Roleplay vs Rollplay


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

651 to 699 of 699 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

Bandw2 wrote:
Good, because the rogue is my least favorite class but a fairly common concept. also, I genuinely almost always make my own fluff, that character might have been a fighter if you hadn't insisted of a lack of combat orientation, with probably lore warden.

Oh, if you ever have any interest in the Fighter I'd very much recommend purchasing the just-released PDF of the Unchained Fighter by Everyman Gaming. Honestly, I’d recommend all their products especially those involving Pathfinder Unchained. They even converted all the Monk archetypes to make them compatible with the Unchained Monk.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

A probably better example is that I really enjoyed Paths of Prestige and think there's something gained by considering the flavor as essential to a Razmiran Priest or Knight of Ozem, for example. In fact, I feel the same even about something like Mammoth Rider. Intellectually, I can appreciate the viewpoint of putting a line through class on the character sheet and just choosing 'bags of abilities' but for some classes it feels like something essential is lost to me.

Not sure if that makes sense.

It does make sense, especially in the case of Prestige Classes. That being said I feel it works best as an optional thing. GMs can use it for worldbuilding and players can take it or leave it for their individual characters.

I thought of a (related) example, although it was rolemaster rather than Pathfinder. Our DM was running a game where if we rolled up magic-users they had to be mentalists or channellers (divine magic) there were no essence users which is the third 'school' of magic in rolemaster. Once we started playing, the evil empire we encountered and fought against for that campaign were all essence users.

I think it would have diluted that dramatic element if we had been allowed to 'reflavor' the magician class (the archetypal essence user, basically an elementalist) and come up with our own same-but-different magician class. There were a whole bunch of essentially class features which were esoteric and known to one specific culture - that was one way he portrayed the 'strangeness' of this new force in the campaign.

I could imagine something similar in a Pathfinder game - like a theocracy or something who have a knightly order of paladins, so pure of heart that they develop mystic abilities. I think it would be almost disrespectful towards that campaign to request to reflavor the paladin into something else. The DM is constructing a world where smite evil is this rare, special thing that only exists in this one, unique circumstance and coming up with something mechanically identical but reflavored is undermining that effort, I think.

I'm a firm believer in stories arising from constraints and I don't think the DM should be limited from constraining mechanical elements any more than creative/flavor elements. As another hypothetical example, in a game where the Gods had turned their backs on mortals and clerics don't exist, I feel like it would be against the spirit of the campaign to come up with a reflavored 'mystic' class or something and just use the cleric mechanics.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
Ugh, classes are not characters. That's an awful form of metagaming. Character concepts can be built mechanically however works best. Do some classes have a typical flavor, sure, but that doesn't mean that's a great thing. It's nice to have some fluff explanation for new powers, but why try to impose your view of what a class should look like beyond how a player flavors the character.

For the record, I actually mostly agree with this. The actual baked-in flavor of most classes is really light. Some examples:

Wizard: You have studied magic, from books.
Sorcerer: Somewhere in your bloodline is something magical.
Fighter: You've learned how to fight.
Investigator: You're good at figuring things out, probably with some formal education.

And so on. The flavor that's actually built in needs to be acknowledged, IMO, but for non-spellcasting classes it's verging on nonexistent, and even for casters it's only really meaningful in what kind of magic you've got and how you acquired it.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
JonathonWilder wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Good, because the rogue is my least favorite class but a fairly common concept. also, I genuinely almost always make my own fluff, that character might have been a fighter if you hadn't insisted of a lack of combat orientation, with probably lore warden.

Oh, if you ever have any interest in the Fighter I'd very much recommend purchasing the just-released PDF of the Unchained Fighter by Everyman Gaming. Honestly, I’d recommend all their products especially those involving Pathfinder Unchained. They even converted all the Monk archetypes to make them compatible with the Unchained Monk.

might, in a dry spell right now, some members had to deal with that hurricane from a bit back and it kinda killed our momentum. besides I almost always GM.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Quote:

I thought of a (related) example, although it was rolemaster rather than Pathfinder. Our DM was running a game where if we rolled up magic-users they had to be mentalists or channellers (divine magic) there were no essence users which is the third 'school' of magic in rolemaster. Once we started playing, the evil empire we encountered and fought against for that campaign were all essence users.

I think it would have diluted that dramatic element if we had been allowed to 'reflavor' the magician class (the archetypal essence user, basically an elementalist) and come up with our own same-but-different magician class. There were a whole bunch of essentially class features which were esoteric and known to one specific culture - that was one way he portrayed the 'strangeness' of this new force in the campaign.

I could imagine something similar in a Pathfinder game - like a theocracy or something who have a knightly order of paladins, so pure of heart that they develop mystic abilities. I think it would be almost disrespectful towards that campaign to request to reflavor the paladin into something else. The DM is constructing a world where smite evil is this rare, special thing that only exists in this one, unique circumstance and coming up with something mechanically identical but reflavored is undermining that effort, I think.

I'm a firm believer in stories arising from constraints and I don't think the DM should be limited from constraining mechanical elements any more than creative/flavor elements. As another hypothetical example, in a game where the Gods had turned their backs on mortals and clerics don't exist, I feel like it would be against the spirit of the campaign to come up with a reflavored 'mystic' class or something and just use the cleric mechanics.

I really don't like this kind of heavy handed GMing. this sounds like I'd be forced to do a number of things that i'd have little to no choice in. it's the kind of stuff that makes me check out emotionally.

to put it simply, i HAVE to choose a class first and THEN give him a name and personality, under your system. welp guess i'll go fighter and be a mercenary or something. at least then my personality can be mostly organic.


