if not consumed."
last line in the spell.
This means that deserts would exist.
i'm going to play middle here
Magic can ruin games, as a gm it's your job to plan for all forms of magic and abilities.
Changing the way magic works is inadvisable as magic systems in most games is messed up and either becomes overpowered or isn't worth it.
the water magic also wouldnt be effected because it's under conjuration which implies your summoning it from some other dimension.
however if you where to change the system to make it so you are drawing from nature or something and there were no other plans then your idea could work. but as far as pathfinder and Golarion go it does not.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is using create water game breaking in desert games? It doesn't give you a map of the desert, or provide any food, or ward off predators (many of which can burrow away if they are losing, keeping food a problem), it doesn't prevent heatstroke, it doesn't give you the macguffin you are looking for in the desert, it doesn't clear out the ancient ruins, etc.
It keeps the party from going home early one night because after many tedious sessions of dozens of saves and survival checks they finally died of thirst. It gives a chance for character deaths to feel a bit more satisfying.
Other spells can take care of these, but they also require a significant resource investment (at the level gained at least), and in some cases are done to avoid deaths which feel pointless, tedious, and boring.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This sounds similar to the planar magic traits, like Impeded Magic. That could be an interesting feature of your world or magic system, in which natural features of the world inhibit magic tied to opposing concepts. So create water fails in the desert, fireball is weaker in the arctic, and acid splash fizzles in, um... a limestone quarry?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
what's causing the unreliability?
The DM, who is using the rules to help create an entertaining situation.
there's no rule to suggest spells suddenly stop working because of where you are to adding a houserule to do so is viewed as petty, Often because there's not a reasonable reason for the change in the story world.
I'll poke back and say it might be petty for the player to pick at the DM for suggesting a rule-change that might be really important to his / her idea of the campaign. But I think it's the DM's responsibility to convince the player why it's not petty.
It's pretty standard for the DM (with player agreement) to adjust rules to suit the campaign in any way they see fit. The idea is that the DM and players agree.
If I suggested a houserule to suit the campaign and you, as a player, told me you thought it was petty, then we'd have to have a deeper conversation about what we're seeking in terms of enjoyment of the game.
As DM, I need to know the players are willing to trust that when I want to propose an alteration to the rules, it's for the benefit and enjoyment of all.
If I hear backlash really quickly, it's an alarm bell that we're going to be battling about 'petty' things more than I'd like in a game.
Often that means the player and DM aren't suited to play together.
Thankfully, I've only heard alarm bells once, in thirty years of DM'ing. In that case, the player was out after the first session and we were golden from then on.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are a lot of intelligent people who believe this game is broken at high levels. Actually the only serious disagreement on this is where you draw the line. E12 seems to be the standard, but even E6 doesn't really raise any eyebrows. I believe the problem is always there, it is just at what point it breaks it for you.
I would seriously disagree on all points. While there are a few mechanics that are really wonky (simulacrum and limited wish{geas} spring to mind), this game is not as wrecked as people make it out to be.
Of course, trying to enforce balance is what usually ends up breaking things. A game where NPCs use their treasure values, PCs get their inherent modifiers from planar binding, and major encounters given a bit of thought actually tends to work very well. When the game is played at 10/10 or even 11/10, martials are not so easily replaced, and everyone has a role to play.
I've seen more games bottom up explicitly because someone was trying to keep the game from breaking and, of course, broke it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wish something that was more of a trope in Pathfinder games is the search for power. The main brokenness to casters is that it seems they can freely pick from any spell that exists. Somehow, every single wizard in existence, upon hitting 17th level, apparently knows wish and/or time stop. That doesn't sit right with me. I think this speaks to the same fundamental issue: players assume everything they see in a book is free game.
A GM simply saying no wouldn't be going about it right. It also utilizes the "yes but" theory to running games. I think a large reason it hasn't been a thing is it requires the GM to more closely micromanage PCs as they level up which tends to be taboo. Plus, there is a very real risk of having bland wizards unless you specifically make them powerful. Regardless, the quest for power doesn't exist. There is only the quest for levels.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are a lot of intelligent people who believe this game is broken at high levels. Actually the only serious disagreement on this is where you draw the line. E12 seems to be the standard, but even E6 doesn't really raise any eyebrows. I believe the problem is always there, it is just at what point it breaks it for you.
