|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Okay I think I have my list of ICONS for a 13th age Golarion game.
Golarion Icons for 13th Age
THE RUBY PRINCE - Ruby Prince Khemet III [Leans LN] replacing the Archmage
THE WATCHER - Lord Ulthun II, Bearer of the Shattered Shield of Arnisant [Leans LG] replacing the Crusader
THE THRICE DAMNED - Queen of Cheliax (Her Infernal Majestrix, Queen Abrogail II of the Thrice-Damned House of Thrune) [Leans LE] replacing the Diabolist
THE SHEPHERD OF LIGHT - Mengkare, Shepherd of Light (old male gold dragon, ruler of Hermea) [Leans N] Replacing the Great Gold Wyrm
THE GHOST KING - Geb, Ruler of the Domain of the Dead (undead Ghost) [LE] replacing The Lich King
THE OLD MAGE - Old Mage Jatembe [Leans N/NG] replacing the High Druid
THE SOCIETY - Pathfinder Society [Leans N] replacing the Dwarf King
THE VIRIDIAN CROWN - Queen Telandia Edasseril, the Viridian Crown [Leans CG] replacing the Elf Queen
THE PRIMARCH - The Primarch of Absalom (Lord Gyr of House Gixx) [Leans N] replacing the Emperor
THE SILVERBACK KING - Ruthazek, Silverback King of Usaro (Mwangi Expanse) [Leans CE] replacing the Orc Lord
THE LIVING GOD - Razmir [leans LE]
THE SWORD OF IOMEDAE - Crusader Queen Galfrey, Sword of Iomedae [Leans LG] replacing the Priestess
THE BLOODY MISTRESS - Blood Mistress Jakalyn (Head of the Red Mantis Assassins) [Leans CN] replacing the Prince of Shadows
THE WITCH QUEEN - The Witch Queen of the North (the Baba Yaga) - [Leans N/NE] replacing the Three
There are obviously some gaps and some where I'm undecided.
Currently I don't have anyone for the Archmage (though I was musing over two possibilities for it that I hadn't added to my list yet) The High Druid, the Dwarf King, The Priestess, or the Three. Before I added any more I wanted to sift through the alignment mix for the new icons. I want to be sure there are roughly equal numbers of "good" "neutral" and "evil" icons.
I was looking at all three of those.
I've been working at this all afternoon and have, hesitantly come up with the following loose equivalents to the Dragon Empire Icons presented in 13th age:
Golarion Icons for 13th Age
Crusader (LN/LE) - The Watcher - Lord Ulthun II, Bearer of the Shatered Shield of Arnisant [Leans LG] or The Living God - Razmir [leans LE]
Diabolist (NE/CE) The Queen of Cheliax (Her Infernal Majestrix, Queen Abrogail II of the Thrice-Damned House of Thrune) [Leans LE]
Great Gold Wyrm (LG) - Mengkare, Shepherd of Light (old male gold dragon, ruler of Hermea) [Leans N]
Lich King (LE) - Geb, Ruler of the Domain of the Dead (undead Ghost) [LE]
High Druid (N)
Dwarf King (LN)
Elf Queen (NG/N/CG/CN) - The Witch Queen of the North (the Baba Yaga) - [Leans N/NE] OR Queen Telandia Edasseril, the Viridian Crown [Leans CG]
Emperor (LG/LN) - The Primarch of Absalom (Lord Gyr of House Gixx) [Leans N]
Orc Lord (CE) - currently none, the clans of the Hold of Belkzen are divided. OR Ruthazek, Silverback King of Usaro (Mwangi Expanse) [Leans N]
Prince of Shadows (CN) - Blood Mistress Jakalyn (Head of the Red Mantis Assassins)
The Three (NE) -
I'm doing a 13th age experiment in Golarion and I'm going to use some strung together pathfinder modules. So I have a couple options and was hoping someone might chime in with some pros/cons of each I haven't thought of (and if they think there's an obvious adventure for one of these groups I HAVEN'T thought of)
For game reasons I'd like to keep them roughly geographically grouped.
Obvious Pro: I have the Guide to Darkmoon Vale available
Obvious Pro: I have the Rise of the Runelords Player's guide available
Crypt of Everflame
Pros: Crypt of Everflame has a very strong 1st adventure together hook.
