Why I Don't Trust This Game: A Rant


Running the Game

101 to 138 of 138 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Dudewut?

There was no insults laid out....


Did I misread the intent of the Capitalized This Is Obvious comment? It felt jabby to me. If not, my bad.

PS Edit: I come from a different era and communication these days can be alien to me, I'll admit. The banter in a game of DOTA is a lot different than what it was sitting on the couch with friends with a Nintendo or Intellivision :p I maybe not be in-tune with what's socially the norm.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShadeRaven wrote:
Nintendo or Intellivision :p

Nintendo or Intellivision? In my days we played pong on the atari and liked it! Now get off my lawn! ;)


ShadeRaven wrote:

Did I misread the intent of the Capitalized This Is Obvious comment? It felt jabby to me. If not, my bad.

PS Edit: I come from a different era and communication these days can be alien to me, I'll admit. The banter in a game of DOTA is a lot different than what it was sitting on the couch with friends with a Nintendo or Intellivision :p I maybe not be in-tune with what's socially the norm.

Opening such a statement with 'sorry' typically should imply policy.

I could be wrong though, maybe it was intended to insult. Just seems like we went from 0 to 60 real quick.


@graystone: Tell me of the time when controllers had only one button again? Is that really true?

@m_m: Isn't "sorry" (not sorry) the modus operandi default these days? Kind of like "no offense" (but you will be offended).

There's a lot of pong pings going around amongst my scattered grey cells I am trying to find that sweet Atari system of Graystone's to use to combat.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
Nintendo or Intellivision :p
Nintendo or Intellivision? In my days we played pong on the atari and liked it! Now get off my lawn! ;)

Psh. You get off my lawn :D. My pong game was an orange console that clipped to the rabbit ears on the TV. It played pong, and that was it.

But to the point - I really don't think that the giant numbers are going to do the game any favors. The 'difficulty' aside - the current state of the rules you're just going to have people sitting at the table with calculators to speed up the math, and I've been working hard to keep electronic devices (other than a single laptop for running music and important references) off the table.

Numbers being high across the board slows things down. Not everyone can add 6d6+5 in their head quickly, let alone 1d20+23.

One of the beautiful things in AD&D were the percentage rolls, something largely removed from all of the D20 systems. Somehow it is too complicated. I've never been sure how.

Modifiers were in percentages, and you had an increasing or decreasing chance depending on your level of proficiency and any modifiers.

Just like the system now - except you did some quick calculations BEFORE THE ROLL...once the dice were on the table - that was it. Everyone knew if you made it or failed, and could celebrate or panic together (barring hidden rolls, then it was all about the GMs poker face).


ShadeRaven wrote:
@graystone: Tell me of the time when controllers had only one button again? Is that really true?

I still have it and a pile of cartridges boxed up around here. Oh, and an old black and white TV to hook it up to is around here too. ;)

AsmoSoulpyre wrote:
Psh. You get off my lawn :D. My pong game was an orange console that clipped to the rabbit ears on the TV. It played pong, and that was it.

Did you have that russian knock-off pong? It was more colorful than my home pong game we got from sears [it was just pong too]. Did I tell you about the audio cassette drive and 300 baud modem my first computer had?

Silver Crusade

graystone wrote:
Did I tell you about the audio cassette drive and 300 baud modem my first computer had?

Computer? Luxury! When I was a kid we were lucky to have a slide rule.

Now, get off MY lawn you young punks!

And yes, I did use a slide rule at school. Before portable electronic calculators ( let alone personal computers) existed


pauljathome wrote:
And yes, I did use a slide rule at school.

You're talking like I don't have a slide rule... [most likely packed next to the atari] :P

Now take a look at my state of the art abacus...


ND: Gotcha. It's as much a function of perception (not the skill) as actual separation. I was pretty good at basketball (enough to play D1) but no where good enough to be an NBA player. I know from first hand experience that Allen Iverson was a lot more than 10% better than I was. A lot. I didn't take it so much as a reflection of my unworthiness, just marveled at extraordinary talent of some others.

@Asmo: I agree, actually. The way-back-when % successes on the thief abilities was pretty straight forward. I do a lot of Virtual Tabletop gaming now, so some of the number crunching gets lost. It's certainly worth considering as I am sure a large portion of gameplay is still done face-to-face (which I would prefer myself if it was practical).


Okay, there are some older people in this thread.

I think they are referring to Atari's one button controller (you can find them on the retro Atari machines today even). They had a stiff type joystick and one button.

I'm not sure what the pong controllers looked like, but I think maybe one button total or a rotator dial only?

I have fond memories of two buttons though...the Nintendo game system with the games Super Mario Bros, Commando, and Legend of Zelda.


