For the OP haters


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

251 to 300 of 451 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Saldiven wrote:


Personally, I think this goes back on the GM.

Before a GM is going to run a campaign, he/she should have a pretty strong idea about the kind of opponents and environment will show up. During the character creation process, the GM should give enough information about the campaign that the players can make more appropriate choices. The GM shouldn't give out huge spoilers or anything, of course, but can steer the players away from obviously bad choices that would result in a frustrated player once the adventure got going.

That's a great idea for experienced GMs who have played Pathfinder for 1+ years and are familiar with all the quirks and failures of the system. It is not very helpful for those who are new to the game.


Wise Old Man wrote:

All I want is some party rule sets for characters who take the spot light away from the party. I said that not everyone will get along in a group, but if at least some percentage can, that's better than nothing. And yes, I believe that a book like that can help a percentage.

Party rules can't be hard to make, it's whatever a party does is equal to their level. I'm sure you can fit max damage charts in there per level, max attribute bonus per level, max this and that per level.

I know what you're thinking, "There's already third party books like that"
Yes, but if its by Paizo, the PFS can use it as an Optional rule, according to GM specific.

I'm still with no clue as to what would be in the book. Do you have an example of something that would be in it?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Saldiven wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Kahel Stormbender wrote:
When you set up such restrictions at the onset, the players know exactly what they're getting into.
And usually avoid the game.
That hasn't been my experience.

How would you know they avoided it?

Shadow Lodge

Wise Old Man wrote:

I know what you're thinking, "There's already third party books like that"

Yes, but if its by Paizo, the PFS can use it as an Optional rule, according to GM specific.

PFS generally doesn't do optional GM rules.


Wise Old Man wrote:

All I want is some party rule sets for characters who take the spot light away from the party. I said that not everyone will get along in a group, but if at least some percentage can, that's better than nothing. And yes, I believe that a book like that can help a percentage.

Party rules can't be hard to make, it's whatever a party does is equal to their level. I'm sure you can fit max damage charts in there per level, max attribute bonus per level, max this and that per level.

I know what you're thinking, "There's already third party books like that"
Yes, but if its by Paizo, the PFS can use it as an Optional rule, according to GM specific.

I don't want to start a flame war as someone mentioned previously. But it seems to me that some people like to rearrange words in a way that is more suiting for them to argue. Probably because of something to do with always wanting to sound right. I myself am a character optimizer, I just don't like to be mistreated by others when I'm writing something on the boards or nagged by other players for whatever reason that they're not satisfied with about my character being too powerful. I want everyone to be on the same playing field, so I can make whatever I want without any problems. Is that someone who sounds like a bad, crazy, deranged person?

People sound like I murdered someone.

Imagine if this book already existed and I said we did't need it, I'd get crapped on regardless. Its inhumane.

P.S.
If you are curious about what I said earlier in this thread, you know how to get there.

Spotlight is not something people need rules for, and it won't help. If my barbarian is killing things with one hit what can be done other than the GM saying your next attack does no damage.

The same thing applies if I have a caster ending encounters with spells. The GM can say "your magic randomly fails", but that is also no good.

If you try that many people are not playing because it kills immersion.

A max damage chart is not going to help. There are ways to stay in the spotlight without the numbers.

A player can cast charm person to take the spotlight from someone with diplomacy, and cast spells like teleport to trump survival. If he takes dazing metamagic he shuts down the enemy combatants. That is 3 spells and one feat.

No max chart is stopping that.

There are other ways to get around this also unless brand new rules are brought in. It is not always about the spotlight, but just being too powerful for what a group is used to.

If you think the chart(rules) are easy to make then make them. You don't have to be an official member of Paizo to get recognition here.

There are alternate magical rules that get mentioned here all the time. DSP is also a 3pp company who focuses on psionics. Owen works with Paizo, and he is a 3pp guy. Cheapy is a board member here who works with Paizo.

A few years ago someone made up rules using modern things like guns to mimiic d20modern. It was pretty popular here. Kirthfinder(also made by a member here) is well known.

