Well fine, you ignore the actions of a organised crime syndicate for six months,
Six months? This is DnD. In six months of action the party would be taking over the entire continent. That's just how the game works, you know.
If you have no sense of pacing, sure. The king maker king maker game i am running is upto level 7, and has already lasted more than a year in game time, there will be another two years of game time before the start of the varnhold vanashing.
Why, because the story needs time to establish Lord Varn, and the rest of the varnling host as people so that their disappearance, and the disappearance of their entire town has emotional weight, because their are story lines beyond the core arch of the capmaign that need resolving.Down time of weeks, or even months between adventure days is a useful narrative tool. It allows the characters to feel like real people, as opposed to cartoon characters.
Consider, that without assumed periods of downtime between adventures, which is, take note, downtime because nothing happens during it, you can finish most of the post-Dragon Paizo's AP under six weeks of game time. The only major exception is Kingmaker, but mostly because you are forced to travel alot before getting access to fast modes of travel. That's even without serious sequence-breaking.
Any campaign can make you travel a lot, the journey is a major element of many fantasy stories. Both the hobbit and the lord of the rings are largely comprised of long journeys.
But travel is not the only time consuming element of play. Investigation, and largely social challanges can take weeks to resolve. Organisation building, rebellion leading and military campaigning all take time, and they are all valid and interesting things for characters to be doing, in addition to the commiting acts of genocide and rapine pillage which seem to make up the adventures of many PCs.And no, down time does not mean that nothing is happening. I can mean that, but it can also be a powerful narrative tool for character development, it can be punctuated with important events which have impact of the PCs understanding and engagement with events in the campaign.
So your entire argument might be valid for Peasants&Crapmongers, but not for DnD.
And in reality the end result invariably will be "PCs rearrange the society however the heck they want, because they are powerful enough to write laws and make people obey them (or else)".
“Woo!!!! conversion at sword point. Might makes right!!!! I think your god is evil, so clearly anything I do to stop you believing in him is justifiable!!! WooooH party!! Party! party!!!1!!one!!!”
In any kind of living world style game, no the PCs cannot just shape societies to their will, because, there are bigger fish. Move to fast, make too much noise and you will attract the predators, be they divine servants or simply the kings elite guard. If you challenge the status quo, before you have earned the power to do it, you shouldn’t be surprised if you get stomped.
Yes, this is a fairly cynical approach to changing the world, but as how things actually tend to work in DnD, people are lucky that it's PCs who will be applying it, rather than Darklord McSkullstomp (which, do note, is what happens if PCs fail in any of the APs).
They might happen that way in your game, but it is not an innate aspect of the game or the rules. It certainly can be played that way, but it does not have to be.
Wrong. If my character reaches goals I've placed for him (and I will place goals for him, because a setting so nonexistant that I can't decide what my character wants in it, is not worth playing), I won. If he doesn't, I lose. You (like, in fact, most people saying that "No one wins the game."), in essense, are saying that the only possible outcome for remotely genre-appropriate goals is "he doesn't". And I say that this is bad and you should feel bad.
Roleplaying is collaborative by nature, there is no ‘winner’, no one wins. The only meta-objective is enjoyment. I suppose one could say that if everyone has had a good time playing, everyone has ‘won’, but doing so tortures the English language worse that five hundred dyslexics attempting to write poetry.
How people achieve enjoyment varies. It can be in having a character achieve an in game objective, but it does not have to be. A successful game is entirely possible when the Characters utterly fail to achieve their objective. There are no ‘victory conditions’ other than enjoyment.What your doing is cofusing success with victory. And success is not always victory. Or even always desirable.
In the very broadest of senses, I suppose you can win, but the victory conditions is enjoyment.
Then why you are arguing for making a character's choices meaningless? Because that's what you do, by saying that regardless of the choseon option the consequences will be negative.
I have not said, even once, that the outcome must be negative. I have only said that their must be risk attached. The most interesting choices are do not have a ‘clear’ right right and wrong choice between them.
Choosing between killing a innocent child for kicks and saving a town is not a choice. Only a sociopath chooses option a. Presenting the choice is not meaningful, shall I save the village or leave it to burn, is equally no an interesting choice.
If I do x, the towns people will all be save, but will lose everything they cannot carry with them, but if I do Y, there is a 75% chance I will be able to save the vast majority of the towns people be saved, and their homes and goods, but failure will mean that a great many towns people will die is far more interesting question.
Weighing the relative merits and risks of the choices means that the question matters. That adds value to the game. A choice with only one possible outcome, adds nothing.
But hey, I also like exalted, because while it does give you superpowers, it also tries to explore what said superpowers mean for the world.Ahahahahahaha.
Are you seriously bringing Exalted as an example? The game that is infamous for stacking the deck against PCs with mid-bosses so insanely overpowered, that, by authors' own admission, you, assuming nearly the absolute best set of characters possible, needed years of (real-life) grind to compete with them, even in a situation massively stacked in your favor? Oh, and for being eye-poppingly grimdark (including all established factions being total dicks). The game, in which, for half of its life, you were totally supposed to lose and see the world destroyed before your eyes? The game, which, for second half of its life, told you with the straight face, that the absolute dictature of the chosen few is the best outcome for the world, because in the fairyland of Exalted the chosen few will be virtuous and stuff?
Sorry, but do you actually have a point that your trying to make?
If you have no sense of pacing, sure.
