Robert Brambley's page

For those interested, I'm posting as 'Glorfindel' on The Only Ring forums.

AH how splendid - you and I have already had many discussions on there in hashing out ideas for the game.

Nice to see a familiar....err.....avatar!

Robert

I found the game a month ago and fallen in love with it; it's exaclty what i've been looking for as an alterntive to D&D which has been my biggest love for nearly 30 years.

Cubicle 7 has solidly found the sweetspot for rules and Tolkien feel mix; far more so than the previous Middle earth ventures for roleplaying game systems.

Love the way "fellowship" groups actually have in-game dynamics - not just a group of loosely organized PCs but an actual game-mechanic

Love the Fellowship phase - a way for the downtime to actually have a role in the development of a character and his/her group of companions as they too grow - and as they become more important to the world around them.

Love the themes of Hope, Shadow, Corruption, as stratified dynamic aspects of a campaign.

Many of the things that people have long complained about in D&D 3rd edition and beyond are absent and not a problem in The One Ring (while I still love Pathfinder and D&D 3rd edition - it's still not always perfect).

Here are some things (oft-contended) issues that do not appear in The One Ring

Powerful Spellcasters ruining the game: There really is no PC spellcasters

Min/maxing character creation: Character creation is somewhat channeled down a path with most of the abilities and scores already allocated to a character's choice of cultural background, and roleplaying/story-based calling to become a hero/adventurer.

Magic Item Dependency: There is very little use of "magical items" and the system is not designed around a character having to have thousands of gp invested in magical gear in order to survive; the game instead focuses on the character's own abililities - though some materialistic rewards are earned via game-play - they are usualy much more subtle in effect.

Power creep/curve: Characters advanced slowly and evenly. There are no "levels" in which all aspects of the character advance - compare to many "level-based" rpgs where stats, hps, abilities, #of attacks, damage output, spell-power etc all increase simultaneously, The One Ring subtely advances a characters individual skills or attack ability based on the player's own choices of where to allocate their advancenet points - which exponentially become harder to increase the higher one does.

Complex rules / combat: Combat is quick, streamlined, easy to understand, you don't have to worry about a lot of rules governing every 5' of movement - can I go this way, does this square cost double, do I provoke AoOs, can i reach him, does he threaten me, can i squeeze here, can i stand in this square, does the area of effect hit here" etc. Instead initiative always falls into 4 categories based on how agressive/defensive your "stance" is; the rest is basically narrated and roleplayed - rules do not get in the way of a good narrated sequence of actions.

#of attacks/dice rolls bogging down combat: As far as I can see - the creatures, and characters only get one attack regardless of how much they're advanced; this drastically speeeds up play. The better one is at what they do the more D6s they add to their total - as opposed to more D20s to modify with a bunch of situational modifiers each round that must be adjudicated seperately.

All in all - yes this isn't for the groups that prefer minis and scaled combat with a bunch of regimented structure - but it is perfect for us old schooler roleplayers that enjoy a more free-form narrated and storytold and roleplayed action. Furthermore it's not going to be the right fit for DMs that have to have an "adventure path" all published and written for them; as most of the games adventure will have to be "written" or adlibbed by the Loremaster (GM). I used to be the latter of a DM, then 3rd edition kinda steered me away and Paizo's wonderful adventure paths evolved me into someone who loves their imagination and well-written adventure paths; but Kingmaker has reminded me of my love and flair for sandbox style of running a game and how it's so much more rewarding aesthetically for a GM to come up with so much material and options for the players than a railroaded storyline. And so i found myself not interested in going back to such overwritten adventures and looking for a way to branch out and find a more free-form game - and admittedly getting tired of the complexities of play with PCs at double-digit levels that all the APs go into. The One Ring allows for all of this freeform play, without the complexities or power creep, and is beautifully written and set within the greatest fantasy realms of all time.

My wife who has been a player in my own campaigns of D&D sinc 94 played her first game of TOR last week and she said afterwards "I really liked that I could just play and roleplay my character without having to worry about all the rules - it just was more natural and flowing".

My players are all hooked too now. Cant wait till Friday to play again.

I post on that message forum as SirKicley

Robert

I wished there was a paragraph on mounts and mounted combat however.

Ask and ye shall receive

MOUNTS DISCUSSION

This link leads to a messageboard that I was grateful to have found. The community there is coming up with some wonderful customer-based content including

Use of Mounted Combat
Dunedain as PCs
Rohirrim as PCs
Magic/spell-use system
Monster/Creature ideas
Adventure/quest ideas

Robert

Paizo Order # 1855445

This is the order I'm speaking of.

Due to the recent revelation of the December AP issue being postponed to Jan 2012, can I please just have all Dec subscribed products moved to ship along with it in Jan; even if this combines both Dec and Jan subscription products.

That would be ideal

Thanks
Robert

It does not translate well to real-time play. The rules are for turn-by-turn play, with each character taking their turn one after another. It's so different than what an MMO has to be that it simply couldn't be feasibly done.

If its impossible to translate class/level based D20 into an MMO, how did DDO pull it off?

Not that this is the best system either; but it WAS accomplished; and for what it is - it's quite well done. Perhaps it's not compatible with the style of game that Goblinworks is wanting to develop, but it certain proved that you can have an MMO based on OGL D20 class/level based system.

Though I lost interest in DDO quickly early on when Free to Play wasn't even an option - but I lost interest not because of mechanics, but because there was no sandboxy flavor at all - I hated doing nothing but the same repetitive instance dungeons over and over.

But the graphics are great, the game plays well, the animation is good, and two things that I love about combat more than my favorite MMO (LotRO) is that you can raise up your shield to block incoming attacks, and you can tumble away. I wish LotRO had those options instead of just duking it out toe to toe.

Robert

Some people want a game where you can attack anybody and everyone is in competition. Others want a game where they can team up and fight NPCs, not other players.

Indeed. And I am one of the latter; but to be fair - that kind of game already exists in ready supplies.

True, it wouldn't be Paizo or Golarion, but if we DO want a game like that, we do have options.

The real point is not that "if we want a game like that" because they do exists, but does Paizo/Goblinworks "want our money for a game?"

