Pax Veritas's page

And this is different than burn out.

I still want to play. I still want to run a campaign.

Instead of a candle that's "burning out" due to loss of oil or wax... its like there's something wrong with the light.

I find myself:

• Analyzing Jos Whedon shows or other movies and shows to figure out a kind of "formula" that makes for a more compelling evening session
  
• Disinterested in the conclusion of my current campaign. I've taken a month off to focus on RL stuff and recharge. Turns out, my charge is still very much on, but I don't get thrilled like I used to, and I notice players in the homebrew are left wanting more, not just from my campaign, but the other as well. Just not as satisfying as it used to be.
  
• Looking through my gaming collection for inspiration; I feel like I just want to start a new campaign, with fresh characters, maybe even some new players. OMG! Am I just bored with my current group?
  
• Making lists of things I would do differently in my next campaign; opening discussions of alternative playstyles with the other players--asking them how they feel about GM hand-waiving introductions so each week the game takes place in a new interesting venue (mountain, waterfront, island, volcano, forest, under earth, etc,., ; I find myself recalling the early days of gaming when it "just didn't matter how we got there" and "players didn't need to analyze all the stuff in-between modules/adventure arcs" like how they got there or why the location was 1000 miles away from the week before...
  
• Looking for that singular thrilling moment that happens when a new campaign begins, new characters are awaiting their first lines, when new players are just first seeing what their new GM can do... ; I long for that excitement of presenting a fresh new situation without a lot of established "baggage" that comes with knowing how players react in certain situations... ***But note: I'm not just talking about starting a new campaign---I'm describing the excitement that used to come each week, and that THRILL IS GONE.
  

This is much different that what I'd expect to see on a simple "burn-out" thread. What does this mean? I've got the veteran gamer blues pretty hard.

I play Pathfinder weekly. The group I started GMing for began in 2005. 10 years later, there is still 1 original player. This past year, I brought in 2 younger players (in their 20s) and we've switched campaigns weekly (between 2 different campaigns, run by 2 different GMs - myself and one of the younger guys).

Having a week "off" was very refreshing. after 7-9 years of weekly GMing original content... I appreciate having 2 weeks to come up with a story. The current campaigns are only 1 year old.

Here's what I've observed gets the players excited:

• When the evening session moves through more than 3-4 "scenes"/scenarios - more content seems to feel like greater accomplishment
  
• "gamist" style rewards i.e. cleverly selected treasure - stuff that means something, is useful, or has a rich background
  
• NPCs with lots of character, rich appearance/voice, interesting plight
  
• Well-placed hand-waiving - whenever the GM waves past the boring bits, there's a split second moment of resistance, but in effect the player group appears to then feel relieved that the story progressed
  
• Story-twists happening faster rather than slower; "big reveals" happening weekly rather than monthly or annually. It just feels like modern players need more closure than in the past, more progress than in the past, more content than in the past...
  
• Guard-rails off - campaign threats that pose lethal problems i.e. the risk of character death without a lot of pulling punches by the GM. The feel of possibly losing a character gets the heart pumping.
  

This is what I hope will become a very long thread of community input regarding the elephant in the room.

Backstory: As a veteran gamer (since 1982) I've hit a wall that nearly every gamer including you has hit, or will hit at some point--and we (I) need your help!

The Problem: For years, gaming session provided a "gaming buzz" i.e. a happy wholesome high of joy (you know what I mean). However, home games in Pathfinder drag on too long. Campaigns run too long. Players get bored. A few encounters/rooms per week is NOT enough content to reach that gaming thrill (and I don't know what's changed).

Observation: I still observe rare moments when that "feeling" returns: a) new campaign first sessions with new characters b) when we play a 1-shot adventure with all new characters and c) for a few sessions after when we bring in a new player. But that's it.

Caveat about PFS: Let's leave PFS out of this equation without any value judgment of that style of game. Let's just say we're focusing on home games, with homebrew content.

Question: What can be done to re-ignite the flame of these veteran gamer blues?

Assassins are half elves CR5 each (4@CR9)

Two persons in room: 1 CR6 PC (Male human Inquisitor), and 1 CR6 NPC (female DrowFighter).

Scenario: I'm pretty sure this is a dick move, just like Charon's Little Helper mentions.

When this happened to me, I felt it was stupid.

Now, even though I can and probably should I think a better way is in order:

Some IDEAS based on input from thread (above):
>Give the clue that an assassin's dagger was found, along with some poison.
>Have an NPC as the PCs, "Are you aware of any reason any one of you might be wanted dead? We have reason to believe there is an assassin, or assassins in or around the Keep tonight."

Then, have the PCs take any necessary precautions....
If the target PC must choose either A) Have sex with the drow elf and sleep or B) post a watch near where he sleeps and ensure someone is awake all night watching for assassins.

Then, I can spring the assassins on the target PC in his new environment.... might not be the Keep Tower room as I would like it to be... but hey, at least it isn't a "jerk" move... and the result can be a battle with other PCs or alone, but still a very viable fighting chance.

I completely agree, if the GM wants a PC dead, it happens. Boom. And this is something I can't stand as a player... dunno why I struggled with this today as a GM. I was just amazed that the rules have the PCs dead-to-rights when it comes to a scenario like this.

PC CR6+NPC CR6= CR8 vs. 4 Assassins at CR5 = CR9, so its really only a hard encounter, but when you add ***SLEEP*** plus Assassins, its pretty much overwith, isn't it?

Pax

Advice from Experienced GM Needed, Please:

Background: 30+ yrs. GM. Having a complex issue designing story threads such that they play with obvious path for players to follow. Sandbox style for so many years, I want to create a compelling story without wracking my brain with 10 possible directions the party can go in after every segment of the game. After years of NON-railroading, I need your advice on how to railroad and get the players on board without overt coercion/railroading [Non-GMs, please cover your ears ;)]

Problem: I want to run my homebrew games more fluidly in an evening's session, getting through several different locales, and having more flowing story content, possibly toward completion of some story threads within an evening's session (approx. 4-5 hrs.). (Similar in some ways to Pathfinder Society Games, but without the overt coercion/railroading.) My current immersive sandbox style causes me too much prep-time (I prep 3-4+ possible storylines for each session currently.)

Question: Is there a GM out there with years of experience running homebrew worlds of extreme immersive complexity, and choice options for players who can advise me with specific techniques to keep my games more coherent, on a track, more modular, and faster paced? [James Jacobs and Sean K Reynolds - I will be looking to ask you this at GENCON.] In fact, perhaps other GMs here on the messageboards can help me craft a more succinct question, as the issues I'm having elude me: I'm feeling like I'm too immersive, too detailed, and the prep time is too lengthy. [Edit: this is not an issue of GM-grandstanding i.e. I don't overwhelm players with detail for my own glory. My games are very player focused, and I am not the cause of slow down, if anything, my background prep for many areas is wasted including my time.] I am even open to hearing about any module design structure templates GMs may be using to keep ideas on a rail-track, rather than feel the burden of prepping all things for all people.

Thanks for any input,
Pax

The monk in the party is a huge WOW player - so it would be a treat if I could conjure some tactic to make this plausible, even if WOW isn't my cup of tea... a nod of giving the player a tactical experience i.e. what he enjoys best.

As of now, I've hinted that the dragon can be destroyed by "what the monk knows best" which is peace. The dragon will not attack first. But I want to plan for the contingency of battle. Any 3.5 stuff or 3PP stuff? I certainly don't want the dragon to be a joke.

I also imagined using PAIZOs mythic stuff. Perhaps giving the players mythic power as they enter this tiny plane. Still, I'm pressed for stats for the dragon. Help!

I hear that maiden's call.

"... and the thrill of it all."

Oh, just to pop back in to add one more thought.

Killing PCs arbitrarily is the mark of a poor game master.

* * *

That said, some situations are tough, dice rolls sometimes go very badly, and good characters die. A trap is not an arbitrary way to die, per se, provided everything was done to inform the players adequately, and there existed some chance of success, and the players did their best... there's really nothing to complain about. I suppose the trap should be appropriate for the level of game play, and, the death I would argue should be CLEAN and free from technical errors.

Otherwise, yes, players are not entitled to their success, as this makes for a hokey game. A seasoned GM knows when to play his cards, and when to ease up the ebb and flow of challenges, and how not to break characters nor kill them too arbitrarily.

Have a look at some or all of the following:
>PAIZO's Darklands supplement
>Ed Greenwoods Forgotten Realms "Underdark"
>PAIZO's Adventure Paths... I think Second Darkness AP

But here is a short list of things that really do the Darklands/Underdark well for me:
> GIANT glowing fungus/mushrooms
> Grand sweeping vistas glowing with a deep purplish hue
> Many pockets of isolated encounters (i.e. a wizard who got lost one day and settled down to build a cabin, primarily hiding from other denizens, but looking for an escape)
> DUERGAR slavers!!! Gotta have those
> Drow, drow, drow and more drow houses, nobles, a big city, and evil, sinister cruelty
> Advanced Elite Barbaric ____fill in the blanks___ ; trives of traveling creatures like the old Quaggoth
> FALLING: set the mood by droping the PCs deep , deep down under Land of the Lost style, or through a massive portal, but ensure there is FALLING at some point. Gotta have the falling forever feeling. (in a recent homebrew I had the PCs enter a portal then fall for a very long time having MELEE battle whilst falling. It was memorable for sure!
> Traveling down LONG long long passages
> Dangerous watery slick areas with beasts like Water elementals, Purple Worms, or Fire Salamanders. Use some classic beasts like the Yuan-Ti (or Pathfinder equivalents Serpentmen etc.

I could ramble on, but you get the idea. Good luck!

To the OP:

This is as far as I needed to read:

I had 8 hit points and decided to attack, figuring the oracle would channel since they were bombs.

I've got 30+ years of playing under my belt and I can tell ya it doesn't matter if its PFS Society play or regular Pathfinder RPG play, if you're in a pickle and you don't retreat or ask for help, you're running a high risk of death. Its just that simple.