Paizo as a company is not going to make something unless they know it is profitable, and so far people don't think your idea has merit so you are likely better off just making it on your own.


TOZ wrote:
Wise Old Man wrote:

I know what you're thinking, "There's already third party books like that"

Yes, but if its by Paizo, the PFS can use it as an Optional rule, according to GM specific.
PFS generally doesn't do optional GM rules.

I forgot to mention this. Good catch


Wise Old Man wrote:

......I just don't like to be mistreated by others when I'm writing something on the boards or nagged by other players for whatever reason that they're not satisfied with about my character being too powerful. I want everyone to be on the same playing field, so I can make whatever I want without any problems. Is that someone who sounds like a bad, crazy, deranged person?

The problem is that what you call mistreatment is not what others call mistreatment. If they tell me my character is too powerful then I can tone it down or leave.

Also if you want to be on the same level as the group then just ask the GM for examples of what is ok. When I GM I tend to tell the group how hard I think the campaign will be. If I plan to run on "hard mode" I let them know, but if not I let them know they can make more relaxed characters. If someone is out of line the GM can say something about it before the game starts.

You are not bad, crazy, or deranged, but you do have a peculiar view of how the game works, if you think this can be done and people(mostly) will just say ok.


I honestly don't know either, Chess Pwn. Because pretty much all I've seen in this thread is already covered in the Game Mastery Guide.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm especially eager to play in games where the GM has a laundry list of banned items and house rules. Usually these masses of house rules are carefully curated, with things like "CORE ONLY" and "Greater Trip is OP."


Wise Old Man wrote:
All I want is some party rule sets for characters who take the spot light away from the party.

This isn't a bad idea but let me make a point. This problem isn't actually just about optimization. Have had games where the one player dominated the group not because his character is the most powerful sometimes he wasn't it was who he was. He tended to hog the spotlight because he could.

I have tried and failed to stop him by making another character leader of the group. Most times they don't step up and the other player does and then tends to dominate the game and group. This had nothing to do with his character at all some of them weak as hell for most of his character's life.
I've read posts of people slamming on Clerics, healers specifically saying how useless they are. They talk of having a group so well designed they never need healing. Isn't that optimization people are saying no to yet they are doing exactly that. I'm willing to be those groups would actively discourage any player from playing a cleric to the point of rudeness.
I've said it before I'll say it again. I don't mind optimization since I expected from my old group. As a GM I expected and planned my encounters this way. It's the players who make this characters so totally useless then whine when they do suck so bad. I tell them I'm planning a Pirate campaign they refuse to take a rank of swimming even. I tell them one race is hated above all they pick that race. They are not doing it for RP they are doing it to be whiny jerks.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
I forgot to mention this. Good catch

I honestly can't think of any optional GM rules in PFS. The optional player rules like VMC and corruptions are usually limited to boons.


Derek Dalton wrote:
Wise Old Man wrote:
All I want is some party rule sets for characters who take the spot light away from the party.

This isn't a bad idea but let me make a point. This problem isn't actually just about optimization. Have had games where the one player dominated the group not because his character is the most powerful sometimes he wasn't it was who he was. He tended to hog the spotlight because he could.

I have tried and failed to stop him by making another character leader of the group. Most times they don't step up and the other player does and then tends to dominate the game and group. This had nothing to do with his character at all some of them weak as hell for most of his character's life.
I've read posts of people slamming on Clerics, healers specifically saying how useless they are. They talk of having a group so well designed they never need healing. Isn't that optimization people are saying no to yet they are doing exactly that. I'm willing to be those groups would actively discourage any player from playing a cleric to the point of rudeness.
I've said it before I'll say it again. I don't mind optimization since I expected from my old group. As a GM I expected and planned my encounters this way. It's the players who make this characters so totally useless then whine when they do suck so bad. I tell them I'm planning a Pirate campaign they refuse to take a rank of swimming even. I tell them one race is hated above all they pick that race. They are not doing it for RP they are doing it to be whiny jerks.