It's not even going to follow the Pathfinder class-based D20 system mechanics that they've rescued and championed; so really the only Paizo-ish thing about it is the River Kingdom territory.

The way I am looking at it is - if it winds up being a type of game that....whatever it is that I don't like....I do have other options of games I do like, some that are done quite well, and I'm not REALLY losing out on a lot of "Paizo" or "Golarion" material, should I choose to play a different game more to my liking; I'll only lose out on the River Kingdoms.

If on the other hand the game was significantly more robust in the way of areas explorable in Golarian, (Cheliax, Varisia, Andoran, Taldor to name a few of the big ones) and included the amazing mechanics of D20 3.5 OGL that they polished up nicely as well as added some great ideas for other classes, and Archtypes - THEN I would probably feel real jaded if it was designed only to cater to a smaller sect of MMO gamer philosophies.

Robert

That is what I see as crazy. Why alienate potential subscribers? I am not a business person or even business minded, but I imagine catering to all styles of gaming is better than alienating a bunch of people from the beginning.

Alright, it will cost time and money to develop, but I imagine PFO would benefit from allowing Player A a way of avoiding PvP while allowing Player B to revel in it. Objectives and rewards in the game should cater for either style of play.

I believe a valid answer to your question is:

Why a company would potentially alienate that group of potential players is because they realize they are not going to be able to compete - either because they can't do it better, or that the other options in the market already have too many die-hard fan-boys that won't switch regardless.

In other words, if they create the same product and put it on the market advertising it as just another MMO that does the exact same thing of so many others - and you're not confident that it won't WOW (pun intended) the audience and attract away from what they're spent their time/money on developing of their characters/accounts, then it's bound to fail or squander in mediocrity at best.

I see the developers' point that this is an area/market that is far less saturated and would prove to be much easier to "corner" on.

It would attract die-hard Pathfinder players, and it would attract die-hard MMOers that are looking for something 'different' or something better than what is already out there that does this.

On the other hand, like many others, I love the idea of being able to virutually tour and adventure in Golarion - a world that I have spent countless hours imagining, playing in w/ tabletop RPGing, and reading about and investing lots of money on supplements of it; and has the potential of being disappointing if we cant take the virtual tour if the game is designed to be too competitive for the average casual gamer (such as myself.)

Luckily I and others have Lord of the Rings online that is safe to do the casual gaming, and it's amazing virtually touring the imagination brain-child of the greatest fantasy author of all time.

Robert

It seems you and I have an irreconcilable difference in regards to gaming philosophy my friend. In my games, 'non-player characters' are just that, characters who just so happen to not have a player. Michael of the city watch, along with his wife Shaina and their daughter Elaine are every bit as 'real' as the PC's.

I completely agree that NPCs are "real" in the terms of imagining and roleplaying. and Most of us who are against non-consensual PVP are not missing the point you were making.

And I doubt very much Kae Yoss sees any NPC challenge as ONLY a piece of paper w/ numbers on it - I know I don't.

But what I think you're missing is that in a Table Top version of D&D or other RPG, USUALLY it's not a GM vs Players mentality. Sure those NPCs are against the PCs, but:

In 3rd edition (which is what Pathfinder RPG is ultimately designed around), the foundation for encounters is based off a Challenge Rating and a core understanding that an Equal CR to APL of the PCs means a use of 25% of resources and by the 4th such encounter you should exhausted most to all of your resources for the day.

By the very nature of this system, it implies that the PCs are suppose to 'win' albeit using some of their daily resources.

A GM vs players mentality (In D&D/PFRPG) is asinine concept because the GM will always win - he has unlimited resources.

Thus the "Other guys" that you mention are there to be interacted with, be challenged by, but in most conventional games, the Players are suppose to win or at least survive. This it he basis of D&D since its inception. Its good vs evil, fellowships are suppose to be heroes against villains and ultimately be triumphant.

A GM whose goal is to kill players whenever he wants to, usually finds himself with an ever decreasing player base. It's a stacked conflict and most people aren't interested in taking part with a GM who is out to kill player characters.

Yes the role of GM is narrator and arbiter and to roleplay the NPCs according to their true personalities etc, but the game design is there to help ensure players succeed most of the time (provided the players are playing and behaving in accordance with societal norms - and not say - hunting a Tarrasque at 1st level or deciding to attack the king while at a royal ball and not expect to get overpowered by all the guards etc).

In an MMO w/o such neutral arbitration and mentality of players being meant to win, and the "other guys" are other players, this balance, and any semblance of what the core concept of most RPGs goes out the window. So yes I get it and Kae Yoss gets it and the other person you addressed gets it.

Player vs Player in an MMO is NOT the same thing as a DM neutrally playing NPCs that are written into a module to challenge the PCs - even if you roleplay them to the T with accents, made-up language gibberish, wearing funny hats to portray them, playing mood music, mood lighting, or whatever other gimmicks GMs use to really make the NPC feel alive; they're still just meant as 1 of 4 challenges meant to overcome on this adventuring day.

And saying you don't play PF this way (4 daily encounter model) does not change the fact that the very design is based on that concept.

Robert

probably feel as though the dedication put into the game by the 20-hours-a-week players don't entitle them to enjoy a much more powerful character than the person who plays for two hours per week.

I am in the 2 hour a week camp; but don't get me wrong - I in no way assume I'm entitled to a character as powerful as someone who puts in 20 hours a week.

However where most of those in my camp draw the line, is having those two hours a week spoiled by those who CAN afford to put in 20, 30, 40+ hours a week of gaming.

And to be frank - those that can are typically not those that have a lot of other responsibilities such as family, career, etc.

To be in the camp as myself as having those types of responsibilities, and prioritizing them as we do (coming before recreational online gaming), and to have the couple hours of fun we can and do allocate to ourselves be spoiled by the others in that camp is what creates the animosity between the two camps, and thus fosters and generates the oft mentioned insulting monikers that you've addressed. I personally do not employ them at others, but I can empathize with those who have.

Robert

From what I have got it will be a single shard persistent world. My experience with one of those (EVE) is that:
- if you become a "know asshat" you will have a large crowd to hide in;
- you will become an "hero of the people" for a segment of the population;
- for most people hunting the "asshat" will cost more time and resources that it is worth. if you are his target he usually select you because you can't retaliate.

