BPorter's page

My answer was “no, not worried” before reading this thread. After having read it to this point, that opinion has only been reinforced.

1. Paizo makes some of the best, if not the best, RPG products – period. Their business model is very successful by all accounts, and nothing about the 5e announcement or its existence merits a change from that business model. With the lead-up & launch to 4e, WotC decided that they wanted to take the game in a specific, yet very different, direction than 3e had taken. All well and good. However, I have not purchased a single WotC product in years. Meanwhile, I am subscribing to more Pathfinder lines than I ever dreamt that I would. So as long as customers like me continue to like what Paizo is doing and vote with our wallet, Paizo would be stupid to change their business model. They’re not stupid. Will 5e sales eat into Paizo sales to some degree? I’m sure it will, but it doesn’t appear that WotC’s business model is going to mirror Paizo’s, so you won’t likely see huge attrition.

2. For all the claims that PF is “just a 3.x clone”, Paizo has built upon that OGL framework to make its own game. The innovations introduced by books like the APG and Ultimate books have gone in markedly different directions than WotC splats did. I liked Pathfinder when it was first released. I now love the flexibility and customization Pathfinder affords me. Hands down, my go-to FRPG.

3. Paizo already develops to the fans that prefer the Pathfinder RPG & the 3.x heritage. They also cater to the adventure path, module, & detailed setting crowd. They now have fiction & miniature lines. WotC, in trying to “unify” the fan base, is trying to find a middle-ground to appeal to all D&D players. I think they can do well at that, but unless it out-Pathfinderizes Pathfinder (across all the product lines to boot…), I have NO incentive to change.

When I factor in the compelling arguments made in this thread, however…

WotC has a bunch of settings to mine – yet a multitude of settings helped kill TSR and 4e setting support was a dabbler’s touch. They didn’t pick a horse and run with it, and no of them caught on to the levels of their earlier incarnations, let alone Golarion.

This “unify the customer base” thing. 5e runs the risk of falling short to the majority by trying to be all things to everyone. At least it does, if that’s the way you interpret the “unify” comments. I don’t. 5e has to be its own game. I think what WotC is trying to do is evoke a sense of previous editions while building something new. Will the something new equally satisfy 4e fans and Pathfinder fans? Possible, but unlikely.

5e must have an OGL / 5e doesn’t need an OGL – Both can’t be true. If 5e goes back to the OGL, I think Paizo feels a bit more of a pinch as every 3PP tries to jump onto the 5e bandwagon. But if the anti-OGLers are correct, 3PP product is insignificant anyway, so why would WotC bother? My odds are 60-40 against an OGL. The GSL was a joke, however, so if they do a license, I expect it to try and find a middle ground between the OGL & GSL.

The “I already have all the PF books I need / I don’t buy stuff” camp – yeah, if you’re not buying anything, you’re probably not the primary customer base that ANY company is focusing on. At best, you’re a homebrew fiend, more likely you’re a casual gamer, and at worst you’re a fickle fad-driven follower of the latest “shiny”. The only way you’re inflicting pain by going elsewhere is if you take other players (& presumably their $$$) with you – and there’s no way to measure that. Perceived net loss = negligible.

WotC doing electronic “stuff” better. Really? I mean, REALLY?!? Yes, DDI was a success (or its fans certainly think so at least). But Mr. Mearls has said that first and foremost, WotC recognizes that D&D is a tabletop RPG. Can they do better/dominate? Yes. (But c’mon, between the Character Builder snafus, the vaporware VTT, pulling the PDFs, etc. it’s not like they could really do WORSE.) I’m totally fine with HeroLab and $10 PDFs, thanks.

Interop – Yeah, not really seeing this based on everything revealed thus far and the design goals. Obviously, stuff can be adapted/converted, but you have that now with PF & 4e/3e/2e/1e, etc.

Paizo “making more $$” supporting 5e – REALLY?!?-Part 2. First off, this would require an OGL-equivalent style license – the GSL didn’t cut it last go-round. Secondly, Paizo is NOT going to put their livelihoods & futures in the hands of a license holder again unless all other options have failed them. The company didn’t know if it would survive the pulling of the Dragon & Dungeon licenses. NO WAY they’re going back to that. People wanting Paizo to throw over Pathfinder so they can get Paizo crafted content for D&D (whatever edition) are buying snowballs for a field trip to Hell and expecting to come back with all of them.

