I'm not sure how many people here play Pathfinder, but I do. I don't see what it would hurt to toss some questions out and see if anyone replies.
"I do so love taking a nice, well thought out character and putting them through hell. It's like tossing a Faberge Egg onto the stage during a Gallagher concert." - me
@Palador / @Rabid Unicorn
I play in both Pathfinder Society and in a home Pathfinder game. I'm pretty well acquainted with the rules and such.
I don't really have that much of a beef with the Paizo boards, though they do tend to re-slog out fights again and again, and have some rather odd things as accepted wisdom.
Too many alts to list.
Not so familiar with Pathfinder as DnD, but I still find your campaign interesting and fun.
Perhaps suggest to your bear druid - Ron Perlman as Vincent from the TV show Beauty and the Beast? Just a thought that tripped into my head, and a bit more in keeping with your theme than an Ursa Minor.
Comrade Smersh, KGB Special Section 8 50 Inv/Fire, Fire/Rad, BS/WP, SD/SS, AR/EM
Other 50s: Plant/Thorn, Bots/Traps, DB/SR, MA/Regen, Rad/Dark - All on Virtue.
-Don't just rebel, build a better world, comrade!
Pathfinder is just 3.5 rules with some clarifications, simplifications, and such. Unless you need specific rulings, going with what you know from 3.5 DnD is fine.
I've played through (most) of an adventure path, and my GF is playing through her second one of theirs right now. These games tended to be more RP heavy than sticking to all the little rules.
How long do you plan to have this campaign go (in other words, how many levels do you expect them to gain?) Pathfinder characters tend to be weak in the early going, but really pick up steam after lvl 7 or so, when the magic users start gaining their good spells. At least that's what it seemed on our adventure. I would suggest a fairly fast leveling curve, or at least throwing in enough encounter opportunities for them to gain levels fairly fast if they choose.
Loose --> not tight.
Lose --> Did not win, misplace, cannot find, subtract.
One extra 'o' makes a big difference.
According to my brother - who has been playing Pathfinder since it came out - the low leve stuff is great. However, you know how the high level stuff in 3.5 started to break? Well, according to him, since Pathfinder put more oomph into the low level stuff that breakdown starts sooner in Pathfinder. Like level 12.
Quote:
I don't really know that I would say the rules break down actually.I would also say what does occur (power disparity between classes, and the difficulty of writing plots for characters that essentially become superheroes) actually happens a bit later than in 3.5. Pathfinder nerfed a lot of the really broken spells, and limited some of the more overpowered 3.5 options (clerics and druids were both tamed some). |
Originally Posted by Samothrake
According to my brother - who has been playing Pathfinder since it came out - the low leve stuff is great. However, you know how the high level stuff in 3.5 started to break? Well, according to him, since Pathfinder put more oomph into the low level stuff that breakdown starts sooner in Pathfinder. Like level 12.
|
One of the things which has impressed me the most about Pathfinder is that while they have added a number of rules expansion books, they have mostly only provided more options without instigating power creep. In 3.5 you tended to be clearly more powerful with the more books you owned. In Pathfinder, you are often presented with options which will actually lower your power but offer interesting twists.
So the real issue with Pathfinder is that while every class gets pretty damned powerful at high levels, the spell casters are capable of being a lot more versatile, and are also capable of world shaking powers (the classic D&D issue). A high level fighter is an amazing death machine as long as you can win the fight by beating it down with a weapon. However is that isn't the solution to your current problem, the fighter is mostly a dud. A wizard or cleric, OTOH, can do spells which are capable of almost anything (at high enough level).
The 'breakdown' if you want to call it that really tends to happen above 15th level. Even then a decent adventure writer and made do (though the mundane classes will in some ways be carted around by the casters), but it take a lot of care, and combats are very numerically intensive.
Too many alts to list.
