Paris Crenshaw's page

I read the news, today. Oh, boy.

Thanks for sharing these wonderful books with us over the past years, Erik. You have opened my eyes to a trove of great books. Whatever direction Planet Stories takes in the future, I plan on following and seeing what adventures await.

Cheers!
Paris

I loved reading your article, IronWolf. Your son is obviously a talented and clever young man. You must be very proud. Congratulations! :D

Hi, All!

My kids do like it. I've been playing RPGs with them off and on since they were six, and even tried a couple of sessions using the full Pathfinder RPG rules, but they really enjoy the Beginner Box.

I just did a guest blog spot with some of my "lessons learned" on Theodric the Obscure's blog, Mythopoeic Rambling. I'd love to hear your thoughts and experiences!

Here's the article: Tales from the Junior Front: Playing Pathfinder with my Daughters

I decided that I preferred to have stats for using demonblood with the Gamemastery Guide's drugs and addiction rules, so I made up my own. I've posted them for free on my website. Enjoy!

Demonblood stats

Hooray! Congrats, PMG and Sara Marie!

Thanks to taig, Hugo and everyone else for making this happen!

I know this is unorthodox and may not fit with the style of play that your group has, but I'll offer it up, in case it's something you might want to pursue.

I am GMing a campaign that is a continuation of the "Price of Immortality" series of modules ("Crypt of the Everflame," "Masks of the Living God," & "City of Golden Death"). In the last chapter of that series, the PC of one of my players died. I won't include spoilers on how she died, but it was a sudden, unceremonious, inglorious death.

It was a good character who had contributed a lot to the story. Neither I nor the player wanted her to die. It just so happened that the character was a paladin, and she died battling evil.

So, I thought about it for a moment, and decided that the player's deity would bring her back from the dead. I pulled the player aside and described roughly what the PC experienced and then explained that this resurrection was going to come with a cost.

The PC is now back with the party, but she has undergone a significant change. She has gained a template that fits the manner in which she dies. She gains some benefits from this template, but no longer looks normal and has some significant weaknesses that she didn't have before. On top of that, she's constantly aware of the fact that her deity expects something from her. She doesn't know whether that expectation will take the form of specific direction or if she's just supposed to be a better servant. Her condition therefore directly impacts the player, above and beyond the usual in-character aspects, because the player isn't quite sure what to expect.

I would suggest that you talk to your GM and see if something like that is possible for your character, as well. Perhaps your character became a petitioner in the afterlife and stumbled across an outsider or other being with whom he could strike a deal. The being restored the PCs soul to its body in exchange for a price to be determined, or at least paid, later.

There are many ways this can work in most any campaign, especially if the cost can introduce drama into a later portion of the campaign.

I know that's not the typical, pay-for-the-diamonds-and-get-the-spell-cast method, but it might be a way for both you and the GM to get something out of the deal.

I agree, Mothman. That case is definitely a big "if" for me. I mean...1 hit point per 1 inch of thickness. A drinking glass is probably about 1/16 inch thick. Since you can't round down to 0 hp, I'd say that the only way to simulate reducing HP below 1 is with a loss of hardness.

Still...it's *COLD* energy...just being cold has hardly any effect on glass in real life. And, heck, even magic missiles wouldn't damage a drinking glass and they're made of magical FORCE energy.

I understand that it can be frustrating when you want to do certain things that don't fit within the GM's view of how the rules work. I try to encourage creative thinking, as well, but each of the examples you cite are things that are pretty well covered within the rules.

1) There are specific criteria for escaping an entangle spell listed in the description. Swinging a sword at them might fall under the rules for a Strength check, but specifically cutting through the vines doesn't get you anything extra. That said, I would not have ruled that the vines took your weapon. If you can't cut them to get out, they can't become prehensile and take your sword.

2) The rules clarifications and interpretations for shock and other energy weapons are pretty clear that you can't use them that way, despite what the laws of physics might imply. It's very similar to the fact that a normal, metal weapon can't be used to convey a shocking grasp spell.

