Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Ghoul

Zombieneighbours's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Society Member. 3,799 posts (3,872 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. 1 wishlist. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 10 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,799 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Irontruth wrote:

Okay, here's a point by point rebuttal.

1) Attribute bumps

The character doesn't really change. My strength is now 18 instead of 16. If I'm the "muscle" of the group, it's not like the roleplaying options are changing or people are all of a sudden going to perceive me differently. I'm still going to be essentially the exact same character, just attack/damage improve a little.

Unless you roll amazingly well, the majority of stat bumps are going to your classes primary stats. A wizard is going to increase their intelligence most of the time until they hit 20. They might bump Con or Dex if they feel they really need a boost to survival, but again, there's not an amazing depth of choice that really molds a character or represents how they change over time.

In the post I was initially responding to, you said

Irontruth wrote:
but I get to make a choice at 3rd level. That's pretty much it.

Attributes are a choice you get to make after that point. Now you might not see it as a real choice. You might see raising your primary stats as being so important you can't not do it, but I don't know if the game supports that idea.

The combination of combat/exploration/social model of 5th and bound bonuses, means that hyper specialization less desirable than say in 3.5.

If you hyper specialize as a fighter to be good in combat, you may well leave yourself unable to contribute meaningfully to the other two thirds of the game. Not to mention leaving yourself vulnerable t attacks against your attribute saving throws.

Now take into account the fact that a 12 basic orcs are still conceivably a threat to a 4 person 10th level party, and an a 1st fighter 13s in his primary and using a weapon he is proficient with, hits a CR 17 adult red dragon 25% of the time. In short, you don't need to hyper specialize to be good in 5th, you have a lot of wriggle room in 5th editions to improve other aspects of your character, and good reasons to not hyper-specialize, because you know, not failing cha, int, and wis saves as regularly may be more important for your character than making your str, dex and con saves a little more often.

So while it might not be a choice YOU would make, it is still a choice. It could be driven by the greater inherent viability of generalism is 5th, or by a desire to place an aspect of character concept over mechanical optimisation, but it is a choice.

Also a character learning more about the world, or becoming more perceptive are changes to the character.

Irontruth wrote:


2) Backgrounds

As far as I'm aware, this has nothing to do with advancement. The choice is made at creation and is set in stone at that point. There are no choices of advancement or character development.

I actually think this is a missed opportunity. I like inspiration and tying it into options from the background, but pushing it further and continue to influence future choices would have been cool. Not just "what happened in the past influences the future" but actual new choices involving the background. Like if I choose criminal, maybe later one I could choose "reformed" or "crime lord". Knowing that I have this choice coming up at a future date would force choices in the roleplaying that feed back into making this choice later on.

While the thrust of your comments had clearly been that there were not many choices after character creation, you also voiced a concern that all barbarians would look the same mechanically.

Irontruth wrote:


I get to play the character how I want, but mechanically, if I made 3 barbarians, they're all going to be very similar to each other IMO.

Well, while there is some truth to that, your choice in backgrounds go a fairly long way to making characters different an unique, in a manner that interacts mechanics.

Now it is true that by default there is no way in which elements of background change(that i am aware off), it is a pretty reasonable application of common sense and rule zero that elements of a characters background such as ideals, flaws and bonds change over the course of a campaign. Not all character development is numbers getting bigger after all.

Irontruth wrote:


3) Feats

First off, you have to give up your ability score advancement. You can still get a 1 point boost in some cases, but this is a lot to give up. Usually the feats broaden options, but are relatively low in actual power, they're closer to a very mild form of multi-classing really. I looked them over and none of them really seemed that interesting. The ones that at first blush seemed like they might often gave me several things I already had access to. If I'm a warrior type, the warrior...

your entitled to you opinion on this but there are a lot of feats I would happily take rather than a +2 an attribute score.

Alert for instance, +5 initiative, never be surprised while conscious, denying ambushers advantage against you.

Or Inspiring Leader, with its awesome temp hit point buff.

Sentinel with its movement shut down and retributive attacks

Shield Master is basically a version of evasion, with added bonus to dex saves and a bit of battlefield control.

Great Weapon master Power attack AND regular bonus attack generation.

