|
When I think of Varisia, I think "New"stalgia. It's got that newstalgia groove that the grogners can grok to.
Newstalgia - I love it. Am I a grognard grokking Golarion? I'd like to think so. Woot for Golarion newstalgia!
The gazeteer is out in January, it's just a month and a few hours away. A little more for the campaign setting though...
I'd forgotten all about the gazeteer. More woot!
Red Planet is the New Spelljammer!
Don't get your Spelljammer in my Golarion!
Personally... I'm not fond of the majority of the flavor changes I've heard about 4E, but I'm quite excited and eager about the majority of the rules changes I've heard.
That's about the same as how I think of 4e, although I tend more towards liking none of the flavour changes, and there are now more than just a few rules changes that I don't like, either.
In any case, come next year, I expect to see many displaced Realms fans looking for new homes which is why I want to see Pathfinder novels, it'll help draw them in. :)On the other hand...,
I was just thinking today that in many ways Dragonlance was the first adventure path like campaign. I actually really liked the modules. But I am only now getting to where I think I might be able to use them someday.
It was the novels that ruined it for me. Not that I disliked the novels, while I can now appreciate some of their flaws a little better, for a while they were some of my favorite books. But that was the problem. It was hard to make the Dragonlance adventure my own becuase it had already been done so well. Likewise I would have trouble playing the Company of the Ring marching the One Ring to Mordor.
If there must be Golarion novels I would advise that they be removed from the Pathfinder APs or if they must tie in, let them come out some years after the AP in question has seen some use.
I agree with you here. Novels, should not be a variation on the AP unless the AP has already been out for a significant time.
I know a great many DMs who were very much in the same boat as you and loved Dragonlance. I've heard of many people who started playing that AP but I have never met anyone who finished it.
Personally I thought the modules were hit and miss. When they hit it was out of the park but often it was a let down. I've scavanged from them heavily for other campaigns.
Personally... I'm not fond of the majority of the flavor changes I've heard about 4E, but I'm quite excited and eager about the majority of the rules changes I've heard.
Agreed. Apologies to all for the threadjack.
Is there an equivalent to Iggwilv in Varisia? I'd really miss her if our group switched.There is. We haven't revealed her name yet though, I don't think.
/me crosses "Aranzi" off of the list of suspects.
I am talking about flavor change James. The goblins and ogres of Pathfinder, and (hopefully) other monsters do feel different.
People are complaining about the flavor changes in 4E. Points of Light and the cosmology, specifically.
Changing mechanics is besides the point. If you move to 4E I'm sure your goblins will be mechanically different too.
Goblins in different D&D settings all have slightly different quirks. In Dragonlance they are a degenerate race thousands of years removed from their ogre progenitors, and in the Forgotten Realms they used to have fairly established kingdoms that fell apart long ago. But if you take a goblin from Krynn, one from Toril, and one from Golarion, while each has a few different quirks, no one would be shocked, even with the differences in artwork, that the creatures are D&D goblins.
The difference is that Pathfinder has added something to goblins, but they haven't taken anything away from them. That's the crux of it.
If goblins get the "4th edition makeover," they could end up being evil fey with a poisonous bite and able to summon vile spirits to boost their abilities kind of like a binder (this is just an example, don't read too much into this).
Now, the goblin I described above could easily still fit the "folklore" definition of a goblin, but it goes beyond "adding something interesting and setting specific" to the goblin, and goes back to its "base" conceit and alters it at its core.
There's a lot of D&D iconic archetypes (call them cliches if you will) of NPCs that, I think, need to be in every game world. Golarion will have them all in one way or another, but with that "Golarion spin" like you see on the goblins and ogres and kobolds and such.Exception for the Drizzit-Good-Drow-Ranger-Two-Scimitars-Panther cliche? ;p
Oh . . . please . . . God . . . no. (Although I always thought that Kaz the Minotaur from the Legend of Huma books in Dragonlance kind of fit the same "renegade good guy from an evil race" template, but for some reason never created the storm of "minotaur axe wielding fighters rock" that Drizzt created)
If there must be Golarion novels I would advise that they be removed from the Pathfinder APs or if they must tie in, let them come out some years after the AP in question has seen some use.
