I...uh....wait...ummm...hold on....wait...
-
the real crown was the XP we collected along the way
The real mario is the rust we collected along the XP
-
I hate this take a lot, I'm gonna be honest. I don't care if his game is so on rails that it's set on the fucking orient express. As long as the players are having fun with the game, and the GM is having fun with the game.. that's a good GM.
So a player that told you from beginning what he wants to do, which doesnt fit into your story, should they be forbiden to participate?
-
Yes, exactly. Consistency is important, because it builds and reinforces trust. The GM just saying "nah" is the other side of the player showing up with a homebrew bullshit build.
I get a lot of pushback from the Pathfinder 2e subreddit for promoting the idea that the system is really great for character-driven, fiction-first tables, because everyone just looks at the number of rules and goes "it's so obviously a gameist system, why would you ever try to run it as anything else?", and the answer is it's a fantastic physics system. The rules provide clarity and consistency where it's really useful or important, and are easily ignorable where it doesn't matter.
I haven't played Pathfinder. Next time I pick up epic fantasy, I think I'd like to give it a shot.
-
So a player that told you from beginning what he wants to do, which doesnt fit into your story, should they be forbiden to participate?
wrote last edited by [email protected]Do you just assume the worst in everyone you meet? How exhausted are you with the way you think?
What you said does not follow from the post you responded to. In any way. Why would you assume that? That's like me randomly asking if you kicked a puppy before posting your comment.... wait, d-did you?
-
We once skipped an entire chapter of "Out of the abyss" by saying "nope!" and running out of the city!
The DM introduced all the factions in the city, we realized they were all conspiring against each other, and they all asked of us to collaborate with them (against the others)... Instead, we stole a ship in the night and sailed away!
Only afterwards the DM told us it means we skipped a full chapter he had worked hard to prepare!
Only afterwards the DM told us it means we skipped a full chapter he had worked hard to prepare!
The more time a DM spends preparing something, the less likely the players are to play along
-
I haven't played Pathfinder. Next time I pick up epic fantasy, I think I'd like to give it a shot.
You've triggered my trap card. I'm going to do the special interest info-dump now. Apologies in advance.
It's good. It's written a little weird -- it uses inheritance, like computer programming, which can be a little more difficult to wrap you head around than it needs to be if you're not at least a little familiar with coding, and it's written as if it's doing everything possible to shut down rules lawyers, so whatever doesn't read like API documentation reads a bit like legalese -- but the actual system is nice.
It's highly balanced, which is an awful word that its fanbase doesn't seem to understand, but it means that it totally shuts down winning in character creation, and shifts the power game to one of tactics rather than build. The result is that much of the discussion about the game treats it as if it's exclusively a tactical combat game (because most discussing the game are crypto-power-gamers), rather than a fantasy RPG, and the most enthusiastic players push back hard against any kind of reframing. But it has a ton of support fo roleplay focused tables, and it pares down easily for casual tables.
Plus, you know, it's free! And it's fairly easy to convert from 3.x/PF1, meaning that there's a whole generation of content out there for it beyond first party offerings, for just a little more effort than standard prep.
-
My GM solution: the rust is actually blood, and the crown needs a fresh coating to activate its narrative. If need be, make it belong to a certain bloodline, such as royalty.
-
Technically, rust can only occur on iron-heavy metals and alloys. Otherwise it's just called oxidation.
The difference with "rust" is that rust will eat into the metal and change its shape, while oxydation only changes the surface color and texture.
Edit: yeah... Rust is a specific type of oxydation, it wasn't really clear from my comment. What I wanted to say is that rust implies the material is iron-based!
wrote last edited by [email protected]Well, not quite. Rust eats into iron because oxidised iron is larger and much more brittle than unoxidised iron, physically ripping itself out of place.
Many oxides arent that much larger than their base metals and form a nice patina protecting the metal underneath, like in aluminium.
Other oxides destroy the structural integrity of the metal and eat into it, forming corrosion. Rust is just corrosion specific to iron.
-
DM: Scribbles a note "Without the rust it seems like a serviceable crown, but not too fancy."
Note to lost heir: "You see the crown and you think as it... looks at you. This should be your crown. You wants it. They shouldn't keep it from you. Steals it, hides it, it came here for you".
DM: "Probably worth some gold."
The player: GUYS! I'M A KING NOW!!! BOW TO MEEEEEEEE!!!
-
....
A) this makes no sense to describe as railroading, apparently finding anything plot or backstory related is railroading?
B & C) Players not doing what a dm expects isn't railroading. If the dm then turned around and said "no you don't do that" or decides to make it impervious to prestidigitation, that might fit the definition.
Railroading is removing player agency and not giving players choices. Players just doing something unexpected that throws you for a loop? That's called DMing.
My main point is that the DM gave them a crown but then for some reason panicks when they do something very mundane with it. It implies the DM has a rigid story set, rather than a sandbox for the players to explore.
-
You've triggered my trap card. I'm going to do the special interest info-dump now. Apologies in advance.
It's good. It's written a little weird -- it uses inheritance, like computer programming, which can be a little more difficult to wrap you head around than it needs to be if you're not at least a little familiar with coding, and it's written as if it's doing everything possible to shut down rules lawyers, so whatever doesn't read like API documentation reads a bit like legalese -- but the actual system is nice.
