|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I am actually just about to return to running this game, and I will be shifting the pacing. They have gotten to a point where the campaign picks up speed very quickly, and the focus shifts markedly. What is going to be really interesting is how I can target aspects of the characters lives, that they have invested in so heavily, to heighten the horror of the game.
As a GM, I like what ever my players have fun doing.
In my Tatters of the King Campaign, we had multiple 6-8 hour sessions, where the plot of the campaign moved on little more that a page or two. For more than a year, playing once a month for that long, we saw only three combats.
The group got massively into the soap opera aspects for the characters lives, and the low key weirdness that was slowly starting to over take and destroy their characters lives.
Well, lets see.
I guess that depends how much you want to get into the guts of OGL, and how much you want to work on them.
Keep it simple:
- Make sure that you have a fun and simple(but meaningful) encumbrance, supplies and moral system. There should be a reason, other than selling loot, to return to town. If the parties moral suffers over time, from sleeping rough every night, and that feeds into a drop in combat efficiency, you'll suddenly find that character behaviour will change to accommodate that. You might for instance find the party buys a number of caravans to sleep in. Make sure that the system covers mounts too. If at the end of an encounter the PCs are pretty low on resources, as it stands, they just camp where they are, making it matter if mounts have grazing or not means that you can make that choice a dilemma. Do we risk ourselves in the short term, by riding on to find grazing? Or do we camp here, but have our horses loose condition from another day without proper grazing.
- Get rid of experience, replace it with milestones. one for content, two for discovery.Once the PCs have achieved all three, they level up.
Regardless of one's views on the issue, at least this time around all the people of Scotland will get a say, not just a small elite.
What about the people of england, wales and northern island.
Do they get say?
After all, it is a union nations. Scotland is not an imperial province.
Should the sundering of the union be only the choice of the scots? Especially when said sundering may have profound implications for the whole of the UK.
I tend to favour games who's designers have asked jared sorensen three questions.
1) What is your game about? (Not "what is the setting, but what is the theme/what issues do you want to explore?)
2) What in your game makes it about that? (What design choices have you made to bring that element into play, and what mechanics exist to make that a game about what you want to explore?)
3) What behaviours are rewarded? (What happens at the table to make the players want to explore your theme?)
So their taking their oil with them too right?
If they get Independence, there is a good chance I'll be moving north of the border.
Scots politics is far friendlier to Further and Higher education professionals, and students, than England is currently. But then Britain is going to hell in a hand basket right now. Almost every institutions I value, in Britain is being destroyed, privatized or perverted by the Tories.
So once I have teacher training finished, I'd see about my partner and I moving north.
I have no desire to live in what it becoming a fascist nation.
GM Gatsby wrote:
I don't know whether it's really on the radar, but I urge anybody to look up Trail of Cthulhu - it is one of the most beautiful source books I've ever seen, and that's not even mentioning the rules themselves...
It's pretty well know among cthulhu players in my experience. It made a BIG stir in the Lovecraftian gaming crowd when it was first released.
Yes. Yes, they did. They actually already have a number of scenarios out.
Oh, and Delta Green is available as Print on demand now, and 7th ed is just around the corner,there is a[https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/448333182/horror-on-the-orient-express-a-chaosium-publicatio] new editions of Horror on the Oriental express[/url] coming this summer, The unspeakable oath is back, if slow,. Lastly, the fan community continues to be awesome.
Those rites will be sung for a while yet, and the stars are almost right.
Oh, and there is a new call of cthulhu Computer game in development.
Ellis Mirari wrote:
A good example of context would be "the shadow over Innsmouth", wheereafter the main action, the character comes to the realization that HE is descended from innsmouth, and also a deep one hybrid.
He has NO way of fighting back against such a reality, and is left with a choice between accepting his nature, or ending his own life before becoming one of the monsters he caught a fleeting glimpse of in that town.
I'd also far from characterize my GMing and/or writing style as GM Vs. Player. I am usually a fairly forgiving Keeper.
What I am interested in is reaction to a scenario where the answer to sorenson's first question of games design(What is your game about?), is
"How do the player characters face a certain and unavoidable doom."
Two of them are BRICs, only one is a OECD nation, and only one makes it into the top 40 of the Human Development Index, or considered to have a very high human development level.
It seems like every 14 year old boy and his STEM enabled sister has loaded malware on your computer.
It seems like every 14 year old boy and his STEM enabled sister has loaded malware on your computer.
It is a cryptocurrancy. Purely virtual, it has anonymity built into it and its exchange capacity.
Among it's more interesting uses are the purchase of recreational drugs through silk road 2.0 and the funding of assassinations through the assassinstion market. There are aldo some truly vile uses for them, such as farmvil
You might not like them.
They maybe "rabid ideologues".
they may even have been discredited by "mainstream economics"(not nearly the blow you appear to consider it, given that neo-liberal economics has been a disaster for the vast majority of people, in the vast majority of nations that have adopted its mind set, rapidly expanding social and economic inequality and benefiting only a tiny portion of the population.)
But they DO have a legitimate claim to expertise in the field of social epidemiology.
Vod Canockers wrote:
Murder rates vary by year, it is rather more work that I really want to go through, to go and get the exact year that remained true, but that article doesn't really say what your presenting it as saying.
What it does show is that the US performs worse than nearly every comparable country on violent crime, again.
The trend is pretty standard across years worth of data, when it comes to violent crime, there is something very wrong going on with america.
Greenland is also a very poor country, with a very small isolated, but incredibly dense population. Oh, and large chunks of the population suffer from S.A.D. because of location.
You didn't EVEN do that.
I think my response to your rather laughable post shall be this
"Claims statistics are easily disproved...
