|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I said it before in one of the D&D movie threads: I think an actual serious high-fantasy D&D series could work. Animated or even live-action, though the live one would be more expensive and much riskier - potentially higher returns though.
Run it like a campaign, with season long main plot arcs, but mostly self-contained adventures for the episodes. Start with low-level, grittier stuff, with hints at the high level craziness going on in the background, then ramp up the power levels as you go through the seasons leading into the serious world-beating threat for the final season.
All depends on the writers and the show runner. As will as the (voice) actors. And the studios to not make them do stupid things.
While it used a lot of things from D&D it wasn't at all like any D&D game I've ever seen. Kids from the real world given uber magic items that let them do sort of class related things but not actually be those classes. An actual "Dungeon Master" character. No actual killing anything violence (understandable for a cartoon of the time, but not like any D&D I've ever seen.)
I've got a nostalgic soft spot for that series, though I haven't seen it since it aired, but even back then I knew it was, at best, "inspired by" D&D.
It is still always a problem with the players - that doesn't mean that they are bad players or problem players, just that every player probably has som concepts/ideas he can't bring to life or he (sometimes involuntarily) brings to life in a way that is disruptive (or even destructive) to the game. That doesn't mean that either the concept or the player are a problem, just don't bring them together.
Still, there are some that are more likely to cause problems with a broader variety of players. And some that you can expect almost anyone to handle without problems.Some of these tropes really are just harder to pull off without being disruptive. Doesn't mean they'll always be a problem. Doesn't mean a player who uses one and is disruptive is always going to be a problem.
Just that it's worth being wary with them.
Aaron Bitman wrote:
Some science fiction purists have claimed that his books aren't true science fiction, but I strongly disagree. I'm referring to Michael Crichton. I particularly liked two of his novels: The Andromeda Strain and Jurassic Park. If we ever contact extraterrestrials in real life, and it happened in accordance with a science fiction story, I think that story might be The Andromeda Strain. And Jurassic Park made clever use of chaos theory, as well as the more obvious subjects such as paleontology and genetics.
They don't feel like science fiction to me. Technically, I think they're mostly Techno-thrillers - action stories with a sf backdrop.
My problem with them is that the neat SF idea draws me in, but then it's just used as an excuse for the plot and never explored in the way the kind of sf I prefer would handle it. The defining example for me was Congo, which drew me in with its Lost African City and hidden species of apparently intelligent gorillas, but really just used them as an obstacle for getting the diamonds. Even old H. Rider Haggard or Burroughs novels got you more on the culture and history of their Lost cities and mysterious races.
And it's been a long time since I read Jurassic Park, but I recall thinking the chaos theory stuff was really hand-wavy and had little to do with actual chaos theory.
Lots of people like his stuff and it's definitely at least on the edges of science fiction, which has an awful lot of subgenres, not all of which everyone's going to be fond of.
Don't worry. You're in good company.
For the last several pages it's been more about lashing out at those not willing to use each and every option in every book and some of us trying to argue that you're not actually a bad GM if you impose some limits.
Whereas we tend to play with one campaign per world. The world being designed for the game in question. Usually some of its unique features playing directly into the main plot arc - whether that's actually mechanical limitations like which races or even classes are available or just the political setup.
We've been doing this essentially, with various GMs and different groups since AD&D in the late 80s. Games before that were a lot sillier. The same basically holds for non-D&D games, even when the game assumes a defined world, like Shadowrun or World of Darkness or Amber, we rarely linked back to any previous continuity. A couple of times in Call of Cthulhu, there were cameos by previous characters.
Well, Golarion is, since it's Paizo's only setting. And Forgotten Realms is, since it's the generic D&D setting, but D&D also has some much less generic settings. Eberron & Dark Sun don't have all the same races or have seriously altered versions of them.
I'd also say that even in Golarion, while you can play a Clint Eastwood Man with No Name type from Alkenstar who ends up adventuring alongside an Inuyasha type party in Tian Xia, individual GMs don't have to support that, even if they're running a Golarion game. That's why guns are linked to Alkenstar and not widespread. That's why Tian Xia is on the other side of the world, without close contact with the Inner Sea. Golarion was deliberately designed to have everything available, but segregated enough it would be easy to exclude the bits you don't want.
