Hi Chaps/Chapesses Question mostly aimed at the Paizo staff: Having successfully sold a number of articles and scenarios to professional gaming publishers recently (including some articles published by Pelgrane Press and a 10,000 word scenario that will be published by Cubicle 7 as part of their *World War Cthulhu* range), I thought I'd try submitting something for Paizo ; From reading the FAQs it appears the Open Call for Pathfinder Quests is still ongoing,and I have written a suitable 2,000 word scenario and was considering starting work on a second....
(Possibly I've got a false impression.) I've no intention to hold anyone to any estimates or place any pressure on snowed-under staff ! I'm just trying to get a rough feel for where we/Paizo are right now (Feb/March 2014). so, in summary:
---------------------------------
I suspect it should read
Back to jokes (apologies for the double post, but seemed sensible comsidering the change of subject). Q: What do you call an Englishman who is in the World Cup finals ?
Q. Englishman to Scot : "If you take away your friendliness, your mountains, glens & lochs what have you got?"
Q. Why wasnt Jesus born in England
."An Englishmen is on the green of a golf course about to take a putt. Suddenly, a funeral procession passes. The Englishman raises his hat as the cortege passes as if in deep reflection
Hama wrote:
It must be said that until the twentieth century the French had a pretty decent military record. Not as good as "never really lost a war", but certainly respectable. Napoleon was defeated twice by an alliance of countries, not just in Russia,,..but its noteworthy that it basically took an alliance of most of Europe just to defeat him. Thats a big gang against just one guy.
Most of their other french defeats were only temporary, although from the tudor age onwards the Brits tended to do reasonably well against them due to the fact that the french were great on land but poor at sea. The French did, however, rather get their butts kicked in WWII , due to poor leadership (both military and political) but frankly anyone who thinks the french are cowards should read true life stories of the Resistance. Besides, I dont think the French have a reputation for cowardice. Being unfriendly to non-francophones maybe, (but while I had some bad experiences with that twenty years ago, my more recent experiences suggests thats improved a great deal too).
Doug's Workshop wrote: Expectations. Good point. I'd also add along those lines... in Fantasy , heroes go in expecting to be able to kill the monster.
One of the disadvantages of levelled/challenge rating game systems is that the players can often tell too much sbout the level of threat they face and are therefore not frightened . Even in real life, sometimes the scariest thing is not "yes i can change things "/" no, i cant change things"...but " there will be a disaster if I dont do something quick, and I might be able to change things, but I'm not sure what to do...and if I make a mistake, people die and its all my fault" Horror is doable in Pathfinder...but its more difficult than in systems that dont have character levels. Even d20 Coc struggled a bit in that regard.
To answer the thread title : mistakes in pathfinder due to faulty ALL edition d&d assumptions. The worst thing in 3.0 all the way through to 4th and Pathfinder are all basically cludge fixes for the mess that having character classes &, levels cause , in my opinion. Classes = atereotypes. In order to make stereotypes more flexible, you either have more classes, kits, or feats. Which leads to balance problems and excessive complextiy. Levels leads to an assumption that almost every encohpunter will be balanced ; when it isnt all sorts of fixes are attempted to"nerf" this, that or the other. Without the faulty assumption that encounters should be balanced, alot of those vanish too. But then, you might argue that without that ,its not D&d/Pathfinder, and I'd find it difficult to disagree. But then, I dont think D&d /Pathfinder is the greatest system out there...jut the best playtested and most easily available (due to its huge number of players). P.s. Thats not to put any hating on it- I think the system fits neatly into the "decent enough" bracket, and paizo have done some good stuff with/ for the game... But really, I'd prefer to see the game with professions rather than classes , and then those professions only used in character generation, not during gameplay...something like a BRP/Pathfinder or skyrim/pathfinder hybrid.
rgrove0172 wrote:
I always, always, always stretch the rules in order to make a better story...or rather, adjust the story to the improve the enjoyment of the players around the table ( different players being greater or lesser rules lawyers mea s I adapt this to their personality). Reason: to me point of roleplaying to to tell a mutually enjoyable story within a mutual agreed framework...not to defeat the GM in a rules-defined intellectual duel
On one forum, my signature is "'rules are GUIDELINES" (i.e. only suggestions on good practice, but ones that should be ignored with a clear conscience when the situation warrants) ...which sums my GMing style up Some people play roleplaying games as an intellectual duel -personally I think they're missing the best parts of the hobby, ...., but (shrug) different strokes for different folks. Much like with sex, if everyone involved is having a good time, then (while I may not be interested in doing it that way myself), I say "go to it". .