I don't think hyperoptimization is the problem, though I do think it is a symptom/effect of the problem. I think the problem goes down to a basic common assumption. The assumption is that everything written always and only works as written. We get hundreds of posts on various threads in the forums on how even first level spells MUST always work.
I have seen intelligent people bemoan the fact that the create water Cantrip breaks desert games, but if you suggest that water magic may not work well in a desert you should probably have your lawyer present.
What do you think?
Can you think of other reasonable situations that certain types of magic should be unreliable?
The problem is from DMs who don't realize that you can't run the same game post level 12 that you were running pre level 11. You have to change how you challenge your players instead of just throwing bigger monsters at them. You have to walk a balancing act between simply negating the accomplishments they earned or having them walk through your challenges.
And much of those posts that say things must always work neglect an important factor... Context and environment. They also frequently misstate how spells should work. Running high level campaigns are work. a lot more work than low level and the added complexities are reasons that many DMs decide it's not worth the hassle and end their campaigns before then.
I wish something that was more of a trope in Pathfinder games is the search for power. The main brokenness to casters is that it seems they can freely pick from any spell that exists. Somehow, every single wizard in existence, upon hitting 17th level, apparently knows wish and/or time stop. That doesn't sit right with me. I think this speaks to the same fundamental issue: players assume everything they see in a book is free game.
A GM simply saying no wouldn't be going about it right. It also utilizes the "yes but" theory to running games. I think a large reason it hasn't been a thing is it requires the GM to more closely micromanage PCs as they level up which tends to be taboo. Plus, there is a very real risk of having bland wizards unless you specifically make them powerful. Regardless, the quest for power doesn't exist. There is only the quest for levels.
My only disagreement is with your assumption that a "quest for power" doesn't exist. It does in my games and I'd like to think in many others. You wouldn't know it by fading on these forums though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My only disagreement is with your assumption that a "quest for power" doesn't exist. It does in my games and I'd like to think in many others. You wouldn't know it by fading on these forums though.
It doesn't from a Paizo perspective. I can't recall a single mechanic or guidance in their APs, hardcovers, campaign setting books or player companion books that even hint at restricting options when you level up, caster or otherwise. It's certainly never been a part of any APs which is where the rubber meets the road in terms of both crunch and setting.
In short, GMs can always do what they want. Saying it happens in your games doesn't really mean much, no offense. It needs to come from Paizo for it to actually be "in" the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The main brokenness to casters is that it seems they can freely pick from any spell that exists. Somehow, every single wizard in existence, upon hitting 17th level, apparently knows wish and/or time stop.
At level 17 a wizard gets two known level 9 spells (ignoring the unlikely case he picks up lower level spells). It's actually up to the GM whether said wizard acquires other level 9 spells within this level.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
MY TWO CENTS:
Yes the "all problems can be solved with the right spell" is something that can happen in D&D. It's not just create water, it can be endure elements if you want a game where extreme temperatures matter, or teleport if you want the party not to go back after going nova at every wandering monster they meet.
BUT
A decent DM should find creative ways to work around these situations and make those challanges matter anyway. And yes, the DM has the right to change things to suit the game if needed, so the game is flexible enough to deal with such things provided the DM knows what he's doing and the players respect his authority on such matters.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The main brokenness to casters is that it seems they can freely pick from any spell that exists. Somehow, every single wizard in existence, upon hitting 17th level, apparently knows wish and/or time stop.At level 17 a wizard gets two known level 9 spells (ignoring the unlikely case he picks up lower level spells). It's actually up to the GM whether said wizard acquires other level 9 spells within this level.
I think that was the point. In earlier editions inherent spells gained were not a part of leveling up.
My only disagreement is with your assumption that a "quest for power" doesn't exist. It does in my games and I'd like to think in many others. You wouldn't know it by fading on these forums though.It doesn't from a Paizo perspective. I can't recall a single mechanic or guidance in their APs, hardcovers, campaign setting books or player companion books that even hint at restricting options when you level up, caster or otherwise. It's certainly never been a part of any APs which is where the rubber meets the road in terms of both crunch and setting.
In short, GMs can always do what they want. Saying it happens in your games doesn't really mean much, no offense. It needs to come from Paizo for it to actually be "in" the game.