Hope that helps,
Keep on gaming; death is quite frustrating I realize, but that's what blank character sheets are for!

Regards,
Pax Veritas

I use a ceiling-mounted projector with a 45-degree hanging mirror to project my dungeons onto the game table. Affixed to the table is smooth whiteboard paper (almost like contact paper but removable) to make the colors vivid. I typically project maps I make in MapTool (by RP Tools) but also use any available vivid dungeon map. With the grid projected from above, I'm also able to draw freely with dry erase pens on the table.

I mix it up with dungeon tiles for special occasions but use black shelf liner to enable the tiles to stay affixed in place when doing so.

At times I build 3-d terrain using Terraclips 3D sets. When going 3d I accessorize the setting with a collection of miscellaneous rocks, barrels, trees, crystals, or other collected terrain features.

In time I plan to hack a Wiimote and mount it on the ceiling, allowing players to move their digital character tokens about with RF pens, but haven't yet done that. For now, I use Pathfinder minis, D&D minis, Pathfinder Pawns, and my own tokens as needed.

FYI: "going digital" is easier than you think. I will say that I most enjoy the combination of digital and miniatures the best.

Good gaming,
Pax

Here's my advice:

I've run a weekly Pathfinder RPG game since the Alpha playtest. I have often, if not frequently (monthly) kept mindful of the party's overall power with relation to the CRs I throw at them. I enjoy a challenge, and so do the players.

I use the formula described in the Gamemastery Guide (the one others note above), EXCEPT:

I add +1 CR due to the many years of experience of my players
I add +1 CR due to having 6 regular players

Thus, here is my modified table for my weekly group. On the left is the standard table; on the right in parenthesis is my modified table using an overall +2):

THE PAX VERITAS FORMULA
Easy APL –1 (+2 = APL+1)
Average APL (+2 = APL+2)
Challenging APL +1 (+2 = APL+3)
Hard APL +2 (+2 = APL+4)
Epic APL +3 (+2 = APL+5)

I've tested this repeatedly (for my group) and it works. Also, if your group doesn't have years of experience, but instead has a higher level of wealth and magic, you can substitue the rationale but still use a +1 to account for it. Either way an overall +1 over the recommended PAIZO guidelines is how I run my games. It took me many months to figure this out, and countless PAIZO messageboard posts. Thanks to everyone's input I finally landed on this system (for my group). Mileage may vary.

Hope that helps,
Pax

Edit: One important point about opponents >3 steps above the party level: some monsters, as James Jacobs points out, have powers that make the encounter impossible to defeat (once you get beyond the 3 level gap). To account for this: when you create your BBEG (end boss) battle, even if using my table, you want to ensure the boss is no greater than APL +3. You can use the additional gap in APL to account for minions, assistants, and others to fill the encounter with more creatures or dynamic accomplices. In short, you still can create an APL +5, with no one monster within that encounter being >APL+3 (or +4) if you think they can handle. Hope that makes sense.

It is with deep appreciation that I review this thread. The characters/NPCs you are crafting are done so with gentle care that sparks the imagination. Your selection of picture with build choices are highly appealing. I used Abikay recently in an evening session of my weekly Pathfinder game, and he really surprised the players.

It is fantastic that you are providing these resources. I cannot thank you enough Ravingdork, and I will endeavor to bring some of these to life at my game table.

I find your work very inspirational, and want to add a thank you for also adding the rule descriptions because it makes running these characters very easy, allowing me to focus on storybuilding and execution and other prep elements such as maps and personalities.

Once again, thank you for this generous sharing of your talent and time.

Regards,
Pax Veritas

There is a richness and depth to the story that would be missed if players didn't (in-character) argue, and once in a while come to blows with each other. Anything worth fighting for (the quest, the goal, the story) is worth passionately believing in. Thus players who really play their character's personality, alignment, personna are likely to butt-heads with each other from time to time. As long as this makes sense from a character and story perspective, and so long as the heated debate or brawl is relevant to the story, it tends to become an important part of any campaign. Sometimes great adventuring groups are forged upon the disputes they have with each other, like steel is tested in fire. With each incident, once attacks are being made, the GM must provide a fair opportunity for combatants to roll for initiative. Provided the GM remains neutral, and gives every benefit of fair play, and uses the NPCs, setting, or his own calm composure to moderate this player v. player conflict, the results usually return to equilibrium, and each of the PCs learns to understand the other. This happens all the time in movies where great heros sqabble before strengthening their teamwork resolve (The Avengers is a particularly recent example).

I stress also, that the brief nod of the referee, in this case the GM, helps to send the clear message that he will not tollerate bad outcomes. Typically, one player begins excitedly by staying they clober so-and-so over the head with such and such, then do the action that the other player was previously preventing. A clear signal and tone is set when the GM says, "Hold it right there. I want an initiative roll from each of you." This speaks volumes and must be done before commenting whether the player will succeed or not in his intended act. This action on the part of the GM begins a fair and governed match and clearly points out that 1) you may not get what you want, it depends on the dice and 2) this player v. player action will be regulated by me and follow the game rules. I have found, that without breaking the spirit of the roleplay moment, the GM can communicate a willingness to honor character freedoms within the context of the game, provided the parties still know the GM maintains the authority to judge the event. Players value this freedom, and once the GM allows this to occur a time or two, it tends to never happen again in a particular campaign.

A critical event occurs when it becomes more than just battle and more than just brawl. The intention of one player to kill the other PC outright is something that can ruin a campaign, upset the group dynamic, and potentially ruin the game experience for 1 or more players. Thus, if this occurs more than once every few years of real time, the onus is on the GM to improve the context of his campaign and the story glue that binds the party together. That is, if player v. player conflict occurs too often, the fault lies not with the players but with the expectations the GM has set about the nature of the adventuring group within his realm, and should seek out the elements of story that were insufficient to bind the group more cohesively together. Only after the GM has re-examined his own story machinations, can he look to finding other players who will not trash his campaign with petty in-fighting. To conclude then, in-fighting has a place sparingly and should be executed fairly with initiative rolls and other adherances somewhat magnified due to the importance of the loss of a player character, and the potential death of a PC at the hands of another player should be viewed by everyone as a serious event capable of tipping over the fun, the story, and the campaign.

I regret that the intellectual property of AD&D is in the hands of incompetent boobs. WotC is dead to me. I make it a point to not buy any of their products. I get to have my say by voting with my dollar. I urge others who feel this way to do the same. Simply don't buy anything, not even their PDFs.

As an alternative, check out the new Gygax Magazine being released this Saturday, or check out the brothers Chenault's version called Castles & Crusades (Troll Lord Games), or you can download a free copy of the 1st edition rules (the tome is called OSRIC). There are of course other options as well. Second hand book stores, ebay, and fine game stores still carry the full line of AD&D products (used of course). I recommend acquiring a copy of the AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide and reading through it often for the enjoyment of high gygaxian prose, or for inspiration. Many conventions sell AD&D modules, and honestly there is more character in those old prints than anything new might have to offer. You can stop by GENCON this year as well, there's tons of AD&D stuff to be found at reasonable prices.

Basically - there is no marvelous gift here. The WotC have shown that in the blink of an eye they can act in a manner that aggravates gamers, shown no customer favor by having revoked the PDFs in the first place, and have for the most part fracked-up the game we've enjoyed for decades by placing their eye on profit rather than the integrity of the game (4e is, was, and ever shall be an abomination that trampled the history and traditions of our game).

At times like this, I ask the oft-forgiving public to cast aside their forgetfulness for a moment, because WotC is expecting the consumer base they cast aside to wake up one day having forgotten what had happened with the sudden pulling of PAIZO's licence to make Dungeon and Dragon magazines, even when they knew it was a better quality than it had ever been before. WotC expects you to forget the fibs told at GENCON 07 about the open free virtual DDI and all the technical support they would provide. WotC expects you to forget because they think the gaming community is a bunch of sheep, just waiting in line to re-buy their products even when the quality is poor. The WotC expect middle-aged gamers to forget the flash-based media they released comparing gamers who had negative feedback to internet trolls. They want you to forget how they told you to "wrap up your campaigns" and "this ain't your daddy's D&D" and explained that the way you're playing the game isn't good all in favor of marketing a less-than-par edition.

Its 2013, and we've moved on. I still play AD&D and C&C occasionally. And the last thing I will ever do is give 1 more cent to WotC. They've wronged a generation (and many 3rd party publishers) by making the GSL so iron clad that publishers had to destroy their product and if publishers wrote for 4e they had to stop writing for the previous edition. This was a CR20 corporate monster that ate up all good will of this community like a Tarrasque on holiday. And for that... I won't forget. I will remember how I felt as a customer, and especially how I felt through all of this as a gamer. Thanks for listening.

To the OP: Inspired by this thread, I decided to "kick-it" old school last night. With my game room ready, but much of my stuff still unpacked, I did the following:
>Did not use a GM screen
>Did not set up initiative tags like usual
>Did the "wooosh" sound every once in a while and split attention from player to player as they went their seperate ways in town. In old school we often did "split the party". So as a GM, I did a LOT of cut-scenes back and forth, monitoring everyone's engagement in the game. When one person seemed a little checked-out I would "woosh" over to them, and make some s*@+ up on-the-spot. It made for a very entertaining game of Pathfinder RPG.

Old School Prep:
Instead of printing elaborate stat blocks and flagging pages in bestiaries, and instead of using Combat Manager, or my tabletop projector rig... I just had ideas jotted down on a quarter sheet of tiny graph paper. Yeah we used graph paper back then. The tiny stuff is the bomb. All I did was jot down some NPC names, drew a little dungeon, made some notes about monsters and traps, and off I went.

