Hi,
I'm running a Kingmaker group at the moment (as DM) and one of my players plays a alchemist who's always looking for some herbs if they explore a hex.
This lead to the problem that in Pathfinder (& DnD) you don't really have herb description.
This brings me back to my P&P starts, I started with DSA (The Black Eye or Realms of Arcania).
This world was very detailled and get a lot of flavour from this small descriptions.
Let my explain it by going back to the herbs (and the related alchemie).
DnD:
No Herbs
Alchemy = pay x gp for mats, take your time, roll
DSA:
A book full of Herbs, each with small descriptions etc.
Alchemy = you need herb X, 2x Herb Y, Sulfur and Holy Water, take your time, roll
But this is not only at this, let's take the spells descriptions:
DnD:
Fireball
Stats
Description:
Pure facts, no flavour
DSA:
Ignisphereo Fireball
The caster grabs some guano and sulfur, roll it in his hand to form a small ball. As he throws the ball toward his enemy the ball catch fire and grows, at the end it explodes in a ball of fire.
Then a few stats
At least some "modifications" which can be applied (similar to the alchemistical items as maic focus stuff from the adventurers armory).
I understood why DnD took this approach, they have to cover a lot of different worlds (but even they brought some flavour via the Splat books). Pathfinder is focused on one world (which is by the way a little to "let's take the best of all" in my opinion^^), so why not bring some flavour to the world?
One posibility would be a Spell Book, where you have complete descriptions (also I have to refer to DSA "Codex Cantiones").
:Hi,I'm running a Kingmaker group at the moment (as DM) and one of my players plays a alchemist who's always looking for some herbs if they explore a hex.
This lead to the problem that in Pathfinder (& DnD) you don't really have herb description.This brings me back to my P&P starts, I started with DSA (The Black Eye or Realms of Arcania).
This world was very detailled and get a lot of flavour from this small descriptions.Let my explain it by going back to the herbs (and the related alchemie).
DnD:
No Herbs
Alchemy = pay x gp for mats, take your time, rollDSA:
A book full of Herbs, each with small descriptions etc.
Alchemy = you need herb X, 2x Herb Y, Sulfur and Holy Water, take your time, rollBut this is not only at this, let's take the spells descriptions:
DnD:
Fireball
Stats
Description:
Pure facts, no flavourDSA:
Ignisphereo FireballThe caster grabs some guano and sulfur, roll it in his hand to form a small ball. As he throws the ball toward his enemy the ball catch fire and grows, at the end it explodes in a ball of fire.
Then a few stats
At least some "modifications" which can be applied (similar to the alchemistical items as maic focus stuff from the adventurers armory).
I understood why DnD took this approach, they have to cover a lot of different worlds (but even they brought some flavour via the Splat books). Pathfinder is focused on one world (which is by the way a little to "let's take the best of all" in my opinion^^), so why not bring some flavour to the world?
One posibility would be a Spell Book, where you have complete descriptions (also I have to refer to DSA "Codex Cantiones").
They generalized it because too many people complained about having to track all their spell components...
I was NOT amongst those complainers, I personally loved tracking all the intricate things about being a wizard. Also the belt of many pouches was the handy haversack of the day.
I'd say this would be more of a "setting" sort of thing rather than a general rules thing; In the Inner Sea World Guide, there's a brief description of plants/flora in the fourth chapter. Also in PF Chronicle: Heart of the Jungle, there's some stuff about plants that can be found in the Mwangi.
I believe I've read somewhere that this is the difference between european and american Pen&Paper RPG's.
European is very role play centered, while american is a lot more technical (to not say roll-play). This isn't about the people who play, but how the books are structured.
From the european RPG books I own, I believe this is true.
But describing single herbs is setting taken to the extreme. It's like describing the beers and their taste and colour in the different regions of the world, or what Minotaur-cheese tastes like (are there female minotaurs, do they give milk?.
Seriously, roll profession herbalist, roll how many GP of herbs he has gathered, and if he wants any more exact either make it up or let him make it up.
I feel the same way about movement. Where's strolling, skipping, hopping, ambling, cantering, hiking, meandering, hoofing it, strutting, roaming, or traversing covered? The GM is forced to rely on house rules for all of it!
I want a table for all of that right freakin' NOW! GIMME!
I feel the same way about movement. Where's strolling, skipping, hopping, ambling, cantering, hiking, meandering, hoofing it, strutting, roaming, or traversing covered? The GM is forced to rely on house rules for all of it!
I'm just curious, where would you use rules that cover those types of movements? Like in battle? Or while sneaking?? O.o
I want to think your sarcastic because I honestly don't see where that level of detail would be needed outside descriptive narrative, but I honestly don't know.
Anyway, while I'm generally a fan of abstraction, I do feel a lot of flavor of crafting is lost without ingredients. I love the idea of searching for something rare to craft a power potion or weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't think of anything less interesting than having to read and memorize a botany book in order for my spell-caster character to do something.
I don't have any interest in having to know what the actual words a cleric uses to pray in the morning are. I don't have any interest in knowing which muscle groups are used in what order when a fighter trips someone. I don't want to know how old the leather constituting my backpack is. I'm disinterested in a game where I have to actually be a zoologist in order to play a ranger with Handle Animal.