...doesn't disprove a single one."*
Now, it is entirely possible that some of them are wrong. They where copy-pasta, something I wrote a while ago, and going through and fact checking every one, so I think I'll just point you at the experts, and let them explain the basic concept to you.
*I suppose it is possible that you did actually disprove some of the statistics, but I got board after like the fourth, and realized you didn't appear to be in the business of disproving anything, but rather be in the business of saying "I disagree, there for it is wrong! Because reasons!!!"
To tack actions to improve your situation, you must be discontent with your current situation. So the very idea "american dream" is a statement of discontent.
Weither to go out and work for more, or go out and steal, to have more, is not a function of discontent (or covetousness), but rather, the options available to you as to how to deal with your desire to have the possession in question.
Electric Wizard wrote:
Out of developed nations, the US*:
- has the highest levels of income in equality(world bank)
- is fourth lowest on the UNICEF index of child wellfare (UNICEF)
- is in the bottom half for levels of trust (european and world values survay)
- is in the bottom half for positive status of woman in society
- is the second lowest provider of foreign aid (by % of national income) (OECD)
- is, by a large margine, the most mentally ill country (WHO)
- is the 4th highest consumer of illigal drugs (UNODC)
- has the 4th lowest life expectancy
- has the highest infant mortality rate
- has the highest rates of obesity
- has the highest rates of child obesity (unicef)
- is the 6th worst mathimatics and literacy scores.
- has the highest level of 15 year olds aspiring to low skilled work.
- has the highest rate of teenage pregnacy.
- has the highest rate of homicide.
- has the 4th highest level of childhood exposure to violence.
- has the highest rate of imprisonment.
- has the lowest rate of social mobility
- is in the bottom five for patents held/million people.
- has the 3rd lowest rate of recycling.
*this not the recent data, but it is representative of the data being used in research published between 2008 and 2011. Exact ratings may have changed slightly, but the general point I understand to have remained the same.
The Alert was a steam yacht. Examples of her class include the Amazon (small at 102 feet and 84 tons displacement) and the MV Struma(a respectable 148.4 feet). These vessels have considerable mass, and carry greatly more(the alert is described as heavily armed). Being hit by one of these things is not quiet like being hit be a locomotive, but is certainly closer to that, than being hit by magic great sword wielded by even the heaviest hitter in the DPR olympics. And good old Cthulhu is little more than slowed down by the blow.
Well I think he's more powerful than he needs to be in the first place. I think he doesn't need to be much more powerful than the Star Spawn of Cthulhu as it is now and I think that should be less powerful as well. Just my opinion, though.
Bet your going to mention the Alert.
Vincent Takeda wrote:
As I said, I know how my table deal with this sort of thing (they buy me 7th edition CoC hardbacks as a thank you, mostly). How others might react to it is of both interesting to me, and of practical use to me. I'll read the rest of your comments later.
Freehold DM wrote:
This is the main reason why I don't like Coc. No problem with self sacrifice but there are too many suicide runs including sacrificing party members without everyone being in on it.
If everyone isn't signed up for it, then that is a problem with the keepers you've played with, not the game. CoC, and the scenarios written for it, have always been very upfront about what they are.
Basic premise of the game is this.
A character is born into a 'cursed bloodline', without action on the part of the players he will be come a 'monster'.
The body of game is uncovering the details of the curse, and the monster that you will become.
The question that the scenario seeks to answer is: how will your character react to an unavoidable fate worse than death.
So my question you you guys, re-phrased is this.
How would you feel about playing in a game where the best possible outcome for your character is death, and where that death is the focus of the whole scenario's narrative.
More specifically how do you feel about it in a one shot, and how do you feel about it as part of a campaign.
Oh I know how my group would handle it. They'd be fine.
That is my concern.
sounds like run of the mill Call of Cthulhu to me.
got to say, that I can't off my head think of any CoC scenario that explicitly treats death of a PC as the victory condition of the scenario. Sure, plenty of scenarios will casually kill the whole group, but very few set out to kill drive made one character, especially not without some sort of way out or possible victory. That latter, no way out of this, is one of the things that in my experience scenarios like "the dying of st margaret's" so apart from thes standard fair.
I'd like to see what you guys think hypothetical.
You have signed up for a horror game, which you have been told ahead of time is being run in the Purist mod of Lovecraftian gaming.
During the game you discover that the best possible outcome of the scenario, is your characters death or incarceration at an asylum. That one of these outcomes is the intended ending of the scenario, and was from the start.
Now would you mind letting me know how you would react if:
A, it was a one shot game.
B, the intended outcome of a scenario run in the background of an ongoing campaign.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Meh... boring players maybe. I grew up playing WFRP where characters could loose an limb at the drop of a hat! It can be a very interesting element of a character.
it goes a little deeper than that. in every measurable way he IS more attractive. Regardless Of how you might describe him the effect of the rules is such that any attrsctiveness related role, he will out perform other members of his race by significant msrgains.
Oh god, yes! Why do you think I am trying to bribe you to do the hard work ;) My life is already enough of a Albert Camus book thank you :D
Because part of role-playing a character well, is playing within the constraints of what is reasonable for that character to achieve.
That means that it matters form a roleplaying perspective if the character has strength 9 or strength 16, because it affects everything from appearance to the manner in which they go about tasks such as gathering wood.
I'd assume that being "of your choice", would mean that it would be both useful to you, and not a duplicate.
But hey, it was meant nicely; and frankly, it would be infinitely more work for me to prove the extreme rarity of such claims. So, you'll forgive me i hope, if I place the burden of proof on you for this one.
There are good reasons to tell a player to change their character. One of the best is "It does not fit with the game the player has agreed to play in."
it is okay, because they have signed up to a social contract, which they are now in breach off, and because their fun does not trump the groups fun.