"Creativity is a waste."

[antipodeF]

I'm seeing a pattern in D&D, and Pathfinder, and pretty much every tabletop community I go to. Once I start to understand the rules of play, I try to do something creative with it - maybe I'll try to stretch a spell effect, or come up with an unusual character concept, or even try to homebrew something if I'm feeling bold - and I always, always get the same sort of naysaying, jaded, minmaxing, totally optimal sorts of people in response. It's happened enough times that I can't just write it off as coincidence or misunderstood perceptions, I'm fairly confident in saying that the people I talk to about tabletop are always either people who think D&D sure sounds cool but they've never played it, or people who are totally unwilling to listen to anything at all that breaks the mold and gets remotely creative.

..... I'm looking for a way to spin this into a question, but I don't think there is one. It's just a fact. An inescapable truth of the world, and I just want to vent about this someplace where it will have some kind of meaning to anyone.

[scalyfreak]

I'm confused.

You said you're looking for a way to spin this into a question. Let me help you: "Why doesn't anyone ever want to play D&D the way I want to play it?"

That's not the best way to invite discussion though. On the other hand, you also said you just want to vent. Which is it?

And if it's the venting, ignore this post and I will ignore you in return. :smallsmile:

[Yora]

Originality is overrated.

Doing something different for the sake of being different and not so much for being better is something that other people often can't really get to care for. It's really not that uncommon to see people who make stuff and try to promote it based on "more options!", as if that in itself would automatically be a good thing.

When I get interested into peoples new creation then it's because it adds something really new that I can't do with the material that is already in my game, or it replaces one mechanical representation of an element with a better way to handle it in the game.

[antipodeF]

Some examples of each might be helpful. I play Pathfinder, if it matters.

Stretch a spell effect: the spell Codespeak grants a magic language to several people for a short time, and they can write text in this language. Couldn't I write a dictionary for this language, then when the spell wears off, learn the language and have my own secret code to teach to others?

An unusual character concept: a barbarian with 16 INT. In Pathfinder, creative use of archetypes can produce a fairly effective combatant of this kind. There's one that weakens your Rage, but allows you to act patiently and intelligently even while raging.

A homebrew idea: a hybrid class between Bard and Wizard. I was thinking of calling it "Magician" or "Stage Magician" or something like that. All about stylistic effects based on the things real-life performers do.

Everywhere I go, ideas like these and more get laughed at and dismissed, immediately, decisively, by everyone. At first I thought it was because my ideas were too green, too newbishly conceived, but the longer I play, the more I feel like they're shutting them down without consideration.

It feels like everyone has been playing so long, it's physically impossible to impress them, and that any effort to do so is just begging for punishment.

[Hopeless]

Creativity is half the fun!
Sometimes less is more!
They're all things for example a small pebble beneath a slate that audibly shifts when stepped on.
No magic, but to your players they'll wonder if it's something more and sometimes their ideas may inspire you too!😉
So what example can you provide to explain why they disagreed with you?
You never know they're quite bright here!

[sktarq]

*blink*
That all seems normal enough-at least to try.
*blink*

You may need to find a new source of people to play with. It sounds like you are in conflict with the local game culture.
I wouldn't overly fret. There can often be different game cultures living on top of each other with minimal direct interaction. Perhaps it will need learning a new system perhaps not.

See if you can hunt down the local FATE groups and linked social groups that play D&D/Pathfinder and FATE. And try your luck there.

[Geddy2112]

Some people can't get out of the tropes of a genre. Bards must be spoony, all barbarians are Conan, etc. Some people also think that every thing must be tweaked minmaxed and optimized regardless. Particularly in a vacuum, where it is assumed a character will be put up against the most difficult challenges imaginable.

However, not everyone is like this, and it just seems that you are up against a lot of people who are. Some are slow to come around, and some don't want it any other way. None of that is wrong, just differences of opinion and ways of playing the game.

As far as your particular examples
-Codespeak has language in the spell that says the writing becomes gibberish afterward and implies that it is not a language that could be learned or taught. There is nothing wrong with creative uses of a spell, but there is a fine line between creative use and breaking a spell/game mechanics. This varies greatly from DM to DM.
-A 16 INT barbarian works perfectly fine, although might not be totally optimized. Dr. Bruce Banner would be a good example of a smart barbarian, but you play pathfinder so there are other ways to do this concept mechanically better like ragechemist, smart skald, what have you. It is slightly different, but by no means bizarre. I don't understand how it would be a problem unless the group is really hardcore minmaxing powergamers.
-Again, you could homebrew this but there are enough bard archetypes in pathfinder(like magician) that it has already been done. Homebrew is good when it adds things that don't exist in the game or makes it run better, but adding more options does not do as much. Likewise, a lot of DM's and groups are scared of homebrew as being too powerful(or sometimes, too weak).

[Deophaun]

Some examples of each might be helpful. I play Pathfinder, if it matters.

Stretch a spell effect: the spell Codespeak grants a magic language to several people for a short time, and they can write text in this language. Couldn't I write a dictionary for this language, then when the spell wears off, learn the language and have my own secret code to teach to others?
You could. Theoretically. Over many castings. And you'd have to do more than just a dictionary. The grammar is likely totally alien, and I wouldn't hold out too much hope on the thing using a phonetic alphabet.

Of course, in 3.5 you'd use Decipher Script to create your code and call it a day. In Pathfinder, you'd just learn Protean or something else no one ever bothers with.

It's not enough to have a trick, there must also be a "why?" What problem is this solving? It doesn't remove any of the work of learning a language, or protect your language from discovery (magic still works fine to unscramble it). In the end, it's just a curiosity.

A homebrew idea: a hybrid class between Bard and Wizard. I was thinking of calling it "Magician" or "Stage Magician" or something like that. All about stylistic effects based on the things real-life performers do.
There is a class like this. It's called "Bard." If you don't want to waste anything singing and dancing, there's even the Beguiler. There is literally no reason to homebrew this.

Everywhere I go, ideas like these and more get laughed at and dismissed, immediately, decisively, by everyone.
As your examples are solutions in search of problems, I understand why. And "Barbarian with 16 Int" isn't a concept. It's a class with a stat. What is the Barbarian using that 16 Int for? Roy Greenhilt is a high-Int fighter, it's not that he has Intelligence that marks his character, but how he uses it.

[Knaight]

Homebrew is a largely accepted part of D&D culture, but for the rest of this it sounds like a game mismatch. You're playing a very thoroughly codified system, which attracts people who like a thoroughly codified system; you appear to like the idea of operating within a looser framework. There are tons of games that have said looser framework.

[oxybe]

Some examples of each might be helpful. I play Pathfinder, if it matters.

Stretch a spell effect: the spell Codespeak grants a magic language to several people for a short time, and they can write text in this language. Couldn't I write a dictionary for this language, then when the spell wears off, learn the language and have my own secret code to teach to others?

An unusual character concept: a barbarian with 16 INT. In Pathfinder, creative use of archetypes can produce a fairly effective combatant of this kind. There's one that weakens your Rage, but allows you to act patiently and intelligently even while raging.

A homebrew idea: a hybrid class between Bard and Wizard. I was thinking of calling it "Magician" or "Stage Magician" or something like that. All about stylistic effects based on the things real-life performers do.

Everywhere I go, ideas like these and more get laughed at and dismissed, immediately, decisively, by everyone. At first I thought it was because my ideas were too green, too newbishly conceived, but the longer I play, the more I feel like they're shutting them down without consideration.

