Agreed, BBT uses stereotypes like any sitcom.
Mark Sweetman wrote:
Objectively, no, subjectively stated.
And that's the point, some of those people that don't like it, don't like it because they subjectively perceive that it is "merciless" , that it reinforces " every single negative stereotype" etc ( where are the overweight bearded gamers dammit?!)
this is not my perception
The 8th Dwarf wrote:
I Did not know that, I will have to track it down for a look see.( I like Friends too)
Doodlebug I pretty much agree with your Mum ( although Leonard's my favorite - Sheldon is too selfish imo, even if he probably can't help it). I would say would say it pokes fun at geeks and everyone else in the show ( geek or not).
I like BBT and Community ( position declared ) and IMO
1. BBT is a more mainstream sitcom than Community ( but they are both sitcoms). As part of the sitcom formula the characters have flaws and are periodically the butt of jokes. The characters flaws and idiosyncrasies are exaggerated, they tend to do stupid things and it generally works out alright in the end. Like all sitcoms, like Friends - Monica had her neat freak, competitiveness exaggerated, Joey is enfatuated by food and is dumb. The purpose of these exaggerated characteristics is to poke fun at these fictional characters weaknesses as they may be reflected in people we know. This is intentional, they are not intending to say all people who like things to be neat are OCD or hyper competitive, or chefs,. Or that all people who love food are dumb.
2. In BBT they do this same thing. The premise of the show is that a bunch of socially awkward but academically intelligent types struggle to be less socially awkward. By it's sitcom nature it pokes fun at all of the main characters. I guess they could have been socially awkward by being jocks or frat boys but that has probably been done before - in hundreds of frat boy movies. But they weren't, they were geeks. The geek characters ( especially leonard )are meant to be identified with and sympathized with to some extent. Yes their foibles are meant to be laughed at but that has been the same since I Love Lucy.
3. If you know people who think that because you like star trek or play RPG's you must be like Sheldon or Raj etc that is their ignorance. It is the same if they believe that all people of a certain gender should be more nurturing or all people of a certain race be better at certain sports. That ignorance is not the shows issue, it is the issue of the person who holds that belief. Just because Howard is Jewish and comes from a broken home with an odd mother relationship doesn't mean anything about anyone except Howard. BBT portrays its main characters as having certain flaws. It has portrayed scientists as cool motorcycle riding womanisers as well. So what? Surely just because William Shatner portrayed a Crazy lawyer in Boston legal people don't believe all lawyers in Boston are like Denny Crane? ( though that would be freaky)
4. The portrayal of the BBT characters does laugh at them but it also shows them as caring smart vulnerable people. In one episode Penny ( the non geek girl) watches a show recommended by Leonard ( her boyfriend ) because she is envious of the passion she sees the geeks have in the things they like. It's a passion she doesn't really have for anything. The geek hobbies are non mainstream, they are not baseball - to suggest they should not be treated as being a bit different is pointless.
5. Community has no greater relevance to the debate than Friends or Seinfeild. It is a show about characters who ( in the main) are not geeks. Jeff is a selfish lawyer, Annie is a swat, Shirley is a Christian mum, Pierce is an old bigot, Troy is a jock, Britta is a protester, Abed is somewhat Aspergers who lives his life through TV. They are not portrayed as particularly geeky in their hobbies ( apart from Abed and later Troy but that is more TV geek ). When they do portray RPG like in the second season Advanced Dungeons & Dragons episode the relevant person that is the reason they play the game is an outsider to the group who they have previously mocked and referred to as 'Fat Neil' . He is expressly described as a loser who is considering committing suicide due to his sucky life choices ( epitomized by his being overweight, playing D&D and consequently having no friends). How is this a good portrayal of geeks? The game itself ( in which senor chang plays an awesome Drow) involves a scene where one player intimately describes sex with an NPC ( thus crossing into the other roleplaying reference) . I get it's a joke but do your friends think that is an accurate portrayal of role players, or what happens in roleplaying games? How is this portrayal better than BBT.