GreyWolfLord wrote:
I'm not sure what the pong controllers looked like, but I think maybe one button total or a rotator dial only?

It was a box with 2 dials: no independent controllers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShadeRaven wrote:
I could never understand why having a 7 INT or 7 CHA automatically makes you a complete idiot

Because you are a complete idiot.

Over the years, there has been consensus that every point of intelligence is worth about 10 IQ points.

average IQ is 100 and 10 is average intelligence in PF.

15 int is about IQ 150, that is enough for MENSA.

7 int is IQ 70 and that is in the middle of intellectual disability and borderline intellectual functioning.

Also, PCs in PF2 and many other RPGs are best of the best usually,

High level PCs are equivalent of Navy seals, US ranger with added PHD in one or two areas.

For heroes you might say that even 12 in a stat could be considered low.

A 7 int village idiot will probably get himself killed before managing to get to 5th level and boost hit int to near average of 9.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Igor your accepted IQ conversion are by no means universal (is IQ still seen as a valid measuring tool?). Having 10% chance of knowing something is not at all how having a high IQ works in the real world. Being a mensa member would require at least skill focus in your relevant field and has nothing to do with your Int score.


master_marshmallow wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:

Did I misread the intent of the Capitalized This Is Obvious comment? It felt jabby to me. If not, my bad.

PS Edit: I come from a different era and communication these days can be alien to me, I'll admit. The banter in a game of DOTA is a lot different than what it was sitting on the couch with friends with a Nintendo or Intellivision :p I maybe not be in-tune with what's socially the norm.

Opening such a statement with 'sorry' typically should imply policy.

I could be wrong though, maybe it was intended to insult. Just seems like we went from 0 to 60 real quick.

I don't understand this scale. On a scale of 0 to 11 how would 60 get translated? Is it 11? 7?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Igor Horvat wrote:
Because you are a complete idiot.

Unacceptable.

Igor Horvat wrote:
Over the years, there has been consensus that every point of intelligence is worth about 10 IQ points.

No there hasn't. That's just something someone made up. It doesn't match the game mechanics except for the 'average' lining up. A Bard with Int 7 can be an expert in a wide variety of fields. That doesn't sounds like an IQ of 70 to me.

Igor Horvat wrote:
A 7 int village idiot will probably get himself killed before managing to get to 5th level and boost hit int to near average of 9.

A Village Idiot has an Int of 4.

And I find it very unlikely that the minor penalties for low Int would get you killed. All the 'I wonder if that thing is a trap? I'll stick my head in there to find out,' types of silliness are more "Wisdom 3" than "Int 7".


John Lynch 106 wrote:
Igor your accepted IQ conversion are by no means universal (is IQ still seen as a valid measuring tool?). Having 10% chance of knowing something is not at all how having a high IQ works in the real world. Being a mensa member would require at least skill focus in your relevant field and has nothing to do with your Int score.

Yes, IQ tests are still a thing.

I had them at 3 separate job interviews.

They determine what you could perform.

Not what you will perform, that is more about your personality, determination, work habbits, lack of addictions etc...

also, that +2 that you mention would mean a lot more in PRGs if d20 would be replaced by 3d6.

If you need 11 to make the check, with +2 you need 9.

you go from 50% to 60% chance or 20% more relative chance to succeed.

with 3d6 you get from 50% to 74,1% or 48,2% more relative chance to succeed.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Igor Horvat wrote:
Over the years, there has been consensus that every point of intelligence is worth about 10 IQ points.

That's a really weird way to phrase "One time there was a magazine article or something that said IQ translated to INT score in that way, but in genuinely never made any sense at all to treat it that way and has not once been actually supported by, or even accidentally emulated by, the game rules."


sherlock1701 wrote:
Jason S wrote:

>> coup-de-grace has been removed because someone decided that wasn't fun so now it's impossible in the game world

It was removed because it’s unneeded. When someone is unconscious it’s almost an automatic crit, meaning it increases Dying by 2. Why would I spend 3 actions on something when it takes only 2 and I don't have to write special rules to do it?

Because we need a way to one-shot characters at full HP who are helpless. You slit the sleeping guard's throat, but sorry, only dealt 2d4+2 damage, he wakes up and sounds the alarm.

We need a coup de Grace so you can actually outright kill the sleeping guard.

I would say elaborate Coup de Grace rules are not needed, but some basic statement would be good. Something along the lines of "The DM may grant the option for a character to eliminate a helpless opponent under certain circumstances up to that DM."

Even if no rule was present, the DM has this power. A statement along these lines just communicates this to newer DMs.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Igor Horvat wrote:

Yes, IQ tests are still a thing.