That's all sort of tangential to your actual question, I freely admit. :)
Redbeard the Scruffy wrote:
That I'd agree with.It's also only a default implication in all of these discussions that all the players are at best tolerant of the restrictions, even when we're speaking specifically of one player who's having a conflict over his build.
Which in my experience isn't true. The few times I've actually seen this come up in a group, it's been one player with an odd character and everyone else happy with something that doesn't cause conflict and is just waiting to play.
If most people aren't into what the GM suggested, complete with the restrictions, we play something else. Maybe with a different GM. Maybe with the same GM, but a less quirky concept.
Redbeard the Scruffy wrote:
You're not the only one playing. What everyone finds fun matters, not just the GM. If people cannot appreciate that fact, they should not GM.
And if I find it fun as a player, should that always be trumped by any other player who wants to ignore it?
What if I find the obscure lore fun?
Redbeard the Scruffy wrote:
Fair enough, Jeff...but if you (again, not you specifically, but second person phrasing) want simplicity, you probably shouldn't be playing Pathfinder in the first place.
In some ways, I agree. I generally do prefer more rules-light systems.
OTOH, I've got a nostalgic fondness for a lot of the D&D tropes and I'm fairly happy with the basic PF system. I can work with Core and the first couple of layers of expansion without too much trouble. I just have no interest in chasing the constant increase in material.
Redbeard the Scruffy wrote:
Honestly, I doubt the "Core Only No Matter What" type is doing it for flavor reasons. Maybe he gets overwhelmed by too many choices. I kind of have a preference for a simpler set of options, though I'd usually go beyond Core only. PF has gotten past the point where I even know what the scope really is, not just with classes, but new feats or items that open up things that just didn't use to work.
There's a big difference between that and actually aiming for a certain thing for a particular campaign. If I was looking for players and only told them "Pathfinder", then I'd be pretty much open for any options at least mechanically. Then we could start with those characters and go pretty much anywhere, developing from that starting point, but most likely, since there was no initial direction, it's going to be a fairly straightforward "f!!% it, let's go adventuring" game, at least to start with.
None of this falls into "Is it possible to bend the things so your build technically doesn't violate the rules I laid down?" Cause that's not the point. It's about "Are we aiming for the same goal?"
captain yesterday wrote:
Seems like a lot of negotiations, when you can say "f+~& it, let's just go adventuring"
Some of the best games I've played in have been intentionally limited, quirky settings with strong reasons tying each of the characters into the campaign. They involved a lot of upfront planning and negotiation and it was all worth it.
You can have a lot of fun with the "Nobody cares who you are, let's just go adventuring" approach. No denying it. Sometimes you can get a bit farther with some work.
Honestly, ninjas and samurai are usually the go to examples for this, particularly ninja, since they usually work better than the rogue.
As I said above, if I don't already have a mechanism for how magic works, that justification would be fine, but in that case so would "I'm a witch".
Redbeard the Scruffy wrote:
Really? You can't call them non-vancian reusable spells?
I could call them anything I wanted. They just don't work like any other spells. Or like anything the other wizards can do. Apparently you get them by polymorphing your spell book into an animal - accidentally. Before 1st level.
If I don't care about having consistent magic and don't have an idea how it works already, then I'd be happy to handwave it. But in that case, I wouldn't have set the world up the way I did and we wouldn't be worrying about it.
I'll give my standard response here: "Looks to me like you're suggesting a character who doesn't fit the campaign we were talking about. Did you misunderstand something or am I missing something about the concept?" Then, assuming it's not just a misunderstanding, "Well, sell me on it. What makes this character work for the game, despite first appearances?"
Milo v3 wrote:
Nor are hexes just a reflavoring of anything wizardly. They're an entirely different mechanism.
To be honest, as a GM I'm wary of players wedded to specific mechanics, but willing to reflavor any way suggested. Makes me worry they're thinking strictly in those mechanical terms and don't care about the rest of the game.
Redbeard the Scruffy wrote:
Depends.Possibly you can. Possibly I object to the mechanics and find the witch's hexes and patrons don't fit into how I've long established wizards work in the world.