The Wyrm Ouroboros wrote:
Here's the thing: the 'rollplayer' is actually a very rare animal. In order to have an actual 'rollplayer', ALL of the following have to be true:

  • In-game actions by the player's character will often do surprising, even extraordinary amount of damage, sometimes using obscure language or particular 'tricks' to enhance their combat efficiency. This is the trait that most people tend to associate with 'rollplayers' - but it is not the ONLY trait, something that most people also forget. Combat efficiency, using tricks, or just being Ellen Mary Boorsen may cause people to think a particular person is a 'rollplayer', but unless that person possesses the other traits on this list, they're not - they're just tactical thinkers. The primary concern for a 'rollplayer' is for combat; spells, abilities, traits, etc. are overwhelmingly likely to be focused there, and character concept/backstory is liable to be a few sentences at best, and probably nonexistent.
  • S/he is the one who not only builds an optimal character, but seeks out strange and unusual abilities, items, traits, feats, etc. to maximize the thrust of the character, no matter if the combination makes no thematic sense. This person might have a Tian Shu taking a class found only in Osirion, selecting a trait found only among the Tamiir-Quah of the Shoanti, and using an Irrisen-exclusive item because they all give a benefit to their skill or ability of choice.
  • During the game, the individual will do their best to avoid attempts by the GM to get them to interact or describe what their character is actually doing, instead attempting to 'dice' or 'game' their way out of every situation. Key phrases/actions include 'I use (Skill/Ability/Spell)' and rolling the appropriate di(c)e when given a situation and asked 'what do you do?', as compared to 'I try to bluff him into leaving / hold my hand over my head and call light to it / cast Invisibility on myself and try to sneak down the
...

I am a roll player. By this definition. And I wouldn't consider this an insult. Nor would I being called a roleplayer if I were that... however I thoroughly enjoy when others at my table really get into character and roleplay discussions rather than rolling a bluff, I just don't feel like I am good enough at it to roleplay, and for me it's easier to run numbers than get into character and applaud those who do.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

"That quote isn't advocating any kind of DM style. It's saying that if you've decided that classes come with flavor pre-selected then you should make that point without speculating on the motives of people who don't like playing that way."

my point, is if i did what was listed in your post, that I wouldn't know how it would even be possible to play most classes.

so I don't believe it's actually what you believe.

though, I think I may be misunderstanding some of what you're saying because you appear to be using several words incorrectly.

"Our gaming preferences are axioms, not conclusions."

for instance, Axioms are stuff like "milk comes from animals", something that is evidently true, and conclusion is something you need to try to understand. are you trying to say our preferences are extremely simple, because that's what I've been trying to denounce since day 1.

oh wait, i think i might have quoted the wrong post as well

Quote:

I thought of a (related) example, although it was rolemaster rather than Pathfinder. Our DM was running a game where if we rolled up magic-users they had to be mentalists or channellers (divine magic) there were no essence users which is the third 'school' of magic in rolemaster. Once we started playing, the evil empire we encountered and fought against for that campaign were all essence users.

I think it would have diluted that dramatic element if we had been allowed to 'reflavor' the magician class (the archetypal essence user, basically an elementalist) and come up with our own same-but-different magician class. There were a whole bunch of essentially class features which were esoteric and known to one specific culture - that was one way he portrayed the 'strangeness' of this new force in the campaign.

I could imagine something similar in a Pathfinder game - like a theocracy or something who have a knightly order of paladins, so pure of heart that they develop mystic abilities. I think it would be almost disrespectful towards that campaign to request to reflavor the paladin into something else. The DM is constructing a world where smite evil is this rare, special thing that only exists in this one, unique circumstance and coming up with something mechanically identical but reflavored is undermining that effort, I think.

I'm a firm believer in stories arising from constraints and I don't think the DM should be limited from constraining mechanical elements any more than creative/flavor elements. As another hypothetical example, in a game where the Gods had turned their backs on mortals and clerics don't exist, I feel like it would be against the spirit of the campaign to come up with a reflavored 'mystic' class or something and just use the cleric mechanics.

was the one i responded to, i had gone up to copy paste the message without the quotes and must have chosen the wrong one.

feel free to respond to it now that i managed to edit it, with 3 minutes to spare!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber

I've now deleted the post that included the following, so nobody except you and I will know what's going on, but meh... I figure this might be useful to talk about anyway.

Bandw2 wrote:
though, I think I may be misunderstanding some of what you're saying because you appear to be using several words incorrectly.

I have a degree in maths and philosophy (majoring in logic) so I was meaning them in a technical sense. Granted I didn't put much effort into spelling out the analogy. I'm confident I'm using the words correctly - though I accept that any analogy will be flawed.

Quote:

"Our gaming preferences are axioms, not conclusions."

for instance, Axioms are stuff like "milk comes from animals", something that is evidently true, and conclusion is something you need to try to understand. are you trying to say our preferences are extremely simple, because that's what I've been trying to denounce since day 1.

An axiom is something we accept without proof. It doesn't have to be simple, it's just not something we accept as the result of prior argument.

Mathsy stuff:
One of the most famous from Euclidean geometry, for example, can be written in many ways. One formulation is:

"If a straight line crossing two straight lines makes the interior angles on the same side less than two right angles, the two straight lines, if extended indefinitely, meet on that side on which are the angles less than the two right angles."

Not only is that not simple, but it's not even obviously true (and one can construct quite reasonable and interesting geometries by assuming it is false.

Whether one chooses to accept it or not is a brute fact, it's not some consequence of prior argument and you can't persuade someone else to go along with you. Having adopted your chosen axiom, you will be led to a variety of inexorable consequences and some of those will contradict the consequences derived by someone who takes a different view on the axiom.

There's no right or wrong about it - it's totally arbitrary.

So, for example, as a player I have the following preferences:

  • I prefer fantasy RPGs and settings with pronounced differences in power level between casters and martials.
  • I prefer randomly generating constraints for my PC (typically stats, but I've played random race/class systems too).
  • I prefer games where PC generation is part of the game rather than a pre-game activity.

Those are not things I've argued my way to, those are facts about me. Obviously they are inconsistent with other things which other people value (such as equally rewarding mechanical choices one makes, ensuring PCs are of equal power level). Other people have different preferences, which amount to accepting different axioms.

My point is that if you like a game where flavor is immutable, you shouldn't fall victim to the trap of thinking that's correct. There are any number of beliefs which may lead you to desiring such a thing but they aren't "correct" - at best they can only be said to be mutually consistent.

Similarly, people like you who prefer flavor to be mutable are reaching that conclusion based on some underlying views as to what you like (essentially what makes a game 'fun').