I DO expect that WotC will reclaim some “lost sheep”, but I don’t think 5e will bring D&D back to the heights of 3e’s popularity. YMMV.

I think the separate rules issue is a different topic*, however I'm curious about your view on statblocks. Have you seen the approach taken in the beginner box? I think they are comparable to 4E's efficient presentation - do you find them equally distasteful?

In the Beginner Box? Not at all. There, for that product, I think they're great. In the core RPG, I want my detailed stat blocks, thank you.

And the different rules for the monsters is what allows for those short stat blocks. Trying to separate the two is splitting hairs, IMO. I don't like the 4e monster rules or stat blocks. End of story.

What's really funny is the difference between "compatibility with the previous edition" issue in 4E and 5E development.

2007
"Will it be compatible with 3E?"
"Can I use my Duskblade?"
"What about that 300 USD worth of books I bought last week?"

2012
*crickets*
*tumbleweed*

I think that they're banking on the idea that the 4e fanbase wasn't really concerned about compatability or they wouldn't have made the switch to 4e. For those who aren't 4e fans, THEY are banking on limited/no compatability with 4e.

But I think you make an excellent point at the striking difference in attitudes this go-round.

If they went away from the 4E monster statblocks I'm thinking they aren't paying attention to thier audience. Even the most rabid 4E haters I know love the 4E monster stat blocks. If there is anything that has universal appeal they are seeking out of everything from 4th, the Monster Manual layout is probably it.

It's not universal. One of the things I hated most about 4e was the different rules for monsters & NPCs & especially the monster stat blocks. I vastly preferred the detail provided by 3.x.

Don't many of the modules take place in locations other than Varisia?

Almost all of them, in fact.

Lots of good advice in this thread. I'll throw in my 2 coppers:

Pseudo-medieval doesn't require serfs as the only farmers. You had free farmers as well, this is where much of the yeomanry came from. Free farmers generally had larger plots of land, which brings me to the next point...

If this is going to be a base of operations, make sure there is sufficient room for growth. I'm not suggesting they go from farm to village, but I think it's likely they'll want to go from farm to villa or ranch-style setup. Perhaps the initial grant gives them the farm in question, but they may want to purchase some surrounding land to have enough room to grow & add buildings in the future.

I'd avoid the real-estate-agent route referenced earlier. Land is valued greatly even today, and it's only the wealth of modern societies that enables enough property to be bought and sold to warrant an industry devoted to its sale. With the majority of the NPC population being commoners, that doesn't really jive with the setting as written.

I'll echo the comments that the farm should not be viewed as a major revenue stream, especially when divided amongst multiple PCs. If it breaks even and can pay for the NPC hirelings, livestock, and upkeep, it's a win.

Finally, as the GM, make sure that there's enough going on in the campaign area to warrant the PCs putting down roots in the area. If not, at least set the precedent that this could be their first base of operations -- ala Skyrim's homes, so that they are attached to it but not TOO attached to it that they won't adventure outside the area.

I guess we are going to have to think one side of this discussion doesn't know what they are talking about. And I don't think it's me.

From a mechanics evaluation standpoint, people just have different opinions.

From a "right way to play" perspective... PSST. C'mere, kid. Hey buddy, between you & me I gotta tell ya, IT'S YOU.

<snip> "Everyone" <snip>

I don't think that word means what you think that it means...

Your cited MUST HAVES haven't even been a blip on the radar in the campaigns I run.

Optimization is a choice, not a requirement. In my experience, when it becomes the goal rather than a role-playing tool, bad things happen to games.

Oh, and we use 15-pt buy for Characters as well. Just thought I'd let you know before you say "everyone uses Epic pt-buy for PCs". ;)

Dungeon Grrrl wrote:

That said, more wolf-head like classes would be great, and the Hashsh’shin and Sicarii are great examples. Any chance of a Genius Guide to Western Ninja Tropes? :)

It's not impossible, certainly, but that'd be a pretty specialized target market. Anyone else just dying for rules write-up for non-Asian themed ninja?

Late to this thread, but "Yes, please!"

Thanks for the quick reply, James. I can see why Paizo has portrayed things this way from a mechanics standpoint and I can see the mythology vibes you’re trying to evoke as well. Perhaps if the Golarion afterlife consisted solely of Pharasma’s realm it’d be an easier sell for me. But lacking a common underworld, Drejk’s comments on early Earth religions doesn’t really convince me. The influence on the mortal realm bit I agree with.

