|
|
||||||||||||||||||
| Paizo Pathfinder® GameMastery® Planet Stories® Paizo Games | |||||||||||||||||||
| About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ | |||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 Recent Posts 
I agree with you completely, but we are talking a specific kind of horror, that portrayed by Lovecraft. That feeling of hopelessness is, I would suggest, counter to the design of Pathfinder. So horror, yes in Pathfinder can be done very well, Lovecraftian horror, that is what I question. Any high level Cleric or Mage can open a gate to the nether-realms, so where is the horror of things from beyond? Summoners have what in CoC would be a "horror from beyond" as a pet! It's weird, the next line I wrote, right after you stopped quoting is where I tried to answer just this concern. :) Make the Mythos be something that defies the order of the planar cosmology. Getting Lovecraftian horror to work in a fantasy environment requires you as the GM to focus on the strangeness and otherness of the creatures, phenomena, etc. involved. Take the star pact warlock from 4e, it goes (albeit slightly) in that direction. She doesn't draw her powers from creatures from a different plane. It's something from the cold depths of space, an area not often dealt with due to the nature of the planes. Just because Pathfinder has the planes all mapped out and people ok with the concept of there being other dimensions doesn't mean there couldn't be something above and beyond that. Imagine a high-level wizard, his special interest being the planes. What if he discovers that there are places beyond the planes, places not reachable from the astral plane, or through magic, places that defy logic in ways none of the planes do! (Afaik, even the weirdest planes adhere to euclidean geometry, for example) My point is: if you keep everything just normal fantasy flavour and then randomly drop a shoggoth into a dungeon, that won't produce Lovecraftian horror. But if you build a campaign around the concept, you can use the PFRPG rules set to play that campaign. The rules won't kill the (Lovecraftian) horror, but they can't produce it, either. Even the CoC rules can't. The GM has to produce it by making things obscure, strange and horrifying. Some methods for that have been mentioned here already.
Thing is, for us, a car is not something that would drive people insane. Neither is a computer. Or the internet. Put one of them into Golarion. "Ah, a magic device!" they will say. Then they cast detect magic. Then it starts getting unpleasant.
You could also go the way of saying that magic and the planes all revolve around the planet Golarion. You can't reach other planets from the planes, Magic doesn't work too far away from the planet, it's all tied to it (as in a certain cyberpunk/fantasy game). It's the same thing with monsters. Of course, in the educated 1920s with all that science, the sudden realization that monsters do, in fact, exist, is horrifying. But what is a monster? Why don't people who discover dinosaur skeletons lose their mind? Why don't people who discover a new species of animal go insane? Because it fits the broader picture.
Also, you as the GM decide which creatures are normal. If you decide Aboleths and Mind Flayers are unheard of, utterly alien, then they are. Describe them a little differently, let them react to magic in odd ways and don't go into mechanics details. This way, lots of "normal" 3e Monsters can become Mythos monsters! God, I really want to write a fantasy-Lovecraft-adventure now... *sigh*
Not wishing to seem argumentative but point to an encounter in an AP that isn't meant to be defeated? Another one from CoT:
Pathfinder #25, CoT - Bastards of Erebus: p.23, "Special". "A special encounter is with something... the PCs probably can't defeat at 1st or even 2nd level." "The point of the special encounter is [...] to make them realize that there are things in the campaign they're not ready to find out just yet..." On the general topic of this thread:
Also, there's rules for Sanity in the Gamemastery Guide.
Perhaps tiredness is causing my brain to fail but... Spirited Charge allows the Barbarian to deal extra damage on HIS attacks when charging. Pounce allows the MOUNT to use a full attack. Neither affects the other unless we're talking about a Centaur-type creature or something who could have pounce himself, could wield weapons and still count as mounted when charging all by his lonesome.