Thanks for the insight. I too have experienced this type of setting in other MMOs. It's why I didn't continue to play them.

If I have to work that hard, and worry and stress over a game, it's no longer a game. I'd rather be at work getting paid for working hard, worrying and stressing so much.

So thank you but no thank you - I'll spend my dollars elsewhere.

Robert

I'll probably make a player-killer first, and get him or her up there in skill, then start another one to be my main. If I get griefed, I'll dust off the assassin and return the favor.

If a griefer wants to cahnge my gaming experience, I will accomodate them.
Hell I may even start a guild of like minded players that hunts griefers for in game cash.

My good friend and fellow PF-RPGer Brian had a group that did this very thing - I think it was EQ that he played but can't say for sure.

He was "feared" by most on that server and people sought him out out to take vengeance on people who preyed on others in that way. Repeat offenders, he would literally hound over and over again.

I know he's looking forward to this being similar to that and I'll be lucky to have him as an ally IF I decide to play - which at this point is looking more and more only a maybe - a significant drop from when I first heard there would be a PF MMO. But that being said - I don't feel like I'd be missing out - because i'm quite happy with LotRO and paying them monthly subscription for me, my wife, and two children all with paid accounts, and I buy additional add-ons to boot. If a game is to my liking, I spare no expense - as you may have guessed from the number of subscriptions to Paizo products in my name title.

Robert

Well I would say the 1 level better is going to be difficult considering PFO is going to be a skill system, and thus no levels.

AH! I didn't realize it wouldn't be level based - I hadn't read that yet. So if it's to be D20 mechanics still, I'm guessing it'll mirror that of Mutants and Masterminds RPG....????

FWIW, that's exactly the way I anticipated D&D 4th E looking like, and would have preferred as much. I do believe future incarnations of D&D or PF will look more like M&M - but that's for another thread.

As it stands, I would have to agree that your assessment of ganking the ganker mentality is the only way to police this, unless the game gave the victim the option to decline to "spar" - which would work - except that it doesn't allow the full free range of PVP and the feeling of a true "realworld" experience that many or crying for.

Like I said before - I and I know I'm not alone - would hope that I can just play against the environment at my own leisurely pace, and not have to worry each time I go somewhere that there's "bandits hiding waiting for me to barely finish off a boss-monster" so that he can have his way with me. This is exactly why I'm happy to pay to play LOTRO instead of some of the other games.

Robert

Robert Brambley wrote:

What is a "greycon"? I keep seeing this term used.

"Con" is short for "consider", a DikuMUD (and, later, Everquest) term for a command to determine how hard an enemy is, relative to your level. Everquest labeled enemies with colors, ranging from "red" (it will just murder you) to "grey" (helpless before your might). Hence, "grey - con".

A "greycon" foe is someone who is so much lower level than you that they're basically helpless. Ganking greycons (in a PVP context) is killing other players who are much lower level than you are.

Thats some of the worst kind of PVPers IMO. Thats why i previously suggested the ability only "gank" a character 1 level better than you (or color coding or whatever); anyone else you try to "gank" gets a prompted question appear that "IGankYou331 wishes to spar - do you accept: NO, Yes-to the death, Yes-to the disabled"

Robert

So in regards to limiting the amount of greifing - would a system that

a_) only allows you to attack a player who is at least 1 level (or challenge rating or color coding - or whatever quantifiable stratification is employed) BETTER than you. This should mitigate that amount of "punking" or "bullying" if you will to people of lower level.
b_) Attempting to attack anyone not one level higher would prompt a "sparring/Dueling" inquiry to the "victim" to see if they wish to partake. Furthermore the "spar" agreement includes a "stake" (I.E -- to the death and winner can loot an item, to the disabled, or to the X% of one's health and winner gets XP or something like that).

This would allow PVP and not allow it to run-amok.

ALSO:
Include regions where it's "Free-game" for anyone to be attacked. This area should provide some of the best, most attractive or bountiful loot - meaning that people will have reason to go there for more than just killing or being killed by other players - but an incentive to go there, but also the most dangerous.

ALSO:
include factions where if you belong to them, you can attack and be attacked freely by people in certain other factions. (like Pathfinders vs Aspis Consortium); but not allowed to attack just anyone - only those of the opposed faction. Of course becoming part of such a faction that predisposes you to possibly being punked by another faction should provide some in-game benefits to make the risk worth it.

I play LOTRO and love it - it allows for sparring requests which definitely prevents "griefing". I personally play to enjoy some free exploration of the world, enjoy the story of it, earning reputation in the goodly factions, and crafting. I am not a diehard gamer by any stretch, I have poor control over game interfaces (slow to react on the keyboard etc), and not inclined or driven enough to read/learn/know all the "best optimized builds" - I just want to immerse myself and escape the real world for a time so that I can "roleplay the part of a hero" for a couple hours. This is to the point that if there WERE griefers in the game, it would directly interfere in my fun - and I would probably not pay for an ongoing subscription that I currently do. I know I'm not alone - probably close to a majority in this mindset, and thus Paizo's business practice has always been to never disinclude a particular type/style/preference of gamer; I'm sure it will hold true in an MMO with their name on it also - which means it will have to cater to all sorts. Any one type that is disenfranchised directly affects their profit margin negatively.

However there is an area within that LotRO game that allows you to be part of the opposition: in the Ettenmoors, you can play the part of an orc or Warg or other servant of the Shadow and go about with others and kill PCs. Players who go there know that this is a hostile area and risk being punked by a group of the Shadow's forces. But there are rewards there too, and places to seek respite. This area is in addition to the ability to request a spar.

Some other notes:

What is a "greycon"? I keep seeing this term used.