As for the amnesia comparisons, they don’t really hold together for me, either. If the memory loss wipes out character levels, skills, etc. as well as memories of your life – you’re effectively (or at least potentially) a different person. Fiction loves portraying the amnesiac who is markedly different that their original self – the villain-turned-hero being a popular one. I can accept the amnesia analogy, but it seems kind of weak when taken against the whole of the Pathfinder cosmology. For those damned to Hell, it could be a scenario where – as with prisons – everyone claims to be innocent. Unfortunately for these evil souls, they could truly believe that they are innocent and be completely sincere that they aren't supposed to be there. For the machinations of devils actively corrupting mortals, wouldn’t it be more satisfying for the damned soul to truly appreciate the horror of having damned itself via an infernal contract than to have little or no recollection about how they got there?

Also, given the relative ease at which divine divination magic exists & interactions with outsiders occurs, it seems odd to me that in Golarion’s 1000s of years of recorded history, no one has really questioned what the afterlife is like or why it's better to get to Heaven versus Elysium (or the reverse). You’d think at the very least some kid would innocently ask a cleric (they’re good at those kinds of questions, especially when confronted with death for the first time). Said cleric might begin to wonder, then research the faith’s writings and teachings. If she came up empty after that, she might then ask via divination or communication with an outsider.

Finally, this is a game & setting where outsiders not only interact with mortals, they sometimes have relations with them and beget children. It apparently happens often enough that tieflings and aasimars aren’t unique creatures – yet no mortal has thought to ask “So what’s Heaven like? What’s it like getting there from Pharasma’s realm?”

I really do appreciate you answering my question. Since plane-hopping adventures aren’t my typical cup of tea, it’s not really going to impact my campaign in any great way and of course I can modify things as necessary. This has just been one topic that unlike 98% of the rest of Golarion lore, just doesn’t really hang together for me.

Thank you for the answers, though. Just another example of why Paizo rocks!

Death is a sad thing, and we chose to maintain that in Pathfinder, essentially. Dying should NOT be viewed as a "route to gain more power," which is what it would be if you retained your memories (and thus, it would stand to reason, your class levels and skills) upon dying and becoming a petitioner and then eventually becoming an outsider. Death is a transformation, in other words, and not one that the living should normally want.

That said... there ARE cases where a petitioner might retain a few memories or even all of their memories. Those are exceptions to the rule though, and should only happen VERY VERY rarely. Note: This means that if it only ever happens to the PCs, that means that it only ever happens to 4 or so characters in any one campaign... which is plenty rare.

But yeah... dying is not a happy thing.

James, if you would, help me out here. I see what you're saying from a game/mechanics perspective. (Although, one could argue that since the physical form has changed, you wouldn't necessarily get to keep class levels and such.)

However, my question is more campaign-oriented. Since Golarion lacks a "common underworld" like in Greek mythology, where does the reward/punishment angle really come into play if someone doesn't remember anything when you get to the other side? I think it would be a tough sell to convince someone to follow the straight-and-narrow of LG if when you finally get to Heaven, you don't remember anything that got you there. I.e., there's no "reward".

Similarly, it'd be pretty easy for someone to embrace evil. "So I'm going to Hell when I die. So what? It's not like I'll even remember who I was or what got me there."

If there's no memory of one's actions to be accounted for, I would think the vast majority of Golarion's inhabitants would view it as a cruel game of chance and opt for the agnostic/atheist route in hopes of getting another turn on the reincarnation wheel, and flip a big-ole-bird at the planes & gods.

Can you help describe how the various churches address such an objection? B/c in a world where the gods' existence isn't in dispute, I'd think it would have come up. Given Golarion's 1000s of years of history, I'd think it would have come up a LOT.

I think there's a big difference between a GM taking players gear out of spite or on a whim vs. as part of in-game play or as an integral part of the story. The setup for this AP is the latter, and at the beginning of a campaign, player attachment should be minimal - especially if the GM sets the stage up-front.

Frankly, when I hear "it won't sit well with this player/that player" or words to that effect, it sounds an awful lot like player-entitlement issues. I've seen it first-hand a few times and it's almost always due to a player who defines his PC by his gear or a lack of maturity (or both).

There are times when a PC shouldn't or can't have access to their gear, and candidly, cries of "you're spoiling my fun" ring hollow. For example, if the Captain of the Guard insists that no one other than the King's guardsmen may bear weapons in his presence, that's a story element, not the GM being a jerk.