That's actually kind of funny. Lol. I had a chuckle on that story. :)


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Wise Old Man wrote:

All I want is some party rule sets for characters who take the spot light away from the party. I said that not everyone will get along in a group, but if at least some percentage can, that's better than nothing. And yes, I believe that a book like that can help a percentage.

Party rules can't be hard to make, it's whatever a party does is equal to their level. I'm sure you can fit max damage charts in there per level, max attribute bonus per level, max this and that per level.

I know what you're thinking, "There's already third party books like that"
Yes, but if its by Paizo, the PFS can use it as an Optional rule, according to GM specific.

I don't want to start a flame war as someone mentioned previously. But it seems to me that some people like to rearrange words in a way that is more suiting for them to argue. Probably because of something to do with always wanting to sound right. I myself am a character optimizer, I just don't like to be mistreated by others when I'm writing something on the boards or nagged by other players for whatever reason that they're not satisfied with about my character being too powerful. I want everyone to be on the same playing field, so I can make whatever I want without any problems. Is that someone who sounds like a bad, crazy, deranged person?

People sound like I murdered someone.

Imagine if this book already existed and I said we did't need it, I'd get crapped on regardless. Its inhumane.

P.S.
If you are curious about what I said earlier in this thread, you know how to get there.

No book, by Paizo or others, will cause that event to happen. It's similar to asking for some sort of official document so you can say what you want about religion/politics/social events/cheese and no one on the internet or in person can naysay you or give a different opinion.

You are not being mistreated. You are experiencing life, and the internet. Both are full of people that will not agree with you and many will do so vocally.

No document is going to force a table to be on an "even playing field", for whatever that means, because people are going to have different desires in optimization, in play style, in rule use.

You seem more concerned about this mistreatment than trying to find a happy medium with whomever you play with or finding a group that embraces the same style you enjoy.


Knightnday, but what if they actually came out with the book, would you say that you were wrong?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Any solution that puts even more time investment on the shoulders of the GM sounds really unfair.
Spare time can already be scarce.


Wise Old Man wrote:
Knightnday, but what if they actually came out with the book, would you say that you were wrong?

Wrong in what sense?

Ethically it would no be right or wrong. As far as it working that would vary by table depending on their solutions, but we have been saying there is one solution that can fit in a book already that will work for every table.
Most people don't want rules changes of that(max damage as an example) magnitude, and they are not going to change the rules they use for one player. They could do that already if they wanted to do so.

Being incompatible is the issue, not so much one person having a much stronger character. What if you have a group of powerful builds, and one really weak character?

Is the GM supposed to power the monsters down and the other players be bored due to lack of a challenge, and yes being underpowered is also an issue.

What makes you think being OP is so much of an issue in the community that people will pay for a book, and accept rules changes, and actually pay for the book?

Why cant you write the book yourself since you said it was not hard to do?


This game is all about investment, whether people like it or not, they will always adapt to new rules with each new book.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wise Old Man wrote:
Knightnday, but what if they actually came out with the book, would you say that you were wrong?

If they actually decided to make the book, I'd probably say "This is the one book that I have no interest in buying."

I owe everything else they've put out to date. That said, I cannot imagine what they could put in even a 32 page player's companion that would be useful to the situation that couldn't be summed up in a free blog post of "Everyone try to compromise or find your own way."

There is no magic formula. There are no analytics. There is no spreadsheet. You have to be able and willing -- willing being a very important part -- to deal with other people honestly and put yourself and your wants to the side. If you cannot, you have to find a group of people that all want the same thing you do, which is equally hard since they are all likely to want THEIR characters to be the best.

The magic bullet doesn't exist. This proposed book cannot fix a problem that exists in interpersonal relationships, not game play.


Wise Old Man wrote:
....whether people like it or not, they will always adapt to new rules with each new book.

Not optional rules they dont feel like they don't need, and have no use for.