Sense of pacing is utterly irrelevant to that. Also do not accuse others of lacking something you don't have yourself, as evidenced by the pace you describe.
Down time of weeks, or even months between adventure days is a useful narrative tool. It allows the characters to feel like real people, as opposed to cartoon characters.
No, all it does is allowing characters to run whatever perpetual power engine they use for more time. Downtime is downtime because nothing relevant to the main point of the game (which, surprise, is the reason people play - and play this game and not something else - in the first place) happens during it, by its very definition. It has extremely limited use as a narrative tool, because there is no conflict to narrate, at least nothing PCs won't solve automatically by showing up. And players describtion of how their characters are going to enjoy the spoils of previous victories rarely take much time.
Any campaign can make you travel a lot, the journey is a major element of many fantasy stories. Both the hobbit and the lord of the rings are largely comprised of long journeys.
Ahahahaha. Is it news to you that DnD is not LotR and that past low levels long journeys do not exist (unless you talk, about, like going around the world, and at high levels not even then), because everyone, as the bare minimum, has flying mounts? Not when the plot decides to take pity on you, as in Middleearth, all the time.
Investigation, and largely social challanges can take weeks to resolve.
You sure you didn't mean "minutes"? Because, you know, that's DnD we're talking about, where investigation is handled by casting a few spells, and social challenges, well, see below...
Organisation building, rebellion leading and military campaigning all take time, and they are all valid and interesting things for characters to be doing, in addition to the commiting acts of genocide and rapine pillage which seem to make up the adventures of many PCs.
As all conflicts in non low-level DnD are solved by alfa-striking enemy head honchos as the opening move (whether by scry&fry or something else), rebellions and military campaigns take no more than several days. As evidenced, again, by actual APs... The strongest guys on one of the sides die in a series of very swift clashes, and then for the winners the rest is mop-up that's not even worth rolling, unless, of course, enemy mooks mass-surrender upon seeing that their bosses are no more.
Organisation building... well, the only parts of it that actually are interesting enough to play out are negotiating with those rare guys who have talents PCs actually, personally care about. And this won't take long in game time. All the other aspects are not only a magic tea party, but a magic tea party where PCs have no real input at all (due to lack of any appropriate subsystems, anything that is not covered by talking with important guys boils down to "Mother, may I?" entirely), and therefore should be relegated to downtime.By the way, use of blatant strawmen only shows your lack of confidence in your actual arguments.
In any kind of living world style game, no the PCs cannot just shape societies to their will, because, there are bigger fish.
Wow, pity no one said that to Octavian Augustus, or Genghis Khan, or Peter the Great, or Cortez. And they weren't even magical supermen.
In other words, there are no bigger fish, there are GMs who are unwilling to let PCs succeed or be important, and therefore raise the level at which PCs can reshape the world as they see fit (which, however you try to mask it with meaningless meaningful words, absolutely must exist in the system where power of characters grows exponentially, so, contrary to your assertion, powerful characters running roughshod across the world is an intristic aspect of the rules) beyond anything reasonable, explicitly so that PCs won't be able to reach it in actual play.
Roleplaying is collaborative by nature, there is no ‘winner’, no one wins.
Accidentally, I've never seen GMs who aren't vocally opposed to letting PCs win - except maybe on the GM's own terms and in the boundaries he strictly defines to make their win as insignificant as possible - state this position. Sounds particularly ridiculous when we talk about published adventures, which, in fact, all have clearly defined win conditions.
A successful game is entirely possible when the Characters utterly fail to achieve their objective.
Well, maybe, the world is vast, after all, and there is a market for Paranoia... But, I've never played in such game, I've never seen such game, and I've never heard of a campaign being such game, where success was independently confirmed by both sides (one-shots, yes, I've heard about a few). That's after playing WoD, LARPs, and whatever.
Before you misinterpret my words, characters can have other objectives than personal power, glory and wealth. This does not mean their players will be happy to fail at what they want their PCs to achieve.
I have not said, even once, that the outcome must be negative. I have only said that their must be risk attached. The most interesting choices are do not have a ‘clear’ right right and wrong choice between them.
Can't you see the contradiction in your own words? If PCs cannot choose right, due to not having such option, then the outcome must be negative. Well, unless they are choosing between brands of good things, but in DnD, or, indeed, nearly any story centered on violent conflicts, you can safely bet it won't be so. So all they are choosing are flavors of negativity.
Besides, this is actually the most boring sort of choice, make no mistake. Even deliberately gritty stories, like "A Song of Ice and Fire" generally avoid them. At most, there is tend to be one such choice at the very conclusion. And do note, that I've actually played characters in situations, constructed so that all possible choices were bad. They were only interesting to play because I lacked the information to fully comprehend their situation.
If I do x, the towns people will all be save, but will lose everything they cannot carry with them, but if I do Y, there is a 75% chance I will be able to save the vast majority of the towns people be saved, and their homes and goods, but failure will mean that a great many towns people will die is far more interesting question.
No, beyond being artificial, and X choice being a no-brainer (minimizing risk to people takes an unquestioned precedence; see emergency situations and disaster relief in the real world) it is not really interesting. Either the risk cannot actually be quantified in actual play, making X even more of a no-brainer, particularly because savvy players, knowing that, will assume that the GM will screw them over automatically for picking the option Y. Or it all will boil down to luck on a die roll. Wow, what drama.
Sorry, but do you actually have a point that your trying to make?