I cannot tell you the s!*& I came up with on-the-spot.
Here's a taste of where the mind goes when you're not shacked to modules, minis, maps, or rules:
1) One of the pirate NPCs the party had traveled with for some time was hanged.
2) Peeking into a noble's manor they saw a man who'd been the victim of vivisectionist experiments
3) A secret underground "prince" delivered a missive and an enchanted sword via an organization member
4) The bard received a mission from the local brothel house.
5) The plot about one PCs father was revealed as it pertained to the slave trade.
6) A new PC character was introduced by way of the local church, a church that participates in ritual executions of criminals
7) A known sorceress claimed the inquisition forced her to work for them because she could raise the dead***

** My only OOPS!-Factor - a casualty of improvisaion that I shall figure out by next week.

MY POINT: None of this had anything to do with the Pathfinder Ruleset. It had to do with the way you keep players on their toes by stradling the line between what is "known" and what is "unknown" or ambiguous. There is a tension caused by the unknown, and it is the lure of the drama that pulled everyone in deep.

By the end of the night the players were saying, "great session" and "great job". I swear, sometimes I prepare for 16 hours just to run the game session and I don't get such compliments.

Thanks Luna (The OP) for asking your initial question... because by responding to you over the holidays via this thread, you got me thinking about the "fun" associated with GMing with speed, imagination, and light-but-resourceful preparation.

Best things to have ready:
> A list of NPC names; cross them off as you introduce NPCs that you imagine and use on-the-spot
>A short list of monster names, maybe some page numbers for when it feels like the players are ready for a battle
>Good listening skill: A big secret about how we used to play in the 1980s and the key to a successful game was to listen to your players to come up with the solutions/outcomes/story ending. Listen carefully to their chatter as they discuss problems, then use one of their ideas as the actual solution. This still works in 2013. Trust me.
>Confidence - just trust your imagination, and roll-with-it. Imagine the setting, know your NPC motivations and the culture of whereever you are - then just improv the rest.

It's refreshing to just PLAY!

One note about THACO:
> Using a chart on your character sheet, when a player rolled a number they knew immediately if they "hit".

For example,
-10 -9 -8 -7 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
20 20 20 20 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8

The point being.... every time you went to attack, the LAST thing you were thinking about was mathematics or tactical bonuses. This kept us focused on the story description.

I can recall looking the "DM" quare in the eye and speaking in character, "You will never get away with this, and you must pay for your crimes." *drops d20 on table*

The other players would see the result and begin cheering... there wasn't any delay in the excitement nor thrill. With one glance, for example, I instanty knew that if the number I glanced at was higher than 15 I had hit.

In todays game it sounds like this:
I'm going to use a move action to close with the monster, then use my xyz feat to abc the monster. *rolls d20*

*pause*
*wait*
GM: Did you hit?
Player: I don't know... one sec.
Player: 14...15.... +1 for bless, plus 1 for haste. Oh I get another atack too at my highest attack bonus.
GM: Did you hit?
Player: One sec. 12+1+1+14... I think so. I hit AC31. Did I hit?
GM: YOu swing your sword and..
Player: NO actually I used my xyz feat to abc and so I took a -2 penalty for the abc but got a bonus to the damage.
GM: Did you hit?
Player: AC 31. *pause*
GM: You miss.
Player: No wait! AC 32 I forgot the xyz song the bard sang.
Other Player: Actually that makes it 34.
Player 1: Oh really?
Player 3: Yes, here I'll look it up.
GM: 34 then. okay. You strike the foe mightily and...
Player 4: No that ended 2 rounds ago because the number of rounds is equal to...
Player 3: Here it is on page X. *Begins to read....*
GM: *Zzzzzzz (falls asleep, loses enthusiasm)

The execution of old style (and still relevant today is SPEED, and don't talk about or discuss rules, just keep the game moving, describe and have fun. Keep players thinking about the world, the NPCs, the texture of the dungeon walls, keep them curious, interested...)

When any one player hasn't spoken in a few minutes, suddenly make something up to get that character engaged in the game.
>Salitharus, you hear a scraping sound from behind the wall.
>Gothimir, suddenly a rock crashes down upon you. Make a reflex save!
>All of a sudden, you feel a cold chilling breeze come from the black throne... a green cloud appears to slowly creep toward you. What do you do?

O.o. Just catching up on this thread.... some non sequitur replies:

> I agree that powergamers suck.

> @ InVenoVeritas - great quote from Gygax.

To the OP: Your central concern is around "converting Mystara i.e. Karameikos to Pathfinder RPG.

STOP!

Stop thinking you need to convert this or that. Pathfinder RPG can be played with any world of your imagination.

NEXT: START SMALL!

Draw a little map. A small little town area map. Add some happy little trees where the forest is. Think about your story. Start small. First level characters know nothing about the immortals, and thus you don't need to either yet.

NEXT: DONT GET OVERWHELMED!

You can keep reading up on stuff, getting ideas for game stories. But all that really matters is what you need to keep running the game from week to week.

The Old School Feel isn't some old abandoned idea that we can carefully reproduce like an Edsel car or a Russian made Fiat. The true old school feel worth having at your table is being a great game master. And you players will "feel" like you are doing that job when you go about running a good game.

Old school notions that are longed-for, and worth replicating are the elements that made great games, again having little to do with how much bulk publisher stuff you can "convert" into a new ruleset.

The veil over gamers eyes is that folks think you need lots of "information about a setting"; when in effect you can do just as well making stuff up as you go and calling it Mystara. In fact, touching a lot of the iconic stuff of any published campaign is a bit anti-thema to running with the classic feel i.e. good gamemastery.

The 1979 DungeonMaster's Guide, along with James Jacobs' Game Masters Guide (from PAIZO) contain just about everything you need to really "get it". And from the sound of your posts, you already do.

I'm not saying reading up on Mystara and having a map or two aren't valuable activities.... BUT... relax, start small, make Mystara YOURS rather than try to step through the mechanical paces of executing all that published canon.

For example, pick a place to start, then pick a hex that has no lable, has no background, and make it YOURS.Imagine what is there, and take your paladin dwarf on a journey to that place.

All the richness of Mystara is already in your imagination because it was designed as the type of quazi-medieval fantasy world that Gary imagined. And all of that is backdrop to the real show--- the real "old school feel" is truly good gamemastery. It's all about the execution of the game, not the particulars, and where particulars are necessary, it is best to go "off-road" from published canon anyhow. This thrill of new and unknown is at the heart of adventure whether it be old-school or new school.

To the OP:

Well, that quote you provided confirms all of my advice said earlier. A good roleplaying group will never let the game down, and it sounds like you've got that. Again, its not about the rules, and you already know how to do it - this means, just run things naturally as your instinct guides you. Stay in the moment, be creative, come up with things on-the-spot. You can run Pathfinder RPG as your game, but as your friends pointed out: focus on the story and by extension the roleplay of NPCs etc.

I've had a blast running Mystara. The classic setting is in the Grand Duchy of Karameikos. The Pandius website is a good reference if you don't have the original boxed set.

http://pandius.com/index.html

http://www.cartographersguild.com/regional-world-mapping/2151-mystara-grand -duchy-karameikos.html

http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/S

hadowTriad/karameikos.html

http://pandius.com/karameikos-8.pdf

A classic place to have that paladin dwarf be from is Rockhome:
http://pandius.com/rockhome.html

A classic place to start the campaign is in the Barony of Threshold:
http://pandius.com/thrshmp2.html

From there you're quite close to water, mountains, forest, badlands, ruins, moors, etc.

If you need anything else, just let us know. Grats on playing Pathfinder RPG, and kudos for playing it in Mystara.

Its best to start small, with a small local area, 1st level PCs, minor quest, then build the story from there. Introduce NPCs, travel a few hexes out, then return to the homebase town. Then send them on some quests that take them farther out. Eventually, cross over into new lands, and perhaps even take them out to sea. You can find PAIZO's updated Isle Of Dread module in the old Dungeon Magazines, along with some great fold-out maps and information. The Pandius website will give you awesome details and maps. About every 15 minutes of game time - look around at what the players are actually doing and ask yourself, "how can I make THIS interesting" and opt to springboard off their ideas, and be prepared to throw out any preparation you may have done in favor of pursuing their goals and interests.

Nothing says D&D more than "The Known Lands" which later became Karameikos (Mystara). Have fun!

You'll do great!

=Pax

To the OP:

See, the idea here isn't to actually play 2nd Edition nor first. Play Pathfinder RPG, as that is your intention. The old school feel is something even the publishers of old school materials haven't quite figured out. It's not about the rules.

Consider the following:

• You already know how to play.
  
• Set the rules aside and run the game spontaneously.
  
• Don't look things up, or bring up rules during the game.
  
• Let the story flow. Imagine things and make them happen in-the-moment.
  
• If you want to make a game decision randomly, such as, "Is there a cleric walking down the street," just estimate the % chance there would be one... say 53%, then roll the percentile dice under that amount, and keep the game moving.
  
• Keep the pace of game moving. Don't wait for players to make all the decisions i.e. have someone walk into the room, an explosion occurs in a building, a carriage chase occurs in the street.
  
• Keep introducing many things as they enter your mind and you will stay "in the moment". When this happens, the players stay in-the-moment with you, because there's no time for looking things up, only time to roleplay and flow with the story.
  
• Understand the illusion you create with free will, and never speak of this secret to the players e.g. you control everything, but you always make it seem like they do.
  
• Keep players distracted by description, story, NPCs, events, happenings all around them. This sparks their imagination, and your quick responses allow you to rivet them into staying in-character, rather than focusing on rules or books.
  
• The true "feel" can occur at the table regardless of ruleset. You could be playing AD&D or Pathfinder RPG, or GURPS --- it doesn't matter.

Have a basic story outline with you, about the size of a bar napkin:
For example:
I. A swarthy looking pirate is running on foot through the town street and being chased by a demon. The demon encases the pirate in ice or stone, laughs and provides a clue about why he came for him.
II. The PCs investigate the details and learn of an adventure locale of your choosing.
III. The adventure locale is filled with traps or riddles, strange statues, magic mouths that talk, or anything else that crosses your mind as-you-play.
IV. The PCs make their way to some "final chamber" after going through some rooms or areas of your choosing (try to make these up as you go), and battle the evil demon or other arch-villain.
V. The PCs return to town, un-freeze the pirate and he tells them about some other adventure locale with promise of treasure or magic as a reward for helping.