A game where the PCs never fail (or don't have the chance of failure) is boring. Failure shouldn't be limited to a failed skill check (at the low extreme) or a TPK/character death (at the high extreme). Captured PCs is a valid game-trope, a genre-trope, and at certain times or with certain PCs - internally consistent & thematically appropriate. Just like being press-ganged by pirates.

Obviously, a GM can - and should - modify an adventure to tailor it to his/her campaign and players. However, if the set-up at the start of this AP is a red-flag, that suggests to me as a GM that a big red flag lies down the road with a particular player/group.

YMMV. In any case, to the OP, best of luck with the AP!

How attached to their gear can they be at Level 1, Adventure 1, Session 1?

Dotting. Cool ideas!

Dotted

Yes, they're setting up a sequel. The short clip before the credits roll gives you the tip-off.

Anyway, the movie was phenomenal! Saw it at 1:05 pm ET on 3-D Ultrascreen. My only other experience with Whedon was Serenity (I've never seen Buffy nor Firefly) and he did a damn good job with this. None of the actors got shafted in screen time; every one of the names listed on the movie marquee had their time to shine.

Ruffalo did an excellent job as Banner. Excellent enough that someone thought to sign him to a contract to do more.

And as much as FHDM may loathe to hear it: Whedon should totally direct the next Hulk. Once you've seen the film, you'll understand why.

Personally, I would like to see more of the super hero mash-ups instead of going back to their own film franchises.

I 100% support this post.

GREAT. FRAKKING. MOVIE.

I have seen many class discussions about how they compare and a lot of people don't bother comparing 18 through 20th level abilities because they feel most games don't make it that far. Should Pathfinder come out with more high level material to increase the "sweet spot"?

More material doesn't increase the sweet spot. More material can help people run high-level play.

However, for many people, at the top levels the game's focus begins to shift as the "mundane existence" of the years of play. Once you're plane-hopping with regularity, mysterious goings-on at the town down the street seem less important.

For many, they want to level and face greater challenges but don't necessarily wish to abandon the style of adventures or setting that they've been spending years playing & developing.

And no amount of additional material is really going to change that.

Hobby Store support is important. Game Stores are a labour of love, there's no money in it. Game Stores are where new Role Players are built.

With respect, this is a belief that those who have decent game stores have. While I mean no disrespect to game stores and I'm sure they "build" lots of new players, it's only one avenue.

I've been gaming for over 20 years. I've introduced somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 players to RPGs over the years (with the number growing as I recruit my kids' friends into the new generation), and have never had the luxury of a gamestore that was worth a damn be within an hour's drive of where I lived, let alone one that held game sessions.

Hobby Store support has a role, absolutely. Is it essential in the 21st century? That's very situational. If you've got a good store, support it, but GMs are what build gamers by introducing them & recruiting them to the game. Game stores are optional to that effort.

Sidenote: In much the same way, D&D no longer is necessary to be the "gateway game" anymore. The PF Beginner Box does a really good job of fulfilling that role, as evidenced by my kids thinking that it's "awesome".

I have to agree with proftobe in that it's really difficult to excise the high-fantasy aspect of Golarion/Pathfinder.

I'm a fan of "grittier" fantasy myself and I've used various systems over the years. Of late, however, I've been taking a lot of cues from the Conan RPG (which I used prior to Pathfinder) and Videogame FRPGs to hit that stride.

Conan is often considered low-magic when it really isn't. Magic is present in almost every Conan story. It is, however, feared.

If you look at videogames like the Dragon Age series & the Witcher 2, all the high-fantasy elements are there. However, the tone is similar to what you're striving to achieve. Basically, you're reducing the number of spellcasters, utilizing NPC classes & non-casters in greater numbers, and treating monsters as monsters rather than a bag of alternate races.

For mechanical tweaks, if you can find a copy or PDF, Grim Tales by Bad Axe Games has some good suggestions for modifying d20/3.5 OGL games. Many of the subsystems could be applied to Pathfinder.

With the APG, Mobile fighter & free-hand fighter are good fighter archetypes for working towards duelist. I believe the other one mentioned comes from a campaign setting supplement.