Sure I do. Do not bring a game where either you just lose, or even the best option allowed by the authors is utterly reprehensible, as an example of a game where PCs can make choices with meaningful consequences.
Sense of pacing is utterly irrelevant to that. Also do not accuse others of lacking something you don't have yourself, as evidenced by the pace you describe.
Sense of pacing is entirely relevant, and for that matter so is verisimilitude. Understanding that storytelling flows in certain ways, where sometimes the action of the plot lulls so that events can transpire in the world, or so that characters can develop ties to the world and its people, hell even raise a family. It can take down the form of ‘down time’ or it can take the form of detailed exploration of a setting element by a character. It it what allows you to grasp and care about the world. As for verisimilitude; The idea of 17ish year olds going from snot nosed farm hands (all be it exceptional snot nosed farm hands) to gods, in six weeks is frankly laughable, and hence for many reject that style of play.
So let me get this straight. I form an opinion based on your statements, that you lack a good sense of pacing (a personal judgement and opinion, but based on your presented views), and it somehow wrong to express the opinion.
However, you are fine to express and equally personal opinion, based on no more evidence, and with no more supporting argument.
Yes, that makes a lot of sense.
No, all it does is allowing characters to run whatever perpetual power engine they use for more time. Downtime is downtime because nothing relevant to the main point of the game (which, surprise, is the reason people play - and play this game and not something else - in the first place) happens during it, by its very definition. It has extremely limited use as a narrative tool, because there is no conflict to narrate, at least nothing PCs won't solve automatically by showing up. And players description of how their characters are going to enjoy the spoils of previous victories rarely take much time.
People, you mean all people play for exactly the same reason? Wow…I did not know that, I guess I shall have to tell my players that they are playing wrong… Thank you FatR I never would have known that we had to play your way or that it would be wrong bad fun. I thought that indepth character exploration was entire what made roleplaying fun for me, but it turns out that what I really find fun is killing pretend people and taking their pretend stuff and that I have been playing the game wrong for twenty year now. Thank you FatR, you have truly saved me form the gaming wilderness! No more shall I provide time for my players to work on the ongoing development of our new micro setting in the stolen lands. Gone shall be the days of the two year gap during which they secure the boundaries of their kingdom, watch the camp turn from a collection of tents and brothel and fort into a thriving small town. Never again shall relationships with NPCs be given time to mature and prosper so that their deaths, betrayal, marriage or rise to power will have emotional weight, rather than simply being an aside, between the killing of imaginary people and the acquisition of larger and larger Numbers which of cause is the point of the game.
Down time is necessary because it allows plots and sub-plots to mature naturally. It is a useful tool because if character X meets barmaid Y on day 1, kisses her on day 2, sleeps with her on day 3, marries her on Day 4, has a child with her on day 5 and watchs her die of day 6, the plot might as well not have happened. It is jarring, is damaging to verisimilitude, and most importantly, almost entirely without emotional weight.
Ahahahaha. Is it news to you that DnD is not LotR and that past low levels long journeys do not exist (unless you talk, about, like going around the world, and at high levels not even then), because everyone, as the bare minimum, has flying mounts? Not when the plot decides to take pity on you, as in Middleearth, all the time.
Did I say that DnD was lord of the rings? Nope, doesn’t look like it. I used it as one example. And there are 100 more throughout fantasy fiction. It is a major element of numerous well respected and loved pre–written campaigns across the spectrum of the roleplaying industry. Paizo themselves have fairly long overland journeys in, if memory serves, all but one of the so far released APs.
While you may play in such a way that flying mounts or greater are common sites, in twenty years of gaming and ten or twelve oft played systems, I have only ever seen one PC with a flying mount. Just because it is the norm in your experience, does not make it the norm , or the only way to play.
I'll respond to the rest later.
|
Sure I do. Do not bring a game where either you just lose, or even the best option allowed by the authors is utterly reprehensible, as an example of a game where PCs can make choices with meaningful consequences.
Sorry, but do you actually have a point that your trying to make?
Given that you have utterly missed the point of Exalted, I can't say I'm surprised you missed the point the zombie was trying to make with Exalted too.
The situation you have described is precisely the situation that applies without player character intervention. Exalted is a crapsack world - unless the PCs decide to save it. Which is just about the most meaningful version of "PCs can make a difference" I can think of.
I do like J-horror films and video games, but the things I like about those films and games don't translate well to tabletop gaming anyway. I have a lot of trouble evoking a true sense of horror in players. People need light to read character sheets and check dice rolls, and it's hard to make people afraid of what bumps in the night in a well-lit room, IMO. (Anyone who wishes to disavow me of that opinion, though, is welcome to share your techniques, because I'd like to achieve it; I just don't believe it's possible.)Quick derail: This takes some doing to set up, but it's possible. A quick trip to your local Big Book Store will reveal at least one brand of individual reading lamp, often several. If available, the best kind that I've found looks like a clip-board with the light integrated into the clip. A single small flashlight per player will provide the rest of the supplemental light needed. For room lighting, use only lamps with covered tops and place them on the floor, to avoid direct light.
The biggest trick will be dice. I would strongly suggest avoiding "gimmick" dice like glow-in-the-dark. A bright ink on a dark plastic, mandated as the same for every player, would be ideal (White ink on black dice is best.)