It feels like everyone has been playing so long, it's physically impossible to impress them, and that any effort to do so is just begging for punishment.

Codespeak: think of it like just raw jibberish; It's magic so there doesn't necessarily need to be rhyme or reason behind the grammar, sentence structure or alphabet, so a dictionary wouldn't work. Plus there are already skills that can cover stuff like secret codes.

Unusual concepts: If I, as Sol Fightman the leader of an adventuring company, sees two people offering to take up the spot of my now dead former teammate, I'll pick the one in the lineup of potential teammates that seems most reliable in a pinch. Adventuring is dangerous work where you each must rely on each other. Quirky and unreliable does not a good teammate make.

It's the reason the 3.5 frenzied barb is usually denied a spot at many parties: they're the apex of the barbarian archetype, with better rages and powerattacks, but a liability that may try to kill the party when they take damage. Unless they can prove they've got that under control, then no. denied.

If you're going to make a 16int "barbarian" character but he lacks what you're looking for in a barbarian: strength, rages, tankness, etc... then you're probably better off focusing on those other talents and introducing yourself as something other then a "lesser" version of a pre-existing class. What does your character's skillset bring to the party that it doesn't already have or need/could really use?

Bardizard : mechanics are how the character interacts with the gameworld. it's the feedback the player gets that lets them make in-character choices that seem plausible... so what are the mechanics of a bard/wizard "stage magician"-type hybrid that would make it stand out when compared to a single class bard or wizard focusing on illusion or enchantment subschools? What does this class do that a smokestick, a thunderstone and a stylized silent image in the shape of the party's logo/company banner while you saunter in through the smoke doesn't cover?

Being creative is fine, but know where to put your energy. Look to see if the tools already exist and if not, tweak existing stuff or make it from scatch if there isn't anything of the like.

[Deophaun]

S-Codespeak has language in the spell that says the writing becomes gibberish afterward and implies that it is not a language that could be learned or taught.

Codespeak: think of it like just raw jibberish; It's magic so there doesn't necessarily need to be rhyme or reason behind the grammar, sentence structure or alphabet, so a dictionary wouldn't work. Plus there are already skills that can cover stuff like secret codes.
Both of these are wrong:

A dedicated codebreaker can crack such writing’s code, deciphering it one page at a time with a series of DC 30 Linguistics checks.
In order for mundane methods of codebreaking to work, there must be a logic to it, which rules out gibberish. It is a language.

[Knaight]

In order for mundane methods of codebreaking to work, there must be a logic to it, which rules out gibberish. It is a language.

It's a language that's been encrypted - that doesn't mean it can't be cracked, just that a dictionary is probably woefully inadequate to do so. I'd be inclined to allow development of an encryption algorithm, to the tune of a series of DC 40 Linguistics checks. On the other hand, I don't GM D&D, which just gets back to how different RPGs have different cultures around them.

[Sajiri]

I would suggest a new group, a new system, or both. If you are playing with a group that just wants to kill things, then maybe they simply dont care for creativity if they view it as resulting in something not as strong. On the other hand, D&D is rather strict. You might want to play something that allows more roleplay, or just play a game where the encounters might be less about combat strength which allows you to branch out more. Or introduce more homebrew rules if everyone's up for it.

My group used to play with 3.5, then with pathfinder, but we made up our own homebrew system in the end that we use in modified forms for all our games now, specifically because D&D was too rigid and we wanted more creativity.

[Deophaun]

It's a language that's been encrypted
Nothing says that. And if you want to know what a DC 30 Linguistics check gets you in Pathfinder:

You can decipher writing in an unfamiliar language or a message written in an incomplete or archaic form. The base DC is 20 for the simplest messages, 25 for standard texts, and 30 or higher for intricate, exotic, or very old writing.
PF Linguistics is not actually 3.5 Decipher Script; it doesn't let you break ciphers right out of the box.

that doesn't mean it can't be cracked, just that a dictionary is probably woefully inadequate to do so.
Indeed. If I tossed you a Japanese dictionary and told you get onto translating, and you have had no experience with the language, you would still be totally lost. However, that doesn't make Japanese an encrypted language.

[Honest Tiefling]

Stretch a spell effect: the spell Codespeak grants a magic language to several people for a short time, and they can write text in this language. Couldn't I write a dictionary for this language, then when the spell wears off, learn the language and have my own secret code to teach to others?

I think this one got shot down because it's making a spell more powered then intended, in a system where casters rule anyway. If you had ANY rogue-types with Sense Motive or Bluff, I could easily see how this doesn't step on toes but squashes the entire foot. Also letting casters get away with changing how ONE spell works can lead to utter disaster...


An unusual character concept: a barbarian with 16 INT. In Pathfinder, creative use of archetypes can produce a fairly effective combatant of this kind. There's one that weakens your Rage, but allows you to act patiently and intelligently even while raging.

This one might have been miscommunication. Your group may have been trying to stop you from making an under-optimized character that would have impeded the fun of the table. Many a time I have seen people be asked not to do this because the character would no longer be able to function, and many times I have seen people stick to awful optimization and whine about how under powered you are.

It might have gotten a bad reaction because making characters like this is a common form of trolling, so they might have assumed something about you. Not saying they should have, but it could have happened.


A homebrew idea: a hybrid class between Bard and Wizard. I was thinking of calling it "Magician" or "Stage Magician" or something like that. All about stylistic effects based on the things real-life performers do.

Did the group allow homebrew? Most tables I am a part of don't allow it at all due to balance and setting concerns. If it wasn't allowed, trying to talk about it at the table can be interpreted as trying to get it approved despite it being against the rules. The concept might have been met with some resistance due to the fact that real-life performers might have seemed too modern or out of place for the setting.


Everywhere I go, ideas like these and more get laughed at and dismissed, immediately, decisively, by everyone. At first I thought it was because my ideas were too green, too newbishly conceived, but the longer I play, the more I feel like they're shutting them down without consideration.

It feels like everyone has been playing so long, it's physically impossible to impress them, and that any effort to do so is just begging for punishment.

...Why impress anybody? People can be RPing for decades and be horrifically bad or creepy about it. Newbies can be awesome at roleplaying. If you feel the need to impress people, maybe you either have the wrong group or the wrong approach. Maybe people felt that the need to impress with your 'creativity' reminded them of THAT GUY who insists that 'true roleplayers' only do things their way and PELOR HIMSELF FORBID anyone take max strength and power attack and that they need to be shown what 'real roleplaying, not rollplaying!' is like. Is there a chance you just rubbed people the wrong way, even if you aren't That Guy?

[Thrudd]

RE: Bringing your own homebrew class to a D&D game as a player -
You should not have high hopes that many DMs will accept it. Definitely ask - but remember the DM usually has a setting and a type of campaign in mind, and what sorts of characters will be available for players is closely integrated with these things.

Co-creating the setting before the game is a thing that sometimes happens, but by no means should this be expected as the norm. Unless the DM tells you that this is happening, you can assume it isn't.

If you want to design your own setting with lots of creative homebrew things in it, then you'd be better of being the DM - that's not really a thing players get to do in most games like D&D.

If you are unhappy with the rulings of a DM regarding things which happen beyond the scope of the rules - like the magical spell language thing - you'd be best addressing your concerns to them. Ask them why they said "no" to something, maybe it's a good reason. Or maybe you can convince them that they ought to say "yes" more often. Ultimately, if you don't like someone's DM style or the setting they are using, you can always DM your own game. That's the only way to make sure everything is exactly the way you like it.