I play on LotRO with 7 different characters. Each one has a unique name and identity, and serves a different style of play; five of them are adventuring types, and 2 are simply crafters. The five different adventuring characters give me a varied level spectrum to allow me to play in an area, or with a group, or with certain friends and family of a given level so as to be appropriate for the group. Other times I just feel like casting spells, and other times shooting ranged weapons, and other times healing, and other times crushing; so it just depends on my mood. But I wouldn't dream of making a main character and then a bunch of ALTS with similar names etc - that would be boring. None of my friends or family that also play the game do so either. Then again, perhaps that game specifically attracts that type of player that wouldn't. I don't know

Finally - I really like the "reputation" idea that "killers, and thieves" will eventually get a bad rep and among others; not sure if it's achievable without obvious abuse, but the notion is pretty darn cool. Just like in Real Life there are companies that get a bad rep for their business practices: Real estate agencies, lawyer offices, banks, and even some certain Fantasy RPG publishers for instance all obtain bad rep and people then choose whether or not they wish to do business with them; in the case of an MMO - perhaps people will hesitate to let them into their fellowship for adventuring, or what have you.

Neverwinter Nights game had an alignment system that had an numeric value - as you did quests the alignment shifted based on how you responded to NPCs, and what you demanded as compensation for your heroisms. This is something worth exploring, too. My playstyle would always wind up with "good" characters because that's just the type of player I am - I believe Fantasy RPGs are meant to be for hero players - the good vs the bad-guys. I respect that my preference isnt the way all people view it or prefer it - but definitely my style is to play the good guys for sure. As DM - I never allow "evil" characters because someone on here said it best - when afforded the opportunity MOST players allowed to play evil characters DO play them sociopathically and it winds up destroying the campaign.

Robert

Cheescake skin-showing clothing for both male and female is a must; if one is going to play a game starting a artistic image for hours on end, most prefer to do so with something that is visually appealing.

I agree that "fullPlate" should not cover only a few inches of flesh just for the sake of cheesecake; but following a trend in Lord of the Rings online - what you wear that actually gives your character it's in game bonuses is not necessarily how you appear.

You have several "outfit" slots to choose from and in them you can put cosmetic clothing or other more evocative styles of armor so that you can customize your appearance while still maintain the armor type and magical bonuses that you want for your character at a given level.

You pay to unlock additional outfit slots - of which I have done - in fact I've unlocked the maximum possible. (paying to unlock an outfit slot unlocks it for all PCs on that account and server).

Robert

I think if you make it time consuming, AND there are alternatives, nobody will do it. But if you make it so the best stuff requires crafting, there will be some willing to put the time into it. And like any free market, if they make huge sums of money doing it, others will join in until an equilibrium price is reached. (Unless, of course, there are high barriers to entry, but we won't go there.)

I agree with this assessment. In Lord of the Rings Online, usually the best things you can craft at a given level is better than most or all of the rewards for quests at that level.

So it's a worthwhile cause to learn to craft - or at the very least gather resources to barter it to a craftsman to make something for you.

Furthermore, the way it's set up is that you need multiple "craftsman" to make things. The concept is based on Tolkien's prevalence of "fellowships" and community. Some can "mine" the resources, while others can "craft" the mined resources. Rarely can any one character do it all. Thus a prospector can gather the resources and use it as trade to a craftsman to make something for him. While a weaponsmith for instance can make wood-based weapons, but can't properly gather and treat the wood. So he relies on a woodsman to do this for him. In the end, it makes up the basis for the economy and infrastructure of trade and commerce.

But as was discussed, the ends justify the means, because it provides a more customizable and better range of rewards/items than is typically available via purchase or reward.

Robert

Ultimately, how does the gentleman who plays four hours per month not become overwhelmed by the gentleman who plays eighty hours per week?

Thanks.

Ultimately, this is my greatest concern - it is exactly what I've been discussing with my Pen and Paper PFRPG group of players. We all love the idea of a PFRPG MMO, and we all play Lord of the Rings Online currently.

But we are all family guys - full time careers, with wife and kids, etc, and we all play pen and paper versions of Pathfinder (among other games) each week.

Thus our LotRO gaming is very sparse - typically when a table-top game is cancelled due to schedule SNAFUs or one of us has a bonus day off and has nothing else to do.

We have a Kinship that I lead, I have a kin-house etc, but I play less than once a month - but it IS there when we want to play, and though I have a few rather robust characters in regards to their power, I just don't play enough to run with the pack so to speak.

However, in my week or so between gaming, I never have to worry about the kinhouse being taken over, or my character's wealth/possessions raided, etc.

I don't know this could be avoided unless you truly live 24 hours in a game since everyone has different schedules in life some are always awakes when other players are sleeping. How do you protect your assets when you've not "online" and how do you have a chance to succeed or survive if you only have time to play once a week or even less??

Other than this concern - it sounds amazing so far what Goblinworks and Paizo is doing here.

I prefer LotRO MMO vs say WoW or others because LotRO is more geared on characters and journeys/exploration of the world. I prefer that more sandboxy style. But the art is also more believable. WoW to me, looks too cartoony. I would hope PFRPG goes with a bit more realistic appearance.

Robert

"raiding the treasury" for personal gain could be seen as a decidedly evil act. If the PC group wishes to run an evil kingdom and become powerful warlord dictators then that could certainly be a possibility but the ramifications of turning the entire civilized world against you would have to be a factor.

While Im not a fan of this action in my campaign - I would not classify it as evil.

I don't find it evil that our government use our taxes to develop our defenses militarily. The PCs withdrawing funds to outfit themselves with better gear - only leads towards them becoming more advanced and capable heroes - which in turn their successes equate to being better able to providing, expanding their kingdom and destroying their people's enemies.

The ends justify the means completely. Not evil at all.

(obviously if they're withdrawing from the kingdom for other reasons, this would not apply - but I think what I describe is the rule - not the exception for most campaigns).

Robert

Removing the allowance to "withdraw" BP is probably the easiest way to assure some semblance of ballooning the campaign out of control.

This helps keep the PCs in line in regards to the "wealth by level" concept.

Raising the DCs +1 for every five hexes I don't think is really going to make an affect one way or the other. The number of hexes in a kingdom is not what increases the ability for kingdom checks to succeed; it's the building that are constructed in cities that make up most of the applied bonuses to kingdom rolls. A kingdom of just 4 hexes could easily have super high capabilities in making their rolls if they have several of the right buildings - thus that little arbitrary rule never really makes a difference.