3) If the golem is active and trying to hurt you, it isn't just a "thing" that can be climbed. If you're going to get on top of it, you'll need to grab onto it, which it probably doesn't want you to do. Trying to grab an opponent against its will so that you can climb on top of it sounds like a perfect application of the grappling rules.

4) The ray of frost thing is a bit iffy for me. I might have allowed it for flavor, myself, but you could also take the view that the spell specifically does damage, so there's a chance it *could* break the glass. Also, the prestidigitation cantrip allows you to chill or warm a liquid in a glass. If there's already a spell that does what you want to do, then the GM isn't out of line for expecting you to use that spell, instead.

So, while I think that GMs need to be flexible and facilitate their players' creativity, they also have a responsibility to know and interpret the rules in a way that is consistent. In my opinion, your GM should have been able to explain his reasoning for all of the above decisions, similar to the way I just did.

If he didn't know the rules and was just making things up on the fly, then he should have given you the benefit of the doubt during the game and looked up the rules later. After that, he can come back and say, "that's how it worked before, but this is what the rules say, so this is how I'll handle it in the future."

As a fan of the spelljammin' progenitor of this project, I have to say I'm really excited to see what CGP is going to do with this. As a freelance writer and editor for CGP, I've had the opportunity to work closely with Allen. I know that he and his team of writers are going to produce a fantastic book.

Oh. I see. I should have known...literally. ;)

Thanks for the pointer, James! This will be a very useful item.

As a result of a well-placed and kindly answered query, I have learned that there may be plans to present the rules for demonblood in an upcoming supplement.

Any chance we could get a sneak peek? Pretty please? :-D

Robin D. Laws introduced the concept of using demonblood as an addictive drug in The Worldwound Gambit. I thought this was a particularly interesting concept and have found that it might fit into the storyline of a campaign I'm currently running.

Does anyone know if there are stats for this particular substance, using the rules presented in the Gamemastery Guide? I can certainly create my own, but if the stats are already published elsewhere, I'd prefer to use those.

Thanks!

Merry Christmas, Everyone!

(Figured I should post in here at least one more time, this year.)

I think MORE people submitting games to be placed in the lottery is really what needs to happen. Last year, I was new, unknown, and submitted an off the wall PF Modern game and I still got my game into the lottery. Granted, nobody seemed to want to play it and I spent my Sunday morning sitting there for nearly an hour hoping someone would show up, but I got a game into the lottery.

But seriously, more games would be great. There are plenty of people in this community that I would love to have as a GM for a game or two. As it is, unless they invite me to their game (unlikely as I am still pretty unknown,) I won't have that luxury.

Last year I wasn't able to sign up for alot of the games because I volunteered to run two of the PFS games and there were panels I really wanted to see. This year I want to run one lottery game, and try for lots of lottery games and plan my weekend around those.

If I get lucky and find myself invited to a private non-lottery game, I would feel great and attend. However for someone like me who isn't really known well the lottery practically my only chance to snag a non-PFS game.

That is also a good point. The problem is that some games are going to be more attractive than others. If no one puts your game on their list of options, then you're not going to get any players.

I imagine that submitting events for the lottery doesn't necessarily exclude people from running off-lottery events, as well. Perhaps the answer would be for GMs to submit their events to the lottery, then see if they get folks signed up to play. We should get lottery results far enough ahead of the Con for GMs to know if their games will have players.

If no one signed up, then that event can be offered as an off-lottery event elsewhere, providing an outlet for folks who didn't get enough games to play in.

Of course, now that I think about it, what if the lottery had more than one round? After the first round of picks, the games that aren't full could be offered up for a second round, allowing folks to pick from the remaining options.

Christopher Paul Carey wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

2) The extra "3" is a typo in the blog post. There should be no 3 there at all.

Fixed. :-)

Woo hoo!

And woah... look at the fancy new shading on quotes!!!!

Ooooh! Aaaaah!

I hope in the next edition of PF, templates get called, "apps."

LOL! (literally...had to quickly turn it into a cough in order to avoid drawing attention from my officemates)

Paris Crenshaw wrote:

Excellent! Paizo fires up the WABAC Machine and fields a replacement for the displacer beast. As Mairkurion said, "Well played."