And that is before going into the really interesting feats like Observant that makes you a powerhouse in the social or exploration parts of the game. Seriously, in an investigative social section lip reading, attribute boost AND +5 to passive perception and investigation, that is absolutely amazing.

I am pretty happy to say that, as I play humans as a rule, most character I play will have two feats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


I'm playing a Barbarian, which I get that it's supposed to be one of the simpler classes available, but I get to make a choice at 3rd level. That's pretty much it. I get to play the character how I want, but mechanically, if I made 3 barbarians, they're all going to be very similar to each other IMO. The differences will largely be superficial and purely in how I present myself to the group.

You get to choose how to spend you attributes at 4th level, and again at 8th, 12th, 16th, and 19th level.

If your using backgrounds and inspiration; how you play your character is a mechanically significant feature.

If your using feats, those attribute increase slots suddenly individualise your character even more.

You can disagree with me if you want. You're welcome to your opinion.

My opinion, is that I do not find the limited choices available to be satisfying. You can tell me why YOU don't find that to be true, but I have read the game and am playing it currently. My opinion on the game is also valid and is true to my own experience with it.

I like character creation. I like how the rules create interactions between the players and the game world. My one complaint is that character development is lacking. I'm fully aware of what you've outlined and I still feel this way.

I wasn't commenting on your opinion that there isn't enough mechanical choice in the barbarian. I was pointing out that their was a little more choice than you had stated you believed there was, that is all.

For me, honestly, the absence of the plethora of choice doesn't really matter that much, because A, the system is structured in a very permissive manner, more like an Indie RPG than 3.5, so I feel more comfortable going to the DM and saying, "dude, can I make a attribute test to achieve this thing I want to do?" or some such, and B, all of the mechanical choice available are interesting and roughly within the same ball park.

Every time I read a class in detail, I come out of it with a character concept I want to play RTFN for at least each of the paths. In some cases, more because of a feat or background combination with the class.

I cannot say the same for pathfinder, either because complexity puts me off, or because an archetype just doesn't really do what it is meant to do, or because I just am not keen on the implementation, or because to do what I want to do with a character I have to give up something I consider core to the class I want to play.

I am not an optimizer, I actually pretty much loath the process of making a character for pathfinder or 3.5, because the people I play with are optimizers, and the only way to remain even remotely reliant to the game is to play the same way, even though every time I cut out some cool aspect of the character to achieve relevance it makes me hate the game a little more.

The lower level of choice, and bound bonuses mean that those guys will be able to munchin it up to their hearts contents, and I won't have to, and the differences between our characters will not be insummountable


Irontruth wrote:


I'm playing a Barbarian, which I get that it's supposed to be one of the simpler classes available, but I get to make a choice at 3rd level. That's pretty much it. I get to play the character how I want, but mechanically, if I made 3 barbarians, they're all going to be very similar to each other IMO. The differences will largely be superficial and purely in how I present myself to the group.

You get to choose how to spend you attributes at 4th level, and again at 8th, 12th, 16th, and 19th level.

If your using backgrounds and inspiration; how you play your character is a mechanically significant feature.

If your using feats, those attribute increase slots suddenly individualise your character even more.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To say that I have switched, is perhaps a little disingenuous. I had stopped playing pathfinder with any kind of serious regularity about two years ago, and while I do play in one 3.5 game, I do so to play with friends, not because I enjoy the system.

On the other hand I am now actively preping to run a 5e campaign. It runs like a well oiled machine, and feels more lke the DnD I feel in love with when I was 9 or so.


Well, I have to say, I think I am in love.

While I really liked certain aspects of 4th edition,and I will play 3.5 and Pathfinder; 5th looks like a game I actively want to run campaigns for.

I certainly want to play some 5th, as character concept after character concept jumps out at me as I read.

To say that I actively want to run it is actually a big deal, as I really dislike running 3.5, pathfinder and 4e. But having run a little 5th, and read a bit more, I find myself in a position where it looks set to join Call of Cthulhu and Fate, as a mainstay of my gaming life.


Yep. It is now dead.

Sad news.


Oh I have sooooo many ideas.

Cyberborg barbarian with double handed chainsword.

Gunslinger based on Revy from black lagoon.

Spell slinger based on Gene Starwind from outlaw star.

Ranger, based on Ygritte. "You know nothing, Jon Snow."