Introducing a new class is which is aslo new rules is different from rules which are not needed or wanted. Your chart idea is not something that deserves a book. At best it would be mentioned similar to how the called shot rules were mentioned if Paizo were to make another book similar to the GMG, which focused on GM'ing.

You still have yet to mention why you cant do the book yourself when other members have created new rules.

Whether or not you know it having Pazio's name on something does not equal automatic acceptance. They were bashed pretty heavily for the advanced class guide book, and when they said a monk could not flurry with just one weapon a few years ago.

The quality of the work is more important, which is why DSP's psionic rules are very popular despite not being designed by anyone who works for Paizo.


Saldiven wrote:
Sundakan wrote:
Should be a disclaimer in that AP that reads "You must be this stronk to ride".

Personally, I think this goes back on the GM.

Before a GM is going to run a campaign, he/she should have a pretty strong idea about the kind of opponents and environment will show up. During the character creation process, the GM should give enough information about the campaign that the players can make more appropriate choices. The GM shouldn't give out huge spoilers or anything, of course, but can steer the players away from obviously bad choices that would result in a frustrated player once the adventure got going.

Lately, I'm preferring to just choose enemies at random or give fight so diverse that they don't follow a thematic. In two pbp campaigns I'm Dming the enemies that appear, besides all kind of goblins, depends largely on what portion of the world the players want to explore and what the random tables say. Seems fun to me that way.


Nicos wrote:
Saldiven wrote:
Sundakan wrote:
Should be a disclaimer in that AP that reads "You must be this stronk to ride".

Personally, I think this goes back on the GM.

Before a GM is going to run a campaign, he/she should have a pretty strong idea about the kind of opponents and environment will show up. During the character creation process, the GM should give enough information about the campaign that the players can make more appropriate choices. The GM shouldn't give out huge spoilers or anything, of course, but can steer the players away from obviously bad choices that would result in a frustrated player once the adventure got going.

Lately, I'm preferring to just choose enemies at random or give fight so diverse that they don't follow a thematic. In two pbp campaigns I'm Dming the enemies that appear, besides all kind of goblins, depends largely on what portion of the world the players want to explore and what the random tables say. Seems fun to me that way.

Yeah, I'm moving towards this as well. I'm liking the idea of eventually running a sandbox hexcrawl game, and one of the features will absolutely be a wide variety of potential enemies depending on what the players do. I actually bought the Wilderlands of High Fantasy 3.5 book, and I'm thinking I'll be using it as a guide.

I'm moving away from the standard "keep encounters balanced to the party". It feels too much like the Oblivion/Skyrim effect- when enemies scale with the party, the party never feels like they are getting any stronger (besides of course the amount of craziness mages are capable of). Besides, I like the idea of the players having to gauge if they are up for the task, and if not, consider options OTHER than brute forcing their way through an encounter- running away and coming back stronger or with help, setting traps, etc. You lose this if the party feels that every encounter will be within their capabilities by default.

I don't mind GMs that custom tailor encounters to the party, but I'm starting to find this an interesting alternative. We'll see how it goes, of course.


Nicos wrote:
Saldiven wrote:
Sundakan wrote:
Should be a disclaimer in that AP that reads "You must be this stronk to ride".

Personally, I think this goes back on the GM.

Before a GM is going to run a campaign, he/she should have a pretty strong idea about the kind of opponents and environment will show up. During the character creation process, the GM should give enough information about the campaign that the players can make more appropriate choices. The GM shouldn't give out huge spoilers or anything, of course, but can steer the players away from obviously bad choices that would result in a frustrated player once the adventure got going.

Lately, I'm preferring to just choose enemies at random or give fight so diverse that they don't follow a thematic. In two pbp campaigns I'm Dming the enemies that appear, besides all kind of goblins, depends largely on what portion of the world the players want to explore and what the random tables say. Seems fun to me that way.

If you're having fun, and your players are having fun, then that's all that really matters.

My post above was a response to someone who played in an AP where there were a lot of thematically and mechanically similar enemies, and the GM allowed the players to make characters that were ineffective against those enemies.