Thanks for the tips, Chris! I'll try these when I start Carrion Crown... =]
Ahahahaha. Is it news to you that DnD is not LotR and that past low levels long journeys do not exist (unless you talk, about, like going around the world, and at high levels not even then), because everyone, as the bare minimum, has flying mounts? Not when the plot decides to take pity on you, as in Middleearth, all the time.
Just to go a little further on this. You accuse lord of the rings of ‘taking pitty on the heroes at every turn’. But to be frankly, the PCs in DnD have their hands held far more. The rules, from APL+3 to monster and NPC Treasure all put in place a set of conditions in which the PCs are insulated from the repercussions of their actions. Rather than successfully foiling two or three plots, and then being made the target of full blown reprisals designed to ensure that the problem they represent goes away, they conveniently will be attacked by a threat that is within 3 CR of their APL.
You sure you didn't mean "minutes"? Because, you know, that's DnD we're talking about, where investigation is handled by casting a few spells, and social challenges, well, see below...
LoL.
Almost half the possible advancement track of the game has passed before the characters gain access to magic that seriously impact investigative play(in reality this means more than half the advancement of a campaign as the majority of published campaigns are less that 20 lvls). Before the spell “contact other plane” comes into play, divination magic acts only as a resource intensive aid to investigation, not a replacement. Even when higher level spells come into the game, they are still resource intensive when used to break through an investigation. If your using divination, then you’re not going to have as much battle field control when your ambushed by the bad guys counter surveillance strike team.
As all conflicts in non low-level DnD are solved by alfa-striking enemy head honchos as the opening move (whether by scry&fry or something else), rebellions and military campaigns take no more than several days. As evidenced, again, by actual APs... The strongest guys on one of the sides die in a series of very swift clashes, and then for the winners the rest is mop-up that's not even worth rolling, unless, of course, enemy mooks mass-surrender upon seeing that their bosses are no more.
In your game perhaps, but Pathfinder represents a world where Wish, Contingency, and summon planer ally exists. In such a world one would be unwise to try strike at the head of the beast, first. But essentially this is a difference of play style. It might work that way in your game, but it is not an innate fact of how the game is or ‘should be played’. I look forwards to the day one or two well worded wishes and contingencies alter your perception
Organisation building... well, the only parts of it that actually are interesting enough to play out are negotiating with those rare guys who have talents PCs actually, personally care about. And this won't take long in game time. All the other aspects are not only a magic tea party, but a magic tea party where PCs have no real input at all (due to lack of any appropriate subsystems, anything that is not covered by talking with important guys boils down to "Mother, may I?" entirely), and therefore should be relegated to downtime.
By the way, use of blatant strawmen only shows your lack of confidence in your actual arguments.
If you think I was forming a strawman, let me be clearer.
Your point was that campaigns don’t last more than about 6 weeks of game time, and that journeys such as those such as those found in Lord of the rings, don’t happen. But your wrong. I have already given examples post-dungeon, Paizo published APs that contain major journeys. Moreover, the fact is that actually the same goes for Game time that passes within the body of the campaign, both rise of the runelords, Curse of the crimson throne, second darkness and legacy of fire all play out over periods greater than six weeks. In the case of Rise and Legacy that period is closer to two years. The very first adventure of the second darkness can play out over almost six weeks on its own(if memory serves). Kingmaker can easily play out over a period close to Ten years of game time.
The rest went to expand upon other styles of play and activities, which can extend the game time over which a story unfolds, pointing out beyond simply the core . You might consider scenes designed to build upon theme, to set the stories mood, and to build a connection between NPCs and PCs to be ‘ a magic tea party’ but that is your opinion, and it really only goes further to build evidence that while you might have fun in the genre referred to a ‘roleplaying games’, you don’t seem to have much of an actual grasp of roleplaying.
Wow, pity no one said that to Octavian Augustus, or Genghis Khan, or Peter the Great, or Cortez. And they weren't even magical supermen.
In other words, there are no bigger fish, there are GMs who are unwilling to let PCs succeed or be important, and therefore raise the level at which PCs can reshape the world as they see fit (which, however you try to mask it with meaningless meaningful words, absolutely must exist in the system where power of characters grows exponentially, so, contrary to your assertion, powerful characters running roughshod across the world is an intristic aspect of the rules) beyond anything reasonable, explicitly so that PCs won't be able to reach it in actual play.
These men worked over periods of years, with the aid of powerful factions of allies and friends to instil some social change on their peoples, and they faced great conflict and strife, murdered thousands and where ruthless to the point where any observer would be well advised to think of them as evil men. But they were alsoso significantly more powerful that most opposition, that their really where not any checks on their power. In short, they could do such things, because they where the biggest fish.
However, they live in the real world. Simply put, there is no verifiable example of an angel or devil turning up and nuking a city in the real world.
Yet, even at the height of their power, the PCs live in a world where forced conversion could very easily result in a servant of that faith’s god turning up and with physical prowess so far beyond your own that it your death is assured, kill you in a matter of moments. There is always a bigger fish in DnD.
Zombieneighbours wrote:
Roleplaying is collaborative by nature, there is no ‘winner’, no one wins.
Accidentally, I've never seen GMs who aren't vocally opposed to letting PCs win - except maybe on the GM's own terms and in the boundaries he strictly defines to make their win as insignificant as possible - state this position. Sounds particularly ridiculous when we talk about published adventures, which, in fact, all have clearly defined win conditions.
An adventure may have a win condition because it is a story about conflict within the game. But an adventure isn’t the game.