[Zombimode]

Ultimately, if you don't like someone's DM style or the setting they are using, you can always DM your own game. That's the only way to make sure everything is exactly the way you like it.

And it is a way of really testing your creative mettle.

[Lord Raziere]

Homebrew is a largely accepted part of D&D culture, but for the rest of this it sounds like a game mismatch. You're playing a very thoroughly codified system, which attracts people who like a thoroughly codified system; you appear to like the idea of operating within a looser framework. There are tons of games that have said looser framework.

Yeah Dnd/Pathfinder is pretty much a solved system as far as people here are concerned. thats why I don't play it, unless the game allows for a character concept I want to play. Its better to have a bunch of character concepts you want to play and finding the right system and game for those concepts than to be forced into characters you don't want to play because of a system thats not fit for ones you do.

[Twizzly513]

I like the idea of the magician. I know what you're getting at when you say it.

But anytime you want to homebrew something and say "it's a combination of [insert existing game feature] and [insert similar existing game feature]," in this case the bard and wizard arcane spellcasting classes, you need to avoid making that the core concept. I've had players tell me they wanted a barbarian-fighter homebrew class called a gladiator or something. I told them this: It'll just be a fighter or barbarian, just with different features. Many people see your magician idea as that: a newbie who wants to combine two classes because they think it's cool. I'm not saying you are, that's just probably how a lot of people see it. Like many have said already, people don't want just more options. That said, I think the Magician is an interesting idea that could be very cool.

To better flesh out the idea of the magician, think about how they operate in combat (the most mechanic-heavy part of the game). What sets the Magician apart from the wizard or bard in how they fight other than a combination of the two? What spells are unique to the Magician that set it apart? When they "perform," what does it do that a bard or illusionist wizard couldn't already? What features mark the magician as its own class? Does it have tricks? What is it's spellcasting ability? Secondary ability?

Here's another big question: What are its subclasses?

Every base class to the best of my knowledge has subclasses. (I believe it is in 3.5, I know it is in 5th) What are distinct variations of the way the Magician could fight that could be built upon mechanically.

From my own idea of the magician, it seems to me like it might be more like a subclass in and of itself. Possibly a bard subclass focused more heavily on illusion, maybe some tricks it could use as an ability.

I'm not sure what exactly you had in mind, but I hope I've been helpful! :smallsmile:

[Honest Tiefling]

Here's another big question: What are its subclasses?

Every base class to the best of my knowledge has subclasses. (I believe it is in 3.5, I know it is in 5th) What are distinct variations of the way the Magician could fight that could be built upon mechanically.

In 3.5, subclasses are actually a supplemental thing, from substitution levels/UA variants/prestige classes. Core doesn't have them, unless you count domains but they don't come with as many features in 5e, so while some are better for different builds, they aren't as distinct.

[Darth Ultron]

I'm seeing a pattern in D&D, and Pathfinder, and pretty much every tabletop community I go to. Once I start to understand the rules of play, I try to do something creative with it - .

This has been a big issue for the last decade or so: The Uncreative By-the-Book Zelots. They are a mix of older games that like 3x/Pathfinders ''rules for everything, that everyone even that DM guy must use'' and the newer, often video gamers that think the rules are all mighty(like the rules of a video game).

The good news is that they are fading away and/or not playing any more. A lot of them were ''fad gamers'' and just played it as it was ''new''.

Though most groups and many DM's don't like ''player'' homebrew.....it's like D&D wiki stuff, at best.

Also bending an effect to do something can be cool....but making something be something it's not is not cool...there is a thin line here.

[Cluedrew]

Creativity is like a raw resource, it is useless on its own, it takes refinement, judgement and more than a little bit of elbow grease to make it work anything. Now maybe you should have been given the opertunity to refine these ideas a bit more (I think the intelligent rager has potential beyond its initial humor, but need a lot more than just "high INT barbarian" to reach that) but at this point, they don't have it.

To Darth Ultron: Do you really allow your players to use world-shaking or genre-pushing ideas in game? You have always struck me as being more interested in perfecting the path rather than wild exploration.

[Mechalich]

Overall, I'd echo everyone who mentioned that, if you want to be particularly creative in a game, you need to GM. The comparison is basically between actors and a director in a stage production. Yes the actors can display creativity in how they choose to interpret a role, and they can get a lot out of it, but they are ultimately playing a role and you can only push the boundaries so far. The director, by contrast, can pitch almost anything they want, with the only constraint being that they have to get the actors to buy into it.

[Darth Ultron]

To Darth Ultron: Do you really allow your players to use world-shaking or genre-pushing ideas in game? You have always struck me as being more interested in perfecting the path rather than wild exploration.

I do like creative players.

But not the exploit players that just find creative ways to do more damage or something like that.

And I really don't like the thing where everyone agreed to play in ''Ancient Ireland''and jerk player Bob, who agreed, brings a ninja.

[antipodeF]

RE: "You've probably just had a few bad experiences locally, not everywhere is like that," I've seen this pattern in the local games in my hometown in Maine, the local games in College Station, Texas, and every single online community I've spent any time in. I haven't spent much time here in GiantITP, but I'd bet dollars to donuts it's the same as everywhere else. Why wouldn't it be?

Feel free to take that as an insult and hate me. Everyone else does.

RE: "I have something to say about one of those three concepts you outlined," I don't care. I've learned my lesson; talking about my ideas is a one-way ticket to a world of pain. They were examples, since the first poster responded to my vagueness as "You just want everyone to play the way you want to play." Which is true to a degree, I suppose. It's true to a degree with all people, except total paragons of Chaos.


I would suggest a new group, a new system, or both. If you are playing with a group that just wants to kill things, then maybe they simply dont care for creativity if they view it as resulting in something not as strong. On the other hand, D&D is rather strict. You might want to play something that allows more roleplay, or just play a game where the encounters might be less about combat strength which allows you to branch out more. Or introduce more homebrew rules if everyone's up for it.

My group used to play with 3.5, then with pathfinder, but we made up our own homebrew system in the end that we use in modified forms for all our games now, specifically because D&D was too rigid and we wanted more creativity.

I LOVE Pathfinder, as a system. I love the amount of freedom there is in character creation. I love that through the use of archetypes, I was able to make a Barbarian concept with 16 INT who uses it in combat, (not pictured here. You want details? They exist, but I refuse to show them. See above.) I've played with other systems, but ultimately, the people do not change, and the rules do. The rules of Pathfinder are what I like.

I want to make this clear: I've played with dozens of groups by now, and almost all of them have been awful in some way or another. I consider myself a fairly tolerant person, and I tried to keep an open mind, but there was always something far too terrible to just shrug off. I have found one group that is fun - a 5e group, so I can't use any of my Pathfinder concepts. 5e is much more restrictive then Pathfinder - but no space where I can talk about, just, stuff, you know? I get shut down by people, like, say, the people who've responded to my ideas here. No inquiries, no requesting further information, just "You have presented an overly simple concept which has no meat to it." The veterans of these games are not curious, at all, about anything. They treat the game like a business. If it does not increase damage output, it is not worth consideration and should be thrown away immediately.


...Why impress anybody?
I crave validation in all things. It's unhealthy, I know, but I can't help it. When I have an idea, I want to talk about it, but my options are to talk to someone who has no idea what Pathfinder is, or to talk to people who are physically incapable of validating anybody.

