Werecorpse's page

My thoughts on the Tyrant concept are
1. I prefer my characters to start as struggling against the dominant force, not working for it.
2. Evil Asmodeus worshipers again? Nah

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.

I always liked this type of system to circumvent some of the modifiers in a skill test / combat etc ever since first encountering it in Blue Planet V2 (~2000).

It is such a powerful yet simple simple to move the odds either in favour or else of a roll without adding more cumbersome modifiers.

For me I a HUGE fan of this. But what do others think? Like? Dislike? Don't care?

I'm hoping they keep this system but I guess it'll come down to feedback from the play testing.

So far 5e is shaping up to be the fantasy system I have been looking for. I would love to see race/class restrictions (I'll live without level limits however).

I'll also add I think the development of the "saving throw" to the new mechanics is so obvious but is genius!

S.

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)

Initial impression

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
Thieves guild - possible , doesn't seem likely to go past about 15th level
Great game - not my thing, too street fighter video gamey for my tastes

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)
Ie PC's are good guys & their country has just suffered a crippling war, the evil neighbor is ruled by an evil demigod/fiendish lich/dragon. We all know the war is just taking a breather and both sides are maneuvering for advantage before it starts again in a year or two's time.

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

The thiing with the dungeon adventure paths is the BBEG were not really central figures in the world. They were both iconic because of their history in the game not the setting IMO. The one from age of worms was pretty obscure in greyhawk lore, and even the one from savage tide isn't a main player in greyhawk historically IMO. They are iconic for other reasons.

Treerazer, Rasmir and Geb are relevant to countries in Golarion. They are the equivalent of an adventure path against Iuz, or Ivid the undying or Vecna. End them and the world is no longer as it was ( although i suppose someone could replace them but that ' you didnt actually change anything' is a bit tiresome except for maybe with repsect to the abyss. I mean if my party takes out Treerazer i want it to really change the world, not just mean his flunky Shrubrazer steps into his shoes.)Tar-Baphon the imprisoned lich king could be a potential villain as he has no real impact on the world except for that malevolent hard to kill evil thing.

Two of the nine paizo adventure paths you mention get a pass for providing a big enough villain. So about 1 in 4 adventure paths change the whole world? Once every 2 years? Seems about right to me.

I also am not sure golarion has been around long enough to have iconic villains like the two in the dungeon mags, I mean those guys had been in the game for 20+ years. They had history.

Don't get me wrong I would love to go up against any of the bbeg you mentioned, or the house of thrune. But I just don't think paizo want to make such a chunk of their material outdated - the dungeon mags didn't do this to greyhawk ( unless you lost I guess)

To the OP

IMO Drejk has it basically right.

If a creature surrenders it is basically giving up and asking for mercy

Paladin is fighting gnolls when 2 surrender he can either
A accept the surrender and accord them appropriate terms of surrender; or
B refuse to accept their surrender

If he intends to execute them on surrender, without further consideration then to accept their surrender would appear to be using the idea of surrender in a duplicitous way - dishonorable IMO.

This doesn't mean execution would never be possible just that it has to be considered, lawful, honorable. Even if you are at war with the race - a paladin believes in the rules of war.

If you do not intend to follow this path you should make it clear you do not accept their surrender, nor take advantage of any misunderstanding they may have about whether or not you will accept their surrender and show them mercy.

I would have no problem with your play of a paladin in my game.

There was a dungeon adventure where drow and a daughter or lolth were protagonists.

Anything else

Ok now that I understand the mechanics of The Big Postal Box does anyone have any suggestions as to what else I should get, anything that maybe supplements Slumbering Tsar, or any suggestions generally?

A prequel adventure, a side quest?

I prefer campaign style adventures and I have half a dozen oop frog god adventures already. the truth is I run about 10% of what I buy but have that hoarders mentality. I am too busy at the moment to read and digest much gaming material so will be putting it to one side for a few months anyway & I don't need anything specific.

Is the city of brass available?

I recall reading a while ago that Rappan Athuk was going to be reproduced, is this still a ways off?