The Forgotten Realms books that I loved the most were those stories that gave you a glimpse of the world, and various people and places and organizations within it, without being so large in scope as to actually change anything. In this way, you got a feel for the setting, rather than reading the novels to "keep up."
The Harpers series for the most part was really good about this, and Elaine Cunningham's books and RAS' early stories were in this vein as well.
Each edition tended to have a "Realms Shaking Event," nominally to introduce new elements or explain why things changed, and after those books, you could get back to "normal" again.
The problem is that in the 3rd edition era of the Realms, the setting is being constantly altered in fairly significant ways by a constant stream of trilogies that seem to change things just for the sake of changing them, and resolving situations and killing villains and organizations that probably should be left for the PCs playing in the setting to deal with.
For a long time I didn't want to see that trend, and individually, a lot of these books are written well. But there are too many of them too close together, which isn't the fault of the talented and entertaining writers that have created them, but rather its the fault of those that feel they have to "keep the setting fresh," by blowing up the setting and rebuilding it as a shadow of its former self.
Er . . . or something like that.
|
KnightErrantJR speaks the true. And the worse part is, all the 3E supplements ignored the "shaking" events of the novels.
Like I said earlier, I just want novels about adventures that capture the flavor and spirit of Golarion and Pathfinder. They don't have to be world altering, they just have to be canon and acknowledged as lore in the supplements.
And I really want to see Valeros, Seoni, Kyra, and Merisiel as the main characters of some of them.
4e seems to have moved on from the concept of "Realms Shaking Events". Now, R.S.E. stands for "Realms Shattering Event".
The problem is that in the 3rd edition era of the Realms, the setting is being constantly altered in fairly significant ways by a constant stream of trilogies that seem to change things just for the sake of changing them, and resolving situations and killing villains and organizations that probably should be left for the PCs playing in the setting to deal with.
So we want books that take place in various parts of the setting, perhaps with our protagonists visiting them and interacting with them, but not actually impacting the world around them at all?
Sounds like Harlequin romances in Golarion...
;)
|
|
So we want books that take place in various parts of the setting, perhaps with our protagonists visiting them and interacting with them, but not actually impacting the world around them at all?
I don't think that's what he means at all. I think he means he doesn't want melting of ice caps causing severe weather changes, followed by all the dragons of the world running wild and going insane, followed by the restoration of an elven kingdom after an ancient half demon half sun elf races returns to the world.
All of which didn't actually impact anything outside of their immediate trilogy even though it was supposed to be a global crisis. Oh yeah and it was all forgotten 6 months later when the new trilogy of crisis began.
I won't even mentioning updating the Drow for 3.0 and explaining all the continuity "issues" between AD&D and 3.0 and the crisis surrounding the update.
And to top it off, NONE of it was supported by any supplements, so if you wanted to play during any of this upheaval, good luck, because Wizards of the Coast didn't bother supporting it in the game product.
But who can blame them, they couldn't even get who married who right (or didn't marry who actually) and how many eyes another character had.
So we want books that take place in various parts of the setting, perhaps with our protagonists visiting them and interacting with them, but not actually impacting the world around them at all?I don't think that's what he means at all. I think he means he doesn't want melting of ice caps causing severe weather changes, followed by all the dragons of the world running wild and going insane, followed by the restoration of an elven kingdom after an ancient half demon half sun elf races returns to the world.
I won't even mentioning updating the Drow for 3.0 and explaining all the continuity "issues" between AD&D and 3.0 and the crisis surrounding the update.
And to top it off, NONE of it was supported by any supplements, so if you wanted to play during any of this upheaval, good luck, because Wizards of the Coast didn't bother supporting it in the game product.