Remember, you already know how to play. Trust your imagination. When you are actively trusting your instincts during the game, the players will use their imaginations too. Listen to your players, and each time they propose an idea, run with that.

And the biggest finesse you can possibly demonstrate during execution is to interact with the PCs via some NPC or creature in order to hold a dialogue in which the PLAYERS suggest exactly what the story is: who the villain may be, or how to solve the situation---then USE THE PLAYER'S improvised ideas about the nature of the adventure itself to make this become the ACTUAL explanation, solution, or story itself.

This becomes highly organic, requires little preparation, and you already know play.

It is smoke and mirrors, and this is the big secret to fantastic GMing in any ruleset.

One final scandalous secret: don't plan/structure/try to control the design of every game element... because... you also don't need any modules/published game materials. In sum, 1) you don't really need the rules (but you must have the appearance that you are following rules and your game must be internally consistent), 2) Improvise more than you plan and stay in-the-moment to keep the players so off-base and guessing that the game becomes both intriguing and swift, and 3) You don't need any publisher's game content or books (except for looking up spell effects which we often did, and a basic understanding of AC vs. attack rolls), otherwise keep the focus on the characters, and keep it moving.

WOW. I didn't think I could articulate that in a few short paragraphs myself. After reading this post, don't try to follow it step-by-step. Let yourself stay present when you play, you need only your imagination to pull off what you are hoping to achive. You can even forget everything I just told you.You already know how to to do it.

Yes, I Miyagied you. For sure.
Think about that. "You already know how to do it."

Without compromising that mantra to ponder, consider this excerpt from Frog God Games, but don't necessarily try to replicate it - just ponder its central message....

"The Classic Style:
The Black Monastery is presented in the spirit of fun typical of the classic, “old school” gaming style. It is an adventure in the classic style because it follows the design assumptions that were common in many publications and local campaigns during the early days of Dungeons and Dragons. In the classic era, the dungeon master was the final authority and was assumed to have complete control. Every event did not have to have a complete rationalization, formula or rules explanation. Mysterious phenomena, riddles and surprises were the norm. This module assumes that the dungeon master will take control and mold it to his campaign.

In a classic game, monsters might be stronger or weaker without having to figure out why. For unknown reasons, Flinds were the only creatures capable of wielding nunchaku. Qullan would die before revealing the special techniques for sharpening their broadswords. Piercers would wait most of their lives just to drop on adventurers and spend the next month crawling back up the wall after a miss. Skeletons always did 1d6 damage no matter what weapons they wielded. Rust monsters made sense. Orcs and gnolls would live next door to each other in dungeons that were essentially monster hotels and no one worried about why. In one of the classic modules by Judges Guild a single giant rat in a group of two dozen had 26 hit points because a typist made a mistake and that was okay – one of the rats was just really big.

Classic play usually assumed that monsters and player characters would follow standard archetypes. Magic-users always had white beards and pointy hats. Barbarians always wore rags and enormous fur boots. Paladins were noble and saintly. Fighters wore plate mail. Thieves climbed walls…a lot. Clerics were vaguely like Catholic priests gone bad, and they always chanted in Latin. All dwarves acted just like Gimli. All elves acted just like Legolas. Monsters were generally cheerful about their roles, including Norse berserkers who rated their own listing in the AD&D Monster Manual because they wandered around underground quite a bit, looking for player characters to fight.

In The Black Monastery, evil priests have left behind a large number of magical items and effects. They left poems and messages for intruders. They posted guardians that parade around chanting. They spawned ghostly effects that cannot be explained. Pictures are still hanging on walls. Dishes are rattling in the kitchen. Kobolds have decided a dungeon is a good place to roast a pig. Magic globes float in the air, waiting to explode. Statues perform strange, magical acts for no particular reason. Why? Who knows? All of that is okay. Explanations of these magical and monstrous events are provided from time to time, but they don’t really matter. The point is to have fun running about looting the place and trying to survive."

sorry for bad english

I'm a long time d&d player (ad&d, 3rd, 3.5, 4) and recently pathfinder. Love it.

fan of the forum, i spend many hour by month on it.

But when i read the optimization forum, it_s like I dont play the same game as the rest of many player.
maybe it's because my player are all near their 30, or because we are also world of darkness player, but I have never seen one of my fellow player put three dumpstat on their fighter to be all powerfull.
Who wants to play a dumb jackass for 20 level just because he can do 100 damage per round. What a boring character.

In my table, if you put a 7 in one of your mental stat, it will backfire all the time. try to buy a magic item at the listed price with 7 charisma. I double dare you.

Oh yeah, put your 7 in wisdom. No wonder you'r dominated each fight smartass.

In my experience, most of the optimized characters found on the advice forum would not be viable at our table. For example, nobody seem to find viable a shield and sword character without the twf feat tree. But in my expérience, full attack action is a rare occurence in battle. most of the time, monster moves, character too. I,have played a rogue for 16 level in schakled city. I have had the opportunity to use twf only a bunch of time in two years play.

In many build, attack of opportunity is a must. But it's a rule that praticly never happened in our game.

I understand that some player want to optimized their characther for combat. Tht's fine. But what I see on the optimization forum are one trick pony good for a nova round in the right circunstances.
I'm tired of reading that if you want to play a good rogue, you have to be an half orc with a falchion.

On some table, it's seem the r from rpg was taken out. when all the thing i want is killing and looting, I play a video game.

Just my two cent. have fun.

Less_than_Vince: WELCOME TO THE PATHFINDER RPG GAME!

Some like to play it to have powerful characters and be "bad ass" just as in many other games, many of which can be found online.

Some, like me, prefer to play a game that captures the very best of the traditions of D&D and the milieu of a quasi-medieval fantasy society as created by Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson.

That said, a lot of time has passed, and I see gamers as trending toward diversity rather than similarity. At one point in my life, I thought this was a bad thing, but I realize anyone playing the game, in whichever way they prefer is good for the game, the hobby, the industry, and really... quite a compliment to the original designers (Gary and Dave). The game they founded, was designed to encompass ALL these different ways to play...
1) Narrativist, roleplaying, deep meaning, great interesting characterization and dynamic stories
2) Gamist, rewards, prizes, power-ups, uber optimizations, treasures, etc.
3) Simulationist, maps, graph paper, 5" squares, wargaming, ship battles, armies, 1:1 melee, measuring range for spells, exact line-of-sight etc.

To the OP: Like you I also LOVE Pathfinder RPG because the rules as written are smart, sensible, crafted with care, geared toward balance, and overall good design, great inspiring artwork and accessible language for the average gamer, plus many more reasons.

If you had asked me a few years ago, "Are we playing a different game," I may have said YES, however, now I see that we are indeed still playing the same wondrous invention of Dave and Gary's; they created a game to encompass all these preferences AND even the preferences yet undiscovered by the next generation. The glue that keeps Pathfinder RPG so awesome is that they honor the past, dedicate the game to Gary and Dave and consider the types of things they considered when designing the game, yet they make the game very accessible for our generation, and new generations to come. So today, I wanted to respond by saying... maximizing/optimizing/boasting about uber-powers and damage is NOT by cup of tea, yet what I realize is that all kinds of gamers with all kinds of preferences can still play at my table when I GM. I simply need to specify:
* What are my expectations
* How we will communicate ongoing to ensure we understand what style of gameplay we are playing
* What type of game the players want to play; then decide if I (as a GM) can give each preference style a little of what they love

The style of game is like listening to music. Some prefer country, jazz, classical, reggae, hip hop, etc. Yet music itself is malleable, formable, shapeable, style-able, just like Gary and Dave's game. I love that Pathfinder has this wide appeal to all kinds of playstyles. While I wish that more gamers preferred my style so that it would be easier to find players with things I value and find in common --- it is also not that hard to find gamers who do, and I can still find some things in common with gamers that prefer other styles.

Are we playing different music than one another? Sure we are. We are all different, diverse, and have different exposure to the game. Yet, the music that plays on game night is distinctly Pathfinder RPG, a continuance of this time-honored tradition.

Pax Veritas

And, for what it is worth---

I would like to welcome those joining now with Pathfinder RPG. A key point you can trust is:
1) It doesn't matter that you didn't start long ago like us Neogrognards and
2) If you wish to "catch-up" on older gamers perspective on most matters, pick up an old copy of the 1979 AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide and read it cover to cover.

The subtle point I'd like to make in this thread is:
* Most people think, "well I didn't have that background in the game so I cannot relate." I wish to point out, after years of trying to figure this out, that it simply isn't true. All one needs to do is familiarize one's self with most of the guidelines first written in the AD&D game (1st edition). Perhaps play it a little bit too. But it's not rocket science, and newer generations pick up on things much more quickly than most of us ever did back in the day. This way, (only if you want to), you can bridge the gap between old and new and see that most of the design principles Gary first wrote about are still the types of things designers today consider when making materials for our time honored hobby.

P.s. Sorry for the thread-jack, but I felt inspired to make that point for anyone glancing at this thread and thinking, "ah, the old people are boasting again." What I'd like to see is more of a bridge between old and new players, and to those just joining with Pathfinder RPG I say, "There's never been a better time to start tabletop gaming, and welcome!"

-Sincerely,
Pax

If you want to play tabletop like a video game, and use all the gamist techniques to power up, optimize, increase in wealth and overall uberness... then you can.

If you want to play tabletop like with focus on immersive setting, verisimilitude to a quazi-medieval fantasy realm then you use more narrativist techniques focused on character personality development, character changes in beliefs throughout the campaign, 1st person roleplay, within game world that isn't optimized but instead anchored in believability of the milieu.

The two are also compatible, and often you have players coming at it from both sides.

*As for the reason 1 is more evident in most games today, is the popularity and promulgation of gamist ideas, coupled with game materials that provide such details as to enable them to be optimized. The root cause of this, I believe, is the rise of gamers without any true upbringing in the "second" style of play made most popular in the 1980s by Tracy Hickman and other designers who boosted popularity of game by setting aside tournament style play and cut-throat dungeoning by shifting focus toward the narrtivism and roleplay.