Quote:
Yeah, that's why the "DnD Tier system of classes" as people call it, is mostly a ranking on how versatile a character is. In straight ability to kill things even standard DnD doesn't go far out of whack, it's when hitting things isn't the solution that the balance issues arise, and Pathfinder didn't really solve that.|
Originally Posted by docbuzzard
I don't really know that I would say the rules break down actually.I would also say what does occur (power disparity between classes, and the difficulty of writing plots for characters that essentially become superheroes) actually happens a bit later than in 3.5. Pathfinder nerfed a lot of the really broken spells, and limited some of the more overpowered 3.5 options (clerics and druids were both tamed some).
One of the things which has impressed me the most about Pathfinder is that while they have added a number of rules expansion books, they have mostly only provided more options without instigating power creep. In 3.5 you tended to be clearly more powerful with the more books you owned. In Pathfinder, you are often presented with options which will actually lower your power but offer interesting twists. So the real issue with Pathfinder is that while every class gets pretty damned powerful at high levels, the spell casters are capable of being a lot more versatile, and are also capable of world shaking powers (the classic D&D issue). A high level fighter is an amazing death machine as long as you can win the fight by beating it down with a weapon. However is that isn't the solution to your current problem, the fighter is mostly a dud. A wizard or cleric, OTOH, can do spells which are capable of almost anything (at high enough level). The 'breakdown' if you want to call it that really tends to happen above 15th level. Even then a decent adventure writer and made do (though the mundane classes will in some ways be carted around by the casters), but it take a lot of care, and combats are very numerically intensive. |
I still play a DnD 3.5 campaign, and we've added some of Pathfinder's better ideas. (I have several of the PF books) It did fix some of DnD's issues, but also left a lot.
I like 4e even less though, so for now we're sticking with 3.5++. It's still better than the 2nd edition ADnD we started with.
But it also depends on how close to the rules you play. In the beginning we really did the xp for each monster and such. Now we just have everyone level at the end of each adventure and not worry about xp.
We're also DM in turn, so each player gets his turn at the controls for one adventure. We usually do about 3-4 adventures a year in this way with one evening a week.
Oh. If you like the SuperHero thing, as you might given that this is CoH, you might want to have a look at Mutants and Masterminds RPG. We've played it for a bit, and it's quite nice. A bit similar to CoH in a lot of aspects.
Made it through the first game session with no problems; level 2, lots of roleplaying, no combat, some exploration. Future plot hooks established.
Interpretation question: what has been established in games you have played as the maximum that can be accomplished with a high Diplomacy check?
"He-Prince Charming-Man" has a Diplomacy of +20. Yes, at second level. So far, all he has done with it is sell off some armor he got for free at nearly market price.
As far as how far this is intended to go? Theoretically, all the way to epic levels.
Story Arcs I created:
Every Rose: (#17702) Villainous vs Legacy Chain. Forget Arachnos, join the CoT!
Cosplay Madness!: (#3643) Neutral vs Custom Foes. Heroes at a pop culture convention!
Kiss Hello Goodbye: (#156389) Heroic vs Custom Foes. Film Noir/Hardboiled detective adventure!
Quote:
I would put the same limits on that that you usually see on Charm spells. You can't make someone jump off of a cliff to their death, but you can convince them that when they jump off of the cliff, you'll cast Feather Fall on them and they'll be perfectly safe. If they're good, you can't get them to betray and attack their friends, but you can convince them to fight their friends and hold them off while you "break the spell that's controlling them". Basically, no outright killing themselves or violations of alignment/personality.
|
Originally Posted by Kitsune9tails
Interpretation question: what has been established in games you have played as the maximum that can be accomplished with a high Diplomacy check?
"He-Prince Charming-Man" has a Diplomacy of +20. Yes, at second level. So far, all he has done with it is sell off some armor he got for free at nearly market price. |
"I do so love taking a nice, well thought out character and putting them through hell. It's like tossing a Faberge Egg onto the stage during a Gallagher concert." - me
@Palador / @Rabid Unicorn
Quote:
Just FYI: Enworld is a great forum for d&d and Pathfinder
| I am not a fan of the Paizo site for general chat and rules questions |
I don't suffer from altitis, I enjoy every minute of it.