Question for those of you who say you don't allow cross-gendered characters - how do you/would you handle a transgendered player? Would you force them to play their biological sex, which they're (if they're like me anyway) horribly uncomfortable as and hate having been forced it IRL, or would you let them play their mental/spiritual/whatever-your-favored-term-is? I was kinda wondering whether I should get into that in my post, but thought it was long enough already. The thing is, if I'm playing a roleplaying game with somebody, they're usually friends or at least acquaintances. So, I'm guessing I'd know what gender they would prefer being or being called or whatever. So it shouldn't really be an issue for them to play what they want. In your case, with you still "playing" male in the real world, I'm guessing it would take some getting used to and it might get awkward for people who don't know your story and just met you at the game table. Nothing adult human beings can't talk through, though... What seeker said. The biggest issue I encounter in playing opposite sex PCs is that the other players continue to refer to "her" as "him" while in play which disrupts the immersion. That's really the point. "I follow her. No, him. God why can't I get it right?" *laughter all around* It might fit for a gits-and-shiggles-campaign, but it can get very distracting in normal games.Worst place for it to happen to me: A Cthulhu-group that barely knew each other, two of the three players playing cross-gender characters. There wasn't much tension and horror when everybody was just laughing about the guy mimicking a bimbo/hussy/whatever. He even managed to get derogatory in his portrayal of women. Seriously, that's not what I play RPGs for...
Haha, now that's just plain awesome! Me, I'm also a bit burned by the 'lonely geek trying to fullfill sexual fantasies by playing a girl'-stereotype and stick to male characters. As a GM I flat-out disallow crossgender in my games (*gasp*) because I tried it and it didn't work. The simple question of "how do we adress him/her" was a horrible distraction from the game in itself, but sadly not the only one. Mind you that it's not an aversion of mine to any kind of questioning gender roles, but the experience that chances are high at least one person at the table is somehow uncomfortable with it... And it's really just not necessary. There's tons of fun roles to play, of both genders, so you can easily stick with your own. There are places/occasions/stories a lot better suited to exploring cross-/transgender ideas than the casual playing-with-friends kinda games I usually run.
It's the same impression I had, that it kinda assumes you're coming from 3.x. Not so bad for me, since I was, in a way, but I also play 4th and it gets confusing at times. There's several parts in the book where you can't really find a piece of information you're looking for but that you know should be there. Perhaps it is and I just didn't find it. But it does seem as though the intense familiarity the authors (and playtesters!!) obviously had with 3.x kind of made it hard for them to be entirely sure they were stating everything in the most "newbie-friendly" way. "Betriebsblindheit" we call that in German. I've not seen a single company where things like that don't occur. When you're working on something 8 hours a day, 5 days a week (and hobby companies usually have lots of overtime), it gets hard to see it from the outside.
(Nobody did find any that I missed, did they?) No, I have the same totals as you (didn't write down the individual sources) except for Mother of Flies, where a rough reading led me to miss six points. I also came up with a total of 22 possible popularity points in The Twice-Damned Prince. Some more of my musings here
I am preparing to run CoT with a group or two and, in order to see how much leeway there really is with collecting Fame Points (FP), did a bit of number crunching... Click me for lots of numbers:
Maximum FP available per adventure:
The Bastards of Erebus 7 The Sixfold Trial 5 what lies in Dust 4 The Infernal Syndrome 6 Mother of Flies 4 Making for a total of 26 FP. You can earn a total of 22 Popularity Points (PP) in The Twice-Damned Prince. Now, if we assume the best case, we have a character with a starting Charisma of 20, raised three times on the way to level 13. His Fame Check will be:
For a total of 1d20+36 Add to that:
(Note that I assumed they wouldn't spend even 5 FP on the nobles as that would have cost them 1 point in the end. -5 FPs, +4 on Fame Checks)
Thus, you get a total of 1d20+90 making the highest, possible end result under perfect conditions a 110. Four endings:
Now, that the best ending is unattainable under perfect conditions strikes me as odd. :) Ideas:
- Eagle's Splendor for another +4 Any other ideas how to increase that score? Even with that, assuming they get every single FP and PP, have a maxed-out CHA-character with Leadership, and remember to put on that 2nd-level Spell just before the big negotiations (and aren't dispelled or something by wary high-level negotiators from Egorian) they now have 1d20+98, for a 40% chance on a d20 to get the best ending. And that's probably the worst thing for me: A die roll decides the ending. All these heroics to build up a big modifier for the one big toss o' the die? It's not the heroes' actions, but really that one roll of the die that decides the Fate of Westcrown? Hm. Time to look at the positive side of things: Possible solutions! First off: Don't let them know just how exactly the mechanics work, at least not for that last one. Make it seem important. The last, Big Thing to do. Another chance for the group's 'face' to shine after all that bloody sword-wielding an' all. But don't let them get to the conclusion I reached a few lines up: "Meh, it all hinged on a stupid CHA check made by the bard. And the bugger botched it!" But here starts the questions:
2) Should I change the scale, make it more forgiving, but then stick to it so that their actions matter? 3) Should I, in addition to 2), make FPs spendable again, so that not spending any FPs at all will guarantee the best ending, no matter the die roll, but make it really hard to survive the adventure, whereas a slightly sub-optimal approach will still make sure the bad ending won't happen? 4) What would be a good scale? 0-45/46-70/71-95/96+? Also some others:
2) Ideas on how to treat the entire affair so as to not get into mechanics too much, not distract from the game too much, but still make them able to make informed decisions? I mean, I certainly don't want the bad ending to be the standard one, that seems a bit off to me. But perhaps I miscounted or am missing some important bonusses?