Each style, even as it pains me to say this, is a viable and enjoyable one. In my old age I no longer feel either need to be compared to one another, but are two major avenues of enjoyment based on player and GM desires.

The beauty of PATHFINDER RPG is that is is dedicated in the CORE RULE BOOK to Gary and Dave - who's writings and modules and materials (if you study them) already contained the implicit ability to play either way. Just as the game often represents immense variety in the content and stubstance of setting, story, NPCs, and the milieu, so too can the mechanics of the game be selected as to play them with a style.

Music is like this, and the analogy of saying Country Music versus Classical versus Rock n Roll or R&B is a good way to describe how players can play:
>Simulationist Tacticle Wargaming
>Power Gaming
>Narrativist/Gamist/Simulationist Roleplaying

OR.. any combination of the above and at varying levels of each dimension based on the composition of the players and GM and their preferences and skill.

That is, I play N/G/S which I feel can be described as Pathfinder RPG RAW (rules as written) with heavy focus on character development, storylines, and believability of the Gygaxian fantasy milieu (a quasi-medieval fantasy setting as described in all primary source writings pubslished in AD&D as well as Gygax's writings published by Troll Lord Games).

Finally, I will say, that I struggle from week to week, even after 30 years of GMing, because my player group isn't all cut from the same cloth nor have the same backgrounds. In a very modern sense, it is difficult to please all the players as the modules use all the elements decribed above (I balance gamist (rewards and power increases) with narrativist (the story is supreme); and simulationist (I use 100s of accessories including battlemats, 3d models, and other templates).

In a word, it is very CONTEXTUAL as to which type of game is being run. On the one hand this is very frustrating unless you're at a convention and know exactly which type of game is being run. On the other hand, it is very rewarding that PATHFINDER RPG continues the history and tradition of its game dedicated to the spirit of the game i.e. the foundations set by Gary and Dave.

In the final wash - it is important in every game to:
>Set expectations
>Choose your players wisely
>Use ongoing communication
>Attempt to give each player a bit of the type of game that they enjoy
>Honor your GM who's task is multitudinous and vast

For in the modern world we are trending toward diversity, rather than similarity, and this adds both varied wonders to game outcomes but also encourages us to say that the best games are yet to come.

Sincerely Regards and Best Wishes,
Pax Veritas

Okay, let's back up a little bit because people still aren't able to explain, in game mechanics terms, why the +5,000gp cost for raise dead is appropriate.

So let's slightly alter the question:

Why is the cost for raise dead 5,000 gp? Why isn't it 100 gp, 1,000 gp, 7,350 gp, 10,000 gp, or 20,000 gp? Why is 5,000 gp the appropriate additional M cost for this spell?

Anyone?

Let me take a shot: 1) Expensive components and foci are a good way to adjust the effective power of a spell without changing the level. 2) We compare the relative power of Raise Dead to other similar spells. 3) We decide the diamond is an excellent component of contagion and sympathy. And the purity of a soul deserves the purity of diamond often expressed in game economy as having a value; we also we consider the forces the spell is shaping i.e. the compression of a soul back into it's host body. 4) We look at the spell's power (and description) in relation to other spells (of similar kind) and determine the value of 5,000 gp (rather than 100 gp, 1,000 gp, 7,350 gp, 10,000 gp, nor 20,000 gp) because although pricing is an art that leverages guidelines, we see Restoration with 100gp diamond dust or 1,000gp, we see Reincarnate with 1,000gp in oils, we see Greater Restoration with 5,000gp diamond dust, and Resurrection with 10,000gp diamond. During this review we also see that the -2 Negative Level penalty is exactly 50% of the penalty suffered after full Ressurection (which holds a -1 negative level penalty). We also notice that these are appropriate progressions: the L3 spell enables you to animate the dead, the L5 spell enables you raise the dead, and the L7 spell lets you ressurect the dead. Conclusions: Thus we feel comfortable, given all the above, and from a game mechanic perspective, with placing Raise Dead as having a 5,000gp diamond value for M component since the cost is also 1/2 the value of the M component for the Resurrection spell which requires a L13 Cleric to cast that L7 spell and so this related cost progression also makes sense since a L9 caster can cast the L5 spell, Raise Dead.

Indeed, I am deeply curious, what else should we consider? I may be overlooking something obvious. LOL

I vote this thread, "Best PAIZO discussion thread of 2012." I've been on here a lot since 2005, and the ability to really listen to Sean's points and read the views of other excellent gamers has been a pleasure.

That said, the 5,000 gp value diamond might have originated from a game mechanic that wished to balance against the original 7k Resurrection cost in 3.0, and may have been tied to character wealth by level.

The excessive cost is in step with the Gygaxian notion that Magical Healthcare should be scarce and the more potent the healing the more costly, allowing aristocrats to receive the highest priority of treatment since they have the most wealth they can contribute such donations far more readily than the middle or lower class. (Gary Gygax's Living Fantasy p.100) But this is not Sean's question which asks, "what is the game mechanic reason?"

I did some internet research, and read threads from 2003 which suggested even at that time, this very question made for popular debate on the internets.

Checking back to AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide @1979 (p.40): "When spell energy is released, it usually flows to the Prime Material from the Positive or Negative Material Plane. To replace it, something must flow back in reverse. The dissolution and destruction of material components provies the energy that balances out this flow, though the principle of similarity. Sometimes this destruction is very slow, as in the case with druids' mistletoe. Those spells without apparent material components are actually utilizing the air exhaled by the magic-user in the utterance of the spell." Now, this only supports the idea that a diamond (or other flavorful M component) is necessary, but doesn't justify the higher cost Sean points out, compared to other spell level energies expended as in his "Travel to Heaven" example noted up-thread.

Thus, I am thrilled that Sean opened my eyes to the imbalance of the cost compared to others. If we wish to get to the bottom of the question, "What is the game mechanical reason?," I suggest only that we look at character wealth by level and compare it to the other relative costs associated with "Magical Healthcare" and see how the progression of costs are built beginning with the lowly cure light wounds upward toward full resurrection. If in the course of that summary we find the cost is balanced against all other healing on a scale of potency, then we can cross-reference character wealth by level as well as view other comparable spell costs. It may be that there is no justification for the higher cost based on just 1 variable, but that the higher cost is an off-set price, accounting for some of the other two variables such as wealth by level, scale of Magical Healthcare, or some other spurious variable that helps create good game design. Conversely, if we're unable to answer that great question Sean asks, "Why 5000gp value?" then I'm sold on the notion that the negative behaviors (such as metagaming the cost of a funerals versus bringing the PC back to life) outweigh the postives and therefore should be a recommmended house rule departure from RAW at many gamemaster's tables.

Just my 2 cp,
Pax

If you're asking the question - would we throw 3 magic immune creature encounters at a party.... my follow up is why the heck not?

The game is about surprises, and your casters will need to be creative, yes, but the encounters seem well designed and plausible.

"PC death is not common in my games, however, if it does happen I trust my players would accept it with grace (however frustrated they might be)."

Perhaps this should go on a placard above every game table. Kind of like "Home Sweet Home"

hahahahahha

Hey, this is a great thread. The OP asks a great question.

Would it be helpful to outline some adventure ideas, with each entry tying to some aspect of the fey?

I'll offer a bare-bones adventure idea--and if you think fleshing out this example would be helpful, participate by adding to it, tweaking it, changing it, developing the idea.

In fact, when it's all done, I'd love to run the adventure, so in many ways I have the same question as the OP.

ADVENTURE IDEA

I. The PC enter a large port town at the edge of a barony or dukedom within a larger kingdom.
II. A commotion is heard near the Everful Tankard tavern. The PCs see a dead young man (about 20 years old), shot by an old crossbow that some patrons were admiring. The crossbow hung on the wall, and even though they were careful handling it, it fired and shot the man dead.
III. The PCs investigate to learn the man's family owns a lumberyard and exports lumber via ship to other territories. His felled treeline has recently encroached upon "protected fairy lands".
A. The PCs search the man's house and learn he never married, and his father died when he was young, not having a chance to pass down the "Fairy Warning" about the woods. Long ago the dead man's father made a bargain with the fairies that helped his family become prosperous lumber merchants, but the father died before he could pass along his writings on the subject to his son. The PCs find a hidden safe and learn about the pact. Every 20 years the lumber merchants would make a human sacrifice to the fey, and vow never to encroach upon their lands.
B. The PCs learn that the father was too cowardly to sacrifice a stranger, and also too greedy to wiggle out of this old pact made by his grandfather. They also learn that 20 years ago, there was a great fire in the port town, along with many other catastrophies. The father tried to get out of the pact once the fey had their revenge but it was too late, and the fey killed the man's father as well.
C. While the PCs are investigating, the local constabulary arrives to "take over" the lumber business. They care nothing about this fact, and arrogantly boast that " if there be fey in those woods, we'll cut every last timber, until we smoke them out of their hiding places and groundholes."
IV. The PCs meet an old sage who knows of the fey, and urges them to go parlay with the fey, and agree to whatever demands they have, just long enough for the old sage to petition the constabulary to allow him to buy the lumber business himself, enabling him to protect the town from their wrath.

...

Well - that's a start. If you don't like the idea that's cool. But if you do, perhaps those more expert in the fey can now take the outline copy/past it forward in this thread and add the types of creatures encountered, details about the fey within the context of an adventure. And the collaborative output would be a "fey module" that captures the feel of the fey so GMs like the OP and others don't "feel like a sham" as the OP describes. Go for it.

Here's how you cope with it. Recognize he is the GM. Recognize he puts in time, effort and energy to prep the game and execute it. Realize you're not the GM. Appreciate that he has been open about his house rules and the type of game he will be running.

Next, ask yourself if you GM that often? Ask yourself if you'd be willing or capable to do the same or better? Then, try running games yourself. Over time you may realize that you have your own house rules that will help make it the game you wish to run and play.

After that type of soul-searching--see if you still feel as hostile toward your GM over a few minor changes?

With more years of experience as either a player or a GM you may come to appreciate that sometimes changes or house rules, or the execution style of GMing doesn't please everyone at the table. However, with that experience you may also discover that the GM serves the campaign first, the story second, and the players third.