And frankly GM’s role is not to prevent the PCs from success. He is a collaborator, not an antagonist. Any DM worth half a damn is capable of achieving a TPK (within the CR guidelines) against the PCs, in the first session of every campaign. Anyone here actually play with a GM, who sets out to ensure that your PCs do not make it to the end of the story?
There are games which are designed to work that way. Decsent for instance, is a game, which has a GM-like player whose job it is to actually attempt to prevent the Players from success. I play it, I enjoy it, but it isn’t a roleplaying game, and it doesn’t play like any roleplaying game I have ever been involved with.
By contrast good GMs collaborate with the other players to make a story, that challenges the players, and which interests them. Howevery, they do not try to ‘beat’ the players.
Well, maybe, the world is vast, after all, and there is a market for Paranoia... But, I've never played in such game, I've never seen such game, and I've never heard of a campaign being such game, where success was independently confirmed by both sides (one-shots, yes, I've heard about a few). That's after playing WoD, LARPs, and whatever.
Before you misinterpret my words, characters can have other objectives than personal power, glory and wealth. This does not mean their players will be happy to fail at what they want their PCs to achieve.
There are entire styles of gaming and entire games set out to explore what it means to be either in an unwinnable situation or for where ‘success/failure’ in a story is not the point. Purist Cthulhu Mythos scenarios like The Dying of St Margaret's , The Dance in the Blood , and many others, put lie to the idea that ‘victory’ is the purpose of playing. There are entire games, running from Wraith: The Oblivian and Promethean: the Created, through to Dogs in the Vineyard, Dread and Insylum RPG, in which victory/defeat is significantly less important than the choices, which lead to it.
Your view is myopic in the extreme.
As a big fan of paranoia, I do have to ask if you have ever played it. I mean, seriously, paranoia is one of the few roleplaying games, which you can arguably ‘win’.
No, beyond being artificial, and X choice being a no-brainer (minimizing risk to people takes an unquestioned precedence; see emergency situations and disaster relief in the real world) it is not really interesting. Either the risk cannot actually be quantified in actual play, making X even more of a no-brainer, particularly because savvy players, knowing that, will assume that the GM will screw them overautomatically for picking the option Y. Or it all will boil down to luck on a die roll. Wow, what drama.
Congratulations on your moral certainty, and for taking a NU morality approach. However, not everyone would react that way. Different common moral perceptions and personality types will look at the dilemma and come to different conclusions. Especially if they have asked questions’ to themselves, like how far away is winter, what are the chances that they will be able to get aid form the local king, ect all. I am glad to see you have taken a lot of time investigate. Clearly a ‘no-brainer’.
Certainly you will see a far more even distribution of choices than a ‘I save the baby’/’I throw the baby of the cliff’ dilemma.
And I am glad you seem to be able to speak for ‘savvy’ players. Perhapes you are referring to people who share your specific view point.
Congratulations on noticing that it was a ‘simple’ example. Yes it is artificial, because complex moral dilemmas aren’t really something that easily compress down into examples for forum discussions.
Hi Gregg, how are you?
We have a lot of ground to watch with this thread as there are jacks in the road every which way. My .02 here is simple.
I feel like you're missing something (and others that share the following opinion are likewise) from the AP's that have been part of the series 'kinda technically since AP2'.
The fiction that is around 5-6 pages long. Every month. Usually it's tied to the area or region where the adventure in the AP takes place. If it isn't directly, its the theme that should be observed, ala Elaine Cunningham's work in LoF. Just an added extra to help a DM get in the zone, good bathroom reading material while your players are 'levelling up' after a big fight but there's a couple hours of game time left.
I'm not saying you and everyone who hates PF fiction suck-so don't go there. I'm just saying that there is a wealth of awesome stuff in the PF fiction material in every AP. I'm a stalwart believer that the fiction should be the one thing that stays along with the adventure itself. Something else to put me in third person mode following the main character, watching the salamanders slither about the City of Brass--I'm just saying.
And James hopefully is looking at that, as we've had a lot of people that don't think the fiction of each month is necessary. I disagree. I can't disagree more. Keep it, James.
...and as far as moral ambiguity is concerned, I guess that an AP where the players are sinspawn is out, isn't it? Damn.
I guess I'll have to just have the PC's start up a game where we are part of a drow noble house putting together the pieces of Zirnakaynin. Can they piece it together or will Socothbenth's cult tear apart the very city that matters so much to them?
Hi Gregg, how are you?
We have a lot of ground to watch with this thread as there are jacks in the road every which way. My .02 here is simple.
I feel like you're missing something (and others that share the following opinion are likewise) from the AP's that have been part of the series 'kinda technically since AP2'.
The fiction that is around 5-6 pages long. Every month. Usually it's tied to the area or region where the adventure in the AP takes place. If it isn't directly, its the theme that should be observed, ala Elaine Cunningham's work in LoF. Just an added extra to help a DM get in the zone, good bathroom reading material while your players are 'levelling up' after a big fight but there's a couple hours of game time left.
I'm not saying you and everyone who hates PF fiction suck-so don't go there. I'm just saying that there is a wealth of awesome stuff in the PF fiction material in every AP. I'm a stalwart believer that the fiction should be the one thing that stays along with the adventure itself. Something else to put me in third person mode following the main character, watching the salamanders slither about the City of Brass--I'm just saying.