Eventually auto success is fairly expected; well-run kingdoms should have some invulnerability to every little issue that comes up. Most of the complaints come from DMs who allow their players to withdraw a bunch of money, because they know their kingdom modifiers are so high the Unrest caused by this still only results in a failure by rolling a 1 (only).

One thing you can do to make events still have some effect despite auto-success:

I have made several of the worst events cause 1 unrest even if/when they succeed in their kingdom roll. Essentially instead of "Save: negates" its more of a "Save: Partial"

I've also implemented a +5 to the DC for each subsequent magic item sold in a turn. so if the kingdom has 5 districts and can theoretically sell 5 items in a turn during that phase, the DCs increase +5 for each subsequent - meaning the fifth item to sell that turn is a +20 to the normal DC. (you could reduce the increase to multiples of +3 or +2 if that DC balloons too quickly for an individual's taste).

This has impacted how fast the kingdom balloons w/ earning/spending power. This is more to our pace - but I recognize this isn't for everyone's pace who prefer the faster growing and faster paced campaign. (In my campaign they're on year 8 of the kingdom and only have 12 hexes. and we're just finishing book 2; but we focus more on the story and character personality and kingdom political relationships - so it's more about stopping to smell the roses than charging through the books and adventures.)

Robert

The first world was described as some kind of timeless place, so I think that all of the survivors won't have aged, even though they really spent 100 years in captivity. There will be a resistance group fighting...

You can take this one step further - the citizens of the PCs kingdom that disappeared w/ the land have no memory of having been part of the normal material world.

When the new campaign puts the new PCs into contact w/ the old citizens of the old kingdom, as far as they knew they were ALWAYS part of that world, w/ Nyrissa, and are 'strangers in a strange land' in Golarion.

The new PCs find it hard to convince them that they were absconded 100 years ago - the old citizens just find this preposterous and crazy-talk.

Robert

Are there any Adventure Paths that are heavy in combat?

From my experiences: Curse of Crimson Throne (especially @ Scarwall) is specifically robust in combat, along w/ Runelords, and Second Darkness.

Kingmaker and Council of Thieves seem to be far more plentiful in non-combat encounters/adventuring

but all APs have a fair-share of combat.

Robert

Robert Brambley wrote:

In my email I recd notification of this being ready to ship soon; however the total does not seem to reflect the Tome of Horrors book I ordered.

Or was that charged but not shipped on my previous order?

Or is it being delayed to another month?

I would like to be sure to ship it along with my usual monthly subscriptions shipment.

Thanks

Robert

This total only reflects the charge for the shipping and handling fee for the book. The bulk of the charge for the bundle was charged when immediately when you got the PDF.

Your Tome of Horrors is set to ship out with this subscription shipment.

Thanks,
cos

Excellent! Thanks. Looking forward to getting my hands on it!

Thanks to your prompt response.

Robert

In my email I recd notification of this being ready to ship soon; however the total does not seem to reflect the Tome of Horrors book I ordered.

Or was that charged but not shipped on my previous order?

Or is it being delayed to another month?

I would like to be sure to ship it along with my usual monthly subscriptions shipment.

Thanks

Robert

I think this is a FANTASTIC idea!!!

Kinda like the Lord of the Rings are always exploring amongst ruins/civilizations of old - seeing remnants of the kings of old before them.

This will give players a chance to see the ruins of their very own past civilization and give them a chance to explore it all - post first world corruption/taint.

"Oh look, theres the old famous Monument of _________" (insert monument from PC's kingdom that commemorated their old heroes).

"Here are the ruins of the town of ______ - the site of the legendary battle against Armag the Destroyer!"

That is something that I would LOVE to take part in.

Good luck.

The key of course is "why is it back?" as someone mentioned. Perhaps Erastil played a role in that.....

Robert

Robert Brambley wrote:

Hey crew, I recently chose to unsubscribe solely to avoid having the Beginner Boxed set delivered.

I would like to re-instate my subscription to the Roleplaying Game Line beginning with the next item Bestiary 3.

Thank you very much
Robert

To get your subscription back up and running for the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, go to it's subscription page and restart it when its convenient. I've provided a link to it here.

Simply select the option of starting with the Bestiary 3 and go through check out and you should be all set.

- Erik

Done. Thank you.

Robert

Hey crew, I recently chose to unsubscribe solely to avoid having the Beginner Boxed set delivered.

I would like to re-instate my subscription to the Roleplaying Game Line beginning with the next item Bestiary 3.

Thank you very much
Robert

Thus, it seems the idea is that anything using your buckler arm costs you the AC bonus because the arm is not free to defend. However, only activities that involve needing to move that arm around quickly will incur a -1 to attack rolls; the buckler will encumber your sword strike as you try to swing your arm around, but doesn't really inhibit your ability to hold your arm steady while you draw back a bowstring with the other hand.

So I know you're not officially a rep of Paizo or a Sage Advice column but let me ask you this, too:

Does the above quote text ALSO apply to wielding a two-handed weapon such as a great sword?

Or does the text in the buckler description that said this NOT apply to greatsword wielders?

"If you use weapon in your off-hand you lose all AC bonuses from the buckler until your next turn"

In other words, is using a two handed weapon considered to be "using a weapon in your off-hand?"

Or is "using a weapon in your off-hand" only in cases where you're clearly wielding a weapon completely in that hand as is the case w/ two-weapon wielders? and two-handed style is merely "helping wield a weapon" and thus not applicable to this AC loss????

Forgive me for wanting to be specific: I'm not intentionally being obtuse; I have a rules lawyer....and when i say lawyer, I literally mean hes a couple months from taking the Barr exam.....whom I need to ensure we're both 100% clear on the facets of this rule as we currently disagree with the rules as intended.

Thanks.
Robert

I believe that is what Jiggy is advocating and that's exactly how I read it too. Frankly, I would probably rule that the buckler is light enough to not cause the penalty to attacks, but as written I think it is fairly clear.

And I agree it SHOULD be that way - you SHOULD be penalized a -1 to attacks (with a bow).

But I can't see that the wording in the buckler descriptions supports this.

To me - it clearly says you can use bow w/o penalty.

