Why I Don't Trust This Game: A Rant


Running the Game

1 to 50 of 138 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

23 people marked this as a favorite.

I play a lot of different RPGs at conventions and there's a well-meaning type of GM I often encounter that I think of as the Helicopter Parent.

This GM doesn't view himself as a neutral arbiter of rules. This GM wants, more than anything, to be your friend and for you to like him. This GM mistakenly thinks this makes the game fun.

The Helicopter Parent never lets a character die in his game; no matter what happens, there's always something that prevents the death from occurring, the failed death save is really just you're knocked out. Or a deus ex machina group of allies appears to turn the tide of your losing battle, always.

Should the party not be figuring out the mystery, the GM will remind you of the clues you've forgotten.

If there's a trap, this GM will say, Does anyone want to search for traps?

Games with a Helicopter Parent GM are impossible not to win, because the GM thinks this is the only thing players find fun. I love to play board games with my Grandma, who cannot help but let me win, but that's because I love my Grandma, not because I feel the need to always win.

What the Helicopter Parent GM doesn't understand is that the fun in an RPG can also come from the freedom of exploration and choice, even if the consequences of one's choice are sometimes lethal.

I sometimes get so bored in games run by Helicopter GMs that my new goal becomes to see if, by making the worst possible choices, I can actually have anything bad happen to my character. Often, the answer is no.

Yes, this applies to many PFS GMs. And, as for Adventurer League, which is much much worse, I shall report that in my two years of playing there, off and on, I have never seen a single character die.

Right now Pathinder Second Edition really really reminds me of the Helicopter Parent GM.

• Not even a tiny advantage for dumpstatting anything (no a 10 is not a low score, in my opinion), and in fact we're kind of warned against having any low scores at all--despite the fact that exploring the world with a 4 STR or 7 INT character is actually a fun role-playing challenge

• PCs and NPCs use different dying rules; the revised rules apparently make PC death almost impossible, since a monster can repeatedly stab a dying PC in the face without advancing his dying condition in any meaningful way. What is actually happening in the world? I can't possibly imagine the reality of the situation.

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

• Sundering has been removed because someone decided that wasn't fun so now it's impossible in the game world. Except shields. No equipment can ever be damaged except those 12 shields you're carrying around. They will last about 12 seconds each.

• +1/level (the worst part of this game, IMO) makes it impossible for your character not to be able to do everything. Nope, your character has to know how to swim, how to play the lute, has researched enough arcana that they can identify some monsters. Oh, and that skinny old coughing wizard? Not really any worse at fighting than the barbarian. HELICOPTER GM says YOU WILL SUCCEED IN MY GAME

• Paralysis doesn't really make you all that vulnerable in any way, because apparently somebody decided that wouldn't be fun either

• Energy drain, not that scary anymore

• Wizard grappled by a kraken? more of an inconvenience really

• Hero Points. I loved the first edition system, because they were hard to come by and precious. In my home game, they directly represent slight divine intervention on your character's behalf. They really meant something when they were used.

But the new system? Just one point to remove the dying condition? And everyone gets that point just for showing up as a breathing body at the table?

Oh, and don't forget the GM can award another point for doing favors. At all of the playtest games I've played in, we've had never-ending sycophancy while players race to look up something for the GM first, to get a Hero Point, or share M&Ms with the GM, to get a Hero Point. Order food, to get a Hero Point, tell the GM they like his pants, to get a Hero Point, etc. etc. etc.

Who thought this was a good idea?

The reason I don't trust this game is that I feel like everything I mentioned above was a deliberate choice by the designers to prevent me from failing. It feels like this game has been designed by Helicopter Parent GMs.

And I'm well aware and very sympathetic to the folks upset on the other side--that the new rules make success too difficult and prevent any optimization. This is true as well. It seems that the game we've been given is one in which we can almost certainly never fail, and never die, but will have to try and try and try to actually hit something or succeed at a skill, but thanks to Hero Points, and the new Kindergarten Playground Physics of Golarion, nobody's really going to ever get that hurt in the end. You will succeed! There will be a happy ending! Fun! right?