Decide for yourself if you have a reason why you can't still enjoy the game, participate fully, and realize these changes are just 1/100000th of the multitudes of facets to the game.

My guess is once you are calm and accept these rulings, you may discover a great campaign experience of which this is only on part.

Good luck to you.
-Pax

This is the perfect thread to ask.... When sundering a PCs sword, what should I account for regarding if it is a +1 Silver longsword? Increase hp or DR? Thanks!

I'm one of those GMs who are excellent at voices. This isn't a boast, just a quick credibility factor to let you know where I'm coming from. I been playing the game since 1981. Here are some quick tips, but the hard work of visualizing and becomming (acting) the NPC or monster will be up to you.

1. Description, description: Set the mood, make sure you have a great storyline first, otherwise voices become annoying ways to mask shallow character depth.
2. Visualize, visualize: While speaking, remember you are the NPC/monster, so you must react to the things you see, smell, touch, hear, etc. Using "voices" well doesn't mean building a characture, it should be used in the context of the actual setting, and from this immersion comes the dialogue that makes that NPC believable. Done well, "voices" is icing on the cake.
2. Speak in 1st Person (with third person in between): During your use of voice, interject third-person descriptions. It's a GMing artform that sounds like this, ["So... you walk in here covered in blood and expect me to trust strangers that stink like the Soddenmarsh? Hurumph. Tell me why I 'autta trust ye?" He steps back a step, eyeing each of you. "Go on, 'an make it convincin' 'cus my chandlery aint' gonna run itself 'an yer testin' my patience." He turns a bit as though readying to return to his craft of candlemaking.]
3. Voice Intimation:It's not important that you get accents (the voice) perfect. It is critical that you don't "break character". To do this, try lowering your own expectations of 'immitation' and focus on 'intimation', that is a way to imply that you are that person. Coupled with some variant to your voice, you will sound way more believable than that GM who trys to 'show-off' his practiced accent. It's about suspention of disbelief - and it is NOT a talent show for the GM. In fact, a perfect 'voice immitation' can distract from the game. The players want to believe you are Carsuvar Clamendestro the Chandler and NOT Sean Connery (James Bond), Jack Nicholson (One Flew Over The Cukoos Nest), Gandolf (Lord of the Rings), nor Ivan Drego (Rocky IV).
4. Build Repertoire and Variants - Pay attention to people you meet, movies, and imagine more about them than is relevant to the game: Part of what makes voices work is to use them sparingly, and deliberately for characters you wish to bring to life. This means LIFE not just deliverers of the adventure hook. Give them idosyncracies, interests, and have them comment and include dialogue about their own interests interwoven with their dialogue. Then as you apply the 'voice', the actual believability magnifies. Paying attention to movies and people you meet builds your repertoire, so you can sling-out these voices whenever and wherever you need. One 'type' of voice will then take on 100s of variants as you immerse yourselves into the character who is actually speaking. Because, after all, if you're seeking to practice and hone that one big impersonation, that joy lasts about 10 minutes for the players, whereas if you are immersing yourself in the tone (and practicing variants) you will find the right 'voice' for your npc/monsters in-the-moment of the game. And your players will be forever entertained by believable NPCs.

Hope that helps,
Good gaming to you,
-Pax Veritas

When players attempt to stop players... I always call for 1) Perception checks if needed 2) Initiative 3) Actual attak rolls or CMB etc.

The fact is, unless there was some reason why you couldn't stop the player from killing the NPC, the onus is encumbant upon the GM for what happened.

In storytelling, there are good choices and bad choices. The factors of player drunkenness and the GMs willingly going along speaks to inexperience as a GM on how to handle the situation.

I don't "blame" GMs often. In fact I always respect GMs for what they do, their planning, and all the hard work, but in this case, perhaps you just chalk this one up to a "bad night" and start over, or follow through the story as-is by turning yourself in etc.

Whichever solution you decide, the players and the GM should have a short discussion about what happened, and ask, "in the future, when I need to interrupt another PC, may I have an initiative roll please?"

That should clear things up, if not, get another group.

Pax

Gamemasters,
Plus 2 average party level (APL) seems the right challenge level for modules and adventure paths (APs). There's a pretty powerful synergy that occurs when you have 6 regular players. Per the game rules the APL of a Level 5 group of 6 PCs becomes 6. Yet, when I go to pick out a portion of an AP or a Module, I notice the L2, and L3 challenges placed there are cake-walks, and so I tend to outright pull something +2 APL higher, and that seems to do the trick.

As a matter of advice, has anyone else noticed this as well? Here are some details:
>Pulling a L5 module or AP for a L5 group doesn't challenge because of the basic rule regarding 6 players, that you increase the base APL by +1.
>A module or AP that is only +1 APL higher contains challenges (traps or monsters/NPCs) that are up to APL-3 (thus a L5 mod or AP contains L2 encounters) which aren't much of a challenge at all. Caveat: Yes, I am aware that gamemasters can add to the number of creatures (I get that, but it's not the design/module/AP-section point that I'm making).
>There is a game-breaking threshold (as noted in the Advanced Player's Guide that selecting opponents more than 3 levels higher runs the risk of that monster/NPC possessing something the players cannot overcome. So keeping selection higher, but still within 3 levels is key. Caveat: Because the range of monsters/NPC in higher level modules and APs (relative to the average party level of the group) will contain monsters that are already APL+3 relative to the module or AP recommended level... there IS a risk of monsters/NPCs now being APL+5 (ex: six level 5 PCs=APL 6 versus a L8 module or AP with monsters/NPCs that are L11 (L8 module or AP epic fight of APL+3 = CR11 vs the party the base of CR6). Risk: There is a chance the individual characters cannot overcome certain aspects without the full groups synergy (acting as a full group with sufficient resources). That is, a CR11 will fry that PC who is actually only CR5 within an APL6 group (of six L5 PCs).

*takes breath*
I sound pretty geeked-out over the math, but I kinda love this aspect of my game design. I constantly calibrate challenges that excite the players, and create a compelling game because of it. (I do recognize that not all the encounters are that high of a level, and I do recognize that as a matter of story/design I can place certain items as treasure in the game to help players overcome the bbeg (or at least compensate for any game-breaking abilities. I get that as well.) Awareness: my group is currently NOT overpowered, the group currently does not have any excess wealth or power (but rather is exactly aligned to recommended character wealth levels).

My questions to anyone who's been willing to read my CR-crunching notes above:
1.How many of you tend to feel the same way when selecting modules or APs (or excerpts of them) to run??
2. How many of you run modules or APs at the recommended level versus picking out higher (+2 APL) modules or APs to run that challenge your group.

Summary Example: If I have six players at L5 (=APL6), I'm most likely going to pick a module or an AP that is designed at Level 8.

What I learned about PAIZO:
>I see a team of competent visionaries, simply the A-team when it comes to design/development

>I see a team of accessible gamers who interact with customers, talk with them at conventions, answer emails, participate in the community, and enjoy the hobby and industry of gaming

>I see brilliant design choices that are steeped in the traditions of the game, yet flexible and modern enough to be refreshingly new and relevant

>I see the team branching into various domains such as card gaming, alternative Mystic Adventures, various game aids, etc., and although not all are my preference I know their viability and strengh as a company grows from it, assuring they'll keep supporting my games

>I see wisdom in continuing on the history of the game by modifying the 3.5 OGL ruleset and making it fresh and fun for a whole new generation with a strong appeal to long time gamers

>I notice how their marketing is just right, speaking to players rather than dictating to them. I see a noticable appreciation for the community and respect for the game itself, always seeking not to dishonor it for mere profit, but to evolve it with quality

>I value their discounts, incentives, and awareness of the needs of gamemasters and players alike. This is shown through good design and development of support materials like digital map files with APs, and online rules reference materials

>I learned they value feedback, yet know how to maintain the integrity of the game while still developing new things based on input. All the signs of good design, and good leadership.

>I see the empowerment of local leaders working well with PAIZO to develop the PFS, and although organized gaming isn't my preference, its done extremely well, and even drew me to participate in the past few conventions I attended.

>I'm certain they listen and have their thumb on the pulse of the gaming community. I know this first hand.

>They "get" the game. They understand it. They don't see it as something broken or something that needs redesigned every year to sell books. Their materials and books sell based on quality writing and game design, period. They're also inviting of 4th party publishers (lol, just made that term up) who wish to support Pathfinder RPG.

Jeez, this list could go on and on...

No. Never. Unless the PC is boring. LOL

...

...

That simple statement could be explained in 20 paragraphs, but it always boils down to that. Shhhh. don't tell the players that's what GMs really think. *trade secret*

As a veteran GM of 30 years... I would chime in to suggest the context of the campaign, the adventure, and the dynamic of the characters involved are all important variables to consider.

Is the campaign set in a hostile land where mere survival is a daily chore?

Is the adventure mission or quest defining enemies as anyone who compromises the mission?

Do the PCs themselves have views on this in-character, in the context of their own experiences or backstory?

Bottom line: Coup de Grâce is just another attack method, no different from a butter knife or a lazerbeam. What matters most when determining exactly "what is evil" is the context of evil within your campaign setting including its peoples' laws traditions and beliefs, within the context of the adventure story, and filtered against the personal views of the player characters.

A paladin may have a righteous reason to Coup de Grâce a sleeping NPC. And thus careless killing should always be questioned for purpose, rationale, motive, context, and therefore justification.

Good luck - this is a great topic, worthy of discussion. Carry on.
Pax

Thanks for asking James, and representing the past 40 gamers I've spoken with---we don't use prestige classes.

It has always seemed to "us" that prestige classes were just written examples of character style archetypes that we simply didn't need rules for. Besides, ever since 3e the prestige class system always seemed "wonky" to "us".

As much as I praise Pathfinder, the use of prestige classes still does not inspire me, nor most anyone I've spoken with.

They seem to have originated from a time when either gamers or game-designers attempted to quantify "what would that type of character, fully integrated into the fabric of a campaign look like statistically?"