Unless "carrying" really means literally carrying in a non-functional capacity - like stowed in a back pack or around your belt or something

Robert

So here's the breakdown:

• Sentence #1: Description
• Sentence #2: No penalty to bow/crossbow use while carrying a buckler.
• Sentences #3-4: Take -1 to attacks involving buckler arm.
• Sentence #5: "In any case," using a weapon with the buckler arm costs you the shield bonus to AC.
• Sentence #6: Casting with buckler arm costs you the shield bonus to AC.
• Sentence #7: No shield-bashing.

So Jiggy - is it your position that 'no penalty while carrying buckler' is literally "carrying" and not intended to mean "while wielding a buckler for its intended purpose" - engaged in combat?

So you're saying that so long as he's carrying it, no penalty, but as soon as an archer uses a bow, he's no longer "carrying" said buckler he's now engaged in activity where the buckler would be "used". AND if said archer fires his bow, he IS penalized in both of the following ways:
1) loses buckler bonus to AC for that round (until his next turn)
2) Has -1 to Ranged attack rolls

Is this what you're understanding is?

I ask because to my eyes, the second sentence is pretty clear:
"This small metal shield is worn strapped to your
forearm. You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty
while carrying it."

Provided "carrying" means wearing it for its intended purposes - then you don't have the -1 to attacks, but later the "In any case you lose the AC if you attack" seems to apply to all previously discussed scenarios: bows, Two-Weapon, Two-Handed styles, off-handed, spellcasting etc..

Robert

Pg 150 of Core Rules states no penalty to bows when buckler is being "carried".

Can I assume Rules As Intended (RAI) that "Carried" means - "using the buckler for it's intended purpose" and not a literal translation of "carrying it somewhere somehow among your person?"

That being said - why is it that you can use a bow w/o penalty that clearly requires both hands/arms when using a bow, but when wielding a off-hand dirk or two handed claymore, it suddenly gets in the way - not only penalizing your attack roll, but robbing your AC bonus for the remainder of the round.

I'm not against penalizing the melee person in this case - I'm more concerned with NOT penalizing the archer who is already protected from most harm (usually) by choosing ranged combat.

Robert

Make up your own trees and tree names. Trees can be found in nearly every climate zone on earth, so naturally that should hold true for Golarion. Also, a long-time arcane, celestial, abyssal, abberant, or undead presence could conceivably have created a mutation of plants and trees that are so far gone as to have become a new species (along with special properties related to the type of "contaminant"). Brightwood, bluevein, bonelimb, rustsap, and tree-that-should-not-be are a few of my ideas.

And what about certain types of mushrooms that the denizens of the Underdark would use as wood-like material?

I lnow you said you didn't want to have to play Adam and name the trees yourself, but the chore may be made easier if you plot how many "tiers" of wood you want. Perhaps just enough wood types to mirror the main varieties of metal.

Thanks, that's what I have resorted to. However I did find Paueliel trees listed specifically in Golarion with a special write-up about them.

As for the number - it would be 5; to span magical enchantments ranging from +1 to +5

Robert

You may want to check a few horticultural websites. For example, I recall there being some spectacularly tough hardwoods from the drier parts of Africa but I couldn't name one of those trees to save my life. (Come to think of it, the baobab is about the only African tree I can name.)

Well first of all thanks for the great advice, though truthfully I do not wish to make it at all that much work.

Relying on strict historical accuracy is not my main goal. Just having some flavorful names of Golarion based trees/wood to describe crafted goods would suit my needs quite adequately.

I've started to look at the wiki as someone has suggested and it appears I may have to resort to stating "wood from specific regions/forests" like the Lurkwood Forest Trees or Arthell Forest as opposed to specific renown trees such as to the tune of coming up with names of tree varieties like "SpearKnuckle trees" or "Honeysilver Trees".

Thanks
Robert

Darkwood often grows in darkmoon vale in Andoran. Search for trees at http://www.pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Pathfinder_Wiki You will find some things without looking through every book. I think most of the trees are the kind that exist on earth though. So there uses would be similar to those kind of trees.

Thank you - that's a start.

Obviously I wouldn't want to use Darkwood for this purpose as it already does have some in-game mechanic for it's use.

Thanks
Robert

Uh, Darkwood is wood, not metal.

I know this.

Poor wording on my part - but i was just using it as analogous to what I am looking for for wood, and gave examples of certain generic special metal materials too.

I edited and corrected the OP with better verbiage.

Regardless - your response although correcting, wasn't really contributory. If you know of Golarion specific trees/wood, I would love to hear about it and where I can find it or read about it.

Thanks
Robert

Now that I have your attention, I have been contemplating a "tiered" based system for weapons/armor etc to provide some measure of flavor descriptiveness to craftsmanship of weapons/armor etc.

For wood-based weapons I need to come up with types of wood/branches that can be processed into weapons and would prefer those that are notable in Golarion.

Those who play Lord of the Rings Online can relate this mentality to that of the "rowan branches" Tier 1, "ash branches" Tier 2, "Yew branches" Tier 3, "Lebethron Branches" Tier 4, "Black Ash branches" Tier 5.

Each higher tier would be harder to come by - in more remote or dangerous regions and considered more valuable.....

In short are there known "tree" types in Golarion (specific to Golarion) that I could tie this idea to, (Kinda like Darkwood is special wood and Mithril or Adamantite is special metal - but those are game-generic and not setting specific); or if not should I just invent names for rare/exotic woods in areas.

Thanks
Robert

I have canceled your order for the Beginner's Box. As this was a subscription order, this also cancels your Pathfinder RPG subscription. You can resubscribe at any time, starting with the Bestiary 3, here:

http://paizo.com/-btpy88qw

Thank you -- I got the email confirmation already.

Robert

The Beginner Box and the Pathfinder RPG Subscription are both linked to each other, if we cancel one then it cancels the other.

If I cancel the RPG subscription, you can resubscribe whenever you're ready, starting with the next volume you wish to receive.

Currently the options would be to restart with the Beginner Box or Bestiary 3, once we begin shipping Bestiary 3 (estimated in December) the options will change to Bestiary 3 or Advanced Race Guide.