And, heck, if those players were still having fun (rather than all dropping out, as was described), it would still be fine to do it that way.


You may want to check out Frog God Games' Borderland Provinces. It has over a hundred different encounters on a table that each region can draw from, and most of the encounters have Low, Medium, High, and Extreme risk versions. Thus, the more dangerous the area the PCs go to, the more challenging the encounters tend to be - but there are safer places, too, usually near cities and along roads.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Saldiven wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Kahel Stormbender wrote:
When you set up such restrictions at the onset, the players know exactly what they're getting into.
And usually avoid the game.
That hasn't been my experience.
How would you know they avoided it?

Because they tell you, "Sorry, man, that game's not for me."

Honestly, it's pretty easy to tell when your players have decided the game you're pitching doesn't float their boat.

Now, if you're assuming that the GM setting up restrictions is posting on an online site or on a FLGS bulletin board, then there's no way to tell when a potential player is turned off by the restrictions. But in most other table-top situations, it's easy to tell that players have chosen not to play.

And, for what it's worth, I also haven't seen players avoiding games because a few restrictions like no teleporting magic is in the mix in any significant way. We usually give the GM the benefit of the doubt and build accordingly.


GM Rednal wrote:
You may want to check out Frog God Games' Borderland Provinces. It has over a hundred different encounters on a table that each region can draw from, and most of the encounters have Low, Medium, High, and Extreme risk versions. Thus, the more dangerous the area they PCs go to, the more challenging the encounters tend to be - but there are safer places, too, usually near cities and along roads.

Beautiful recommendation, I'll check it out. As I said earlier, my current project is Rappan Athuk and I am really enjoying the Frog God Games style. Glad to know that entry would be helpful, I was having trouble figuring out what to get next (I already have RA and Tsar).


Saldiven wrote:
Sundakan wrote:
Should be a disclaimer in that AP that reads "You must be this stronk to ride".

Personally, I think this goes back on the GM.

Before a GM is going to run a campaign, he/she should have a pretty strong idea about the kind of opponents and environment will show up. During the character creation process, the GM should give enough information about the campaign that the players can make more appropriate choices. The GM shouldn't give out huge spoilers or anything, of course, but can steer the players away from obviously bad choices that would result in a frustrated player once the adventure got going.

This was only the second game he'd tried to run, so he's not that experienced. I keep hoping he'll pick up another one some day, but the last attempt seems to have discouraged him.


Bill Dunn wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Saldiven wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Kahel Stormbender wrote:
When you set up such restrictions at the onset, the players know exactly what they're getting into.
And usually avoid the game.
That hasn't been my experience.
How would you know they avoided it?

Because they tell you, "Sorry, man, that game's not for me."

Honestly, it's pretty easy to tell when your players have decided the game you're pitching doesn't float their boat.

Now, if you're assuming that the GM setting up restrictions is posting on an online site or on a FLGS bulletin board, then there's no way to tell when a potential player is turned off by the restrictions. But in most other table-top situations, it's easy to tell that players have chosen not to play.

And, for what it's worth, I also haven't seen players avoiding games because a few restrictions like no teleporting magic is in the mix in any significant way. We usually give the GM the benefit of the doubt and build accordingly.

Pretty much this. My groups meets in a couple of public places (one on a university campus and the other in a hobby store gaming area). Our prospective group members are, for the most part, people who have come up to us while we were playing and asked about joining the group. That's the point that I will tell new players the same stuff I told the group when we first started. The vast majority of people I have talked to in these settings don't really have problems with source material limitations.

Sundakan wrote:
This was only the second game he'd tried to run, so he's not that experienced. I keep hoping he'll pick up another one some day, but the last attempt seems to have discouraged him.

I hope he does, too. He's had a good learning experience. I think every veteran GM has had something like this happen. It's common when a GM is learning to run a table that everything goes sideways because there were little things that the GM didn't catch on first examination. I hope he can see the points where he could have prevented the discontent with a little preventative GMing early in the campaign, then then grow as a GM for the future.


