Pathfinder 1E PaizoCon 2010 News

[IronWolf]

So were all the non core books in 3.5 that didn't stop them from being problems for DMs.

Yes, good point. There is another thread in the General Discussion where someone is not happy that they can't always use the 3.5 supplement books he bought and that he doesn't understand why a DM would not allow their use at the table unless there was something outright "broken".

So regardless of the publisher's intent, if they release books and players buy them - they expect to be able to use them in a game.

Despite the concerns dancing around in the back of my head I remain hopeful that Paizo is aware of these issues and this is just paranoia rearing its ugly head again!

 

[ancientvaults]

So regardless of the publisher's intent, if they release books and players buy them - they expect to be able to use them in a game.

Despite the concerns dancing around in the back of my head I remain hopeful that Paizo is aware of these issues and this is just paranoia rearing its ugly head again!

And I won't be overly concerned, but you hit the nail on the head. If one of my Pathfinder players pays $40 (even though I bought the core, screen, bestiary and Gamemastery Guide) for a book that I am not interested in, what do I tell him? Then I go and buy the book and so on. I would tend to think that most any company would prefer that route, it is only natural, leading to more sales.

 

[Azgulor]

If one of my Pathfinder players pays $40 (even though I bought the core, screen, bestiary and Gamemastery Guide) for a book that I am not interested in, what do I tell him?

Any of the following:

1. That either the book isn't being used in your campaign or you need to review it further to evaluate what parts, if any, you'll consider.

2. Tell him you want to understand the impact the additions would have on the game. Suggest either a couple of sample encounters created using the options in one-off / out-of-campaign session(s).

3. If the player is a GM, suggest that he utilize that book in a side-campaign or other campaign so that everyone can evaluate the additions without impacting your current campaign (you put a lot of work into it, after all). If everyone likes it, you fold the new rules into your campaign.

Etc.

Bottom line, you're the GM. You're doing the heavy lifting of running the game. Yes, you want to keep your players happy but that doesn't mean you have to incorporate every book or supplement the players buy.

Pretty much every campaign guide I've seen or made cites the published sources that are permitted at the table.

If you talk to your player and outline reasons and options for not just saying yes as outlined above, and your player still protests, then I'd say you have a player issue rather than a rules issue.

 

[Votan]

So regardless of the publisher's intent, if they release books and players buy them - they expect to be able to use them in a game.

Despite the concerns dancing around in the back of my head I remain hopeful that Paizo is aware of these issues and this is just paranoia rearing its ugly head again!

I think the key issue is incentives. A player wants to use a specific class or feat in a new book. In and of itself, the addition of one element (or even one) book isn't that much overhead. But, as options keep expanding, keeping track of them all and dealing with unexpected synergies (good or bad) becomes a big deal. Very few items, all by themselves, made the worst parts of late 3.5; it took a slow creep until it was no longer easily possible to balance things against each other.

 

[BryonD]

So regardless of the publisher's intent, if they release books and players buy them - they expect to be able to use them in a game.

I don't relate to this position. I find it both irrational and highly counter-productive to show up at some other GM's game and tell them what is or isn't allowed into it.

Again, if the people playing the game are treating each other like this, then things like power creep are far less significant problems.

When 3.5 was still expanding, a lot of stuff was allowed in my game. But some wasn't. I didn't shy away from saying so. It may sound self-serving, but my players knew that I put energy into keeping the game fun. When one asked me about Bo9S and I said "no", he both respected my reasoning and enjoyed being in the game I ran enough that there was no conflict. I told him *why* I had that opinion, he respected it and we went on with our game.

And I won't be overly concerned, but you hit the nail on the head. If one of my Pathfinder players pays $40 (even though I bought the core, screen, bestiary and Gamemastery Guide) for a book that I am not interested in, what do I tell him? Then I go and buy the book and so on. I would tend to think that most any company would prefer that route, it is only natural, leading to more sales.

That is a much stronger point. Paizo needs to keep selling product. And APs may continue to be the bread and butter, but there is no indication that they think they can stay strong on that one element. And I would think it was a very poor plan if they did.

So, they will produce more books with the intent of trying to make as many people as possible want to buy them. And the need to do this will continuously be a pressure on the system.

Again, to me it is easy because I won't use problem material. And we need to actually SEE problem material before we start complaining about the sky falling. But, if the pressure leads that way, it will be a concern.

 

[IronWolf]

I don't relate to this position. I find it both irrational and highly counter-productive to show up at some other GM's game and tell them what is or isn't allowed into it.

I agree, I don't show up to a game demanding to use material in it simply because I purchased it. This isn't really an issue on our gaming group.

I was just reiterating some of was being touched upon in a thread in the general discussion forum and I would not find it surprising that there are that think in that manner out there. Largely because I've seen similar notions across various PbP game advertisements.

 

[BlackMoria]

Nor should it be a issue.

DM's game ... DM's rules. Been that way since 1974.

I don't know where and when that notion came about that (maybe its from the players rights movement threads) the DM must kowtow to the will of the players in all aspects or he is doing his players a disservice.

Sure, as a player you can make your case for this rule or that option or whatever to the DM but once a decision has been made on the issue by the DM, it stands. His game, his rules.

I once had a new player to my Forgotten Realms game demand to play a kender. I said no and gave my reasons for disallowing kenders. The guy proceded to give every reason under the sun (some of them downright insulting of my DM abilities) why I should allow him to play a kender and that I was interfering with his 'right' to play the character he wanted. I let him bluster right up to the point I threw his arse out of my house and told him not to come back.

 

[MichaelSomething]

What if you want to use splat so that you can play a class that is considered underpowered? What if I wanted to play a monk in a party full of Batman Wizards and Codzillas? What if the APG's is the thing that will turn my monk from a liability into a Chuck Norris?

It's also fairly obvious that the splat serves to assist the adventures instead of the other way around so I'm not too worried about it.

 

[ggroy]

I once had a new player to my Forgotten Realms game demand to play a kender. I said no and gave my reasons for disallowing kenders. The guy proceded to give every reason under the sun (some of them downright insulting of my DM abilities) why I should allow him to play a kender and that I was interfering with his 'right' to play the character he wanted. I let him bluster right up to the point I threw his arse out of my house and told him not to come back.

I've come across situations like this several times during the 3.5E era. A few times the person in question got really angry and punched the DM in the face. The other players ended up having to restrain the offender in question from beating the DM into unconsciousness, until the police arrived to take the offender away.

 

[BryonD]

I agree, I don't show up to a game demanding to use material in it simply because I purchased it. This isn't really an issue on our gaming group.

I was just reiterating some of was being touched upon in a thread in the general discussion forum and I would not find it surprising that there are that think in that manner out there. Largely because I've seen similar notions across various PbP game advertisements.

Ah cool. Apologies for misinterpreting.

Pathfinder is certainly not for everyone or every group.