Any help welcome

Werecorpse--basically you can order about 1000 pages of extra books and I can fit it in the box. I had to use a large priority box to ship 1 book (medium box is too risky--would likely get side damaged), but 2 books (or about 2000 pages) will fit in 1 box. Frankly except Tome of Horrors, you could almost order our whole product line at that size.

Thanks Arnwyn and Bill for the response

Sorry, I can't help. I have received my email but as I am overseas my postage costs are substantial I am trying to figure out how to suffer the least amount of postage pain.

So it says I can combine the package with another book. Like what for example?

Any suggestions or clues ? How are other people dealing with this?

Glad to read your life is getting better Nic. I pre ordered RC, I remain happy to wait, good luck with getting it finished Lou. The fact you are trying to get it done speaks volumes.

Nic, I always figured if you couldn't get RC out it meant your life was closely resembling a toilet rather than you were enjoying my preorder dollars in the south of France.

I ran Hook Mountain Massacre a few years ago for a group that gets together for a weekend of gaming about 3 times a year ( I had also recently run for them some of the falcons hollow modules). Even now if I describe a room or an event and it has any gross or offensive descriptions someone says " oh no, is this a Nic Logue adventure? ". We all enjoyed the adventures and they made a lasting impact. Nic, my players equate your name on an adventure with an enjoyable evocative adventure where the gloves are off.

I have trouble with the motivation to even go after the winter council. As I understand the plot to this point the pcs have discovered the elves great nemesis is plotting the destruction of the elven lands and they have been brought to provide this information to the queen of the elves.

They tell their story, the queen says she will look into it and asks them to wait.

Don't they just wait? Why assume the elven nation is going to do nothing- they seem to have been actively investigating things in the previous 4 adventures.

They get attacked by a bunch of elven mooks/anarchists ( who they should defeat pretty easily) squawking about the winter council ( who they have never heard of before). Isn't their reaction likely to be ask someone who the winter council is?

They then either get nothing, or that it's a conservative elven shadow govt type advisory group.

Then they meet Quilindra who says the wc are bad elves trying to use the elven people for their own hidden agenda, she tried to organize a revolution and the wc stopped her, can you help me?

Surely the pcs say well is the wc likely to be allied with the drow seeking the destruction of Kyonin? No. So, sure they are nasty manipulative elven politicians but so what?

I don't really understand even why the queen thinks that she now has to send these people against the wc, just because of a coincidence in a name? Why is her govt at risk of collapse from the machinations of the wc ( who appear to have been largely paralysed for the last few years anyway) ? Surely the threat of an outside force who may bring about the destruction of the elven nation can be confirmed by divination then used by even a mediocre political operative to force the disparate political groups to pull together, thus consolidating the queens power, even to allow her to demand the wc explain why they have let it get this far.

I propose that the queen be portrayed as less scared of the political power of the wc. That she tell the pcs that the wc should have been on this but they appear to have dropped the ball and she can't get any clear answers from them. ( secret society seems to have gone a bit rogue) she doesn't want to start internal conflict but she wants to know what the heck is going on at Thorns End and why they haven't answered her summons.

I still haven't quite figured it out but I want the pcs to have a reason for going to thorns end other than the mook attack, the anarchist and the coincidental first name.

Any thoughts?

Ånd, since this is my thread, after all, I figure I'll share the decisions I made during the Belshallam battle. I'm not claiming I was right or wrong; I'm just telling you what I did, and that my players were all satisfied with the results (obviously, but that's beside the point):

** spoiler omitted **...

sounds cool,

Now I want to go back and check exactly what was said about the spell at the time, can anyone tell me the number of the strip where v cast the spell?

Buffy
Firefly second

I am looking for ideas.

Principally I don't like the way the skill acrobatics is used to enable people to avoid attacks of opportunity. It tends to result in my experience in some classes taking this skill just so they can have a shot at avoiding attacks of opportunity. Ie wizards & sorcerers

Plus I don't like skills having such a crucial combat role.

I realize many will not agree with me.

In my view certain classes need to be able to move about the battlefield relatively freely. Rogues, monks and rangers (from the basic classes) but this mechanic is unsatisfactory. I would almost prefer doing away with that element of tumbling and granting those classes some sort of ability to ignore a certain number of attacks of opportunity a round. But that sounds too clumsy a mechanic.