I'm looking at starting an online game and was thinking about using 13th age - but I have all these pathfinder books, and I thought it might be cool to use Golarion and some of my pathfinder adventures as a base.
The one big game element that pathfinder lacks is a set of icons. I played some 13th age at GenCon and I thought the icon relationships really gave some good life to the game, so I'm looking for some suggestions.
I'm still going to lose
You never know. Maybe you wrote about an area or a character that really grabbed one of the judges and they fought for you.
Don't give up. It's not a rejection until the rejection slips come. And then the rejection is as likely to be about what's right or what fits with the piece that wins than a reflection on what's wrong with your own work.
I'm just saying that it'd be a nice gesture to let people know where they stood on the 25th.
Rejection hurts. knowing someone sat on your rejection for a week hurts more, as that wait is bad enough.
What I don't understand is this idea that it's bad for Sutter to know who made it through to him. I don't see how that's bad, UNLESS he also knows WHICH story the author wrote
Now... I have the benefit of having written for Dungeon during the black hole years, so long waits are nothing new to me. But some of the new folks are probably already past the stage of tearing their hair out.
Likewise, I am not going to complain. 61 submissions means something on the order of a 1 in 12 chance of making the top 5. Though with folks like Todd and Neil in the mix... well, it's a long hard road.
Best of luck to everyone who entered... and of course to the judges, who have many hours of reading ahead of them.
Will the finalists get a private email letting them know they've made the cut?
Or could you post just the titles without the authors?
Guy Humual wrote:
1 - I assume "the" got nixed in layout for some reason, as it was not pulled out in editing, at least not in my copy.
2 - "20%" got cut as feeling anachronistic and unnecessary. The problem with throwing homages in your work is that you rely on the editor either missing the reference entirely or catching the reference and not caring enough to take it out. I didn't catch the Conan Doyle reference (I'm a Poirot man), and, not seeing it, didn't feel the percentage conveyed enough extra information to be left in. To me, it felt like it compromised the flow and so out it went.
3 - The time frame prevents proper editing. Really you should be reviewing the edits and discussing problems with the editor, but there isn't time for that. Also, you need to be realistic... sometimes issues, like the missing "the" crop up. Sometimes it's the fault of the editor, sometimes it happens in layout... sometimes you accidentally deleted it yourself rewriting a line for the 500th time. But if the worst thing you can say about an edited piece is "I think it's missing a 'the'" then you got very lucky.
Marc Radle 81 wrote:
You would be wrong that I have something against Apple products. Apple is nothing if not innovative, even if I don't believe the iPad to be the best example of their innovation.
As for the iPad... I don't believe it will be equally groundbreaking, though there is no way to be sure until it comes out. For me a backlit screen on an ereader is a deal breaker, and I'm far from alone in that feeling.
I don't feel a need for a multifunction ereader... when I sit down to read, I don't want the distractions a multifunction device provides... when I sit down to read, I want to read... I want a device that effectively disappears in the background. The kindle gained its market share on its ability to do just that.
What I worry about is that the Apple iBookstore will start another trend of higher prices for books and ebooks. If the authors were getting a bigger piece instead of a (now smaller) percentage of a smaller piece, I might not dislike the deal so much. Many, if not most, writers cannot live on their writing income alone... they have Evil Day Jobs to pay the bills and provide necessary health benefits and do their best to write as best they can fit it in.
Paizo is right that the Amazon deal is not great... they demand a huge chunk of the pie to sell an ebook on their store. Of course, Paizo could sell a non-DRM mobi format copy which would work on a Kindle just fine.
They won't. But they could.
James Sutter wrote:
If a store has a bad deal, I can go to another one that has a better deal. Except that the deal with publishers setting the price absolutely denies me that ability.
Vic Wertz wrote:
Sometimes it's better to do one thing well.
Links to most of the useful information on the topic at one time or another appeared in this thread:
But it's well over 2000 posts long and I really am not in any mood to find them again. The thread focuses on the pulling of titles from MacMillan, but again, this pull occurred in response to MacMillan's demands, which were themselves based, at least in part, on the deal they made with Apple. Other articles in the prior few days had covered that five of the big six publishers (of which MacMillan is one) had reached the same deal:
an agency model where the publishers would set the actual retail price of the ebooks with a starting range for new releases and best sellers between $12.99 and $14.99
Given that Kindle users had responded well to the advertising that most bestsellers would be priced at $9.99 there is a LOT of not particularly interesting cursing out of both publishers and Amazon... but there are some real gems in the links throughout the thread.
