Search Posts
I will be relocating to the Roanoke-Salem, Virginia area in early August, and I figured I'd go ahead and put a line out to see if there are any gamers or game designers interested in collaborating in that area. I've recently returned to D&D after many years. When I last played, I was using the 2e rules, but this year I've familiarized myself with 3.5 and the PFRPG Beta, and am looking forward to the official release of PFRPG later this year. My main interest is in game design, then GM'ing/DM'ing, and then playing. Since I'm a novice with the 3.whatever rules, I'm actually a little more interested in playing than usual, so that I can get some experience with the system. Anyone out there?
I'm having some difficulty coming up with a feasible and coherent plot for this one, and I'm wondering if anyone out there would like to brainstorm with me. I realize that ideas can be valuable, but anyone else who is having difficulty with this scenario is invited to post half-formed ideas and comment on my own half-formed ideas. This is spoilered to protect the eyes of the innocent, who may not want to know generalities about scenarios--but if so, what are you doing looking at this thread anyway?! :P Spoiler:
I'm finding it particularly difficult to reconcile the "political intrigue" noted in the brief blurb about 27 with the tomb-raiding and artifact-getting goals of the Pathfinder Society. The obvious solution seems to be that there is an ancient artifact floating around in the Qadiran city, and different merchant lords are plotting against each other to possess this valuable item. Next, I assume that the PCs, as Pathfinders, have been dispatched into this mess of intrigue to find and spirit away the artifact for the Pathfinder Society. Alternatively, I am envisioning a more standard, "Oh, look! They've discovered ancient ruins near [Qadiran city]! Pathfinders dispatch, and loot!" Again, the PCs would be competing against the minions of the merchant lords to recover the artifact. Again alternatively, I've thought of "Our Lady of Silver" being the adventure location itself--perhaps a lost temple--recently discovered, and the PCs arrive to explore, map, and report about this place. With this particular scenario, the "political intrigue" aspect becomes more of a stretch--although certainly still doable. Part of me wants to lean towards developing this because I think it is a more original idea than the others. Any thoughts? Anyone else willing to share their ideas, or discarded ideas? Thanks in advance!
The whole Gaza/Israel thread (not even going to attempt to type Ahdamenajed's name--oops, there it is--as I have no idea how to spell it), brings to mind for me the differences between polytheism and monotheism. It has been jokingly asked in that thread, "Can't we all just get along?" Also suggested in that thread is that both sides in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict are in the wrong. I do tend to agree with this, although my responses in that thread might lead people to believe otherwise. To me it seems that the religious ideology of both sides is a large part of the problem. The hardcore Jews are often disparaged as Zionists while the fanatical Muslims are disparaged as Jihadists. Both terms are probably inaccurate in many cases, but where they do hit the mark, the individuals or groups that they apply to seem to me to have a very black-and-white, uncompromising, hierarchical view of society fueled by a deep monotheistic religious conviction. What I am saying is that "Zionists" believe that the Holy Land was given to them by their G-d and that they have the sacred right to defend it at all costs, and "Jihadists" believe that Allah has charged them with religious expansion and also given them the Holy Land. Given this, the perpetual conflict comes as no surprise. I find it impossible to envision these two (or any) hard-line monotheistic societies taking the "live and let live," "can't we all just get along?" approach. Adamant monotheists not only believe that they have a divine mandate supporting their existence, but they take it to a level that denies any other faith legitimacy. So we have the idea that "the Arabs want to push Israel into the sea," and the equally hard-line approach of Israel aggressively staking out its claim to the Holy Land. Seems like the only workable solution is to have multiple Holy Lands. Which is exactly what a polytheistic, "animistic," or "pagan" approach to the world does. Every place is sacred and imbued with divinity. Nature is everywhere alive. Through the virtue of being alive, nature is respected and approached in the spirit of relationship, not aggression. This approach can and should also be extended to other groups of people, other cultures. I don't know. This is just a note about the viability and sanity of polytheism as opposed to the centuries of conflict that is the legacy of any brand of monotheism. Flame away!
