|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
So I tend to play evil characters. They arn't bay at the moon, comic crazy evil for the most part,nor are they objectivist randroids(thought I do occationally go there), but they arn't good people by any stretch of the imagination.
Most of them tend to see themselves as okay people or even heroic. Certainly there actions are necessary in there mind. I play evil like very much like we have sat down to play "the wire" rpg.
So when the good and neutral characters in the group start doing stuff like burning the toes of captured enemies to stop them running away, I can't but help think that maybe the racist beating my character character doled or there little criminal organisation with its drug dealing, protection racket and prostitution ring, are somewhere in the range of neutral activities in our game world.
High School Harem Comedy looks freaking hilarious. Yandere all the way, every time...Every. Time.
OMG yes! The opportunity to play a Yandere character would be so much fun.
"But Akio-kun, this way we can be together forever." *Snuggles up to the bound young man, then pulls the cord attatched to the lid of the chest freezer, so it closes them in together.*
Maid has some "adult themes"; I would recommend OVA, which just released an updated version of its rules. It's a pretty flexible system, with a fairly simple dice mechanic.
From what I have read of maid, those 'adult themes' are entirely at the Ecchi end of the spectrum. They are about as 'adult' as an episode of Ranma 1/2 or a 'carry on' film.
Our experiences couldn't really be more different. Fate has basically become my system of choice.
If there isn't a good reason I want to use a specific system for a game concept, such a strong system/theme ties, or a mechanical conceit I really want to explore, then I use fate to do it. It's flexibility, player engagement with the environment and speed make it a no brainer.
In fact, other than trying out a few indie games, their are only a handful of games currently that can drag me away from it as a GM.
- Warhammer fantasy role-play (nostalgia)
What with Call of Cthulhu and Trail of Cthulhu, I have never seen a need for it. The only real area it might be useful (i.e. superpulpie games)can now be covered with Fate, thanks to the Achtung! Cthulhu Fate hack by Modiphius. I guess, given the thematic differences between pathfinder as a system and the setting, my question would be; "why do it?"
Christopher Dudley wrote:
it plays like fate, which is to say, that if you get it, it is easily the most rewarding RPG experience you can have, but if you don't I imagine it is pretty rubbish.
Christopher Dudley wrote:
I am, but the only game I have mentioned I that i discovered through them was base raiders. I didn't mention eclipse phase, which I did discover through them.
All of the GUMSHOE games are pretty cool. My favorite is Trail of Cthulhu, of course, but I think the GUMSHOE monster book "The Book of Unremitting Horror" is one of the creepiest monster books I own.
The stuff on spectres for wraith: the oblivion is creepier in my opinion, but not by much.
James Jacobs wrote:
I actually think this is missing a trick. There is game to be had in their only being one economy, and PCs utterly destroying it. ;)
The "money in the root of all fun: economics in gaming" panel from gencon this year is definitely worth a listen.
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
Audrey, I grew up in trade. 'white van man' was the people my father worked with and drank with. My dad was a 'white van man'though a very atypical one, a plumber who trained as a chemist before that. My opinion of 'white van man' does not derive from liberalism. It derives from hour upon tedious hour in their presence. From listening to them spouting opinions I could identify as moronic as early as seven years old.
It is my experience that are a lot of men, who make their living in trade in Essex who are decent people, and there are a lot who are really nasty people, but hte vast majority lack the educational basis to understand anything other than their trade, and a RABID disinterest in changing that, and a equally rabid interest in maintaining their world view through the red tops.
If anything, my feeling on the matter are a failing of my higher self. Being self analytical, I consider it very much a right leaning line of thinking, one I am not entirely comfortable with. It is an emotional judgement, based on anecdotal experience. Pretty much the antithesis of the way I aspire to form my thoughts on such matters.
Sissyl: Not it really wouldn't be a joke.
Scotland is doing it by the book, and that is great, but it is a book that is going to make things worse.