Except for the displacement part. ;)

Stickler. Bad doggy! Get back into your unnaturally geometric box!

Thanks for the backup, ulgulanoth. ;)

Excellent! Paizo fires up the WABAC Machine and fields a replacement for the displacer beast. As Mairkurion said, "Well played."

That's a good idea and a good point, Neil. I think one of the problems with the Coast Hotel was that its size didn't allow for as much "off lottery" gaming. Hopefully, the new site will make that more of an option.

At present, I'm planning to attend and have already purchased my tickets. As long as my schedule doesn't change too much, then I should be able to make it for all three days. However, it's the Navy and things change, so I won't know for sure until later in 2012.

Since I'm not 100% I can't put myself on an official schedule, anyway, but I do plan on running a game, maybe two. If all goes well, I'll have something interesting that I'll want to share with my fellow Con attendees.

Correct. If WotC didn't add that material to the SRD and didn't state specifically in the book that the material is OGC, then you can't use it in your publication.

Anything you produce has to be a derivative of the d20 Modern SRD rules and should be sufficiently different from other material that you can't be accused of copying them.

I don't know what systems from d20 Past you are interested in using, but in most cases there are different ways to approach a sub-system. For example, a "called shot" system is a general concept that could be handled in different ways by multiple publishers. They could all call it a "called shot" system while coming up with their own rules and never infringing on each other's intellectual property rights.

ONE OTHER ITEM OF NOTE: There's a big difference between material covered under the OGL and actual, Open Gaming Content.

Material declared OGC can be used directly from the publication without any modification, as long as the original source is properly credited.

The OGL is the license that allows publishers to use the basis of the d20 rules system for their products while modifying certain aspects of those rules for their own use.

For example, the OGL is what allows Paizo to publish the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. They can introduce and sell rules for character generation and everything else that goes with the core d20 mechanics, but they still have to reference the OGL. In contrast, Paizo cannot publish their own version of the mind flayer as a Pathfinder RPG creature, because the mind flayer is not Open Gaming Content.

I'm not an expert on this matter, but I think your confusion is coming from the difference between the d20 Modern System and products that were published based on the d20 Modern system.

d20 Modern has its own System Reference document, which is still available here: (link)

Material in that document is covered by the Open Gaming License (OGL) and is considered OGC. If you're going to comply with the OGL, then you should reference those rules instead of the d20 Modern book. Obviously, there's going to be a lot of similarity between the d20 Modern book and the SRD, but if you rely solely on the SRD, you'll be sure to steer clear of pitfalls.

I don't know how much, if any, of the material in d20 Past was added to the d20 Modern SRD, but I doubt very much of it was. As far as I know, the expansion books didn't get as much SRD support as the core rules did. Hopefully, if I'm wrong, someone will come along and correct me, there.

Basically, as long as you do not charge money for your PDF and you remember to include the required OGL statements, you should be fine using anything you find in the d20 Modern SRD, but you would probably not be able to use anything in d20 Past, unless that information is also included in the SRD.

I have mixed feelings about this batch, although I'm still impressed at the overall quality of what we're seeing.

- I think the Human Druid is really interesting. The colors are great and the detail is amazing. Unfortunately, it doesn't feel very "action-oriented" to me. The pose just doesn't say "Pathfinder Battles" to me.

- I like the idea of the Human Rogue...classic pose that's easy to use in a number of settings. But the hat bothers me just a bit, there's something cartoonish about that extended point. Just personal preference, though, I think.

- The Elf Wizard has a great pose, I like the color and the details of the face are nice. But I do find the ears very distracting. They look more like donkey ears than elf ears. I think they need to be more pointed.

(Maybe I'm being too critical. I haven't minded the "extra long" ears that PFRPG elves got, but I just don't think they came out right on this sculpt.)

Still, I do love the detail and care that are going into these minis. I look forward to seeing more...and then holding them in my greedy little fingers. Mwahahaha! ;-)

EDIT: I just realized what it is that bothers me about the human rogue: For some reason, the pose and scaling make me think of hobbits, rather than humans.