Okay, so perhaps that's the point I was not getting. I never cared about brands enough. Sure, there's products I prefer, and sometimes that's the branded one, while at other times it's the no-name cheap one from the bottom shelf, but I always decide based on the quality after trying the product.That may also come from the fact that I don't see why I should pay double price for items that are often the same quality, just with prettier packaging and a catchy, advertised name. :) I thought Morgen's original "Coke" example was just an unimportant aside. After all, I couldn't care less what kind of coke I drink as long as it's tasty. But ok, not everybody thinks that way. In that case I just hope you can still have fun with Pathfinder and enjoy it! And sorry for misunderstanding you.
Well, as I said: I can understand somebody being put off by something he/she likes being taken away and replaced by something they don't like.Thus, I understand the strong reactions to Wizards' switching to 4e. The moment Paizo released the PFRPG Core Rulebook, that point was no longer valid. The thing these people liked had no longer been replaced. It was (again) still here. And there was another thing now, that was also good, albeit different. There is no longer any need, ANY at all for edition wars, since 4e doesn't, any longer, deprive you of 3.5 updates.
You seem to have an immense emotional attachment to the game, that I, having played RPGs for almost twenty years now, and sharing many of the anecdotes you mentioned, do not have. Perhaps because the European, and especially the German market wasn't so dependant on D&D and we are more used to knowing, liking and playing multiple systems. Still, I think you should also consider whether it really was the name on the books that gave you that "feeling" you got from playing D&D. Or was it, rather, the worlds your GM created, the characters you and your friends played, the friendship and camaraderie you had with fellow human beings, playing a game together. Are you really sure these experiences would have been any different, or any less important to you, had the game been called "Dragons and Dungeons" or "Creatures and Crypts" or any other name? Or if the game would have been played with d6s exclusively and you'd have rolled lots of them to gain a target number of successes? Or with d100s to roll below a certain percentage? Isn't it the great times you had that got you so attached to it? Great times that depended neither on the rules set nor on the name, but on the people you shared them with?
Only bad part, is I am now a junkie for two systems. And all the older WoD stuff I can find . . . getting into Warhammer too . . . Savage Worlds is cheap at least . . . can't forget about Mutants and Masterminds . . . Keep Call of Cthulhu in mind! And Shadowrun! Both of which, I should add, are excellent in German. Pegasus games does an amazing job on the translations. Lord, I need more money!
That argument is just really weird... Does it matter that much what the name of the book is? If you want to play D&D as you knew it, you play PFRPG. If you want to play something that feels more like a pen&paper version of World of Warcraft, also an exceptional game in my opinion, then you play 4e.You can play any adventure you want, use any campaign world you want, in any game system you want. Depending on what you're set on doing you might have more or less conversion effort, but with the backwards compatibility of PFRPG that's not really a big issue. That argument just always sounds like the one using it is bitter. But there's nothing to be bitter about. First of all: it's just a game. And second: it's still there, it's just called "Pathfinder" now. But in addition to that, there's now another game, that is a truckload of fun, and that's different than the first. I'm not trying to insult you or anything, just trying to show that, as I see it, there's no reason to get worked up. There might have been one before PFRPG, when people thought the game system they loved was going to lose support and die out and they'd be forced to play a system they don't enjoy as much. But that's no longer the case. Which leaves only one thing to say. Thank you, Paizo!