This question also has a flip side that has always bothered me in such cases: It's always assumed the player is only interested in the class mechanics and will be happy to completely change the flavor to whatever the GM allows. Perhaps not so obvious in the witch/wizard case, but with the ninja example, maybe the player actually wants the stereotypical black pajama clad, secret clan kind of ninja, but doesn't care about the mechanics as much and it's that stereotype that doesn't fit the setting?
Personally, in most cases, I'm more likely to shoot down concepts for flavor than to flat out ban mechanics. So up front lists of what's not allowed don't really work.
Though there's still an awful lot of weirdness in having all jobs pay equally, based strictly on the skill roll of the person doing them.A Profession(ditch-digger) earns just as much with a check of 15 as a Profession(lawyer) does. Craft(ladder) makes you as much as Craft(jewelry). You can hand-wave it by assigning higher skills to the more prestigious jobs, but it's still handwaving.
Though there's no evidence the Grimm aren't just as happy destroying Faunus as humans. Barring complete "Burn it all" madness on Adam's part, the White Fang has to have more of a plan than that.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
For much of history "capital" wasn't really a thing, but that's another debate.
Yeah, "run a brewery for adventure potential and roleplaying purposes" is the way to go.
Even before you get into those weirdnesses, it's the fixed prices for everything that are based on strict multiples of the raw material cost and don't vary with Supply and Demand.
It's an adventure game, not a world simulator. If you want to be an adventurer who runs a business in your downtime, you can make that work. Just expect it to be handwavy.
I disagree. I've had players who are fine as long as they stay away from these types of characters, but once they stray into these common tropes, the trope takes over.
Let's say that, like a lot of things, they're harder to do well. They can be fine, given the right approach and the right player, but they can also be a trap leading even decent players into trouble.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
It's also a term the young kids these days use when they want to bash the old grognards and the dumb ways they played those primitive games, which couldn't possibly be as good as today's shiny new ones.
Which is of course an odd argument to find on a Pathfinder site, since that's running on a 15 year old chassis and even D&D has had two major new evolutions since then which means it must be much better now.
Not really in that sense. It's not really a matter of gaming the system. It's more fundamental than that.The problem really lies in the basic mechanic. Skill+d6-d6* <> Skill. The range of the roll is tight enough that your chances drop off drastically as the difference in skill goes up. A 2 point difference in skill is workable if you've got other advantages, though you've got less than a 1 in 3 chance of success. A 3 point difference is 1 in 6 - which is fine if it's mooks attacking heroes.
The combat skill range for starting characters is 12-16. Most are within 13-15 and that mostly works. If the PCs don't keep themselves within that narrow range it gets really hard to balance fights - Anything that's a threat to the top end hits the weaker ones at will and can't be hurt by them.
Some of the archetypes also get secondary abilities a couple points down from their main skill. They may be cool, but that's essentially useless.
Mind you, I love the idea of the basic combat mechanic. One roll for hit & damage. No need for criticals or other hacks, rolling well to hit means you do more damage. Brilliantly elegant in theory. Works well within that limited range.
This is all with First Edition. I haven't seen the second one and don't know what they've changed.
*Open ended rolls- reroll 6s, but that doesn't really affect the basic probablity much
I'm not familiar with those, but I was always fond of Feng Shui's Shot system. You basically rolled initiative and counted down as normal, but when you did something it had a Shot Cost and you deducted that from your initiative to see when you'd act again. Movement only cost 1, most attacks were 3, etc. So it handled both initiative, different action types and multiple attacks all in one.Faster characters not only went first, but got more actions.
A lot of cleverness in that system, broken though it was.
Nikolas of Green and Crimson wrote:
Viscount K wrote:
In the right Shadow, anything is possible. Clearly, wherever Nikolas was, there was far less gravity and mass to contend with.
Good. I'm happy with either or both of those approaches.
Didn't think my expectations were that far off.
Alric of the Purple Nacre wrote:
Not as far as I know. At least not in canon. Magic items & tech things tend to work that way, with some exceptions.