In my experience controlling GMs ruin games. Regular GMs are content to go with the flow and let the PCs help shape the story.


Saldiven wrote:


Sundakan wrote:
This was only the second game he'd tried to run, so he's not that experienced. I keep hoping he'll pick up another one some day, but the last attempt seems to have discouraged him.
I hope he does, too. He's had a good learning experience. I think every veteran GM has had something like this happen. It's common when a GM is learning to run a table that everything goes sideways because there were little things that the GM...

He did a really good job tweaking stuff plot-wise to make things more interesting (adding in interactions and personality to the rival groups where previously there was little to none) so he's definitely got the creative side down pat.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

In my experience, large gaps in character power lead to TPKs.

If what the game master has to use in order to challenge one character will wipe out every other character in the group, there is most likely a problem. Some groups might still be alright if they aren't looking for challenging encounters, but it is likely someone at the table will feel useless.

The details may change based on game system, but this problem is not unique to Pathfinder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BretI wrote:

In my experience, large gaps in character power lead to TPKs.

If what the game master has to use in order to challenge one character will wipe out every other character in the group, there is most likely a problem. Some groups might still be alright if they aren't looking for challenging encounters, but it is likely someone at the table will feel useless.

The details may change based on game system, but this problem is not unique to Pathfinder.

Yes, this is a issue.

If you have a group of Optimizers, playing "rocket tag'- as long as they are having fun, more power to them! For them, they are certainly playing the game "right".

If you have a group of low op Roleplayers- and they are having fun- For them, they are certainly playing the game "right".

But mixing the two can be bad.

Like one time the DM let a player do a Vampire in out 3.5 game. With that +8 LA, any game that was a normal challenge for the party, he'd just walk thru.

But other stuff- like a walk across the wilds by day- was not easily surmountable.

It's tough both on the player sand DM to have a issue like this.


Book Production:
IMHO, if someone create a book that let widely disparate groups work together in harmony was made it should be required reading by everyone.

If such a thing were possible I would love to see/read/own such a wonder of the world.

As to how one type of player can plan in another type of game: (ie Roll-Play vs Role-Play or mechanics vs actors)
The whole group dynamic is the biggest thing here IMHO. Should the game runner and all of the other players who are/might not be having fun continue playing for one persons enjoyment? How long should the game go one for that one persons enjoyment? Level 100? Level 1000?

MDC


Raving Nerd wrote:
I'm especially eager to play in games where the GM has a laundry list of banned items and house rules. Usually these masses of house rules are carefully curated, with things like "CORE ONLY" and "Greater Trip is OP."

PFS makes a decent reference if people want to see what feats and builds should be banned imo.


johnlocke90 wrote:
Raving Nerd wrote:
I'm especially eager to play in games where the GM has a laundry list of banned items and house rules. Usually these masses of house rules are carefully curated, with things like "CORE ONLY" and "Greater Trip is OP."
PFS makes a decent reference if people want to see what feats and builds should be banned imo.

Not at all. For example, the Vivisectionist is banned for no good reason at all. I've heard the reasons and they're stupid.


I recall one 3.5 group where the DM limited the powergaming options by simply stating you guys can do anything you want so long as it follows RAW ... there is only one restriction the campaign concept requires all characters be Gnome Paladins (deity of choice) mounted on riding dogs.

Dark Archive

WormysQueue wrote:
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:
I have had mostly people be willing to compromise for a time (maybe 6 months) and then leave if they did not like the style of my game.
Had this naturally happen as well. But not too often. As a GM I feel that I also need to compromise to make it "our" instead of "my" game, meaning that I (together with the players) try to find a middleground everyone at the table is comfortable with. Now I can't look into other people's head so if they agree to things they absolutely don't like just because they want to play, that naturally can lead to a situation where they will eventually leave the game.

Anymore I mostly GM online via play-by-post. I clearly list what source materials are allowed, and any restrictions or or other special character creation information is needed. If someone thus joins a game I'm running where I specifically state "while firearms do exist, they are rare and unreliable. Thus no gunslingers are allowed" then there's no justification for them to be surprised when I reject their gunslinger build.