I had them at 3 separate job interviews.

They determine what you could perform.

Curious. Where are you from? I've never encountered an IQ test as part of my evaluation as a potential employee.

There is some reasonable data that can be pulled from IQ tests, but there's a lot of evidence that indicates that the tests themselves often are not complex enough to account for the wide array of factors involved in measuring human brain function. I would hesitate to call anyone a complete idiot based on any one simple measure.

Regardless, I never got that "consensus" memo and on the surface, it seems pretty absurd to me. At least in my games, it's not necessary for characters to have 14+ in ever stat (you said a 12 in anything would be considered low) to be successful. That *is* the beauty of RPGs, though. Every group, every table, can be played differently and still be enjoyed equally.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ShadeRaven wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:

Yes, IQ tests are still a thing.

I had them at 3 separate job interviews.

They determine what you could perform.

Curious. Where are you from? I've never encountered an IQ test as part of my evaluation as a potential employee.

There is some reasonable data that can be pulled from IQ tests, but there's a lot of evidence that indicates that the tests themselves often are not complex enough to account for the wide array of factors involved in measuring human brain function. I would hesitate to call anyone a complete idiot based on any one simple measure.

Regardless, I never got that "consensus" memo and on the surface, it seems pretty absurd to me. At least in my games, it's not necessary for characters to have 14+ in ever stat (you said a 12 in anything would be considered low) to be successful. That *is* the beauty of RPGs, though. Every group, every table, can be played differently and still be enjoyed equally.

I've heard of surveys of this type for job interviews. They're usually either questionably legal, abusing the heck out of the rules, or just hoping nobody notices you could sue the pants off them.


The military has standards for recruits, that's not illegal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thenobledrake wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:
Over the years, there has been consensus that every point of intelligence is worth about 10 IQ points.
That's a really weird way to phrase "One time there was a magazine article or something that said IQ translated to INT score in that way, but in genuinely never made any sense at all to treat it that way and has not once been actually supported by, or even accidentally emulated by, the game rules."

That's cool, that means I have a character with an IQ of 250!

He's above the max IQ level!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Azih wrote:

RPG rulesets are meant to be houseruled and I think it's a good thing for PF2E to be built with newbie GMs and players in mind.

Once new players and GMs get comfortable with core rules then they can houserule their game to their tastes.

In any case the game doesn't seem to be less lethal.

I strongly disagree. If I need to have more than one or two house rule the system needs some work. Heavily house ruled games make playing with other groups difficult, usually needing a couple sessions to learn new rules for the game you've been playing for a year. Flexibility in the core system is essential, it allows new players a chance to ease into the game without penalizing veteran players.


master_marshmallow wrote:
The military has standards for recruits, that's not illegal.

I never served myself, but in the USA, I am pretty sure there's no Tested IQ minimum required based on those who have served have said. There is a qualification test, though, I believe, that measures various aptitudes to help determine which branches of the military an applicant is suited for (or conversely) and to weed out those with handicaps that make them unsuitable for service in general.


ShadeRaven wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
The military has standards for recruits, that's not illegal.
I never served myself, but in the USA, I am pretty sure there's no Tested IQ minimum required based on those who have served have said. There is a qualification test, though, I believe, that measures various aptitudes to help determine which branches of the military an applicant is suited for (or conversely) and to weed out those with handicaps that make them unsuitable for service in general.

I actually used to be a math tutor, and I helped people study for the Asvab.

The military has no role available for someone who has an IQ beneath 85.


Hrm. I'll have to ask my nephew. I could have sworn he said they took a test that gave him a score that wasn't a standard IQ test. He scored extremely high, but it wasn't like 170.


master_marshmallow wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
The military has standards for recruits, that's not illegal.
I never served myself, but in the USA, I am pretty sure there's no Tested IQ minimum required based on those who have served have said. There is a qualification test, though, I believe, that measures various aptitudes to help determine which branches of the military an applicant is suited for (or conversely) and to weed out those with handicaps that make them unsuitable for service in general.

I actually used to be a math tutor, and I helped people study for the Asvab.

The military has no role available for someone who has an IQ beneath 85.

Not to derail this but lets put the facts out...

ASVAB What the test is, is in the very name of its self, "Vocational Aptitude".

Understand that the ASVAB is not an IQ test. It does not measure your intelligence. This battery of tests was designed specifically to measure your aptitude to be trained to perform specific military-specific jobs

Military Requirements for Minimum ASVAB Scores

Branch High School Diploma GED
Army 31 50
Navy 35 50
Marines 32 50
Air Force 36 65
Coast Guard 40 50
National Guard 31 50

if you dont meet the min, you can still get in the branch of service with a waiver.

back to the normal operation of this thread...


agrayday wrote:


Not to derail this but lets put the facts out...