It's anecdotal evidence, but Paizo ultimately cost WotC me as a customer... If PFRPG wasn't there, I likely would've stuck with 4e, and if Paizo had been brought in to create APs for 4e, I would definitely still be playing... A new edition of D&D was needed, and now there are two. These two editions are competing directly, and it's not as if the player base is mutually exclusive and composed entirely of haters and die-hards. Still, there's probably also lots of people who, like me and my gaming group, simply play both PFRPG and 4e. Because both of them are immensely fun and amazing games.And because we like a bit of variety every now and then. And because PFRPG just fits the tone of the type of campaign I like to run a little better, while 4e does the same for the type of campaign my dear DM over at that game runs. Yes, there's two competing systems, but they're both exceptionally good. Not everybody turns it into a holy war where "you have to take sides". Of course, there's a bit of competition, but that can be a healthy thing. When Paizo and WotC are competing in the RPG sector, it might acutally benefit them both in the end. That was, to a degree, the point of the OGL, was it not?
I'm new to this messageboard, but on many others, there's a saying: Don't feed the trolls. Since the troll in question here is trying to put a product into a bad light, and since I am of the opinion that this product does not deserve that, I shall give a short first opinion myself, without further indulging the troll's attempts to bait everybody: Having bought the book today and spent some time looking roughly over "what's where", I was positively surprised despite the high expectations I already had. Perhaps I'll find fault with the details, that will be seen later (and stated in my review once I'm through the book). But as it stands right now, I'm very, very glad I bought this amazing book. There's so many fun and exciting options for your character(s) in here, it's simply stunning. Also, the troll in question should be made aware of the fact that, due to the nature of this thread, I will not ever return to it. Neither he, nor it, deserve that.
One option I tried as a pregenerated character for my introductory adventure was a fighter focussing on archery. Low STR, high DEX, all combat feats used for ranged combat. A one-trick-wonder for sure, but daaang did that character dish out damage! Didn't so much "fullfill the role" though, since he wasn't tanking. A couple of other ideas that came to my mind while trying to figure out neat character concepts for my upcoming Council of Thieves campaign: a) An urban ranger who behaves more like a private investigator/bounty hunter. Lots of social skills perhaps, to show his connection to the underworld. b) An inquisitor who, while being very pious, doesn't really have any ties to a church. She is a bowyer who is so fed up with the state of things in Westcrown that she starts heading out into the twilight at dusk and dawn, stalking criminals and trying to make the city safer once more. She also starts investigating various kinds of monsters in her free time, knowledge is power and all, right? Boy, is she going to be surprised to find out she was blessed with supernatural powers! (Judgements, spells, etc.) Superhero vigilante loose in the streets of Westcrown! You heard it here first! c) A bard who's actually a foreign spy under the cover of being an actor/opera singer. Pretty close to the standard version of a bard, but only because she PRETENDS to be one! In reality, she's much more focussed on combat and subterfuge than all that acting/singing-diddly-do. What I absolutely adore about this thread is OP's idea of the ship-captain-bard. Bardic performances have always been a little difficult for me since, let's face it, that dude randomly starting to sing to make you better at fighting or (yikes!) some skill is just kinda weird. But barking orders, now there's an idea! Thank you so very much!
The 4e campaign I play in has had several puzzles/riddles in the past, every one of which we players thoroughly enjoyed. This is, first and foremost, because the GM wasn't trying to show off or anything. If failure to solve a puzzle leads to the GM ridiculing the players, there's a lot more wrong with your group dynamic or your GM than just the fact he/she used a puzzle. Second, a full stop in an adventure, no matter the reason, is always the GMs fault. Keeping the game going is your main responsibility as a GM. So how do you do this with a puzzle? Several ways: a) Clues. Make sure that the players can find enough clues to solve the puzzle.
