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

pachristian's page

223 posts. No reviews. No lists. 2 wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 223 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Freewolf wrote:


Well actually this is why I am asking. I am planning on running this. I wanted to level up the PC's in other quests first. I wanted some of them to be undead related so the PC's gain some experience and inside into combating the undead.

So desu ka!

Okay. I agree with Brandon Hodge's observation: Haunting of Harrowstone is a good plot-driven dungeon crawl, and would set the player up very nicely for Ravenloft. That also leaves you an opening to go into Carrion Crown, if you and your players are so inclined. They'll walk out of Harrowstone with some good anti-undead experience, and at about 4th level. Then run one more short adventure between Harrowstone and Ravenloft, and they'll be ready for the letter: "Hail to thee of might and valor...


Check out the classic: Expedition to Castle Ravenloft. It's D&D 3.5, converts to Pathfinder easily, and is a great adventure. I'm running it now. Average CR seems to be about CR 8. I converted the fortunetelling sequence to Harrow cards, to keep the Pathfinder theme. It's working very well.


Take "Torchbearer" feat at 5th level (Dungeoneer's Handbook). Choose a bard as your torchbearer. This gets you your first minstral earlier.

Have something useful you do for your party, so your fellow players don't say "Ni!" at you until you die.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
LazarX wrote:

Gary Gygax deliberately created the economy system he did because he felt that the lure of dungeon delving was the big pile of loot at the end.

Consequently to keep players motivated, it was required to find ways to require players to SPEND out those piles of gold to keep them motivated.

There was never any concern in trying to build a true simultionist economy that reconciled the Gold Rush of adventuring life, and the more mundane economics of everyone else. For decades it was acknowledged that both existed to the extent that it was a popular thing to lampshade in various comic media.

The game is so structured around this essential dichotomy that any attempt to reconcile this division is going to give you nothing but brain explosions.

But the economy Gary Gygax created was very different, since magic items weren't really a part of it. He never really found a way to require players to spend those piles of gold. Training at low levels worked, but was quickly surpassed by the amount of loot and no one ever played with training costs anyway:) Then eventually you saved up, bought land and retired. Or that was the theory.

Personally, I'd rather scale the huge piles of loot back. Conan was always happy with a pouch of gold or jewels to finance some tavern crawling.

Thejeff is exactly right.

I asked Gary Gygax about the "experience points for gold" rules at Origins '78. - Really nice man, by the way, willing to take time to talk and explain things to snotty teenagers - His rule was that the piles of gold that earned you experience were out of the game in some way - invested in land and resources for fighters who were going to build castles at 9th level, in their churches for clerics, in magical libraries and resources for wizards, in their influence in the guild for thieves. Leveling up included a socio-politico component. The gold was out of the game and not available to buy magic items. Thus huge piles of gold were not a problem in his game. He had never more than referenced that in the rules, as most players were not interested in playing out that development.

I scale the loot back, myself.


Korvosa would have no more issues with a party of adventurers wandering around in heavy armor and carrying big weapons than Austin, TX, would have with people wandering around wearing (visible) bulletproof vests and carrying AK-47's.


I could see witch. I think he calls himself a "sorcerer" in the movie because it sounds more evil than "wizard". In game terms, I think I'd make him a wizard, with leadership as a feat and Iago as his cohort.


There are a lot of good suggestions here.

Check out Dungeon Crawl Classics:
“Prince Charming, Reanimator” (FT 0 - Purple Duck Games)
“Bride of the Black Manse” (DCC 82 - Goodman Games)

Also check out GRAmel's
"Amulet of the Dogskull" - absolutely not for lawful-goods! (Savage Worlds system; you'd have to take the storyline, and do the encounters on your own).

For adventures that will take less conversion, check out Goodman Game's 3E line - most are only $3 as pdf's.

I have converted a large number of D&D 1st through AD&D 2nd adventures, and I've never really found a problem with encounter levels. But you have to remember, in the older adventures, it was given that some encounters were going to be pushovers, and some were going to be encounters that the players should avoid or flee - knowing when to hold'em, and knowing when to run was just part of character survival.