My Top 10 Fiction (aka Books):

1. Lock Lamora (Lies of Locke Lamora)
2. Hanse Shadowspawn (Thieves' World series)
3. Reiner Hetzau (Blackhearts Omnibus)
4. Drothe (Among Thieves)
5. Malden (The Ancient Blades Trilogy)
6. Arya Stark (ASoI&F)
7. The Gray Mouser
8. Gord
9. Jimmy the Hand (Riftwar Saga)
10. Silk (Belgariad)

My all-time favorite rogue, however, is Garrett of the Thief video game series.

Slow progression all the way.

I wonder how long it will be before a few opinionated and argumentative people cause this thread to completely degenerate into a pointless flame-war resulting in the thread getting locked?

You mean we're not there yet? I could've sworn I heard the clink of chains and keys headed this way...

Let me see if I can better articulate my point of view on the lack of class/race breakdowns. Doing so will require me to look at previous players guides for the various APs though

<snip>

I'm with you on 1-3. Those are the things of value to having the race/class info contained in the PGs. 4 & 5, however, take it too far into metagaming or non-essential info. Players shouldn't get a cheat sheet for adventure, IMO.

I disagree with you on the novice gm part, some adventure path's are perfect for novice gms, such as serpent's skull. it's important for beginner gms to have campaign continuity. it doesn't help you get a grasp of the rules or pacing and ambiance if you're trying to piece together a campaign with lots of smaller adventures then to have your whole campaign laid out before you, it helps with ideas for changes, the player's have a grasp of whats going on and that makes it less stressful and nerve racking. i'm thankful for adventure paths they've been a HUGE help.

I think module arcs, like the Price of Immortality trilogy, being smaller in scope are better for novice GMs. Starting out with an AP that might take a year for a GM to run and is going to go from 1st level to the teens is a tall order, IMO. I'm sure it can be done, but I bet that it fails more often than it succeeds.

If you miss the class/race breakdowns... let us know WHAT you miss from them that the new format doesn't do for you.

While they're useful, they're hardly essential (especially for pirate concepts). I'd rather see the info on the AP's homepage after the AP description than in the Players Guide.

I'd also argue that an AP may not be the best entry vehicle for a novice GM, but that's me.

I'd really prefer the players guide info be info specific to the AP that I can't find elsewhere.

How difficult will it be to run Skull & Shackles with three (3) players?

I was thinking about having them use 25 point buy as compensation. Is that going to work?

Since all APs are designed around a default baseline of 4 PCs, I wouldn't think it any different than other APs. I.e., you'll need to make some modifications, just as a GM would for a larger party. Epic point buy is going to amp PC power but it probably won't mitigate the need to modify. Higher stats won't change who can or can't cast spells, etc.

Skills based off of ability checks sounds an awful lot like Non-Weapon Proficiencies, which equates to a colossal step backwards in my book.

As long as we don't get Nano-Tony garbage, I'm ok with Extremis. I didn't like it in the comic, and let's face it, one of the coolest aspects of the Iron Man movies is the assembly factor of him getting into costume. If they take that away, I think they begin to lose the core of the character. (Which, IMO, they did in the comics...)

Very,very cool. But September? Noooooooo!!!!!!!!!

True, but it is hard to balance an encounter around the idea that someone, might use a feat to voluntarily reduce their attack bonus. I was looking at ways to keep the d20 relevant for all classes, without hoping the player's don't try to power game.

In a thread about epic content, best of luck with that. I don't envy your chances,however.

That too, sounds cool. As said, the prospect of hiring assassins is difficult to the point of impossible due to travel.

It's not impossible, just expensive.

Hiring from an assassin's guild -- drop enough coin to have their agents in multiple ports of call.

Then, of course, there's magical detection and tracking.

The thing that further lowers the odds, however, is whether or not your GM will go along with it...

Actual play update:

Armor as DR: played out as I feared. Best Armor as DR systems remain Conan RPG (#1) & Iron Heroes (#2).

Called shots: a keeper. Good risk vs. reward mechanic and allows for a greater level of specificity when desired w/o undoing the standard system.

Piecemeal armor: hasn't really been used yet. I still have concerns about broken combos but I view that as largely equal to other GM rulings on other gear, esp. magic items.

Wounds & Vigor: dropped after 2 sessions. Greatly increased combat length with little-to-no game benefit. Just isn't worth the effort.

In summary, the section that was the primary reason for purchasing the book underwhelmed big-time. It clearly suffered from limited playtesting and limited implementation/wordcount.

There's still plenty to love about this book, but the weakness of the Variant Rule chapter does much to undermine the Ultimate Combat title.