The post you quoted (that I've now deleted, sorry) was advocating putting forth one's views and preferences in non-judgemental ways. Rather than saying "it's a crap way to run a game", it's better to just say "it's a game I wouldn't enjoy". The benefit being none of us are attacked, nor have to 'defend' our preferences yet we still get to talk about it and thus avoid unwittingly entering into situations likely to cause friction down the track.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber
Bandw2 wrote:
Quote:

I thought of a (related) example, although it was rolemaster rather than Pathfinder. Our DM was running a game where if we rolled up magic-users they had to be mentalists or channellers (divine magic) there were no essence users which is the third 'school' of magic in rolemaster. Once we started playing, the evil empire we encountered and fought against for that campaign were all essence users.

I think it would have diluted that dramatic element if we had been allowed to 'reflavor' the magician class (the archetypal essence user, basically an elementalist) and come up with our own same-but-different magician class. There were a whole bunch of essentially class features which were esoteric and known to one specific culture - that was one way he portrayed the 'strangeness' of this new force in the campaign.

I could imagine something similar in a Pathfinder game - like a theocracy or something who have a knightly order of paladins, so pure of heart that they develop mystic abilities. I think it would be almost disrespectful towards that campaign to request to reflavor the paladin into something else. The DM is constructing a world where smite evil is this rare, special thing that only exists in this one, unique circumstance and coming up with something mechanically identical but reflavored is undermining that effort, I think.

I'm a firm believer in stories arising from constraints and I don't think the DM should be limited from constraining mechanical elements any more than creative/flavor elements. As another hypothetical example, in a game where the Gods had turned their backs on mortals and clerics don't exist, I feel like it would be against the spirit of the campaign to come up with a reflavored 'mystic' class or something and just use the cleric mechanics.

I really don't like this kind of heavy handed GMing. this sounds like I'd be forced to do a number of things that i'd have little to no choice in. it's the kind of stuff that makes me check out emotionally.

to put it simply, i HAVE to choose a class first and THEN give him a name and personality, under your system. welp guess i'll go fighter and be a mercenary or something. at least then my personality can be mostly organic.

The situation I'm postulating above (for the record, it's not my preference either, so it would be unlikely to come up - I was just mulling it over and thought I'd post it for kyrt-ryder in case he had comment) is only placing a limit on the one class - paladin.

I don't think you'd have to do anything different unless you happened to want to play a paladin in that campaign. It's no different than a DM ruling out some options, is it? (No different than a "no summoners" game, for example - except there is one way of being a paladin, so it's slightly more permissive).


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

meh, I don't like deleting posts unless they're absolutely wrong, you know, for posterity. that's why i didn't half way through edit my post to simply explain the situation.

as for axioms, I'm inclined to believe that people without any experience in the game have no preference and then build one based upon playing. it's learned, not self evident basically. you have to run experiments before your preference is gleamed.

to the main point at hand, I think of history and it has shown that cultures free to build and borrow from the past are richer than ones who control what is considered okay to express. so while I will not say one is right or wrong, I will posit that mutable fluff leads to a richer overall experience if truly accepted by all involved(meaning that if everyone accepted immutable fluff, it would not be a rich).

Defining Rich as story complexity and length for these purposes.

story complexity being the number of discreet concurrent story arcs.

Quote:

The situation I'm postulating above (for the record, it's not my preference either, so it would be unlikely to come up - I was just mulling it over and thought I'd post it for kyrt-ryder in case he had comment) is only placing a limit on the one class - paladin.

I don't think you'd have to do anything different unless you happened to want to play a paladin in that campaign. It's no different than a DM ruling out some options, is it? (No different than a "no summoners" game, for example - except there is one way of being a paladin, so it's slightly more permissive).

I was referencing the specific magic users deals, on top of the paladin stuff.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber
Bandw2 wrote:
meh, I don't like deleting posts unless they're absolutely wrong, you know, for posterity. that's why i didn't half way through edit my post to simply explain the situation.

Fair enough. Apologies. I wasn't sure on the etiquette. I've replied to the editted post anyhow.

Quote:
as for axioms, I'm inclined to believe that people without any experience in the game have no preference and then build one based upon playing. it's learned, not self evident basically. you have to run experiments before your preference is gleamed.

Yeah, me too. However, it's obviously possible to reach different positions by doing so. Whatever features it is of games that we enjoy, you can drill down only so far until you get to a shrug and 'just cos'.

Quote:

to the main point at hand, I think of history and it has shown that cultures free to build and borrow from the past are richer than ones who control what is considered okay to express. so while I will not say one is right or wrong, I will posit that mutable fluff leads to a richer overall experience if truly accepted by all involved(meaning that if everyone accepted immutable fluff, it would not be a rich).

Defining Rich as story complexity and length for these purposes.

story complexity being the number of discreet concurrent story arcs.

Adopting those definitions, I'd agree with that.

I think limiting player choice does limit creativity and richness under your definition. However, it also facilitates the telling of some stories that won't otherwise come about. If a DM fancies the latter, I can see situations where they will want to place such limits.

My main point is they shouldn't say "Anyone who doesn't like it obviously isn't a real roleplayer".


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber
Bandw2 wrote:
Quote:

The situation I'm postulating above (for the record, it's not my preference either, so it would be unlikely to come up - I was just mulling it over and thought I'd post it for kyrt-ryder in case he had comment) is only placing a limit on the one class - paladin.

I don't think you'd have to do anything different unless you happened to want to play a paladin in that campaign. It's no different than a DM ruling out some options, is it? (No different than a "no summoners" game, for example - except there is one way of being a paladin, so it's slightly more permissive).

I was referencing the specific magic users deals, on top of the paladin stuff.

So that was just him saying "Roll up characters - these classes are offlimits" (all the essence users).

Is that any different from a player perspective than a DM saying "you can only use the books I am familiar with" or similar?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Steve Geddes wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Quote:

The situation I'm postulating above (for the record, it's not my preference either, so it would be unlikely to come up - I was just mulling it over and thought I'd post it for kyrt-ryder in case he had comment) is only placing a limit on the one class - paladin.

I don't think you'd have to do anything different unless you happened to want to play a paladin in that campaign. It's no different than a DM ruling out some options, is it? (No different than a "no summoners" game, for example - except there is one way of being a paladin, so it's slightly more permissive).