It is.


I did this conversion a while ago, and stored the data on a spreadsheet. I don't think I can attach a file, or I would.

Anyway:

You don’t need to do much conversion. I just plugged Pathfinder stats for the existing monsters. So where the module says "4 ogres" just use ogres. The encounters have some diplomacy, but mostly are combat. There are very few traps. The encounter levels are pretty consistent in the modules. The modules are about as old school as you can get, so you may want to rework treasure.

Also, there are a lot of detailed areas in these dungeons; players were not expected to explore everything (although many try).

Levels:
Darkness over Sterich This lead in scenario is not necessary, but can be played out. There's only a few encounters, and they over around CR 6 - 7 on the average.

Steading of the Hill Giant Chief Most encounters are CR 6 to 10. Encounters above those levels are something the PC's should avoid. A party of 4 - 8th level characters on a 15 or 20 point build will handle this fine (if they are intelligent). I estimate the party will earn about 300,000 XP (total) in the scenario (about 500,000 is possible, if they do everything right). Expect the characters to gain 2 levels on slow or medium advancement rate.

Rift of the Frost Giant Most encounters are CR 11 to 13. There are a lot of CR 13 encounters, but very little higher than that. Again, there are a lot of encounters (about 48). You probably want a party of 11th or 12th level characters. I estimate the party will earn around 500,000 XP (total) (about 800,000 are possible). Again, expect characters to gain 2 about 2 levels. Possession of fire, heat, or anti-giant weapons could make this too easy, but it's a way to buff up a party that is otherwise too low of level.

Hall of the Fire Giant The encounters in this one are all over the place. Most are CR12, with a normal range of 10 to 13, but a substantial number of CR 16 encounters. After the more consistent Frost Giant adventure, players will find this one easier most of the time. Just the result of changes in the system. However, there are a lot of encounters – you can keep the danger level up by not giving them opportunities to rest and recover very often. I estimate the party will earn about 1,250,000 XP, out of a possible ~2,000,000 XP. Again, enough to raise them 2 levels on a medium or slow advancement rate.

Will your party be moving on to the Vault of the Drow?


Keldarth wrote:

Recently, I convinced my gaming buddies (currently very focused on Pathfinder and used to quite high stats as more or less the norm) to try Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG. As most of you probably know, it is an old school-style that tries to emulate pre-D&D fantasy literature. In essence, it is a retroclone full of twists and cool mechanics. We rolled a bunch of 0-level characters (3 per player) with no class, only a commoner-style randomly-generated occupation, and stats rolled with the old merciless "3d6 in order". I thought that, used to characters with superhero stats, a developed background and the marks of heroism already at 1st level, they would hate DCC and their bunch of 0-level commoners. Quite the contrary! We had a blast rolling them and watching them unfold one roll at a time! Despite my advice to not get too attached to them, they began making plans for them and guessing which class would the survivors take when graduating to 1st level!!!

Next session, our horde of 18 commoners will face "the Funnel" and we'll see which of them have the luck, skill and guts to become a real adventurer! My players are eager...

DCC!

DCC!

I've got my group playing Dungeon Crawl Classics on 'off' days, and like your group the loved the funnel (16 commoners went in: 6 adventurers came out). They're having a great time building up their characters - lousy stats and all.

Highly recommended; for a change of pace if nothing else.


On the original post:

Quit the group while you can. It's going to go into toxic breakdown, and people who didn't want to have any part of it will be blamed.


I've seen this happen (it just happened to me when I set up a "Ravenloft" game).

I think what happens is the players all think something like: "Oh, everyone else in the game will be playing a standard western-type character. I want to create something different from everyone else."