Thank you Devs & Community people for a great game.
So sad to be ending ):
Quote:
Or, as my group did, convince the underlings that a Union is a really good idea and that they're getting a bum deal from their current overlord and should form a union. Then you leave them to their own devices. |
Originally Posted by Rabid_M
I would put the same limits on that that you usually see on Charm spells. You can't make someone jump off of a cliff to their death, but you can convince them that when they jump off of the cliff, you'll cast Feather Fall on them and they'll be perfectly safe. If they're good, you can't get them to betray and attack their friends, but you can convince them to fight their friends and hold them off while you "break the spell that's controlling them". Basically, no outright killing themselves or violations of alignment/personality.
|
This was usually enough to spark a wave of disent amongst the lower ranks as the idea spreads. You'd give it a few weeks and then come back with a rallying cry of 'What do want? A Union! when do we want it? Now!' which is enough to get atleast a few of the underlings on your side and cause chaos.
Note this only works on pretty dimwitted creatures like Kobolds who are normally the kicked around underlings of a bigger race. If the Union idea spreads and catches on completely then you have a full uprising on your hands.
Badge Earned: Wing Clipper
A real showstopper!
Thanks for the advice, guys. Next game is tonight, I'll post after with any new questions.
Story Arcs I created:
Every Rose: (#17702) Villainous vs Legacy Chain. Forget Arachnos, join the CoT!
Cosplay Madness!: (#3643) Neutral vs Custom Foes. Heroes at a pop culture convention!
Kiss Hello Goodbye: (#156389) Heroic vs Custom Foes. Film Noir/Hardboiled detective adventure!
Quote:
Have fun!
|
Originally Posted by Kitsune9tails
Thanks for the advice, guys. Next game is tonight, I'll post after with any new questions.
|
Thought for the day:
"Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment."
=][=
No new rules questions; just a general GMing one.
I have a couple players who tend to leap at every chance to take an action during the game, whereas the majority of the group tends to react to the question, "what do you do?" with a long pause, followed by several probing questions, and then a cautious tentative action.
The net result is that the majority of the party feels that the two more active/talkative/theatrical players are sucking up all of the playtime.
I am in a bit of a quandary. Should I:
- Let it work itself out?
- Tell the more active players to slow down?
- Push the majority to make decisions more quickly/actively?
- Give you guys more details on the situation?
I have been a GM for years, and my default go-to on the situation is to insert more personal story elements for the less acrtive members, but i wanted to get some other perspectives.
Story Arcs I created:
Every Rose: (#17702) Villainous vs Legacy Chain. Forget Arachnos, join the CoT!
Cosplay Madness!: (#3643) Neutral vs Custom Foes. Heroes at a pop culture convention!
Kiss Hello Goodbye: (#156389) Heroic vs Custom Foes. Film Noir/Hardboiled detective adventure!
Quote:
Well, the important question to ask is why these players are taking their time.|
Originally Posted by Kitsune9tails
No new rules questions; just a general GMing one.
I have a couple players who tend to leap at every chance to take an action during the game, whereas the majority of the group tends to react to the question, "what do you do?" with a long pause, followed by several probing questions, and then a cautious tentative action. The net result is that the majority of the party feels that the two more active/talkative/theatrical players are sucking up all of the playtime. I am in a bit of a quandary. Should I: - Let it work itself out? - Tell the more active players to slow down? - Push the majority to make decisions more quickly/actively? - Give you guys more details on the situation? I have been a GM for years, and my default go-to on the situation is to insert more personal story elements for the less acrtive members, but i wanted to get some other perspectives. |
Is it that they're slow on the draw themselves? Are they unfamiliar with the rules or RPGs in general? Do they feel like they're lacking information sufficient to act on?