Though I've seen it as an approach to combining "Gerard is the strongest" with visits to superhero worlds and the like. If he visits the Marvel Universe, he can beat up the Hulk, but elsewhere he can't do Hulk like things.
Or vice versa.You can plan less. Provides a bit of the chaos of war factor.
It is kind of a pain and slows things down. There's a trade off.
The 1st edition init rule had a neat option... Each character had an initiative, rolled ONCE. Talk about a roll you don't want to roll badly.
That I don't remember. But I don't think I ever understood 1E initiative and I'm damn sure we never played using it correctly.
But, while you could go back to the previous locations, the AP is structured so there's no reason to, and in at least one case, good reason not to.Makes it the traditional "vagabond AP where you wander from one sight to another to another with no room for settling down from time to time and build relationships." The difference would be building in reasons to return to a base or to the sites from the previous volumes to keep building on connections to the NPCs there.
The gates or the Hut would just be a mechanism to allow that.
Have you actually figured out RAW 2E initiative?
I remember looking at it awhile back and it neither made sense nor was what I remembered.
My only fear I have with a distant Worlds AP is the constant travel which leads to very little by way of close NPC relationships. It may be some folks cup of tea but I really hate the vagabond APs where you wander from one sight to another to another with no room for settling down from time to time and build relationships. Carrion Crown is a prime example of this. That said, if there were some spot that people could use as a home base perhaps a big old ship, space station, stargate port, then that would work out.
What I'd like to see in that kind of scenario, and what I've done on a smaller scale in past home campaigns, is give the party some kind of magic fast/instant transport that only works once they've somehow activated the next location. In this case it could be old planetary gates or something like that. A good chunk of the adventure might be activating the next stage, but once you'd done it, you can easily return to your previous locations and the NPCs and other things you knew then. The key is structuring the AP to encourage that. Which the nature of APs as separate volumes developed in parallel kind of works against. The author of volume 2 doesn't have more than an outline of volume 1 when they're working on it.
Viscount K wrote:
Good enough. Thanks.
I know. That's been annoying me too.
Yeah, though I'm not sure we ever actually played that way.
Neat concept, but nearly unworkable. Too often, your declared action wasn't even possible, much less useful if you came late in the order.
Actually, the variant I remember is:
Roll for initiative
Because its clear that when some people say RP required they mean play acting while other read RP required as no meta gaming and others see it as not a war/board game and still others view it as a game where you will have to do stuff other then one combat after another.
And probably the vast majority think of it as playing a computer game with some kind of character design mechanism.
Because its not actually general understood?
Because any replacement term is also not going to be generally understood.
It also really raises the question of "What does roleplaying mean?" even further if you just define it as "playing a roleplaying game".
Is there anything that defines a roleplaying game? Other than "Anything that calls itself one".
Steve Geddes wrote:
If your definition is as short as "must talk in character", then it may be.I suspect even those using the "talk in character" have more nuanced expectations than that.
If the player speaks the words that he wants his character to say, but doesn't have any coherent personality, motivation or anything else behind it and in fact rarely says anything beyond things directly necessary to the adventure and the occasional in character joke would that be in the spirit of a heavy roleplay game in that sense? I doubt it.
Or on the flip side, would a mute character not qualify, if the player was good enough to convey personality and intent through description? Technically no and it would be a serious challenge, but I suspect most of the "talk in character" crowd would agree, if they saw it done well.
Or from the other perspective, if someone advertised a roleplay heavy game, I'd expect a focus on NPC interactions, not a fight heavy game where you were expected to talk tactics in character and occasionally shout battle slogans and the only interaction with NPCs was the occasionally Diplomacy/Intimidate/Bluff to get by guards or negotiating for pay (all played out using actual in-character dialogue of course). Even though that would fit the definition.
This is tricky to talk about, since it's possible, though sometimes difficult, to imagine a coherent character that matches any short description. But someone who's sometimes blunt and gruff and sometimes flowery and longwinded and sometimes just vulgar, but with no in character consistency for when he's one or the other, just the player's whim of the moment. Think of the difference between a well-written character in a story, where you get a good sense of personality versus someone who's just doing things to move the plot forward.