The chargen session, suggested by Pan, may be your best way to manage this. But it really doesn't work if the players are trying to assert their control of your game.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Player Says (whines): "I'm just playing my character!"
Player Means: "I'm being a jerk. I know it. You know it. Everyone else at the table knows it. Now I'm trying to pass it off as role-playing in hopes that will force all of you to let me be a jerk.

Player Says (before GM explains campaign): "I have this great idea for a character."
Player Means: "I'm going to totally ignore your campaign concept, setting, and plot, as well as all of the other players, to bring in this character that I've dreamed up who may or may not belong with any of the above. Then I'm going to whine or throw a fit when you don't change your game to fit my character idea."

Player Says: "I try to play character concepts."
Player Means: "I haven't read the rules and don't want to."

Player Says: "I've worked out a great [race/class] build!"
Player Means: I think I found a loophole in the rules that allows me to be a god."

Player Says: "My last GM let me do/have/play "X""
Player Means: "I dreamed up this game-breaker and nobody has been stupid enough to let me play it yet."


We use roll, then if rolled total is less than 78(which is will be, 95+% of the time), the character gets the difference in points to add, distributed as evenly as possible: So if you rolled 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, you would get 15 points to distribute; +3 on 3 of the attributes, and +2 on the other three.

If you rolled over 78, well, you got lucky.

All die rolls are on the table, in front of GM and fellow players.


Before GM outlines game concept:

Player says: I have this great character concept with really cool backstory.
Player means: I'm going to ignore your campaign concept, setting, and the other PC's by creating something that may (or may not) fit in with whatever is supposed to happen in this game.

Player says (whines): I'm just playing my character!!!
Player means: I'm being a jerk, I know it, you know it, everyone else at the table knows it. But I want all of you to let me get away with it because I'm role-playing.


+1 on the Goodman Modules.

I'm having good luck with Wizard's pdf's on DriveThruRPG: Running "Expedition to Castle Ravenloft" - an excellent update of the classic adventure. Good storyline - good NPC's.

Also check out Necromancer Game's modules. "Lost City of Barakus" gives you a good setting, and a level 1-5 mini-campaign for 3.x, Pathfinder, or Swords & Wizardry.


+1 on the bard. Failing that, sorcerer. Although Xen is right, the Harrower is a perfect role-playing and thematic character.

Carrion Crown is speed-heavy (your characters often, literally, race from adventure to adventure) and treasure-light. Without too many spoilers, a wizard does not have many opporunities to add additional spells to his spellbook; and this negates the biggest advantage the wizard has over the sorcerer.

I'd probably go with a Celestial bloodline, as the campaign path theme is fighting undead. Concentrate on buffing spells, and attack spells that will damage undead - forget the enchantments and illusions.

On the other hand, bardic knowledge, and the fact that a bard can do some healing, could make a real difference. We've found that knowledge makes world of difference when getting ready to fight some of our opponenents.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
j b 200 wrote:
You can also add things like holes in the coin or less precious metal inserts.

Bimetallic coins may not be practical at Golarion technology. Other than special purpose commemorative medallions, they first appeared in the 17th century here on Earth. Even milled edges are relatively new (16th century). (In fact, Isaac Newton is generally considered to have introduced them to English currency.)

Uh - no.

The first official coins, Croseus's Lydian coins, were electrum: an alloy of gold and silver.


Ah!

"I listen at the door. What do I hear?"

"The sound of a quarter-inch drill going into your ear. Bzzzzzzzz!"


Graeme Lewis wrote:
No, no, if you start at the stomach you'll only get to his spinal cord. The way to a man's heart is through his ribcage.

Ribs are pretty effective armor for the heart. You really are better off stabbing up through the stomach.


The Crusader wrote:


Be super-wary of this! Some people have a "There's only one right way to play a Paladin" attitude... and this is a sign of that type of thinking. If that's your DM's attitude, or his "supervisor's" (what is that, by the way?), then you won't be playing your character... you'll be playing his. And the minute you stop doing it "the one right way" he'll start looking for ways to punish you...

I'm not saying that's the case here, but it's symptomatic.

+1

Heck, +5 and Vorpal!