[Knaight]

I LOVE Pathfinder, as a system. I love the amount of freedom there is in character creation. I love that through the use of archetypes, I was able to make a Barbarian concept with 16 INT who uses it in combat, (not pictured here. You want details? They exist, but I refuse to show them. See above.) I've played with other systems, but ultimately, the people do not change, and the rules do. The rules of Pathfinder are what I like.

The same people will often play differently with different systems, and that effect is overshadowed by how different systems attract different crowds in the first place. What you describe as the norm in dozens of groups with one exception I've seen only a rare few times, with the norm supported by dozens of groups being favoring creative rules interactions and the like.

[Excession]

Feel free to take that as an insult and hate me. Everyone else does.

I don't hate you, and I don't like that you say everyone does.


RE: "I have something to say about one of those three concepts you outlined," I don't care. I've learned my lesson; talking about my ideas is a one-way ticket to a world of pain. They were examples, since the first poster responded to my vagueness as "You just want everyone to play the way you want to play." Which is true to a degree, I suppose. It's true to a degree with all people, except total paragons of Chaos.

It's much easier to talk about specific examples than generalities. Unfortunately, that means it's easier for us to look at the examples rather than the bigger problem. Also, this forum tends to lean toward "honest critique" rather than hollow praise. The acronym PEACH (please evaluate and critique honestly) is almost assumed, even outside the homebrew forums.


You want details? They exist, but I refuse to show them.
<snip>
I get shut down by people ... No inquiries, no requesting further information.

I'm confused by this, sorry.

In terms of GMs shutting down creativity, I can understand why. Running a game is a lot of work. It can combine everything from hosting a party, telling a story, a lot of maths, through to herding cats just to get everyone to turn up on time. Sometimes, a new creative idea just looks like more work for the GM. Is this class balanced? What advantage does this creative spell use give? Is the player trying to abuse the rules? Will this character just annoy me, and does it fit the setting? Is this using a new subsystem, book, or other that I now need to learn? Especially if coming from someone I didn't trust, such as a new player in a group, it's easier to just shut it down rather than engage.

Edit: I was thinking about the Magician Bard idea. It could make for a fun character. I normally play 4e, so I wouldn't think a new class is needed, just take a regular Wizard, Bard, or Wizard|Bard hybrid, choose the right spells, and re-fluff them. There is even a RAW magic item that is both a deck of cards and a wizard's spellbook. Admittedly, that's the 4e Deck of Many Things, but I'd allow refluffing a normal spellbook as a deck of cards.

[RazorChain]

There is no use speaking gamespeake to outsiders, they won't get it. These boards are outlets for lot of us that want to discuss games and gaming. I also talk to my gaming friends, they can relate.


As for your list of ideas, I don't see anything wrong with them but they don't sound fantastic either. If somebody in my group says "I'm going to play an intelligent barbarian" then I'll respond "Cool, bro". If said person wants to explain his character concept I'll listen patiently and show interest because we are buddies that I can discuss gaming and character concepts with.

Using a Codespeak spell to make a new language and teaching your friends is just as time consuming as inventing your own language and teaching your friends so go for it I guess.

Making a stage magician class is probably fun...but I don't play class systems so I don't need to confine myself to class restriction, I can easily make a stage magician in my preferred system if I want to.....buuuut isn't bard kind of a stage magician already....take a few illusion spells, sleight of hand, public speaking/entertain skill and your good to go? (or whatever, havent really played since 2nd ed. and there you gracefully got some useless proficiency slots that were mostly useless)

But I understand your pain if you are playing with a group that values efficiency in combat above everything, then this is definitely a play style clash.

If you crave validation in all things then that might be your biggest problem, could be a sign of low self esteem, as I'm not a professional the only advice I can give on these forums is to seek professional help.

[Koo Rehtorb]

When people agree to play a game they're agreeing to play that game, not someone's creative interpretation of something that looks kind of like that game.

If you want people to agree to you making changes, then get to know them first. It's absolutely not worth the effort to audit some random guy's house rules. It's much more worth the effort if you first prove that you're an enjoyable person to play with and you actually know what you're talking about. I am much more willing to accommodate a close friend's efforts to tweak the game than some random stranger's. Particularly if that close friend has proven over time that they know what they're doing.

[icefractal]

I don't care. I've learned my lesson; talking about my ideas is a one-way ticket to a world of pain. They were examples, since the first poster responded to my vagueness as "You just want everyone to play the way you want to play."
...
(not pictured here. You want details? They exist, but I refuse to show them. See above.)
...
I get shut down by people, like, say, the people who've responded to my ideas here. No inquiries, no requesting further information, just "You have presented an overly simple concept which has no meat to it." The veterans of these games are not curious, at all, about anything.Ok, but ... what is there really to talk about then?

You want people to just say everything you ever homebrew is great, sight unseen? Sorry, that's not likely. Not all homebrew is good! I'm not saying there's anything wrong with yours - I wouldn't know, I haven't seen it. But that's the point: the only kind of opinion general enough to say without seeing any details is the "Published material only, final destination" viewpoint, and so if you don't give the details I'm not surprised that's the reception you're getting.

[antipodeF]

Looking back, I don't really know what I've been trying to accomplish here. I've just been whining and throwing complaints around with no intent to solve problems or move forward in any regard.

I'll keep looking for a group where I feel at home, I guess. Sorry to waste everyone's time. Let this topic die, forget I was ever here.

[AceOfFools]

Look at it from their perspective. Being "creative" when it comes to reading rules is that is EXACTLY what rules lawyers do to get unfair advantages. It is the very definition of the term.

People in those communities have tons of bad experience with rules lawyers. Once they see you trying to do so they're going to prejudge everything you do through the lense of "this guy is going to try to bend the rules for unfair advantages" and have a knee-jerk reaction of "you can't do that, play by the actual rules."

Unfair or not, its pretty understandable.
There are a lot of people in the hobby who try to be creative with rules to enhance their enjoyment at the expense of others. It's a serious problem that has ruined many games.

Now my experience with organized play is that people do enjoy creativity, but not arguing about rules. They love creative role-playing (provided it doesn't create unecessary conflict). People talk for years about the evoker who described every spell as being rainbow colored, or how the elves in the party decided they like the fey-blood sorcerer so much they are going to consider him an honorary elf, or the halfling paladin who believes he was already the king of the whole world, and paladin-ing was just part of his kingly duties, or the emo cleric of the sun god...

But each of those characters fulfilled their party roles by the normal reading of the rules.

[BWR]

Frankly I have a problem with players who continually want to alter the rules to suit themselves. Plenty of games (most?) can get perfectly enjoyable characters by doing nothing outside the rules. You don't need to alter the rules to be creative. One thing I like about L5R is how you are mechanically and setting-wise encouraged to play stereotypes; it doesn't result in boring characters because a creative and interesting character is in the personality and how it is played.

[thamolas]

Looking back, I don't really know what I've been trying to accomplish here. I've just been whining and throwing complaints around with no intent to solve problems or move forward in any regard.

I'll keep looking for a group where I feel at home, I guess. Sorry to waste everyone's time. Let this topic die, forget I was ever here.

Have you tried skill-based games as opposed to level-based games? Level-based games almost always invite bad behavior and poor play. It's in the design. I have found, time after time, that the best roleplayers and most fun, creative people tend to veer toward skill-based games.

[Max_Killjoy]

Part of the problem here is that with any class-based system, most characters need to be changed to fit into one of the pigeon-holes, or you need to come up with yet another class that fits the actual character.

And in most splat-based systems, "splat spam" is used to fill page count in new books, and drive sales, leading players to view creating splats as part of the game.

