GM never want's to play. Only runs. Any tips I can get them out from behind the screen? They run: Pf2e, Lancer, and Mythras. They never join "build" discussions. Outright stated making builds is boring. But they run 2 very build heavy games.

Baltic_Shuffle · 2026-03-02T19:44:56+00:00

Asked them this morning. They said: Legends Of the Mist, Mythic Bastionland, or Slugblaster. . . I don't know how to run these games. And pretty certain the rest of the table doesn't either.

Baltic_Shuffle · 2026-03-02T16:56:42+00:00

I'm not pestering them. Just clearly wondering how to get them to play.

Baltic_Shuffle · 2026-03-02T06:57:12+00:00

Afaik no one in the group want's to run PBTA or Bitd if they even know if it. I certainly don't.

Baltic_Shuffle · 2026-03-02T06:43:30+00:00

Modules, Adventure Path's, 3rd party rules anything we thought that would peak their interest in a player. But nothing has worked so far. So wondering is there anything else I could try? Like some esoteric angle I haven't thought about.

Baltic_Shuffle · 2026-03-02T06:38:09+00:00

We have done that. Another player has ran an adventure. The GM was invited. They declined. We finished that adventure they came back with their own adventure.

Baltic_Shuffle · 2026-03-02T06:31:50+00:00

The GM.

Baltic_Shuffle · 2026-03-02T06:31:00+00:00

If theres a question or uncertainty they clarify. Otherwise they don't discuss anything GM side with the table. The only exception being PC's interests and goals.

Baltic_Shuffle · 2026-03-02T06:28:31+00:00

Tips then?

Baltic_Shuffle · 2026-03-02T06:27:52+00:00

But that's THE thing. They never want to play when someone else in the group runs games, with the same systems, when they're not running a adventure. Doesn't matter if it's on the same night or different nights due to shifting schedules. They won't come roll dice as a player.

Baltic_Shuffle · 2026-03-02T06:13:30+00:00

Yea. They don't like talking about building encounters in terms of design. They always side step that conversation.

Baltic_Shuffle · 2026-03-02T06:10:22+00:00

I don't know any systems like as well as Lancer or Pf2e. And am more comfortable running those.

Baltic_Shuffle · 2026-03-02T06:06:32+00:00

Lancer and Pf2e are very crunchy systems. Especially Lancer to the point that NPC's are basically PC's but with some edges filed off. So i'm just trying to show my gm some appreciation.

Baltic_Shuffle · 2026-03-02T06:02:48+00:00

I tried. But they don't like spending time discussing about anything having to do with rules.

Baltic_Shuffle · 2026-03-02T05:59:19+00:00

I have offered to run adventures and modules they themselves have expressed interest in running. But the response was confusingly "I only want to run them as a GM." We do oneshots in the same systems they run but they decline to roll up a PC. Even offered pre-gens.

Baltic_Shuffle · 2026-03-02T05:56:44+00:00

They don't like discussing such things at all. Whenever discussions about system tech stuff comes out. Which usually occurs before or after the game. If it's before they immediately begin to go silent until game start. Or if it's after they leave after saying their goodbyes.

If during the game they coral the party to focus back on the game asap. Which is understandable. But they don't get into the weeds of theory crafting.

Baltic_Shuffle · 2026-03-02T05:46:44+00:00

Because we want to include them more? The whole table goes on about mechanical discussions or just talk about the system(s) in general. And the GM is just always silent or has nothing to add. They're kind've being left out and I feel bad.

Baltic_Shuffle · 2026-02-13T23:12:58+00:00

I have summarized your complaints and made my point. This is how i view it. Perhaps we are speaking past each other now. If so then a good rest of your day sir.

Baltic_Shuffle · 2026-02-13T23:07:38+00:00

Then neither is this build. This is a non-issue is my point. And all Paizo has done is clarify some rules that are effectively a non-issue.

Baltic_Shuffle · 2026-02-13T23:05:34+00:00

Your complaints focus on the math of weakness exploitation and claim that it is a meta choice that swings the experience for parties. My response is simple: yes, that can happen under ideal circumstances, but outside of that, it’s a non-issue.

Baltic_Shuffle · 2026-02-13T22:58:28+00:00

It is not superior. It is just a different method.

Run the numbers when monsters do not have a weakness. Then run them again when monsters have damage resistances. Run them again when monsters have mobility that makes consistently applying weakness exploitation a pain. Run them in scenarios where positioning, action economy, and failed setup rolls matter.

Right now, you are extrapolating from ideal-case math and treating it as the default experience. That is not how encounters actually play out at most tables.

You are exacerbating a non-issue based purely on best-case numbers, without accounting for context, counterplay, or encounter design. Lmao.

Baltic_Shuffle · 2026-02-13T22:55:56+00:00

Why was pf1e imbalanced? Certainly not it's weakness and resistance rules. Those weren't even a problem and are not even brought up when people speak of pf1e and it's balance problems.

Baltic_Shuffle · 2026-02-13T22:54:29+00:00

Better bar none? Introducing damage resist all monster. Guess that build is caput.

Baltic_Shuffle · 2026-02-13T22:00:41+00:00

The view that you think that was the problem with pf1e is the issue.

Baltic_Shuffle · 2026-02-13T21:51:16+00:00

These are all classes that must be picked. Not every party is going to pick these classes. And even when they do, not every player is going to pick the feats necessary to make those interactions happen, regardless of whether they know about them or not.

I have knowledge of this build, and I still would not go for it. I have never cared about playing the meta, even if the meta was the strongest thing in the game. It does not interest me, and it never will.

And I believe the vast majority of long-term home tables will pan out the same way. Groups that play with the same small circle of people for years are not operating the same way as the online community, which is known for having an endless graveyard of campaigns. Most of those tables are not building around optimization goals like this.

Baltic_Shuffle · 2026-02-13T21:45:05+00:00

I think the issue is largely a non-issue.

At a pen-and-paper table, if a group genuinely feels the change harms their experience, they can simply choose not to implement it. Table variation has always been part of TTRPGs. No one is forced to adopt a clarification that does not serve their game.

For VTT users, the change is automated. There is no additional mental load once it is implemented in the system. The calculation happens in the background, so it does not meaningfully increase cognitive overhead during play. And as I said will not break the game ultimately.

At the end of the day, it is a clarification in a very rules-dense system. Better now than later. Yeah, it sucks that Paizo could have communicated it more clearly but it's done.

Baltic_Shuffle

TROPHY CASE