How to lower a Player's Expectations

We have but I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion. I'm not going to use another system when we've a) been using Pathfinder for years, b) know what and what not to do within the system, and c) have an entire campaign built around the exploits that we've performed in Pathfinder.

It's possible to change system while still playing the same campaign. I've had campaigns swap through three different systems in the past.

I don't know if that will help though since he's expecting to do crazy flips and shit like Jackie Chan does in the cartoon. My coworker legitimately believes that you can run down the side of a building since "that's what Jackie Chan does in the intro."
The best martial in the game will still only be a T3 class, in comparison to the party who are T1 classes.

I'm not saying it's impossible, I just don't see a point to it since the issue is the new guy not knowing how the system works for monks.

Give him the ability to do the shit he wants to do, you autist. If the rest of the party could get it done with spells why can't the monk do it through physical conditioning and ninja shit?

Just give him a Path of War unarmed class instead

Scaled Fist Unchained Monk.

The point is playing a good game that don't make you create a thread on Veeky Forums each time a player wants to join a game with a non-caster

Because a) they can't do that according to the rules and b) my group doesn't use homebrew.

I try to maintain internal consistency whenever I can and it wouldn't make sense for a Monk to be able to do all those things when every other monk presented in the campaign didn't/couldn't.

Isn't this place meant for tabletop discussion? We're playing tabletop games, I have a question related to said tabletop game, and it involves a player that is new and has no idea of what the campaign is like.

So why wouldn't I ask Veeky Forums for assistance when it fits under the umbrella that the board prides itself on discussing?

Heroes are heroes for a reason. They don't necessarily follow all the same rules as NPCs, that's kind of the point.

Then why are you complaining about the assistance given. Your best option is swapping systems

Bigby is an NPC and yet he has several spells in the game named after him.

If anything, the PC's are just NPC's that the GM chooses to focus on instead of the major players in Forgotten Realms.

Swapping systems isn't exactly what I would call helpful advice. It's the equivalent of buying a new car because you got a flat tire honestly.

So the "major players" of the Forgotten Realms get to have rules different from most NPCs but the PCs don't? Can any peasant pump up to 20 strength by doing enough pushups and mercing goblins?

That is a really toxic way of approaching RPG's. Accepting that there are different rules for PC's and NPCs is the only way for an RPG not to be a total clusterfuck.

More like because the entire chassis is and always has been misshapen.

You fucking autist.

The major players in D&D don't have special rules associated with them though.

Yes they do?

It's called 'Being the PCs'

If Bigby can make up his own spells, yes, he does have special rules associated with him.

>my car have a flat tire
>take it to the technical service
>they say the tire is okay, but the car as a whole is deformed and make it look it's a flat tire
>they recommend changing the car
>you complain they didn't fix your tire

>toxic
>>>/tumblr/

...What?

No, it's really just a flat tire. A decent jack and a few minutes of elbow grease is all we need. Even if the chassis was misshapen, it doesn't affect anything that you'd actually need to run the car.

Why ask for advice if you don't want advice? What'd you want us to tell you? To kill his character first session so he'll stop thinking the game is any good?

If you know he's not going to enjoy the game as it is because you can't bring yourself to step away from the rules that make Monks bad and the other high tier classes so eclipsing, then why invite him to play? To torture him?

That's pretty rude.

Bigby isn't a PC though.

It's technically no different than a mage using a meta-magic feat.

Bigby is more than a PC. He's a wizard that can create spells. What characters can do as per the fluff and as per the system is inconsistent at best. Learn how to adapt or find a better system.

Well that's a bit of an exaggeration isn't it? How exactly would a car make a tire act like a flat tire?

Why are you suggesting that I change the system when I asked how to lower someone's expectations? It has nothing to do with the discussion at all.

The deformed chassis means the tire isn't properly aligned. You've got three wheels on the ground and one spinning in the air because casters are better than martials.

>Bigby is more than a PC.
So the players NPC would be NPCs?

Because I don't need to give you the advice you want. I can go ahead and determine that your assessment is wrong and give you the advice that will actually help.

You know, like a technician telling you the truth about your car instead of changing your tire knowing it won't fix anything.

How would a car even get that deformed in the first place? Also, how would a wheel look flat if it's in the air?

Some NPCs have more options than PCs. Other NPCs have more options than PCs. The options characters have are up to you as the person facilitating the game. If you find that what a PC can do is insufficient, you can give them more options.

For example, I've always let my players create their own spells.

You can't really be that good of a technician if you're more focused on the dent in the front of the car than the flat tire. I mean, if I didn't know any better, I'd say that you were a swindler trying to get me to waste money on a new car than addressing the problem that would cost a fraction of that price.

>For example, I've always let my players create their own spells.
As mentioned before, my group doesn't like homebrew.

The deformed chassis would probably be a factory problem. The tire would act as if it were flat because the car would distribute weight wrong, like with a flat tire. The point is that the tire isn't flat, and you're trying to tell the technician that it is and you know better.

What is being said is that there is no solution you're allowing yourself. Either you bend the system to allow the player to have a good experience, which you aren't willing to do, or you use a different system which better supports the game you're running, which you've also flatly dismissed.