Not off the top of my head, as I mentioned, the argument has been going on for over a month and searching for the necessary posts is DEFINITELY not my idea of fun or relaxation.
Most of the interesting information though can be found in news stories covering Amazon pulling all MacMillan titles from their store at the end of January in response to MacMillan demanding they switch to the agency model or lose access to the ebooks for the first 6-9 months after release... the same deal that they had made with Apple for the iBookstore. The agreement, as described, changes ebook stores into an agent of the publisher, who will set the actual retail price in exchange for providing a cut to the seller.
Sorry Erik... Vic is receiving the brunt of a month's worth of arguments... and I'm grumpy 'cause I've been having the argument for a month. iPad will be better than kindle and a game changer, I'm told, simply because it's being put out by Apple. That it's also more expensive, with less battery life, and backlit (not to mention that the wireless carries a monthly fee) doesn't seem to sway anyone. It's Apple, so it will trump everything else. And just to top it off, the deal made for the iBookstore between Apple and five of the big six functionally increases ebook prices everywhere.
I just have tons of love for Apple right now. Really.
As for the iBookstore... well, the agreement they made with the publishers has already pretty much guaranteed that they will never see a dime from me. You're a publisher, I sorta expect you to like the agreement. But what's good for publishers rarely is good for readers, who just get squeezed more by prices going up.
I hate to think that books are becoming a luxury item, but they are quickly headed that way, and it won't be good for publishers when they reach that point.
Anyway, I come to forums to relax, and this has had the opposite effect, so I guess I'll go now.
Vic Wertz wrote:
Refuse all you want... it doesn't make it less so. Nor does the fact that your eyes may not be bothered mean that mine won't. I didn't say it would unpleasant, Vic. I said it would hurt your eyes... whether you actively notice the strain or not, if it is backlit, and there is every indication that it is, then it will strain your eyes to read it.
I'm very protective of my eyes. I injured them, you see, by trying to use a television as a computer screen when that was the vogue thing to do in the 80s.
And Apple's agreement with publishers is frankly more offensive to me than Amazon trying to set competitive prices. If the publishers hadn't cried so much for years about the costs of printing (and paper) being what was driving up book prices all those years I would have more sympathy. But it was the publishers that convinced America, falsely, that printing and paper costs were what drove prices upward, so they should hardly be surprised that consumers took that to heart and expect lower ebook prices as a result.
That publishers paired their agreement with Apple with a cut in contract rates for ebook royalties (I think this was specifically MacMillan, but I don't doubt the remaining five will follow suit) argues to me that they are not on the author's side either.
I'm not doubting that Amazon unfairly used its effective monopoly on ebook sales to strong arm publishers into unfair agreements. But one only has to look at what Apple itself did to music prices to see that the publishers are simply trading one predator for another.
The screen is a larger iphone screen... there's no reason to believe that it will be any easier to read on than the iphone is... especially given that Jobs has publically stated that he doesn't believe we read anymore, and so has little motivation to see that we can read comfortably.
Vic Wertz wrote:
Really... a backlit answer to ebook reading gamechanging? For books? I'm not sure I see that Vic... not for fiction. I can see rule books... they'd look pretty. But a book?
I don't think a backlit answer will trump the eye friendly eink tech of the kindle/sony/nook e-readers. I know everyone seems to love their iphones and apple can do no wrong for some reason... but I just can't see the iPad as a game changer with a backlit screen. If it had a color eink screen maybe. And I'm sure modules and other rulebook pdfs will look dandy on it.
what Daigle said +1
When I first started writing I would despair waiting for responses from the Black Hole that was the Dungeon and Dragon magazine slushpile.
Don't just wait... there's reasons for this... if you get rejected, then what? If you don't have anything else in progress or out waiting for a response then you can become frozen. But if there is something else out there the rejection doesn't feel so much like the end of the world... you still are waiting for another response, or you have another project in progress to mitigate the loss of the rejection.
Hey, keep it up guys.
I do this every year (this is year 5 for me) and for those wondering at the size of the project and how feasible it is, it's day 14 and I closed the day with over 45,000 words. It's possible and even likely I will finish the word count tomorrow... though the story is likely to continue for a while yet.