6. Finally as someone who enjoys both these shows, but believes they are merely sitcoms and therefore no more realistic than the story about two men who walk into a bar one of them holding a duck ( ie i believe men and bars exist, and men sometimes carry ducks or walk into bars - but on this occasion it's just the set up for a joke, i do not draw any adverse inferences against bar patrons, bar tenders or duck owners because of it). I say if you don't like them it doesn't necessarily mean its badly written, or that you are too dumb to get it. It just might mean it doesn't appeal to your sense of humor. I thoroughly enjoy the warmth beneath the sense of humor of both the shows .
judas 147 wrote:
The BA is the most appealing thing in DDN for me, the possibility of still being able to valuably participate in melee even if you aren't the melee specialist and of a high level character being able to be effected by a group of low level monsters is key.
For mine the over specialization of roles, rules mastery and the just add more plusses to make you better is where 3e went wrong & Pathfinder sadly just went further down the path.
I currently prefer Savage Worlds where as characters advance they get more tricks, more breadth but generally not specialized in their own niche that no-one else can enter. If DDN brings that approach I will be very happy.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Except that needing a 12 vs needing a 16 means you are about twice as likely to succeed ( 45% vs 25%) and needing a 20 vs needing a 16 means you are only 1/5 as likely to succeed ( 25% vs 5% ) . So having advantage makes you twice as good, but having disadvantage doesn't make you twice as bad it makes you 5 times worse.
This is a significant point of varying chances of success. If you need to roll a 19 to succeed getting a 1 point penalty halves you chance of success. It is equivalent of getting a 4 point penalty when you need a 13 to succeed.
But the point you make is valid ( as it ever was in no advantage / disadvantage systems) the relevant issue is getting the DC right. If the system was +4/-4instead of roll 2d20 having disadvantage on a roll where you needed a 16 would be massive and having advantage would be good but not great.
1. Can someone link the SKR comment that gave the idea for this thread.
2. My homebrew solution is to make 'death' from adventuring much less likely. As long as you have the body and can cast enough cures to get it up to a certain negative point within about a minute you do not have the 'dead' condition; you have the 'at deaths door' condition, this condition means you cannot be healed above 0 hp until you have a weeks rest and when you can you have a negative level for a period of time ( or until you gain a level) The raise dead spell removes this weeks requirement and reduces the time , or if cast within 1 hour you don't get the negative level.
The effect is that people really only die if their bodies are abandoned or lost or the bad guys rip them to shreds, behead them etc. at that point you need serious magic to come back.
The logic is that if you are going to make death easy to ignore it isn't really death in the classic fantasy sense is it? Don't call it death, call it something else then when you kill the bad guy it is a win and when you risk your life it actually matters.
3. My other game I play savage worlds, death means the end. The (same) players love the actual character risk, they don't find it unfun.
My recollection is that some who have run Blackwall Keep first ran a prequel with the players playing standard militia in the Keep and interacting with the infected & lizard men etc. I suggest finding that ( on the boards, probably in archives somewhere) as it sounds very different.
Another possible event for your characters future would be to try and intertwine Expedition to Greyhawk Ruins when they get to Greyhawk. This would require some foreshadowing now most likely
I also recall reading an interesting plot development for the faceless one
Otherwise I suggest focus on foreshadowing and npc depth through things other than journals, adventure paths always need more foreshadowing.
My feeling is that the GM stepped over the line but its difficult to judge. You haven't given a lot of background info. This appears to be a social game situation issue, so i would say depends a little on the game system and a lot on the social game situation.
It also depends how personally you identify with the PC as to how personally violated you feel. Would you feel violated if the result was you agree to break your sacred oath and reveal the secret formula enabling the bad npc to poison the towns well supply? In this instance as i understand it you were new to the game? the player objected, did they object because they felt uncomfortable with the ruling on control or the sex or because they felt the GM had the rules mechanic wrong ?
In some ( ok most) social game situations I would consider the idea of mental domination leading to sex inappropriate but not all. Sometimes the playing group does accept this as ok.
I don't really understand the game system. If the system was that on failing the roll the character became mentally dominated and lost their free will, and the social game situation allowed rape ( as well as the usual murder and torture) to be part of the game then it might be ok.