ASVAB What the test is, is in the very name of its self, "Vocational Aptitude".

Understand that the ASVAB is not an IQ test. It does not measure your intelligence. This battery of tests was designed specifically to measure your aptitude to be trained to perform specific military-specific jobs

Every test is a defacto IQ Test as IQ effects how much you can learn in a given time span as well as how quickly you can apply it. If it's a timed test it's an IQ test. An Asvab score of 31 roughly corresponds to an IQ of 80-85.The military used to actually give IQ tests and at that time it was illegal to allow someone with less than 85 join. They rescinded this briefly during Vietnam in what's called "McNamara’s Folly". Those soldiers ended up experiencing a 5 times mortality rate of other soldiers.


GO TEAM FACT CHECK!


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
ShadeRaven wrote:
I could never understand why having a 7 INT or 7 CHA automatically makes you a complete idiot (incapable of making sound decisions) or an uncouth, socially blundering *bleep*.

Look at it this way: NPCs in Pathfinder are universally built with either the expert array (15,14,13,13,10,8) of they have PC classes, or the standard array (13,12,11,10,9,8) if they have only NPC classes. That means, disregarding racial modifiers) the lowest INT score any NPC has is 8. So if your PC has a 7, he is literally THE DUMBEST PERSON (of his race) in all of Golarion.


Not true, I believe the village idiot in the GMG or maybe the NPC Codex has 3 INT.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Well, that's an outlier then, but I stand by that argument. If the only people in all of Golarion who are dumber than you are the village idiots, well, then...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would argue 8 is the lowest a person could be without being detrimental to the group. Anything below 8 and the character would ridiculously annoying if they were actually role played correctly.

Like you know that one stubborn guy who refuses to believe anything you say or always thinks he's right? Or for those of you who have done physical stuff have you every tried having a child or weak teenager help you move stuff? Someone who uses words wrong because he doesn't understand what they mean. Would you like to role play your character getting winded after 2 rounds of combat? Or how about just having to sit there and not be apart of the role play because your character simply doesn't understand that "smart people talk"? Or having him slip and fall walking up stairs because he has two left feet?

Those are things your character would HAVE to do if you had dump stats like that. Yet nobody seems to role play like that.

That might be fun once. But it shouldn't be the point of the game. The fact that you have to go out of your way to do it is fine to me.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Rameth wrote:
Those are things your character would HAVE to do if you had dump stats like that. Yet nobody seems to role play like that.

There are multiple ways to play any given character, and it's the duty of the player to choose the least disruptive interpretation. The alternative approach is ruinous to the campaign:

"Sorry, my character has to murder innocent people for fun; you see, he's neutral evil."
"Well, my character is neutral good, so I can't work with you ever again under any circumstances."
"My character is chaotic neutral so I set fire to everything for no reason."

A character with 7 Cha might be painfully shy. This doesn't ruin the campaign unless you try to make them the party face.

A character with 7 Int might have partial memory loss; they know who their allies are, but have difficulty remembering facts.

A character with 7 Wisdom might be gullible but eager to go along with what everyone else wants.

7 is designed to be low but acceptable. That's why the points-buy table went down to 7.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

This may be one of the reasons it's so hard to get my players involved in Pathfinder. There seems to be this strict adherence to this power-gaming model. No one wants to go to a gaming table and be told, simply because we decided to use 4d6 or (gasp) even gave 3d6 a shot and are now told you are the ugliest or dumbest or most foolish or weakest or … in the entire world.

Because, in the end, that's on me as the GM. I have come from the school of thought where 10-11 is average, and have taught/narrated as such. Where an 8 is essentially on par as a 13 for commonality. A 7 equates to a 14. Etc.

So when we run into other PF groups at Great Escapes (hobby shop), the casual nature and wide array of character that are clearly not optimized do get this disdainful attitude at times.

Look at the vehemence in disagreement some show here when I suggested that a 7 in any stat score doesn't equate to the worst human possible.

Again, though, I started playing at a different time. Ability scores weren't nearly as impactful overall, a score of 10 was average, point buy and standard arrays hadn't become the norm, and we all just played what we had.

This is also probably why my groups have shown interest in PF2. There's a genuine hope that anyone can play whatever they want and still be considered viable. That the game can just be a simple experience where you make a fun character without much effort and get to playing.

Shadow Lodge

Sums up most of my thoughts. It will do well I am sure but for me A break might get me trying the system out.

101 to 138 of 138 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Game Master Rules / Running the Game / Why I Don't Trust This Game: A Rant All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Running the Game