Zapp's Thoughts on The Gamemastery Guide


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 99 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

My thoughts in random order:

* The section on NPCs should definitely have been published in the Bestiary, even if in a reduced capacity with perhaps only a dozen entries
* there still is no discussion on random generation of ability scores. I'm getting the feeling the CRB option was put there only to appease hardcore "randomists" and then entirely dropped. I'm getting the feeling Paizo thinks their game incompatible with the idea of getting an unexpectedly high or low value in your ability scores? (Where is the discussion on the impact of this?)
* there are STILL no variants allowing you to choose your fundamental (attack, AC, saves) proficiencies yourself. You can use points to build your skills, but you're still stuck to your 1st level decision (your choice of class) when it comes to advancing your fundamentals, even ten or twenty levels later. (Please don't point to the Dual-classed PC variant. I'm talking about rules that allow 3e/PF levels of fundamenta customization without any significant power upgrades)

Please don't shunt this post into the existing product discussion thread on the GMG. I don't think discussion is served by having all discussions of such a core book into a single thread, while you can have a hundred threads discussing a CRB issue. (Whether this fits into Rules or Advice is another matter. I simply do not know, so I posted here in General. :-)

Silver Crusade

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

What's the point of this thread? Turning back the time so that NPCs can be published in Bestiary and that stuff you want would be included in a book that's already out there? That might be ... kind of hard to pull out.

Or is it a suggestion thread for GMG 2?

With warmest regards and kindest greetings
Gorbacz


13 people marked this as a favorite.

Why was this not titled “Gamesmatery guide hate thread”?
Why bury the lead?

1. Why post this ? It can’t be changed so this is just complaining for the sake of complaining. You are probably right but so what ?

2. How high is the demand for this? Maybe there is discussion because most people don’t care. Most people don’t enjoy having to on play with unfortunate rolls especially in the same group as the person (often the GMs buddy) who miraculously got amazing rolls when rolled separate from the group

3. Is this asking for a classless system? I am not sure what this request even is but they are not going to let you bespoke proficiency like that otherwise why have it at all?

This thread in and of itself seems pointless. If you want a discussion on things like your second point then that could be it’s own one. But it might not get much traction (or perhaps already has not?)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Skill Point variant: "A character must
meet the minimum level indicated on the table to increase
their rank, primarily to avoid having a player becoming
unrealistically good at one skill early in their adventuring
career while neglecting everything else."

Or not.

A game like d20 Call of Cthulhu was kneecapped by Monte's decision to enforce level-based limitations, preventing a level 1 professor to start out legendary (to use PF2 parlance) in Archaeology. (Which CoC players were used to be allowed to since time eternal)

But not even for a second was it ever discussed what actual practical gameplay interactions that was so bad they had to become prohibited.

Guess what? The NPC chapter of the GMG allows even a level -1 NPC to act as a level 6 challenge in the NPCs chosen field of expertise.

So why was this limitation placed, Paizo? Just by reflex?

I see absolutely zero issues with having a PC being "unrealistically" good at a skill at the expense of other skills.

For one thing, official APs never challenge PCs with inappropriate skill challenges anyway. If it's mentioned, it's because it's okay to have some groups succeed at them.

So I ask again. If a player decides that Acrobatics or Society or Lore (Goblin Poop) skill checks should be trivially easy, at the expense of not knowing much else at all, so what?

Best Regards
Zapp


13 people marked this as a favorite.

So you want a homebrew system, but you're too lazy to write it yourself. Got it.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:


* The section on NPCs should definitely have been published in the Bestiary, even if in a reduced capacity with perhaps only a dozen entries

It wasn't though. It never will be. Moreover, that section is 47 pages long, and left me wanting even more premade NPCs. Cutting it a lot to fit it in the Bestiary means cutting the Bestiary a lot and having fewer NPCs. I don't even agree in hindsight.

Zapp wrote:


* there still is no discussion on random generation of ability scores. I'm getting the feeling the CRB option was put there only to appease hardcore "randomists" and then entirely dropped. I'm getting the feeling Paizo thinks their game incompatible with the idea of getting an unexpectedly high or low value in your ability scores? (Where is the discussion on the impact of this?)

Why is this needed? It is an option. Already printed. None of the new ability score variants have essays in the new book, why would this option from the CRB? Why phrase it as if this absence is a deliberate snub with language like appease and "randomists"?