Similarly, if you don't want to play an insane character (in some fashion) you don't join a Strange Aeons AP. If I'm running a BESM d20 game centered around a magical girl team, it should come as no surprise that alien mecha pilots are not allowed. And if I say that you can't have an Evil alignment, people who only want to play an evil character know not to join.

This is why you establish any house rules or restrictions at the start of a campaign. That way people know what's allowed, and can decide if they want to play in that campaign.


I think player's are fascinated with rules and regulations. I think everyone will love it, because it will give them new idea's on how to run their group.

It's definitely possible.

I simply don't have the time to do it myself, I have a full time career in something that has nothing to do with rpgs. Just like I don't have the time to Smite Players.

No, I don't think it's hypocritical of me to ask Paizo to make such a book, I think they make books for the fans.

Yes, I want Paizo to contact me. Yes, I can sign a contract. No, I'm not kidding.


It's possible there will be some new ideas that we haven't seen in the last forty or so years. Perhaps a chapter on electronics at the table, for example. On how to run a group where people want different levels of power, however, is less compelling as a book.

If you don't have the time to make a book now, why would you if you signed a contract? From what I recall from previous posts about jobs in the RPG field, they'd want someone with some material under their belt, especially before they unleash you on a book that, let's face it, would be a questionable seller.

This topic is perfect for a blog post, a forum, a very small ($1) PDF. A full blown print book is, IMO, too much time and energy to devote to something that has already been covered over and over in various GM help guides over the years.

Dark Archive

Wise Old Man, I think you're wrong. Most players don't enjoy having a bunch of limits imposed upon them. Character creation rules are one of the few examples. Everyone knows that any given campaign might have character creation quirks. How much gold you start with, what classes/books are available for use, how many points to spend on attributes (or how many dice to roll and what order to roll them in)...

A campaign specific restriction due to world setting again is acceptable to many players. But when you start tacking on rules specifically to mess with the party, that's when they'll walk. And this is the territory you're entering with your idea.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Kahel Stormbender wrote:
So true Kolokotroni. I personally have never really seen the Caster/Martial disparity people tout. I mean, sure casters can get really powerful at high levels. But then so are martial types if you think about it. And as a game master there's something to remember... You DO actually control what spells the player gets access to over the course of the campaign. Don't want the wizard teleporting everywhere? Then they just don't find a copy of the teleport spell. Want things like Wish and Limited Wish to be rare and valuable? Then make it so.

Not without really invasive character leveling actions. You'd have to ban it from sorcerers spells known, wizards free spells on level up, and from Travel domain clerics.

That's not invasive changes of leveling, it's simple moderation of choice. Not anymore than banning Infernal Healing because you're not setting your campaign in Cheliax.

But in many cases the problem is not so much the existence of certain spells as much as GM's failing to recognise that these spells have limits.


Wait... people ban Infernal Healing because of WHERE the campaign happens???


Kahel Stormbender wrote:

Wise Old Man, I think you're wrong. Most players don't enjoy having a bunch of limits imposed upon them. Character creation rules are one of the few examples. Everyone knows that any given campaign might have character creation quirks. How much gold you start with, what classes/books are available for use, how many points to spend on attributes (or how many dice to roll and what order to roll them in)...

A campaign specific restriction due to world setting again is acceptable to many players. But when you start tacking on rules specifically to mess with the party, that's when they'll walk. And this is the territory you're entering with your idea.

Let's do it! :)


Chess Pwn wrote:
Wise Old Man wrote:

All I want is some party rule sets for characters who take the spot light away from the party. I said that not everyone will get along in a group, but if at least some percentage can, that's better than nothing. And yes, I believe that a book like that can help a percentage.

Party rules can't be hard to make, it's whatever a party does is equal to their level. I'm sure you can fit max damage charts in there per level, max attribute bonus per level, max this and that per level.

I know what you're thinking, "There's already third party books like that"
Yes, but if its by Paizo, the PFS can use it as an Optional rule, according to GM specific.