Does anyone else have anything they use or have seen used?

The first 4? Paizo adventure paths that use 3.5 rules. You can get the PDFs easily enough.

Also the dungeon adventure paths are 3.5

And the enworld adventure War of the Burning Sky is available in 3.5

But to answer your question, IMO converting them, even making slight adjustments on the fly, should be quite easy.

So, Tim Schafer raised $2m for an old-school point'n'click adventure game and it's growing. Initial goal was 400k.

And Order of the Stick is about to raise $1 million (out of initial goal of 56k) to keep their archived issues in print (it seems it's "let Richard Burlew draw OOtS for living" now.

So, when is Paizo Kickstarter coming?

The two most obvious projects IMO are

1. Hardcover paizo adventure paths
2. Hardcover Dumgeon adventure paths ( yes I know this one needs Wotc but they are all about bringing the hobby together right?)

It is not just you.

It is ridiculously overpowered.

I know it will probably get me kicked off the Internet but I will concede the point to Finn K.

I played a bit of 0e but really was an AD&D player. It came out about the time I started playing. I used some of the other parallel stuff from basic etc but ran it using 1e, whether it was 0e, 2e or anything in between I just dropped it into 1e.

The change to 3e was big at the time compared to the differences between every other edition IMO.

Kthulhu wrote:

Won't happen as long as there are people who refuse to realize that the transition from 2E to 3E was just as big as the transition from 3E to 4E.

Well, you're welcome to your opinion on this. I do not agree-- having been through Original D&D (+ supplements) to AD&D 1 (plus supplements) to AD&D 2 (plus supplements) to AD&D 2 w/ Skills and Powers (kind-of an edition change-- AD&D 2/S&P was close but did not mix properly with AD&D 2/no S&P) to D&D 3 to D&D 3.5 to 4E... IMO, 3.5 to 4E was the biggest transition on that list by far (and it's not just a matter of mechanics). 3.5 to PF is a much smaller transition, of course.

Not trying to revive edition wars, but-- I don't think I'm "refusing" to realize, so much as I've evaluated all the evidence, considered it along with my long experience of playing D&D through many different versions, even considered it in conjunction with all the opinions flying back and forth on the board; and have come to the conclusion that I firmly disagree with your opinion, for (I believe) good reason, and I find the "refuse to realize" quip a little bit insulting.

You are free to believe as you wish of course, but if you phrase it in such fashion, expect a reaction. I think this horse, about how big any of the transitions between editions were, is a corpse you should leave decently buried, instead of bringing it up where we can flog it some more.

I would agree with you.

I would also say 2e to 3e was the second biggest change ( and was a big change at that) and 1e to 2e was the smallest change ( except for a couple of classes ( ranger & bard) i could use the 2e stuff in my 1 e game virtually unchanged.

Just chucking in my 2cp

Dealing with Nidal would be awesome
Desnan freedom fighters
Underground railway,
Asmodeus worshippers in conflict but not too dominant ( maybe cheliax/ Nidal / pc three way conflict)
Shadow plane far realm stuff

some excellent suggestions so far. I knew I could count on this community.

She has a library card currently and checks out the max amount of books she can every time she goes (12 here). Usually she is done them in a week or two. The wife has a nook that she lends to my daughter most of the time also but we are probably getting her a dedicated one shortly.
I forgot about the Pern, Shannara, and Earthsea series.....good deal.
Thanks guys and if anything else springs to mind post away!

Rangers apprentice series

Perhaps Mallory towers, or chalet school girls if she wants to give non fantasy a go ( kind of Harry potter but without boys or magic)

Assuming that the players have heard about the final test,

Does anyone have a good idea for an alternate final test?

I have never looked at the class for this exact reason. experienced it with a Druid summoner in 3.5, by 7th level the player and everyone else agreed it was detracting from the game to have one player controlling multiple entities during combats and he stopped summoning.

Even if you don't dominate combat with a heap of rolls or with your power you are still playing multiple things, having extra goes etc.

If you have say only 3 players and one is super organized it might work but even then you end up with 1 player playing half the party and the other 2 playing the other half between them. Perhaps if you had a small player group and one played a summoner and the others had a cohort or offsides it would work?