Zapp wrote:


* there are STILL no variants allowing you to choose your fundamental (attack, AC, saves) proficiencies yourself. You can use points to build your skills, but you're still stuck to your 1st level decision (your choice of class) when it comes to advancing your fundamentals, even ten or twenty levels later. (Please don't point to the Dual-classed PC variant. I'm talking about rules that allow 3e/PF levels of fundamental customization without any significant power upgrades)

I don't think its unreasonable to say that that would be a BIG variant. Much more extensive than any in this book. Either an entire set of rules to make the game more classless (which I doubt Paizo would ever even print tbh). OR handled through archetypes. Which wouldn't be in this book anyway.

Zapp wrote:


Please don't shunt this post into the existing product discussion thread on the GMG. I don't think discussion is served by having all discussions of such a core book into a single thread, while you can have a hundred threads discussing a CRB issue. (Whether this fits into Rules or Advice is another matter. I simply do not know, so I posted here in General. :-)

You don't really get to set the rules here. If this belongs in a larger thread discussing the GMG, that's where it ought to go, depending on the forum rules. Your thoughts are not more valid or separate than anyone elses.

TL;DR
I see that the book didn't make your expectations, but I'm honestly not sure why you had some of those expectations, either in general or for this specific book.

* Disagree on Bestiary roll-in.
* Can't fathom expecting a discussion on a CRB variant according to a standard that doesn't exist elsewhere.
* Proficiency advancements seem to be intended to be strongly class-based, with archetypes granting exceptions. Not really a topic for this book.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:

Skill Point variant: ...

So I ask again. If a player decides that Acrobatics or Society or Lore (Goblin Poop) skill checks should be trivially easy, at the expense of not knowing much else at all, so what?

Best Regards
Zapp

I think that you don't want to play a class and level based game. I'm not sure why you are arguing Pathfinder should be that game. Play a different game. You'll have less headaches.

This thread seems at best disingenuous.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Stamina Points:

Honestly wouldn't it be simpler to just say
* half your hit points are converted to stamina points
* after 10 minutes of rest all stamina points are recovered
* damage reduces stamina points first - hit points are lost only once you're at 0 Stamina
* healing recovers hit points first - stamina points are recovered only once you are at full hit points
* rules for dying and death still revolve around Hit Points as usual

...and avoid tables and "resolve points" and all that clutter?

I find the official rule needlessly complicated.

I especially dislike the idea you need to spend 10 minutes of rest on a specific activity (since that means the time isn't spent on other activities, with the only result resting between encounters take more time which runs specifically counter to the aim of the variant!)

Plus, since all my players always make sure to have multiple characters proficient in Medicine (and its feats), it feels like we're already running the RAW game in the way described in the Stamina Impact sidebar: "a quick 10- or 20-minute rest can restore most groups to full or nearly full health".


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Care to discuss anything you like from the guide Zapp?

Otherwise this thread is just a hatchet job which is quite mean spirited

Or at least clarify there is nothing you do like so that cards can all be on the table ...


16 people marked this as a favorite.

It's a Zapp thread. It's a poster who seems to consider the forums a blog, and how dare anyone critique what he says. We're all just biased, obviously.

Ignore him and move on.


Ruzza wrote:
It's a Zapp thread. It's a poster who seems to consider the forums a blog, and how dare anyone critique what he says. We're all just biased, obviously.

You are welcome to discuss and critique my specific suggestions.


Lanathar wrote:

Care to discuss anything you like from the guide Zapp?

Otherwise this thread is just a hatchet job which is quite mean spirited

Or at least clarify there is nothing you do like so that cards can all be on the table ...

I like many things. I just don't have anything to say on things I simply use as-is, sorry.

As for hatchet jobs, I only critique things I love. I don't feel compelled to sugarcoat it, though.

Anything in particular you like about the GMG you want my opinion on, Lanathar?


vagrant-poet wrote:


I think that you don't want to play a class and level based game. I'm not sure why you are arguing Pathfinder should be that game. Play a different game. You'll have less headaches.

I truly want to know if you have any reasons why restrict skill proficiencies. Not theorycrafting now - practical instances in actual play where having a +2 or +4 extra truly ruins gameplay.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zapp wrote:
Plus, since all my players always make sure to have multiple characters proficient in Medicine (and its feats), it feels like we're already running the RAW game in the way described in the Stamina Impact sidebar: "a quick 10- or 20-minute rest can restore most groups to full or nearly full health".

Why does the presence of an optional rule that your table can readily ignore bother you? I am sure plenty of tables can benefit from it.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

Man, y'all seem to enjoy dogpiling insults on Zapp here. How about, instead of threadcrapping, you either address with your own ideas or maybe just ignore the posters you don't like.

This from me.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Zapp wrote:

My thoughts in random order:

* The section on NPCs should definitely have been published in the Bestiary, even if in a reduced capacity with perhaps only a dozen entries
* there still is no discussion on random generation of ability scores. I'm getting the feeling the CRB option was put there only to appease hardcore "randomists" and then entirely dropped. I'm getting the feeling Paizo thinks their game incompatible with the idea of getting an unexpectedly high or low value in your ability scores? (Where is the discussion on the impact of this?)
* there are STILL no variants allowing you to choose your fundamental (attack, AC, saves) proficiencies yourself. You can use points to build your skills, but you're still stuck to your 1st level decision (your choice of class) when it comes to advancing your fundamentals, even ten or twenty levels later. (Please don't point to the Dual-classed PC variant. I'm talking about rules that allow 3e/PF levels of fundamenta customization without any significant power upgrades)

Please don't shunt this post into the existing product discussion thread on the GMG. I don't think discussion is served by having all discussions of such a core book into a single thread, while you can have a hundred threads discussing a CRB issue. (Whether this fits into Rules or Advice is another matter. I simply do not know, so I posted here in General. :-)

1- disagree, the npcs in the GMG are fine, haven't had a need for them and have been playing since release.

2- Ok and? Random ability scores aren't how the game is designed it doesn't matter at all to me that an optional rule is not there.

3- I never expected there to be variants about selecting prof bonuses, not sure why you did, and I don't think they're needed at all. (I don't care about 3e/pf, i'm playing 2e, this is nonsense)

Silver Crusade

15 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Thr3adcr4p wrote:

Man, y'all seem to enjoy dogpiling insults on Zapp here. How about, instead of threadcrapping, you either address with your own ideas or maybe just ignore the posters you don't like.

This from me.

Not every idea is worth addressing.

Dark Archive

8 people marked this as a favorite.

Man, I don't miss random ability scores at all. It's not a "feature" if your PC has 14 or 15 as their highest ability score while some lucky PCs might have that same score in their *lowest* stat; to me it's a bug. And yeah, I've been rolling PC stats since I was 11 and played in dozens of campaigns down the years; only rarely did it feel we had a balanced party in which everyone were happy with their [rolled-up] stats. Usually there's at least one or two PCs who have significantly higher ability scores. None of the players had to roll for their stats in any of my 1E games, nor will they in 2E either.

I don't mind if someone says they prefer rolling for ability scores, but at the same time I wouldn't ever want to see that as the baseline for any edition. I'm more than happy how 2E handles character creation, it's even more balanced and elegant than in 1E. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Thr3adcr4p wrote:

Man, y'all seem to enjoy dogpiling insults on Zapp here. How about, instead of threadcrapping, you either address with your own ideas or maybe just ignore the posters you don't like.

This from me.

Not every idea is worth addressing.

Indeed. Nor does everyone have ideas of their own. The difference is when people start addressing the poster and their motives instead of their ideas, they are 100% out of compliance with stated posting standards. When that's all they do in response, they are threadcrapping.

Silver Crusade

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

The fact that the game is indeed incompatible with 4d6 drop lowest, the whole math is built around the ideas of PCs being within a certain range of stats and not around the idea that a 10/8/12/10/10/11 can sit next to 18/17/16/18/15 and expect the same experience. It didn't in PF1 and doubly doesn't in PF2, where the math is so much tighter.

There's the camp that likes the way PF2 generates scores (covered), the point buy club (covered), the 4d6 drop lowest (always covered) and the demand for "rolling but done in a way to ensure scores similar to default PF2" is apparently so small that the word count was better used elsewhere.

Sorry, Zapp. It's just you.

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Thr3adcr4p wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Thr3adcr4p wrote:

Man, y'all seem to enjoy dogpiling insults on Zapp here. How about, instead of threadcrapping, you either address with your own ideas or maybe just ignore the posters you don't like.

This from me.

Not every idea is worth addressing.
Indeed. Nor does everyone have ideas of their own. The difference is when people start addressing the poster and their motives instead of their ideas, they are 100% out of compliance with stated posting standards. When that's all they do in response, they are threadcrapping.

Oh, I missed the "you can only discuss what people communicate, not how and why and what for they communicate it" rule, care to point me to it?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:
You are welcome to discuss and critique my specific suggestions.

We are welcome to discuss those suggestions and very much more. This thread is allowed to migrate and deviate in any way that the natural discourse flows. You broached a topic, that topic can now be explored in myriad ways.

With the broad topic of "The Gamemastery Guide" this thread can become a conversation about the art in the book, the appropriate methodology for laying out the appendices in a book of this kind, comparisons with the 1e GMG or even the other guys DMG's

All of that is perfectly allowable. You are not a moderator, you do not set rules on how that communication happens on this forum and in this thread.


12 people marked this as a favorite.

"But not even for a second was it ever discussed what actual practical gameplay interactions that was so bad they had to become prohibited."

Hasn't it been discussed extensively throughout the playtest and design process, that the slightest variations in ability scores have huge implications in this edition? And that PF2 seeks to preclude PF1-style minmaxing of dumping all non-combat abilities to favor combat abilities? You seem to be ignoring the considerations behind the rules as written, while demanding the designers discuss variants that undercut their entire design - they don't need to, because they already did when designing this edition.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Oh, I missed the "you can only discuss what people communicate, not how and why and what for they communicate it" rule, care to point me to it?

Discussing how someone communicates is fine. Making claims as to why they do it is only useful for picking fights.

"I know you are only saying X because:
you like complaining for the sake of complaining /
you hate anyone treating this game as anything less than perfect /
you're a bully who likes picking on people you perceive as unpopular"
etc.

Such claims are insulting and frequently wrong. We are not psychics and we do not know why people write the things they do.


dirtypool wrote:
Zapp wrote:
You are welcome to discuss and critique my specific suggestions.

We are welcome to discuss those suggestions and very much more. This thread is allowed to migrate and deviate in any way that the natural discourse flows. You broached a topic, that topic can now be explored in myriad ways.

With the broad topic of "The Gamemastery Guide" this thread can become a conversation about the art in the book, the appropriate methodology for laying out the appendices in a book of this kind, comparisons with the 1e GMG or even the other guys DMG's

All of that is perfectly allowable. You are not a moderator, you do not set rules on how that communication happens on this forum and in this thread.

I don't agree with all the antagonism on this thread, but I totally agree with this. The title is just "GameMastery guide", not the negative connotations that the OP want on it. So I will say my first impressions after a VERY quick first glance...

I like the options for dual class and free archetype, very possible those end on my table. I also like the Automatic Bonus Progression, but the fact that the damage from the runes is not included seems a bit problematic. I hoped to see some options to return some power to spells, as this book seems a perfect place for it, but I suppose that would take too much space.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

A smaller Bestiary and fewer NPCs is not okay.


Zapp wrote:
vagrant-poet wrote:


I think that you don't want to play a class and level based game. I'm not sure why you are arguing Pathfinder should be that game. Play a different game. You'll have less headaches.

I truly want to know if you have any reasons why restrict skill proficiencies. Not theorycrafting now - practical instances in actual play where having a +2 or +4 extra truly ruins gameplay.

I don't need to. The skill proficiencies are restricted because the entire game has a very tight set of difficulty classes based on level. That requires assumptions. I didn't design it, but that certainly seems to be the case.

There is absolutely no onus on me, a player, to provide evidence why the game is designed this way, because it already is.

My suggestion to you, among many others you didn't address as you don't terribly interested in discussion in this thread, was that you seem to like high levels of customisation of options. Be it skills, or proficiecies, etc. I reccommend that you would like a skill-based classless system if that's the case.

You are not achieving anything by demanding that a very tightly restricted class/level based game works the way you want. The fundamental premise is totally different. There are level restrictions, and class limitations on proficiencies because that is a feature of a class/level based game. It's a feature.

This is clear from the entire structure of the rules, and you're not owed any further explanation.

I think I'm done trying the good-faith argument here, and as such finished with this thread.

I say with no vitriol and viciousness, to be clear, I legitimately think you would be happier trying to play a game that you agreed with the core premise, or just accepting that you'll have to houserule extensively to get PF2e to work that way. It is not likely to be provided by the designers, because that is a lot of work for what is approaching a new totally different game. Maybe if your houserules are good you could sell them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Thr3adcr4p wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Thr3adcr4p wrote:

Man, y'all seem to enjoy dogpiling insults on Zapp here. How about, instead of threadcrapping, you either address with your own ideas or maybe just ignore the posters you don't like.

This from me.

Not every idea is worth addressing.
Indeed. Nor does everyone have ideas of their own. The difference is when people start addressing the poster and their motives instead of their ideas, they are 100% out of compliance with stated posting standards. When that's all they do in response, they are threadcrapping.
Oh, I missed the "you can only discuss what people communicate, not how and why and what for they communicate it" rule, care to point me to it?

Sure, can't do it from my phone, I'm too old. So it'll have to wait until after work. And then,I'll have to weigh the time sink against the infinitesimal probability that it will actually make a difference in your posting habits, or the greater weight of educating someone who doesn't know the basis of all Paizo moderation is "don't be a jerk".

Shouldn't be too hard for me to find, hopefully will have enough time after work tonight.


The Rot Grub wrote:

"But not even for a second was it ever discussed what actual practical gameplay interactions that was so bad they had to become prohibited."

Hasn't it been discussed extensively throughout the playtest and design process, that the slightest variations in ability scores have huge implications in this edition? And that PF2 seeks to preclude PF1-style minmaxing of dumping all non-combat abilities to favor combat abilities? You seem to be ignoring the considerations behind the rules as written, while demanding the designers discuss variants that undercut their entire design - they don't need to, because they already did when designing this edition.

The discussion is that you have the freedom to choose to start lower in your main stat and similar, because a +1 represents a small enough difference that you're not gimping yourself and that someone that decided to fully invest in a stat will have the pay-off at later levels.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Doing only monsters in the bestiary was a deliberate choice in order to get more monsters in the book, so that we can get up and running with everybody's favorite critter available for their campaign (very useful for adapting only PF1 APs.)

Bolting literally any stat generation system to a game like is very easy- you pick your stats right at the beginning so the only thing to worry about is "balance" which is something the GMG has a bunch of advice for.

I don't think there's much of an appeal for a classless version of this game. There are many classless RPGs that are very popular but the entire history of d20 game is about classes. Nonetheless, this seems like an easy enough thing to invent for yourself.

A lot of these complaints feel like "this book didn't hold my hand enough" TBH.

Horizon Hunters

I don't think the skill idea is terrible, I see no issue with a character being ridiculously good at say Diplomacy at the expense of all else, as long as feats are still level locked so they can't intimidate someone to death from the off.

Liberty's Edge

Alaryth wrote:
dirtypool wrote:
Zapp wrote:
You are welcome to discuss and critique my specific suggestions.

We are welcome to discuss those suggestions and very much more. This thread is allowed to migrate and deviate in any way that the natural discourse flows. You broached a topic, that topic can now be explored in myriad ways.

With the broad topic of "The Gamemastery Guide" this thread can become a conversation about the art in the book, the appropriate methodology for laying out the appendices in a book of this kind, comparisons with the 1e GMG or even the other guys DMG's

All of that is perfectly allowable. You are not a moderator, you do not set rules on how that communication happens on this forum and in this thread.

I don't agree with all the antagonism on this thread, but I totally agree with this. The title is just "GameMastery guide", not the negative connotations that the OP want on it. So I will say my first impressions after a VERY quick first glance...

I like the options for dual class and free archetype, very possible those end on my table. I also like the Automatic Bonus Progression, but the fact that the damage from the runes is not included seems a bit problematic. I hoped to see some options to return some power to spells, as this book seems a perfect place for it, but I suppose that would take too much space.

The damage bonus you get from runes on weapons is included in the automatic progression. It's called devastating attacks and you get an extra die at 4, 12 and 19. Am I missing other damage you are mentioning?


Ok, that is what I get for written too fast; I don't explain mayself correctly. You are right, there are damage bonus to substitute the Striking runes. I was talking about the damage from Property runes like "+1d6 acid" from corrosive. Sorry.

Edit: I suppose the reason is just to not give innate equivalent to some equivalent property runes, and not to others.


My Thoughts on The Gamemastery Guide:
Overall I was underwhelmed as most of the things I'd hoped would be cover weren't. That's not to say it was bad per se, just not what I wanted.

Good things that stood out:
-Subsystems seem interesting, especially research. I'll need to see them in play before I'd say I like them or not.
-Variant Rules are a mixed bag.
• Ability Score Variants: point seem fine but alternate scores doesn't do it for me with it's dropping con.
• Alignment Variants: anything that kills off alignment is good in my book.
• Deep Backgrounds: BIG plus here. Love it.
• Feats and Features: dual-class,free archetype and more ancestry feats are cool options.
• Level 0 Characters: interesting option but I'm not sure how often it'll get used.
• Magic Item Variants: Looks good.
• Proficiency without Level: never saw the point but some people clambered for it.
• Skill Points: I like the idea but I'm not sure how different skills would actually turn out. I need to play around with it.
• Stamina: Another interesting idea that I'll need to play with.

Things that where meh: A good bit seemed like general RPG advice vs advice specific to PF2. Good for new DM's but not too exciting for old hands at RPG's.

Things I didn't like: I have to agree with Zapp on NPC's being here but I don't think they'd need to be in a monster manual. A big book of NPC's can be it's own book for those that want lots of NPC's and gives you a specific place to look for them as opposed from having them spread out in monster manuals and other books.


For me, the variant magic items was probably the biggest single draw. Variant rules will probably be useful but not something I use all the time.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Zapp's complaint basically is just that the GMG is not the "Does Away With All The Rules That Zapp Doesn't Like and Replaces Them With New Rules That He Wants Guide".


Zapp wrote:


* there still is no discussion on random generation of ability scores.

Yes balance is not always the overriding concern. Some of us love random rolls and playing with a character we can build from the rolls we get.

It's not a major house rule but it would be nice to have an official variant.
Currently doing so in one group.

Zapp wrote:


* there are STILL no variants allowing you to choose your fundamental (attack, AC, saves) proficiencies yourself. You can use points to build your skills, but you're still stuck to your 1st level decision (your choice of class) when it comes to advancing your fundamentals, even ten or twenty levels later. (Please don't point to the Dual-classed PC variant. I'm talking about rules that allow 3e/PF levels of fundamenta customization without any significant power upgrades)

Seems like this is a bridge too far. I agree that I'd like it. Despite all the 1,000,000,000s of variants we are told are available, we are still stuck fairly tightly to a class. A lot of the options that were buildable in PF1 are not buildable with PF2. I get that it is hard to do in a balanced way.

However I do like what they have produced in the GMG so far, haven't finished reading.... this is just a wish list for next time.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Things that where meh: A good bit seemed like general RPG advice vs advice specific to PF2. Good for new DM's but not too exciting for old hands at RPG's.

There are quite a few sections of Chapter 1 that you would benefit from reading over. There is a lot of good advice for new GMs that is just as helpful a refresher for old hands.


12 people marked this as a favorite.
Thr3adcr4p wrote:


Sure, can't do it from my phone, I'm too old. So it'll have to wait until after work. And then,I'll have to weigh the time sink against the infinitesimal probability that it will actually make a difference in your posting habits, or the greater weight of educating someone who doesn't know the basis of all Paizo moderation is "don't be a jerk".
Shouldn't be too hard for me to find, hopefully will have enough time after work tonight.

You are aware of the hypocrisy of tone-policing others while tone-policing, right?

"Hey, guys, maybe not so hard on Zapp!"

Vs

"Look, I'm here to stop you in particular from being a jerk."

That said, Zapp is posting his complaints in an inane way that constantly misses the underlying structure of the game.

"Why can't I play a classless game?" You can, it's not this game. This game (and the design intent) is to have classes that fill their niche and evoke the spirit of that role.

"Why can't I roll randomly for stats?" You can, it's going to wildly unbalance your game. As it has in the past, but only moreso with the new tight math.

"Why can't I start legendary in a skill at the expense of all other skills?" Because a stated design goal was to get away from hyper-specialization.

The issue is, in every other thread, when these points are addressed, the response isn't, "Hey, I get that, and I understand." Instead we are treated to, "Well, it shouldn't be. You are all just zealots for this game."

(Weighing your time against other posters, by the way - incredibly infantilizing. Most of us work, most of us are "too old." You don't get special legacy status for having played in the same number of editions as the rest of us.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Guideline wrote:


The Gaming Community
There are all kinds of gamers here on paizo.com. Use of derogatory labels for other gamers can be hurtful and isolate others who enjoy different styles of play. You may find yourself in a debate on our forums, and disagreements are bound to happen. Focus on challenging the idea, rather than the others in the conversation. Remember that there's another person on the other side of the screen. Please help us keep it fun!

Harassment
Do not abuse, defame, harass, threaten, or stalk others via our forums or private messaging system. Community members should feel welcome while they're on paizo.com.

Baiting
Posts or threads made solely to provoke a strong negative reaction or conflict do not contribute to the inviting place we'd like our community to be. Threads with provocative titles will be locked, and posts removed as necessary.

Moderator Sampling wrote:


I removed some posts and replies. Remember this is a thread about your opinions, don't bicker or name call over preferences or your subjective viewpoints.

Removed post and replies. It's important to remember that different people in the community will have different interests, opinions, and tastes. There is plenty of room in this hobby for people to enjoy the game for a variety of reasons.

Removed some posts and replies. Please don't dog-pile on other forum users, and if you feel that there is incorrect information in a post, look for ways to address that respectfully.

Stop arguing with each other about your different preferences, feedback, and observations. One person's perspective is not invalidated by someone else having a different opinion about how they prefer to run or play games. Be respectful of other folks in the community.

No one is objectively wrong for wanting to enjoy Pathfinder in a particular style, even if they have an opinion that you perceive as in the minority. Remember when someone likes or doesn't like a part that you do, it doesn't mean your opinion is suddenly invalid, it just means your preferences for what you want Pathfinder to be or do might not align with theirs.

We're all here because we love tabletop RPGs, and that is going to take as many different forms and be as variable as there are people playing these games. Allow for other people to have their own preferences and styles of play they enjoy. When engaging on our forums, you need to give other people the grace to have different opinions.

Be sure that you are discussing and debating ideas, not attacking people or people's opinions. Do not pick fights with each other over your preferences.

While there are bound to be things about different editions and different games that you either love or do not care for, please remember that these are all, including Roleplaying vs Rollplaying, subjective points. There is a vast spectrum of ways and reasons people enjoy Pathfinder. No one is objectively wrong for wanting to enjoy Pathfinder in a particular style. Remember when someone likes or doesn't like a part that you do, it doesn't mean your opinion is suddenly invalid, it just means your preferences for what you want Pathfinder to be or do might not align with theirs.

We're all here because we love tabletop RPGs, and that is going to take as many different forms and be as variable as there are people playing these games. Allow for other people to have their own preferences and styles of play they enjoy. When engaging on our forums, you need to give other people the grace to have different opinions.

Be sure that you are discussing and debating ideas, not attacking people or people's opinions. Do not pick fights with each other over your preferences.


Ruzza wrote:

You are aware of the hypocrisy of tone-policing others while tone-policing, right?

Yes. Hypocricy, Irony, whichever.

Ruzza wrote:


(Weighing your time against other posters, by the way - incredibly infantilizing. Most of us work, most of us are "too old." You don't get special legacy status for having played in the same number of editions as the rest of us.)

Not what I was doing, but I get where you may have thought I was. I was explaining a delay in responding. I cannot sort, copy, and paste stuff on my phone. Needed time & ability to pull some of that stuff up.

EDIT: and speaking of Irony, I've crapped up this thread enough. Don't like the bullying, and I've said my piece. Shoulda just flagged and moved on, probably.


Here's some irony, you've derailed the thread with telling people not to derail the thread. Nor have you engaged with anything posted by Zapp, which... Everyone else has? What was the point of this?

(Edit: Oh hey, you saw it, too!)


Ruzza wrote:


"Why can't I play a classless game?" You can, it's not this game. This game (and the design intent) is to have classes that fill their niche and evoke the spirit of that role.

A good point. But is there a spot for a variant rule that can give a bit more flexibility?

Ruzza wrote:


"Why can't I roll randomly for stats?" You can, it's going to wildly unbalance your game. As it has in the past, but only moreso with the new tight math.

Wildly unbalance is an exageration. Likely any optional rule should come with a balance warning. The risks of this are obvious upfront and easy for the GM and players to agree on or not. Apart from which there are so many ways to roll. So I suspect we are not talking about the same thing.

What I am going to use is the point based progression system they have put in the guide - with my own rolling rules.

There is no one right way to play.


graystone wrote:


• Alignment Variants: anything that kills off alignment is good in my book.

Care to go into detail? Does it allow for, say, Nocticula the Redeemer Queen to have Redeemers or for Asmodeus to have the nonevil Clerics he used to have?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tectorman wrote:
graystone wrote:


• Alignment Variants: anything that kills off alignment is good in my book.
Care to go into detail? Does it allow for, say, Nocticula the Redeemer Queen to have Redeemers or for Asmodeus to have the nonevil Clerics he used to have?

3 of the 4 remove cleric and champion restrictions. A gm might add other edicts or tenants that make them unavailable though.


GM OfAnything wrote:
graystone wrote:
Things that where meh: A good bit seemed like general RPG advice vs advice specific to PF2. Good for new DM's but not too exciting for old hands at RPG's.
There are quite a few sections of Chapter 1 that you would benefit from reading over. There is a lot of good advice for new GMs that is just as helpful a refresher for old hands.

I skimmed through it in my quick summary, but it's definitely a lot more detailed than you'd expect from the name. It's also quite PF2-specific - even the sections that are more general usually have a few PF2 details scattered about to help contextualize it.