But who can blame them, they couldn't even get who married who right (or didn't marry who actually) and how many eyes another character had.
Don't forget having one trilogy say that the Shaodow Weave was born when Karsus died, setting up the annoying idea that there was a Dark Side and Light Side of the Weave, instead of the way it was explained in the sourcebooks.
But yeah, as to what I mean . . . let's say that you establish that Muckluck is the lead of the Muckrakers as a major bad guy organization. In the novels, its great to run into agents of Muckluck that are members of the Muckrakers, and if the novel comes up with an agent of Muckluck named Mugtuggle, the characters in the novel can fight him and even kill him, but Muckluck and the Muckrakers as a whole aren't really changed so that it doesn't alter how DMs will use them in setting.
On the other hand, if you find out in the novels that all muckrakers carry a wand of guitar tuning, then that becomes "canon," since its a detail that was added to the setting.
If, and that is a big if, you decide after a few years that Muckluck isn't your favorite character to lead the Muckrakers, sure, kill him off in a novel or better yet and adventure and reference it in a novel, but make sure you have a product coming out soon for those that don't read the novels to bring everyone up to speed on the new status quo.
If that makes any sense.
The quality of the first AP has helped pave the way for the larger campaign setting materials to come. A good story with a variety of types of adventures as opposed to a long delve. Runelords does sort of come across to me as a serialized movie, with different locations, scenes, and types situations that the characters have to contend with.
I guess I am at a loss of anything else to say because it's been so long since I worked with another campaign setting. I've pretty much forgotten everything, so Golarian is my new home.
I'm looking forward to the Red Planet when time comes!!! I like the idea of place that will allow you to introduce psionics without plomping them down right from the start.
Oh . . . please . . . God . . . no. (Although I always thought that Kaz the Minotaur from the Legend of Huma books in Dragonlance kind of fit the same "renegade good guy from an evil race" template, but for some reason never created the storm of "minotaur axe wielding fighters rock" that Drizzt created)There's a lot of D&D iconic archetypes (call them cliches if you will) of NPCs that, I think, need to be in every game world. Golarion will have them all in one way or another, but with that "Golarion spin" like you see on the goblins and ogres and kobolds and such.Exception for the Drizzit-Good-Drow-Ranger-Two-Scimitars-Panther cliche? ;p
He's not an elf. Drizzt is free to wallow in angst driven teenage melodrama, and still be a cool power mongering elf.
whats C.H.U.D. ?/sigh DOe no one watch B movies anymore?
No. MST3K is off the air.
There is something about the Drow too.
I can't speak to this 'Drzzt', because I skipped that whole generation..
But Drow were hawt in some weird way. I always thought so.
The really dangerous ones are all women. They dress provocatively. Generally good lookin'. They obviously have a few kinks. :)
At least they were in the old days.
In re-imagining the Drow, I hope James J. and Co. go back to vintige! Tentacle staffs, web bikini halter tops, smooth soft charcoal black skin, and pure unapologetic and unadulterated evil.
Okay, that was my fanboi post for the week.
Hmmm . . . this brings up the old adage about how you can please some of the people all of the time, yadda, yadda, yadda.
Just for giggles I'll throw in my $.02 -
First and foremost, keep the focus on adventures, with everything else supplementing that. A campaign setting? Fine, great even, IF it's done to give the adventures some context and setting. To me, what Hasbro has done with Wizards is so amazingly transparent, but I never see anyone discussing it - the rule books should not out number the adventures, and settings & campaign worlds should not be created so as to justify even more rule books.
Setting - So far, everything looks create, and I like the new interpretations of existing, reliable themes. Unfortunately, it looks like Wizards is not just going to tweak and fix things, but really recreate and mess with things that are tried & true. (Dragonborn? Really?) It's nice to have alternatives, but please stick with what works. Personally, I like some of the Eberron stuff and find it interesting, but to me, its an alternative setting, for when people want to try something a little different.