It's highly balanced, which is an awful word that its fanbase doesn't seem to understand, but it means that it totally shuts down winning in character creation, and shifts the power game to one of tactics rather than build. The result is that much of the discussion about the game treats it as if it's exclusively a tactical combat game (because most discussing the game are crypto-power-gamers), rather than a fantasy RPG, and the most enthusiastic players push back hard against any kind of reframing. But it has a ton of support fo roleplay focused tables, and it pares down easily for casual tables.
Plus, you know, it's free! And it's fairly easy to convert from 3.x/PF1, meaning that there's a whole generation of content out there for it beyond first party offerings, for just a little more effort than standard prep.
Neat! I'll have to take a look sometime. Thanks for the explainer.
I GM a fair bit, so the idea of a healthy collection of modules is compelling.
-
I'm extremely naive when it comes to tabletop RPGs
Is there any kind of "plot says no" response to magic? Something like the doors in oblivion where you need a key to unlock
Technically there could be. After all, the GM has final say. But players will want to search for a reason, because they expect consistency. Spells don’t typically fail without reason. That reason can be a low die roll if the spell description calls for it, but many spells (like Prestidigitation) don’t require a roll.
So having the spell fail “because the plot says no” is inconsistent. It would immediately throw up a giant red flag in the players’ minds, and make them think the item is much more important than they initially realized. After all, if the plot says the spell doesn’t work, then that means something in the world is preventing it from working.
It makes more sense to have the item be cursed, or haunted, or protected by a god, or any other number of things that would give the players some sort of explanation to latch onto. If you keep it vague, the players will inevitably spend a lot of time trying to figure out why it can’t be cleaned. Because they expect consistency, and will keep throwing things at it until they find a reason. So it’s better to just give them a reason (even if you just came up with it in a panic) because that at least gives them some resolution, and they can file it away in their quest list for later.
-
You've triggered my trap card. I'm going to do the special interest info-dump now. Apologies in advance.
It's good. It's written a little weird -- it uses inheritance, like computer programming, which can be a little more difficult to wrap you head around than it needs to be if you're not at least a little familiar with coding, and it's written as if it's doing everything possible to shut down rules lawyers, so whatever doesn't read like API documentation reads a bit like legalese -- but the actual system is nice.
It's highly balanced, which is an awful word that its fanbase doesn't seem to understand, but it means that it totally shuts down winning in character creation, and shifts the power game to one of tactics rather than build. The result is that much of the discussion about the game treats it as if it's exclusively a tactical combat game (because most discussing the game are crypto-power-gamers), rather than a fantasy RPG, and the most enthusiastic players push back hard against any kind of reframing. But it has a ton of support fo roleplay focused tables, and it pares down easily for casual tables.
Plus, you know, it's free! And it's fairly easy to convert from 3.x/PF1, meaning that there's a whole generation of content out there for it beyond first party offerings, for just a little more effort than standard prep.
You forgot the most important part: it isn't owned by Hasbro! Even if it didn't have any of the advantages it does over 5e, this alone would be huge.
-
Technically, rust can only occur on iron-heavy metals and alloys. Otherwise it's just called oxidation.
The difference with "rust" is that rust will eat into the metal and change its shape, while oxydation only changes the surface color and texture.
Edit: yeah... Rust is a specific type of oxydation, it wasn't really clear from my comment. What I wanted to say is that rust implies the material is iron-based!
This is not true. Oxidation is a broad type of chemical reaction involving the loss of electrons. Rust is a type of oxidation, much as a square is a type of rectangle. Oxidation can occur on the surface level (tarnishing of some metals, passivation of aluminum) or throughout (combustion). Rust actually only occurs on the surface as well, but the iron oxide is less dense than the metal and it increases the available area of the surface exposed to oxygen.
-
You forgot the most important part: it isn't owned by Hasbro! Even if it didn't have any of the advantages it does over 5e, this alone would be huge.
Touché! A truth I have really started to take for granted.
-
This is not true. Oxidation is a broad type of chemical reaction involving the loss of electrons. Rust is a type of oxidation, much as a square is a type of rectangle. Oxidation can occur on the surface level (tarnishing of some metals, passivation of aluminum) or throughout (combustion). Rust actually only occurs on the surface as well, but the iron oxide is less dense than the metal and it increases the available area of the surface exposed to oxygen.
Yeah... Reading back my comment, it was badly written... I know rust is a type of oxydation, but that's not what I wrote!
-
Well, not quite. Rust eats into iron because oxidised iron is larger and much more brittle than unoxidised iron, physically ripping itself out of place.
Many oxides arent that much larger than their base metals and form a nice patina protecting the metal underneath, like in aluminium.
Other oxides destroy the structural integrity of the metal and eat into it, forming corrosion. Rust is just corrosion specific to iron.
I didn't know of other type of oxides that eat into the metal like rust does...
But it's true that a "rusted crown" implies that it is iron-based, so the cantrip should work!
-
Yeah... Reading back my comment, it was badly written... I know rust is a type of oxydation, but that's not what I wrote!
Lol thermite is my favorite oxidation & rust remover reaction
-
wrote last edited by [email protected]
It’s artifact level - a cantrip simply doesn’t work on it. When the players ask why, you just tell them they don’t know - neither does anyone in the town/city whatever they’re in.
-
Lol thermite is my favorite oxidation & rust remover reaction
Ah yes, removes the rust, the object, and the table it was sitting on...