Read "The Most Important Rule" on page 11 of the rulebook.
I've never seen this restriction printed in any other roleplaying game that gives a huge list of spells and equipment.
Could be that we come from two different backgrounds of roleplaying. I definitely see more 4e and PF players than elsewhere who need rules permission to make a change at their own table. As you said, no offence. :)
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think having areas of the world where magic works differently is a really fun idea, provided you A) make it part of the story and B) don't act capriciously.
Finding out that create water won't work in the cursed desert sounds because it's haunted by the spirit of an ancient blue dragon sounds like a fun hook.
Finding out that create water won't work because your GM just realized create water ruins her plot is kind of lame.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What it comes down to is that the base game is not based on scarcity of resources. It is not based on magic being unreliable. It is not based on all of these restrictions. It is a game that goes to 20th level, and the nature of the game transforms over those 20 levels.
If you don't want these assumptions, then you can find a different game that includes that or you can house rule it. Many games use various combinations of house rules. My only suggestion is that you work on the house rules ahead of time, and get your player's input as well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Regardless, the quest for power doesn't exist. There is only the quest for levels.
Those are the same thing though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you all. Lots of good thoughts.
Like the idea of leveraging impeded magic rules.
Yes, higher level games might reasonably have seriously different focuses. Pre-pre-Pathfinder I have run a campaign up to level 28, and there were serious paradigm shifts throughout the campaign. I think the design of PFRPG does not make this easy for GMs or players. Doable, but it would need to be a cooperative effort, and highly dependent on what the people want and expect to get out of the game.
From my lawyer...
"I am the...Oh, very well, regarding Create Water, it's text reads:
This spell generates wholesome, drinkable water, just like clean rain water. Water can be created in an area as small as will actually contain the liquid, or in an area three times as large -- possibly creating a downpour or filling many small receptacles. ***This water disappears after 1 day if not consumed.***
Plants consume water, very very quickly too in the desert.
"Hit Submit Daw before you incense anyone else"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bigger-picture response to the OP:
I don't think assumptions about magic reliability are breaking the game.
I do think there is a problem with PF's over-reliance on rules though. I think there is a dominant assumption (reinforced constantly in these forms, and several times in this thread) that PF is meant to have a fairly consistent play style, and that Paizo is the authority on how the game should be run.
DM-player adjustments to the rules are often referred to as "house rules" (granted, that's what the rule-book calls them), and I sometimes get the sense that people think these "house rules" should be an exception rather than the rule. "Rule Zero" is given less priority in PF than in any other RPG I've DM'ed in my 32 year DM career.
The game itself propogates the over-reliance, because it does have a rule for almost everything. How can a DM hand-wave a cool dramatic action when the rules say you need Feats X,Y,XX and ZZ to do that?
Following from that, how am I, as DM, supported when I don't think a player should have a certain spell (for good reason)? The rules say everything else that happens in the game... surely it would also tell us if the entire spell list wasn't accessible?
This all takes agency away from the DM as someone who builds a world with the players. It takes trust away from the DM. And I think it risks a RP environment where the DM is a 'rules-judge' in opposition to the players.
I suspect Starfinder is going to be a lot more restrained with rules, so the game doesn't slip into the same fundamental problems.
**I don't think any of these things kill PF for me. I am DM-ing it without these problems, but it takes a lot of investment and discussions with players beforehand so we agree on the style of game we want. It helps that all of us played a lot of more free-flowing systems, as well. And I think it helps not to have players with excessive mastery of the rules, or over-investment in this particular system over the RP experience itself. {edit - slightly ninja'ed by the OP who came up with a similar conclusion..: ) }
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that was the point. In earlier editions inherent spells gained were not a part of leveling up.
Hmm, is the difference that large? I mean, a AD&D GM would have been seen as a (enter your favourite swearword here) if they didn't provide any level 9 spells to learn - or just relatively weak ones.
In PF any wizard player can pick up level 9 spells they like, assuming they make it to level 17+. This mostly relieves the GM from the duty to provide such spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The game itself propogates the over-reliance, because it does have a rule for almost everything. How can a DM hand-wave a cool dramatic action when the rules say you need Feats X,Y,XX and ZZ to do that?