My long-standing player group was always relatively quick on the draw; when I found them sitting and staring at me, it was because I hadn't adequately set the scene - a failing on my part, not theirs.
One of the ways I promoted people paying attention when it wasn't their turn (appropriate to the more over-the-top action campaigns) was the token system - once per session, a player could throw in their token and act again out of sequence - with the strict understanding that if they weren't trying to save their teammates, they lost the token and got no action.
As to your go-to, I approve most heartily. I always tried to structure my game sessions as television episodes, with the accompanying narrative structure, and I generally chose one player character to be the focus of a particular episode. Rarely, a two-to-three session character arc - but that could leave other players chomping at the bit. (File that under "things I learned from Mekton Zeta.")
Ultimately, though, there isn't a one size fits all solution to involving every player - it has mostly to do with the reason the players aren't as involved.
Comrade Smersh, KGB Special Section 8 50 Inv/Fire, Fire/Rad, BS/WP, SD/SS, AR/EM
Other 50s: Plant/Thorn, Bots/Traps, DB/SR, MA/Regen, Rad/Dark - All on Virtue.
-Don't just rebel, build a better world, comrade!
Quote:
...|
Originally Posted by Dr_MechanoEU
Or, as my group did, convince the underlings that a Union is a really good idea and that they're getting a bum deal from their current overlord and should form a union. Then you leave them to their own devices.
|
This is how my group manged to get into a wizard's tower during an adventure being run at a local convention. Friend of mine had been working UPS for a couple years and was happily drinking the Kool Aid, so the first thing he asked the two guards at the door "Do you guys have a union? Do you guys stand here all day? Just waiting for someone to show up and stab you? and for what?"
Now, Im normally the BS artist of the group. It's what i do, it's fun. But the entire group just stared at him in shock. The DM asked for a bluff, and let the whole thing fly. We ended up waltzing through the whole dungeon picking up the wizard's 'soldiers' and presenting a list of grievances to the wizard who proceeded to try to kill his rebelling underlings. We sat back and watched. It was disturbing.
Quote:
You could always hammer the proactive players with some type of nasty surprise when they jump right into an encounter, or maybe come up with an NPC/enemy that will ignore them for some reason you choose and concentrate on one of the people in the peanut gallery, or otherwise find a reason to have one of the slower players become the defacto leader of the group for a time. Cautious and slow can be a better option in some cases, but only if you make it that way on purpose.
|
Originally Posted by Kitsune9tails
No new rules questions; just a general GMing one.
I have a couple players who tend to leap at every chance to take an action during the game, whereas the majority of the group tends to react to the question, "what do you do?" with a long pause, followed by several probing questions, and then a cautious tentative action. The net result is that the majority of the party feels that the two more active/talkative/theatrical players are sucking up all of the playtime. I am in a bit of a quandary. Should I: - Let it work itself out? - Tell the more active players to slow down? - Push the majority to make decisions more quickly/actively? - Give you guys more details on the situation? I have been a GM for years, and my default go-to on the situation is to insert more personal story elements for the less acrtive members, but i wanted to get some other perspectives. |
Loose --> not tight.
Lose --> Did not win, misplace, cannot find, subtract.
One extra 'o' makes a big difference.
I think I will work on both ends of the problem at once.
Since the players are students and have a former teacher NPC tagging along as an observer, I think I will have that NPC take a more active role to moderate things:
- advising the crazy ninja (Cheshire Cat) and gregarious bear (Ursa Minor)to hold back a little
- suggesting a couple alternative courses of action to the rest of the group when they seem particularly hesitant
...does that make sense to you guys?
One would think that (Prince Charming/He-Man) or (Puss in Boots) would be rocking the leadership role, but I think the prince is holding back because that player as the acknowledged rules lawyer of the team tends to end up as leader and actually prefers the troublemaker role. The Puss in Boots player I think may be holding back because he is the default teasing victim of the group.