Novels - eh, I could go either way, and don't really feel strongly about whether they're canon or not. To me, the setting is what matters, and a DM can, for the most part, decide whether they want them to be canon or not. However, if there are novels, please don't go nuts with there being 50 novels published each year. Novels are nice to see how other people interpret the setting and put things together, but the novels should fit the setting, not vice versa.
Accessories - Yes, please have a calendar, Art of Pathfinder, etc. These things all help people visualize the setting. Support for virtual tabletops? Fantastic, for some people it's really the only option. Minis? Sure, if they're not done to maximize revenue (read: sloppy, prepainted, and randomly packaged), but done to support, again, the adventures. Cards, flipmaps, etc.? Hey, no one does it better, so keep it coming.
The upcoming products - Gazeteer, Campaign Setting, etc. - look like they'll expand on this and give some more context, background and setting. Perfect. Just please keep it simple and steady, and don't make it impossible for the average joe (or jane) with a job & family and limited free time from keeping up with it all.
PaizoWiki? GolarionWiki? - One thing I would like to see, and imagine some intrepid fan will take up before long, is a wiki type reference site. Something that list npc names & places, etc., with out any real big spoilers. Short entries, with simple descriptions referring to the original resource for further information. (ex. House of Blue Stones - A monastery, mainted by the monk, Sybl, in the town of Sandpoint.)
All in all, I would like to see Pathfinder & Golarion kept relatively simple, and growing at a steady, unhurried pace. No need for tons of novels, and supplements and alternative rules. I think it's being done just right so far - the focus is on the adventures, with, every month, some supporting material nicely packaged right along with it, and it's all been done with an interesting spin on the old classics.
settings & campaign worlds should not be created so as to justify even more rule books.
To be fair, the 1 setting a year idea came from the fans. Scott Rouse from WotC came on ENWorld about a month before 4E's announcement and posed the hypothetical question: If you were placed incharge of D&D's fluff line, what 8 books would you put out this year. There was a large concensus that a setting a year was great and that setting would be supported for the rest of that year. This way, old settings like Dark Sun and Ravenloft could get their time in the sun (even if it is ssome time in the future) while FR and Eb would be WotC's flagship settings and be launched first.
There was a large concensus that a setting a year was great and that setting would be supported for the rest of that year. This way, old settings like Dark Sun and Ravenloft could get their time in the sun (even if it is ssome time in the future) while FR and Eb would be WotC's flagship settings and be launched first.
Hey, that's fine, and I should say that I played back in the days when there was only one setting and the focus was on adventures, and that's what I'm talking about. For the Eberron setting, there's 5 published adventures, 12 rule books & supplements, and 30 novels published or in the works.
I know there are plenty of DMs out there creating there own worlds and adventures, but this just seems nuts to me.
|
|
There's a lot of D&D iconic archetypes (call them cliches if you will) of NPCs that, I think, need to be in every game world. Golarion will have them all in one way or another, but with that "Golarion spin" like you see on the goblins and ogres and kobolds and such.
I can't WAIT to see Rakshasa (or for the next Open Call so I might introduce them) I'd love to see Rakshasa connected to Devils in Golarion. They always seemed out of place in core, outsiders but with no Archdevil of their own
First and foremost, keep the focus on adventures, with everything else supplementing that. A campaign setting? Fine, great even, IF it's done to give the adventures some context and setting. To me, what Hasbro has done with Wizards is so amazingly transparent, but I never see anyone discussing it - the rule books should not out number the adventures, and settings & campaign worlds should not be created so as to justify even more rule books.
I agree.
I do want to see campaign material, but I don't think Billzabub is advocating against that at all.
I recall when Forgotten Realms came out, when I was starting to move away from DnD (that and my first wife hated my attention going elsewhere)- I thought it was cool, but I needed more practical application. I heard a lot of "make your own adventures, that's what it's there for!" Fine, but that didn't suit my needs as a consumer.
I want campaign setting, but I need them adventures too.