[sktarq]

Firstly.

Creativity is fine but how it is presented and what you do with it is a skill in and of itself.
As a DM I wouldn't have allowed any of examples as presented. I would think they could be built with stuff already published with good creative fluff. And that stuff has been playtested and run though more thoroughly than I could do at the time. That codespeak has duration and other logistic issues. An Int 16 barbarian is not a concept-how it impacts the character is something that would have to be talked about. And for your magician. Perform (stagemagic) for your bardic performance instead of music, the use of a beguiler, Monte Cook shadow mage, of a Dragon Compendium various of a demon linked mage which all have good chassis for your concept.
One of the things about creativity in TTRPG's is taking a crush frame (class, race, etc) and reskinning it in terms of fluff to create a new idea in terms of gameplay but without the need to mass with the RAW.

Secondly

You should try other game systems. . . again like FATE or possibly Exalted from your comments

Third
We don't hate you but using that as defensive mechanism is quick way to make everyone back off and allow to create your own self fulfilling prophecy

[Deaxsa]

We don't hate you but using that as defensive mechanism is quick way to make everyone back off and allow to create your own self fulfilling prophecy

Logged in to second this. Look how many thought out replies you're getting by people who are respecting your topic (if occasionally regarding it with confusion), and notice how none of them are being rude. Its not an echo chamber, and we're certainly not all friends here, but both of those are not bad things.

[scalyfreak]

Feel free to take that as an insult and hate me. Everyone else does.

...

I crave validation in all things. It's unhealthy, I know, but I can't help it. When I have an idea, I want to talk about it, but my options are to talk to someone who has no idea what Pathfinder is, or to talk to people who are physically incapable of validating anybody.

A lot pf people in this thread gave you validation. They addressed your ideas respectfully and made suggestions. If you didn't see any of that, either unintentionally or by choice, and only noticed detractors and hate, I strongly recommend you take a long close look at why you did that.

If you walk into a conversation with the attitude that "I know you'll hate my idea and hate me" that's exactly what's going to happen. Every single time. Stop doing that to yourself.

[Clistenes]

Trying something new is a hit and miss thing... You may think that a game about space cowboys would be cool, and some people may think it sucks.

The thing with standard fantasy is, many people have grown being exposed to it, and they have learned to enjoy it. If you use it, you have your work done for you.

If you try something new, you have to teach them about it, and then you have to convince them that it's interesting, and then you have to wait for them to get used to it, and then, maybe, they may like it...

Have you tried cooperative worldbuilding? Trying to find what they find cool, what comics and movies they like and what elements from them they would like to get integrated into the game, and then developing the world together. It would help a lot, but be warned, if they get invested into it and you get them to really contribute, be ready for chairs to fly across the room if you overule and remove or change something without warning...

[GPS]

Question for OP, just curious. Is the title an actual quote, or were you attempting some sort of strawman argument in the title to set the tone for the post?

[Knaight]

The thing with standard fantasy is, many people have grown being exposed to it, and they have learned to enjoy it. If you use it, you have your work done for you.
On the other hand, lots of people are burnt out on it and willing to try all sorts of bizarre stuff as long as they don't have to deal with yet more elves and orcs.

[Mutazoia]

A DM homebrewing something for his game is one thing.
A Player homebrewing someting for someone elses game, with out consulting that person, is an elephant of a different color.

Everything you have listed so far (with the exception of the Int 16 Barbarian) are things that can alter game balance, if not though through very carefully (in respects to how it could possibly be used and/or interact with rules already in play), or, in the case if your "Magician", redundant.

But let's go back to the first two sentences....

Donny DM goes through a lot of time and sweat to creat a campaign, coming up with all sorts of details and situations. Then along comes Petey Player, who starts throwing out random "ideas" to changes/modify all that work, simply because "wouldn't it be neat-oh if".

Now, I can't speak for anybody else, but if a new player to my group did that..I wouldn't be very receptive either. Not just because it's a minor F.U. to the DM, but because all of the extra work a DM now has to do to make sure your "idea" isn't OP as hell, or conflicts with an existing rule, or is just a re-wording of somthing that already exists somewhere else with the possible consiquence of having all the benefits, but none of the draw backs (read OP) of the original thing, and then find a way to work all of this new content seamlessly into his/her campaign.

And letting YOU do this, opens the flood gates for every other player to try to homebrew his/her own stuff, because "he did it, why can't I?". And then the entire campaign de-rails while everybody is off being a Rules Tinker Gnome (TM).

[Darth Ultron]

Donny DM goes through a lot of time and sweat to creat a campaign, coming up with all sorts of details and situations. Then along comes Petey Player, who starts throwing out random "ideas" to changes/modify all that work, simply because "wouldn't it be neat-oh if".

Now, I can't speak for anybody else, but if a new player to my group did that..I wouldn't be very receptive either.

I would not be receptive either. And not just to a ''new player'', but any player.

[Cluedrew]

The solution to that problem is simple: Ask for random ideas before you create the campaign.

We have great success with that strategy in my gaming group. Last time "the new kid" actually just spun out most of the setting for the group. We ended up playing in a warmer (climate change) northern setting. It was lots of fun, and saved the GM the work of doing it. Of course, back on topic of creativity, we didn't just take it as is. People went around, added ideas and adjusted details to make it work better. And no Darth Ultron, we did not just add a million gold coins to the setting.

[Darth Ultron]

The solution to that problem is simple: Ask for random ideas before you create the campaign.


This is why Session 0 is often a good idea.

[Mordar]

Frankly I have a problem with players who continually want to alter the rules to suit themselves. Plenty of games (most?) can get perfectly enjoyable characters by doing nothing outside the rules. You don't need to alter the rules to be creative. One thing I like about L5R is how you are mechanically and setting-wise encouraged to play stereotypes; it doesn't result in boring characters because a creative and interesting character is in the personality and how it is played.

QFT. There are sooooo many options available already, both within and between a given class/system (Dozens of classes to choose from, and dozens of ways to play most of them = grosses of options...which is fun to say) that I think sometimes "creativity" in the manner of adding spell effects or enhancing abilities via homebrew is more an effort to gain additional power or perhaps skirt work. The Barbarian Int16 thing, on the other hand, is more of a wrinkle.

That being said, I'm a little surprised by the volume of people that dislike the "rigidity" of playing by a common set of rules. I totally get the idea of an established group of players working together to develop new wrinkles/rules for games once they have played together for a while, and absolutely understand the idea of houserules for a specific game/setting...but the idea of wontonly (:smallwink:) re-writing rules on a seat-of-the-pants basis? Would the people that support such free development be equally amenable to showing up to league night and making everyone use a new bowling score methodology*, or turning softball into Calvinball, or shuffling around the rank order of hands in poker?

What makes this game more acceptable to "homebrew" than that game? Is there a logic, or are the fans of game changing fans of game changing across all games to meet their (including the potential plural) wants?

- M

[TheFamilarRaven]

I'll keep looking for a group where I feel at home, I guess. Sorry to waste everyone's time. Let this topic die, forget I was ever here.


Nah, this thread will probably go on for a few pages before dying, if I know this forum. Even if you're not reading....

Now, you might think I'm another one of those people just trying to shut you down. Thats fine. You can think whatever. But I don't think it's your creativity that bothers people. Its the execution and presentation of your ideas that raise eyebrows.