And another vote for a sequel!

f-ing board ate my post.

The Price of Immortality Trilogy's 1st 2 installments are set in Nirmathas. The 2nd is set in the capital city. The 1st is set in a village in Nirmathas.

also, see:
http://www.pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Nirmathas

I'm a die-hard Green Lantern comic book fan and I'm enjoying the rivalry between Sinestro and Hal Jordan and I have been waiting for Johns and Crew to explain their origin and connection to Abin Sur.

Without further diliberations, Previews here and here will make there way to the comic stores in a week or two.

I have my suspicions about the Indigo tribe, but I do not want to spoil it.

While I love the revitalized Green Lantern books, the long-overdue return of Hal Jordan, and the forces of the color spectrum angle, I loathe the new 52. I particularly, HATE, the attempt to make Sinestro a simpathetic here/anti-hero, particularly after the wanton slaughter he brought about in forming the Sinestro Corps.

Sinestro is a villain. Period. Ilike multi-dimensional villains, but I have the same reflexive gag reflex every time Marvel tries to paint Magneto as a hero, too.

Am I the only person who feels that this side project has eclipsed the much-hyped and cross-promoted Dragon Empires in popularity? I mean, Distant Worlds is in Amazon top 20 RPG books, I can't recall a Paizo softcover hanging around there with big boys such as PF hardcovers and 4E stuff.

I really hope this does spark some creative flames at Paizo, because this is one of the best sourcebooks I've read of late.

No, and my "must have factor" was through the roof when it was announced vs. the "might be cool to get for reference" of Dragon Empires. Multiply that by a re-read of my Planet Stories: "The Swordsman of Mars", a viewing of "John Carter", and with "Princess of Mars" waiting in the queue, and it went through the roof!

I'd be totally down with a Distant Worlds AP! (Heck, I'd even allow firearms & Gunslingers!)

If Paizo bought D&D, I highly doubt I'd buy any of it. I've been pretty unimpressed with everything that's come out since the APG.

I hope 5e is successful enough that Paizo feels compelled to at least provide conversion guides for the APs. (though if the system is easy enough to use, I wouldn't even need them)

If 5e doesn't take the market back from Paizo, I think I'll either write my own 'Fantasy D20', or quit gaming.

Well, that was a compelling sales pitch.

Best wishes on your new Fantasy D20 game (or retirement), though!

Just got back from seeing it with my son. We both loved it.

Now I have a copy of Princess of Mars on my bookshelf which I'll be reading here soon. I wanted to see the movie first. I fully anticipate that the super-jumps will be greatly toned down compared to the movie but just as with comic book movie adaptations, I can understand differences between original source material and big-screen adaptations.

I thought the special effects were well done and the actors did a great job.

Also, on a tangent, the actress in the movie wouldn't make a bad Wonder Woman, either. It was my son who pointed it out to me when I expressed that she was Mom's kind of heroine to which he said "Yeah, and she looked like a Martian Wonder Woman".

Jim Groves wrote:

Urath DM wrote:

Right, well, that was kind of my point.

I know it was. I wrote it specifically to agree with you. Go back and read the very first sentence of my reply. :D

Me wrote:

That's a great point.

I was referring to you, Urath DM. You.

:: looks confused :: But you quoted someone else at the start of the post, as if replying to them.

In that case, it does make BPorter's thanks a bit amusing. :)

I was replying to the content of your particular post, which pretty much summed up my feelings that it's the PCs job to do the big things and the GM's job to advance the setting.

But hey, I live to serve, so grins all around. :)

To be fair and realistic, the things you cited are just opinions as well, and I never stated that mine were anything but my opinion. Except for the better to please the most people, part. And this specific part, (lack of a progressive story means the setting will be ruined), I say because A.) that means the setting is stale. No matter what books come out, it has to be wedged into the existing setting, creating the Samurai/Ninja/Guns issue or B.) there will be a point when new material will literaly be a copy paste of another book, because nothing has changed. That's not good for the company, who needs to keep selling a product. Thats really only going to leave the option of discontinueing Golarion for something else, so that they can sell a new series of books.

If you think so much of Golarion has been covered that things have to be "wedged into" it, I respectfully think that your and my defnintions of "complete" are light years apart. Golarion is huge and in Varisia alone there are plenty of places that haven't see much in the way of text.