Do monsters always have to be nasty just because they're monsters? Might gnolls be feral, wild, and clannish, yet sensible beings? Is there such a thing as a benign orc society? Is there any place in the multiverse of OGL games where goblins and humans live side-by-side? Why not? I've downloaded the Classic Monsters Revisited for Pathfinder Chronicles. It's excellent for what it is, which is an anthropology of wicked humanoid monsters. The goblins crack me up! Hobgoblin society is interesting, and gnolls are downright scary. I want to really like the gnolls, actually. I want them to be less misogynistic. Gnoll society would be really cool if aspects like their beneficence to their ecosystems, their shamanistic ways, and their culture of priestesses and mother-worship were slanted in a different way. As it is, the women are b%~!*es (yes, I understand this is a canine reference) and the men are unforgiving, lazy brutes. Of course a player character will be motivated to strike them down. Maybe I am looking for something different in my gaming sessions than most. I don't get a lot of joy out of ferocious combat and smiting the monsters. I want to explore worlds ripe with variety and culture. Sure, an orc NPC could be a savage beast, but humans can be savage beasts, too. Elves should be capable of being just as nasty as their drow counterparts, I think. Dwarves are greedy, foul-tempered, and violent, yet they are enshrined as heroes in the game. I am interested in worlds where lawful evil dwarven societies, obsessed with riches and manipulating material resources, clash with lawful evil human societies, which are also obsessed with riches and manipulating material resources, and maybe even enslaving the dwarves for their excellent crafting abilities, their strength and their constitutions. And I want the gnolls out there living in the wild fringes to be resisting this insanity, looking on at the insane behavior of those civlized monsters with disbelief and fear. Sure, the elves and halflings and gnomes are out there too, and they are prejudiced against the gnolls and goblins, perhaps, but also concerned about the raging appetites and wars of the humans and dwarves. If things got real bad, maybe the gnolls and elves would get together with a society of druids to guard their wild homelands against the encroaching greed of the civilized world. Does this type of atmosphere appeal to anyone else? I'm just a little tired of the classic good guys vs. bad monsters scenarios, even if it is handled with new in-depth descriptions. Much, much more interesting things can be done with this game than the trope of the hordes of savage humanoids who can't be reasoned with. Of course, taking that basic axiom from the game might seem like a killing blow. But I think this game can be about much more than fighting and torching stuff with magic. Surely I'm not the only one.
Anyone else here like to hearken back to the days of ZORK and take it to the interactive level with MUDS? I've recently been playing Iron Realms Entertainment's Achaea and also started a character on their Imperian game. I think I like the latter better than Achaea. I've played lots of the graphical MMOs, but I never hang in there more than a couple of months. I've had better luck with MUDs. There used to be a very innovative RP-focus MUD called Eternal Struggle. I miss that game, kind of.
Alright, this is a long shot. Anyone reading this board in the Pull-Mo area? I'm interested in either attracting some players for a 2e AD&D campaign or joining a 3/3.5e/Pathfinder campaign as a slow learner. I mean quick learner. Yeah. Um... but as a learner. Teach me the ways of 3.5. If anyone's out there. In this rinky-dink snowstormed double university town. No powergamers, though.
Okay, here's my deal. I grew up chewing on polyhedron dice, infected by the D&D and AD&D bug. I played a lot and designed more, but for some reason quit playing (now why did I do that?). I am familiar with the 2e rules, but not 3e, 3.5, and definitely not 4--and from what I am reading on the net, I don't want to get into 4e at all. I downloaded the Pathfinder PDFs to get a grasp on the 3e mechanics. I haven't gotten through them yet, but think I understand the basics okay. But to me it all feels like a different game and somewhat counter-intuitive. Since I'm used to 1e and 2e rules, AC seems kinda backwards, and these DC things seem like more work than anything in 2e. There just seem to be a lot more game mechanics in general. Anyhow, I do have a question. While reading the Pathfinder beta rules, I've come across phrases like "take 10" or "take 20" in regard to DCs. What does this mean, to "take (#)"? My best guess is that it means that the character or NPC uses 10 or 20 as their DC, but sometimes it seems to refer to a modifier or to an oppositional DC... so I'm confused about it. Any friendly enlightenment would be much welcomed. And also... anyone here have a fondness for the old editions? :D |