What makes one tribe good and the other evil?

Addressing questions:
1) Civilizations usually fight over resources. Same with tribes. Maybe the land is only big enough for one of them. Or maybe one tribe was pushed into the land by a third, larger, tribe, just over the horizon.

2) It takes time to wipe out a people - even for a dragon. How long have the silver dragons been gone? If the "good tribe" is laying low in wetlands or a rainy forest (which can be hard to search, and harder to burn out), it could take a dragon years to hunt them down. What generally happened in the real world is the men of the warrior class would be killed off and the tribe would be declared "destroyed" and everyone else (about 99% of the people) would accept a new set of overlords and get on with their lives. Possibly, the dragon and the "evil tribe" don't want to simply burn the land to ash - after all that would wipe out the food supply, and the "evil tribe" needs that land, due to a population boom.

3) The silver dragons are dead. However, by talking to the good tribe's oracle (after the first fight or two), the oracle reveals that the silvers had once told him that they had a mentor. In their glacial mountaintop cave - which has been taken over by frost giants and white dragons (dungeon crawl) - is the information the players will need to go and find the ancient gold dragon who was the silver dragon's mentor. This gold is difficult to reach (another plane of existance, perhaps, but requiring a quest to find). The gold cannot come himself, but is willing to rally a number of younger good dragons (each with CR's about equal to the PC's level) to act as mounts and companions for the party during the grand conclusion fight.


My wife plays a Ranger/Paladin of Erastil. She never scolds anybody - she guides by example (and sighs alot...).
Actually, is sounds like your party might need a rogue, rather than another combatant. How will your group deal with locks and traps?

Other than that, your build sounds fine. Power Attack is a good choice. So is weapon focus. We rarely fight groups of small critters in our game, so Combat Reflexes is not something we use much.


Before you play a paladin, talk with the GM and other players: confirm that they will be okay with a paladin in the party. Find out your GM's attitude towards paladins. Some like the class. Some take it as a point of pride to make you fall as fast as possible.

No class brings out jerk arguments faster than "paladin".

If the GM and other players do not accept the idea ofa paladin with good grace, then play a fighter or a cleric.


+1 on Savage Worlds. If you need a setting: check out Hellfrost (Triple Ace Games) for a High Fantasy with a twist, or Beasts and Barbarians (GRAemel) for a Conan-esq swords and sorcery setting.

Swords and Wizardry d20'd tribute to original D&D: They kept the rules the same, but streamlined and simplified them. It's a really good system for adventuring.

Likewise, Castles and Crusades (Troll Lord Games) is a simplified take on the D20 system. I've only played it a little but it plays well.

My group is playing a lot of Dungeon Crawl Classics (Goodman Games) lately. Like S&W and C&C, DCC takes the idea that D20 games have gotten too complicated. It plays fast and well.

Remember, when you are talking about a simpler game, you are talking about a game that leaves out rules and leaves it up to the GM to adjudacate a lot of situations. This can make it harder on the GM and players when in play. Also, a "simpler system" means there are less customization tricks for PC's, so unless your players are decent role players and storytellers, all of the characters of a given class will tend to look alike. (I should mention that Castles and Crusades has a good game mechanic for dealing with this.)


Claxon wrote:
Tormsskull wrote:

I don't do point-buy, but the general consensus I've noticed is the less the PB, the more unbalanced things will be in favor of full casters.

If I was considering PB, I'd probably do 20 points and set a limit of 16 pre-racial.

This is a solid way to handle it. Personally I've taken to given an array score that is quite generous, which is 16/16/15/14,13/11. I still allow the option to do 20 point buy, but it really penalizes people who absolutely demand a single high attribute (wizards/sorcerers) while giving rogues/monks a lot more points to do what they need to effectively. It basically ensures that highest score anyone starts with is an 18, unless you're really willing to miss out on being well rounded. For anyone that isn't an offensive full caster the benefit of being well rounded usually tops starting with a 20 in a stat.