That's what I'm looking for when I talk about roleplay. I was trying to avoid talking about that directly, since it spun off into unproductive tangents last time I did here, but I've failed my will save again. Yes, the character sheet and the build should not contradict the character you're trying to portray, though not everything and often not many of the important things will be on the sheet. All your actions, in combat or out, should flow from the character you're trying to portray. In character dialogue is the most direct way and one of the most important ways to portray the character since that's how we actually get much of our insight into other people, both in fiction and in real life, but it's not strictly necessary or sufficient. Long speeches, for example, are often better summarized, because most of aren't actually great impromptu orators and they'll probably give the wrong impression.
Not really. Perhaps I misunderstand your point, but I don't really see how that example relates.Either someone is playing Syrio Forel in a roleplaying game, in which case they are roleplaying. Or they're not, in which case, they're obviously not, right?
So where does "good" or "bad" come in?
Well, that's pretty much how language acquisition works -- inferences made after hearing lots of usage in a variety of conversational contexts.
Sure, you can learn words by looking up definitions, but that's far rarer. Even as adults. Often trips up foreign language learners.
Well then, if you're playing a roleplaying game, you're roleplaying. And that's all there is to it.And by the way, a roleplaying game is mostly a computer game, if you go by standard dictionaries.
Damn shame, because I think there is something interesting to talk about here, but unless we can get an authoritative source to come up with terms for us to use, it's going to be awfully difficult to talk about.
We'll have to make sure we shut down anyone talking about roleplay heavy games or anything like that, because all RPG games* are equally roleplay heavy by definition.
BTW, with all the argument over the last few pages, is that the definition you were working with the whole time? Roleplaying is playing a roleplaying game?
Not redundant. The game in RPG refers to the hobby as a whole, while the following game refers to the individual campaign or session.**
Why yes, I'm being extra pedantic, why do you ask?
Why are you reading through the footnotes?****
Those redundancies are different. They're taking either words from another language or acronyms that are used like words and using part of the original along with it. Which is silly, but different.In this case when someone says "a roleplaying heavy roleplaying game", he means something and we all have at least a vague idea what that is. We're not sure, because "roleplaying" is loosely defined, but we don't think it means "playing a roleplaying game" in that context. Any more than than we think it means the bedroom games or the therapy techniques.
If there is a clear, official definition, can you point to it? Preferably one for it's use as jargon within the hobby, rather than a general English dictionary sense.
I was actually hoping to find that when I brought up the early D&D intros before, but they really don't clearly address it.
True. But not useful.Since 1d2 isn't actually where we should go from 1d2-4, even though 1d2-4 always comes out to 1.
Please follow the discussion. Bits got dropped from my quote, but that was specifically a response to Irontruth's argument that "roleplaying" should just mean "playing a role-playing game" and that that is a source of the confusion here.
In that sense with the definition substituted in - the phrase "a 'playing a roleplaying game' required campaign" makes no sense. It's either redundant or nonsensical, but no one is actually confused by that because no one actually sticks to that definition, though they may use it in other contexts.
As I said explicitly in the bit not quoted:
We can be confused about exactly what the other person meant by "roleplay", but it's not like saying "That was a very football heavy football game."
I would say it's not well defined.But your approach doesn't really fix it. Sure, you define roleplaying as "playing a roleplaying game" and it's nice and clearly defined. No disagreement about what that means.
People are still going to want to talk about that other thing that we currently describe as "roleplay". So we'll need another term. The exact same argument now shifts to "What does that term mean?" Is it just talking in character? Is it the broader thing I'm talking about? Is it whatever Jiggy's using the term to mean?
The distinction you're drawing is not where the confusion lies, as near as I can tell. There may be confusion over exactly what a "roleplaying heavy campaign" means, but no one really thinks it's redundant.
Christopher Dudley wrote:
Partly because 1 damage does increase to 1d2?Or more accurately: Because that's what it comes out to. Both parts of that can vary separately. It's 1d2 base damage, -4 strength penalty.
A size increase will bump both the base damage and the strength, but the strength could be boosted separately. Enlarge it by one category, it's now at 1d3-3, which is still 1, which it wouldn't be if it just was listed as 1 damage. Then drop a Bull's Strength and we're at 1d3-1.