Following from that, how am I, as DM, supported when I don't think a player should have a certain spell (for good reason)? The rules say everything else that happens in the game... surely it would also tell us if the entire spell list wasn't accessible?
This all takes agency away from the DM as someone who builds a world with the players. It takes trust away from the DM. And I think it risks a RP environment where the DM is a 'rules-judge' in opposition to the players.
Trust and agency are a function of you and your group, not the ruleset. There are two steps that should be done before you start worldbuilding.
1. Decide on the set of rules (i.e. books) that's going to be used. Be caustious with using AP traits as they are frequently balanced only for the specific campaign.
2. Get familliar with that rules set.
3. Don't add any new books to the mix until your world creation is done up and running and then do so only after a through examination on whether you'll fit them in and how you'll do it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've always enjoyed building worlds with the assumption that magic is a thing. Spells like create water make desert campaigns that would be impractical not only doable but very plausible. You can essentially create your own oasis, which means otherwise inhospitable places can now have small towns and villages scattered about them.
Those are the same thing though.
The mechanical result might be the same but the intent and approach is very different.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do think there is a problem with PF's over-reliance on rules though. I think there is a dominant assumption (reinforced constantly in these forms, and several times in this thread) that PF is meant to have a fairly consistent play style, and that Paizo is the authority on how the game should be run.
There is a problem, though. I subscribe to the fact that if something isn't actually in the text of the game then it's not actually in the game. It might be in my version of the game or your version of the game but it's not in the game itself. I can't come to the boards and expect to find a group of people to talk about my thing with. More broadly, especially on these boards, I suspect PFS has a lot to do with this herd mentality. Since it's so important to Paizo as a brand and revenue stream, this kind of thinking works splendidly for them. Never will a release come out and the community at large go "whatever, we've already been doing that for years." A few might, but it wouldn't be representative of a trend. So, I tend to push for things I want to become apart of the actual game that everyone plays in. Then we can have a common dialog.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't from a Paizo perspective. I can't recall a single mechanic or guidance in their APs, hardcovers, campaign setting books or player companion books that even hint at restricting options when you level up, caster or otherwise.
There's actually a recent example, in horror adventures where it says certain spells shouldn't be available through level up and should have to be found as scrolls and in ancient ruins. Admittedly they are talking about certain spells from the new book rather than say, clone or planar binding, but I personally don't see why a GM couldn't rule it to cover more.
There's actually a recent example, in horror adventures where it says certain spells shouldn't be available through level up and should have to be found as scrolls and in ancient ruins.
PLEASE tell me you have a chapter or page reference.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, one of the best 'fixes' I've read for M/C disparity is upping caster times. Standard Actions become full rounds, full rounds become two rounds or a full minute. Small price to pay for being able to shape the universe to your will...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that was the point. In earlier editions inherent spells gained were not a part of leveling up.
On the other hand, I've played in games where wizards never had a chance to scribe new spells into their spellbook. It really sucks. Inherent spells means that you're never completely boned.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
PLEASE tell me you have a chapter or page reference.
Chapter 4, page 111, Contact spells side-bar. I plan on expanding it in my games to many many spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that was the point. In earlier editions inherent spells gained were not a part of leveling up.On the other hand, I've played in games where wizards never had a chance to scribe new spells into their spellbook. It really sucks. Inherent spells means that you're never completely boned.
Yeah, this is the total opposite problem. I wouldn't want that either. Temporarily maybe, but not as a theme of the campaign.
I do think there is a problem with PF's over-reliance on rules though. I think there is a dominant assumption (reinforced constantly in these forms, and several times in this thread) that PF is meant to have a fairly consistent play style, and that Paizo is the authority on how the game should be run.There is a problem, though. I subscribe to the fact that if something isn't actually in the text of the game then it's not actually in the game. It might be in my version of the game or your version of the game but it's not in the game itself. I can't come to the boards and expect to find a group of people to talk about my thing with. More broadly, especially on these boards, I suspect PFS has a lot to do with this herd mentality. Since it's so important to Paizo as a brand and revenue stream, this kind of thinking works splendidly for them. Never will a release come out and the community at large go "whatever, we've already been doing that for years." A few might, but it wouldn't be representative of a trend. So, I tend to push for things I want to become apart of the actual game that everyone plays in. Then we can have a common dialog.