23 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Your complaints are not my complaints. Your game is not my game. Your table is not my table.

Other than perhaps the idea that negative conditions could stand to have a little more bite, I'm not on board with your details, or the premise behind them.

While you play at conventions, I play at a table with groups of various friends, all of which have day jobs and obligations. They gather to have a good time, with laughs and an amusing story. A dead character leaves a player idle for the session. A difficult puzzle leads to cat-herding to avoid a YouTube distraction cycle. Forgetting fundamental standard-operating-procedure trap checking because the group plays every other week at best leads to annoyance, knowing "my guy would have remembered".

Lethality doesn't always equate to increased fun.

All I'm saying here is that you're saying other playstyles are wrongbadfun. Is PF2 softer? Yes, in some ways. No in others. Shrug.


13 people marked this as a favorite.

Catering to one style at the expense of the others will displace customers.

I'm in a similar camp where things have been dumbed down or removed in favor of amping up the combat simulator.

Spells have been nerfed to the ground.


17 people marked this as a favorite.
Yolande d'Bar wrote:
coup-de-grace has been removed because someone decided that wasn't fun so now it's impossible in the game world

Coup-de-grace, as an action, got removed because it's now on every instance of damage


7 people marked this as a favorite.

At least understand the basic rules first before ranting. Death wasn't like that before neither is now. Each hit you get puts you further down the death-track, sometimes twice as fast. There's no "gets to stab multiple times" or, as i've seen some people claiming in the previous system, hitting someone with non-lethal attacks to "save" your teammate, these were just straight exploits of the language(that, of course, needed to change).

You're also failing to realize the "Untrained, trained, expert, master, legendary" part of the skills. The numbers get high and you can do very simple tasks better than low level heroes, but you can't do trained stuff at all. There's some very odd cases (specially with Paralyzed, which should make you helpless) but mostly, you can be level 1, but a master/legendary in one skill and no matter which level your Barbarian is, he'll not be able to do very simple and common things. They need to balance this better? Yes. But it's nowhere near as you say.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I... have to start this speech everytime by reminding that I ever only had one TPK and it was an accident*, BUT

I like putting my players in danger, making the world feel risky, and adding tense situations that get worse when someone makes dumb mistakes.
I do not feel, barring the clear and massive Healing Cleric imbalance, that 2e prevents this from happening. It makes it hard because of the hero point stabilisation, but dying is possible and falling down is very doable if you make mistakes.
So, from someone who ran the playtest and loves to poke characters with poisoned sticks from time to time, while I can see helicopter GMs happen in this game, I don't think the ruleset pushes too hard in that direction.

*That said if you can't cast any silent spells or have martial ranged options by level 14 you're definitely asking for it and it is not my fault.


12 people marked this as a favorite.

>> Not even a tiny advantage for dumpstatting anything

You’re free to dump stat, it’s just not a good idea with how they’ve balanced everything.

>>PCs and NPCs use different dying rules

Yep that’s annoying.

>> since a monster can repeatedly stab a dying PC in the face without advancing his dying condition in any meaningful way.

I think it was just an editing mistake. It will be changed.

>> 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?

>>makes it impossible for your character not to be able to do everything.

More like fail. Have you playtested? It’s impossible to stealth, even with a stealth PC.

>>Wizard grappled by a kraken? more of an inconvenience really

Not any less than PFS. Good luck doing anything restrained.

>>But the new system? Just one point to remove the dying condition?

I’d prefer that it take 1 hero point for re-roll and 2 for removing dying.

Yolande d'Bar wrote:
The reason I don't trust this game is that I feel like everything I mentioned above was a deliberate choice by the designers to prevent me from failing.

No no no. Do some more play tests, you can fail. You're claiming it's not possible to fail but that's not the current state of the game. I've had 2 PC deaths so far and two tables TPK. It's possible to fail.


