@Rynjin: does the +5 to craft DC for "missing a prerequisite" also apply to Caster Level? I admit I am much more familiar with item crafting procedure in 3.5e than in Pathfinder. If a PF crafter can ignore minimum caster level by taking a +5 hit to the DC then yes, it seems like relatively low level crafters can make a lot more items. Doesn't feel right to me mind you.
Yep, anything applies to that, except having the right crafting Feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Rynjin: does the +5 to craft DC for "missing a prerequisite" also apply to Caster Level? I admit I am much more familiar with item crafting procedure in 3.5e than in Pathfinder. If a PF crafter can ignore minimum caster level by taking a +5 hit to the DC then yes, it seems like relatively low level crafters can make a lot more items. Doesn't feel right to me mind you.Yep, anything applies to that, except having the right crafting Feat.
Rise of the commoner lich!
I would say "but my character could exist in the mythology of the world" is a perfect example of "special snowflake" messing with a campaign setting. Because unless it is the premise of the campaign common people being likely to either fall prone in worship or flee in terror before your level 1 magus will be rather disrupting to the plot. Alternatively making NPCs indifferent to your party resembling a supernatural circus troupe just so every trip to a town doesn't start with being dragged to jail or the church or just being stabbed on sight can be equally campaign disrupting.
If we're going on the theory of "ancient Egypt" rather than "ancient Egypt & its mythology", then a level 1 human magus would result in just as much worship/fleeing in terror.
Ancient Egypt didn't have burning hands, chill touch, or reduce person any more than it had bird-headed personas.
Edit As to the "6 core races" item, the comparison was an Egyptian-themed game. Elves, gnomes, and orcs would get more side-long glances & freakshow responses (being from germanic, gaul, and other not-Egyptian mythologies) than anything that's properly understood or inspired by their own mythology (bird-people, fox-people, demon-blooded, children of the undead).
You can hide being a magus simply by not shooting fire out of your hands in public and most people would expect some sort of consequences were to do so.
I was going outside the Egypt example when I said "6 core races". The important bit is a player picking a race common people wouldn't have ever seen or possibly heard of before especially if it involves extraplanar parentage.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
the core races for a setting should be based on the setting itself, rather than what the core rulebook says, and well, other races should be available if there are alternate countries with feasible travel access or reasonable reskinning.
Ancient Egypt? sure, bird people, shapeshifting fox people, half-undead, and the scions of malicious pseudo deities are fine, the latter 2 are fairly common in any setting inspired by a nationality that once belonged to either the Greek, Roman or Persian Empires during it's distant history, which is pretty much every part of Europe, Asia and Africa.
bird people? a bit questionable, but just fine for egypt
shapeshifting fox people? there is literally a fox for every nation, and shapeshifting is just as prevelant in mythology as demigods, malicious minor deities, fey, living dead, and celestial artifacts.
the core races for a setting should be based on the setting itself, rather than what the core rulebook says, and well, other races should be available if there are alternate countries with feasible travel access or reasonable reskinning.
Ancient Egypt? sure, bird people, shapeshifting fox people, half-undead, and the scions of malicious pseudo deities are fine, the latter 2 are fairly common in any setting inspired by a nationality that once belonged to either the Greek, Roman or Persian Empires during it's distant history, which is pretty much every part of Europe, Asia and Africa.
bird people? a bit questionable, but just fine for egypt
shapeshifting fox people? there is literally a fox for every nation, and shapeshifting is just as prevelant in mythology as demigods, malicious minor deities, fey, living dead, and celestial artifacts.
And this is how the steamroller rolls on. GM spends hours creating campaign with very specific ideas in mind (my example would have allowed for all of the mostly human races from the CRB, not gnomes or halflings). Then the party shows up and harangues the GM with argument after argument of why they MUST be allowed to play the monstrosity they created. They think writing a convincing enough backstory should do the trick, as if the GM doesn't know the entirety of the world he created. Hey, who cares what the GM created anyway since the game belongs to the players and they should be accommodated at all costs.
The players have the right to walk out on a game they don't want to play. The GM has the right to walk out on a game he/she doesn't want to run.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
as if the GM doesn't know the entirety of the world he created.
Waitasecond, leaving the rest of your post aside for a moment, since when does the GM know the entirety of the world he created?
as if the GM doesn't know the entirety of the world he created.Waitasecond, leaving the rest of your post aside for a moment, since when does the GM know the entirety of the world he created?