A 36-point build? That is pretty generous. But on the other hand, it's great for characters meant to be heroic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In our game, once the characters had good cooking skill, we simply described the food, and left it to the player's imaginations. That worked pretty well.

Player 1: Don Miguel serves up dinner: spiced quail stuffed with olives, a flavored rice pilaf, and escalivada on the side.
Player 2: Hmm - have I got time to mix up some Sangria to go with all this?
Player 3: Now I'm hungry!


Of course, to be fair about all this.

When I'm running Pathfinder in Golarion, I use 50 coins/lb., and tell the players that a copper piece is roughly $.5, a silver piece $5, a gold piece $50, and a platinum piece $500.

While I like using historic settings, with appropriate details, it's often more trouble than it's worth.


Lucio wrote:

Why not pick up something from this section?

They're all a reasonable size and weight for what they represent and not earth-shatteringly expensive unless you're looking to model a dragon's horde.

Oh yeah -

You can buy the campaign coins through Paizo.


Relative value scale from medieval or renaissance:

Values are hard to estimate, due to the fact that values of the base metal varied over time and location. We're talking about a thousand years of history here! So, we'll oversimplify.

The roman denarius was a 'standard value'. It was initially 4.5 grams of nearly purse silver (~100 lb). It became the English silver penny (which varied in size, but by the medieval period you could say ~1.7 grams ~260/lb), as well as the Byzantine Miliaresion, and Arabic Dirham (both of which were about 3 grams ~150/lb). Although these medieval prices really don't correspond to modern prices, you could say that one of any these coins was worth about U.S.$20 to $30 in buying power.

Note that there was just more silver and gold in the east than the west.

A gold piece - English shilling, French sou, Roman (and Byzantine) solidus, and Arabic Dinar, was worth 20 silver. So, about $500 to $600. It was a slightly heavier coin - about 2 grams in the west (~200+ per lb), and about 4.3 grams in the east (~110/lb.).

Copper coins did not really exist. A simplified historic ratio of the value of copper to silver is 100 copper = 1 silver. Romans (and Byzantines produced coins that were described as "bronze" but were actually copper with a small amount of silver added. 25 Byzantine Follis made up a miliaresion. This gives a follis a buying value of about ~$1. The follis ranged in size, but ~9 grams is reasonable for the 9th century.

In fact, this tendency to alloy makes game coinage possible. Instead of being pure copper, silver, or gold, you have alloy coins.

Platinum coinage simply did not exist. Platinum is a very hard to work metal, and platinum-working capability did not come into existance until after the medieval period. In fact, Spanish Conquistadores abandoned two gold mines in Central America because of their high platinum content! I hate to say “we use magic” because that puts so much reliance on magic as technology.

So in game terms:
Coin value Size
Copper ~ $0.25 150/lb.
Alloy (Cu/Ag) ~ $2.5 150/lb.
Silver ~ $25 150/lb.
Gold ~$250 200/lb.
Platinum?

Here's the website where I got my primary information: http://www.luminarium.org/medlit/medprice.htm

Also check out:
http://web.mit.edu/21h.416/www/


Absolutely yes.


Check out a Byzantine Follis. You should be able to find one at a decent coin collector shop. Get one from the early Macedonian dynasty. They run anywhere from $60 to a couple of hundred.

The follis was a "bronze" coin. Actually, copper with a tiny amount of silver (romans called almost any alloy "bronze"). It massed about 10 grams (this of course changed over time). This is the only real "copper piece" I've found in regular medieval circulation. Okay, it's bronze. There were 25 follis to miliaresion (a silver coin, comparable buying power to an english silver penny), or 500 follis to a gold solidus (comparable to an english gold shilling).

An easier and cheaper way to get coins of the right size is a good fantasy coin company. These guys: fantasycoinhq.3dcartstores.com make coins that are about 10 grams each. They're inexpensive too. Campaigncoins.com sells coins that are smaller, but has a good variety.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
icehawk333 wrote:

I play to win.