13 people marked this as a favorite.

IIRC, there's been a lot of TPKs in the playtest. If anything, this edition has proven more lethal than before, even if a lot of conditions and abilities got nerfed. Physical damage, however, was buffed incredibly and martials (and monsters) cna easily annihilate something with a bit of luck.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
IIRC, there's been a lot of TPKs in the playtest.

Oh boy has there. I have yet to survive a game a section in the playtest adventure. Monsters are just plain better than players and better means better crit chances...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I've run all of the first chapter of DD and we're 3 encounters into Pale Mountain and have had one PC death and only 2 PCs go to zero. We were robbed of the difficulty of the last fight in Lost Star do to poor PC tactics which split the party.

However skill wis and general power-wise all of these PCs feel weaker than their first Ed counterparts. So saying they succeed in everything is far from the truth at lower levels.


12 people marked this as a favorite.
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.


15 people marked this as a favorite.
Yolande d'Bar wrote:

Right now Pathinder Second Edition really really reminds me of the Helicopter Parent GM.

• Not even a tiny advantage for dumpstatting anything (no a 10 is not a low score, in my opinion), and in fact we're kind of warned against having any low scores at all--despite the fact that exploring the world with...

I'll make the opposite case, just to be contrary:

Pathfinder Second Edition really reminds me of the Killer GM, the one who thinks it's his job to try to destroy the PCs and thwart their every attempt to feel empowered.
• Not even a tiny advantage for dump-statting. Want to boost your Con to 18 by dumping Charisma? Nope!
• Dying rules mean that attempting to perform first aid is likely to kill your allies. A healbot Cleric is practically mandatory now.
• Shields are quickly destroyed if you use them to block damage.
• All enemies seem to get +1 per level to everything, meaning they never fall behind the PCs.
• No more healing to full with wands between battles. And if you use a magic item, your ability to drink potions is reduced. Again, I hope one of you wanted to play a healbot Cleric...
• I can't paralyse enemies and then coup de grace them any more.
• Casters get fewer spells per day, and the spells are weaker, and they no longer get stronger automatically as your caster level increases.
• PCs generally get weaker and/or feat-gated class abilities.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, the disconnect between reading the rules and experiencing them at the table is harsh. Onefactor may be that you didn't look into the bestiary to see what that +1Level does for Monsters.

They System is deadly as F... If your GM kills the cleric first (Or Sarenrae beware, ther eisn't one), it's goodbye group. Because good luck getting up against the average Recovery DC.

I am a helicopter GM. And have a hard time keeping People alive in this playtest.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
Catering to one style at the expense of the others will displace customers.

That is not how game design works at all. Trying to appease everyone means you appease no one. It is far better to have feelings on both extremes than to have everyone ambivalent.

You can have something for everyone, everything for someone. You can't have everything for everyone.

Will this game turn out to be one that you like? Who knows. Will it turn out to be one I like? Same answer. That is quite alright, no game can be for everyone.


If you want to discuss absurdity of the reality of death rules, these new ones are an improvement. In the original dying rules for PF2, you could be fully healed and still be dying.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

Considering that I knocked out half a group with 4 goblins, and TPK'd with a couple quasits in the first playtest section (apparently I'm a mean GM that actually uses monster abilities like polymorph and knockdown.) I'd say that this being a 'friendly' 'helicopter GM' game is a little absurd.

There are a lot of issues with the state of the game, being nice to the players is not one of them.

I had to abandon my playtest because I couldn't motivate the players to want to continue to roll characters that I was going to murder with trash mobs.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Yolande d'Bar wrote:
... tell the GM they like his pants, to get a Hero Point...

I knew I was forgetting something! I will notify my players that 'pants appreciation' is now an option for earning those sweet, sweet Hero Points during this playtest.

That was all. Carry on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Seannoss wrote:

I've run all of the first chapter of DD and we're 3 encounters into Pale Mountain and have had one PC death and only 2 PCs go to zero. We were robbed of the difficulty of the last fight in Lost Star do to poor PC tactics which split the party.