Zombieneighbours wrote:

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.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


Demonskunk wrote:


Zombieneighbours wrote:

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?)

The focus of my game is intended to be exploration and discovery, whether it be lore, a new perspective, or a sweet set of magic gear.

I'm... not exactly sure what mechanics I could put in place to encourage exploration and discovery... what's a good way to do that without going to 'mmo-style' discovery XP? I suppose finding interesting items and encounters would encourage exploration and discovery.

I put a lot of mechanical rewards into encouraging role playing like Miracles granted from deities.

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 important aspects of exploration have skills associated with it. Navigation, Cartography, wilderness survival, overland movement, sailing and the like, all need to be backed with skills, and Mechanically important to the game. If a theme matters, it needs to be reflected in the mechanics

- 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.
Example: to level up, the PCs must have climbed the Torakka Pass into the plateau of Chen, seen the sunrise behind the monolith of Zi, and defeated down the 10,000 serpent people of the silent city.


Gallo wrote:
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?)


Chemlak wrote:

I'm all for self-determinism for the Scots (I'm an English Southern Softie).

However...

If they want to break from the UK, then they have to completely break from the UK. Import/export duties, customs, law enforcement, military, banking, company registry, stock market, state benefits (such as the NHS), you name it: they should be no different to France in all of those respects, even though we share a land border.

If the Scots want that burden independently, more power to them, and I wish them the best of British luck.

So their taking their oil with them too right?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


Mmm....

Wonder what I could do with a Hastur Mythos inspired scenario in Pathfinder. I think the focus on combat in the game would probably make it very hard, but something worth exploring maybe.


The many-angled ones live at the bottom of the Mandelbrot set.


I like it when I can play intuitively, focusing on whats cool and thematic as an action rather than what it the optimal move right now, without getting smeared; but also feeling like each battle was a close run thing.


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.


Snorter wrote:

A UK company called Modiphus held a successful Kickstarter last year, to print a WW2 setting, 'Achtung Cthulhu' for Chaosium's Call of Cthulhu, and Savage Worlds.

The Players' and Keepers' rulebooks were sent out in December, and there's some scenarios still in the pipeline, along with a range of figures.
A search for 'Achtung Cthulhu' on Kickstarter should provide you with links to the company site.

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.


Ofcause...

Hastur>Cthulhu


Ellis Mirari wrote:

I find it hard to think about this ending out of context.

How is dying/being incarcerated the victory condition? How is the Problem solved by this and this only? I can understand having most of the party dying or otherwise falling in the line of duty is sometimes the best possible outcome (as is often the case in CoC games), but the goal?

The only thing I can think of that makes the PC death the "goal" of a campaign is a GM vs. Players scenario, which is bad news. I may be misunderstanding what you mean.

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."


Featherfall. Ever. time.


1 Sobornost war-mind

OR

One 5 man group of Zoku raiders with 1337 gear.

Jean le Flambeur wouldn't conquer it, he'd just steal what ever was most precious from it.


thejeff wrote:
Vod Canockers wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:
Vod Canockers wrote:


The US has the fourth lowest homicide rate in the America's, so none of the countries in the America's except the US and Canada are developed? The US homicide rate is less than 1/4 that of Greenland! (Gotta love statistics) The FBI doesn't agree with you.

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.

And you are ignoring that "facts" are anything but. The French study listed 4 developed countries with higher murder rates than the US, and I know that at least two of them have consistently higher rates.

My point about Greenland is that statistics can be made to say anything that someone wants. Do you know how many murders it too in Greenland to give that high murder rate? 11, but it has such a small population that those 11 are all it took.

But still, you have failed to define what a developed country is? Can you? Do you even know what it means?

Do you? It's a common global economic term. Somewhat loosely defined, but essentially Western Europe, the US, Canada and some eastern European ones, Japan, Australia and a few others depending on who's list you're looking at.

Not Greenland. Not Brazil, Estonia, Mexico or Russia, who were the other 4 listed with a higher murder rate in the linked study.

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.


Science, technology, engeneering, and maths.


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


Galahad0430 wrote:

ReallY??? I guess if you suffer from cognitive dissonance you could believe that, but since I am quite sure I have vastly more knowledge on the subject than you, I will take your laughable rebuke as the uninformed, petulant response it actually represents.