Take your use of Codespeak to write a dictionary. No rule prevents you from doing this, (but there are certain limitation to consider that are written into the spell). But you're literally creating a whole language. You can't reasonably expect to do that, then declare that you have learned a new coded form of communication and that anyone who studies your new book can learn it too (without spending a point in Linguistics). That would be a clear violation of the rules of Pathfinder. The only time you could reasonably allow this to work is with written messages, in which both parties have time to reference the dictionary and the message. If this was your intention, then yeah your GM was being silly for not allowing this and you should feel vindicated. However, on the other hand this form of communication doesn't need an entire dictionary, nor does this need the spell Codespeak to create it.

If you want to create a code language that everyone in your party can share, there are numerous ways to do this. The simplest being that everyone spend one point in Linguistics to learn the new language (because speaking in complex code is treated as a language).

However, if all you want is a few words that mean simple things like "Attack", "Help" etc... This also doesn't need a book or spell to be viable. Simply work it out in character that "Blargle" means "Oh god I'm going to die, please save me!"

In this case, I don't feel as though you're being creative, just overcomplicated. Harsh I know. But I'm willing to hear a counter argument to any of my points

Second, with the barbarian. How can any of us know if you're being creative if all we see is "Barbarian with 16 INT". I mean, this could be a viable build. Especially if you go with the Urban Barbarian archetype with high dex and perhaps later go into Duelist. But we don't know because you've refused to share any of the details.

Also, for many of these so called "veterans" you speak of. We're not impressed by the concept of a barbarian with 16 INT, because for those among us who have played for quite awhile, we do not see classes as defining a character (with perhaps a few exceptions, like Paladin), rather we see them as a chassis for which to construct what makes the character special. So when making a character, it's the difference between "I wanna play a barbarian who is smart" and "I wanna play a character that is very intelligent, but often finds that his/her rage consumes his/her thoughts". The former begins with the notion that you HAVE to be a barbarian, the later comes to the conclusion that barbarian might help realize the character concept the best.

As far as your homebrew class is concerned. Did you at any point ask yourself if you can make it with the existing rules? Pathfinder has a lot of archetypes that can fit the mold you're going for. The only time it is necessary to construct a whole class is for when there is really a character concept that cannot be realized with the existing ruleset. And even if you don't find what you're looking for, this entire forum or other websites might be able to give you some pointers..

To sum up. No one in the hobby balks at creativity. I've played with many memorable characters. They typically begin with a sentence or two like "I wanna play a kobold with a Napoleon complex. He's 2'1", and he's very proud of that extra inch." not, "I wanna play a kobold rogue with the vexing dodger archetype. He's got a DEX of 18". I've seen Drow played as disney wizards, some Mexican mariachis, sarcastic archers and a whole gambit of other characters that didn't rely on the class and novel distribution of stats to tell me who they were.

I've seen abilities used in unorthodox ways. Like a low level Psionic power to create and mold ectoplasm to pry open a nigh air tight door, stone shape to create safe passages underneath enemy crowd control spells and earth elementals to safely scout ahead. So don't tell me people in this hobby are uncreative. We just expect creativeness to be clean (not overcomplicated), and kosher with the rules of the game.

[CharonsHelper]

I've seen abilities used in unorthodox ways. Like a low level Psionic power to create and mold ectoplasm to pry open a nigh air tight door, stone shape to create safe passages underneath enemy crowd control spells and earth elementals to safely scout ahead. So don't tell me people in this hobby are uncreative. We just expect creativeness to be clean (not overcomplicated), and kosher with the rules of the game.

I'll +1 this.

When someone comes up with another homebrew class/idea which seems very similar to what's already allowed within the rules, my first two thoughts are that it's likely ill balanced and/or they just want to be a special snowflake, adding complexity to no real benefit.

I'll usually take a gander at it anyway, but those are my initial assumptions.

Uncharitable? Probably. But my experience says that it's usually true.

[Knaight]

That being said, I'm a little surprised by the volume of people that dislike the "rigidity" of playing by a common set of rules. I totally get the idea of an established group of players working together to develop new wrinkles/rules for games once they have played together for a while, and absolutely understand the idea of houserules for a specific game/setting...but the idea of wontonly (:smallwink:) re-writing rules on a seat-of-the-pants basis? Would the people that support such free development be equally amenable to showing up to league night and making everyone use a new bowling score methodology*, or turning softball into Calvinball, or shuffling around the rank order of hands in poker?

What makes this game more acceptable to "homebrew" than that game? Is there a logic, or are the fans of game changing fans of game changing across all games to meet their (including the potential plural) wants?

The thing with bowling, and softball, and poker, is that all of them are games where you're fundamentally interacting within the mechanics of the game at all time. That's the core engagement. In RPGs the core engagement is more often about playing a character interacting with the setting, and the mechanics are there to support that. It puts it in the realm of mechanics as simulation, and that's a place where they're routinely altered. Videogames are modded, and then of course there's scientific and engineering models, which are roughly analogous to mechanics but in a serious setting. Those are refined all the time.

[Mordar]

The thing with bowling, and softball, and poker, is that all of them are games where you're fundamentally interacting within the mechanics of the game at all time. That's the core engagement. In RPGs the core engagement is more often about playing a character interacting with the setting, and the mechanics are there to support that. It puts it in the realm of mechanics as simulation, and that's a place where they're routinely altered. Videogames are modded, and then of course there's scientific and engineering models, which are roughly analogous to mechanics but in a serious setting. Those are refined all the time.

I think I understand what you're getting at...but :smallbiggrin:

In baseball (or softball) I am a player interacting with my setting via gameplay...conditions change base on the count, base occupancy, opponent positioning, opponent skill, score, inning, weather, ground rules and a host of other factors. I'm attempting to hit the ball (dragon) with my bat (sword) through the right side of the infield (to threaten the flank) to advance the runners (so my rogue can get a flanking bonus and backstab) and eventually plate the winning run (setting it up so the fireball finishes it off). The mechanics support my interaction with the setting and determine what is allowable. In some cases the mechanics/static rules determine those things, but in others they are based on impressions, experience, perception and chance. I am also a player socially interacting with my setting via teammates, opponents, umpires, spectators in a non-mechanical fashion (in addition to the mechanical fashion of interaction that is gameplay). Talking to the coach/manager (king) about what we'll need to do about this particular pitcher (horde of goblin raiders) is not determined by the mechanics, but is informed by them.

Homebrewing or modding that has been discussed in this thread (IMO) is modifying gameplay interaction. You used the S-word as a form of play where gameplay is routinely altered. That is similar to practice when teams freely modify rules and create artificial situations that are linked to regulation gameplay. That also applies (in my analogy) to playing pick-up games or BP games where you modify rules to account for number of players, time frame, etc. But when it comes to league play, everyone plays by the standard rules.

To me, that is an element of expectation. Rules are present and standardized. They should be expected to be followed as the default. But, in cases where you are in a special condition (in RPG terms, a one-off, or a long standing group of players familiar with each other), create new rules and classes and change spells if they enhance the experience.

But be aware that there is a long history of people looking for the IWIN button, and you should build up some group-game-credit before trying to modify the rules, and look at your mods in the harshest light possible before bringing them to the group.

- M

[Knaight]

To me, that is an element of expectation. Rules are present and standardized. They should be expected to be followed as the default. But, in cases where you are in a special condition (in RPG terms, a one-off, or a long standing group of players familiar with each other), create new rules and classes and change spells if they enhance the experience.