Let me know if you do wish to cancel the subscription and I will take care of it. However, we plan to start shipping Beginner Boxes pretty soon (estimated starting on Monday), so please let us know if you need to cancel as soon as possible.

Thanks Sara

Cancel (now) and restart w/ Bestiary 3 please.

Thanks
Robert

Paizo Order # 1817405

Could you please remove the BEGINNER BOX item of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subcription from my next order.

I DO Still want all of the other items and to continue to subscribe to the Roleplaying Game line - it is ONLY this product I wish to cancel.

I have been involved in RPGs since 1982 and was fully invested in Pathfinder since the Alpha rules were released - I really don't need beginner help.

Regardless I continue to support Paizo and will still subscribe and purchase their various lines of business; but this item I do not wish to pay for.

Thank you,
Robert Brambley

I would really like to see ethnicity listed in Golarion products for all NPCs where appropriate.

Thank you.

I must agree. Doing so greatly aids the DM in how to portray and describe an individual NPC.

Robert

These sound interesting. Nice work. In case you came to this party a little late there have been a number of good threads about expanding the events and encounters found while kingdom buiiding or exploring.

Here are links to two the better ones that I've kept as favorites.

THIS THREAD is about expanding and customizing the events tables.

THIS THREAD is about adding filler and encounters in the hexes while exploring.

Robert

Definitely coming to the party late on this one. FWIW, this AP REALLY has me itching for it to come out ASAP! Can't wait!

What I would like to see involved in it mirror alot of the great ideas already posted:

A little underwater adventure - specifically some Azlanti ruins complete w/ aboleth masters.
Major agreement with a ghost ship slowly listing away that must been epxlored
Ship to ship combat
Mechanics for fighting among the riggings and ropes.
A Kraken
Ship to creature fighting - see Kraken above specifically
Mechanics for crew and ship building - not unlike Kingmaker's ability to form armies and buildings.
Love the idea of gnoll pirates - to whomever listed that one! A slaver crew of epic prorportions if i ever heard of one!
Trade routes, specimen gathering at distant exotic locales and exploration.
Inclusion and emphasis on weather and effects.

Here's a few more ideas that I have.

"LOST" island where the PCs must explore - full of dinosaur type encounters

A notorious legendary pirate ship continues to be a thorn to the PCs - whose crew is made up entirely or primarily of WERE-SHARKS. This one is a big want for me. :-)

Eye of Abendengo creates a bizarre paranormal storm that sends the ship and crew back in time - think Final Countdown movie - perhaps to a time in which they confront a legendary pirate threat and naval battle that ensued that is locked in the annuls of Golarion History.

Robert

Kingmaker is my third AP from Paizo that I have DM'd, which I am doing now - characters currently just finishing book. (FWIW, it's the best of the three). However it is not easy for a new DM because it has so little structured storyline - great for groups who don't enjoy the railroad storyline that doesn't allow for much deviation; but great for those groups who are not "self-starters". Kingmaker relies on groups being proactive, and making decisions on what to do next. DMs have to be able to ad-lib a lot, and change on the fly since so much of it is driven by the players and their decisions.

That all being said - it can be quite rewarding. I suggest the following:

1) familiarize yourself with all 6 books - pay especial attention to the major NPCs especially the baddies. One problem most of the APs have is that the BBEGs get very little foreshadowing before they're thrust upon the PCs. Find out which bad-guy NPCs are important to the game and which ones you favor, and consider how to foreshadow their existance and motivations into the game. Foreshadowing in this way is important as it gives the PCs a reason to despise them. It becomes personal.

2) Familiarize yourself w/ the Kingmaker section of this messageboard. There are MANY of us running that AP that have posted alot of feedback, advice, and additional content to liven it up and expand on the published material. In that vein, find some other modules, dungeon magazines, dungeon crawl classics, pathfinder modules, etc, and find a way to use some of the content to spice up hexes or build off events that the kingdom faces. Read some of the other DM journals and testimonies of their games to find inspiration from them.

3) Consider ignoring XP. I have been levelling the PCs based on the story - how far they've gotten and how large the kingdom has gotten - thus they level when YOU are ready for the game to proceed. This gives more freedom to add alot of different small dungeons, encounters etc to spice up the hexes, and you need not worry about those and random encounters raising the levels too fast.

4) Get yourself a spreadsheet for the kingdom building aspect of the game as it will get cumbersome. Also consider carefully using some of the gamer content that we've added for expanding the events, and the buildings that can be used, and read carefully some of the commentary from DMs in regards to building generating magic items for sale; every group is different - some consider this too much - others love it. Another thing to consider is how much of the rules of kingdom building that you want to disclose to the players. Some say none to avoid min/maxed metagaming kingdoms. Some say all to avoid players making uninformed dumb decisions.. Many somewhere in the middle - disclose some basic info or estimated info but not specifics. It's dependant on your groups style and preference.

5) As for descriptive text - that one is hard to struggle with espcially DMs who are not as generally creative on the fly or newer to the game or are simply more build for "published" material descriptions. Since so much of the first few books is simply exploration with little to no detail of much of the area, I offer the following suggestions: If you play an MMO such at LotRO, or other visually stimulating artwork MMO for exploration, spend some time exploring 'like-terrain' in the game and get some good viewpoints - then imagine how you would describe a specific setting to a group. Imagine that particular valley, or set of hills, or woodland region or waterway etc. This works with art too - check out deviantart or flikr to get some panorami scene photos, and then imagine yourself describing that to your group. Try doing this occasionally and offer a couple situations to the PCs based on the descriptive text - such as "you can either cross the brook and find a way to climb out of the valley which looks like it will be a sheer cliff in places, or travel downstream where you know the terrain flattens out to some wide plains - easily the safest route but would take the longest to travers. Or you go up-stream followig it around to the north where you know there are some balding lazy (easy) hills to climb, but known for it's wind sheers and offering no cover from any inclement weather - but would probably be the fastest way to continue north towards the plateau." (the key is that regardless of which way they go, a planned encounter you have should more than likely be placed in that direction - but at least they have the feeling of being in control of their destiny; you need only customize it a bit and the narrative to detail the direction they traveled).