I have run a game (D&D 3.5 rule set) where a bunch of good pcs were disguised as evil, it was set at the time in a drow city marketplace where I ( male dm) had a charming but evil male drow vampire charm/ seduce a PC ( female human fighter - played by female player - a friend) and teleport her away to his city apartment, for nefarious unspecified purposes. She rolled back to back 20's on diplomacy rolls while the charm was being set up and failed her save - so i ruled he became obsessed with her ( maybe i had watched too much Buffy or read too much True Blood and Anne Rice ). The other players ( including her husband and my wife) panicked and tracked her down. When they burst into the apartment a short time later the encounter was resolved without fighting and through role playing. The player of the fighter defended her new 'friend' and despite numerous dispels and being taken away she couldnt clearly recall what happened and maintained he was just misunderstood etc. It set up a great role playing session that continued on as she adopted the typical vampire victim/star crossed lover role. Eventually some demons captured the vamp and you guessed it the PCs were gearing up for the rescue mission.
All the players loved it. It added to the game. It wouldn't have been possible without player/ GM comfort. I acknowledge we never mentioned sex, I deliberately made that time when she was first captured blank to allow people to read into it what they felt comfortable with.
If I hadn't felt comfortable, and the players hadnt felt comfortable we would have missed out on some good flavor to our game story.
Now as I read vampires the non horrible brute ones nearly always have a sexual component to their behavior, the obsession, the domination, the seduction, the feeding etc. I just felt if we were going to deal with smooth talking vamps it would include that element if it came up. Of course I credit the player with much of that interaction. Had she decided upon being rescued to pull out her sword and skewer the evil creep I would have rolled the dice and played out the fight. Or even earlier if she had indicated a lack of comfort with the seduction side of the domination i would have made him less the charmer and more the black & white villain. But the starting point, the Npc seducing and taking away the pc was a path I took as GM that I was able to take due to the social game situation.
you can now get the softcover version for about $30 at rpgnow. Good deal!
I have read but not played it. I love the story and character/npc interaction. Cant tell how the mechanics would pan out
I have used all sorts of variations. I had con 14 and one other stat of choice 16 roll the rest in order once to allow people some control but some chaos. Roll 2 characters choose the best. Reroll one stat, whatever. As long as the dice mean something they eliminate the dump stat, which is the most important thing.
You have to remember in old school it generally didn't matter mechanically if you had a 9 or a 14 they we're just for flavor. That matters in pathfinder, it's a 3 point difference. So old school you could roll and if one person got two 16's and 4 10's they were no worse off than someone getting 2 16's and 4 14's
Neither way is better. But if you really do want old school flavor you gotta roll.
Besides everyone knows dwarven coins are at best 10 karat gold. ; )
1. Roll for stats
* the first adventure I ran when 3e came out in 2000 was a converted 2e campaign Night Below. I stretched it to 20th level and it took about 7 years of fortnightly gaming to complete and it was a ball. We had an almost TPK at 4th or 5th level ( one survivor who recruited a new bunch of adventurers) and another at 13/14th ( one survivor who brought the dead ones back to life).
Gnoll Bard wrote:
Well I didn't say they didn't exist in 1e ( there were bettere and worse optiona but they were a few choices that you made ) what I said was that they are more a thing of 3e and I expanded on what I meant ( more customization = more possibility for optimization etc) & I was being sincere.
Optimization is not antithetical to RP. Characters if RPed are far more than the sum of their bonuses. I mean if you are against optimization have you considered playing an aristocrat or expert.
But practical optimizationers or power gamers ( " charop" from hereon ) or whatever you call it is also largely a 3e + thing isn't it?
Greater ability to customize = greater ability to optimize.
I played 1e not 2e and didn't play 2e kits rules so I guess they could have had some charop potential but in my recollection was that the whole charop thing in 1e involved not choosing to play a monk or thief or half Orc cleric ( level limit 4 d'oh!) . Or maybe choosing to use a Longsword instead of a broadsword or battle axe. But that was it.
The big charop moment came after you rolled up your stats.
Once bill had a human fighter with a Longsword if I had a human fighter with a longsword it didn't matter how much better he knew the rules of the game we would still be comparable as characters. ( stats aside, if he had 18/00 str and I had 16 I would be better off switching it to int and being a magic user)
Power gamers were the monty haul guys and that was a play style choice of the campaign, not of members within the campaign.