And James hopefully is looking at that, as we've had a lot of people that don't think the fiction of each month is necessary. I disagree. I can't disagree more. Keep it, James.
Hiya!
Yeah, I know I may be in the minority when it comes to the fiction -- and I'm 100% positive that the good people at Paizo LOVE the fiction, so regardless of what I say, it ain't going anywhere. :-)
And heck, I may even like the fiction if I read it, but that's not what I'm getting the APs for, so it doesn't even occur to me to read it, you know?
|
I do strongly disagree with you James. Making game constructs simple can lead to reinforcing people in their dichotomous views on the world around them. And honestly this simplification is one of the criticism that hits D&D often on this side of the big water, and leads to popularity of more "gray" settings, such as WFRP or WoD.
I'm fine with Pathfinder making game constructs simple in terms of alignment. I'm fine with simplification (as most DMs will agree). I'm NOT fine when a product comes out and try to make vampires all shiny in the sun and all gooddie-good-good with a soft inner caramel center. People lose focus that this is a game of good guys versus monsters. Mazes and Monsters. Dungeons and Dragons. Not: vampire-soup-kitchen-volunteers and wrongly-righteous-adventurers-that-don't-know-they-are-being-mean-to-us-goo d-monsters-and-really-just-pawns-in-a-socially-challenged-DM's-twisted-game -whose-purpose-is-to-make-misguided-social-commentaries
|
|
I'm fine with Pathfinder making game constructs simple in terms of alignment. I'm fine with simplification (as most DMs will agree).
Just curious what your line to what "most DMs" think is?
I'm NOT fine when a product comes out and try to make vampires all shiny in the sun and all gooddie-good-good with a soft inner caramel center. People lose focus that this is a game of good guys versus monsters. Mazes and Monsters. Dungeons and Dragons. Not: vampire-soup-kitchen-volunteers and wrongly-righteous-adventurers-that-don't-know-they-are-being-mean-to-us-goo d-monsters-and-really-just-pawns-in-a-socially-challenged-DM's-twisted-game -whose-purpose-is-to-make-misguided-social-commentaries
Seriously what are you trying to say with the run on hyphen word thing?
Graywulfe
I'm NOT fine when a product comes out and try to make vampires all shiny in the sun and all gooddie-good-good with a soft inner caramel center. People lose focus that this is a game of good guys versus monsters. Mazes and Monsters. Dungeons and Dragons. Not: vampire-soup-kitchen-volunteers and wrongly-righteous-adventurers-that-don't-know-they-are-being-mean-to-us-goo d-monsters-and-really-just-pawns-in-a-socially-challenged-DM's-twisted-game -whose-purpose-is-to-make-misguided-social-commentariesSeriously what are you trying to say with the run on hyphen word thing?
I think he's saying that he thinks vampires should be evil not secretly fluffy. I can see his point and agree up to a point and since no one has seriously suggested that CC will make vampires cuddly I don't think we need to worry about it happening.
|
|
I think he's saying that he thinks vampires should be evil not secretly fluffy. I can see his point and agree up to a point and since no one has seriously suggested that CC will make vampires cuddly I don't think we need to worry about it happening.I'm NOT fine when a product comes out and try to make vampires all shiny in the sun and all gooddie-good-good with a soft inner caramel center. People lose focus that this is a game of good guys versus monsters. Mazes and Monsters. Dungeons and Dragons. Not: vampire-soup-kitchen-volunteers and wrongly-righteous-adventurers-that-don't-know-they-are-being-mean-to-us-goo d-monsters-and-really-just-pawns-in-a-socially-challenged-DM's-twisted-game -whose-purpose-is-to-make-misguided-social-commentariesSeriously what are you trying to say with the run on hyphen word thing?
What he said. Looking at graywulfe's profile I saw two words that may explain his wish for caramel inner core: elven weretiger.
|
Reducing the desires of those who want something beyond "X is ALWAYS evil and should be murdered" to an absurd caricature is awesome. That'll teach those who have fun wrong the error of their ways.
Dear Paizo, some of us really would enjoy some monsters being written as something other than just complete monsters fit only to be killed. We're in your audience too.
Reducing the desires of those who want something beyond "X is ALWAYS evil and should be murdered" to an absurd caricature is awesome. That'll teach those who have fun wrong the error of their ways.
Dear Paizo, some of us really would enjoy some monsters being written as something other than just complete monsters fit only to be killed. We're in your audience too.
Agreed. While I do like the whole concept of everything but Outsiders and Undead starting off True Neutral and then cultural, spiritual and habitat pressures push them towards their standard alignments, as a GM I only fling the 'really a good guy' Monster at the PCs once or twice a campaign,if that, and only in a situation where killing the 'good' Monster will lead to the PCs having a harder slog through that arc or closing off some fun options they might have had. PCs befriended a LN Ogre Mage back in a 3.5 Setting, ended up getting him a position at the nearby town as a defender of the village and a few levels later, helped find him an Armband of Reduction (Permanent via a Curse) so that he could successfully court a young man. In Paizo, given that the Ogre Mage is now an Oni, rather than a Giant, no way in hell, the Ogre Mage is evil, deal with it. Now an Ogre or another form of Giant, I would leave that option open still.