That's prettymuch all there is to it.

Winning in a Role-Playing Game = Invited to play with that group again.

Unconditional Winning = Having the group hunt you down to say: "We want to start a new game and hope you will join us."


Draco18s wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:
Generally, a PC crafter doesn't make a profit making magic items: crafting an item costs half its market price, and PCs sell items for half their market price, because they're adventurers, not shopkeepers.
Crafting feats. An artificer can get costs down to about 1/6th market price, IIRC.

But somebody still has to want to buy the item in question.

I can't picture dragons buying many. And for adventurers to buy them, they have to (a) not be able to make items themselves, and (b) there as to be a relatively large number of successful adventurers.

Oddly, I think the number one buyers of magic items would be crime lords; they have money, and they're going to need special equipment to fight, detect, and pass detection. Which makes that artificer an accessory to a drug- or slave- smuggling ring.


Keep in mind the issue is not just arable land, but it's how much land one person can work. You're right about druids - or fertility cults - or other magic that could boost crop yields. The real question is how much should civilization be dependent on druids to be fed? That give the druids a lot of political power.

Also, it is easy to remember the magic that boosts food and crop yields, but don't forget the counterbalancing magic that damages them - farmers in the middle ages didn't need to worry about giant ooze eating their crops and livestock. Magic cuts both ways - a culture that has easy access to healing spells will be more inclined to solve problems with violence.


Well, MissGrey did say she was going to have more "magic and D&D Elements". I have the Conan D20 game. It's a well done D20 variant.

One easy way to limit magic - without outright banning casters - is to change the time it takes to cast a spell. This is what TSR did with their Historical Reference D&D books (a great line of books). Multiply the casting time by 10 for all spells. Direct combat spells become almost useless, but buffs and information gathering spells remain relatively useful - IF the players plan and strategize well.


Wiggz wrote:


Something to consider, something done in the game that I sat in on several occasions but did not actually play (the one with no full casters as an option) was that, to compensate for the lesser amount of healing available, the GM simply maxed HD for the PC's, meaning that each character had the maximum hit points possible for their class. He also had armor provide DR - light armor granted DR 1/-, medium armor granted DR 2/- and heavy armor granted DR 3/-. One of the benefits of those changes in a game that features so many martials (and therefor less limited use-dependent characters) was that he could keep the action going and going...

He also made a concerted effort to make skills as useful and even as necessary as possible. When you can't fly/breathe water then climb and swim suddenly become quite important, but only if your GM makes allowances for them. With that understanding, definitely boost skills, at least for the 2 rank classes like Fighters. Every character gets a minimum of 4+INT skill ranks per level and INT penalties don't reduce that number.

So, in summary:

No full casters as PC's.
Max out hit points and add DR to armor in order to account for reduced healing options.
Boost minimum skill ranks to 4+INT.

Sounds like a campaign I'd love to be part of.

I like these suggestions. The armor suggestion allows you to brush off minor attacks; the additional skill points would help characters have the skills they'll need when there's not a lot of magic going around.


Medieval farming could support about 200 people per square mile of farmland. France had a population of ~100 people per square mile. Germany about 80. England about 40.
This doesn't change much until improvements in farm machinery in the late 18th/early 19th century.

I put NPC's on the "slow advancement" track, and award them ~1,000 XP per year (proportional to race aging rate). So:
18-20 = 1st level
21-25 = 2nd level
26-31 = 3rd level

and so on. Individuals can be [u]+[/u]3 levels, based on life experience. This is larely a rule of thumb, but it does mean that Sergeant Eckstern of the city guard, with 20 years on the force, is probably 4th level warrior.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I looked it up. Today, gold is selling for ~$40 (US) per gram. So at an approximate value of 1 GP = $100, that would be a 2.5 gram coin. That's the size of a modern US penny. If you're buying the "Campaign Coins", a "1" value coin is about about that size. An old english silver penny or gold shilling was, I believe about 1.7 grams. So if you accept the 1 GP = $100, you can set the size of your coins at ~2.5 grams (180 per lb, instead of 50), and the value of gold matches the real world.