Archpaladin Zousha wrote: I've often been pondering this question. I have a player who boasts that he "never gets scared" and regards creepy things with a resounding "meh." No matter how hard I try to set up the ambiance, atmosphere and mood, it doesn't get a rise out of him. Part of that may simply be the limitations of play-by-post. It's hard to be scary and surprising when your only means of communicating it are through text. Part of it may be the fact that he's ex-military, and fear is something that's drilled out of you in boot camp. But when coming across horror trappings in-game he doesn't even bat an eyelash. He enjoys playing Clint-Eastwood sorts of characters, taciturn men who ride into town, cooly and casually deliver a beatdown to anyone fool enough to try and attack them, and treat setbacks and life-threatening situations as a temporary annoyance they can recover from and implacably march back into town to repay the favor in kind before riding out into the desert again as mysterious as they were when they arrived...How the heck do I scare a character like that?! It is very tricky. Part of the problem is that players like that dont usually want to invest in a game where they might actually be scared. I note you say he likes to ride off into the sunset..so, no lasting emotional investment in npcs. Scaring folks ( as opposed to startling them, a technique Mark Kermode calls "cattle prod horror") requires them to be worried about the loss of something they are emotionally invested in (example: a sympathetic character in a horror movie). I've run up against this problem with a similar style player ....and the moment they are asked to invest emotionally in a game, they immediately withdraw a distance - and much like in horror movies, its extremely dofficult to scare an audience uninvested in the characters...
At the end of the day a GM has to run games his players wants to play... And, well, like the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water...
Exactly. I dont think we actually are that far apart in our views; ..bringing people together is the good aspect of tribalism... We should always strive to promote that aspect, while rejecting the us-vs-them. Like many things nationalism is a tool, and can be used for both good and bad things...it is up to us to make the world better by using it for postive things, not negative. (Incidentally, i dont think my view is particularly to do with my nationality..most of my friends think i'm very cynical about the human condition too !. )
If you dont mind a little theorising /philosophy: Flag waving/respect is linked to nationalism - nationalism is a concept (and a relatively modern one too!) to try and get large groups of people to follow a group of leaders into battle -phyically, financially,philosophically - against other nations without much debate. So, I'd theorise that leaders with an confrontational overseas policy (and both parties in the US have this) will promote patriotism and national identity: those who seek a more concilatory approach will de-emphasise it. "Its us versus them" = flag waving nationalism
Thats not intended as a criticism of either policy,by the way. Just that flag waving is productive in some political approaches (the war on terror), counterproductive in others (federalising europe). American foreign policy is definitely in an era the last 70 years where it sees other countries as either "for or against" them , whereas Germany and the Uk tend to work on a more concillatory approach (fringe right-wing politics aside). Going back a couple of hundred years when Germany and the UK had more confrontational foreign policies, "the flag" was seen differently. I dont think patriotism has waned per se, merely the way it is expresssed to outsiders , and by extention, the attitude to flags.
In the UK , probably some vague tut-tutting in the press, but noone would care, really. The British are patriotic, but not too fussed as a rule about the flag, outside of a minority who eill either be right-wing or former military types. The flag is a symbol of the patriotism, certainly - but the flag is not generally seen as a avatar of that patriotism, unlike in the USA (Although , lets be honest, the union jack is a rather nice design, artisitically speakin) ....so disrespecting the flag isnt really seen as much of a problem. If you suggest the British reduce the size of their custard cream biscuits or criticise roast beef dinners, and you'll be in a world of trouble, though !
Ravingdork wrote:
Ah yes, "rules legal". Thats another thing you may have to wean yourself away from. Just because something is "rules legal" doesnt make it necessarily acceptable in a game. That doesnt make it not , either, of course... But one thing you'll learn as you get more experienced (and I mean this in the nicest possible way , but you are clearly not an experienced gamer...perhaps no beginner but you've still got alot to learn. No offence) is that "rules legal" donesnt really mean bugger all when it comes to an enjoyable RPG, in the same way a political manifesto isnt going to be religiously stuck to after an election. Saying "rules legal" is actually a red flag to many GMs - many see it as a tacit admission by a player that the character may either be overpowered or not fun for others to game with.