A yes vote will destroy relations between the English and the Scots, largely because 'white van man' is a moron, but the effect will be the same. Years of old national hatreds will very likely re-surface. The red tops will scream in rage, and the big three will use it as an excuse to do everything they can to scupper the split and scotlands chances at long term viability. Out leaders are vindictive toff [censored]s, who will be personally insulted by a yes vote
But there are many English people who actually support Scottish independence, and a electoral process in which people from all parts of the UK get to vote, and in which independence was one would be far easier to defend from the awful human being with power in this country.
Regardless of considering it a little odd that a decision that effects all UK residents only gets to be voted on by a portion of them,I broadly support Scottish independence. I'm just really not keen on what it is going to mean for England. Scots MPs represent a liberalizing force, which have managed over the years to keep westminster some what closer to representative that it otherwise would be be thanks to the first past the post. If scotland becomes indepentant, we can look forwards to decades of rule by the conservatives and ukip. That is not a nation I want to live in. Ironically, that makes scotland pretty much the most attractive place in the world for me to go and live. Political climate I am happy to engage with and be governed by. Potentially nationalised oil industry providing the money for an extensive program of civil society and research funding, a nation that will actually fund education... Yeah, a yes vote is a vote for me to move to scotland :D
Both .epub and .azw have positive points. Both are certainly fine for casual users. However, for a user who wants to actually make use of the the document, as opposed to just read it, there is a significant adventage to PDF.
Also both formats lack the near ubiquity of PDF.
As for dungeonscape, I'll believe in its existance when it turns up. WotC do not have a great track record with Major IT projects.
While discussing the intricacies of piracy as an ethical dilemma, specifically regarding the idea that it is theft, I did poss the idea that lending and borrowing are as ethically unsound and that it was dangerous to refer to piracy as theft, lest we all be consider thieves. Because that is where the logic(in the absence of other factors) leads us.
I did also point out, under a rather specific and arcane circumstance, that just because something is unlawful, does not mean that it is unjust.
Neither of these is to say that Piracy is ethical, or even 'not unethical'
Even if it where, it would still not be advocacy for piracy, because Piracy is against the law, and laws should be followed in all but the most extreme cases. There are also really good practical reasons NOT to engage in piracy, from legal repercussions through to virus threat.
Chris Lambertz wrote:
While I am personally in favor of organic thread development, and believe that discussion should be allowed to grow and shift(in fact the most interesting threads often develop out of this, in my opinion) I do understand that paizo mod team has a lower tolerance for it.
Glad to hear you took the knife to the thread for the right reason.
That post was the one that came closest to advocating piracy, and it was a country mile ahead of even my closest statement.
While the way poster phrased his post badly, the core of his argument was valid point, which was not, in point of fact, advocating piracy.
That fact is that, is that their is reason to believe that piracy can drive sales. Which is a point of relevance, when a discussion has turned in part to whether a companies choices regarding digital distribution are sensible or not.
Discussing the nature of piracy(its effects on industry, how industry can deal with it, what constitutes a lost sale, ect.), is not advocating it.
You would be well advised to see what Advocating piracy actually looks like, so that you know the difference. I would suggest reading "steal this article" by Charles Davis, after which you might be better equipped to differentiate.
If it's something other than just PDF's, it's not going to work for me. I have an old iPad (gen 1). I can't upgrade the OS, which means I can't download 99% of new apps. Basically it's a pdf viewer at this point.
Even if you could, I am going to hazard a guess it would fail anyway. I mean, new formats are hard to get right, and for all it faults, there are reasons PDFs are ubiquitous.
You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means ;)
I'll have to check that out :D
I might take a look at it and consider it if Paizo try to make a new version of Pathfinder. For right now though Pathfinder is near as makes no difference to the perfect rpg, so I don't see the point yet.
I mean, it isn't call of cthulhu, or fate, so it isn't near to the perfect RPG for me, and it isn't 5th so it isn't as close as anyone had gotten to the perfect fantasy rpg for me either ;)
I haven't been around much the last two years, so I am out of the habit ;)
In the post I was initially responding to, you said
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?)