My gripe is with overly lengthy write ups of npc's. I admit I am way behind so things may have changed but I have recently run CoCT History of Ashes and there are some write ups of NPC's who will meet the PC's and try and kill them in the final encounter. The write up takes up several pages. The NPC's lasted a few rounds.

It isnt the stat block that takes space it is the bit about the NPc's secret motivation (that the PC's will never know).

I love memorable NPC's who will encounter the PC's several times or in a non combat encounter but if they are the leader of a Red Mantis death squad just give me the stats and two sentences please.

Werecorpse are you thinking along the lines of some sort of disarming a bomb with the rest of the party trying to hold off the enemy? I guess the Pathfinder equivalent might be shutting down a portal as enemies are coming through.

Oh yeah I think some good puzzles would be great.

Any other ideas or thoughts out there?

exactly,

ie defending an entrance from invading almost limitless morlocks(melee/crowd control), while picking a lock or deciphering a clue (extended complex multi-skill challenge),to access a mguffin/clue needed to stop morlocks summoning a beast from the far realms (later encounter), and at the same time convincing the underground fey guardian spirit to tell you how to access the "escape chute" (talky/persuasion or maybe skill check perception then disable gnomey traps) so you can make a break for it once you have succeeded.

kind of indiana jonesesque. His fights were generally not just to beat the bad guy and loot his body-- ie defeat thug and get plane started before nazis arrive (combat + skill check + time limit)

IMO having classes that are good at non combat skills they (along with everyone else) should feel that their contribution to critical encounters is important--so give lots of things that need to be done to make alternate skills shine.

Edit: Not just have it that "this encounter is a combat encounter so go get the drinks mr persuasion bard, i will go pick up the pizza when we talk to the fey guardian because i have no diplomacy etc skills". taking it in turns to shine is OK but having everyone have a chance to shine in a scene is better IMO.

if a group doesnt have the right people you need to have alternatives (ie 2 stage hard pick lock, or knowledge arcane,history,divine makes it one stage and at lower dc, or maybe persuasion could get guardian to give a clue etc as last resort int check takes longer (thus making the fight more dangerous) but can get it done anyway) just like you do in combat.

Encounters which combine multiple styles of interaction

Ranged Combat + trap/lock removal

Persuasion + hazardous terrain

Melee combat, hazardous terrain + chase.

Etc

David Gemmels Troy series. Starts with Lord of the Silver Bow

IMO the best stuff he has written

You seem to be saying that having digital access to the rules ( the srd) is the key, not the OGL

But 4 e does that don't they for between $6 and $10 a month. Hardly prohibitive if you just want a taste. And I understand they have quick start rules for free.

Your suggestion that Wotc could design a brilliant system that addresses all concerns but it won't matter without support seems a bit unlikely.

If they design a brilliant system, then even without 3pp support they will have a brilliant system - and that would be awesome.

I think ghettowedge has it pretty much right.

And pre 1990 there were plenty of other RPGs around.

So I sign up to D&D insider and that gives me access to the rules and character design stuff as well as letting me download dungeons from dungeon digital magazine right?

Seems odd to not need to buy books. Or do I?

Quick start rules I can print off for my group, will they need to sign up too?

Is keep on the shadow fell a good adventure? Is there a good series in the dungeon magazines ?

To me a good adventure is most important. 3pp is fine by me it just has to be more than a series of rooms strung together.

I don't want to just play one session, I want to give it a proper go.

I don't think the 3.5 to 4 system change issue will be a problem. I have mostly been playing savage worlds for the last year and having a great time.

Btw thanks for the help

I tried a couple of games, bought the three rule books when it first came out, didn't like it and went back to 3.5.

I am keen to see 5e and am looking forward to it.

I am a long time gamer and I am not really interested in getting a digital membership (unless it is necessary) but I feel maybe I should have given 4e more of a go.

Also I am typically the one who runs games in our group, and we are campaign players ( not just dungeon)

Is there a relatively inexpensive way to play?
What rules are current?
What are some good adventures?

Want to give it a go before the sun sets.

WoTC's genius in 2000 when they created the OGL was what made them "The World's Most Popular Role Playing Game."
.