The few times I've created campaigns from scratch I have created every facet of every world the players ended up in. Boy, I guess I'm a real sucker for putting in time and effort to build a world I know inside and out.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
the core races for a setting should be based on the setting itself, rather than what the core rulebook says, and well, other races should be available if there are alternate countries with feasible travel access or reasonable reskinning.
Ancient Egypt? sure, bird people, shapeshifting fox people, half-undead, and the scions of malicious pseudo deities are fine, the latter 2 are fairly common in any setting inspired by a nationality that once belonged to either the Greek, Roman or Persian Empires during it's distant history, which is pretty much every part of Europe, Asia and Africa.
bird people? a bit questionable, but just fine for egypt
shapeshifting fox people? there is literally a fox for every nation, and shapeshifting is just as prevelant in mythology as demigods, malicious minor deities, fey, living dead, and celestial artifacts.
And this is how the steamroller rolls on. GM spends hours creating campaign with very specific ideas in mind (my example would have allowed for all of the mostly human races from the CRB, not gnomes or halflings). Then the party shows up and harangues the GM with argument after argument of why they MUST be allowed to play the monstrosity they created. They think writing a convincing enough backstory should do the trick, as if the GM doesn't know the entirety of the world he created. Hey, who cares what the GM created anyway since the game belongs to the players and they should be accommodated at all costs.
The players have the right to walk out on a game they don't want to play. The GM has the right to walk out on a game he/she doesn't want to run.
It's not your player's fault you didn't properly explain the type of game you wanted to play. There's a large difference between "Hey guys, Egyptian mythology game, mind keeping it to humanoid races? Got a theme and vibe I'm going for, we'll talk about fitting in some other stuff if you want," and "Hey guys, Egyptian mythology game, fit the vague theme that I'm giving you...no, not that. Or that...or that...you know what, forget it, you don't know a thing about the game I wanted to run."
The few times I've created campaigns from scratch I have created every facet of every world the players ended up in. Boy, I guess I'm a real sucker for putting in time and effort to build a world I know inside and out.as if the GM doesn't know the entirety of the world he created.Waitasecond, leaving the rest of your post aside for a moment, since when does the GM know the entirety of the world he created?
"Every facet"?
Must be a very boring world to play in, then, if the players have no say and no agency in what goes on, every tiny bit of the setting is planned out and set ins tone, with no wiggle room, no possibility of anything new ever being added since every part of the world is already thought up...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not your player's fault you didn't properly explain the type of game you wanted to play. There's a large difference between "Hey guys, Egyptian mythology game, mind keeping it to humanoid races? Got a theme and vibe I'm going for, we'll talk about fitting in some other stuff if you want," and "Hey guys, Egyptian mythology game, fit the vague theme that I'm giving you...no, not that. Or that...or that...you know what, forget it, you don't know a thing about the game I wanted to run."
Is it also not their fault if rather than remaking characters after receiving more information they decide to argue every last point to keep the things they already made? What's going to happen if I don't interject every item they need to make their characters "viable"?
The few times I've created campaigns from scratch I have created every facet of every world the players ended up in. Boy, I guess I'm a real sucker for putting in time and effort to build a world I know inside and out.as if the GM doesn't know the entirety of the world he created.Waitasecond, leaving the rest of your post aside for a moment, since when does the GM know the entirety of the world he created?"Every facet"?
Must be a very boring world to play in, then, if the players have no say and no agency in what goes on, every tiny bit of the setting is planned out and set ins tone, with no wiggle room, no possibility of anything new ever being added since every part of the world is already thought up...
Huh, yep you nailed it right on the head with that bit of ... something. When I build a world I build the whole world. Every continent, every country, every racial interaction, every bit of politics. Sure it sucks for the players having to exist in a world they don't have complete control over, I mean if it's that much like real life why bother playing. Right?
if it's that much like real life why bother playing. Right?Right. Finally we can agree on something.
I think we could also agree that neither of us would enjoy the other's company in a game (probably).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not your player's fault you didn't properly explain the type of game you wanted to play. There's a large difference between "Hey guys, Egyptian mythology game, mind keeping it to humanoid races? Got a theme and vibe I'm going for, we'll talk about fitting in some other stuff if you want," and "Hey guys, Egyptian mythology game, fit the vague theme that I'm giving you...no, not that. Or that...or that...you know what, forget it, you don't know a thing about the game I wanted to run."Is it also not their fault if rather than remaking characters after receiving more information they decide to argue every last point to keep the things they already made? What's going to happen if I don't interject every item they need to make their characters "viable"?
