PDA

View Full Version : A player liking Paizo a little too much



Nero24200
2008-04-01, 04:31 PM
Hello all

Needin' a little advice. I've noticed alot of players come here with D'n'D player related problems and the advice is generally very good, so here goes...

I've got a player in my group who LOVES the new paizo pathfinder RPG (alpha version). The thing is, I've looked over it. I will happily admit that, yes, they have some good ideas in there...but I also think "You know, this may solve problem X,Y and Z which your usual group...but we never have those problems". This player keeps going on about how great it is, about how he is using some elements of it in his campaign, again, going on about how it solves all these problems wer've never had.

What should I do? Bite my tongue and just let him try these new mechanics, hoping that, in time, he'll see that the changes for our group aren't nessicery, or should I try somthing else, such as insisting on somthing like 4th Edition (which he hates the sound of) in the same way hes been doing this?

Starsinger
2008-04-01, 04:45 PM
such as insisting on somthing like 4th Edition (which he hates the sound of) in the same way hes been doing this?

Yes, because 4th Edition will be all that is good and wonderful in roleplaying. The Anti-4E people love it when people say things like that.

Kurald Galain
2008-04-01, 04:59 PM
Depends on what he wants. Does he want a PF class, or feat, rather than a 3.5E feat? Do you usually allow books other than core? If the answer to both is "yes", it shouldn't be a big deal.

Nero24200
2008-04-01, 05:09 PM
Depends on what he wants. Does he want a PF class, or feat, rather than a 3.5E feat? Do you usually allow books other than core? If the answer to both is "yes", it shouldn't be a big deal.

We do usally allow books other than core, but one of the changes he plans on using (which, incidently, is one I really don't like) is how races work in it. In my personal opinion, I think it just makes the core races far too similier (note, not looking for a debate, this is just my personal opinion) and not only is he planning on having the races like this in his campaign, he's extending it to all the monsters as well (so I can't circumvent this rule by playing a monsterous race). At the end of the day, I don't think the change will be good for our group, but he doesn't seem to understand this.

TheThan
2008-04-01, 06:03 PM
Iím implementing some aspects of the pathfinder alpha engine into a huge work in progress dnd campaign. So I donít see the problem with it.

However if you have already started, then I suggest you say NO, and tell him youíll look into it next campaign. Just be reasonable and not get angry (even if he does). If heís a reasonable person heíll be ok with it.

Xefas
2008-04-01, 06:20 PM
...should I try something else, such as insisting on something like 4th Edition (which he hates the sound of) in the same way hes been doing this?

If he doesn't like 4th edition, then he's probably entrenched in the irrational; bordering on psychotic. My advice would be to keep your distance, steer him away from areas with sharp implements, and contact the authorities before he has the opportunity to endanger himself or others.

The most important thing to remember is to stay calm, but don't let your guard down. When someone's sanity is dangling by a thread like this poor soul, they're capable of anything.

Don't worry, though. A few years of intensive therapy, and he'll be enjoying the dynamic, balanced, streamlined, tactical combat of the new Dungeons and Dragons just like a normal person would.

EvilElitest
2008-04-01, 06:45 PM
Yes, because 4th Edition will be all that is good and wonderful in roleplaying. The Anti-4E people love it when people say things like that.

other than consistency of coursesame goes for you
from
EE

holywhippet
2008-04-01, 07:30 PM
With both new rulesets, the only reasonable thing to do is to try them out. Try a short campaign of both after they have been released and see which the group likes better.

LibraryOgre
2008-04-01, 08:40 PM
My simple rule: So long as the game is good, I play the way the DM wants to. Hzurr doesn't always make calls the way I would, but the game is good, so I don't complain.

If you are the DM, you make the call. See if what he wants is a reasonable change to the game. If he's the DM of this game, go along with him.

Tequila Sunrise
2008-04-01, 09:06 PM
You're the DM, so your comfort with the rules comes before everyone else's. If he likes Pathfinder so much, tell him to run his own Pathfinder game.

TS

Cainen
2008-04-02, 02:08 AM
You're the DM, so your comfort with the rules comes before everyone else's. If he likes Pathfinder so much, tell him to run his own Pathfinder game.

You see, it doesn't work like this. A lot of people don't have the skillset or the organizational skills needed to smoothly run a game, and that's ignoring the fact that they may very well hate running it. He'd have to get players willing to play, too, and that's not as easy as you seem to think it is, especially for something that's very specifically -not- D&D 3.5. d20 is one of my least favorite systems out of ten or eleven, but guess which one I have to run if I want more than one or two players? I've had to rip apart a ton of things to get it working even remotely close to how I'd want it, and I get complaints from people who still don't know what they're talking about! Complaining that 'my rogue's damage is too high!' when the rogue is dealing 1d6+4 + SA and the knight is getting iteratives for a usual total of 2d10+14(more with power attack!) is dumb.