Really? I doubt it.

I would have thought D&D had been the worlds most popular roleplaying game for most if not all of the previous 20+ years prior to the OGL.

The OGL as it applies to the 3.0 and 3.5 system did a lot for the game ( I would say it was positive, not all would agree) but it isn't required to make an enjoyable or popular game. In fact as virtually no other rpg system uses an OGL ( to the bet of my knowledge ) I would say it was a transformative marketing event but doesn't really effect the game system.

I do agree that 3.5 is the best system and I suspect they will be alert to that when designing the new game. I hope they have a permissive license because there are plenty of great 3PP out there. But if they don't they could still make a great game.

But isn't the failure of the marketers to foresee that interpretation a pretty obvious failure.

Werecorpse wrote:

One element I would like is for it to be pretty hard to die and extremely hard to return from the dead. Especially in campaign play. I hate when you get to the high levels of a campaign and the pcs have all died multiple times, been raised and are back again.

Are you speaking as a player, or as a DM?

Quote:

When you die it should be game over,

Out of curiosity, why?

Both, but most often as a DM.

In my experience if there is no actual risk of a character not surviving to the end of a game then the sense of accomplishment in getting to the end of a 'dangerous' dungeon or campaign is significantly lessened. IMO having the thing that can finally stop a character be Death would be my preference.

If the rules made it that you could be beaten to a pulp, knocked unconscious, drowned etc etc - then magically healed and rejuvenated because you were not quite dead. I would prefer it. Give the player all the chances you want. Just don't say he is dead. I realize it may be semantics in a game mechanic sense but to me cheapening death by having it be something you can recover from as a result of a spell from a mid level cleric. Make death matter. (btw this isn't a deal breaker for me I once ran a 15+ year ad&d campaign where one pc had his deaths reached over 20)

One element I would like is for it to be pretty hard to die and extremely hard to return from the dead. Especially in campaign play. I hate when you get to the high levels of a campaign and the pcs have all died multiple times, been raised and are back again.

When you die it should be game over, but equally there should be lots of wriggle room before death. Lots of 'near death but recovered' etc. I know it's not a big mechanical difference but flavor wise when a person dies they die.

WotC clearly has no animosity towards 3.5, and it's a little silly to imagine all these dark motives for them when all they were trying to do was show that they understood where some of the "sticking points" of the previous edition were.

And, by and large, they did. The only reason their marketing campaign is considered half as harmful as it actually is is because the gaming community has way too many people who are unable to tell the difference.

'animosity' and 'dark motives' may be a bit strong, but you ascribe certain fairly benign and helpful motives to the marketers ( 'all they were trying to do was ...') but couldn't it be that they also had a motive of trying to suggest that the then most popular game system in the tabletop rpg world was not as good as its fans thought it was? And that they used mild ridicule as a tool in that marketing? That they wanted to project that game they were launching was 'better' than the current 'game?

( the statement about one game being overall better than the other rarely works and can be inflammatory, it's like saying my baby is prettier than yours)

Sure people may have over reacted to this marketing but marketing is all about presentation and association. Soft drink or breakfast cereal being consumed by professional athletes or hot models Doesn't mean anything but people form an association that is intended. Airlines saying they have friendlier in flight service than their rivals is probably subjective and doesnt mean they are generally better but that is the message they want people to walk away with. That is the intended message. Surely it isnt a stretch to say the intended mild ridicule of a sub system of the game MAY have been intended as a mild ridicule of the game itself? And if it wasn't foreseen as potentially being interpreted as such .... Well that's a bit of a naive marketing blunder.

It appears while some are only prepared to ascribe dark motives to the marketers of 4e, you ascribe purity of motive. Perhaps neither is entirely right.

I keep coming back to this thread hoping to read what people think 5e will look like. There was an interesting post about 2-3 pages back about the modularity. I like the ideas put forward in that post. Sadly this 3e vs 4e marketing stuff is dominant ( and yes I got sucked in too). Surely if Wotc was happy with 4e they wouldn't be launching 5e at this time.

I would be interested in hearing your views ( if you have any on the subject, you may not) of why they decided to launch 5e at this time , and more interested in how you believe it will look.