Now, I love Eberron, Forgotten Realm and Warcraft Orcs. Love them. That said I also love the Pathfinder Orcs because they are Evil as much due to genetics as outside pressures, being born with what could only be described as Hulk-level ADHD and borderline pathological urges. The Race has very valid reasons (to the Orcs point of view) for hating the other races, including the Dwarves, who led a religious, genocidal push against the Orcs out from their ancestral homeland, to the Humans who the Orcs enslaved and then rose up and helped destroy Orcish civilisation after the Orcs had finally turned the tables on their Dwarven aggressors, to the Gnomes for .... well, just being Gnomes.
Will I penalize players for killing a 'Monster' whom they find skulking around the outskirts of town? Not really, but the City Watch (Militia) will complain that they really can't get a lot of answers out of a corpse and now the next time the PCs find another member of that race, they're going to have to wonder if outright violence, subduing the monster or diplomacy are the correct options.
Just because you can kill that tribe of Kobolds doesn't mean you should. Subdue, then offer them the chance to become part of the Human(oid) civilisation of your choice, getting all the rights and responsibilities and protections of that civilisation, and hope that both sides will help out. I've seen this happen twice in the one campaign (Kobold Cleric of Io in the party) First Tribe hesitantly joined a small Human nation ... and was welcomed with open arms so long as they didn't attack Gnomes on sight. PCs came back 7 levels later to find the Kobolds were effectively running every mining operation in the Kingdom and happily enmeshed into the fabric of the Kingdom, being granted their own Noble house to speak for their wishes in the King's Court. Second Tribe was okay for a few months ... the poisoned the community nearby and animated the corpses to protect their new 'lair'. PCs suffered greatly for that, as much their own guilt as the accusations of the families of the victims and the local gentry.
We're Good/You're Bad can be fun ... but at the same point it becomes just as bland and tasteless as the vampire-soup-kitchen-volunteers and wrongly-righteous-adventurers-that-don't-know-they-are-being-mean-to-us-goo d-monsters-and-really-just-pawns-in-a-socially-challenged-DM's-twisted-game -whose-purpose-is-to-make-misguided-social-commentaries setting. NPCs, all NPCs, have feelings, dreams, desires, fears, as as a GM it's my duty to bring those to the fore as much as the combat.
Hobgoblin Fighter who is fearless against Humans and Dwarves and downright 'Guts' towards Elves might flinch at seeing a Gnome or try to offer a Half-Orc a position within his Tribe.
An Elf might very well be polite as anything to the PCs' faces, but during dinner they fall afoul of Taggit-Oil laced roast pig and then find themselves being experimented upon by an Elf who seeks to understand how base Human blood could possibly mingle successfully with his own noble breed.
A Human Barbarian might end up being the PCs greatest ally if they approach him with respect and not snigger at the 'smelly savage in the ripped loincloth' and his 'irrational' beliefs that the Gods are actually powerful spirits just like what his Tribal Shamans call upon.
|
|
Now, I love Eberron, Forgotten Realm and Warcraft Orcs. Love them. That said I also love the Pathfinder Orcs because they are Evil as much due to genetics as outside pressures, being born with what could only be described as Hulk-level ADHD and borderline pathological urges.
That's actually the part that has frustrated me the most in Orcs of Golarion while I've been working on a fan project to actually give support to players that want to have good orcs. It just felt like an intentional lockout to anyone wanting to play one and it's been the hardest thing to come up with a satisfactory "fix" for that didn't come with unfortunate implications.
On the other hand, the part about them having a valid grief with the other races, particularly the dwarves that tried to exterminate them originallly? Oh yeah, definitely agree there.
At least the "orc paladin" reference means they didn't make it flat out impossible to have good orcs as written.
|
|
Reducing the desires of those who want something beyond "X is ALWAYS evil and should be murdered" to an absurd caricature is awesome. That'll teach those who have fun wrong the error of their ways.
Dear Paizo, some of us really would enjoy some monsters being written as something other than just complete monsters fit only to be killed. We're in your audience too.
Kill all monsters! Forget the wishes of these weak-willed tree huggers!!! :P
|
|
Now, I love Eberron, Forgotten Realm and Warcraft Orcs. Love them. That said I also love the Pathfinder Orcs because they are Evil as much due to genetics as outside pressures, being born with what could only be described as Hulk-level ADHD and borderline pathological urges.That's actually the part that has frustrated me the most in Orcs of Golarion while I've been working on a fan project to actually give support to players that want to have good orcs. It just felt like an intentional lockout to anyone wanting to play one and it's been the hardest thing to come up with a satisfactory "fix" for that didn't come with unfortunate implications.
On the other hand, the part about them having a valid grief with the other races, particularly the dwarves that tried to exterminate them originallly? Oh yeah, definitely agree there.
At least the "orc paladin" reference means they didn't make it flat out impossible to have good orcs as written.
Good luck with that fan project. I hope it ever remains that, a fan project.
|
|
Good luck with that fan project. I hope it ever remains that, a fan project.Now, I love Eberron, Forgotten Realm and Warcraft Orcs. Love them. That said I also love the Pathfinder Orcs because they are Evil as much due to genetics as outside pressures, being born with what could only be described as Hulk-level ADHD and borderline pathological urges.That's actually the part that has frustrated me the most in Orcs of Golarion while I've been working on a fan project to actually give support to players that want to have good orcs. It just felt like an intentional lockout to anyone wanting to play one and it's been the hardest thing to come up with a satisfactory "fix" for that didn't come with unfortunate implications.
