Monday, June 17, 2013

Pathfinder Game is OVER!

I was going to post a play report about our Pathfinder game this past Saturday, but there have been issues I'm having with the players and the game system overall.  I just feel too ham-stringed by the rules.  And by one of my player's power-gamey-ness and rules-lawyerness.

When I agreed to run this game, I knew I was going to have issues.  So I made up a list of conditions of how the game was going to be played to make feel more Old School.  Sadly, that didn't seem to happen and the players just bitched and complained about not having Attacks-of-Oppurtunity, rolling for Ability scores and now the Slow XP advancement.

So, without going into more detail, I just sent them all an email and basically said I am done being a GM for Pathfinder.  Maybe they can find a spineless GM that will cater to their sense of entitlement that the New-School Era of players are so used to.


  1. Sorry to hear you had so many issues. I just read through a couple of your recent posts. Rules-Lawyers need to run their own games.

    Your last sentence was a little harsh, though. I'm as old school as you are and I love Pathfinder. I feel no sense of entitlement, I simply want to tell a great story and have the rules provide a framework for the story to build on. Pathfinder does that brilliantly for me. I don't find that the rules hamstring me at all, mostly because I change them to fit my sense of drama and style, but also because I'm not playing with any hardcore RLs (and pray I never do again). Story and fun should always win.

    I mentioned on G+ that GMs need to run the game they're excited about. It's like teaching. If a teacher is excited, students will learn, even if they didn't think they liked the subject. Run your old-school game. My friend Doug is doing that and the group is having a blast (unfortunately I don't have time to play in that game--he's a brilliant GM.) If your group wants to play a game, they can either run their own game and realize/remember how hard it is to run, or they can let you run what you want.

  2. The funny thing is, Rich and I value most of the same thing in a game as far as experience and outcomes. Rich thinks more ahead on plotting a game out beforehand, I like to ad-lib a lot. Rich's idea of medium power level is my idea of high level. I like to run low level games where people are forced to sneak and deal and run away, and Rich runs something more epic and action-packed. And we end up having a ball in each other's games. But I don't think I would ever run a game the way he does, and vice versa. Yet we both love playing in each other's games. There needs to be some level of trust between players and DM, and if you don't have players who want to collaborate with what floats your boat... well things will suck. Better luck with your next group, man.

  3. I've had the same experience. I feel like Pathfinder reduces the GM to a rules-arbiter, though obviously not everyone has that experience. I imagine the players have a lot to do with it. Though no players in the world can keep Pathfinder combat from being so looooooooooong.

    I love the 'run the game you're excited about' advice.