This gives the otherwise ordinary "hex" some definition and allows the PCs to have more a role in making decisions on exactly where to go. The alternative is to say "You spent three days exploring this hex....where to next?"

6) As written, when PCs meander about exploring hexes they are subjected to possible encounters (randomly). Weather is another feature you can add to the game randomly. Finally another feature that is random is the kingdom building events that can happen each month. I have learned that it is MUCH more efficient for the DM to roll several random encounters, weather, and events ahead of time; and work on narating them, adding to them to spice them up and have all preparation/research done on them before the game happens. This is a HUGE game-time saver.

Robert

from my initial overview perusal, this appears to be quite good, very well thought out, and some of it quite brilliant.

If you have the time, I would love to see a copy of the word-file that you have

You can email it to

I look forward to truly having the time to study this and use a portion of it.

Thanks
Robert

...and very few arguments. The party is one of our best run groups to date. Everyone feels important because I and the PC's make sure everyone actually is important.

In the end the paradigm shift to one in which each player controls very specified aspects of the kingdom-building turn, has indeed created an atmosphere where each person feels important as you indicated above, and far less arguing. Everyone still shares their opinions, but at least now it's up to one person to make the final decision about each aspect instead of having every little decision go to a debate and vote methodology.

Robert

Great ideas Robert and Diego.

I'm going to run with :

Summer: 3BP
Autumn: 2BP
Winter: 1BP
Spring: 2BP

Building a Granary will allow the Kingdom to store BP generated by Farms for consumption later.

Could you elaborate on that a bit?

Here's what I imagined you imagining.....

So if I have a consumption of say 6 in the summer, (counting reductions from farms already), I could say "increase consumption to 8 this month" so as to add "2 in the granary" for winter.

Then winter when Consumption goes up to 12 because my three farm hexes have reduced their output by 2 each, I can "withdraw" from the granary the 2 and make the consumption "10 for this month".???

Robert

I found that my group stopped the constant Detect Magic after the second dungeon i ran them through that contained no aura's. They quickly realized that as the DM i wasn't gonna let them waltz down the hallways in Detective mode from Batman the whole game.

Effective. A bit heavy handed; but effective.

I find there's a significant amount of room for some middle ground.

As for McBobbo's, instead of trying to find a "limitation" to the number of times per day, try combining most of the effects of Detect w/ Identify; and its suddenly a 1st level spell and not spammable.

If you also limit Detect Magic to detecting an aura on an object in visual range (not through walls, etc) at say 5', 10', 30' etc, distance, then I think you'll find you can live with it being spammed.

In such a case, a player cant prowl all the halls checking behind every door, false wall, chest etc, and if he really wants to detect magic on every item a BBEG is wearing at the beginning of the fight, he'll have to point to each object seperately and cast it 10 times or so.

Meanwhile Identify can be the "Detect Magic" that we know of in the Core Rules (cone area, through barriers, etc) PLUS it grants the bonus towards appraising an object.

Like I've said before - now that ID doesn't have the pesky casting time, and expensive material component, I don't see the problem combining it's current ability with something else. The fact that you need to cast Detect Magic to identify just solidifies my stand that the two could be combined in effects.

In fact I'm willing to go so far as to say that Identify is actually the spell out of the two that should be the zero level "spammable" spell. (going by spell descriptions as written in the book).

Robert

So he puts on a Hat of Disguise and looks like a bard waiting to get stabbed.

LOL Well said!!!

That works for round one. When a sentient creature (who usually doesn't think in metagaming sense that - "hey i'm only a piddly little CR3 creature and should be minimally effective against this group") uses what it considers to be it's best form of attack and it fails miserably bouncing off a person easily and clumsily - defying the "bard in a fancy hat", and another appears to hurt him, he's usually going to try for easier prey, lower hanging fruit so to speak.

Robert

It doesn't necessarily add random encounters; what it does is make the encounters you plan on having tougher for the party to get the initiative on because the monsters already know the party is coming, and can prepare, while the party might know they aren't alone, but because of the lack of stealth, are more likely to have someone waiting for them to trigger the nasty traps, or stop to disable it, which serves as just as good a distraction, or stumble into an ambush rather than be the ones setting up the ambush.

EDIT: It has the ironic effect of ultimately making the party more reactive, because their attempts to be proactive will ultimately destroy their ability to stealth.

Well said and good point.

I'll concede that.

Still I think the best recent point that was made was that the spell used to be used in important situations and everyone was okay with that.

Now it's just too easy to use it at will and what it can do for the group and the game (as written).

Instead of having to "upgrade" the surroundings like a neverending game of hackers vs antivirus protection all the time so as to re-limit its effectiveness, it's much more streamlined and convenient (for my group) to limit the spell a bit.

I personally feel Paizo should have done this. Whether or not they agree and if that will be on the chopping block for a future Pathfinder upgrade is unknown.

Robert

Robert Brambley wrote:

you only get one extra attack a round. Multiple such attacks are "stacking" the effect 'for that character'; even if from different weapons. "stacking" implies as it is applied to a particular creature.

A simple example where this is not true is the enchantment to add +1d6 fire damage to a weapon. The bonus stacks per weapon, not per creature. There are many further weapon examples, such as a +1 enchantment bonus on weapons that also stack per weapon and not per creature.

Speed, the way the PRD reads, could easily apply to each weapon independently as well. Each effect doesn't stack with haste or similar effect, of course. The stacking rules would therefore not be violated.

As for your example, if a GM introduced a 6-arm creature with Speed swords in each hand, I would expect the extra enchantments on all those swords to do something. Why would the creature ever need them all enchanted as such? Maybe the GM needed to catch the party up on WBL... that'd be a way to do it!

You can wield two +3 weapons, but the weapons do NOT add together to give you a +6 on your attack bonuses.

The Stacking of their enhancement bonuses work the same way that extra movement does; though you're not getting more than +30' from any one source, you do not get to add 60' to your characters movement; they just don't stack that way to affect the "creature"

Extra attacks via speed items work the same way - they do not give the creature the benefit of combined results.

You can make one extra attack per round regardless of how many speed items you have. You can move 30' of extra movement regardless of how many movement enhancements you have.

Robert