Quote:

I don't really understand the negativity from those who don't play 4e. I mean

- they used to make a game I liked.
- they stopped & made a different game ( me sad, but I have other games )
- now they have said they will stop making the different game and make a game like the one they made before, ie one I like.

That's a good thing right?

Here's the bad thing....

-
Pathfinder has the heart and soul of D&D, but 4e has the name recognition. People looking to play dungeons and dragons, or people who are STARTING to play dungeons and dragons, are now playing a different game. It splits the player base in a hobby where you need 5 compatable geeks within a certain distance of each other who can fenagle a scheduel to work together. Adding agreeing on the same system to that equation drops the effective geek population below sustainable in many areas.

But that " bad thing " is the current situation, right?

That whole split hobby thing started with runequest. We now have dozens of fantasy RPGs and about a dozen D&D offshoot games. My experience with this is that if someone asks me to play in a game with a system I don't particularly like or know then if I like the people I say yes and give it a go.

Given Pathfinder won't ever be called D&D there will likely always be a current game called D&D that will either be one you don't like or one you might like why would you be against someone trying to develop a game you might like.

I can see it being a potentially bad thing for you if 5e ends up being a system you, as a pathfinder player, don't like but your current pathfinder players prefer. But if Pathfinder is all you say it is you have nothing to be concerned about. In fact Wotc may drive some of the 4e players away from d&d altogether, to Pathfinder.

I guess the further splitting the gaming community is a potentially detrimental effect of 5e coming out but they seem to recognize that and be trying to work to remedy it. They did some pretty good unification of hobby work with 3e.

Hey maybe d&d is like the Dune series, every odd numbered one is good and the even numbered ones not so much. ( yes I know totally my opinion on both subjects)

From my point of view, as someone who doesn't play 4e and enjoyed playing 3.5e and 1e I am excited and happy to hear the news that wotc is going to make a new game & the way they say they are going to make it.

I don't really understand the negativity from those who don't play 4e. I mean

- they used to make a game I liked.
- they stopped & made a different game ( me sad, but I have other games )
- now they have said they will stop making the different game and make a game like the one they made before, ie one I like.

That's a good thing right?

As I say the news that wotc are going to make a new game instead of 4e ( which I don't play so don't care about ) is all good.

If they fail to make a game I like either because they are tricksy corporate suits or because they are hamfisted bunglers I am no worse off than I was before. But if they succeed....

Yay!

I view their stated intentions positively.

Modular good. In fact could be great.

Listening to fans is better than not listening.

I am not a fan of pathfinder or 4e. I think each system has some good stuff but overall they are not my cup of tea.

I am mildly concerned with the "listen to the fans" plan. IMO the pathfinder playtest resulted in lobby groups for certain styles of play and even for certain classes (such as paladin) which resulted in the game becoming overly complex and those lobbied classes getting too powerful.

You still have those problems that nobody else does. Healing in-combat always was a bad move in 3.5 (except for casting heal) so all that channeling does is saving you some gp on happysticks. And in 3.5 there never was a "do we have a Cleric" question, the only question was "do we have someone who can use happysticks?". .

This was never my experience in 3.5.

I have the same problems digital elf does with the pathfinder changes to channelling, amongst other things.

I too wish I liked the raw pathfinder system or enough of the system so i could houserule a few changes and still use it. But I don't.

I am still a paizo fan, I still get plenty of golarion stuff and appreciate the adventure path stuff. It is creative and interesting. But I don't read it as soon as I get it anymore. In fact I don't think I have read a complete adventure path cover to cover since they became pathfinder.

Known Universe Gazeeter:

The Known Universe Gazetteer is an all new campaign setting for gritty space adventure with a dash of alien horror thrown in. In the Known Universe, the age of grandiose galactic empire is long past. The august civilizations of yester-century are sundered, their gloried technological achievements lost. Now spacers, pirates, and warlords fight over the ashes with a few systems burgeoning on interstellar conquest. The galaxy has gone to seed, and it is a time for brave heroes, or desperate scoundrels to claim the black as their own.

Thanks.

I Didn't preorder that or the anarchists cookbook. I think I decided to wait and see how razor coast panned out.....still waiting.