So it kinda makes sense that someone hankering for the old style feel of the game is turned of by charop and the way it can ( not always does) warp the balance of a party and effect enjoyment.
Btw when I saw the suggestion that getting players to write paragraphs about their characters for in game rewards to encourage roleplaying I knew that in my group the main charop player would definitely complete this task for his 225gp - making no difference to how he actually played in game. The best role players might, but would summarize their character in probably a shorter word count and still be better roleplayers in game.
Bill Webb wrote:
Thank you for this. This is helpful to get an understanding of the whole process and cost.
For mine as a prepaid person from outside USA ( ie postage conscious) who is interested in adventures and content but not model boats, miniatures, sigmed books and the like I would like to be able to get the new adventure and the players guide. If this didn't add overly to postage I would want them as print but if it did I would want them as PDF 's . But the new adventure seems to require going to the $225 level - if it was available as a reasonably priced add on it may lure me in. Again if I was a dm planning on running this I would convince my players to get pdf's of the players guides each.
Hope that helps.
Re attacks of opportunity:
A possible suggestion is to allow attacks of opportunity ONLY if you leave a threatened square ( we always had the ' if you run away the other guy gets a free hit' rule) and any other thing that might provoke an attack of opportunity just drops your AC by 2 until your next turn.
We didn't allow casting if 'in combat' .
To the OP: I have to say pathfinder is a very rules intensive game with a fair focus on the grid style combat. This is a big part of 3.x gaming and for the style of gaming it is well done imo. For some players I know the grid is the thing that brought them back to gaming. You do appear to be trying to hack it into something it is not. AD&D 1e is available to buy and play, other rules lite versions of D&D may be better as they may evoke the less controlled combat style you are looking for. I found crossing over too confusing and going back the old rules seemed clunky ( nostalgia sometimes means leaving memories alone) so play Savage Worlds when I want rules lite grid free gaming.
Edit : having glanced at the Op recent dot points about how they will make it feel like AD&D I may have gone off on a tangent and focused too much on the feel of combat in the two games. Maybe to change the feel is by racial class restrictions, wilderness danger and making the PC's weaker but keeping the current combat system. That would be fine as a campaign flavor that has an old school feel.
Jeremy Smith wrote:
I was also surprised at the cost and the level of the fund goal. I pledged for the Savage Worlds Land of Fire Kickstarter. That was an Arabian style campaign full color 192 page hardback book and for approx $ 61 you got the book plus PDF and a couple of extra PDF ' s ( players guides, adventure etc ).
Their goal was only $15,000.00 ( they only just made it - yes savage worlds vs pathfinder makes a big difference but still)
Plus their PDF players guide was only $11 so I was able to cajole and bribe with in game benefits my players to each buy one.
FGG doesn't seem to have a players guide PDF level and at $30 plus overseas postage the book doesn't have the same appeal.
I know from a distance you can't accurately compare one project with another as to quality of binding etc and I am sure FGG has done the math. This isn't meant as a criticism at all, each product is different and I am sure this one will be great.
Bill Dunn wrote:
Fair cop guv. We didn't use the gp = xp rule, and played pretty fast & loose with the whole cost of training issue as well. But hey those were DMG rules. Did anyone use all the 1e rules?
There were heaps of rules we ignored, adapted or interpreted ( weapon speed, weapon vs armor etc) This would have sucked for us if we ever played tournament but we only did that once in over 30 years of gaming.
But my point about going up levels slower ( in actual game play) may have been a little exaggerated but it took longer than in 3.x right?
IMO here are some differences between AD&D & 3.x/pathfinder.
1. The main combat and encounter rules are now in the PHB not the DMG meaning the feel of the game is one of less control and trust reposing in the DM's hands. The 'rule for everything' has taken away from the intuitive feel of the game imo. This is largely a psychological thing but to help the old world feel I suggest what has been said above about being a little fast and loose with the rules.