That's amazing!! Great work!

I'm so glad I decided to subscribe.

Emperor Paizo, with every one of these previews I become more your MINIon.

Tim, I won't be getting a story submitted this time, but wanted to confirm with you that I'm available as an editor, again. (You can pretty much assume that will always be the case, but I'll try to confirm with each issue, just in case.) You've got my e-mail...fire when ready. ;)

I believe this is the first time I've posted in this thread.

I also believe I need to stop avoiding the work I should be doing.

But isn't the issue at hand the fact that people have already paid for the product in question?

Perhaps with the exception of subscriptions for those missing issues of Dungeon and Dragon magazines, TSR and Palladium hadn't collected any money for the products discussed above.

Any chance we can get blank versions of cards for the three major "locale types"? It would be nice to be able to add our own challenges to the deck.

I don't see this kind of behavior in my groups, either. My players typically see the benefit of ensuring that everyone's power level is as high as it can be. Sometimes, usually early in the campaign when resources are more limited, they will agree to pool money to ensure a single character gets a power boost without creating a significant imbalance.

I can certainly see how the profiteering behavior could be a problem.

I'm curious, do the other players complain about having to pay more than the base cost for the items they commission? If they think it's fair for the crafter to make a profit, then half of the problem is solved. In other words, if the players don't mind you may not need to worry.

What is the crafter doing with all of the "extra" money? If he's simply hoarding it, then perhaps there's no real issue. If the money goes into a vault, then those resources are unavailable to the group as a whole, but everyone is on a level playing field, as well.

On the other hand, if the crafter is taking that money and using it to pay for the creation of items for himself, and thus gaining a level of power far above the other players, that can be a big problem.

It also poses an interesting story challenge. One character is gaining significant wealth at the expense of the other members of his party is a fairly well-known theme. The imbalance can create resentment among the "poorer" members, leading to a schism in the group. It's not uncommon for the "wealthier" character to become a villain in the story.

But to answer your question, I don't see a way to fix the problem from a game mechanic standpoint, without completely changing the crafting rules. You'd have to take out the financial benefit of crafting items, altogether.

The most direct option is to simply outlaw the practice, but that's never very satisfying for anyone.

I think your best bet is to have the group discuss the problem (assuming there really is one). If everyone sees how the imbalance can affect the game as a whole, then perhaps they'll agree to stop the practice.

I think this is going to be one of your most popular card sets! I know I could have definitely used it two weeks ago.

I made up my own set (for Arctic/snow conditions), but this set will definitely round out what I need. Great!

That's a great idea, Jason. I definitely think this is one set of cards that can definitely benefit from expansions and variations. It would also be cool to have some blank cards with the appropriate borders, so we can create our own cards with the same format.

Chris Mortika wrote:

Aren't half-orcs green?

Mostly. This guy is sort of a drab green.

Curse my eyes!

The first time I read this, I thought you said, "This guy is sort of a drag queen."

You have more info than I do, CJ.

All we know is that there are at least 2000 customers out in every area that SDG&E serves. Loss of power seems to cover as far south as Baja, as far north as the San Diego County line, and as far east as Yuma, AZ.

No one seems to be able to say what exactly caused the problem.

Kruelaid wrote:

Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

I'm serious. I'll chip in on a fund to pay Crystal to do it in her non-work time (Paizo gift certificate?)... anyone else?

My paypal account awaits your instructions.

You can count on my plastic!

Is your plastic pre-painted? 'Cause if it is, you'll have to randomize it. ::ba-DUM-tish!::

Oh...and...Smurf ALL y'all smurfs!!!!!

I loved the thing and the stuff, too! I lol-ed, actually. ;-)

I finally posted a review on my blog. I had hoped to get this out before GenCon, so folks would be encouraged to pick up the novel there. Sorry for the delay.

You can read it here.

I didn't post the full review in the "reviews" section, because it's a double-feature post for Prince of Wolves and Master of Devils. It is a very long article.