Look, it's turtles all the way down. To me it's sufficient to abstract spell components and herbs as "my mage gets what he needs". Getting mired in the details of why one herb instead of another just leads to the question why. Why that herb? Someone has to make up a backstory explaining how certain herbs work. Which then begs the question why the herbs work at all, and so on. Next thing I know I'm dealing with quantum physics in a fake reality. No thanks. "In order to brew something that does X, you need certain types of Y." Just repeat after me... "my mage goes and gets some Y."
The point is that this is a fictional world. Things work the way they do in the story for one of two reasons
1.) The GM is in desperate need of an editor to cut out stuff that doesn't contribute to the story or
2.) The stuff contributes to the storyBy "contributing to the story", I don't mean that the player needs to know the past 300 years of history of a city in order to know why the city's walls are the particular shape they are. This is why I don't understand why people actually like Tolkien. He was a hack with an obsessive compulsive disorder. The story should focus on action and plot - making things move. Four pages of description is NOT making things move. It's the difference between being descrribed some place and being told a story. Compare Howard to Tolkien and you'll see what I'm talking about. Game systems are the same way. Most players want their PCs to engage in a story, not sit qwuietly while the GM describes, in great detail, imaginary place. The instant you find yourself bogged down in learning the minute differences between two closely related things - particularly things that the PCs are going to be doing often - you're no longer playing an RPG. You are, at best, being a journalist recrding someone else's fantasy. The GM needs to be politely asked to the back of the room and tied to a chair so that the players can cut out all the tedious, pointless detail.
Ah, that I'm in agreement with. I feel that the detail should be there if it's specifically asked for, but otherwise hidden behind the curtain of abstraction. Though, I feel that rare ingredients should be excluded from that abstraction.
However, Golarion and the Pathfinder Ruleset being as magic saturated as it is, makes the creation of magical items extremely common and even a necessity thus it needs to be simple because of how ingrained it is to keeping the game balanced; at least by RAW. That ends up dulling and overshadowing the adventure of collecting rare ingredients and discovering what they'll create.
If anything, it'll probably be covered by a 3PP before paizo does anything about it.
As an answer to OP's question though, I'd say no; the generalization in Pathfinder is one of its finer aspects.
If its bothering you there'/s a list of drugs, many of which sound like plants that could be picked with minimal processing
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/mastery/drugsAndAddiction.html
I'm being sarcastic.The point is that this is a fictional world. Things work the way they do in the story for one of two reasons
1.) The GM is in desperate need of an editor to cut out stuff that doesn't contribute to the story or
2.) The stuff contributes to the storyBy "contributing to the story", I don't mean that the player needs to know the past 300 years of history of a city in order to know why the city's walls are the particular shape they are. This is why I don't understand why people actually like Tolkien. He was a hack with an obsessive compulsive disorder. The story should focus on action and plot - making things move. Four pages of description is NOT making things move. It's the difference between being descrribed some place and being told a story. Compare Howard to Tolkien and you'll see what I'm talking about. Game systems are the same way. Most players want their PCs to engage in a story, not sit qwuietly while the GM describes, in great detail, imaginary place. The instant you find yourself bogged down in learning the minute differences between two closely related things - particularly things that the PCs are going to be doing often - you're no longer playing an RPG. You are, at best, being a...
I agree with you mostly. Personally I enjoy some backstory about a place or race or nation, especially if I'm building a character there, so I can get it somewhat right.
(I also agree about Tolkien, I stopped reading the first LotR book about halfway through. Like the movies though :) )But yes, I don't need the history of every tree in the forest to feel that its a forest.
I don't necessarily need 100s of herbs to describe what does what. That's not even a difference between role-playing and roll-playing I think, but between micro-management and not. Just because you don't want to keep track of all that doesn't make you any less of a roleplayer.
Some people enjoy it, others don't, it's that simple.
I think Pathfinder is going a good middle way. By default you roll a dice and get "x amount of gp worth of stuff" etc. Or if you want you can go into alot more detail and use a 3PP book (I think there's one for 3.5 at least), that describes different herbs and such.
Or you make stuff up yourself.
Better this way than having everyone keep track of everything by default.
That way you can keep everyone happy.
My experience with crafting requiring a laundry list of ingredents has been as such:
DM: "In order to craft the potion of potionness you'll need W,X,Y, and Z."
Player: "...okay. Can I get them at the market?"
DM: "W,X,and Y, yes. Z however is extremely rare and you'll have to engage in a two month (real time, not game time) quest to find it!"
Player: "Ah, nevermind. What do I need to make a potion of potionishness?"
DM: "Well, that will take..."
I cringe whenever a Dungeon Master starts to explain that they don't like the abstraction of crafting because everytime it's been used as a way to prevent item crafting without actually having to say no. I'm not saying that all Dungeon Master will behave that way, just my experience.
Additional, I'm not a huge fan of excessive fluff. A little bit is fine, but when I buy a core book I buy it for its' rules. I can, and will, supply my own fluff. I would annoyed if valuble space was spent describing the exact manner in which a wizard rolls a ball of guano.
Of course I run my games pretty much only in my own homebrew world, so a list of Golarion herbs would be of little use to me.
The game is written with a balancing act between generalization and specific flavor text. The reason being that core book is meant to be adaptable to various campaign worlds, either published ones or home made ones. What flavor text there is for spells like fireball has been established over many editions of the game. Barring those little details, such as material components, the heavy lifting for game flavor is left for the GM to include as they desire.