Stick to "its really cool" and "its fun" and proving its not overpowered. Thats what gets a concept accepted. If its rules legal, great,...but leading with that argument is rather like telling a football fan "your team sucks" as an opening statement... their team may indeed suck, but you're not going to win any debate on football that way. And actually prejudice most folks against you. So start with "this is why I think the group will love this concept" and "this will make the game really fun" and "look at all the cool storylines you can add" and "look at all the fun it'll give the other players"... For goodness sake dont start with "rules legal".
Odraude wrote:
This is entirely the point. A GM is frequently pleased to see an unusual concept ; but their ultimate concern is "does it fit? Is it balanced? " If the answer is yes, no reason it shouldnt be allowed. If the answer is no, then EVERY reason it shouldnt be allowed. In fact. In my view, an "ordinary" concept should be disallowed if its overpowered.
I'm broadly in agreement with other folks, the ac is waaay too overpowered. I think the flavour is great but you're overowered from the encounter point of view . Remember that in roleplaying games "rules"are only suggestions.
The MOST important rule is that everyone should have fun. One mistake that alot of people make (and especially in d&d and pathfinder) is to frequently treat the rules as if written in stone far too often. By all means have them in whatever armour and using a tower shield, but there's all sorts of ways you can say their armour class is less that its theoretical values. Assuming you want this to be a combat encounter, then you want to reduce their ac significantly.
Remember, when in doubt ,go with whats fun and not whats written in the book. In roleplaying, "rules" are only guidelines, regardless of how some folks make it seem at times. So, just brcause the armour supposedly does X doesnt mean that when the npcs use it, that it does X
Well, it depends what theme you want to go with, and what level the characters are at, and what your players are like Shoggoths are already in pathfinder and are definitely ia big challenge for characters. You could use an otyghs stats for a tentacled monstrosity for lower level party....just change the description as desired. Cthonians are another subterranian menace - you could use all sorts of differnt creatures stats for one of those depending on level of the pc. I personally like "the worm that walks" as a concept : coming across a room full of wriggling worms (think raiders of the lost ark) that then merge together to form a humanoid shape...
There's some good videos on youtube for making your own slip boxes, if you're feeling crafty.... Required equipment is basically cardboard, pva glue, craft knife and paper . Its quicker if you have fancy bookbinding stuff, but at its heart thats all you need. For example here's quite a nice one that I found while looking around on the subject...
To me "am I too soft" is the wrong question...i'm broadly in agreement with ecaterina and Drachasor here. Each group is different. The questions I think you should be asking are are all the players all having fun in the game?
If the answer is "yes" then youre doing it right.
The Psychology of a group is definitely a big factor. If you're worried about complacency then dont forget one of your greatest tools is *description. * for example, Bugbears arent really all that scary statistically speaking for medium level characters, but if you describe their blows as hurling people around the room (etc) then trust me, complacency goes out the window.
Basically, if you make it sound dangerous and exciting then the players wont notice the fudging quite so much. Much like many action movies, if action sequences are fast, dramatic and exciting, the audience might not notice (or care) that the characters failed to reload... Plus, most gamers are used to end of adventure bosses...so if you play up to this trope, that'll also help. You can take the gloves off and if you get party deaths during that scene, this will tend to be seen as expected ....just remember to try to avoid a TPK.
$500+ for a set is massively prohibitive. I realise this is aboutthe same price per figure as the previous set but still is waaay too much in one hit. I was very keen to get this set as i am about to start running the AP but...not at this price for a full set. It'll be buying just a few specific singles for me. Like others, I am glad Paizo do a miniature line, I'd like to see it continue, so i hope this doesnt cause the line problems, but I think this might have been a misstep to have the set this big/expensive. In future , might i suggest sets cover only half the Number of figures ( say ap1-3, then a second set 4-6)
Mairkurion {tm} wrote:
Hi Mairkurion - sorry its taken so long to get back to you. In your profile you say you like Dune - so I'd suggest 'Foreigner' as a good place to start. The Morgaine series is also interesting, but part of her earlier works before she found her voice. Still quite good though. Its kind of a fantasy version of Stargate SG1 (although it predates it by many years). Personally I'm not so keen on the fortress series, but there are many fans out there. The Dreaming Tree is quite difficult to get hold of, possibly why you've labelled it with a question marK?
I'm a bit surprised that I haven't seen any threads relating to her work.
For those who haven't encountered her work she writes both sci-fi and fantasy. My particular favourites are her Foreigner series - very, very, very good for ideas based around political plots...
|