For those needing help to keep writing, I strongly recommend write-or-die or a communal write-in where someone is giving you leverage to help you get your word count in.
Write or die:
The idea is that you set a preset goal (in number of words or time) and until you meet that goal, nasty things happen if you stop typing for more than a few seconds at a time.
by Ashavan Doyon
Pain exploded through me at the thought. It started in the temples, beating like drumbeats hard upon my flesh. Then it jolted inwards, inflaming the inner layers of my brain like that stupid egg they used to tell you would be your brain if you did drugs. Funny, didn't need drugs to make that happen.
I confess, edition wars have largely been the culprit keeping me away, though I try to still hang out in the chat room fairly regularly.
When the play tests first started on Pathfinder I thought, great. But the play test forums and indeed almost all the forums became toxic for anyone who played (or even liked) both systems.
I love paizo, they're great people and I enjoy the opportunities I've had to write for them. I like their world and can only say I wish they'd slow down the pace a bit, cause it is hard for me to keep up! I have no trouble saying that paizo produces the best interwoven adventures in the business and does so consistently. That's not to say other companies don't manage a gem now and then, but I know I can buy almost any paizo adventure and trust the quality will be outstanding.
I have mostly switched to 4e for my games. That doesn't mean that I'm not reading pathfinder and hoping to (eventually) run some online 4e conversions of the adventures. It doesn't mean that I won't play or run a pathfinder game in a pinch. But it does mean that I do, for the most part, avoid posting on boards where the mere mention of liking 4e gets me branded as some sort of traitor (or worse).
Not posting doesn't mean I'm not reading, however, though I readily admit I don't do so every day as I used to.
Malachi Tarchannen wrote:
I wish to remain clear that I was making a purposed (and dictionary allowable) distinction between the two terms, precisely so that I could illustrate that it is also possible for a man to be prejudiced against a certain race without being racist.
This is exactly the problem. When you label it prejudice against a race, there is a level of prejudice you seem prepared to accept. If it was labeled racism, which it is, by definition (webster accepts that definition whether you do or not), then it would be more forbidden. You are softening the man's racism by using another term to describe it.
Malachi Tarchannen wrote:
Using a word to mean something that it means is not incorrect use of a word. Just because you may disagree with which definition of the word someone uses doesn't make you right.
Words have multiple definitions because people use the words differently at different times and in different places to mean different things. That may be inconvenient, but it doesn't make those usages wrong.
If you already have the gazeteer, then you really don't need the hardcover campaign setting. Much of the material is similar to the point of being repetitive.
I also like darkmoon vale as a setting and am preparing a 4e conversion to run as an online game... there are enough twists to make the area fun, Falcon's Hollow in particular provides some great opportunities for role playing, and the lumber consortium provides an interesting "law vs good" type conflict for players who like that sort of thing.
If you are thinking adventures though, don't forget to check out the pathfinder society adventures... they have the advantage of being very inexpensive and are quite good - and short, which makes plugging them in places as a break a little easier.
F. Wesley Schneider wrote:
This from the one of the guys at paizo who probably looks pretty decent in a speedo.
Joshua J. Frost wrote:
In addition to being short, they have the added bonus of being relatively inexpensive. Now if only I could not have to print them out.
Of course, they'd be even better if I could write them. (well, not really, the writers are very good already, I'd just like to see my name up there one day too!)
I've been thinking of doing some conversions for these to 4e, since that's what I'm playing lately.
EDIT -> PS - this is not a dig against Pathfinder RPG, I haven't seen it yet to judge it. For me, Paizo's greatest strength is the stories the adventures tell, and they do it better than anyone, that's why I use their material for my 4e game.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
One could suggest that Paizo's audience is those who like well written adventures, since the quality of their adventures is what they're known for.
Scott, you are the best argument for an ignore function on those boards. Your hypocritical and arrogant crusading for 4E and your inability to accept any critic of it - no matter how true - should be labelled as the trolling it is.
It seems to me that he has been exceedingly polite given the tone of your posts. If I needed an ignore button, frankly it would be for you.
Check what bridge you're hiding under.
Thiago Cardozo wrote:
I'm sorry if that post felt directed solely at you. As you might imagine, I see these sorts of posts often. You ended up at the receiving end of several months of pent up frustration. For that I apologize.