I will post a link to the same article on Amazon.com when I'm able to enter a review on their website. It's still listed as "unavailable" there.

This is very late, but I finally posted a review to my blog. It's a double-feature post for Prince of Wolves and Master of Devils.

You can read it here.

Sorry I didn't post the full review in the "reviews" section, but it is a very long article. I did, however, post a link to the same article on Amazon.com.

Whoa. Well done, Liz. Very cool.

I couldn't help myself...I tried to argue to myself that this was too expensive, but it's just too much goodness to pass up. Pre-order is in and my download is waiting for retrieval when I get home.

Now, I would like to request that FGG discuss options with Lonewolf Development for getting these wonderful beasties added to Hero Lab. ;-)

I reread "A Lost Pathfinder’s Journal: From Talithia’s Tomb" by Paris Crenshaw yesterday and felt compelled to express my admiration for such an excellent story. Good pacing, and the sense of mystery and horror really drew me in. The children's rhyme was icing on the cake. I hope to see more from Mr. Crenshaw in the future.

I know this is major thread necromancy, but I just stumbled across this post and had to express my thanks to Daeglin for his feedback. I'm very sorry I didn't see this earlier.

I'm very glad you enjoyed the story. It has been the springboard for a few other pieces and I do intend to get back to writing more of "The Crowheart Legacy," for which "Talithia's Tomb" was a prelude.

Dave Gross wrote:

Paris Crenshaw wrote:

This was a great read. I've posted my review here, at amazon.com, and on my blog.

Nice review, man.

I concur with Dave. I appreciate the time and talent Paris put into that review.

Wow. Thanks, guys!

Dave, I'm sorry I haven't gotten around to reviewing Prince of Wolves. At this point, my intention is to review both it and Master of Devils in sequential posts. Thanks to your readings at PaizoCon, I've already got a head start on the first 5 chapters, so I'll probably make quick work of Master of Devils once it hits my subscription downloads. ;-)

This was a great read. I've posted my review here, at amazon.com, and on my blog.

Studpuffin wrote:

Hugo Solis wrote:

[threadjack]so many avatars...can't fit'em all... *cough cough* must make more room...[/threadjack]

Some of us fly, you know. ;)

right now you are on a shoulder :P

Well played, Hugo.

I picked up a couple more of the old map pack PDFs, today.

I like the fact that the map packs come in two versions: one as a single PDF file with all the individual tiles, and one as a zip file with a separate PDF file for each of the assembled maps. This makes them much easier to use in VTT software, because I don't have to capture images and put them together myself. Thanks for doing that for us.

To answer your question cibet44, I would say that your assessment is pretty accurate. It probably won't be economical for folks to print and reprint maps for home use.

However, folks who are running home games might want to use the PDFs as reference tools, too. For example, I used the overland hex maps from the Kingmaker Map Folio PDF in a PowerPoint slide to keep track of which hexes our group had explored. I was able to use semi-transparent shapes to fill in each hex as we entered it and added a color scheme and text labels to show whether the hex had been fully explored or if it had a problem that we needed to address in the future.

PDFs can also be helpful for Play-by-Post games, though such usage would have to be controlled by the GM, like limiting access to only those participating in the game.

Kevin Mack wrote:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

The idea of the BB is that once you're familiar with using it, it's not a big jump to adapt full-game content for it. So if a full-game adventure talks about making AOOs in an encounter, a person just using the BB knows to ignore that (because the BB doesn't have rules for AOOs).

So, while the BB and Bestiary monster stat blocks don't look exactly the same, they still have entries for initiative, melee attack, saving throws, and so on.

In regards to AoO is there a mechanic in place to replace that or is it just omited entirly? I could be wrong but removing AoO's seems like something that would alter how the game works quite a bit.(By which I mean make it play a lot less like the normal core rules).

I think you will find the play experience changes very little. I think my players only expose themselves to attacks of opportunity very rarely in game. Is the game play really changed that much if you can cast spells in melee or withdraw from combat easily?

I think it will certainly speed things up. It will also change tactical thinking for movement, as well as the value of reach and its application to larger creatures.