I think I'm just going to give up on getting through to you, sir. I hope your coworker gets a phone call halfway through the game and never comes to your table again.

>My coworker legitimately believes that you can run down the side of a building since "that's what Jackie Chan does in the intro."
Don't monks get featherfall as a class ability?

Surely there is an alternative than to buy an entirely new car though. That's what makes the whole thing so suspect to me.
I'm just trying to understand your thought process in suggesting a new car when the issue is based on a flat tire.
I'm allowing myself solutions, it's just that the solutions you're suggesting are irrelevant to the actual problem. If you had suggested a solution that was relevant, then I would use it, but you haven't, so I won't.

No, they get a shittier version of it where they need a wall to hang off of, rather than being able to slow their descent by default.

There is no solution to telling a player they are going to have less fun than the other players through no fault of their own, doubly so for a new player. It is an unacceptable proposition.

If you aren't prepared to make sure their experience is just as fun as the rest of the group, you don't deserve to run a game for them.

Would you rather I ran a game, pretended that monks were viable, and then have them be turned off by tabletop in general?

At least if their expectations were lowered, they'd be able to play the game and have fun in spite of the fact that they can't do as much as they thought they could.

"You can play the game but you're going to suck huge dick at it."
Would you join this game?

So....it functions exactly as the situation the coworker is talking about? Are you even participating in this conversation or did you just feel the autistic need to correct me?

Play a system that handles monks better or homebrew stuff.
>b-but muh vanilla
No. It's widely known that balancing in pathfinder is shit, especialy for martials. Fix it yourself, switch system or stop complaining how you can't make things fit.

Basically this. You are unwilling to compromise in any way to allow a new player to have a good and fun experience, and asking how to make him see why it will be this way. The solution is not making the player accept that martial suck, the solution is changing the system or houserule it so they don't. If you are unwilling to do this don't invite them to the game and tell them the truth: "I'm unwilling to bend any rule or make any change in the game so you could have fun with us"

...

More like
"You can join the game, but know that monks are not really capable of doing the things that you want without spells."

Not everything's doom and gloom user and if the DM warned me beforehand, I would join the game under but choose a more magical class instead of a monk.

That would be just as bad.

If you are entirely unwilling to compromise, then you shouldn't incorporate them into your primary game. Find a point to pause the campaign and run a one shot, either in a different system or with tier 3/4 classes. Use that experience to introduce the guy to RPG's, so you're not screwing him over from word one, and then after that if he's into it you can talk about him joining your primary game with an appropriate class.

I still think you're an uncompromising asshole though.

>So....it functions exactly as the situation the coworker is talking about?
Not really, it specifically forces you to have at least one hand free as you're using it, rather than running down the side of a building.

Fun is not a right, it's a privilege

And it's one I fully expect to have when undertaking a leisure activity. If I'm not having fun, I've got no reason to be wasting my free time on it.

>Play another system
Why do you people keep saying this? I already gave my reasons for why this isn't relevant.

>I'm unwilling to bend any rule or make any change in the game so you could have fun with us

Why is expecting the rules of a game to be obeyed bad?

This is like a player coming into a football team expecting baseball.

>t. Man who has never had fun in his life

>The solution is not making the player accept that martial suck
The bulk of 3.PF haters wouldn't hate the system so much if people openly told them that martials sucked ass.

I'd still hate the design decision, but I wouldn't be angry that the system actively lies to potential players, presenting classes as viable options when they're not, leading to situations like the one expressed in the OP.

Because the very first rule tells you to bend the other rules to allow fun, you uncompromising asshole

Fun, like respect and trust, is earned.

I get it, you're a millennial who expects the game to be a dumb empowerment fantasy for you. At least you have the self awareness not to impose yourself on groups that think differently.

>That would be just as bad.
Not really. Many people still play martials in spite of them being less than optimal so obviously there are people who would play and enjoy the game in spite of it.

I think you're just jumping to conclusions because you don't like the system for whatever reason.

Because pathfinder is shit and just exacerbates all the problems 3.5 had.
Monks are shit. That's a problem.
Guess what? PF Monks are shit.

Maybe play a system where new guy- fuck, where anyone- can play a legitimate character concept without getting fucked up the ass for not being a meta caster?

Go fuck yourself.

I do not believe for a second that you would continue to waste your free time on a leisure activity you did not enjoy or appreciate. If you do, then you're a fucking moron who wastes their free time.

Because you have a player that wants to play a martial in a system where martials suck and your solution to the problem is to tell him that he's going to suck dick instead of fixing it. Your solutions are
1. Pick a better system for it
2. Homebrew him a class so he can be viable
3. Tell him no, he can't play
4. Tell him that he's going to be a bad character and will be uterly useless in the long run

You shot down 2 options you have right out of the bat and it sounds like you want to get that guy into the game, so you leave yourself with the most stupid answer possible, ruining his first impression of tabletop games forever. Man up, fix the problem with the rules or tell him he wouldn't enjoy THIS game.

>t. low test betas who want everything handed to them for enjoyment
One day you'll discover the joy of earning your fun though strategy and teamwork but I don't know if that day will be today unfortunately.