Whereas, for me (and a horde of others), "we've" simply found it unrealistic to base a campaign around the development of player characters into those or any prestige classes. The prime reason is that we start our campaigns by asking players to create (if possible) characters that are woven into the context of the setting and general campaign milieu... but once the campaign starts rolling, the characters become who they are... and 99% of the time don't evolve into a textbook prestige class. To many/most of "us" prestige classes are wonky because characters tend to evolve into something of a "prestige class" on their own contextual merits within the campaign, but hardly ever into something pre-defined, and definately not in the layered level-by-level advancement described in the text of prestige class descriptions.

I will share with you my design suggestion, that it would be 10x better to create an Ultimate Prestige Elements book for any gamemaster wishing to "develop" his player characters, however discourage other players from actually reading it, unless the context provided is "these are some elements of prestige advancement your gamemaster may bestow upon those demonstrating great playership to develop the context of the campaign story.

If that were done, imagine a GM having at his disposal a hundred lists of level-attributed powers which he can bestow upon player characters. It would be ESSENTIAL that these remain addative, rather than using the "replacement" method described by Monte in 3.0. In fact, the rub IS the "replacement" method that takes away the base class features in favor of the new "prestige" powers. Conceptually, this has always rubbed me wrong, primarily because in actual play, the advancement of the story line and the advancement of the campaign by the players is the effortful act that merits the "prestige" power widgit/domain/power. The acquisition of the power/skill/whatnot is EARNED and not planned for as a "build". In this way, it would give GMs a merit system for encouraging and rewarding excellent storyline narrative roleplay, rather than exist (as I feel it does now) as a "build-option" decoration. As I recall the late 90s and early 2000s were full of decorative faceplates for phones, and many other things, as a means of "customizing" your objects. But as a GM of 1000s of hours of play with 50-60 different players over the years, this type of facade isn't satisfying.

I implore you to reconsider the "prestige system". After all, the merits of prestige in terms of depth of character play in a campaign may be much more interesting to many more people, than the existing "custom-build" class system currently known as prestige classes.

There's my honest answer, as articulately as I can muster, with an aim not to criticize but to explain my observations. If every Level-designated power/skill/whatnot were broken apart into lists of options... as a GM I would take note to develop and reward my players' characters as the campaign develops, ultimately allowing them to name their prestige title or suggest one more contextual to the campaign I was running after several addative benefits were bestowed (as rewards for good campaign-contextual roleplay).

Regards,
Pax

I believe -CON means dead at the moment they get there. In the OPs scenario, the PC is dead prior to the channeled energy.

Additionally, I'd like to add a few related thoughts about this and other threads I've seen lately....

As a casual observation, many threads go like this:

• Simple question asked

• Simple question answered

• A completely opposite answer to the correct one is given

• Someone cites a rule exception
  
• Somebody else cites another rule exception
  
• Somebody offers a newly made up house-rule
  
• Somebody else agrees about the nature of the house rule
  
• Somebody makes an assumption about the OPs question and intimates that the question has indeed already been answered
  
• 2-3 others provide various exception-based rule examples
  
• A few others join in to offer disperate interpretations of the core rules; some are accurate, some are not
  
• People reading the thread begin to think... my gosh, how complicated, and doubt their own execution of the simple core rule

I love these messageboards for all the passion and enthusiasm and help they provide. I use the messageboards often. It would be an improvement however, if as a community, we paused to recognize agreement with the answer given to a simple question, prior to adding our own houserules, interpretations as a matter of first addressing the question, then seperating our own comments. This would help folks be clear i.e. "yes, a character is dead when they reach -con score in hp. Additionally, I would also like to add...."

Sometimes it is difficult to seperate answers from suggestions, and it leads to confusion. Again, just a suggestion to always acknowledge agreement first (this part is often skipped) prior to clearly explaining the rest of one's comments contain ideas about other factors to consider. I realize its not always that easy to do.

Right on Crimson Jester.... good point.

As for the "Module Design" I want a better handle on things like:
> Anticipating when enough encounters have been designed to level up the party
> Anticipating when its probably time to provide haven for rest and replenishment
> Anticipating, in my design, the number and assortment of CR encounters that are "enough" for the whole story.

Granted, this all varies, and many of us who've been playing for aeons do most on the fly, or just keep going until the story is done.

My questions today, however, are all about modular design (not for sale or publication) but modular design for my own campaigns.

Background: In my homebrew games over the past decade, they've tended to flow so thoroughly from one encounter to the next via overlapping story arcs, that in most cases the game plays like an episode of Keiffer Sutherland's "24". This is something I wish to depart from, if for no other reason than person growth. The games are fantastic and met with rave reviews, but the minute I become complacent I stop growing as a GM, thus I'm attempting to hash apart the elements that makes them complete, so I can deconstruct the modular structure and determine just how much an adventuring day can withstand (or should).

APL=Average Party Level; CR=Challenge Rating

Here's what I've learned:
> Any assortment of encounters are fine.
> Roughly 13.33 encounters = 1 level
> The game expects that 1/2 of all encounters the CR = APL
> Once you pass APL+3 for the encounter challenge, it may be impossible or result in serious fatalities (although this may be good for final fights)
> CRBp397 defines easy, average, challenging, hard, epic.
> GMGp42 explains tips on low and high encounters
> A GM should remember to rate a group of 6 players each with a Level 5 character as an APL 6 prior to determining encounter APL ratings
> An APL6 can confront Easy (CR=APL-1), Average (APL), Challenging (APL+1), Hard (APL +2), Epic (APL+3)

For the second half of the module planning, the GMG seems to recommend (p397) the idea of using an XP budget, selecting the hardest encounters, then filling in the rest. This would include creatures, traps or hazzards.

Using this basic guidance, let me know if you see the following as true?

Out of 13 encounters, one "Level's Worth" of game content might include:

> 50% at APL:

>>CR 6

• >>CR 6 (2,400xp)
  
• >>CR 6 (2,400xp)
  
• >>CR 6 (2,400xp)
  
• >>CR 6 (2,400xp)
  
• >>CR 6 (2,400xp)
  
• >>CR 6 (2,400xp)

>50% at various other levels (per GM's desire)

• CR5 (1,600xp)
  
• CR5 (1,600xp)
  
• CR7 (3,200xp)
  
• CR7 (3,200xp)
  
• >>CR8 (4,800xp)
  
• >>CR8 (4,800xp)
  
• >>CR9 (Final Epic Fight)(6,400xp)

Findings:
This brings the modular xp total to: 40k which is 6,666xp for each of the 6 players in this scenario. If the group is on the FAST XP Progression, this would level the party, and go over the neeeded allotment by 1200. This implies that a few of the encounters didn't need to be as high. If there were only 4 players the entire model would shift, and the epic encounter might be too fatal. Having 6 players versus 4 should probably make a big difference in GM's ideas of challenge planning.

Taking a swag at encounter levels probably accounts for the flexibility of having 4 players versus 6 at different times during the game i.e. referring to the set of 4 to 6 encounters in the second half of the plan that can be flexible in terms of challenge rating.

Half of the game the players fight CRs=APL. This makes planning easy to remember. Half the game the players fight CRs that vary to GM taste within the 5-step perameters of easy, average, challenging, hard, and epic.

I will return to analyze my current adventure content against these points. Stay tuned.

Thanks DawnforgedCast!

Unlike the haters (above) I actually watched the videos. I played them today and think you're doing a fine job. I'd like to see you keep going into intermediate and advanced. As a GM of many years, a video/audio presentation reinforces my knowledge of the game, and addresses my preferred learning style as well.

If you keep the series for basics/beginners, I think that's cool as well. Hopefully a number of folks will appreciate you taking the time to film.

I also have the following feedback:
> You remained neutral, approachable, and inviting. Well done.
> You presented the content logically
> You selected good scenarios/examples as illustrations
> Your "first-person" style when speaking to someone else is a nice way for beginners to feel like the tutorial is for them. Seeing reactions and questions will be helpful for new Pathfinder RPG gamers

I started watching this morning when only three folks had posted... I'm glad to see more folks took a look. I've been meaning to do something like this for new gamers myself, and am glad to see you're doing it.

P.s. I enjoyed your tone, characterization, and friendlyness, especially without ego. I would recommend your series to someone just starting out. Thanks!

-Pax

PC death is a reality of the game. Too much theater without a challenge ultimately creates the feeling of invincibility that ruins the verisimiltude of the milieu-perforce the game master must use care to propose a challenge, yet not abuse his power agressively, lest the players think the opposite instead is true, that the GM is out to kill characters.

Depending on your group, and your personal tastes, you may for example go out of your way to give players every benefit of the doubt when a perilous situation threatens to kill a PC. On the other hand, you may set expectations at the beginning of your campaign that "the guardrails are off."

If you were playing the game in the 1980s and 1990s rarely did a PC die, unless it was during the final epic battle at the end of a massive campaign arc. The exception to this being, chiefly, those engaged in rpga or other tournament play--wherein most players expected some PCs to loose their lives in dangerous dungeons. Prior to this, during the age of 1st edition or OD&D PCs reduced to 0 hit points would often require a full week of rest in convalescence prior to returning to adventuring.

Now, in a modern sense circa 2000+ player death seems plausable but rare-a good balance to strike. In my homebrew games from 2006-2008, we lost a PC about once every six months. Recently using the Pathfinder ruleset 2008-2012, I've found that the -CON function of HP does manage to keep the threats very real, but not eliminate for good the PCs that players take great care developing.

Over the recent years, in my weekly Monday group, I've set expectations that "the guardrails are off" meaning I don't even track hitpoints anymore as the GM. I just play the encounters as designed, and provide damage. Usually PCs fall unconscious, get stabilized, and return to adenturing after only a brief lapse of consciousness.

In any decade, the idea that the threats should appear to be lethal, keeps the players on their toes, and makes for a thrilling victory that isn't robbed by fudging or whatnot. Players who survive the big fights feel more victorious, and inevitably, the GMs game appears heroic and memorable.