Btw, Wilkinson and Pickett? Experts? I suppose if you consider rabid idelogoues who's prime work has been discredited by mainstream economists as experts, then I see why you don't even understand the basic concepts of statistical analysis.

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:


The US has the fourth lowest homicide rate in the America's, so none of the countries in the America's except the US and Canada are developed? The US homicide rate is less than 1/4 that of Greenland! (Gotta love statistics) The FBI doesn't agree with you.

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.


Galahad0430 wrote:

Wasn't disproving that particular statistic, just showing how it was meaningless.

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.

HERE

*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!!!"


Kryzbyn wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Thou shall not covet is kinda a pre-stop to larceny, and a whole bunch of other gimme! related stuff.
It also undermines the american way of life, wanting material things and always striving to make more money

Only if you accept the premise that you're greedy wanting to keep or make your own money and buy your own things...

Being covetous is wanting other people's stuff to the point of discontent with your own, not going and working for your own.

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:
The 8th Dwarf wrote:

Hey Electric Wizard....

You will probably find that the US is outside the top 5 to 10 for a lot of things.

Quality of life, wealth distribution, certain aspects of education, wage parity and so on.

I grew up being taught America is the greatest nation on earth, and that we are #1.

I guess my innocence is being lost.

.

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.


Complex issue, but a good explination appears to be

High income in equality = High levels of social evaluative stress = poor health, combined with low rates of preventative care and poor diet.


Jaelithe wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:
Head slammed in the boot of a car until dead, by a fellow PC, out of spite.
The character's spite, or the player's?

I couldn't tell you with certainty.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
lordzack wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:
lordzack wrote:
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.

Based on?

Bet your going to mention the Alert.

Well there is that (if you're talking about the steamship), however it's more of a general dislike for, what I see as, a tendency to inflate CRs when a creature is even remotely impressive. Personally I think Balors should be around CR 10, for instance.

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.


lordzack wrote:
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.

Based on?

Bet your going to mention the Alert.


Head slammed in the boot of a car until dead, by a fellow PC, out of spite.


Vincent Takeda wrote:

Granted if your table plays a lot of cthulhu then maybe:

'By the time the campaign is over your character will truly wish he was dead...'

Is plenty of sales pitch... But if thats true you wouldn't have much need to find out how other people on the forums feel about such things...

Just be glad your particular table likes marching bravely to their inevitable doom.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MrSin wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:
LazarX wrote:
I don't think that such scenarios would fly in today's more selfish crowd though.
That is my concern.

Hey, you know your own group better than people on a forum. No need to make sweeping judgments of everyone else in the world and hard for everyone else to make judgments about your own.

Personally, I always liked at least the slim chance of success without the end being predetermined. My predetermined doom or failure isn't too hot unless its something I decided for myself. A game where my success and/or choices are predetermined before I even sat down takes away a lot of the fun and enjoyment.

Oh I know how my group would handle it. They'd be fine.


LazarX wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:

Okay.

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.

I don't think that such scenarios would fly in today's more selfish crowd though.

That is my concern.


Pan wrote:
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.


Hama wrote:

A: Cool, like a good horror movie with a logical ending.

B: Depends, is it foreshadowed? If yes, then cool. If not then bye bye game.

The whole body of the scenario is basically "learning about the hundred and one ways you are screwed", so it should not come out of nowhere.


Okay.

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:

For most of the life of D&D severing limbs has been considered to be a special rule, at best. In general severing limbs is not something the game designers introduce because if PCs can sever NPC limbs, then NPCs can sever PC limbs. Some players might consider it not much fun to lose an arm or a leg.

But if you really want to play with limb severing as an option, then a coup de grace on a targeted limb is not a bad way to handle it. Although you might want to have specific amounts of damage so that severing a hand is easier than severing a leg. Or not.

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.


Hey. Just seen this. Will check it out properly later.


2013 has actually been a pretty good year for Cthulhu.. Many actually consider this to be something of a renaissance for Cthulhu.


Volatile rich comets, Sun lifted carbon, Suryas, Migo, and Shantaks. But, mostly Shantaks.


Fate

Fate core is Pay what you want at Drive Thru RPG, and it is a great, and pretty easy system to learn.

Fate accelerates even more so.

1 to 50 of 3,799 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.