As for the value of gold pieces: For an investment of 19,640 gp (~$2 million) I can build a palace. This sounds about right. OR I could found a chain of taverns, generating useful income OR I can buy a Trident of Fish Command.

So, I want to know: When the party wizard decides to get rich(er) making magic items. Who is buying them?


The Xoth adventures are good. The same author (Wm. John Wheeler, xoth.net) converted three classic D&D modules to the Conan D20 RPG. They are available on his website (free, last I checked) and can be converted to Pathfinder with minimum effort. Dave Cook did three adventures for Basic D&D, that are widely considered good models for Swords and Sorcery adventures: X4: Master of the Desert Nomads, X5: Temple of Death, and X10: Red Arrow/Black Shield. It would be a bit more work to convert these, but it might pay off. I'm also fond of the Serpent's Skull adventure path, which contains many appropriate elements.

I assume you have read the original stories? If not, I suggest The Devil in Iron and The Jewels of Gwahlure; both can easily be converted into an RPG adventure.

The hallmarks of a Conanesque sword-and-sorcery game include:
1) Violence is normal.
2) Civilization is weak.
3) There is cosmic evil, but "good" is only found on a personal level.
4) Monsters are something to fear, not to chase for XP. Have your "Big Bads" only defeatable if the players can obtain some special item during the adventure (NOT something they can stockpile).
5) Incorporate an element of horror in the story.
6) Action, action action! Keep the pace moving.

Drop the players into the middle of things. In a normal game, if you want the players to explore a lost city in the middle of the desest, you give them a map to the city. In a swords and sorcery style game, they start stranded in the desert without food and water. But look, on the horizon! That looks like a city!

Encourage players to do dramatic things - again, bonus XP are one way.

I'd suggest giving players a 25-point build, but then tell them at the outset that "suggested weath by level" magic and money is just not going to happen. Encourage them to waste their money - maybe give then bonus XP for loosing their cash. Conan-esque heroes live for the day, not for long-range planning. You'll have to balance encounters carefully to allow for the lower level equipment.

You've already stated "with more magic and D&D elements", so I won't advocate cutting back on magic items or restricting classes or races. But you'll need to find ways to inspire fear and horror;

Unless, of course, what your players really want is a testosterone-soaked romp through piles of bodies as they defeat hapless opponents - I think you can figure out what to do in that case.


There's ususally some lag in the posts. (I was a member a year or so ago, but haven't done anything with them lately).

Send an email to the monitor, and he'll set you up.

Some of the boards are more active than others.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matt Thomason wrote:


I'd advise anyone running into this issue (for those for whom it is an issue) to go with the alternative system the AP's mention - just decide what point in the overall plot the party will level up, and lose XP altogether.

This is what my GM does in the adventure path in which I'm currently playing: She just levels us up at the appropriate times. It works, and we focus more on playing our characters, and less on getting every possible XP out of the encounters.


Bard. No doubt about it. Go heavy on the knowledge and social skills.


Straight cleric is fine. You might buy Bastard Sword proficiency, fight with your sword and heavy shield. Get every magic plus you can on your armor and shield, plus ring of protection and amulet of natural armor. Buy weapon focus if you really feel like you needed.

We have one of these in our party, and he's our party tank.


Play a straight human core-class character. Give the character a fun and likeable personality, and an interesting backstory. Break the stereotype of the character class, but retain the abilities that the class needs to be. Be someone whom other player-characters say 'we like having him (her) in our party.


Mr. Gygax created the original Tomb of Horrors as an extreme player challenge - in an original article, he talked about getting sick of players coming up to him at cons and bragging about their "invincible" characters. The dungeon is designed to kill characters. Players can beat it, by thinking originally, by using their environment and by out-puzzling the GM. The 2E expansion is just as deadly.