2. The character creation system is more like you are designing a build than rolling up a character. The magic deck builders in my group love this part. In old school you designed mechs or cars for car wars, you rolled up characters and they had abilities that sometimes suited a class, and others that didn't. Roll 4d6 in order, allow one swap and one reroll.
3. Adventures were less clinically designed. They became even more clinical in 4e with each encounter almost becoming its own mini war game. But even in 3e I (as dm and player) found myself thinking more about the encounter than the dungeon. The encounters always have to be balanced ( don't put in an encounter that is more than 4 cr's different from the party etc). This lead to some great dynamic encounters but also some monotony like the BBEG being 4 encounters into the dungeon etc. In the giant series for example you meet the big encounter in G1 almost straight away, in G2 it's way at the back, in G 3 you meet one BBEG virtually in the first room and another 3/4 of the way through the dungeon. Try and have less organized dungeon design.
4. Characters level up so much faster. I once ran a 1e game in high school and uni and beyond lasting about 15 years where the characters ended up about 18 th level. I like being able to experience some high level gaming every now and again but you now barely get to get the feeling of being 3rd level when suddenly you are 5th. We used to go through 5-10 dungeons to go up a level. Now that is a 1st - 20th campaign. What that means is if you meet a BBEG you can't beat ( say a rakshassa at 2nd level) just wander off adventuring for a month or two and you will be 8th+ level and you can splat him. Old school ( Monty haul excepted) was IMO a lower level game. Take a long time to go up levels.
4. Finally the characters are tougher now. More hit points, less SOD effects means longer to determine a way through the encounter, less risk, more warning if things are going wrong. less risk means less value to what was gained.
Most of these have one thing in common, chaos over order. The other rule is that adventuring is hard, risky and the rewards you earn are well earned.
I don't think heroic fantasy is always about highly superior specimens, IMO it's more about overcoming tremendous difficulties and fighting against the odds. Even if you are just a gifted tatooine farm boy, or a hobbit with some natural gifts you are not a superhero and everyone warns you to stay home. Optimization style character parties is more about doing the job everyone else would struggle to do, but you find it easier because of your superior natural gifts, because you are better than them. Like the Avengers.
I prefer my heroic fantasy rpg like the former and my superhero rpg like the latter but each are valid styles of play IMO.
Sorry I was being facetious.
Lots of heavily armed dudes, unless that's a good thing?
Agreed, however from my reading of the thread its the people who live in America who want to keep guns who make the primary disparaging remarks about American culture. When asked why do you beleive you need to have the weapons most other countries have controlled freely available the response is sometimes along the lines of "to protect myself from gangs of armed home invading criminals/the government" or "it's necessary because of where we live (ie USA)" or "a gun control law brought in here like in other countries (Italy/Australia/UK) wouldnt be obeyed here because of our culture".
The non americans tend to say - "its not that bad, you can do it, dont be afraid just give up your guns - we did it and it has reduced gun deaths" Now apart from perhaps ascribing fear of being attacked to the American (pro gun)people (which fear has been stated as existing) and being mildly disparaging by disagreeing with them that it is a rational fear this is not really a culture bash.
I am Australian, I struggle to believe any of those reasons are actually rational. I believe your culture is better than that. I beleive that you dont have as much a reason to be afraid as some seem to think. Its the american pro gun lobby who says it isnt IMO.
I just read an article by Nicholas Kristof in the NY times which said In Australia in 1996 we had a mass shooting which resulted in political courage to impose some restrictions on gun ownership, mostly automatic weapons etc. there was a buy back scheme so they could be handed in. It reduced the number of guns by 20% ( so 80% still out there) but it restricted the type of guns. In the 18 years prior we had 13 mass killings but none in the 14 years since. In addition firearm murder rate down 50% and firearm suicide down 40%.
Worth a try?
war of the burning sky is 3pp, is awesome, is its own world and for good neutral PC's, has plenty of support stuff so thats a plus for a new GM and is available at rpgnow in pdf & softcover for $30.
Shackeld city hardcover is $30 is great, is a bit disjointed but the boards here have some awesome support material for it, its for good/neutral PC's and was the 'first adventure path 1-20' that was run in dungeon magazine.
both are 3.5e (i think war of the burning sky is 4e as well, ) so if you are a pathfinder player they need a bit of tweaking.