Jared A. Sorensen had a few great things to say to that in his wonderfully whacky octaNe roleplaying game: As in improv-theater, a "No" is usually bad. Try to go for a "No, but..." or a "No, and..." instead. He specifially lists the "Puzzle Room Problem" and offers two example solutions for the GM whose group is stuck in the room and can't get out:
Also, the GameMastery Guide has some more information on Puzzles and other game elements, too, by the way. Mixing your game up with puzzles and other non-combat/non-skillcheck encounters and minigames can get a lot of fresh air into your game. Just don't let it stop the action!
I like Pathfinder's iconic characters. It's simply fun to see them again and again, follow their adventures. They're immensely pretty, too. Having stats for them is nice and allows you to get playin' quickly and show new players a rockin' picture of who they're gonna be. Is an Adventure Path or module the right place for that? I say no. Pages are limited enough and I'd rather have 12 additional pages of real content per AP. There's 3 pages of advertisement in them already, at least in the one book I have here. Understandable, but hey, I buy most stuff anyway, no need to convince me! The additional space could be used for lots of things as others have suggested already. I also agree with the idea of having a free or low-cost pdf on the iconics. Perhaps have everybody in there at first level, plus a mid- and high-level version? This way you only have to have their stats once. Adding them to the AP's Player's Guide also seems like a nice idea. Now, this is asking for free stuff, of course, but I guess it's not so bad since most of it is already written, right? :)
These are my thoughts on some of the slightly weird things about this module. Just some things I changed/added so that it all made a little more sense to me. Note that these are minor details and I am really impressed by the quality of this free product! Also see my review. ;) Spoiler:
The rubble. Only the eastern wing of the tower has collapsed, everything else is pretty much still in shape. So how can there be so much rubble, especially in the western and southern ground-floor-rooms?
I solved this by having the floors of room 5 fully and room 4 partially caved in and by adding broken furniture to the rubble piles. The rubble from room 5's floor has filled the room below it enough to make the doors impassable and now the party will have a kind of a climbing/difficult terrain challenge in room 5. The rooms. Apart from the throne area on the top level and the temple it's not at all clear why the rooms are what/where they are. Also, they all seem to be empty. I added more broken furniture to show that, long, long ago, this all served some purpose that is now no longer clear. The players, not knowing that what causes all the disturbance here is external to the tower (Tasskar and his Troglodytes), also kept assuming they'd learn more about the tower's purpose because of this. Kept them interested and guessing, always a good thing. The creatures. A giant frog, a shocker lizard, a giant spider, some dogs and bats. That's quite the menangerie. I added some mystery to the story by having the PCs hear rumors of wildlife getting weird around the tower ever since the earthquake. Then I let them discover that the dogs are more aggressive than they should be, and look kinda sick. I had them infested with some kind of flesh-eating maggot, that gave the PCs a good scare and the desire to investigate the source of it. As I see it, the „tainted druid“ Tasskar's mere presence corrupts the environment, bringing these creatures to his lair and changing them. I also made the shocker lizard, giant spider and frog seem a lot less natural through the description. Also, emphasizing the reptilian/amphibian traits of lizard, frog and troglodytes gives them more of a connection. Tasskar's spider swarm and centipede also give a connection to the spider in the ground floor. Tasskar's weapon: Why have this amazing picture of the Troglodyte with the scythe and then give him a scimitar? I changed that to a scythe because that looks a lot more cool and lets you demonstrate trip attacks. And if he has to drop it when he fails? There's a good reason to have him cast flame blade!
Hello everybody! PFRPG Core Rulebook, Page 563: Modifiers to the DC to pinpoint an invisible creature's location: Invisible creature is...
While the idea seems to be "the faster you move, the easier you are to spot" (because of the noise you make?) not moving at all makes you twice as easy to detect as running or charging. Should that not be +0, since it'd be the "standard" case? I'm also not quite sure about how Stealth interacts with it. If you use Stealth to move at half speed, do you get Stealth check + 20 -5 on the DC? Cheers,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