I'd argue some of this (starting with how a group of players all familiar with each other is arguably the default and not a special condition), but a broader point is that this varies highly between the cultures attached to different games. With D&D, or GURPS, or HERO, or Rolemaster, or really most high crunch systems this is the assumption. In lighter systems it routinely isn't. I mostly GM and play Fudge*, and it explicitly doesn't use the standard-variant setup, instead having multiple places where there are essentially a bunch of variants posited with something to the effect of "pick one or write your own"** written somewhere. Nobody with a clue is going into a Fudge game expecting standardized rules.

*Where the GM:Play ratio is something like 35:1.
**It's probably a paragraph or three, as Stephan O'Sullivan isn't great at being concise, but that's the result.

[Mordar]

I'd argue some of this (starting with how a group of players all familiar with each other is arguably the default and not a special condition), but a broader point is that this varies highly between the cultures attached to different games. With D&D, or GURPS, or HERO, or Rolemaster, or really most high crunch systems this is the assumption. In lighter systems it routinely isn't. I mostly GM and play Fudge*, and it explicitly doesn't use the standard-variant setup, instead having multiple places where there are essentially a bunch of variants posited with something to the effect of "pick one or write your own"** written somewhere. Nobody with a clue is going into a Fudge game expecting standardized rules.

*Where the GM:Play ratio is something like 35:1.
**It's probably a paragraph or three, as Stephan O'Sullivan isn't great at being concise, but that's the result.

Once upon a time I'd certainly agree/expect that the "standard" group is the home-game you describe. I honestly don't know what the distribution would be like these days with the alternate venues and formats so broadly available.

I do certainly agree with your point on variability among games...but we wouldn't you agree that Pathfinder/DnD and other highly standardized/crunch systems have the lion's share of the market and, plausibly, the lion's share of the game play? I mean, there are recreational adult dodge-ball leagues...but they are the small minority compared to soccer and softball (or in my case, baseball).

- M

[Knaight]

I do certainly agree with your point on variability among games...but we wouldn't you agree that Pathfinder/DnD and other highly standardized/crunch systems have the lion's share of the market and, plausibly, the lion's share of the game play? I mean, there are recreational adult dodge-ball leagues...but they are the small minority compared to soccer and softball (or in my case, baseball).

Oh, absolutely. However, we're in a bit of a self selected group here - everyone here is sufficiently deep into the hobby to be posting on an RPG forum. Within that select group the margin is much smaller, and if we're talking about RPGs more broadly it's worth actually talking about RPGs more broadly.

[Mutazoia]

This thread should be combined with the thread about "Selfish DM's" lol Both seem to be addressing the same issue from only a slightly different angle.

[Mr Beer]

I want to make this clear: I've played with dozens of groups by now, and almost all of them have been awful in some way or another. I consider myself a fairly tolerant person, and I tried to keep an open mind, but there was always something far too terrible to just shrug off.

Either you are the problem or everyone else, if it's literally dozens of groups and they're all awful...statistically speaking, it's you.

[Darth Ultron]

Either you are the problem or everyone else, if it's literally dozens of groups and they're all awful...statistically speaking, it's you.

Not always though.

For example: Back in the 3X glory days I would go to the mall to DM random pick up games. It normally was something like 30 players to one DM, so there were all ways lots of players sitting around wanting to game.

And there was a point where every single player (under 25 or so) was insanely obsessed with things they ''had'' to have in the game to ''play and have fun''. And this was the Tri-sult Tome of Battle/Magic of Incarnium with wacky interpreted d20 rules from random books(the one I recall the most was the ''Dragonlance moon magic...but they wanted the 'moon' to always be active'').

So this was a couple hundred gamers that could ''only'' game that way. So that left DM's like me out as I would never run that sort of game.

So is the problem that I did not jump on the table and go ''wow, what an awesome way to play..pew, pew, pew'' or is the problem all the players were just...um..misguided and crazy?

[Joe the Rat]

I think it's more an issue that the OP is late to the game.

All those alt core classes and hybrids and archetypes and traits and non-core feats that let you tweak nine ways to Sunday? Somebody created them. All that third party stuff which is allowed in a lot of play? Somebody created it, and got it published. You see a niche that is not covered, and can find a creative way to make it insteresting and contribute to the game, bang it around. "I have this idea I am developing, and would like to test it" will fly with some groups. Playtest credits have an appeal (as do editing credits, btw).

16 Int barbarian? let's see... tons of skill proficiency, access to all the fun tricks on the Combat Expertise chain (so you can use your Rage powers on other things), the trait that lets you swap one Charisma skill to Intelligence... sounds kinda fun. Erudite and violent, Monocle optional. The catch is that a 16 is expensive. You're going to suffer on points to cover your primary roles. "Smart Barbarian" works - but you have to find the balance. If there's something you want to do with it, and can make it work, rock on.

[weckar]

Considering threads such as "101 Atypical..." in this very forum, I think your premise is flawed.

[Florian]

Hm... If I remember correctly, I actually saw the thread about the "Stage Magician" over in the 3E/PF section of the forums.
If I´m correct and it was by the same person, sorry to say it, then I actually do understand why a group would dismiss such "creative" ideas right from the start.
I´m all in for good fluff and descriptions, but it´ll bore me to tears fast having a "Faux Magician" do real spells with "stage tricks" and jabber about how I should imagine it. Yeah, you pulled that bunny from your top hat. It´s SNA, I get it. Can we get on or do you want to explain this every time again?

[Mutazoia]

Not always though.

For example: Back in the 3X glory days I would go to the mall to DM random pick up games. It normally was something like 30 players to one DM, so there were all ways lots of players sitting around wanting to game.

And there was a point where every single player (under 25 or so) was insanely obsessed with things they ''had'' to have in the game to ''play and have fun''. And this was the Tri-sult Tome of Battle/Magic of Incarnium with wacky interpreted d20 rules from random books(the one I recall the most was the ''Dragonlance moon magic...but they wanted the 'moon' to always be active'').

So this was a couple hundred gamers that could ''only'' game that way. So that left DM's like me out as I would never run that sort of game.

So is the problem that I did not jump on the table and go ''wow, what an awesome way to play..pew, pew, pew'' or is the problem all the players were just...um..misguided and crazy?

Eh.

In your example, though, your not going into an established group that's been running a regular game, your PUGing a one shot in a room of munchkins. The OP gives off the impression that he joins a group, hangs around for a week or to (just long enough to learn the rules), then wants to start shoehorning his own hombrew class or super secret, none more secret language, or what have you, into an established game in progress. No GM worth his salt is going to let a relative new player do anything of the sort. If you want to play a homebrew class...wait till the next campaign and talk to the GM before things get started. Don't barf it onto the gaming table mid session and then get upset when the GM say nix.

[2D8HP]

Not always though.

For example: Back in the 3X glory days I would go to the mall to DM...


Oh, by Vecna's diaper rash, I would grind my teeth away to little nubs if I had to DM such a crew!

[neonchameleon]

I'm going to be blunt and start off by saying Pathfinder is not the game that does anything you want. Drop Pathfinder and work out why other games do what they do.


Some examples of each might be helpful. I play Pathfinder, if it matters.

Stretch a spell effect: the spell Codespeak grants a magic language to several people for a short time, and they can write text in this language. Couldn't I write a dictionary for this language, then when the spell wears off, learn the language and have my own secret code to teach to others?

Pathfinder is not the game you want. In Pathfinder there are literally hundreds of spells, all with tightly defined mechanical abilities - and each of these special abilities is an extra ability for the casters but not the non-casters. This means that standard for Pathfinder is always construe against spellcasters and for non-casters.