But i have to say for the price they are both more than worth it
Looking forward to them both. I am a pre-orderer for RC and will get Ebon Shroud if it is made.
At one point Nic mentioned a savage worlds conversion for the stuff he was making (cant recall if it was just RC or both). Is this still a possibility?
We havent given it serious time, quite the opposite I must admit. We tried the first playtest a few times and did not like the effect of the advantage/disadvantage system. We found the impact too much and too all emcompassing- every time you get an advantage its the same mechanical benefit feels blah, so we abandoned it. I cant really comment on how the other changes effected the game (like fighter dice or whatever) as we had given up by then.
Now I recognize that we may not have given it a fair go but my group has limited gaming time so if we dont like a system after a few tries we move onto something we do like.
Having said this I will buy D&D Next when it comes out, and I will run it. I dont know how long my group will last.
(off topic)I cannot emphasize enough how important it is that WOTC put a whole lot of effort into making the start up adventure a compelling, knock the ball out of the park storyline, with awesome villain characters, brilliant combat encounters and the like right at the start. If they do then that will keep us playing, it will make us want to find out what is going on in the adventure. It will mean we will overlook things that irk us to start with and maybe by the time the great adventure is over we will want to play more and any complaints with the system will be lessened by familiarity.
I was that player that kept wanting to play PF. What I would do is try to get them hooked is ask them to play one or two sessions instead of a full campaign. That why they don't feel committed, and if they do like the system they will ask you to run it again. If not then at least you know you tried, and they will know they won't be asked again if they don't a particular game.
Agreed, propose running a 'one-shot', two or three session adventure. It May be the genre of fantasy that they like, maybe they aren't interested in a switch to horror investigation, or superheroes or whatever in which case your first foray you should stick with a fantasy game. But, Most importantly pick and run a simple game system. If they are exclusively pathfinder players ( which is a rules intensive game ) they probably expect any new system to be a fair bit of work to just get the hang of and they are comfortable with the level of skill with the system they know. Run something that they can get into straight away.
The below ideas are all someone elses but suit the urban environment
1. have a look at the Styes adventures for crazy odd cults urban stuff
2 here is an adventure thread/series that might work- a shadowy figure who later turns out to be the mayor (or someone else important) is gathering bits for a ritual to become a half fiend. he has a vampire working for him who helps collect the bits, such as bones from a particular family crypt, a specal medallion from the museum, a delivery from an exotic location etc. He also tries to kill particular person who has a half fiend bane sword and so forth. The PC's get involved initially becuase the vamp kills a few people and they hunt him down, but eventually they realise whats going on (the bard gets knowledge rolls or whatever). after the vamp is taken down the real bad guy becomes apparrent as he seeks to culminate the ritual with a mass slaughter. (Buffy season 3)
3. A heavily pregnant wealthy woman is kidnapped, the husband seeks help to deliver the ransom. it goes bad as the kidnappers snatch the husband and the ransom & head for an abandoned district. turns out wifey is a crazy cultists about to give birth to an omen like child and wants the husband as a sacrifice (dungeon87- tharizduns love child + potential The Omen mash up)
4. kids are sick and dying, turns out they are all kids of the thieves guild which has been cursed for being involved in the theft of a maguffin and killing the guardian by burning him to death. The youngest of them will die first. A fey ghost is doing the deed. he is weak but getting more powerful. he can only be defeated by destroying the bauble he was guarding, but it has been sold to a wizard who knew what would happen but has taken magical precautions (nightmare on elm street)- find out whats happening, get the bauble back & save the children
I have no issue with the way you ran that event alientude...
See now in my day of playing 1e we had a liberal interpretation of the rules. I would read this effect to be that the paladin got sucked into the astral plane ( "the void" ) and is floating there lost forever ....until he is found. This seems like a great opportunity for a side adventure/ campaign ( at 11th level I recommend one of the giyhyanki ones in dungeon magazine - maybe that awesome one set in the giyhyanki city) If the pcs had the ability to scry they could search for their lost companion, then learn plane shift or get a scroll of limited wish or greater teleport or whatever and go find him.