When I hear about GMs trying to kill characters, it seems they or the players who tell these lavish tales do not understand the game. The GM already runs the gods--whyever would the GM need to "try" to do anything when he reigns supreme. If anything, a good GM will not be antagonistic, but rather a fair guide, and a good judge of what situations warrant character death, meaning allowing the adventure to unfold as it should, per the dictation of dice or context, as a result from the PCs decisions.

A good rule of thumb might be not to let characters die due to unnecessary dumb stuff, designing encounters that are fair, balanced, with a good element of challenge, yet not unbeatable.

Context is king. Dumb choices on the other hand, may mean the PC dies dumbly. Such is the nature of adventuring.

If a GM is killing more than one character every six months, well 1-2 anyhow, or the occasional TPK (total party kill) where everything just happens to go wrong... then I would recommend the GM review the challenge rating (CR) of the encounters being built. Too easy--and the PCs walk all over the story in arrogance, too hard---and the players go home feeling robbed of a fun time. Good deaths, really good deaths, are both memorable and exciting, and good players can handle good deaths, even bad ones, so long as the GM has cared for setting the right expectations, and following suit with good in-game descriptions and clues that could avoid danger. Players missing clues, not taking head of grievous warnings, or stepping foolishly will meet their demise swiftly, and perhaps for the better.

I was talking to Tracy Hickman recently who has a great and funny, if not eerily true view, albeit a harsh one on PC deaths. He explained that keeping your game interesting should often involve killing boring characters. I tend to both agree and disagree, that is, I would put it this way: When in the course of the story, the GM finds PCs to be devoid of interest or acting in ways that completely detract from the story, or behave in ways of complete non-participative dullness, perhaps it's time to kill that character in favor of the hope that the player will make a more interesting one, or simply leave the group. LOL I don't really practice this, but as an anecdote, it surely crosses the mind of most GMs when faced with players who don't participate in the roleplay, provided that is the type of game intended to be run. All of this completely aside from the previous paragraphs... as I've reviewed also Hickman's hilarious views in his XDM Xtreme Dungeonmastery book. Too funny.

PAIZO IS A COMPANY THAT TRULY SUPPORTS GAMERS <--LINK to Enworld overview of new PAIZO.com features.

Folks, as a gamer since 1982, I can say PAIZO really "gets it" and I feel and appreciate the amazing support they provide for our hobby. Just when you think they're already awesome, they achieve uber-awesome status for delivering results, not just empty promises.

I am beyond THRILLED with this new feature of PAIZO.com

I can see using this for remote VTT, but as I already have a projector installed in my game room -- this lends itself to a PERFECT digital tabletop game experience as well.

WAY TO GO, AGAIN, PAIZO!!!

I'm approaching my 30th year playing OD&D/AD&D/Pathfinder RPG. I want to share my extreme enthusiasm for Pathfinder RPG as the best incarnation of the game yet.

I recently sundered my gaming group because I was looking for great roleplayers. I am fortunate now to have 6 great roleplayers for my weekly game. Prior to this, many of the players were very gamist, and interested in more tactical gaming. Pathfinder RPG was great for that too. But now, I have the very best of all worlds--Pathfinder RPG with great roleplayers, and the game is versatile and has something for all styles of play. The game is extremely robust, so I can get involved in creating the very best games and executing in any style desired.

I wish I had more to say, except, WOOOHOOO. I love this game.

Although a bit rough and crass, the OPs post kind of asks, "what's the deal with some players?"

And taking a wide-angle lens, it just seems like they don't "get" the game.

It's really not about "breaking" anything. All the rules are a close approximation of ways to govern and adjudicate the milieu, which by the way is like another reality who's infinate possibilities are endless. And so, we have a great ruleset, which should be kept in the periphery, rather than the foreground.

The rules are "stuff" that help the game operate, yet an equally valid way to describe them is "all the stuff the GM already knows." The nature of the game has evolved a bit over the years, and for the better, yet "how" the GM arrives at his decisions/rulings/descriptions and general facilitation of the game isn't too important. Things like internal consistency, excitement, flare, story, flow, and facilitation of the session far outweigh whether the "rules" come from a book or not. The fact that modern games place all that information in front of players is both a blessing and a curse. But a good GM understands that the paradigm of the GM knowing the "secret rules" has changed to "hey, we're all using the Core Rule Book. That should handle "most" situations, and the GM will handle the rest along with modifying the rules as needed.

This is where I generally agree with the OP... that players who make the quantum leap from "lookie here, I can min/max/munchkin this rule until it feels absurd..." to "therefore the game engine is broken" just don't understand the game. They begin with a FALSE pretext and premise, and then boast the fallacious conclusion that they've 'outsmarted' or broke the system. On this point, I can only say, that it's a free messageboard, and like Voltaire suggested we may disagree wholly with what they say, but should still defend their right to say it. I try not to judge those who don't really get it. Let them have their say on the messageboards, or in the game stores... but if you want a fun roleplaying game... use discretion when inviting them to your personal campaign.

Pax

“The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules.”
― Gary Gygax

I've rediscovered this secret recently. After playing Pathfinder RPG RAW for years, I find all the joy that made AD&D such a great game has returned to my table.

I cleared out the barracks rules lawyers from my group, even though we'd played for years. I brought in folks who appreciated roleplay, story, and who possessed some competency at dealing with ambiguity.

I still run RAW/RAI, but I'm back in the saddle, making whatever I want up on the spot, without hundreds of hours of planning and research.

Gary knew that the execution/facilitation of the game was especially exciting when the players are kept on their toes, meaning stradling the fine line between the known and the unknown. Enough verisimilitude and believability, along with a healthy dose of, "wow! what the hell is that?"

This isn't anything major, and most great GMs know exactly what's being described here. It's recognizing that there are rules, for the most part following them, but oweing ZERO justifications to your players. And this isn't an in-your-face kind of afront to them, rather it's a quiet, cool, mysterious, flowing pace of game where awesome encounters happen but don't take tons of discussion about rules. Keep your players in-the-moment, and you won't need to spend time diminishing the overall mood and feel of the game with rules discussions.

That said--- on these messageboards we have diversity. I'm actually glad that Pathfinder RPG has such a wide-appeal to all forms of gamers. In my old age (I have mellowed) and I try not to judge. I let the rules lawyers be themselves and don't try to change them. What I DID change is decide how absolutely important it is to 1) ask the kind of gamers you really enjoy to join your table; if things don't work out and if things get bogged down, ask some to leave and replace them with great players 2) Be clear to your players before you start the very first game, say, "the GM has no restrictions". This can help you identify who has the competency of dealing with ambiguity, and ultimately who's gonna go with the flow. In reality (behind the curtain), the GM self-restricts himself to run an awesome game that at least "appears" to be by-the-book. Its an ancient conceit and secret that many of us knew for years, but forgot somehow when we got older and still played.

If your mind is warped right now because you cannot understand how on the one hand folks can really care about the rules, and try to play Pathfinder RPG as written or as intended yet still say the GM has no restrictions... perhaps you haven't GM'd a lot.

Whether you as a GM break rules or not, and for the most part I don't, I've come to remember the value of ensuring the players know the gods run the world, but the GM runs the gods. As a GM, you must be free to create on the spot, describe situations from your imagination, and not be beholden to the rules. The rules serve the game, but the game does not serve the rules.

As a GM, serve your overall campaign first, the story second, and your players third. The secret of success in actual game play is the collective agreement and buy in to whatever the GM says in-the-moment. As for these messageboards, my guess is folks who obsess over rules either 1) are only players OR 2) are GM who truly want to master the ruleset. Because once you master the rules, just as in music, you can learn to break them with finesse.

-Pax

I don't understand what the fascination is with "creating a new ruleset" for a game we already know how to play, and who's innermost principle is imagination and the freedom to create and run the game as we see fit?

That said, Pathfinder is truly A+ top shelf stuff. It enables me to have the breadth and depth of a ruleset, writting with very smart adherance to the spirit of the game, and delivered in material parcels that drip with quality.

I represent someone who's played through AD&D, 3.5, and Pathfinder. Honestly, after 30 years of gaming and observing the evolution of the game, Pathfinder RPG is it's best incarnation.

As for the playtest, meh, I think it's a bit silly to put out a few pages of reminiscent AD&D stuff flavored with elements of other newer systems, and then ask the gaming populace to play test it. It doesn't seem like more than freshman work to me, nothing I cannot create on my own, at my own table. And, quite honestly, I don't sense that the designers over there at wizzys really understand what made the game great in the first place.

My 2 cp.
Pax

So... here's an insight....

...From what I'm hearing... they haven't got a game.

I'm not worried about download issues-I'm not giving that company a single ounce of my insight or experience.

I'm not interested in Sixth Edition, or Seventh, or Fifth-I'm completely finished with anything coming from that company.

Further, they've demonstrated:
>They can cancel Dungeon and Dragon magazines in a moment's notice.
>They can cull all the legacy AD&D module .PDFs overnight
>They can design a game that isn't in step with the spirit of it's origins, history, traditions, or culture
>They can fire their designers every Thanksgiving
>They can advertise using nasty messaging toward "senior" gamers i.e. grognards, and , neo-grognards
>They cannot, to save their lives, anticipate high load on their servers when releasing information nor take appropriate action to correct it
>They can fill the industry with poor quality splat books
>They can rally the gamer-based with intention to split, divide and conquer when it suits their financial interests
>They created, and continue to foster a hostile rules-lawyer style of gamist play that draws support from their Magic the Gathering background, and is further compounded by ritual college-like 4-year cycles of repeatedly printing and publishing the same material over and over again in different ways, while gouging the general gaming community
>They can stop providing free supporting content when hiding it behind a subscription price puts free money in their pockets.
>They renounced Gary G., and wouldn't even speak with him when he sat alive at GENCON on Gygax street, but then paid platitudes to him when they decide to reprint the 1e AD&D DMG and PHB.

Therefore: they will not receive a single word of support from me.

D&D neXt is little more than the death knell of 4e support, and the revelation of their own continued greed, neglect, and disconnect from the gaming community.