I have found little, if any, of the "copy and paste" issue you are talking about. James is saying he'd like to do a 300+ page treatment on Varisia -- how is that possible if the setting is stagnant?

And the "guns issue" is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. Gun in Golarion are rare. I don't need a "Golarion-Shaking-Event" or metaplot retcon so that Gunslinger fans don't feel slighted and now Golarion is an Iron Kingdoms imitator...

Metaplot doesn't address source material and word count applied to an area or setting by virtue of being present in the products. If metaplot is "as the world turns" updates, you're still having to "wedge into" what's come before. And if it's a "Realms-breaker", you're just shaking things up so you can write a new spin about an old area -- and invalidating previous products in doing so.

I'm going to bow out of the metaplot tangent at this point. Folks have staked out their camps and the thread's for the AP installment, so.. peace, out.

Urath DM, thank you.

Well... since the current ruler of Korvosa doesn't really have a role to play in Shattered Star, it's easy to ignore. In fact, in the final print of the Shattered Star AP, I'll actually probably play coy with whomever is now in charge of Korvosa, so that whomever ended up on the throne in any one group gets to remain that in Shattered Star.

Since I don't know any of the PCs out there who have finished "Crimson Throne" and have claimed said throne, I go with whom I...

Fair enough. Although I can think of several other NPCs from that AP that would make a more logical choice for the throne...

As I said, I'm very excited about this AP. Also, for what this AP is and represents it makes sense for there to be some setting progression and I think Paizo is handling far better than any of your predecessors/competitors ever have.

I highlighted it as an example of negatively-impacting metaplot, not a knock on the AP, its concept or content. If it came across that way, I apologize.

BPorter,

Since I haven't actually proposed that Paizo do anything other than what they've done (including Shattered Star's building on other Varisian APs)- I'm unsure how to respond. (Or if I even want to)

I get that I bring up concepts that you don't approve of, but if it makes you feel any better, I'm not a policy maker. I do feel that all polite and civil conversation adds to the idea pool and to the community.

Thanks!

I don't feel good or bad about it. You stated a preference and I stated mine. Ultimately, the powers at Paizo will decide what works best for them.

It's much like the Mythic/Epic rules discussion. There's the camp of "Yes, yes, I want this!". They're voicing their opinion. If my opinion differs, I have just as much right to voice that b/c if I don't and the publications go in a direction I don't like, I buy less of them. I'm just as invested in the game and setting as anybody else.

I'm not doing it to rain on anybody's parade. In one of the Epic rules threads I presented examples of "Twilight vampires" and "magic works like in Charmed" and that if somebody suggests that if those should be implemented in Golarion/Pathfinder, I'm not picking on them when I say I don't want those things.

All ideas will not work well with one another.

All ideas are not good ones.

All ideas do not have equal merit.

Everyone is entitled to pick their favorites and advocate them.

And most of these kinds of discussions aren't just polite and civil conversations about exchanging ideas -- they're being advocated for or against as content and/or changes to the setting. So while I'm all for the discussion, please don't present it as something that can't have an impact on future products.

Everyone has a right to express what kind of content they, as a customer would like, including those going in the opposite direction.

I'm not saying my way is the right way. I'm not saying your way is the wrong way. I'm discussing what I want to see or don't wish to see in Pathfinder products. Because if I don't and the material doesn't appeal to me anymore, when I complain about it, I'm sure I'd hear "why didn't you voice your opinion?"

That's all there is to it.

I'm going to disagree with you on White Wolf and ShadowRun. I personally also like the new FR, and also liked Grewhawk. Dark Sun, doesn't matter to me at all. I liked/hated both equally. Even Dragonlance and Ravenloft, my two most favorate settings, I can get over the aspects of their metaplot I didn't like, and am thankful that it was there regardless. (I hate/detest the 5th Age, but still would rather have it than nothing).

I'm also all for metaplot. It's better and wiser to have it (and ignor it if you want) than to not. Everyone is better covered.

Metaplot has nothing to do with any 2 gaming groups. House rules and prior/upcoming game plans do that exact thing already for different groups.

It will also get to the point that if Paizo doesn't expand on their metaplot, that is going to be the reason things start to get ruined.

How did I forget Dragonlance? <facepalm>

That aside, "That is going to be the reason things start to get ruined" is an opinion, nothing more.

I cited numerous examples of where metplot had a detrimental impact on the setting resulting (in most cases) with reboots/rewrites of the setting to "start fresh".