However skill wis and general power-wise all of these PCs feel weaker than their first Ed counterparts. So saying they succeed in everything is far from the truth at lower levels.

My experience is similar - at least four characters dropped (plus the animal companion and a familiar) in Lost star and Pale mountain so far. No deaths but some close calls and a fight that nearly ended in a TPK (though the bad rolling and sudden reversal would have probably led to a similar outcome in PF1).


No deaths here either, but all playtests so far included a Cleric (I'm really starting to dislike them) and I still managed to drop quite a few characters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was playing a few homebrew adventures using PF2E rules and have very nearly killed characters in what I assumed would be rather easy encounters.
A lone ghoul in a pool over water in a dark cave against a 4man level 1 party very nearly killed two of them without them doing anything particularly stupid.
Clerics have proven to be essential, I can't imagine the other classes capable of healing having produced enough output to compensate at level 1.

While the +1/level on EVERYTHING does bother me a bit I can work with/around that easily. I'm more concerned about the damage scaling being too harsh on players not too soft.

Personally I do feel I'd like to add a way to maybe get an extra boost in exchange for an extra penalty on ability scores. (but respecting the max 18 at level 1 rule)

Still I'd say it's far from Helicopter GM, leaning more towards the opposite.

Silver Crusade

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

My first two PF2 games have had 3 PC deaths between them.

If anything, we're approaching Gygaxian levels of lethality here. PF1 feels like padded sumo in comparison. I'm actually feeling like things should be toned down a bit with more non-Cleric healing made available.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Tales Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
My first two PF2 games have had 3 PC deaths between them.

Didn't your PCs save themselves with their hero points? I've had multiple PCs down, but they were always able to "escape" by spending a hero point.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

We forgot about Hero Points with the first death, but the other two happened due to to PCs having no Hero Points left.

GRANTED, we did not award "out of game" Hero Points before the second adventure, so things could have looked differently if I gave everybody points for admiring my Hawaii pants, my abs, my impeccable skill at gamemastering and my dashing intellect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Tales Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I'm not sure admining the GM counts, though :)

I gave out an extra hero point for the player who took on drawing the map on our Chessex mat (my flipmat being held hostage by Amazon *grumblegrumble*), and one for for the player running the Initiative app. Usually we have someone keeping a written log in a campaign ledger, and that would have been awarded a hero point, too, but we suspended that tradition for the playtest game.

Once a player spent both his points for a reroll, and four times, I think, they were used to prevent dying conditions.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

We've always saved our Hero Points. Tried to conserve them for when they were really needed.

Very little in game stuff happened to make me want to hand more points out, it's specifically a metagame currency and it feels cheap to me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've run 16 PF2 sessions.

Player characters are not that squishy. I have no idea how your players are getting that savaged. I've dropped, but not killed, 1.


Small things maybe but I gave the out of character hero points for things like checking rules for me while I handled stuff for another player, or explaining bits of the game to a newcomer while I prepped. Or like, actually just learning how their character plays ahead of time and contributing to a smoother experience. Not a huuuuuuuuuge fan of other out of character stuff affecting it though, so I think "helping other players" is going to be my biggest source of that point.


I am very lenient with handing out Hero Points for the playtest because without a lot of them, how can you test their effect? The way they work feels strange, with the most important use being the cheapest, but I got to like the 2 Points use that only costs you 1 if you fail. That makes Players more ready to use it if they know if they fail at least they still have their get out of feath free Card.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll fully admit that I am an extremely handholdy and overprotective GM. OP would not like sitting at my table (which is ok!). Our table is usually more about getting to engage in the story that plays out (and gets altered by PC shenanigans) than get wrapped up in tactics and death challenges; that's just one way to play. I've prevented TPKs in (not the playtest) games if only to keep the adventure going, as I didn't feel like saying, "well, game's over, go home!" (or having everyone roll new characters for a plot that would have been nearly impossible to bring all new characters into without manufacturing ridiculous coincidences even more than my handholdy self can bear to come up with--reasons for which I think is why there are some "plot-death safeguards" built into some systems).