I was referencing the specific magic users deals, on top of the paladin stuff.

So that was just him saying "Roll up characters - these classes are offlimits" (all the essence users).

Is that any different from a player perspective than a DM saying "you can only use the books I am familiar with" or similar?

i'm going to be fair and say, if the classes are "paizo" then yes those 2 are different, but this is because my frame of reference is one who has understood most classes for a long time, and generally just wing it with when the new ones come out.

to be clear, i'd accept both, but one I'd be fine with and the other I would not.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber
Bandw2 wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Quote:

The situation I'm postulating above (for the record, it's not my preference either, so it would be unlikely to come up - I was just mulling it over and thought I'd post it for kyrt-ryder in case he had comment) is only placing a limit on the one class - paladin.

I don't think you'd have to do anything different unless you happened to want to play a paladin in that campaign. It's no different than a DM ruling out some options, is it? (No different than a "no summoners" game, for example - except there is one way of being a paladin, so it's slightly more permissive).

I was referencing the specific magic users deals, on top of the paladin stuff.

So that was just him saying "Roll up characters - these classes are offlimits" (all the essence users).

Is that any different from a player perspective than a DM saying "you can only use the books I am familiar with" or similar?

i'm going to be fair and say, if the classes are "paizo" then yes those 2 are different, but this is because my frame of reference is one who has understood most classes for a long time, and generally just wing it with when the new ones come out.

to be clear, i'd accept both, but one I'd be fine with and the other I would not.

What is the difference?

It seems to me that our DM ran a rolemaster campaign where some of the classes in the rulebooks weren't allowable. If the same DM ran a PF campaign and said "No summoners or gunslingers, anything else is fine" isn't that pretty much exactly the same thing?

The players can make whatever mechanical choices they like when creating their PC except for X, Y and Z.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Steve Geddes wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Quote:

The situation I'm postulating above (for the record, it's not my preference either, so it would be unlikely to come up - I was just mulling it over and thought I'd post it for kyrt-ryder in case he had comment) is only placing a limit on the one class - paladin.

I don't think you'd have to do anything different unless you happened to want to play a paladin in that campaign. It's no different than a DM ruling out some options, is it? (No different than a "no summoners" game, for example - except there is one way of being a paladin, so it's slightly more permissive).

I was referencing the specific magic users deals, on top of the paladin stuff.

So that was just him saying "Roll up characters - these classes are offlimits" (all the essence users).

Is that any different from a player perspective than a DM saying "you can only use the books I am familiar with" or similar?

i'm going to be fair and say, if the classes are "paizo" then yes those 2 are different, but this is because my frame of reference is one who has understood most classes for a long time, and generally just wing it with when the new ones come out.

to be clear, i'd accept both, but one I'd be fine with and the other I would not.

What is the difference?

It seems to me that our DM ran a rolemaster campaign where some of the classes in the rulebooks weren't allowable. If the same DM ran a PF campaign and said "No summoners or gunslingers, anything else is fine" isn't that pretty much exactly the same thing?

The players can make whatever mechanical choices they like when creating their PC except for X, Y and Z.

because 1 is where the GM is incapable of running the game effectively, the other he is unwilling to.

when people come to me with gunslinger, i'm like, okay but you should know guns don't target touch AC in my campaigns(which is true, i've been teetering on making a whole new gun system but no one seems to care about guns in my group).

also i just don't care about the summoner, because because i could do far far worse with a normal wizard.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber

Well, I wasn't meaning the specifics. I just meant conceptually - it seems to me the same thing (as far as the player is concerned) the reason for ruling out some classes doesn't seem to relevant to whether you would choose: "Oh well, I'll just play a fighter/mercenary then if some classes aren't options".


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Steve Geddes wrote:
Well, I wasn't meaning the specifics. I just meant conceptually - it seems to me the same thing (as far as the player is concerned) the reason for ruling out some classes doesn't seem to relevant to whether you would choose: "Oh well, I'll just play a fighter/mercenary then if some classes aren't options".

i said the difference was whether i'd be fine with the distinction or not. still playing a straight fighter or wizard though if I was being limited based on fluff anyway.

like if someone tells me I can't play gunslinger, i assume a fighter that uses a gun is still fine? i mean if he banned guns, i'd assume he'd have just said so.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber

Okay. I don't understand, but nevermind. I've somehow lost the train of the argument, sorry. I wouldn't even be able to explain your position now, let along defend it! :) Cheers.

The Exchange

Chess Pwn wrote:
Like what in his blurb indicates that he had "any effects on the narrative at all"? I'm really curious as I can't really see where you're coming from.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
When in battle, he fell into a trance that helped him ignore wounds, and he would strike with greater zeal against evildoers. He also manifested supernatural abilities that seemed like obvious gifts from the gods to help him fight.

As Kirth liked your post, I may have misinterpreted what he wrote here. To me it sounded like he didn't simply choose other mechanics, but also narrated them accordingly during gameplay. If he doesn't, well then yeah, I've got it wrong .

Generally I don't care about mechanics too much, so I tend to be quite lenient with what I allow in my games. But I expect narrative from everyone at the table and I prefer players who are like me and don't care too much about mechanics either.

So if you want to break out from the default assumption of the game - in this case a paladin character played by takin levels in the barbarian class - you'd better include the mechanical differences to the default into your narrative. If you deny that - and this I said before - we'll better off playing at different tables.

So it's easy like that:

If you want to take barbarian levels just for the "mechanical bonuses" over being a paladin -> then play a barbarian. If you want the paladin's narrative -> play a paladin.

If you want to separate the mechanics from the narrative -> show me that your narrative is different enough from what it would have been if you would have followed the default.

If even this compromise is not acceptable to you -> go looking for a table that supports your playstyle. My table doesn't.


You just said you are lenient and don't really care about mechanics that much in your game. Why is it a problem if I for all roleplaying and personality purposes portray a paladin while adding barbarian bonuses to dice? I mean it's a paladin. He follows the code helps the weak, never betrays, part of a paladin order, only his powers are different. It's as if he took an archetype that sufficiently changes the mechanics of the class.