That is an optional rule for the GM to apply if it is appropriate.

In other words, it is a cheap out for cases where bad GMs cannot encourage players not to cheat, to retroactively lend false authority to whatever hashed solution they improvise.

It removes consequences and promotes entitlement.

We already know you are unwilling to apply the rule 0, that is why changing systems was suggested

>hurr durr I'm a big faggot hurr

Skip the terrible metaphors and have your coworker hate the game. The fact that you think rules are the Word of God and changing them would be heresy just proves that you're not flexible enough to make this work. You don't want a real solution.

That experience you're describing?

It counts as 'fun'. You are still enjoying the experience because you're aware of that payoff. If you didn't have that element, you wouldn't keep playing.

'Quit if it isn't fun' does not mean the same thing as 'quit if there's no instant gratification'.

Not him but people have completely misinterpreted what Rule 0 was meant to be, into some bastardization that either means "I can homebrew it at my leisure if I don't like a rule" or "nothing in the book is relevant so I can safely change shit on a whim because I'm the GM."

Rule 0 was made because D&D was two steps separation away from being a freeform system and most of the bullshit you could do was based around descriptions, rather than mechanical know-how. Now that systems have gotten much more in-depth with how the rules work, Rule 0 doesn't really serve a purpose anymore.

Honestly, he's probably a fucking terrible GM. We should be glad his coworker won't have his first experience poisoned by him.

>I do not believe for a second that you would continue to waste your free time on a leisure activity you did not enjoy or appreciate

"enjoyment" and "appreciation" are not the same as "fun."

The fact you cannot perceive the difference is telling.

Demanding "fun" as the ne plus ultra means you want everything to be blithe entertainment, with no peaks and troughs, no dramatic arcs, just a constant stream of stimuli.

My games have scenes and arcs that aren't "fun", but they serve dramatic purpose - to make climaxes climactic.

You don't have to like the way the game is designed in order to recognize it as a well designed system. I mean, I don't like the way Call of Cthulhu shits on you if you try to fight anything stronger than old ones and Sogoths but that doesn't mean that CoC in itself is a poorly designed system.

You are literally the stupidest motherfucker.

Rule zero is still the most important rule in any RPG, no matter how well designed or crunchy it was. If you want a neutral, unchanging system of arbitration, go play a fucking video game.

The greatest strength of any RPG is the GM. A GM can make a bad system function, a GM can make a good system fucking amazing. But the most important thing through all that is that the system is not, in any way, a restriction on the GM. Mechanics exist to support the work of the GM, and that you can use them or set them aside as you whim, and judging when each is appropriate, is a vital fucking skill in GMing.

If you aren't doing that, you're just pretending to be a mediocre computer, rolling dice and referencing tables.

Monks have always been shit except for 4e, 4e monks were god tier.

...So your whole argument is based on an entirely arbitrary definition that doesn't make sense?

The fuck?

Yes, because it's about whether the design supports the goals of the system. In CoC, a horror game about how incredibly insignificant humanity is, many things being impossible to directly oppose only makes sense.

In D&D, a fantasy game seeking to emulate stories where sword swinging warriors are often the main characters, sword swinging warriors being an irrelevant, obsolete character choice is a significant fucking problem.

You sound like a person who eats the low hanging fruit and wonders why other people choose to climb the tree to the best fruit towards the top.

Nope. Because the act of climbing the tree in search of the richest fruit? Is still enjoyment and appreciation, both of the process and anticipating the reward at the end.

And without any of those factors, you would not be doing it.

Option 1 has nothing to do with this discussion, option 2 won't work because we hate homebrew, option 3 doesn't work because I do want him to play, and you're exaggerating what option 4 would entail.

I was honestly hoping that you would give me an option that wasn't rife with bias and irrelevancy but I suppose you'd rather shit on the game than actually help someone with their problem.

That's the dumbest comparison I've read all day.

Are you running the game or is the game running you? You're there to have fun together. You're not forced to follow any rule you dislike. If you and your friends are playing football you can bloody well decide to change a rule when playing together.

If the rule is broken, FIX IT. The rules aren't the Eternal Word of God. If everyone knows they are bad, everyone agrees they are bad, you'd have to be an idiot (or have Asperger's like my brother-in-law or autism like my niece) to not bend them into something that is good. Saw the "Fun is earned" comment; Yeah, I can agree that you need to earn fun, and you sure as hell don't deserve if you're so scared of the rules that you won't alter them.

You don't want a real solution. Go ahead and tell your coworker that "The rules say Monks aren't fun to play, so you're going to have a bad time, sorry". That's the only advice that will work with your premise.

...

Yes you are.

It is only "arbitrary" or "nonsensical" if you have never consumed culture that stimulates the mind on a level above the banal and visceral.

I presume from your violent response to the idea that appreciation is not to be conflated with dumb entertainment value you primarily read Harry Potter and watch Marvel movies and never trouble your brain with substantial fare.

You don't actually want help fixing the problem. The reality is you jsut wanted people to tell you you were right in lowering a martial bitch's expectations.