We've only had time so far to actively playtest for a few hours (middle aged folks with difficult to align schedules), and while had no deaths (no opportunity yet), certainly had several failures, including a 1 on a Stealth roll that I certainly could have fudged but didn't, and played out the proper consequences. The Critical Failure system in particular--rolling a 1 or 10 less than the DC--seems to allow for failure to happen a good deal. Moreover, the failures just made the adventure go in a different direction, with poor consequences for the PCs, but didn't screech gameplay to a halt.

While hero points can mitigate some failed rolls, my players aren't the type to spend them willy nilly, and nor, despite handholdy tendencies, do I dole them out with much frequency. My sense of hero points (in the playtest or as the alternate option in 1e) is that they are supposed to be used that moment where the PC digs into inner resolve to really make their efforts in that one crucial moment count (so I don't find it metagamey, but rather narratively appropriate). They should be rare enough in distribution that PCs are saving them for climactic battles or major challenges only.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I intentionally empower my players to have the best/most optimized characters they want knowing full well that if their experience is ruined it's their own fault. The reverse of the coin is knowing full well that I will not pull any punches ever.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Zaister wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
My first two PF2 games have had 3 PC deaths between them.
Didn't your PCs save themselves with their hero points? I've had multiple PCs down, but they were always able to "escape" by spending a hero point.

One of my big issues is that Hero Points now seem to be required to prevent death... I've done 2 playthroughs of doomsday dawn part 1, and 1 playthrough of part 2. The first part 1, we had one character death (forgot about hero points). The second, 2 players were saved due to hero points, though in part 2, we ended up being okay.

Hero points are nice to have, but if they're required to avoid character deaths, then I think there's a flaw in the underlying system.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
DeathQuaker wrote:
My sense of hero points (in the playtest or as the alternate option in 1e) is that they are supposed to be used that moment where the PC digs into inner resolve to really make their efforts in that one crucial moment count (so I don't find it metagamey, but rather narratively appropriate). They should be rare enough in distribution that PCs are saving them for climactic battles or major challenges only.

I feel like the main reason they're being called metagamey above is because players can theoretically earn them by being nice to the GM or bringing cookies or whatever.

I'm not really sure I'm comfortable with giving the GM tribute leading to a direct in game benefit, even if I would love my guys to pay me in food.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

I'm terrible about giving out Hero Points, so I've actually given them to the players to hand out. If another player does something awesome in character, one PC can give them a Hero Point and in doing so gets a Hero Point for themselves. This leads to people hamming it up when things are going badly, which amuses me greatly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
swordchucks wrote:
I'm terrible about giving out Hero Points, so I've actually given them to the players to hand out. If another player does something awesome in character, one PC can give them a Hero Point and in doing so gets a Hero Point for themselves. This leads to people hamming it up when things are going badly, which amuses me greatly.

Do keep us posted on how this works out, it sounds fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I play online, so there's not a lot my players can do to assist the game moving. So my Hero Points have been given out for 1) did you show up on time and have your character up to date and 2) did you participate in any roleplay. I've given out a lot of points, and my players have forgotten about them every single time.


Symar wrote:
I've given out a lot of points, and my players have forgotten about them every single time.

Even re-rolls? Everyone loves re-rolls.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason S wrote:
Symar wrote:
I've given out a lot of points, and my players have forgotten about them every single time.

Even re-rolls? Everyone loves re-rolls.

Not as much as they love a get out of dying free card.


If you could earn 5-6 hero-points/session then perhaps you could splurge on a reroll.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've run a lot of Dark Heresy, and they have a Fate Point system that's like Hero Points - I really liked how they capped out at a number ( I.think 5 was the highest), automatically refreshed each game, and you gained them my finishing a campaign (like a book in an AP) but lost 1 permanently to avoid death (and you could do that even if you spent all your points, it removed the "slot").

