|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Hye Roler wrote:
Any documents y'all have accrued, I'd love to see them. I'm getting pumped about the same thing. Gmail account is theactionpoint.
This is a short compilation video, and it's the first in a series that I'm going to try and use to get my players to pay attention to the setting's history. This is the world I'm going to be running Kingmaker in here shortly.
If you happen to like it, check out the link to my blog under the Youtube video.
The more I think of it, the more I really, REALLY like the concept behind the "gang war" scenario. It could be really powerful if the PCs know not just one, but BOTH of the would-be Guildmasters and end up in the middle of that conflict.
Kingmaker is the first AP since Age of Worms to really get my juices flowing in this way... thinking really long-term and foreshadowing stuff way ahead of time. I'm only 2 issues in and I'm thinking this could be my favorite AP so far.
But, to be fair, the core 3.5 rules have a total of five sentences about the Duergar (other than their bonuses and abilities they have from their race). I don't believe it would have be in the best interest (if one is only going to use that many sentences) to use one to describe what happened to their race long ago.
That's kind of what I'm saying. The core 3.X duergar as written have precious little written about them and that is my only influence as I don't have any of the Realms stuff. This really is a case study in parallel design. And that is really kinda fascinating to me.
Davi The Eccentric wrote:
Just read the info on duergar in both 3.5 MM1 and XPH. I'm not seeing the references that Cartigan is mentioning. Am I just missing it? Really, the description of my Iron Dwarves bears little resemblance to the duergar, especially as the XPH puts them out. Do they have some psionic abilities? yes. But it appears the personalities are *drastically* different, with XPH being pretty much standoffish and mine being expansionistic zealots. And I can't find the illithid slavery reference anywhere.
Maybe he's thinking of the githyanki/githzerai?
The post I wrote showed my train of thought rather clearly. I guess I came to some similar design decisions as the folks who worked on the gray dwarves. Parallel design strikes again. Can you cite some of the sources for the duergar you're talking about? If they're that close already I might as well mine them for ideas.
I'm a published Freelance RPG writer for the now-defunct Iron Kingdoms d20 RPG; I'm a combat veteran of 2 tours in Iraq and (so far) 5+ years in the US Army. I'm a gamer and Game Master of 19+ years. I've found that my military experience as well as running games for military folks has shaped my views of RPGs, and GMing in general, over the past 5+ years.
This blog is my way of getting my ideas and words out there to people who might want or need a fresh way to look at gaming, or to provide tools and good advice to new or experienced GMs. I hope you enjoy. I think it's going to be a fun ride. --Jason
P.H. Dungeon wrote:
Now there is more team min maxing- ie. figuring out how to combine powers in effective tactical ways, and a lot of this experimentation goes on during combat (though not in a slow down the game bad way), as opposed to during character creation. The PCs also don't spend time buffing and prepping for fights the way they did in 3E, and this is a change I really like.
For me, this is *incredibly* true. I run two games out here in Iraq, for the second tour in a row, and my players run the complete gamut of casual<--->min-maxer, and in 3rd edition with our erratic play schedule working around missions and the like, made it so that some players had a lot of fun and some... just didnt, because the min-maxers stole the spotlight rather often.
In 4E, this doesnt happen. Even the min-maxer (tricked out teleporting eladrin ranger/rogue) has his efforts curtailed by the inherent balance of the rules, but not so much that he feels stifled.
The *rest* of the party, now that they are not outshone so easily, have stepped up and suddenly the "emergent tactics" have become the players' favorite part-- mixing and matching abilities and powers to set each other up for some ridiculously complex but incredibly powerful combos (feats that allow extra uses of Hunter's Quarry and Sneak Attack and Warlock's Curse with an action point, when combined with TWO Warlords of different builds, are positively sick) is their favorite thing to do. And let me tell you-- a group of six soldiers (in real life) who are used to working together already can come up with some seriously amazing tactics.
And the best thing is-- EVERYBODY, even me as the GM, is LOVING the game. Every time.
I dont care what edition you play-- that's a win.
Sorry to interrupt.
I've been reading through the PbP, and you all have an incredible group. Do you mind sharing exactly how you're facilitating the game (other than the forums, of course)? Which programs the DM uses to make his maps, character software, etc? You seem to have a great setup and I'd like to emulate it.
I think that "3 Faces of Evil" from the Age of Worms AP is an excellent example of an adventure written with the PCs' entrance into the complex as a triggering event. IMO, that is the best example I have ever read of an event-based adventure disguised as a location-based.
That is the VERY rare exception, however. For the vast majority, I agree with yellowdingo.
Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, 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.