Re KUG, sci fi is not really my preferred genre but if it is ever available I will consider getting it.

What is KUG?

Btw I also preordered razor coast and haven't asked for my money back but live in hope.

Hangmans noose never did it for me but I liked hook mountain massacre and Crown of the kobold king was great.

The reason for E6 is to stop people from getting 4th level spells since they tend to be such game changers. (Personally, I prefer E8, but both have their good and bad points.)

On that topic, running tomb of horrors at E6, without conversion, is a party wipe waiting to happen. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, it is the tomb of horrors after all. . .

The thing about high level threats in e6 is that the pcs aren't equipped to defeat the, through sheer power. As I understand it the intention is that they have to work out how to defeat the menace, a bit like you do in a Call of Cthulhu game. If they don't they have very little chance to beat the combat encounters.

Let me try again only shorter. I'm looking for ideas on how the remaining monsters in the Malachite Fortress should react, during a day after the PC's killed Kazmojen and got away.

Remaining folks in/near the Malachite Fortress:
-- Pyllrak Shyrat, durzagon slave trader and ally of Kazmojen. He fled the big fight invisibly, but hasn't left the fortress.

-- Dark Stalker and 6 Dark Creepers. When another party of PC's (TPK'd in the Malachite Fortress 10 days ago in game time) killed off the Skulks, Kazmojen gave them kidnapping duty (the kidnapped the kids) and moved them from Jzazidrune to the door to the Underdark (M6).

-- Surviving hobgoblin mercenaries. 12 plus leader/torturer Zarkad remain alive -- 6 were killed.
-- Two goblin cooks.

-- Slaves. Kryllscar the drunkard militiaman, Jasper the mathematician, Deven the lamplighter, Irruth the chandler, and Gryffon the cook.

-- The treasure room Mimic. Alone in the dark, it knows nothing.

-- The Stormblades. They are hiding in a cave in the Underdark, hoping to ambush those coming and going to the Underdark, having been sent in by the Temple of St. Cuthbert to find the kids, after the first PC party got TPK'd and the Dark Creepers invaded the orphanage.

Background in my campaign:
- Kazmojen was a duergar. He and other Duergar took the Malachite Fortress, and a gate (operable only by dwarves) connecting to the Forge of Fury (old WOTC module). They were selling slaves and making weapons for the Underdark war (allied with Mind Flayers and Kuo-toans) against the Kingdom of the Ghouls.
- The PC's killed duergar & freed slaves in the Forge of Fury, then gated in -- they killed Kazmojen and some guards, then gated out with the rescued kids. All the duergar are now dead. The rogue made sure.

Pyllrak either flees or tries to ally with either goblinoid or creeper forces (or both) to either ransack the place (including taking any spare slaves) and make of into the underdark (most likely) or set up to replace Kazmojen.

mimic waits....if it takes too long, start looking for food

stormblades ..wait use them to either storm in and save the party from the allied forces (if needed) or storm in and arrive too late (for camedy value)

3.5 and Pathfinder have always been about letting you design what kind of character you want to be. Roles were locked in hard in 2nd edition, and for those of us who like Pathfinder over 2nd that's the main reason why..

Interesting, that isn't the main reason, or even a reason with the players I play with. The main thing that is attractive for 3ed+ over earlier editions is the inclusion of table top tactics.

5'steps, flanking, casting in combat, attacks of opportunity etc made the combats more tactical and interesting.
In general most tweaking to Player created character builds tends to increase the power disparity within the game between those who enjoy building characters and those who don't IMO.

Werecorpse wrote:

what happens in your games if the Gm doesnt want a certain prestige class or say guns, or psionics, but a player does?

How do your games run when there is an in game disagreement as to how a particular spell/feat/magic item etc works, and the diagreeing parties agree to disagree - who makes the final call on how it will be played?

I believe every group should talk about how to resolve rules conflicts before the "first session", or at the "session 0". There are multiple options, the simplest is to pick one person to be the rules expert and make decisions (usually, but not always, the GM). I'm in favor of that method, but it requires everyone to agree to it and respect it BEFORE the rules conflict.