If the party doesn't bother to look for him then instead next time someone dies just have him turn up with a friendly astral deva ( ( do they still exist?) who has quested him to end the threat of Slumbering Tsar - then he becomes the replacement character. If two people die, maybe the deva can join the party as well.
ST saga is an epic scale dungeon in all ways, I agree cheap tawdry death ain't much fun but it can be.
My issue with ST is I will never have the time to run it or play in it ( sigh)
Does either the spell or the amulet remove the need to sleep? If so which?
But your work isn't wasted, you can use the same work you did the next time you play. Because you did the prep already you won't need to spend the preceding day getting ready, just a 15 minute refresher. Don't get me wrong canceling a social occasion on short notice is rude - but the work you have done is still valuable. Maybe they will appreciate it later?
Kazarath on the other hand has a bunch of social criminals as players. Seriously, next time buy a burger instead of pizza and eat it yourself.
Matthew Morris wrote:
Could be I guess?
I am thinking of Fezzik from The Princess Bride.
My thoughts on the Tyrant concept are
If this were the future of Talingarde I would rather play a member of the island tribe fighting against the new empire. In fact if the next ap did involve Talingarde I would want to be playing the good or at least neutral guys trying to stop phase two of Asmodueus' plan ( whatever that is) , not the incumbent powers that be trying to implement it.
Stefan Hill wrote:
Two concerns with this fun mechanic spring to mind.
I am concerned that it alters the odds too much
The other is that disadvantages don't stack so once you are at long range, you may as well shoot while sprinting and aim for the head ( examples not necessarily in the rules but you know what I mean). This doesn't make sense to me
For example if you need a 13 you have a 40% chance on normal, about a 65% chance on advantage and about a 16% chance on disadvantage. That is equivalent to a 5 point penalty or bonus.
If you need an 18 it is 15% for normal, about 28% for advantage ( so twice as often) and 2.5% for disadvantage ( one sixth as often and not even the old always hit on a 20 helps you out here). Equivalent to about a 3 point change.
A 7 gives 70% normally, 90% with advantage 50 % with disadvantage.
( my maths may hove some errors, I just did it on the fly, but I think is pretty close)
I just worry about the situation where one pc spends its actions giving the bbeg disadvantage and it becomes about half ( or worse)
The advantage / disadvantage feels a bit gimmicky to me.
Simplicity over simulation- more like savage worlds than d&d ( which I like but I like d&d as well)
Also you dont stack disadvantages - so shooting at long range, from out of combat, into combat is the same as just shooting at long range
But I will play test it as written and maybe I will not feel this way
No to fairy tales - maybe for one or two adventures but not a whole adventure path, my players wouldn't go for it.
Maybe yes to tyrant . I kinda like the idea of setting up in a wilderness area. I loved the old rune quest adventure Borderlands which had this as a theme.
Viking theme- too close to skulls & shackles
I am with the underdark theme - like Night Below which was awesome. I also like the war theme.
Other stories that I would like to participate in:
1. A bit like greyhawk style furyondy vs iuz or nyrond vs great kingdom set up leading to a special forces style war scenario ( which I admit I would probably adapt and run in Greyhawk)
2. Invasion . I liked the dragon magazine write up of the giyhyanki world invasion. First you meet scouts, then some conquering, then you take the battle to them. They don't need to come from the astral plane, they could come from any plane, or from underground or a bit stranger, from outer space.( check out the savage worlds Evernight campaign for an invasion plot with a twist)
3. Following on from the above- post apocalypse. Kyuss ascended, Vecna rules, the gith or tripods won or whoever else you like....the world is bad. It has been this way for many years, or decades, or centuries. But for some reason the bad guys hunt and kill all blue eyed gnomes ( or whatever) The PC's start as secret revolutionaries they hear there is a prophecy that it is forbidden to mention. They have limited help, evil does turn on itself though so that is useful. They explore ancient ruins that explain how the bad guys got to where they are, why they fear the gnomes etc etc.
These are all classic fantasy tropes I know but I see the fact that you can't use golarion as a possible bonus. You can make your own world, have a twist. The game only needs last for the adventure path, it can be a bit twisted