On the other hand, the part about them having a valid grief with the other races, particularly the dwarves that tried to exterminate them originallly? Oh yeah, definitely agree there.
At least the "orc paladin" reference means they didn't make it flat out impossible to have good orcs as written.
+1. I prefer my genocide and infanticide of stereotypically evil races without moral backlash. And when I crush the skull of a little orc baby, I would rather not have to wonder if she could become a valorous Paladin of Shelyn someday.
|
|
+1. I prefer my genocide and infanticide of stereotypically evil races without moral backlash. And when I crush the skull of a little orc baby, I would rather not have to wonder if she could become a valorous Paladin of Shelyn someday.Good luck with that fan project. I hope it ever remains that, a fan project.Now, I love Eberron, Forgotten Realm and Warcraft Orcs. Love them. That said I also love the Pathfinder Orcs because they are Evil as much due to genetics as outside pressures, being born with what could only be described as Hulk-level ADHD and borderline pathological urges.That's actually the part that has frustrated me the most in Orcs of Golarion while I've been working on a fan project to actually give support to players that want to have good orcs. It just felt like an intentional lockout to anyone wanting to play one and it's been the hardest thing to come up with a satisfactory "fix" for that didn't come with unfortunate implications.
On the other hand, the part about them having a valid grief with the other races, particularly the dwarves that tried to exterminate them originallly? Oh yeah, definitely agree there.
At least the "orc paladin" reference means they didn't make it flat out impossible to have good orcs as written.
*backs away from thread slowly*
Good luck with that fan project. I hope it ever remains that, a fan project.+1. I prefer my genocide and infanticide of stereotypically evil races without moral backlash. And when I crush the skull of a little orc baby, I would rather not have to wonder if she could become a valorous Paladin of Shelyn someday.
I guess that is another case of sarcasm not translating well through the written word, given that this was written by Gorbacz. Emoticons, dude, emoticons!
I guess that is another case of sarcasm not translating well through the written word, given that this was written by Gorbacz. Emoticons, dude, emoticons!Good luck with that fan project. I hope it ever remains that, a fan project.+1. I prefer my genocide and infanticide of stereotypically evil races without moral backlash. And when I crush the skull of a little orc baby, I would rather not have to wonder if she could become a valorous Paladin of Shelyn someday.
Dude, it oozes sarcasm. It translated pretty well ;)
Some players actually do think that way though. I put a village of Yuan-Ti near an encounter site (in the middle of nowhere, as far as civilization was concerned) for flavor once, and the PCs noticed the village while scouting the actual encounter site. They immediately decided that "village of Yuan-Ti = village of Evilness = slaughterfest", despite/because all of the PCs being Good-aligned, and proceeded to murder everyone in it. They even tried to enlist the aid of an Angel through planar ally..
Dude, it oozes sarcasm. It translated pretty well ;)I guess that is another case of sarcasm not translating well through the written word, given that this was written by Gorbacz. Emoticons, dude, emoticons!Good luck with that fan project. I hope it ever remains that, a fan project.+1. I prefer my genocide and infanticide of stereotypically evil races without moral backlash. And when I crush the skull of a little orc baby, I would rather not have to wonder if she could become a valorous Paladin of Shelyn someday.
Yeah, we did read that correctly, but you can bet a lot of people wouldn't have. ^^
Hiya!
Yeah, I know I may be in the minority when it comes to the fiction -- and I'm 100% positive that the good people at Paizo LOVE the fiction, so regardless of what I say, it ain't going anywhere. :-)
And heck, I may even like the fiction if I read it, but that's not what I'm getting the APs for, so it doesn't even occur to me to read it, you know?
I will ask you this. Go put all of your AP's in the bathroom. You know, the bathroom you use at home when its been a chili night. Especially AP 32, Richard Pett's finest moment, I might say.
Read the fiction. I'm telling you again. Read the fiction.
AP 2-18 was a great story about how you could have threads working from the start of your great campaign to the bitter and unforgiving 'ending', although we now know that Eando is with the serpent folk.
Those pieces should be a part of your 'to read' list. I'm not telling you for any other reason than 'its fricken good'. It is amazing. Granted, I haven't enjoyed many of the other AP fiction characters (the Kingmaker series was good) as much as I enjoyed Eando. I don't know why I enjoyed him so much, he was just so damn cool.
Sigh.
Read the fiction.
-Bruce
I will ask you this. Go put all of your AP's in the bathroom. You know, the bathroom you use at home when its been a chili night. Especially AP 32, Richard Pett's finest moment, I might say.Read the fiction. I'm telling you again. Read the fiction.
AP 2-18 was a great story about how you could have threads working from the start of your great campaign to the bitter and unforgiving 'ending', although we now know that Eando is with the serpent folk.
Those pieces should be a part of your 'to read' list. I'm not telling you for any other reason than 'its fricken good'. It is amazing. Granted, I haven't enjoyed many of the other AP fiction characters (the Kingmaker series was good) as much as I enjoyed Eando. I don't know why I enjoyed him so much, he was just so damn cool.
Sigh.
Read the fiction.
-Bruce
The Kingmaker AP is the first one I got (I've only recently come to Pathfinder after many years away from D&D, so the only ones I have access to are that (which I'm running) and Serpent Skull, which I'm playing in so I don't know how much the GM would be keen on me looking at the books and maybe seeing things I shouldn't...and besides, he has the books. :-)
So on your recommendation, I'll give the Kingmaker fiction a shot.