I agree that the problem has partly to do with PFS. I disagree in the sense that we can still have a common dialogue about an RPG that everyone plays differently at their own table. There are plenty of boards for other RPGs with lively and interesting discussions.
I've always enjoyed building worlds with the assumption that magic is a thing. Spells like create water make desert campaigns that would be impractical not only doable but very plausible. You can essentially create your own oasis, which means otherwise inhospitable places can now have small towns and villages scattered about them.
I like the idea that over use of Create Water leads to situations engendered by Star Lord's Element Gun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've always enjoyed building worlds with the assumption that magic is a thing. Spells like create water make desert campaigns that would be impractical not only doable but very plausible. You can essentially create your own oasis, which means otherwise inhospitable places can now have small towns and villages scattered about them.
Until someone manages to cover the area with a dead magic zone. That and scenarios where the magic is failing in such magic-dependent settings, can make for good drama and adventure.
The game itself propogates the over-reliance, because it does have a rule for almost everything. How can a DM hand-wave a cool dramatic action when the rules say you need Feats X,Y,XX and ZZ to do that?
Following from that, how am I, as DM, supported when I don't think a player should have a certain spell (for good reason)? The rules say everything else that happens in the game... surely it would also tell us if the entire spell list wasn't accessible?
This all takes agency away from the DM as someone who builds a world with the players. It takes trust away from the DM. And I think it risks a RP environment where the DM is a 'rules-judge' in opposition to the players.
Trust and agency are a function of you and your group, not the ruleset. There are two steps that should be done before you start worldbuilding.
1. Decide on the set of rules (i.e. books) that's going to be used. Be caustious with using AP traits as they are frequently balanced only for the specific campaign.
2. Get familliar with that rules set.
3. Don't add any new books to the mix until your world creation is done up and running and then do so only after a through examination on whether you'll fit them in and how you'll do it.
I agree with your suggestions. But I still think the PF rules interfere with the DM-player relationship that I have found in other games.
In earlier (and later) editions of D&D, there are enough openings that the DM -must- interpret how things work somehow. If you want to push past your enemy in 1e / 2e D&D, you have to ask the DM how you can do that and you go with what the DM says. Trust and DM fairness is more a part of gameplay. 5e has nice clear rules, but they are also very clear throughout the rulebooks that DM adjustment and interpretation is a part of the game.
In other RPG's (Apocalypse World Engine comes to mind), the rules are also clear on how the player and DM collaborate on building the world.
The PF rules give "The Most Important Rule" at the head of the Core Rulebook, then follow it up with literally thousands of pages of rules, where we never again hear reference to "The Most Important Rule". That contradiction -requires- that groups follow your three suggestions (and more) for the DM and players to ensure they're on common ground. In PF, it is more rare for a player is to ask the DM if they can do something. They will look at the map, the rules, and their character sheet, and tell the DM more precisely what they will do than in any other system I can think of (other that 4e).
It's not a yes/no opposition as you suggest, in my experience. PF makes it tougher to start up a free-flowing RP game with a fresh table than most other games.
Just my opinion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that the problem has partly to do with PFS. I disagree in the sense that we can still have a common dialogue about an RPG that everyone plays differently at their own table. There are plenty of boards for other RPGs with lively and interesting discussions.
You misunderstand. I can simply mention power attack and you probably have a fully formed, accurate idea of what I'm talking about. There is years of the game having power attack in lots of different configurations. There is nuance to power attack that most people already understand. Most everyone can provide commentary on power attack and have that same fully formed, accurate idea and be mostly on the same page. It goes beyond simple dialog.
To have the same discussion we could have on a myriad number of mechanics and features, you'd have to provide rather lengthy expositions on your own philosophy, house rules, prior adjudications, and so on so that everyone could properly understand the reasons and methods of execution of your material. Plus, if someone heard something similar from someone else, they're likely to misunderstand anyway, in either some small detail or large, and substitute what you're trying to explain with what they are already familiar with.
I agree that the problem has partly to do with PFS. I disagree in the sense that we can still have a common dialogue about an RPG that everyone plays differently at their own table. There are plenty of boards for other RPGs with lively and interesting discussions.You misunderstand. I can simply mention power attack and you probably have a fully formed, accurate idea of what I'm talking about. There is years of the game having power attack in lots of different configurations. There is nuance to power attack that most people already understand. Most everyone can provide commentary on power attack and have that same fully formed, accurate idea and be mostly on the same page. It goes beyond simple dialog.