You're treading thin ice here, and it's very close to being what amounts to a personal attack, even if it wasn't aimed at me at all.

That being said, preferring Pathfinder as printed(currently) to 3.5 is absolutely laughable from a balance aspect, and many of the mechanics just won't work in their current form. He would be better off asking the GM to implement specific mechanics, rather than making a whole switch.

Behold_the_Void
2008-04-02, 02:39 AM
You see, it doesn't work like this. A lot of people don't have the skillset or the organizational skills needed to smoothly run a game, and that's ignoring the fact that they may very well hate running it. He'd have to get players willing to play, too, and that's not as easy as you seem to think it is, especially for something that's very specifically -not- D&D 3.5. d20 is one of my least favorite systems out of ten or eleven, but guess which one I have to run if I want more than one or two players? I've had to rip apart a ton of things to get it working even remotely close to how I'd want it, and I get complaints from people who still don't know what they're talking about! Complaining that 'my rogue's damage is too high!' when the rogue is dealing 1d6+4 + SA and the knight is getting iteratives for a usual total of 2d10+14(more with power attack!) is dumb.

You're treading thin ice here, and it's very close to being what amounts to a personal attack, even if it wasn't aimed at me at all.

That being said, preferring Pathfinder as printed(currently) to 3.5 is absolutely laughable from a balance aspect, and many of the mechanics just won't work in their current form. He would be better off asking the GM to implement specific mechanics, rather than making a whole switch.

I'm failing to see how that was a personal attack on you or anybody else at all. That's the rule a lot of people follow as a GM.

"I'm going to be running this game. If you don't like it, you're welcome to go run your own or find another game more suited to your tastes."

And on that note, I'm having trouble telling if the OP is the DM or a player. In the case of the former, go ahead and humor him and look over what he wants to do, if you don't like it, just say no. If you are a player, then you honestly probably don't want to play in his game. I don't understand the driving need to play in a game that you won't like because it's the only one around when a bit of proactivity and an internet connection can yield all kinds of interesting alternatives that you'll likely enjoy a lot more. True, there's much to be said for face-to-face tabletop, but if you aren't enjoying large parts of the experience it's likely to make you unhappy and possibly ruin friendships instead of be a fun, shared experience, which is what tabletop roleplaying is supposed to be.

Cainen
2008-04-02, 03:03 AM
I'm failing to see how that was a personal attack on you or anybody else at all. That's the rule a lot of people follow as a GM.

I loathe d20, but that's what makes up the vast majority of my games. I have repeatedly been told to "FIND ANOTHER GAME OR RUN YOUR OWN" whenever I point out that I don't like d20 or when I point out why I don't like it. It doesn't work in my case, for one thing, and I've already pointed out why it doesn't.

Seriously, do you want to find me a local Shadowrun 3 game, a local GURPS 4 game, or even a remotely local Unisystem-based game? You won't. You won't find ANYTHING but a D&D game or two. Acting like I haven't been looking is insulting, and acting like I -can- run a game of those under even close to optimal conditions is also insulting.

Telling the players that they should sit down, shut up, and tell you nothing of their thoughts on your campaign is insulting to the players at worst, especially when the criticism is valid. The exact same principle can be applied to Mary-Sues in fanfiction, among other things.

GutterRunner
2008-04-02, 04:52 AM
My thoughts kinda echo Mark and holywhippet. If he's the DM, try the Paizo rules out, then after about 4-6 proper sessions (ones where the rules see use rather than just in character RP sessions), see how you feel about the mechanics. Which mechanics are good and which mechanics are bad? Does the game feel more or less balanced with the Paizo version? More or less believable? Easier or harder to use? More or Less fun? Or about the same?

Ask the group if they'd like to share their opinions, then if the majority are against the Paizo version, ask the DM to stop using it, or wait till Pathfinder is updated, when more of their changes might make it better. Also provide your feedback to Paizo, I'm pretty sure they'd appricate all feedback they can get.

If you're the DM, I would ask the player to wait until your current campaign/arc is finished (if you run a game with short length campaigns or arcs), then ask the group if they'd like to use pathfinder. Try to present it fairly, first tell them what Paizo are trying to do (fix problems in the 3.5 core rules), then go over some of the major changes, before giving your opinion of it.