It is their fault. I'm not arguing that. A consensus of the group is what's needed, as is the ability to compromise. Saying "Hey Larry, Tengu don't work, for my setting, but we could refluff you into something that does, or maybe you could always have a heavy robe on so people don't scream DEMON CROW every time you walk into a room" is a compromise.
Same with items. Maybe your game doesn't have a Trident of Fish Command, and I came in wanting to be Aquaman. You can say "Hey Ehnjamin, Aquaman won't work in this game, it's a desert, there are little fish for you to command, but maybe we could work on an idea that does work for this game."
It always feels like old school G/DMs are the least willing compromise though since the game has a history of saying "You're right no matter what you do." There's two sides to the game, and the new school is more embracing of the players wants than the old school was. It's up to you to decide if this is good or bad, and how it impacts how you play the game though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The few times I've created campaigns from scratch I have created every facet of every world the players ended up in. Boy, I guess I'm a real sucker for putting in time and effort to build a world I know inside and out.as if the GM doesn't know the entirety of the world he created.Waitasecond, leaving the rest of your post aside for a moment, since when does the GM know the entirety of the world he created?"Every facet"?
Must be a very boring world to play in, then, if the players have no say and no agency in what goes on, every tiny bit of the setting is planned out and set ins tone, with no wiggle room, no possibility of anything new ever being added since every part of the world is already thought up...
And this sounds like every player who has never GMed.
(not implying you have not taken up mantel just saying how it sounds).| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We rarely use generic magical gear and we never buy, sell and trade magic items like baseball cards, and our games have been all the better because of it. Sometimes its good to keep the magical... well, magical, and to avoid gear becoming a crutch for subpar character planning.
The few times I've created campaigns from scratch I have created every facet of every world the players ended up in. Boy, I guess I'm a real sucker for putting in time and effort to build a world I know inside and out.as if the GM doesn't know the entirety of the world he created.Waitasecond, leaving the rest of your post aside for a moment, since when does the GM know the entirety of the world he created?
Every last facet, huh?
I assume I failed a Sense Motive check vs sarcasm before.
It is their fault. I'm not arguing that. A consensus of the group is what's needed, as is the ability to compromise. Saying "Hey Larry, Tengu don't work, for my setting, but we could refluff you into something that does, or maybe you could always have a heavy robe on so people don't scream DEMON CROW every time you walk into a room" is a compromise.
Same with items. Maybe your game doesn't have a Trident of Fish Command, and I came in wanting to be Aquaman. You can say "Hey Ehnjamin, Aquaman won't work in this game, it's a desert, there are little fish for you to command, but maybe we could work on an idea that does work for this game."
It always feels like old school G/DMs are the least willing compromise though since the game has a history of saying "You're right no matter what you do." There's two sides to the game, and the new school is more embracing of the players wants than the old school was. It's up to you to decide if this is good or bad, and how it impacts how you play the game though.
Absolutely. I don't have a problem with giving players in my campaign the things they're looking for generally. We use random loot rolls most of the time and I'll usually modify some items to be more useful. That being said, the players shouldn't necessarily expect every last plot item to be exactly tailored to their characters. St Cuthbert doesn't care if you like falchions, he likes clubs.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The few times I've created campaigns from scratch I have created every facet of every world the players ended up in. Boy, I guess I'm a real sucker for putting in time and effort to build a world I know inside and out.as if the GM doesn't know the entirety of the world he created.Waitasecond, leaving the rest of your post aside for a moment, since when does the GM know the entirety of the world he created?"Every facet"?
Must be a very boring world to play in, then, if the players have no say and no agency in what goes on, every tiny bit of the setting is planned out and set ins tone, with no wiggle room, no possibility of anything new ever being added since every part of the world is already thought up...
And this sounds like every player who has never GMed.
(not implying you have not taken up mantel just saying how it sounds).
I don't see how.
I really don't understand why "GM" has to mean "Absolute ruler and creator over all things in the setting". Why does every single thing have to be planned out beforehand?
It doesn't really add to the richness of your setting (detail is unnecessary for that, since your players aren't going to get all that detail unless they go there anyway).
It makes more work for you (and GMing a homebrew is already hard enough as-is).
And it locks the players out of having any investment in the world itself. They have no hope of adding anything to it besides their character.
When they say "So I want to be from a small fishing village called Blah Blah on the border of such and such" and your answer is something like "Noooo, the village of Blee bloo is there and it's populated entirely by hobgoblins! That just won't do at all! I know you didn't know that beforehand, and it'll never come up in-game, but...", you've put TOO MUCH detail into your world, which is as much of a detriment as having too little.