The Exchange

Bandw2 wrote:
I will posit that mutable fluff leads to a richer overall experience if truly accepted by all involved(meaning that if everyone accepted immutable fluff, it would not be a rich).

Well no it doesn't. Because the default already gives you all the tools to play any character you would want to play (including the tools to add options if you really feel that there is something lacking).

But from your paladin/oracle to Kirth's Barbarian/Paladin, you've seemed to want to make the point, that you aren't changing the fluff, you are just changing the mechanics. Changing mechanics doesn't lead to a richer experience, especially not as far as story complexity is comcerned, if everything you do with it is narrating the same story you would have narrated with the default mechanics anyways.


Or for most of us on this side of an argument it's a character rather than a class. My bloodrager/oracle refers to himself as a warrior or adventurer (or an agent of Baba Jaga, this being the Reign of Winter). He's there to have an adventure and save the world, not contemplate whether this feat or that level changes his personality or his place in the imaginary world.

The Exchange

necromental wrote:
Or for most of us on this side of an argument it's a character rather than a class. My bloodrager/oracle refers to himself as a warrior or adventurer (or an agent of Baba Jaga, this being the Reign of Winter). He's there to have an adventure and save the world, not contemplate whether this feat or that level changes his personality or his place in the imaginary world.

Characters in my game do this all the time, but without feeling the necessity to change the default class suggested by the game. I've also played paladins with another class, as I played paladins who where narrated not as a paladin but something akin to kyt-rider's grizzled old war-veteran.

So that's not the problem at all in a general sense. The problem might be why you make such a mechanical exchange. So why do you insist on making such a mechanical exchange, if not for story and setting reasons?

And that's not a rhetorical question at all. Because I keep getting told that being able to do this enhances story and story complexity, but keep getting told by the same people that those changes in fact don't change and shouldn't change the story at all.


Ah, ok I understand now. No, I'm definitely changing the mechanics because I want to play THAT character but I like THOSE mechanics better. It is a mechanical preference (at least in my case).


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
WormysQueue wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

To the main point at hand, I think of history and it has shown that cultures free to build and borrow from the past are richer than ones who control what is considered okay to express. so while I will not say one is right or wrong, I will posit that mutable fluff leads to a richer overall experience if truly accepted by all involved(meaning that if everyone accepted immutable fluff, it would not be a rich).

Defining Rich as story complexity and length for these purposes.

story complexity being the number of discreet concurrent story arcs.

Well no it doesn't. Because the default already gives you all the tools to play any character you would want to play (including the tools to add options if you really feel that there is something lacking).

But from your paladin/oracle to Kirth's Barbarian/Paladin, you've seemed to want to make the point, that you aren't changing the fluff, you are just changing the mechanics. Changing mechanics doesn't lead to a richer experience, especially not as far as story complexity is comcerned, if everything you do with it is narrating the same story you would have narrated with the default mechanics anyways.

please quote the whole thing since it's fairly important for that statement.

----
apparently not, since a paladin using the same source for his paladin powers to protect him from mundane attacks is right out.

as for the example yes, i'm using the example that no fluff changed other than he prefers to wear almost no armor. This is so we can't muddy the scene with extraneous details. Allowing this or not allowing it, should be entirely based upon solely itself, if I say well he had a sudden revelation, that muddies the statement. the plural of anecdote is not data, using specific personal options do not give anything evidence.

these are far from common but i'm pushing the envelope.

This means i'm allowed to do fluff on gaining an actual physical level of oracle, or i'm allowed to focus on other fluff on my character that has nothing to do with being an oracle, because the character may not even actually fluff wise be an oracle. gaining an oracle level shouldn't force me into 1 specific story path every single time, it's a shorter experience due to cliche and less complex since it's cliche.

as mentioned this allowed me to tell the story of a guy who basically was a paladin in all but rank, and because of that didn't like the heavy cumbersome armor, and eventually grew out of it as his ideals became strong as steel.

can't do that and have fun with just paladin levels.


WormysQueue wrote:
And that's not a rhetorical question at all. Because I keep getting told that being able to do this enhances story and story complexity, but keep getting told by the same people that those changes in fact don't change and shouldn't change the story at all.

Ok, I agree that it cannot simultaneously enhance the story and not change the story at all. I'm more in the camp of "it matters only if you want it to matter". I can get behind both a player who wants to roleplay his barbarian using paladin's code and general personality and the player who simply uses the mechanics to portray the paladin (I'm not sure if this is getting across right).

The Exchange

Bandw2 wrote:
as mentioned this allowed me to tell the story of a guy who basically was a paladin in all but rank, and because of that didn't like the heavy cumbersome armor, and eventually grew out of it as his ideals became strong as steel.

Well, that's story, so welcome to my game.

Quote:
can't do that and have fun with just paladin levels.

That's where I have to disagree with because you can play a paladin in light armor while using the paladin class and, at least if you're me, have fun with it. Guess I wouldn't disagree strongly enough to make a fuss about it, though.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

DAMN YOU ANECDOTES YOU FOUND A WAY INTO MY POSTS!

WormysQueue wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
can't do that and have fun with just paladin levels.
That's where I have to disagree with because you can play a paladin in light armor while using the paladin class and, at least if you're me, have fun with it. Guess I wouldn't disagree strongly enough to make a fuss about it, though.

ughm, no I can't the character would be living a lie if he said he paladin powers protected him from bullets. fullplate will still be more effective than lighter armor and nothing the paladin does changes than.

He can take the armor off to be dumb, but i don't like playing dumb characters. the character is aware of how effective he is when or not wearing fullplate, ignoring this is a plot hole level of derp for me.

The Exchange

Bandw2 wrote:

ughm, no I can't the character would be living a lie if he said he paladin powers protected him from bullets. fullplate will still be more effective than lighter armor and nothing the paladin does changes than.

He can take the armor off to be dumb, but i don't like playing dumb characters. the character is aware of how effective he is when or not wearing fullplate, ignoring this is a plot hole level of derp for me.

[looks over at the PB 15 thread]: would probably depend on the rules for character generation, what and how much of it you'd have to trade off for it. But I get what you're saying and as I said, I don't think that I would make any fuss about it.