Let them read it if they're interested before giving their opinion, then if a majority or half want to try it out, I'd offer to do so. Again, after a reasonable number of sessions, call for a review of how it's going and decide where to go from there.

If someone else is the DM, ask them to review pathfinder with everyone in a similar manner before deciding what to do

olelia
2008-04-02, 07:01 AM
I loathe d20, but that's what makes up the vast majority of my games. I have repeatedly been told to "FIND ANOTHER GAME OR RUN YOUR OWN" whenever I point out that I don't like d20 or when I point out why I don't like it. It doesn't work in my case, for one thing, and I've already pointed out why it doesn't.

Seriously, do you want to find me a local Shadowrun 3 game, a local GURPS 4 game, or even a remotely local Unisystem-based game? You won't. You won't find ANYTHING but a D&D game or two. Acting like I haven't been looking is insulting, and acting like I -can- run a game of those under even close to optimal conditions is also insulting.

Telling the players that they should sit down, shut up, and tell you nothing of their thoughts on your campaign is insulting to the players at worst, especially when the criticism is valid. The exact same principle can be applied to Mary-Sues in fanfiction, among other things.
Cainen...please stay on topic...this is not the place to get disconserted. In no way did he claim you have not been looking. He was referencing for the OP to possibly take a look online. Also he wasn't saying that the player should shut up and sit down. He said that they have the choice to leave if they wish. But to get back on topic...I agree that if you do not like the setting then in know way should you be forced to run/play even if the player really likes it. Just simply express your feeling about the setting and let the player make the choice on what he wants to do.

DeathQuaker
2008-04-02, 07:10 AM
In the end, you're GM--you run what YOU'RE comfortable with.

BUT, it is also worth looking into this a little deeper:

Does he think the problems you believe don't exist do?

Ask him. Ask him what he thinks is wrong with playing as is; ask him if there's something in particular he's looking to change. It could be there is something he's genuinely unhappy about but doesn't know how to express it other than, "Let's try new rules, can we, huh? Huh?"

It could be he IS perceiving a problem that is actually there that you as a GM just haven't picked up on... and by making you aware of it, you might be able to find a solution to that problem that doesn't involve you learning new rules but satisfies him so he stops pestering you.

On the other hand, yeah, he could just be really excited what Pathfinder has to offer and wants to play it. If it's not your thing, this is what you say:

"Look, I don't have time to learn new stuff right now. This is my game and I'm going to run it the way the best I know how, which is not using this stuff from Paizo. This isn't going to change, and asking me to keep changing is just going to frustrate us both, because I'm not going to do it. BUT: If you're really itching to try this out, why don't you run a campaign with it? That'd be the best way for you to show us what you're talking about."

Titanium Dragon
2008-04-02, 06:05 PM
I'd reccommend against it; Pathfinder is a pretty horrible product. It doesn't fix any of the problems inherent to the system, and in some ways exaggerates them. If he feels that 3.x is inadequete, ask him how and in what ways.

Fixing 3.x is a major undertaking if you aren't planning on banning classes, as you have to rework all of the full caster classes. Even if you do go bancrazy, you're still going to end up with (much fairer) rocket tag at high levels. Paizo is simply not competant to do it, and I would recommend against allowing their materials.

UserClone
2008-04-02, 07:21 PM
I'm one of those really nice DMs who will at least read through the stuff my players want to use, but at the same time, if I see something ludicrous, even after they've started using it, I will in fact whack it with the banhammer. You can't be afraid of using the tools at your DMing disposal, and the banhammer, for me at least, is an infrequently used but important tool. I'd ask him what he wants to try, look it over. If there are no glaringly bad b0Rkenz in there, let him run with it. If it turns out it is b0Rken after all, ask him to work with you to fix the b0Rken(z), explaining that it's to help maintain the balance of your game. And if it turns out he pulled a fast one, slap him with the banhammer, and make him redo the character using the 3.5 rules, explaining why.


Also, less on-topic, Cainen, I am curious as to why you chose to look at a generically directed post that occured before you even posted as an attack specifically adressed to you? That's kind of like walking into a room where people are laughing, and assuming that they were just making fun of you before you walked in. (Note, this, while specifically adressed to you, is not intended to be an attack, more to be an opening for you to explain your position).

Edit: @Titanium Dragon: You are aware that for years, Paizo put out Dragon Magazine, right?
Edit2: Also, just so we're clear, you can't really play Pathfinder RPG yet, only playtest it. It's not even close to complete, and of course it looks like garbage, it's an alpha. That's basically a rough draft. With a world full of internetting geeks to provide feedback, though, I suspect it will turn out well in the end.