I'm still with no clue as to what would be in the book. Do you have an example of something that would be in it?

Flip that argument on its head.

If you knew what was in the book in detail there would be no point in buying it. I for one would welcome some guidelines and advice on how to run games that appeal to different play styles. I would much rather buy that than yet another "ultimate" book. We usually have six players at our table. I have noticed that on average about half of them are really engaged at any one time. How do I get that closer to 100%?

I think we can take a guess on some of the topics covered in this hypothetical book: different play styles, GM types, how they interact, ways to deal with inter player conflict, GM-player conflict etc.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kahel Stormbender wrote:
This is why you establish any house rules or restrictions at the start of a campaign. That way people know what's allowed, and can decide if they want to play in that campaign.

While I agree with everything you say, it's still possible that people accept those restrictios only to find out later that it's more detrimental to their fun than they originally thought. Happened to me, when I agreed to partake in an evil campaign, for example. Thought I could handle it, but in the end, I couldn't.


Athaleon wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Raving Nerd wrote:
I'm especially eager to play in games where the GM has a laundry list of banned items and house rules. Usually these masses of house rules are carefully curated, with things like "CORE ONLY" and "Greater Trip is OP."
PFS makes a decent reference if people want to see what feats and builds should be banned imo.
Not at all. For example, the Vivisectionist is banned for no good reason at all. I've heard the reasons and they're stupid.

Could you please tell them to us? I'm curious why PFS would ban core book material... I don't want to play a vivisectionist, but it always struck me as one of the most carefully crafter archetypes around, beside having no bombs, .


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Boomerang Nebula wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Wise Old Man wrote:

All I want is some party rule sets for characters who take the spot light away from the party. I said that not everyone will get along in a group, but if at least some percentage can, that's better than nothing. And yes, I believe that a book like that can help a percentage.

Party rules can't be hard to make, it's whatever a party does is equal to their level. I'm sure you can fit max damage charts in there per level, max attribute bonus per level, max this and that per level.

I know what you're thinking, "There's already third party books like that"
Yes, but if its by Paizo, the PFS can use it as an Optional rule, according to GM specific.

I'm still with no clue as to what would be in the book. Do you have an example of something that would be in it?

Flip that argument on its head.

If you knew what was in the book in detail there would be no point in buying it. I for one would welcome some guidelines and advice on how to run games that appeal to different play styles. I would much rather buy that than yet another "ultimate" book. We usually have six players at our table. I have noticed that on average about half of them are really engaged at any one time. How do I get that closer to 100%?

I think we can take a guess on some of the topics covered in this hypothetical book: different play styles, GM types, how they interact, ways to deal with inter player conflict, GM-player conflict etc.

How is asking for 1 example of something that might be in the book the same as knowing what was in the book in detail?

The issue is so far to me what he's saying is super vague. "I want a book to help groups of different players." Okay, that sounds good to everyone. But without having an idea of what he thinks could actually accomplish that it's an idea without any meaning.
If you have an example of 1 thing that could be in the book that works too. Doesn't even have to be completely true or accurate, just an idea of what you'd expect to be in this book.


Paizo's books(minus the art) are online for free, and people still buy those.


Klorox wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Raving Nerd wrote:
I'm especially eager to play in games where the GM has a laundry list of banned items and house rules. Usually these masses of house rules are carefully curated, with things like "CORE ONLY" and "Greater Trip is OP."
PFS makes a decent reference if people want to see what feats and builds should be banned imo.
Not at all. For example, the Vivisectionist is banned for no good reason at all. I've heard the reasons and they're stupid.
Could you please tell them to us? I'm curious why PFS would ban core book material... I don't want to play a vivisectionist, but it always struck me as one of the most carefully crafter archetypes around, beside having no bombs, .

It has "creepy evil flavor".


That's indeed one silly motive... next time they'll tell us that the Assassin PrC is off limit too? the antipaladin?

251 to 300 of 451 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / For the OP haters All Messageboards