Though I don't get why it would be a lie for your paladin 4 to think his faith to be stronger than his armor, when its ok for your paladin3/oracle 1 to do so.

Dark Archive

Bandw2 wrote:

Ughm, no I can't the character would be living a lie if he said he paladin powers protected him from bullets. fullplate will still be more effective than lighter armor and nothing the paladin does changes than.

He can take the armor off to be dumb, but i don't like playing dumb characters. the character is aware of how effective he is when or not wearing fullplate, ignoring this is a plot hole level of derp for me.

How about this for an unarmored Paladin?

---------------------------------------------

Weapon and Armor Proficiency
Shielded paladins are proficient with all simple and martial weapons, and with shields (except tower shields). They are not proficient in any armor.

Aura of Faith (Su)
A character with this ability can project a powerful protective aura that functions as armor and becomes an expert at using bracers of armor. This aura is force armor, and protects against incorporeal touch attacks. It can be activated at will as a swift action, and the protection stays up until deactivated or as long as the user is conscious.

At class level 4, this armor can be used alongside bracers of armor, with stacking benefits. It does not otherwise stack with armor, either normal or force. It can be affected by armor-enhancing effects like magic vestment, but such enhancements do not stack with braces or armor. This counts as heavy armor to abilities that require or work with armor and suffers a 25% chance of arcane spell failure. It provides an armor bonus of +7. The armor created by shielded paladins is clearly visible as a nimbus of light. The shielded paladins can choose for this aura to hide her appearance, granting a +10 bonus on Disguise checks to conceal her identity.

Sacred Bond (Sp)
At 5th level, if the shielded paladin chooses to bond with her weapon using the divine bond ability, she can also use this ability to bond with a shield she wears. This works in the same way as a bond with a weapon except that it is based of the shield's defensive enchantment, and when the shielded paladin gains multiple uses of divine bond, she can improve both her weapon and shield simultaneously by using the ability twice. She can give her shield the champion, fortification (light, medium, or heavy), invulnerability, or spell resistance (any type) properties.


Bandw2 wrote:

meh, I don't like deleting posts unless they're absolutely wrong, you know, for posterity. that's why i didn't half way through edit my post to simply explain the situation.

as for axioms, I'm inclined to believe that people without any experience in the game have no preference and then build one based upon playing. it's learned, not self evident basically. you have to run experiments before your preference is gleamed.

to the main point at hand, I think of history and it has shown that cultures free to build and borrow from the past are richer than ones who control what is considered okay to express. so while I will not say one is right or wrong, I will posit that mutable fluff leads to a richer overall experience if truly accepted by all involved(meaning that if everyone accepted immutable fluff, it would not be a rich).

Defining Rich as story complexity and length for these purposes.

story complexity being the number of discreet concurrent story arcs.

Quote:

The situation I'm postulating above (for the record, it's not my preference either, so it would be unlikely to come up - I was just mulling it over and thought I'd post it for kyrt-ryder in case he had comment) is only placing a limit on the one class - paladin.

I don't think you'd have to do anything different unless you happened to want to play a paladin in that campaign. It's no different than a DM ruling out some options, is it? (No different than a "no summoners" game, for example - except there is one way of being a paladin, so it's slightly more permissive).

I was referencing the specific magic users deals, on top of the paladin stuff.

One thing to note w.r.t. axioms, is that while they would be developed independently, a person can share several "enjoyment axioms" between games. For example, I enjoy toying with mechanically complex games. If the game is complex enough, I will enjoy that aspect of it, regardless of the game in question.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber

Point taken.


The reason mutable fluff has the capacity to enrich the story isn't because of the ability to play one class to the theme of another [though that is valuable flexibility I feel players deserve] but instead because it tends to pare down the caricatures of 'characters as classes.'

To quote myself from above, it allows you to play Robert, instead of Bob the Fighter, Rob the Rogue, Bert the Bard or Roberto the Fighter Rogue Bard.

In my personal experience such an environment greatly fosters immersion and depth of role-playing in players with the creativity to particiate in it.

Dark Archive

Maybe it's simply my mind set on playing games with class systems, but I enjoy immersing myself in such systems. If unable to come up with a based on how a class inspires me for creating a character, I tend to embrace the details of a class for what it is and create a character based on the fluff provided.

Admittedly this is not always the case and even I do enjoy greater flexibility. For example, while the bard may be one of my favorite classes, there are quite a few times I wish to simply ignore the musical aspect and focus more on the character being a storyteller. One who is a scholar and Illusionist who travels all across the land in search of new things to discover, seeking out long forgotten realms or places, learning of others both from the past as well those he meets.

Part of me has felt that the bard simply cannot fully express a sort of character I wish to create, that while the mechanics are generally sound for the concept I wish to create the fluff may at times seems to slightly get in the way. Not only considering the norms of what it means to be a bard, but the consideration that is often felt that a bard is about music and song. Maybe my thoughts that I need to generally stick with official fluff is what is holding me back.


There are tons of things you can do with a bard.

Hell, Maximus from the movie Gladiator could easily be represented as a bard [at low enough level the spellcasting aspect hasn't become important yet.]

Dark Archive

I'll be perfectly honest, I have great interest when Occult Adventures came out... especially in the Medium archetype Storyteller.

Yes, the medium doesn't get as many skill points per level, nor does the class have all knowledge skills and Knowledge of Tales is weaker then Bardic Knowledge... There is Learn the Story and Living Story abilities. Especially the latter as the idea of essentially making a story my character tells a reality and which others can experience is very much the sort of thing I am looking for when it comes to my concept.

Sighs, I just wish it wasn't the capstone and Jonathon could gain access to it sooner. Still, the Meduim's spell list is especially nice and I'd say more to the concept then the Bard list perhaps.

Dark Archive

Another option for an unarmoured/lightly armoured Paladin.
------------------------------------------

Armor and Weapon Proficiency
Crusaders are proficient with all simple and martial weapons and with light armor and shields (excluding tower shields).

Way of Life Armor Bonus (Ex)
When wearing light or no armor, the crusader adds his Charisma bonus (if positive) as a dodge modifier to armor class and CMD. He loses this bonus when he wears medium or heavy armor, when he carries a medium or heavy load, or when he is denied his Dexterity bonus to armor class.. The crusader can use his way of life armor bonus with a shield. This replaces divine grace.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
WormysQueue wrote:

show me that your narrative is different enough from what it would have been if you would have followed the default.