As for needing to be an experienced group to roleplay, again, I have to say, we must have read two very different versions of the DMG... the 4e guide went into far more depth on how to run a game, especially from the perspective of a new DM, than I recall any previous edition doing.
Thiago Cardozo wrote:
I keep hearing these sorts of comments from people who don't like 4e. I have to think that I read a very different set of books than they did, because I see plenty of roleplaying possibilities in 4e.
I hear things like "well powers are all the same - only the damage die and type changes" and I think what were the differences between ray of frost and burning hands or flame strike vs fireball vs lightning bolt vs cone of cold. combat spells do damage of a type in a shape - they did in 1st edition and 2nd edition and in both 3.0 and 3.5 - so why is this bad in 4e?
Flavor and role-playing depend on the players and the DM - anybody who started playing very young knows that, because when we were young, very young, we probably didn't understand the rules well enough to play correctly. But we still had fun, because when you're a kid roleplaying comes naturally. And you know what was exciting? The bits where you got to fireball the troll. And it's still exciting in 4e.
Only in 4e, I don't have to prepare for six hours if I want the game to go well, or even longer at high levels. I can just spend a reasonable amount of time preparing and enjoy.
4e gives tremendously good DMing advice in the DMG - Easily better than ANY PREVIOUS EDITION of the Dungeons & Dragons game.
I don't have anything against people who enjoy 3rd edition, nor anything against Paizo. Heck, I think they put out great products, and I'm thrilled to be able to port some of that content for my 4e games. I will still pick up the Pathfinder RPG when it comes out. But I am really sick of hearing "but there are no rules for roleplaying in 4e" because there are, and frankly, the barebones rules light approach for roleplaying appeals to me a heck of a lot more than the 'must be a rule for everything in case someone tries to break the game' approach taken by 3.5 ... I'm so relieved to not have to spend hours stating up a monster with class levels... I can do it in a few minutes, and not have to feel like crap if my two hours of prep work dies in the first round of combat.
I'm also really sick of the edition wars. I've tried to be neutral - because I do enjoy both... I like playing in 3.5, and even DMing at lower levels... but I also enjoy 4e and I see a LOT of unjustified attacks.
It's a boardgame that requires minis - I hear this a lot too. So did 3e, it just didn't outright say so. Was it possible to play without? Yes. Did certain classes lose out if you did so? Yes. I wonder where the excitement of playing with the table, with a board went to. My brother and I used to use legos, and we thought it was so cool to be able to put the monster mini down, especially if we had the right one. Now it's bad????
I'm sorry, I'm just fed up. I'm really sick of being told that if I enjoy 4e I don't know what role playing is. I'm really sick of being told that if I was a good DM, I wouldn't have to prep so long for my 3.5 games. That clearly 3.5 is better and that I owe it to Paizo to support their game of WotC.
This edition war is destroying both games. And it shouldn't. I like both games. I hope, I really do, that somehow Paizo manages to fix 3.5 for DMs, because I like the game - I just hate that DMing for it became work rather than fun, especially at high levels. I hope that WotC manages to figure out that failing to actually let new blood into their adventure writing pool is causing most of their adventures for 4e to stink. Because I want to be able to play and DM in 3.P and I want to be able to play good prepublished adventures in 4e.
And mostly, I want not to feel every time I go to one discussion board or the other that I am the enemy. Even when I don't post, when I read the boards... these wonderful boards that were once the best gaming community out there... I cringe. I'm always the enemy now, no matter where I go, just because I like to enjoy my game. Gamers shouldn't do that to other people. We should know better.
1, 4, and 7 for me.
I like this game. Not all of it, but then what DM doesn't have to houserule SOMETHING they don't like about a system.
What I like:
DMing is fun again. I don't think I realized how much I missed that. Whether it will hold as true for high levels, I'm not sure, but it certainly does for low level play.
All characters get to have something fun to fall back on. The new bard rocks. Sorcerers and Warlocks are just cool. Divine characters get a really cool control type character too in the Invoker.
What I dislike:
I'm not sure I like how they've done druids. I'd like a typed damage that couldn't be instantly healed overnight. Strict reliance on a battlemap grates on me (but I note that 3.5 had this too, at least if you wanted to get the most out of rogues and fighters). Monsters don't have enough ecology/fluff and have become simplistic descriptions with stats.
Can I play this and feel I'm playing D&D -- yes.