That's not much help. I think I'd talk to the players, let them know that you're ready to run the adventure, and let them know in advance there were going to be "no saving roll" situations. A lot of them. Give them the chance to say whether or not they want to risk their hard-earned characters in one of the deadliest dungeons of all time: With the understanding that there will be no whining if they die. And give them the option to say "No, we'd rather not."

A second thought: "back in the day" (pre 2e) large parties with multiple henchmen were the norm. Have each player play two characters; One should be the 13-16 recommended by the module, the other maybe 9 - 12. That way you have some red shirts to kill off, and when a player's character gets killed, they have a backup to play.

But here's the other side of it: It's okay to be a bit of a softie in a dungeon like this, as long as your players don't realize you're doing it. You want the players convinced that you will do the happy dance every time one of their characters dies. Go ahead and give them saves where the original did not; but act like you begrudge every saving throw. Convince them that TPK is your goal. Then, if/when they beat the module they'll be bragging and cheering. That's what you want as a GM: If that means they're convinced they put one over on you - great! Nobody feels they have bragging rights if the GM appears to be on the player's side.


There is nothing in the Space 1889 setting that even remotely resembles a psychic nymph.

The game is about as hard science as it is possible to be while retaining a steampunk setting.

There aren't any psychic powers either.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dreaming Psion wrote:
What I'm getting at is that you might consider a system and game setup with a social/political combat system that approaches a physical combat system with winners and losers fighting against each...

+1 to that!

It sounds like your first issue is the players - most of them like combat.

The second issue is the game system.

The game system does matter: Pathfinder (and all of the D&D variants before it) use Encounter-Based Experience. In other words, you have to encounter monsters, or traps, or experience-awarding situations, to advance. The more you encounter, the more you advance. Consequently, adventure paths (just to pick on an easy target) are full of encounters that don't matter to the story, but are simply there to improve your characters. The expectation in the game becomes: The more you kill, the better you get.

Many other games use Plot-Based Experience. The experience is awarded for finishing or advancing, a storyline. In game using plot-based experience, players will often avoid combat, because they get nothing extra out of it except murderhobo jollies, and a chance to die. The problem is that players who are used to encounter-based experience often have a hard time transitioning to plot-based. They feel that 'something is missing'. Plot based games require more work on the part of the GM, and more intellectual work on the part of the players.

The third issue is group participation.

Combat is one of the few things in a game that all of the players can participate in at once. Most other situations involve one or two players doing everything, and the rest waiting for their character's particular skill-set to come up.

Not knowing your group, I really can't say how they'd feel about Call of Cthulhu, but I've used it in the past to break players of the D&D "kill the monster-take the treasure" mindset. It's all about getting the players in the right frame of mind to enjoy it.


Check out rules systems on rpg.drivethrustuff.com.

I haven't played "Darwin's World" but I've used Savage Worlds (Pinncle Entertainment) extensively for several campaigns (pirates, Cthulhu horror, fantasy, western, and science fiction). For my money, it's the best multi-genre game out there. There is a free Gamma World conversion to Savage Worlds out on the internet. The system is pretty simple, but lends itself well to character customization. There are a lot of modules and game settings written for the system, making it easy to get into.

For old-school dungeon crawling: Check out Dungeon Crawl Classics by Goodman Games. Use the character funnel to prevent min-maxing. There are quite a few good published modules, if you don't like creating your own. Similar adventures to Pathfinder, but very different attitude.

Legend (Mongoose Publishing) is available for $1 from Drivethrustuff, and is a solid system. It has been updated into the (much more expensive) RuneQuest 6th edition. Both games are supported with a number of published adventures and worldbooks; and modules and materials are easy to convert between them.

Those are my top three.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't have "always evil" races.
That is simple racism.
I do have racial cultural groups who are out to kill you, just because you are a human, or an elf, or whatever. Those groups are very racist. Such a group may dominate it's kingdom.
But just "evil" by definition? Nah.

1 to 50 of 223 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 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.