Story Arcs I created:
Every Rose: (#17702) Villainous vs Legacy Chain. Forget Arachnos, join the CoT!
Cosplay Madness!: (#3643) Neutral vs Custom Foes. Heroes at a pop culture convention!
Kiss Hello Goodbye: (#156389) Heroic vs Custom Foes. Film Noir/Hardboiled detective adventure!
I'd be wary of utlilzing your NPC in any leadership type role unless the players specifically put your character in that spot. In which case, which is very difficult as a GM to both "play" a character involved in the dynamics of the team, particularly while leading them, and still effectively GM them as well.
There are many inherent dangers of the GM playing a character that's part of the player's group. Power creep, power abuse, spot-lighting are all very common pitfalls and sometimes end up occuring without the intention of doing so. Another thing is that if you're NPC starts trying to "help" by suggesting courses of action, some players may feel that you're micro-managing them, purpossfully taking over their decisions, or setting them up for failure.
I've ran games where my NPC at first designed to be something more like a mission contact ended up leading the party simply due to the player's desire for him to do so. I often found ways to take him out of the picture, or designed encounters that utlized the skill sets of the players and minimized my NPC's abilities. This takes a lot of planning to pull off well.
There was another long run campaign that I ran where I had an NPC involved with the group for a long time. He was always off the side taking care of little things that the group needed but not necessarily anyone wanted to deal with. Or getting caught up in a pitched battle with one of the lesser minions in an encounter just long enough to keep him occupied, but still seem useful without taking over what the other players did. He often ended up as the "back up" theif whenver the main thief was either not around or otherwise occupied.
It worked great because I designed the character to eventually be a major protagonist to the group, betraying them at the right moment. It worked really well surprising the entire party, and really got them riled up to try and take him down when they got the chance.
I bascially provided these examples to show you that if you're going to have an NPC in the party, make them as real as the characters are, but use them in a way that doesn't steal the show from the real players, after all you're already running the show for them. Finally, be sure to have a purpose for the character in the long term of the campaign, along with some character flaws that make them as real to the rest of the players as their characters are to them.
I am playing a second edition Dark Sun D&D game with my fiance as DM, plus four friends. My character has a tendency to push forward constantly, and only one of the other players takes 'point' almost as much as I do. There was an encounter where my first character had been taken over by an NPC group and was currently DM-controlled, so my alternate character came in, with the backstory of having been sent by the group's patron to figure out what was taking the group so long. While the rest of the group was worriedly wondering how they would defeat the NPCs without killing my character, my alternate charged in with her weapons flailing. EVERYONE was completely baffled why I would possibly risk my character by attacking without a care.
Well, BECAUSE! That is what that alt would do! She was a gladiator who killed her masters to get free, she is totally bad ***, and these guys are just a bunch of losers to defeat, AND YOU GUYS ARE TALKING TOO MUCH!!! (By the way, nobody died and my first character got some awesome stuff.)
It *REALLY* hit home that sometimes you just need to jump in feet-first. Talking too much leads to the low-wisdom character asking the telepathic bad guys if they have work for us to do, thus allowing them to get the drop on us in the first place that *got* my main character mind-controlled.
Paragon Wiki: http://www.paragonwiki.com
City Info Terminal: http://cit.cohtitan.com
Mids Hero Designer: http://www.cohplanner.com
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dispari
I don't know why Dink thinks she's not as sexy as Jay was. In 5 posts she's already upstaged his entire career.
|
Quote:
The real question to be addressed is whether or not there really is a problem. Some players are more outgoing than others, and you are not going to change their natures, nor really should you. I would try to ask around (privately if possible) if people are satisfied with how the game is working, and then react. You say "The net result is that the majority of the party feels that the two more active/talkative/theatrical players are sucking up all of the playtime." is this something stated or just an impression you get?|
Originally Posted by Kitsune9tails
No new rules questions; just a general GMing one.