If even this compromise is not acceptable to you -> go looking for a table that supports your playstyle. My table doesn't.

I'd probably suggest that's not really a "compromise" -- you're basically telling the person point-blank that they need to play "mother may I" in addition to playing Pathfinder. So I guess that's the problem I'd have: if rules-legal stuff isn't even allowed without me having to pitch an ad campaign to the DM, then I'm better off finding someone a bit less authoritarian. (Please understand that I'm not in any way saying that approach is wrong in general; just that it's wrong for me.)

To re-iterate, it's not wrong for the DM to tell the players, "Talk me into it, and make sure I like all your ideas, or it's not allowed" -- in fact, many players crave that kind of rigid chain-of-command and will leave a table that doesn't provide it. Other players are more prickly about it, and don't care to be told that, regardless of the rules, their imaginary ideas are only OK if they happen to match your imaginary ideas. I'm one of the latter type, and I vastly prefer to DM for the latter type as well.


Bandw2 wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Quote:

The situation I'm postulating above (for the record, it's not my preference either, so it would be unlikely to come up - I was just mulling it over and thought I'd post it for kyrt-ryder in case he had comment) is only placing a limit on the one class - paladin.

I don't think you'd have to do anything different unless you happened to want to play a paladin in that campaign. It's no different than a DM ruling out some options, is it? (No different than a "no summoners" game, for example - except there is one way of being a paladin, so it's slightly more permissive).

I was referencing the specific magic users deals, on top of the paladin stuff.

So that was just him saying "Roll up characters - these classes are offlimits" (all the essence users).

Is that any different from a player perspective than a DM saying "you can only use the books I am familiar with" or similar?

i'm going to be fair and say, if the classes are "paizo" then yes those 2 are different, but this is because my frame of reference is one who has understood most classes for a long time, and generally just wing it with when the new ones come out.

to be clear, i'd accept both, but one I'd be fine with and the other I would not.

What is the difference?

It seems to me that our DM ran a rolemaster campaign where some of the classes in the rulebooks weren't allowable. If the same DM ran a PF campaign and said "No summoners or gunslingers, anything else is fine" isn't that pretty much exactly the same thing?

The players can make whatever mechanical choices they like when creating their PC except for X, Y and Z.

because 1 is where the GM is incapable of running the game effectively, the other he is unwilling to.

when people come to me with gunslinger, i'm like, okay but you should know guns don't target touch AC in my campaigns(which is true, i've been teetering on making a whole new gun system...

The second to the last paragraph is a bit troubling to me (I decided not to snip it out an post the entire comment so people can see your train of thought).

So what you are saying is that a GM that does not allow specific Piazo classes is incapable? And then you go on to give an example that you house rule something to fix a Paizo class in your game, because I assume (which is bad on my part) that with out said fix there is a problem?

MDC


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was going to write up a big long thing, but I'm not gonna bother. It's obvious that I am not enlightened and am doing things wrong. So back to basically lurking for me, again.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Everybody is welcome Adjule. We all have different perspectives and that's ok. There is no right or wrong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adjule wrote:
I was going to write up a big long thing, but I'm not gonna bother. It's obvious that I am not enlightened and am doing things wrong. So back to basically lurking for me, again.

I tried it. It was amazing. There was a lot of sharing and collaboration. I felt like others made an effort to understand my perspective and we didn't get lost in the details at all. No one extracted anything from my comments to distort the meaning or anything like that. All in all, it was a great experience and I can say I would do again in an instant as I felt understood and I learned a lot from it. Very satisfying, 5 stars.


There is a lot to be said when people from far different perspectives can sit down and talk polity and openly about things that they differ.

MDC

Edit: Even if they agree to disagree.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
WormysQueue wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

ughm, no I can't the character would be living a lie if he said he paladin powers protected him from bullets. fullplate will still be more effective than lighter armor and nothing the paladin does changes than.

He can take the armor off to be dumb, but i don't like playing dumb characters. the character is aware of how effective he is when or not wearing fullplate, ignoring this is a plot hole level of derp for me.

[looks over at the PB 15 thread]: would probably depend on the rules for character generation, what and how much of it you'd have to trade off for it. But I get what you're saying and as I said, I don't think that I would make any fuss about it.

Though I don't get why it would be a lie for your paladin 4 to think his faith to be stronger than his armor, when its ok for your paladin3/oracle 1 to do so.

because the later has charisma to AC, you know, the same source of all his crazy stuff. he knows if his faith really is, because if he takes off his armor and gets rewarded with violent stabbings, he failed.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

The second to the last paragraph is a bit troubling to me (I decided not to snip it out an post the entire comment so people can see your train of thought).

So what you are saying is that a GM that does not allow specific Piazo classes is incapable? And then you go on to give an example that you house rule something to fix a Paizo class in your game, because I assume (which is bad on my part) that with out said fix there is a problem?
MDC

hmmm, how do i word this.

there's a distinction between allowing a class and adjusting core mechanical rules. This rule was made to bring guns to be more in-line with other ranged weapons, but I never went the whole step since no one actually has ever come to me wanting to play guns; except once, a LONG time ago, when I was relatively new to GMing for pathfinder.

beyond that you misread it, I'm saying someone who chose to remove a class, because they do not understand it, is not at fault for not understanding and thus not at fault for removing it.

A GM who understands how to run a class and chooses to remove it anyway, it specifically making a choice to remove it, and thus is entirely at fault for removing the class. They are choosing to not play the 'entirety' of pathfinder.

for instance, making guns not hit touch AC is a GM who understands at least 1 way on how to run gunslingers. It doesn't affect how you play your class at all, only when you fair or do not fail to hit(also that one gunslinger ability still lets you target touch AC). basically, rather than changing the types of enemies or what not in encounter design, you changed the rules on the back end so that it fits better with pathfinder as a whole.

also forgot to mention, I removed guns backfiring or whatever. I've had that one unofficially removed for so long I just remembered that rule exists.