I found it worked pretty good, and wasn't overbearing. PF2 isn't quite as lethal, but it's a lot closer than PF was.


Angel Hunter D wrote:

I've run a lot of Dark Heresy, and they have a Fate Point system that's like Hero Points - I really liked how they capped out at a number ( I.think 5 was the highest), automatically refreshed each game, and you gained them my finishing a campaign (like a book in an AP) but lost 1 permanently to avoid death (and you could do that even if you spent all your points, it removed the "slot").

I found it worked pretty good, and wasn't overbearing. PF2 isn't quite as lethal, but it's a lot closer than PF was.

I don't think fate points ever capped, but generally speaking you only ever got bonus fates for acts of lunatic great deeds (Can't exactly call it heroism in the grimdark future) more than just completing campaigns.

Another fun thing about DH fates is that they were a nifty way to (somewhat) keep player damage from doom spiraling too hard in the event the party doesn't have a Biomancer trivializing that particular issue. End of session and you have leftover fates? Sink em into wound recovery so you can carry on with just a bit more security rather than slowly getting whittled down faster than your medicae guy can patch you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"exploring the world with a 4 STR or 7 INT character is actually a fun role-playing challenge"

— This is very true. At least give me something in return. I know PF2 Can't let me raise other stats for fear of breaking the balance, that's fine.

I don't even need it to get something balanced in return. But I would apreciate a decent RAW excuse I can use to trick my brain into thinking it's not just hampering myself for no gain.

Maybe an additional trained skill, or one of those weaker skill feats per 2 point reduction?


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Ramanujan wrote:

"exploring the world with a 4 STR or 7 INT character is actually a fun role-playing challenge"

— This is very true. At least give me something in return. I know PF2 Can't let me raise other stats for fear of breaking the balance, that's fine.

I don't even need it to get something balanced in return. But I would apreciate a decent RAW excuse I can use to trick my brain into thinking it's not just hampering myself for no gain.

Maybe an additional trained skill, or one of those weaker skill feats per 2 point reduction?

I don't understand... isn't "a fun role-playing challenge" the "something in return"?

You want the option to not just be "fun", but to also have an extra benefit? Isn't that trying to eat your cake and have it too?

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Elleth wrote:
DeathQuaker wrote:
My sense of hero points (in the playtest or as the alternate option in 1e) is that they are supposed to be used that moment where the PC digs into inner resolve to really make their efforts in that one crucial moment count (so I don't find it metagamey, but rather narratively appropriate). They should be rare enough in distribution that PCs are saving them for climactic battles or major challenges only.

I feel like the main reason they're being called metagamey above is because players can theoretically earn them by being nice to the GM or bringing cookies or whatever.

I'm not really sure I'm comfortable with giving the GM tribute leading to a direct in game benefit, even if I would love my guys to pay me in food.

Then the whole game is metagamey, and all RPGs are metagamey, because you can always bribe the GM to rule things your way. (My players have been trying to bribe me with cookies for years before we ever heard of a hero point.) Anyone can poorly interpret or fudge a rule. That's all sort of beside the point.

If run as intended (and assuming bribing the GM is not "as intended"), does the system work? Does it reduce difficulty too much, or does it make an otherwise deadly system more playable?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like that hero points enable me to share the work load on others, so my guy who likes to track initiative can get rewarded for it, but what happens when I run out of extra tasks to delegate you my players?

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
master_marshmallow wrote:
I like that hero points enable me to share the work load on others, so my guy who likes to track initiative can get rewarded for it, but what happens when I run out of extra tasks to delegate you my players?

Here's a list of tasks I offer or reward when they crop up:

- tracking party treasure
- mapping
- tracking initiative
- making story/NPC notes
- distribution of drinks/snacks
- driving people home after the game
- providing self-made food or drinks
- walking GM's dog midway through the game

1 to 50 of 138 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / 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.