I have a couple players who tend to leap at every chance to take an action during the game, whereas the majority of the group tends to react to the question, "what do you do?" with a long pause, followed by several probing questions, and then a cautious tentative action. The net result is that the majority of the party feels that the two more active/talkative/theatrical players are sucking up all of the playtime. I am in a bit of a quandary. Should I: - Let it work itself out? - Tell the more active players to slow down? - Push the majority to make decisions more quickly/actively? - Give you guys more details on the situation? I have been a GM for years, and my default go-to on the situation is to insert more personal story elements for the less acrtive members, but i wanted to get some other perspectives. |
Every table of a game I have played has had more and less active players. It's just how the games work. I would venture it is more important to make sure the less active people are given ways for their characters to feel important than to try and make them into leaders. I find that as long as people feel they are contributing, even if not leading, they are satisfied.
Too many alts to list.
Quote:
3/7 players mentioned it to me unsolicited.|
Originally Posted by docbuzzard
You say "The net result is that the majority of the party feels that the two more active/talkative/theatrical players are sucking up all of the playtime." is this something stated or just an impression you get?
|
Conversely, one of the players being complained about specifically asked the Puss in Boots player during the game why he wasn't being more proactive.
The Puss in Boots player told me seperately that he is intentionally playing a more sedate, quiet and intellectual version of the character.
Story Arcs I created:
Every Rose: (#17702) Villainous vs Legacy Chain. Forget Arachnos, join the CoT!
Cosplay Madness!: (#3643) Neutral vs Custom Foes. Heroes at a pop culture convention!
Kiss Hello Goodbye: (#156389) Heroic vs Custom Foes. Film Noir/Hardboiled detective adventure!
Quote:
Well then if that's the case, I might go with trim their sails like the other poster suggested. I don't like the NPC necessarily telling them what to do, but make there be consequence for rash decisions.
|
Originally Posted by Kitsune9tails
3/7 players mentioned it to me unsolicited.
Conversely, one of the players being complained about specifically asked the Puss in Boots player during the game why he wasn't being more proactive. The Puss in Boots player told me seperately that he is intentionally playing a more sedate, quiet and intellectual version of the character. |
Too many alts to list.
There are a couple of other techniques you can apply as a GM to curtail certain players from "hogging the spotlight".
One is to split the party from time to time. This works particularly well if you plan the encounters to work towards the split character's strengths or exploit their weaknesses to see how they work to overcome them.
Another is during combat, when the initiative is rolled, the call of action flows from those dice. So you get to address the player individually for their character's particular action. This can set the opportunity for some of those other players to step up and set the pace or tactics for the encounter.
Then as the GM you could also manage the flow of the group by calling on individual players asking what they are going or what they are currently doing, before those more forward players step up.
I am running a Pathfinder campaign for some friends.
The world is original, and the whole thing is somewhat fairy-tale themed (not my idea, the genius of one of my players!). We are starting at 2nd level.
So far, the party consists of expies of:
Prince Charming (with a lot of He-Man thrown in): Summoner [Fusion]/Cavalier [Beast Rider]
Sleeping Beauty: Oracle
Maleficent: Sorcerer, I beleive <don't have my notes>
Puss in Boots: Rogue/Fighter
Snow White: Necromancer Oracle
Cheshire Cat: Ninja/[Dreamcast] Sorcerer
Ursa Minor: [Bear] Druid
I have a basic world and storyline put together; as you might guess, a mishmashed fractured version of all the above tales, with a fair amount of Grimm horror thrown in.
Just wondering if this is a good place to fish for general ideas and previous rules calls? I am not a fan of the Paizo site for general chat and rules questions, but that may just be me not being used to it.
Story Arcs I created:
Every Rose: (#17702) Villainous vs Legacy Chain. Forget Arachnos, join the CoT!
Cosplay Madness!: (#3643) Neutral vs Custom Foes. Heroes at a pop culture convention!
Kiss Hello Goodbye: (#156389) Heroic vs Custom Foes. Film Noir/Hardboiled detective adventure!