Bandw2 wrote:
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

The second to the last paragraph is a bit troubling to me (I decided not to snip it out an post the entire comment so people can see your train of thought).

So what you are saying is that a GM that does not allow specific Piazo classes is incapable? And then you go on to give an example that you house rule something to fix a Paizo class in your game, because I assume (which is bad on my part) that with out said fix there is a problem?
MDC

hmmm, how do i word this.

there's a distinction between allowing a class and adjusting core mechanical rules. This rule was made to bring guns to be more in-line with other ranged weapons, but I never went the whole step since no one actually has ever come to me wanting to play guns; except once, a LONG time ago, when I was relatively new to GMing for pathfinder.

beyond that you misread it, I'm saying someone who chose to remove a class, because they do not understand it, is not at fault for not understanding and thus not at fault for removing it.

A GM who understands how to run a class and chooses to remove it anyway, it specifically making a choice to remove it, and thus is entirely at fault for removing the class. They are choosing to not play the 'entirety' of pathfinder.

for instance, making guns not hit touch AC is a GM who understands at least 1 way on how to run gunslingers. It doesn't affect how you play your class at all, only when you fair or do not fail to hit(also that one gunslinger ability still lets you target touch AC). basically, rather than changing the types of enemies or what not in encounter design, you changed the rules on the back end so that it fits better with pathfinder as a whole.

also forgot to mention, I removed guns backfiring or whatever. I've had that one unofficially removed for so long I just remembered that rule exists.

Except of course that changing when you're likely to hit does affect how you play the class. You'll adapt your strategy to the new mechanics.

More generally, if a GM removes a class because he doesn't understand it, he's at fault for not understanding it. If he removes a class (or a race or some archetypes or certain concepts however they're built mechanically) for other reasons - because he just doesn't like them, because he doesn't think they fit the game or setting he's interested in running or whatever other reason he's got, he's at fault for that.
I don't really see a big difference other than that not understanding the rules is probably easier to change.

Mind you, I'm not particularly concerned about those kinds of faults. If the GM thinks the campaign will be more awesome without guns in it, I'll play something else.

I do find it interesting that you seem to find actually house ruling mechanics to be less of an issue than simply not using some published material. Or for that matter sticking to the published fluff.

The Exchange

kyrt-ryder wrote:
To quote myself from above, it allows you to play Robert, instead of Bob the Fighter, Rob the Rogue, Bert the Bard or Roberto the Fighter Rogue Bard.

Well, I'm staying with the default ruleset and am still playing Robert, so I'm not convinced that you need mutable fluff to be capable to do so.

Kirth Gersen wrote:
I'd probably suggest that's not really a "compromise"

Well, it actually depends. My willingness to compromise ends exactly the moment when your imaginary idea is based solely on mechanical power and nothing else. If there actually is something else, then you'll have no problems to show me and we can start playing instead of arguing about details.

The actual compromise is this: You can get away nearly with everything related to mechanics (even if I don't like it at all) if you add to the story with your character. So far, no one has had any problem with that and I assume that most of my players would be as amused as I am, that you would think of me as an authoritarian kind of GM.

Quote:
because the later has charisma to AC, you know, the same source of all his crazy stuff. he knows if his faith really is, because if he takes off his armor and gets rewarded with violent stabbings, he failed.

Well you can build a paladin in a way that he doesn't get rewarded with violent stabbings without his armor. So no, still not seeing it.


Bandw2 wrote:
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

The second to the last paragraph is a bit troubling to me (I decided not to snip it out an post the entire comment so people can see your train of thought).

So what you are saying is that a GM that does not allow specific Piazo classes is incapable? And then you go on to give an example that you house rule something to fix a Paizo class in your game, because I assume (which is bad on my part) that with out said fix there is a problem?
MDC

hmmm, how do i word this.

there's a distinction between allowing a class and adjusting core mechanical rules. This rule was made to bring guns to be more in-line with other ranged weapons, but I never went the whole step since no one actually has ever come to me wanting to play guns; except once, a LONG time ago, when I was relatively new to GMing for pathfinder.

beyond that you misread it, I'm saying someone who chose to remove a class, because they do not understand it, is not at fault for not understanding and thus not at fault for removing it.

A GM who understands how to run a class and chooses to remove it anyway, it specifically making a choice to remove it, and thus is entirely at fault for removing the class. They are choosing to not play the 'entirety' of pathfinder.

for instance, making guns not hit touch AC is a GM who understands at least 1 way on how to run gunslingers. It doesn't affect how you play your class at all, only when you fair or do not fail to hit(also that one gunslinger ability still lets you target touch AC). basically, rather than changing the types of enemies or what not in encounter design, you changed the rules on the back end so that it fits better with pathfinder as a whole.

also forgot to mention, I removed guns backfiring or whatever. I've had that one unofficially removed for so long I just remembered that rule exists.

What I was trying to say is that not everyone many have your breadth of experience, level of knowledge and ability to house rule something so they might chose to simply ban classes as that is the best way they decide to deal with something that is disruptive in their game.

Note: I fully agree that this may not be right for your game but it is for others. ie rule 0: The right to change any rule to fit your game.

House Rules can dramatically change the way a game is played as I can attest as I often use them for various games in which I feel they designers had trouble dealing with the situation or simple rule changes to make the game more enjoyable to me and my group.

I also have been guilty in the past of not remembering how my house rules changed the basic experience and made comments based upon me not remembering that the changes I made were in fact not official. Which caused some great confusion until I was able to go back and sort it out and provide my reasoning why I made the change. (I was a mod at the time and people were asking for official rules which had been changed on a errata page but not in re-printing of the core books, yes this was back in the stone age)

To me it seems (IIRC) that you argue that fluff is not relevant but changes you made are and ignore the fact others may feel different in the areas of fluff and or our house rules. That fact that there are such differences and acknowledge them go back to the core of this topic Roll Play vs Role Play and that different styles can have a negative and at sometimes positive impact on games on the opposite sides. ie a Role Player can have a meaningful impact on a Roll game and a Roll player can have a impact on a Role game but from my experience most of the mixing causes long term problems that lead to people being asked to leave.

MDC

651 to 699 of 699 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Roleplay vs Rollplay All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion