That works well and fine, but only when every character gets the same chance of buying something, and you are not banned from buying it from the get go.
The problem is that Rarity tells you "these things are uncommon or rare for everyone but X" and "you cannot get these things unless a mechanical choice gives you access to it".
In PF2, you could search for the HDMI cable or custom machining and not find it. Than as soon as a player gets a feat or something else, it can show up out of nowhere. Which is made weirder, when the item is a racial item that is only available to members of that race or those who take Adopted Ancestry.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Temperans wrote: The problem is that Rarity tells you "these things are uncommon or rare for everyone but X" and "you cannot get these things unless a mechanical choice gives you access to it". What the book actually says is "Uncommon items are available only to those who have special training, grew up in a certain culture, or come from a particular part of the world."
You're entirely ignoring the implication that any character, regardless of the mechanical choices their player made, that is in the right part of the world for an item fits the "or come from a particular part of the world" clauses listed.
Temperans wrote: In PF2, you could search for the HDMI cable or custom machining and not find it. Than as soon as a player gets a feat or something else, it can show up out of nowhere. Which is made weirder, when the item is a racial item that is only available to members of that race or those who take Adopted Ancestry. What you describe here is not the one-true-reading of how rarity works according to the book, but a reading in which the point wasn't well understood and is being cartooned even further to try and prove a point... but comes out only seeming like a GM being deliberately nonsensical with their application of rarity.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Look, it all boils down to this: The ONLY way to ensure players can't use the rules against the GM is by not giving the GM precise and detailed instructions. End of story.
#1 the problems aren't nearly as bad as some people want you to believe
#2 whenever you read "the GM should be given better advice", read that to mean "the player should be able to find rules text that he can use to tell the GM she can't say no"
In conclusion: while "ask your GM" does mean the GM isn't getting clear-cut instructions, he or she doesn't need them, doesn't get them in most other games, and the game is (much) better off without them.
Zapp wrote: #2 whenever you read "the GM should be given better advice", read that to mean "the player should be able to find rules text that he can use to tell the GM she can't say no" It may be my experience with the older generation of game products in which the book would say something like "your GM has more information on this" about how a rule worked... but a GM would only actually only have more information than that if they'd purchased a second book that had the rest of the rules in it, or had made it up entirely on their own, but treating this as a fair generalization doesn't actually seem right to me.
Sure, most of the time people are saying better advice should be given to GMs they are meaning something more along the lines of "I want the book to give different advice because the advice that is given leads to something I don't like", but that doesn't mean a book can't possibly fall short of communicating the right idea to a GM.
Zapp wrote: #2 whenever you read "the GM should be given better advice", read that to mean "the player should be able to find rules text that he can use to tell the GM she can't say no" Except of the fifty or so sessions of PF2 I’ve participated in, literally only one was ever as a player, so that’s absolutely not what I’m saying.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
thenobledrake wrote: but that doesn't mean a book can't possibly fall short of communicating the right idea to a GM. True.
And if I thought you had a legitimate beef that couldn't be exploited by people wanting to go back to PF1 entitlement, I would not speak up.
And to that end, this and other threads have discussed a lot of sometimes minor issues. I'm sure some of them do fall into this category, where my comments are, at best, beside the issue.
The game certainly isn't perfect. Paizo couldn't resist creating RAW CRB feats that tell you you can have access to certain Uncommon game elements, just like in the bad old days. Would the game be better off without those? Absolutely. Would the concepts of rarity and access be less muddled if the message of "ask your GM" was carried out cleanly and consistently? Hell yes!
But overall, I believe it's important to keep an eye on the ball here, so we aren't throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Let's draw a line in the sand, and clearly discourage Paizo from adding more "access feats", since all that does is erode their PF2 sensibilities, to the detriment of everybody but the old PF1 guard.
Zapp what are you even talking about?
What do you mean back to PF1 entitlement, when that is not a problem of the system but the GM? And what do you mean that adding more access feats is not detriment to old PF1 players?
If anything its mostly the old PF1 players asking for less such feats because it erodes the game. Because the only case in PF1 of a feat granting "access" were weird crafting feats; Which allowed you to craft those things, even if they were unavailable in your current location.
It seems like you are just saying stuff randomly without even understanding what is going on. You are talking as if PF1 players are this horrible group wanting to destroy creativity, but so far the ones talking only want a better guide for how to do things.
You can't "think outside the box" if there is no box to begin with. Its why one of the important parts of creative thinking is setting up guidelines, goals, or rules which narrow down the problem and prevents it from getting muddled.
*****************
Also you are comflating the difference between "Ask your GM" and having guidance being opposites. When that is not the case. While also linking it with the weird Rarity mechanics which does little to provide a guidelines, while providing very explicit rules.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Zapp wrote: Look, it all boils down to this: The ONLY way to ensure players can't use the rules against the GM is by not giving the GM precise and detailed instructions. End of story.
#1 the problems aren't nearly as bad as some people want you to believe
#2 whenever you read "the GM should be given better advice", read that to mean "the player should be able to find rules text that he can use to tell the GM she can't say no"
In conclusion: while "ask your GM" does mean the GM isn't getting clear-cut instructions, he or she doesn't need them, doesn't get them in most other games, and the game is (much) better off without them.
But why pay for a game whose answer to every question is "Ask your GM?" It the GM has to make up all the rules anyway what is Paizo's role in the game?
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
thorin001 wrote: Zapp wrote: Look, it all boils down to this: The ONLY way to ensure players can't use the rules against the GM is by not giving the GM precise and detailed instructions. End of story.
#1 the problems aren't nearly as bad as some people want you to believe
#2 whenever you read "the GM should be given better advice", read that to mean "the player should be able to find rules text that he can use to tell the GM she can't say no"
In conclusion: while "ask your GM" does mean the GM isn't getting clear-cut instructions, he or she doesn't need them, doesn't get them in most other games, and the game is (much) better off without them.
But why pay for a game whose answer to every question is "Ask your GM?" It the GM has to make up all the rules anyway what is Paizo's role in the game?
Paizo's rules answer about 95% of questions. If the answer to every question was "ask your gm" the rule book would be a pamphlet. Most non-dnd games probably hit around the 60-70% mark and also work totally fine.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Temperans wrote: Zapp what are you even talking about?
What do you mean back to PF1 entitlement, when that is not a problem of the system but the GM?
I think you may be missing the key point he's trying to make (a point I very much agree with fyi): namely that there was an emergent problem with the system in PF1 - in that it unintentionally was enabling and encouraging (certain kinds of player) to come to the GM and demand things which the GM didn't necessarily want to grant. Paizo themselves publicly acknowledged this was an issue, and that one of their design aims for 2e was to put more power back in the hands of the GM. Which they have done very successfully imho.
You can argue that 'the GM should just say no'. But GMs don't want to have to say no ideally, and players don't want to hear 'no'. As Zapp said, it's much more enjoyable to be able to say 'yes' when a PC is asking for uncommon item in 2nd edition than it was to have to say 'no' in 1st edition when a PC came asking for something esoteric.
Clearly people's playing experience differs greatly. But there's no question that a not insignificant group of players find stuff on Archives of Nethys, decide they want it for their character, and are annoyed if they're not allowed to have it. The rarity system is a simple and successful way to help manage this imho.
Yossarian I get that part, and I get that people like hearing yes/saying yes.
But I didnt get that from what Zapp said. It just read to me as simplifying the position of some of us that dont quite like rarity as is, an potentially dismissing it as "detrimental" for the game. Which to me reads like saying, "all those views are bad and you should not listen to them"
So I asked, what was he talking about and mean?
********************
I still feel that entitlement is caused by GMs failing to say no and taking a weak stance, which bad players quickly take advantage of.
Even in this system, using the "you dont need a feat just the right location" ruling GMS who give things too freely will quickly fall prey to bad players taking advantage of them.
Similarly, good players who are too unwilling to question things or stand up to bad GMs will quickly find the game to be unbearable and utterly boring.
As always finding a balance between both sides (super strict vs super lose access) gives the best result.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Temperans wrote: Even in this system, using the "you dont need a feat just the right location" ruling GMS who give things too freely will quickly fall prey to bad players taking advantage of them. Please give an example of a scenario in which this ruling contributes in any way to a bad player taking advantage of the GM.
Bad players dont need an excuse to act badly. All they need is a GM who has given an opening and who subsequently fold when pushed.
Rules don't generally enable/disable bad actors, because bad actors don't care about the rules.
Yes I said bad actors because it goes for everyone, player and GM alike.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
So that's a "no" then?
We're in agreement that it's the people, not the rules, that cause problems... what we aren't in agreement on is that you seem to see an opening for a bad player to exploit in a place that I see as the least exploitable that anything can be.
Temperans wrote: Bad actors don't care about the rules. Often true, but nonetheless we use rules to limit bad actors all the time: namely the legal system. The popularity of this suggests that using rules to limit bad actors is a good idea.
thenobledrake what we are in disagreement with is how weird rarity as written is. I see it as a weird heavy handed mechanical limit with little in game reasoning, you see it as a reasonable measure to stop bad players.
I personally can't think of how people get so entitled in PF1 either, so its not like that is exclusive to PF2. But maybe I am just not malicious enough to think of a good scenario.
In any case my point has always been that rarity is weird trying to merge RP limitations with very strict mechanical limitations.
****************
*P.S. Yossarian, agreed rules and guidelines are important to regulate people. But I will say, people have a tendency to come up with the weirdest rules/laws, seriously some of the laws that get passed look like they were made by children.
|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Rarity is just a tool for making the setting make sense. Just because an item has a GP price doesn't mean it can be bought literally anywhere. They will not Fed-Ex you Sun Orchid elixir anywhere on Golarion and if you go to the quartermaster of a hard-bitten river kingdoms mercenary group and ask for a katana and a bladed hoop you should get weird looks.
It has the side effect of cutting off "no, you can't get blood money just because you're a sorcerer" sorts of abuses but it's really there to make people think about where the game is taking place and what sorts of things are there.
The mutual good faith interpretation by the GM and Players is something like "we are in an elf place, there are elf things here... if we want to get some dwarfy things let us find some dwarves."
The whole magic mart thing in PF1 was useful from a gamist perspective, but was really hell on setting construction. When you think about it, there really shouldn't be that much call for "eversmoking bottles" in people's (even adventurers') day-to-day lives.
Agreed PossibleCabbage.
Magic Marts is a bad table practice and rarity can help as a guidance tool.
Temperans wrote: ...you see it as a reasonable measure to stop bad players. That's false, and I'm unsure as to what bit of what I've said on the matter lead you to this mistaken belief.
I see rarity as a reasonable measure to make certain parts of the game not assumed to be always available - not as having anything to do with bad players at all.
Again, the thing that I was questioning was your suggestion that how rarity works in regards to a character in the right place having access to an uncommon game element is open to exploitation - because I don't see how what you were saying could be true, and this not explaining it to me response is making me think that you don't really think what yous aid is true either.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Yossarian wrote:
I think you may be missing the key point he's trying to make (a point I very much agree with fyi): namely that there was an emergent problem with the system in PF1 - in that it unintentionally was enabling and encouraging (certain kinds of player) to come to the GM and demand things which the GM didn't necessarily want to grant. Paizo themselves publicly acknowledged this was an issue, and that one of their design aims for 2e was to put more power back in the hands of the GM. Which they have done very successfully imho.
You can argue that 'the GM should just say no'. But GMs don't want to have to say no ideally, and players don't want to hear 'no'. As Zapp said, it's much more enjoyable to be able to say 'yes' when a PC is asking for uncommon item in 2nd edition than it was to have to say 'no' in 1st edition when a PC came asking for something esoteric.
Clearly people's playing experience differs greatly. But there's no question that a not insignificant group of players find stuff on Archives of Nethys, decide they want it for their character, and are annoyed if they're not allowed to have it. The rarity system is a simple and successful way to help manage this imho.
For all this talk of “guys, let’s not assume the DMs are evil,” this particular contention strikes me as just the opposite.
I could say that: “There are certain types of adversarial DMs who actively oppose player fun, and rarity will help them in this endeavor; therefore, we should not have rarity.”
As many others have pointed out, this isn’t really an argument against rarity as a mechanic. It’s an argument against bad DMs.
When you point to “certain kinds of players” who are aided and abetted in making “demands” by lack of rarity, you appear to be making a very similar argument.
You contend that the GM doesn’t want to say “no” and the players don’t want to be told “no.” Well, what happens if I ask for a rare item that the GM doesn’t want me to have?
“No, you can’t have it because it’s rare”
But… what happens if I ask for the rare item and the DM does want me to have it? Well, I will eventually receive it.
Essentially, rarity does not remove the yes/no component. It simply adds a “Here’s Why.”
I’ve sought to establish that if a player asks for an item or spell of high rarity and the DM says yes or no, rarity plays no role in whether they get the item (unless, of course, the DM denies the player the item or spell only because it is rare). Only DM preference is the sole determinant.
However, if rarity serves the purpose you describe, then players will be bought over by that “Here’s Why.” They’ll look at the rules and say: “Oh, teleport is uncommon, it makes sense that my DM won’t let me copy it into my spellbook on level up”. Before, these “certain kinds of players,” who really want to be able to make a teleporting character would become resentful towards the DM. Now they just become resentful towards the Rarity rules.
I theorize that the reason adversarial DMs keep coming up in this discussion is that many people are seeing through the rarity system’s “Here’s Why” and are beginning to realize that the entire mechanic is a red herring.
There are two circumstances, though, under which rarity is more than a red herring.
1). When the DM doesn’t really care either way about players getting a spell or item and the players don’t ask for it, but wouldn't mind having it.
2). When the DM denies the player the item or spell only because it is rare.
I don’t suspect that either of these scenarios will come up too frequently, but they will come up. We already have talk in this thread, of players who, despite wanting something, would not feel comfortable approaching their DM for it.
What happens when a DM has a player that asks for Magnificent Mansion, and the DM says, “Okay, that’s uncommon, but you can definitely get it if you go on this short quest or pay this small fee” and the player decides that it’s not worth the minor hassle and picks another spell instead.
No matter how you spin it, rarity will sometimes decrease player access to things that they otherwise would have acquired, despite the fact that the DM doesn’t care either way whether they have that thing.
This doesn’t affect me personally because I don’t play with the rarity rules. But it does make me sad that there could be thousands of new players with slightly less access to some of my favorite game elements from previous editions.
In conclusion, I’ve attempted to muster two arguments. First, rarity is a red herring for player frustration (whether this frustration is justified is a wholly different question). Second, rarity will SOMETIMES restrict player access when no restrictions are explicitly wanted by the DM or the players.
Overall, I understand why rarity was implemented, but I do not like the mechanic.
Zecrin wrote: Before, these “certain kinds of players,” who really want to be able to make a teleporting character would become resentful towards the DM. Now they just become resentful towards the Rarity rules. Bad players gonna be bad players, is basically what you've said there.
What about people that aren't bad players? Players that just want to have a particular option because it seems interesting, they have no malicious intent, and GMs that want to restrict that option because of the impact it has on the campaign, with no malicious intent either, can find themselves in an unexpected disagreement with each other in the old system - and it's possible neither of them noticed the bit of text in just the right part of the book that would have set their expectations appropriately.
They could both think that this should be open for debate and that they should be doing or getting a particular thing. The player might say "it's just a normal thing in the core rulebook, not something special, why wouldn't I be able to take it?" and the GM might have nothing to say at the moment besides "Because it's my campaign" which doesn't sit well with a lot of people or "It would trivialize some of the challenges of this campaign" which can both sound like a pro rather than a con to some people and sound like the GM's goal is to make the game harder than "normal." which is a con for some people.
But those same people, with the same non-malicious intentions, and the rarity rules of the current edition will find themselves more on the same page before they even talk to each other - because the rules options that can trivialize certain types of challenges are marked uncommon or rare so the GM doesn't have to appear to be arbitrarily picking and choosing, and the uncommon and rare markers being on each element they apply to lets the player know up front that not everything in the core book is considered equally "normal."
thenobledrake wrote: Bad players gonna be bad players, is basically what you've said there. Actually, that was part of my explanation for why rarity is a red herring mechanic.
thenobledrake wrote: which can both sound like a pro rather than a con to some people and sound like the GM's goal is to make the game harder than "normal." which is a con for some people. So we agree. Rarity exists to change how things sound. They distract from the real reasons that a DM’s banning something, which you claim are:
thenobledrake wrote: Because it’s my campaign Or
thenobledrake wrote: "It would trivialize some of the challenges of this campaign" In my initial post, I pretty much agreed with you when I said that providing these reasons can make people resent the DM.
Specifically though, you said that these explanations don’t
thenobledrake wrote: sit well with a lot of people So, I have to ask, are you saying that the majority of the playerbase are bad players? Or do you perhaps intend to imply that people don’t actually enjoy it when the DM restricts access, and so the DM needs a red herring of sorts to make it feel as if the rules are restricting access instead?
Might players begin to dislike rarity either because it’s assumed the role of access restrictor or because it’s system a designed to deceive them?
thenobledrake wrote: because the rules options that can trivialize certain types of challenges are marked uncommon or rare As others have noted, uncommon rarity means a player should be able to work with the DM to get the item or spell. This explanation doesn’t inform new DMs that contingency could break their campaign, it just tells them how to introduce the spell.
Finally, if you're claiming that all or most of the uncommon core spells can trivialize certain types of challenges in ways that other common features cannot, I think you assume a rather large burden of proof.
I am curious, however, should somebody establish that a spell or feat was not encounter-breaking, would you support making it common?
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Zecrin wrote: are you saying that the majority of the playerbase are bad players? Nope. Bad players are pretty rare, especially those which are dead-set on remaining bad players. In fact, some of the people that are marked "bad players" by others aren't actually bad players - they just look like bad players because of misunderstandings of the sort you've made about the post of mine you are quoting.
Zecrin wrote: They distract from the real reasons that a DM’s banning something, which you claim are: "Because it’s my campaign" Or "It would trivialize some of the challenges of this campaign" That first quote is not a thing I said is a reason the GM has banned something uncommon. It's an example of a thing a GM might say, even while not trying to be a power-tripping GM, if a player is trying to argue that they should be allowed to have a particular option and are wanting the GM to tell them why they can't have it.
The second is more of an actual reason, but it still isn't something I was claiming as a reason - I wasn't saying "this is why GM's ban stuff" I was saying "This is stuff a GM might say when they've banned stuff that a player wants and had no reason to expect to not be allowed to have." Those are different things, and you're putting words in my mouth by conflating them.
Zecrin wrote: do you perhaps intend to imply that people don’t actually enjoy it when the DM restricts access I dont' even remotely make that implication. In my experience, people generally don't have any issue at all with a GM restricting access to something - and those that appear to care are typically reacting to something else, such as mismatched expectations leading to a disagreement as I previously posted about.
Zecrin wrote: Might players begin to dislike rarity either because it’s assumed the role of access restrictor or because it’s system a designed to deceive them? The game rules are a tool of the people playing the game, not their master so despite the rarity rules setting the expectation that certain rules elements are restricted it is still - as it always was - the people playing which are in charge.
Rarity rules are also not any form of deception.
So no, it mightn't.
Zecrin wrote: This explanation doesn’t inform new DMs that contingency could break their campaign, it just tells them how to introduce the spell. I admit I likely have more faith in "new GMs" than most do, but I think the designers would agree with me that there really doesn't need to be more done to inform how a particular element could impact a campaign (note: not "break" because that term implies that a campaign including that element can't work as intended) than to put the effects of it in text as normal.
I.E. it's just as easy to grasp that fireball makes combat against a large number of weaker foes that don't have space to spread out much easier as it is to grasp that teleport makes "we have to hurry back to town to warn them" plot elements into a spell-slot cost rather than an opportunity for a beat-the-clock challenge or a chase encounter.
Zecrin wrote: if you're claiming that all or most of the uncommon core spells can trivialize certain types of challenges in ways that other common features cannot, I think you assume a rather large burden of proof. It's really not that big of a burden of proof, as decades of existence of these things in other games has provide a wealth of evidence in the forms of entire discussions on topics like "It's impossible to run a murder mystery in D&D" or the "Scry and fry" phrase being a phrase, or debates about how something as simple as a PC option that gets a flying speed at 1st level is "breaking the game."
It's basically common knowledge at this point that the core elements that are uncommon (but not granted by not-uncommon sub-class options) or rare in PF2 have a history of being treated as "game changers."
Zecrin wrote: I am curious, however, should somebody establish that a spell or feat was not encounter-breaking, would you support making it common? That's a loaded question, so I'm not going to answer it.
I will say, however, that the existence of an encounter option that isn't broken by a particular rule element doesn't mean that rule element isn't one that deserve to be marked as a special case. To provide an example, let's look at teleport again: it's not a factor at all in a wide variety of encounters and plotlines (not by itself, at least... but let's not muddy the issue by incorporating more than 1 not-common element working in concert just yet). More often than not, the function of the spell the game-play experience is equal to the GM choosing to say "your journey is uneventful" instead of choosing to make a journey into it's own challenge, and the effect upon the narrative is only to change "you travel for X days and arrive at your destination" into "you instantly arrive at your destination."
But if a GM wants to be running a "the journey is the challenge" scenario, the effect of teleport on game-play experience if it can be used at that point is MASSIVE. The GM could have set up numerous days of travel with their own encounters, hazards, and lore to enrich the campaign... but if they didn't also incorporate countermeasures, altering the details of what they wanted the scenario to be like and shutting down capabilities the party has been allowed to have outside of this scenario, then one spell has done far more than it feels like one spell should be able to do.
It is like if heightening fireball to the right level could defeat a weeks-worth of challenges, even non-combative ones, in one go.
"Scry and Fry" was a technique that worked because many players and GM either forgot, ignored, or didnt bother to prepare anti scrying methods. And there are many ways to stop scrying specially as you increase in level.
Similarly, Teleport and "Journey is the challenge" (specially towards the bad guy) is easily stopped via various spells and potential rituals. Here the problem is that GMs fail to either give the right level for such challenges (waiting till high level when casters finally get the cool toys), don't give enough incentives to go the long way (not enough plot hooks to justify the challenge), or forget that any reasonable group of people will take the fastest route available when there is a time crunch (High speed private jet is much more useful for business than a 2 month cruise ship). Yes one solution is banning or restricting teleport, a better solution is giving players a reason that forces them to travel the normal way (ex: carry X supplies to Y place, get the A from a hidden place in B passing through C, etc.).
Finally, murder mysteries are very much possible in DnD style games. The problem is that they take a very different approach to traditional murder mysteries, because guess what? Characters in Golarion and Pathfinder have tools not available to us earthlings. The GM needs to account for those changes by either removing them from the start or using countermeasures. So most of those games fail because the GM fails to account for magic when planning them.
***************************
* P.S. making sure parts of the game are unavailable should be the purview of the GM and the current campaign/setting not the rulebook. So thats why your statement and the strict ruling for rarity to me reads like trying to stop bad players. Since a looser ruling, would make it clear that some things might be available if you ask the GM, as opposed to never being available until GM or game tells you its it is.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Temperans, you appear to believe you are making an argument against anything I said but you are in fact reinforcing the points that I have already made.
"Scry and fry" is now a technique that defaults to not being an option - rather than defaulting to being something amazing which works until the GM starts specifically disabling it.
"Journey is the challenge" no longer being a thing that mandates particular levels of play or the otherwise again start specifically forcing the issue via in-game options.
Murder mysteries taking "a very different approach to traditional murder mysteries" is exactly the kind of thing I was just saying. In fact, where you say "the GM needs to account for those changes by either removing them from the start or using countermeasures" might as well be you quoting my last post.
and then there is this bit:
Temperans wrote: P.S. making sure parts of the game are unavailable should be the purview of the GM and the current campaign/setting not the rulebook. This is exactly the current state of the game. It is also the way table-top games have worked in this regard since their inception.
The only differences between the current rarity rules and the prior edition's rules on allowing content is visibility, and degree of guidance. The current rules both being more visible, and providing more guidance, than prior versions have.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
thenobledrake wrote: and then there is this bit:
Temperans wrote: P.S. making sure parts of the game are unavailable should be the purview of the GM and the current campaign/setting not the rulebook. This is exactly the current state of the game. It is also the way table-top games have worked in this regard since their inception.
The only differences between the current rarity rules and the prior edition's rules on allowing content is visibility, and degree of guidance. The current rules both being more visible, and providing more guidance, than prior versions have.
I think you're the one misreading that. The current state of the game is that "making sure parts of the game are unavailable" is in the (core) rulebook. They're saying that such tunings should be in a campaign or setting book, if not entirely just left to GM decision making, and pointedly not in the general rulebook.
---
Personally my issue with Uncommon (besides an issue of all too many GMs in my playgroup not being interested in adding new sidequests just because a single player is interested in a single Uncommon option, thus leading to the situation where with those GMs Uncommon might as well be Rare/Unique/unprinted unless it shows up somewhere in the AP as printed) is that it is a very broad device with no real differentiation (in a way, circling back to that lack of guidance thing).
Uncommon things include Teleport and Talking Corpse as mentioned, things that can throw off a specific story as has been said.
Uncommon also includes such items as the Katana, Bladed Scarf, Fighting Fan, Khopesh, Kukri and other weapons that probably don't make sense in a Western-Fantasy-themed campaign as is typical for the Inner Sea Region. And as many of these don't have an Access section in their description the way some Uncommon items do, it becomes more reliant on the GM doing their own personal research to determine whether allowing these items on a character makes sense (or just blanket limiting everyone to Common items, because standard Longswords are definitely the appropriate weapon for a Tien and Osirian, rather than their Katana or Khopesh... right?)
Or the Ancestral weapons, which do have feats for granting access... because only select members of the Ancestry, besides being trained in them, even know where to get them. Because if you're an Elven Fighter without Elven Weapon Familiarity you're just as good, if not better, at wielding the Curve Blade than an Elven Rogue who took the feat, but where the Rogue has access the Fighter is just... out of luck unless the GM decides to throw them a bone in saying they can actually acquire the weapons of their people.
And then there's items like Throwing Knives, Scorpion Whips, and Alchemical Crossbows (and other stuff, like a slew of archetypes and such) that are Uncommon because...? I guess because they were first introduced in an Adventure Path (or Module in the cae of the Crossbow)? Maybe I could see the Alchemical Crossbow being Uncommon. Scorpion Whip is a bit more of a stretch, but might have reasoning. But throwing knives? Throwing knives need to be uncommon? What possible reason could there be for throwing knives to need to be Uncommon? I feel like I could go to any of the four Wal-Marts within 30 minutes of me and buy throwing knives right now.
Thenobledrake I was not making an argumentn I was stating what I believe to be facts.
Scry and Fry should be a possible tactic. Because, even us mudane IRL use scry and fry techniques via satellites, drones, cameras, missiles, snipers, etc. The current system stops Scry and Fry, because why? Some GMs can't be bother to actively plan for it (like any reasonable BBEG would)?
"Journey is the challenge" is fine and all for the first half of the game when there is a purpose. But spending 20 levels walking "just because" is just lame. Teleport was meant to be that cool mechanical ability for when you want to get some place now. I seriously do think its stupid that some GMs would rather force players to go on a journey, rather than giving them a proper incentive to do so. Also seriously all you need to stop teleport from working is asking you to bring a cart (teleport has a limit of 4 creatures or creature-sized objects), its not that hard to stop teleportation.
Removing/adding things is a game agbostoc way of changing how something plays, you dont need any special rules to implement it, and you certainly dont need rarity for it. It also doesn't prove that certain options trivilaize challenges, it just proves that some GMs are too lazy to look for porper methods of providing challenge.
The case of "murder mystery" and "journey is the challenge" are specially obvious because too many GMs start to plan things ignoring what their players can do. Its very much a case of putting the cart before the horse, where their story/plan is more important than what the players do, which gets them upset when the players don't care for it.
*******
Finally, the current state of the game doesnt provide more visibility as all it does is show players a bunch of thing they might never use because they are simply not allowed to. Which is a waste of space when every word counts.
And it doesn't provide more guidance. Most of the rules are extremely vague, while other rules being incredibly strict and stiff. Vague rules are not guidelines, they just point at a direction, and let people think whatevery they want.
Mmmh... For me the Rarity rule is a strange one...
I don't really like it, because as an experienced GM with my own World Setting it annoys me to have to look at all the tags and redefine them for my setting...
And it was a tacit rule that existed without the Rule book having to tell me... ;)
BUT I understand why they have put that in the Rule book : For new GM this can highlight the fact that you have to put this kind of rules in place, be it to avoid "problematic" things that can destroy a game if no attention are paid to them (It's like shouting to the GM "Hey, take attention to teleport, it can break some games depending of what kind of adventure you're playing if you're not aware that it's a really powerful movement effect that no ambush set on the road can stop ;) ), or more simply to provide some kind of consistency to your world (Katana is not common if you're not in an Oriental environment)...
And if you go with the Golarion setting it gives you the basic rarity setting of the "main" continent without having to work on it... :)
So I think putting this rule in place is a pretty smart move, it will help new GM to see that this kind of rule is a necessity to have, while providing the basic rules without having to make them.
But at the same time when you change setting or even continent in Golarion you have to "work" those tags around to suit your need and have a way for your players to know what the new tags are now which is a hassle... :p
Shinigami02 wrote: I think you're the one misreading that. The current state of the game is that "making sure parts of the game are unavailable" is in the (core) rulebook. They're saying that such tunings should be in a campaign or setting book, if not entirely just left to GM decision making, and pointedly not in the general rulebook. No, I'm not misreading anything. I'm just acknowledging that the game is written to be run by a GM and does not, in fact, try to over-rule or inhibit the GM in any way - not even when marking options as uncommon or rare.
Shinigami02 wrote: ...out of luck unless the GM decides to throw them a bone in saying they can actually acquire the weapons of their people. That's you misunderstanding the text describing how uncommon elements can be acquired. Elf weapons are available in elf settlements, and if your GM says otherwise that's them ruling differently than the book does.
Shinigami02 wrote: And then there's items like Throwing Knives, Scorpion Whips, and Alchemical Crossbows (and other stuff, like a slew of archetypes and such) that are Uncommon because...? The weapons you've listed are uncommon because they are "better" in certain ways so a GM might not want to have them be commonly available. Archetypes getting marked as uncommon helps illustrate that not just anyone anywhere on the world picking up the specialized training of, for example, a particular jungle-dwelling sect of mages makes sense, and encourages players to look at mechanical options as also being things with a narrative behind them.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I think the reason that throwing knives, scorpion whips, etc. are uncommon because there are fewer people in the setting that use them than other weapons.
Like think about who will be buying weapons from you: professional military types like soldiers and mercenaries; adventurer types (who are rare and not a reliable audience); regular folks for hunting, avocation, or defense; and criminal types.
Of those, the only sorts of people who are going to choose "a throwing knife" over another option are probably the criminal types since a bow or a crossbow is just a better option for soldiering or defense or hunting.
So probably throwing knives are uncommon not because every blacksmith doesn't know how to make them, but that blacksmiths tend not to make many of them since who is going to buy them?
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
You're starting to confuse me...
Temperans wrote: Scry and Fry should be a possible tactic. The current system stops Scry and Fry, because why? Some GMs can't be bother to actively plan for it (like any reasonable BBEG would)? These sentences seem contradictory to me. In one you are saying a thing should be possible, and in the other you are implying quite strongly that it shouldn't actually work in practice.
Temperans wrote: "Journey is the challenge" is fine and all for the first half of the game when there is a purpose. Why is there only a purpose in the first half of the game? What if a campaign has other kinds of challenges until the second half of the game and then it seems like a cool idea for the party to have a journey that would be challenging, like crossing the surface of a dragon-infested cave-riddled moon trying to find the location of an ancient sub-lunarean laboratory? How, besides you having developed the expectation of travel-challenge-negating options being available, does the "purpose" get lost?
Are dungeons also level-gated in your view? What about wars? Social encounters? I'm genuinely curious if it is only travel-based challenges that you think are inherently tied to a level range or not.
Temperans wrote: it just proves that some GMs are too lazy to look for porper methods of providing challenge. Isn't elitism like this against the rules of this forum?
Temperans wrote: The case of "murder mystery" and "journey is the challenge" are specially obvious because too many GMs start to plan things ignoring what their players can do. It's actually more a case of planning an adventure while not having memorized every feature that exists in the game at the level the characters will be once they reach this portion of the adventure.
Temperans wrote: Finally, the current state of the game doesnt provide more visibility... That's factually inaccurate.
Temperans wrote: ...they just point at a direction, and let people think whatevery they want. Which is more guidance than "a GM might prohibit certain options."
Removed a whole bunch of posts and the responses to them. Let's stop with the bickering and insulting. It is possible to have a discussion without those. Likewise let's drop the edition warring stuff. And lastly let's make sure the thread stays about Rarity and Access and not other topics.
Something being possible doesnt mean it will always be effective. Scry and Fry being possible doesnt mean that some enemies wont take precautions.
Crossing the surface of an unknown place prohibits teleportation by its very nature. You can't teleport if you dont have a good description and location of the place, and players only get those if the GM gives it to them. Things like the first world which is always changing are natural anti teleport zones. But I still think after 10 level the focus should move away from the problems of travel.
A GM should not expect that players will behave as planned. Players are not robots and they will do thing that are wildly different than expected. A great GM is able to quickly adapt to those changes and pull the players back into the story without forcing them directly. Which is why the appearance of choice is very important. Ex: If a GM plans an ambush around route A, but the PCs take route C, the GM can just change the ambush to route C (with a few changes if needed); The encounter was preserved, and players were able to choose freely.
Having said that, I think that level rating is a guide for the main story. Side missions and other things can be very different as long as they are fun. Ex: An brief encounter with a much higher level enemy can serve as a good introduction to a new NPC to act as an ally; While also serving the purpose of knocking down the PCs ego, and a measuring stick of how far they have come when said enemy is later defeated. Aka, "village was attacked by a dragon".
I admit that sentence was a bit harsh, I am sorry. But see previous paragraphs for my view on it.
From what I have seen its often the case of GMs not looking at the player's sheets and adjusting accordingly. Ex: In the campaign I run, a Character has specialized in Magic Missile, the solution is to: Use shield spells, block line of sight, and have multiple enemies to spread the number of targets.
For the last 2 points lets agree to disagree.
Welp I really should use preview more often when working on long posts...
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
To illustrate why the new rarity and access rules work better than the old ones, let me highlight that when you said:
Temperans wrote: Crossing the surface of an unknown place prohibits teleportation by its very nature. You can't teleport if you dont have a good description and location of the place, and players only get those if the GM gives it to them. You were the one thinking one thing but the rule book actually says something different that you hadn't accounted for: to teleport to somewhere in PF2 you only need "identify the location precisely by its position relative to your starting position and by it's appearance (or other identifying features)."
So if you've got information to the degree of "500 miles east" and a description, you can get there - unlike in prior editions where much more rigorous specifications were attached to the spell.
Temperans wrote: A GM should not expect that players will behave as planned. Players are not robots and they will do thing that are wildly different than expected Please don't start making counter-arguments to claims that no one ever made.
A good description will give you the "appearance (or identifying feature)" your statement and mine are not contradictory.
Regarding the previous edition, the spell indeed had the more specific wording of "some clear idea of the location and layout of the destination", with the added descriptions of what may happen when you are not prepared or something goes wrong. My point still stands, the GM has all the power to stop Teleport from ruining their campaign.
Regarding that sentence, I did not mean it to say someone claimed that or use it as a counter argument. The purpose is to be a set up for the rest of the section, specially the idea that "a GM must be prepared for anything the players throw at them": A weird use of an ability, a different path taken, doing something crazy for apparently no reason, etc.
Temperans wrote: ... the idea that "a GM must be prepared for anything the players throw at them" A condition more likely to be the case, especially for GMs that haven't memorized significant portions of the game, with the current rarity guidelines.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Temperans wrote: Scry and Fry should be a possible tactic. Because, even us mudane IRL use scry and fry techniques via satellites, drones, cameras, missiles, snipers, etc. I don't think this is as strong a defence of your point as you think it is. The average civilian doesn't have easy access to these (except cameras and some drones). The average specialised civilian (aka an adventurer) might, if they put in the effort. That sounds suspiciously like Uncommon, or even Rare for satellites and missiles, rarity.
An adventurer is most definitely not an average civilian in most settings/RPGs. They are often much to mythological figures on the rise.
Even so, having options like scry and fry isn't necessarily a great thing to enforce as part of the base game. Those kinds of tactics are great if the players and GM are up for a "magical tactics and magical countermeasures" style game but that's not going to be everyone's cup of tea.
-------
I view uncommon options almost like "cheat codes" or mods in videogames. There's the base experience, and a number of mods to be turned on or off in any combination to alter the game and create a new experience. As a GM, this is a very nice state of affairs.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I find the basic way uncommon gear functions in the game is that on finding an uncommon thing in a pile of loot, players are more inclined to give it a try and see if it works for them than if it was something they could easily replace whenever they wanted to. So instead of being sold ASAP for something that the player knows they want, the weird niche magic item gets used.
3Doubloons wrote: Temperans wrote: Scry and Fry should be a possible tactic. Because, even us mudane IRL use scry and fry techniques via satellites, drones, cameras, missiles, snipers, etc. I don't think this is as strong a defence of your point as you think it is. The average civilian doesn't have easy access to these (except cameras and some drones). The average specialised civilian (aka an adventurer) might, if they put in the effort. That sounds suspiciously like Uncommon, or even Rare for satellites and missiles, rarity. Not just that, but if the component spells of the "scry and fry" tactic are allowed freely, but "any reasonable BBEG would" counter the tactic... when is it actually getting used?
It's clearly not for the "the big bad", but what other time is spending all the magic necessary to execute this tactic not overkill? I'm willing to believe that I'm missing something, but it really looks like a case of wanting to be allowed to do a thing that you don't actually want to do in the first place.
But I guess getting upset about that happens a lot? I mean, I know a person that loves to play dwarf characters and basically always plays a fighter or a cleric, but when I tried to get him to play some AD&D for a change of pace he was upset that if he played a dwarf he could only be his two favorite classes or a thief and didn't want to the play the game. So we played something else and he played a different system, and he played a dwarf cleric.
|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
My suspicion is that the reason Teleport is Uncommon is not "scry and fry is a problem" but more that "if every sufficiently high level wizard in the setting had access to Teleport, a lot of assumptions about how the world works regarding trade, travel, politics, diplomacy etc. would need to be revised."
Again I have no problem with rarity as a guideline, I do have a problem with rarity as a strict rule.
Scry and Fry is typically used for "Scry > Teleport > Burst damage > Teleport back". However, its also useful for: Prevent falling into a trap; Check if there is something weird; Check on an Ally and come to their help at moments notice; Etc.
Scry is very much like calling up a spy/satellite/surveillance system. With Fry (like actual frying) could be anything, but not everything ends up good.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
...but rarity isn't a strict rule, so...?
|
8 people marked this as a favorite.
|
The extent of "rarity is a hard and fast rule" is "just because you have an opportunity to acquire new items, spells, etc. does not mean that you can acquire whichever ones you want."
Uncommon ancestries should be a model for how this is handled. There's no way to "unlock" the ability to play a leshy character through gameplay, so you just ask the GM "hey, would it be cool if I played a leshy? Here's my idea..."
If we can make "ask the GM" work at chargen, we can make it work in gameplay.
|