Dark Archive

lordredraven wrote:
Alaryth wrote:
dirtypool wrote:
Zapp wrote:
You are welcome to discuss and critique my specific suggestions.

We are welcome to discuss those suggestions and very much more. This thread is allowed to migrate and deviate in any way that the natural discourse flows. You broached a topic, that topic can now be explored in myriad ways.

With the broad topic of "The Gamemastery Guide" this thread can become a conversation about the art in the book, the appropriate methodology for laying out the appendices in a book of this kind, comparisons with the 1e GMG or even the other guys DMG's

All of that is perfectly allowable. You are not a moderator, you do not set rules on how that communication happens on this forum and in this thread.

I don't agree with all the antagonism on this thread, but I totally agree with this. The title is just "GameMastery guide", not the negative connotations that the OP want on it. So I will say my first impressions after a VERY quick first glance...

I like the options for dual class and free archetype, very possible those end on my table. I also like the Automatic Bonus Progression, but the fact that the damage from the runes is not included seems a bit problematic. I hoped to see some options to return some power to spells, as this book seems a perfect place for it, but I suppose that would take too much space.
The damage bonus you get from runes on weapons is included in the automatic progression. It's called devastating attacks and you get an extra die at 4, 12 and 19. Am I missing other damage you are mentioning?

Are there rules for balancing the wealth with this bonus damage?


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Thr3adcr4p wrote:

Man, y'all seem to enjoy dogpiling insults on Zapp here. How about, instead of threadcrapping, you either address with your own ideas or maybe just ignore the posters you don't like.

This from me.

Almost all of the responses attempt to address Zapp's complaints.

But as per usual, almost no one agrees with them.

"Snubbing" RNG stats? Total farce. The rules for doing so are in the CRB. The game is built for balance with character concepts/options/power is all contingent on normalized stats. It's like complaining why the second floor of your house doesn't have a water slide to the first floor and only has boring stairs.

This particular "complaint" is just ridiculous:

Quote:
* The section on NPCs should definitely have been published in the Bestiary, even if in a reduced capacity with perhaps only a dozen entries

So what is the actual issue? They didn't publish something fast enough? NPCs before the Bestiary could use PC building process, it's not like this prohibited the existence of NPCs.

It's literally a complaint that although something is good, it wasn't fast enough, so, therefore, it's bad.

Then lastly we have this gem:

Quote:
* there are STILL no variants allowing you to choose your fundamental (attack, AC, saves) proficiencies yourself. You can use points to build your skills, but you're still stuck to your 1st level decision (your choice of class) when it comes to advancing your fundamentals, even ten or twenty levels later.

"Variant" is how it is described.

What this actually would be though, is a completely different system for character building.

The type of thing that affects players and has almost no bearing on the GM running the game, outside of making their life balancing encounters and knowing PC limitations a nightmare.

It would also require a bunch of reworking and in all honesty way more real-estate in the book than it has any right to deserve.

so as far as this statement goes:

Thr3adcr4p wrote:
Man, y'all seem to enjoy dogpiling insults on Zapp here.

Zapp finds faults with the game, IMO, that are deliberately either impossible to fix (by design or without significant change to the game) or just downright contrarian for the sake of being contrarian or are founded on flawed logic (like something being bad because it got released later than they would have liked).

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that they are in fact a 5E shill, PF1 purist, a jealous TTRPG creator, etc. I sometimes wonder if they even actually play the game, or if they just come here to tell everyone how bad it is.

If I had ever seen a post that generally wanted the game to feel better, I might feel differently, but I do not feel like the "intent" behind this post (and many others) carries any amount of genuine "good intentions".


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Zapp named the thread "Thoughts on the GMG" but didn't actually give his thoughts on anything that was in the book, only what wasn't in the book. Maybe if he had a paragraph or two about the things he really loved and is really excited about trying and then as a closing thought added he really wished some other things were in there that weren't.

Really, the thread should have been titled "What I want in the GMG2!" That would have A) allowed for the same OP, 2) framed it in a more positive light instead of just a complaint, and 3) facilitated discussion by people also adding their own ideas.

All that comes with the caveot that complaining the NPCs are in this book doesn't belong in either version.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:
there still is no discussion on random generation of ability scores.

It's discussed on p182.

GameMastery Guide wrote:
The default method of generating ability scores in the Core Rulebook can help you learn your character’s story along the way, while the alternative method, rolling scores, is a nod to tradition.

1 to 50 of 99 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Zapp's Thoughts on The Gamemastery Guide All Messageboards