Second, if your players keep coming to your table with character ideas that run counter to your proposed theme/mood/setting, you either haven't communicated your goals properly, or they just aren't interested in your theme/mood/setting. As a GM you have 3 options that I can see:

1: take the option the player is interested in away, forcing them to play a character they are less interested in.
2: adjust your theme/mood/setting to accommodate the player.
3: try explaining the theme/mood/setting to the player again to see if they alter their goals.

If you're having trouble keeping your players interested, 1 is probably the poorest choice.

Werecorpse wrote:

who decides if the king is a benevolent good guy or a manipulative sneak?

If an NPC is being introduced via player actions, I usually let them tell me something about them, sometimes through a leading question.

-Why did this king start the tradition that everyone must wash their hands before entering the throne room?
-Why does the king desire to expand his kingdom eastward?
-Why is the king always seen in public riding a horse?

Whatever answer they give me I'll go with. I will probably modify it a little, but the essence of their suggestion will remain.

In the first example the gm has the final say most of the time on rules.

( I have never been in or heard of a game where a single player gets to overrule the DM and all other players on a rule interpretation but if you say it happens fine. Someone is the rules god/ control freak in this situation, but not the gm.)

Your second example seems to have the gm consulting with the players but making the final call.

( and no one said players asking if they can try an option out means they aren't having fun with what they want. My experience with players is they don't mind being told no by the DM in the course of consultation about a character concept or new feat )

Your third example is one where the players are mined for ideas but it is the dms decision how those ideas are ultimately used.

I don't see any of this as contradictory to the ops post. Or the idea of the gm having the final say.

I am not sure there is much actual difference between the positions besides semantics and particularly the idea that being in the position of god ( or final decision maker) means that you are by definition a tyrant.

Toz I am still interested to hear how you gm in those direct disagreement situations as you seem to have some other method of gming.

Dragonamedrake wrote:

Well then you would be one of those players not present at my game. Im sure I can find you a link for those oblivion cheats (err.. skyrim).

Wow, you admit to being a control-freak? Thank you for your honest self-awareness!

The DM is first-among-equals. You will not have a harmonious game with a DM used to absolute power and players used to sharing power.

Well now TOZ arent you making an assumption about what is required for a harmonious game?

I tend to run games with a fair bit of rule discussion but everyone agrees at the end of the discussion the GM makes the call.

But you seem to be suggesting that you play in a different style of game, with a different method of deciding how contentious rules will be interpreted, or a different style of deciding if certain rules will be applied--and indeed player input on the world in general.

what happens in your games if the Gm doesnt want a certain prestige class or say guns, or psionics, but a player does?

How do your games run when there is an in game disagreement as to how a particular spell/feat/magic item etc works, and the diagreeing parties agree to disagree - who makes the final call on how it will be played?

who decides if the king is a benevolent good guy or a manipulative sneak?

exactly how do the players co-operatively game (beyond directing their own players in the world and joining in the game, playing by the rules etc) in a way that a "control freak" might struggle to cope with.

As I said above I like the advice- the quibbling has also been interesting as it shows different perspectives on an important part of the game.

I thought the original post was very good and didnt see the same problems others did.

I havent read the other threads about GM shenanigans.

Re the Gm as god issue- I dont equate god with tyrant.

The fact that in many games the referee is the final arbiter of whether or not you committed a foul, scored a goal or hit the ball out or whatever doesnt mean that he is a tyrant. It is just a construct of the rules and the way it is played to resolve disputes.

sure in rpgs the role of referee is combined with the role of narrator, npc tactician etc but to me the gm is still the referee and deserves the same respect for that aspect of the game as any referee.

the advice to the gm to respect the players, that their job is to facilitate fun, talk to each other etc made it pretty clear imo that the intent of the advice wasnt to suggest the gm should behave like a tyrant- anymore than the advice in many games to the effect "the decision of the umpire is final" isn't intended to convey that the umpire should act like a tyrant.

Perhaps anyone who read the whole advice and took from it that when they gm'ed they were entitled to be a tyrant and stuff people around would be mischeiviously misinterpreting the post as a whole- and yes these people do exist but even if the god comment wasnt included they would probably behave the same way.

In other words saying the GM is God isnt what makes them act like a tool, anymore than it makes them act like a benevolent overseer of the world.