In the case of Codespeak you are making huge assumptions about the code when you think you could write a dictionary for it. Your use of codespeak works if your code is as basic as a Caesar Cipher (https://learncryptography.com/classical-encryption/caesar-cipher) (moving the letters all along by a fixed number so if it was 3 you'd go A -> D, B -> E, C -> F... Z -> B). But there are far more complex codes.

If for example you had a modified Caesar Cypher using the numbers 63792, so you broke the message into blocks of five letters and the first letter was shifted six places, the second three, the third seven, the fourth nine, and the fifth two (and you started over with the sixth letter at six) then any given word could potentially be encrypted five different ways depending on what the first letter was. And that would make a dictionary challenging. But a cryptographer could, with time and patience, crack that.

In short not all codes work at all the way you want them to. And you are fighting the design and balance assumptions of Pathfinder to try to get a free ability. That's not something I consider especially creative to be honest.


An unusual character concept: a barbarian with 16 INT. In Pathfinder, creative use of archetypes can produce a fairly effective combatant of this kind. There's one that weakens your Rage, but allows you to act patiently and intelligently even while raging.

I have literally played this character ... in 4e. This is because in 4e I could by default use Int rather than Dex for AC and so was playing a Barbarian who was also the tribe's shaman complete with the Ritual Caster feat. (And in "civilised" climates because he had an unarmoured archetype he wore Wizard's Robes and carried a greatspear that could be mistaken for a staff much to the (brief) distress of enemies who tried getting into melee with the party "wizard".)

I would not, however, play such a character in Pathfinder - Pathfinder has a clear power curve and the abilities you put into Int mean that you didn't put them into Dex (for AC and Reflex Save) or Str (for hitting power) so you are making your character significantly less effective than you should be; the grand total I gave up was two points of initiative. I make offbeat characters but the first rule of making offbeat characters is to make sure that they can carry their weight and the rest of the party doesn't have to carry them.


A homebrew idea: a hybrid class between Bard and Wizard. I was thinking of calling it "Magician" or "Stage Magician" or something like that. All about stylistic effects based on the things real-life performers do.

Again I've done something very like this in D&D 3.5. I nicknamed the character the "Son of a Preacher Man" - a travelling conman/evangelist who thought he was entirely non-magical. I'd been careful with the selection of my spells so my character could dismiss them all as fast talking, non-magic, or coincidences. But this character was a straight down the line bard who was in the end conning himself as much as anyone else.

The difference is that in this case the character was inspired by the rules and the setting. I did not ask for special provision to play the character (I'll need to know you pretty well when I DM before I let you play a homebrew class, and the players I trust most this way are unlikely to want homebrew classes).

So both these characters I did within the rules, with the support of the rules, didn't start out by claiming them to be creative, and wasn't asking for special treatment. I wasn't talking about how creative I was - those were just the characters I wanted to play at the time.


I LOVE Pathfinder, as a system. I love the amount of freedom there is in character creation.

Personally I find it a restrictive mess. And the key thing about Pathfinder character creation is that you have freedom if and only if you are not terribly worried about effectiveness. Class tiers dominate and saying "you have a lot of freedom" feels to me like saying you have a lot of freedom to design a racing car - if you choose to ignore the rules of aerodynamics and put the wheels on sideways.


I want to make this clear: I've played with dozens of groups by now, and almost all of them have been awful in some way or another.

I've played with about a dozen groups and a grand total of two have been awful. In both cases they were comprised of a hall-of-shame GMs and players who were happy with that.


The veterans of these games are not curious, at all, about anything. They treat the game like a business. If it does not increase damage output, it is not worth consideration and should be thrown away immediately.

That approach is going to win you a lot of friends...


I crave validation in all things. It's unhealthy, I know, but I can't help it. When I have an idea, I want to talk about it, but my options are to talk to someone who has no idea what Pathfinder is, or to talk to people who are physically incapable of validating anybody.

Seriously, Pathfinder is close to a solved game and from what you've written you're potholing down some very well known blind paths.

If you want validation for creating things, look for a game that wasn't created eight years ago as minor tweaks from a very popular 14 year old game - or make it right to the top and advance things. That said I've picked up a fair amount of validation for my Summoner guide and breaking the system apart that way.

I find far more mechanical interest in e.g. Apocalypse World or that family of games. And far more fun designing for them.

[Mr Beer]

Not always though.

For example: Back in the 3X glory days I would go to the mall to DM random pick up games. It normally was something like 30 players to one DM, so there were all ways lots of players sitting around wanting to game.

And there was a point where every single player (under 25 or so) was insanely obsessed with things they ''had'' to have in the game to ''play and have fun''. And this was the Tri-sult Tome of Battle/Magic of Incarnium with wacky interpreted d20 rules from random books(the one I recall the most was the ''Dragonlance moon magic...but they wanted the 'moon' to always be active'').

So this was a couple hundred gamers that could ''only'' game that way. So that left DM's like me out as I would never run that sort of game.

So is the problem that I did not jump on the table and go ''wow, what an awesome way to play..pew, pew, pew'' or is the problem all the players were just...um..misguided and crazy?

Leaving aside the possibility that there may have been faults on both sides, you were interacting with one giant group of mall munchkins.

I don't believe that every one of a sample of dozens of RPG groups are all awful. My own anecdotal experience is of one outright awful group, some mediocre, some OK, a few good.

[Darth Ultron]

Leaving aside the possibility that there may have been faults on both sides, you were interacting with one giant group of mall munchkins.

I don't believe that every one of a sample of dozens of RPG groups are all awful. My own anecdotal experience is of one outright awful group, some mediocre, some OK, a few good.

Well, of course it was not ''all'' groups. My group was gaming at the mall and was not like the mall munchkins. But it does not ''represent most gamers in the state'', it's not like the way ''wacky option polls'' do it (Like they ask 200 students something and then apply the results world wide). After all very few ''mall gamers'' outside the Keep (Wizards long lost fantasy store) interacted with other gamers.

And it was, only the D&D type groups. You did not get that sort of crazy stuff from most other games.

[MrStabby]

For what it's worth when I DM there are a few things I look for when someone tries to be creative/abusive. I tend to DM D&D 5th ed, but much of this may carry over.

1) Is it crossing the line to another spell? You want to use a scorching ray to crack the crystal through thermal shock? Probably not - you have the shatter spell for that. There is a cost to not having every spell and prioritisation should be a meaningful choice.

2) Is the spell mimicking a higher level spell? Spell effects are designed for a certain level of power at a certain tier of play. Allowing some players/classes to break these assumptions can be dangerous. Firebolt + oil to mimic fireball might work as it is more than just a spell but using a generic cold attack to try and freeze water to make a bridge when there are higher level spells that do that is right out.

3) Is it stepping on the toes of another class? If you don't invest resources in it a wizard wont be a great melee combatant. You can't be as good a melee fighter as the fighter by arguing that you can conjure up a super weapon of doom or a druid can summon a snake to use as a club with extra poison damage. I give a bit more space if that other class isn't actually played at the table.

I think these are pretty much my main rules. If the effect is roughly level appropriate, it represents an investment/sacrifice of your character and something you gave up something else important for and as long as it isn't letting the character do something that they couldn't do that is the domain of another player I would allow it.

[Mr Beer]

Well, of course it was not ''all'' groups.

I know that's not your experience, I was referring back to where I started, which was me expressing my scepticism with OP's claim that every one of dozens of RPG groups were all awful. Sorry I didn't make that clearer.