To have the same discussion we could have on a myriad number of mechanics and features, you'd have to provide rather lengthy expositions on your own philosophy, house rules, prior adjudications, and so on so that everyone could properly understand the reasons and methods of execution of your material. Plus, if someone heard something similar from someone else, they're likely to misunderstand anyway, in either some small detail or large, and substitute what you're trying to explain with what they are already familiar with.
That's the same in every RPG though. It's just that different rules / situations are discussed in different RPGs. I'm not sure what your point is now.
What other RPG's are you thinking about, specifically? And what conversations about PF are possible that aren't possible with other games?
For example, you wouldn't have a conversation about Power Attack in a D&D 5e forum because it's not a rule. There might be a discussion like "Do you, as DM, let your players swing harder at greater risk of missing?"
I think the majority response would be "No, because that's included as part of the To Hit / Combat procedure."
Again, not completely clear on why you think PF's extremely detailed rules help maintain a unified conversation about the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bigger-picture response to the OP:
I don't think assumptions about magic reliability are breaking the game.
I do think there is a problem with PF's over-reliance on rules though. I think there is a dominant assumption (reinforced constantly in these forms, and several times in this thread) that PF is meant to have a fairly consistent play style, and that Paizo is the authority on how the game should be run.
DM-player adjustments to the rules are often referred to as "house rules" (granted, that's what the rule-book calls them), and I sometimes get the sense that people think these "house rules" should be an exception rather than the rule. "Rule Zero" is given less priority in PF than in any other RPG I've DM'ed in my 32 year DM career.
The game itself propogates the over-reliance, because it does have a rule for almost everything. How can a DM hand-wave a cool dramatic action when the rules say you need Feats X,Y,XX and ZZ to do that?
Following from that, how am I, as DM, supported when I don't think a player should have a certain spell (for good reason)? The rules say everything else that happens in the game... surely it would also tell us if the entire spell list wasn't accessible?
This all takes agency away from the DM as someone who builds a world with the players. It takes trust away from the DM. And I think it risks a RP environment where the DM is a 'rules-judge' in opposition to the players.
I suspect Starfinder is going to be a lot more restrained with rules, so the game doesn't slip into the same fundamental problems.
**I don't think any of these things kill PF for me. I am DM-ing it without these problems, but it takes a lot of investment and discussions with players beforehand so we agree on the style of game we want. It helps that all of us played a lot of more free-flowing systems, as well. And I think it helps not to have players with excessive mastery of the rules, or over-investment in this particular system over the RP experience itself. {edit - slightly ninja'ed...
It's because players expect the game to follow the rules they know when playing pathfinder, house rules brought in at the start are fine, but when the GM starts changing things half way through and suddenly that plan you had for your character doesn't work it's really annoying, rules for everything is one of the things I like about pathfinder, if I want to be able to do something I know in advance what it takes.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF makes it tougher to start up a free-flowing RP game with a fresh table than most other games.
I'd imagine that's because PF was not designed to be a "free-flowing" experience, it is a rigidly designed system with rules for almost everything.
GMs are, of course, free to change anything, but the rules provide a very comprehensive "Works like this unless stated otherwise at the start of the game" experience, which is what a lot of people like about it.
PF makes it tougher to start up a free-flowing RP game with a fresh table than most other games.I'd imagine that's because PF was not designed to be a "free-flowing" experience, it is a rigidly designed system with rules for almost everything.
GMs are, of course, free to change anything, but the rules provide a very comprehensive "Works like this unless stated otherwise at the start of the game" experience, which is what a lot of people like about it.
It also leads to bizarre conversations like we see here where people imply you can't run a PF desert survival game because the rules give you access to water-creation spells and gear.
The game is cool is some respects but can also severely limit possibilities... Like every game I guess.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's the same in every RPG though. It's just that different rules / situations are discussed in different RPGs. I'm not sure what your point is now.
I said it pretty clearly: I subscribe to the fact that if something isn't actually in the text of the game then it's not actually in the game.
What other RPG's are you thinking about, specifically? And what conversations about PF are possible that aren't possible with other games?
I never eluded that some other RPG has some quality that others don't.