You can cite nothing more than your personal preference that a lack of metaplot has a detrimental impact on the setting.

The original Greyhawk boxed set and original Forgotten Realms boxed set are widely regarded by fans on forums like these and by developers in interviews/podcasts as the best versions of those two settings and that the "golden age" of each was before metaplot reared its hideous head.

When people ask what draws them to a game/setting it's rules, setting locales, and adventures. I have yet to see anyone who cites "The metaplot. That's what grabbed me. I couldn't get enough of the metaplot."

Also, who does the metaplot serve? If it progresses outside the realm of the PC, as a player I'm not reading that source material, so the metaplot is immaterial to me. If I'm a GM, and metaplot is at odds with my home campaign, I either adjust my campaign (negative impact) or I ignore it (metaplot is irrelevant).

The only group metaplot truly serves is those who look at the setting and need to see a "story" outside of the game itself.

Also, and while I'm stoked about Shattered Star, the new ruler presented for Korvosa is EXACTLY the kind of stuff that metaplot ruins. Out of all the NPCs in the CotCT AP, the one selected as the new ruler is the least plausible candidate presented for a whole host of reasons. Some of those reasons include (going from memory):

1. Line of succession. The NPC in question wasn't a member of the nobility and certainly didn't have a tie to the throne as presented.

2. Civic unrest/rebellion. CotCT showcases a dark chapter in the city's history. The NPC in question was neck-deep in it in a very visible role. It would be a very tough sell for that person to rise as ruler even if they had #1 on their side. The NPC in question is the perfect spark for "Rebellion, take 2".

3. The PCs. So for 6 AP installments, you fight to save the city and win. So what do you do? Go to Disneyland! And on the way out let's stick an atagonist on the throne so we can do it again when we get back! NO group I have ever GM'd for would allow this to happen. And even if I as the GM wanted it to, could I sell it with respect to internal consistency if I were to actually play the other NPCs in the AP as written.

4. It flies in the face of one of the "Continuing the Campaign" scenarios (see Rulers of Korvosa)presented at the end of the AP.

5. The NPC in question may be dead or imprisoned in many campaign worlds that have played through CotCT.

It smacks of pet GMNPC. As in "hit with a Stone Giant's club" kind of smack.

The sins of the Wizards need not be the sins of the Golem

It's hardly limited to WotC. Metaplot has ultimately had a detrimental effect on every RPG setting (that includes one) published to date.

WotC:
Greyhawk - check - Greyhawk Wars era not a fan favorite and largely undone later; aka the reboot/didn't happen fix

Forgotten Realms - check - less said the better. It is the poster child for metaplot gone horribly wrong.

Dark Sun - check - cool sorcerer kings... undo by the first trilogy of novels set in the setting followed by supplements treating the novels as canon.

White Wolf:
Vampire-Werewolf-Mage-Wraith - check - so much metaplot irrespective of PC actions that you were practically buying novellas/histories posing as RPG game material

Swords-n-Sorcery Studios:
Scarred Lands - check - cool premise/setting increasingly coming undone by setting altering metaplot -- sometimes conflicting metaplot!

Traveller - The New Era - check - Effectively Nuked the Imperium, one of the cornerstones of what made Traveller...Traveller.

Earthdawn, Shadowrun - check, check

Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay - check - incorporated Miniatures Battles metaplot into the RFP canon. While one can argue the impact/detriment to the setting, it pissed off a large number of fans.

Metaplot breaks things. No 2 campaigns or player groups are alike. No 2 groups can impact the setting in the same way. Unless you take a static (or relatively) static design approach, you force an artificially divergent setting as one's home campaign diverges further and further from the official version because areas the GM hasn't touched upon yet have been changed to keep things "fresh".

This is an RPG setting we're talking about. For those who want an official story, that's what fiction exists to provide.

The Paizo approach is the best I've seen and that's largely b/c this AP will be an exception where some progression is allowed.

Just say no to metaplot.

The upcoming Skull & Shackles AP is not a setting. It is an AP within the setting of Golarion. This book is about pirates...IN GOLARION where guns are rare.

If this were a setting-neutral book, a gunslinger archetype would make sense. In a Golarion book, not so much.

I have yet to see a RPG metaplot that didn't ultimately impact the setting (& its longevity) in a negative way.

Just say no to metaplot.

An Osirion Desert if Desolation-esque AP would be soooooo cool. <----- yet another Sunderstone hint.

I'm down big-time with that.