This is another example of how tightly-knit many aspects of the rules can be. A simple change has ripple-effects that touch on numerous, and often unexpected, areas of the game.

Still, as an intro to Pathfinder, I think AoO is a mechanic that can be removed and added back in later, along with all the related mechanics, feats, weapons, and creatures that rely on it.

I think the second set should still link to the beginners box, yet have broad appeal. I think having a Goblin War Party set (as there are definitely a bunch of goblin pawns in the beginners box) is a great idea, as a) Pathfinder Goblins are "cool" and b) everyone can use a box (or two or three).

With them being smaller minis, maybe there is a chance of getting say 6 figures in a box for the same price point, or maybe 4 regular goblins and a goblin dog rider. And maybe a goblin with a fez.

I like the way you think...and I'm pretty sure there are a few folks at Paizo who agree with you. A "box o' goblins" would be a great set. Box sets of iconic enemies would be awesome, as would box sets of summoned creatures, and similar minis that "everybody needs."

I do have to disagree with you on cost analysis. As I understand it, smaller minis don't necessarily mean cheaper minis. Most of a plastic mini's cost is held in the sculpting, molding and painting, and those costs aren't going to be significantly lower for a smaller creature. The only thing you'd be saving on is smaller amount of plastic required, which isn't that much of a difference.

I could be, and hope I am, wrong about that.

Paris Crenshaw wrote:

Indeed, Mairkurion. Indeed.

Actually, I would like to see Paizo produce opposite gender versions of the core classes before they do any other PC-related stuff.

For my home game, my daughter has decided to use the Merisiel mini to represent her half-elf Rogue character, but my other daughter is playing a female half-elf fighter. I'd love it if she could have a good pre-mainted heroic mini, herself.

If I were using a wish spell for this, I'd like to have a full range of races and genders for all the base classes, but that's obviously a long way off.

I know you're asking about prepainted minis, but I'd like to mention that in the Pathfinder RPG Beginner Box, we'll have tokens for all four classes in all three races in both genders (that's 24 tokens).

That is fantastic, Vic. Thanks to whoever it was on the team that championed that idea.

You should now take that art and convert it into pre-painted minis for the product line. Now. Hurry. ;-)

Indeed, Mairkurion. Indeed.

Actually, I would like to see Paizo produce opposite gender versions of the core classes before they do any other PC-related stuff.

For my home game, my daughter has decided to use the Merisiel mini to represent her half-elf Rogue character, but my other daughter is playing a female half-elf fighter. I'd love it if she could have a good pre-mainted heroic mini, herself.

If I were using a wish spell for this, I'd like to have a full range of races and genders for all the base classes, but that's obviously a long way off.

Definitely need to see information on sea trade and ships of the Inner Sea.

If I recall there's this free magazine that comes out every six months or so. I believe issue number 3 of said magazine has some information on a few ships. I think an expansion on that material would be great.

Maybe you can find your way to that article and check it out? ;-)

Note: I was not the author of that article...but I highly recommend it.

Whew! I've been trying to post to this thread all afternoon, but there was something wrong with my computer. I could post on other threads, but not to this one. Weird. Anyway....

There are some "cryptic notes" about the products revealed at the banquet can be found here: Mythopoeic Rambling.

I have it on good authority that the author of those notes is working on an expanded explanation of those notes, which will soon be forwarded to the author of the blog. ;-)

Paris Crenshaw wrote:

All three told the story of how Paizo utilized blind testing, in which a group of 14 year olds were presented with the box set and told simply to "play the game".

They had to figure out how to play the game without any help at all. Within 20 minutes of opening the box, they were playing Pathfinder.

I really wish they had recorded this session. I would be absolutely fascinated to see how they played the game out of the box like that.

Actually, to hear them tell it, it was supremely frustrating, due to their inability to jump in and show the kids how to do it. ;-)

But they did learn a heck of a lot about how the rules should be written for those who have never before played the game. I'm pretty sure that the developers applied every bit of what they learned.

Lisa seemed supremely proud of what the team has accomplished. And I, for one, am greatly anticipating this product.