It means your world is essentially stagnant from the get-go, and stagnation is quite boring. There needs to be wiggle room, unplanned facets, room for the players to have some creative agency in the world or it's hard for them to become invested in anything beyond their immediate circle of their character, the party, and the current quest.
No actual published setting is that restrictive. Golarion certainly isn't.
Hell, some APs (Reign of Winter as one off the top of my head) start off in places that are explicitly called out as being able to be placed pretty much anywhere in the world without affecting much, allowing you to accommodate player backgrounds.
If everyone is from Andoran, you don't want the village to be in Cheliax.
It's not your player's fault you didn't properly explain the type of game you wanted to play. There's a large difference between "Hey guys, Egyptian mythology game, mind keeping it to humanoid races? Got a theme and vibe I'm going for, we'll talk about fitting in some other stuff if you want," and "Hey guys, Egyptian mythology game, fit the vague theme that I'm giving you...no, not that. Or that...or that...you know what, forget it, you don't know a thing about the game I wanted to run."Is it also not their fault if rather than remaking characters after receiving more information they decide to argue every last point to keep the things they already made? What's going to happen if I don't interject every item they need to make their characters "viable"?It is their fault. I'm not arguing that. A consensus of the group is what's needed, as is the ability to compromise. Saying "Hey Larry, Tengu don't work, for my setting, but we could refluff you into something that does, or maybe you could always have a heavy robe on so people don't scream DEMON CROW every time you walk into a room" is a compromise.
Same with items. Maybe your game doesn't have a Trident of Fish Command, and I came in wanting to be Aquaman. You can say "Hey Ehnjamin, Aquaman won't work in this game, it's a desert, there are little fish for you to command, but maybe we could work on an idea that does work for this game."
It always feels like old school G/DMs are the least willing compromise though since the game has a history of saying "You're right no matter what you do." There's two sides to the game, and the new school is more embracing of the players wants than the old school was. It's up to you to decide if this is good or bad, and how it impacts how you play the game though.
So does Pathfinder...
CRB Page 369 "The Gamemaster must be the final arbiter of everything that occurs in the game. All rule books, including this one, are his tools, but his word is the law."Looks pretty cut and dried to me.
The GM is the final word on what does and does not belong in the game world. Not; as seems to be common thought, the Players.
The few times I've created campaigns from scratch I have created every facet of every world the players ended up in. Boy, I guess I'm a real sucker for putting in time and effort to build a world I know inside and out.as if the GM doesn't know the entirety of the world he created.Waitasecond, leaving the rest of your post aside for a moment, since when does the GM know the entirety of the world he created?Every last facet, huh?
I assume I failed a Sense Motive check vs sarcasm before.
Pardon me for sometimes having an overactive imagination and being smart enough to make it all work. I know it's not the norm. When I build a world, I build the @*^# out of it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pardon me for sometimes having an overactive imagination and being smart enough to make it all work. I know it's not the norm. When I build a world, I build the @*^# out of it.The few times I've created campaigns from scratch I have created every facet of every world the players ended up in. Boy, I guess I'm a real sucker for putting in time and effort to build a world I know inside and out.as if the GM doesn't know the entirety of the world he created.Waitasecond, leaving the rest of your post aside for a moment, since when does the GM know the entirety of the world he created?Every last facet, huh?
I assume I failed a Sense Motive check vs sarcasm before.
Nothing wrong with that.
I do much the same.
As a GM and a Player (though sadly more GM) my GMing philosophy at it's most basic can be described as "Be the kind of GM you would like to play under." And I know that if what I want to play is a Tengu Hexcrafter, I would want the GM to work with me to make that fit. And thus I am that kind of GM.
I'm not going to say its the only or the best way. But I will say that does make for enjoyable sessions. Especially when you are the person GMing the OTHER GM this time and will have to play in their campaign later.
I don't see how.
I really don't understand why "GM" has to mean "Absolute ruler and creator over all things in the setting". Why does every single thing have to be planned out beforehand?
It doesn't really add to the richness of your setting (detail is unnecessary for that, since your players aren't going to get all that detail unless they go there anyway).
It makes more work for you (and GMing a homebrew is already hard enough as-is).
And it locks the players out of having any investment in the world itself. They have no hope of adding anything to it besides their character.
When they say "So I want to be from a small fishing village called Blah Blah on the border of such and such" and your answer is something like "Noooo, the village of Blee bloo is there and it's populated entirely by hobgoblins! That just won't do at all! I know you didn't know that beforehand, and it'll never come up in-game, but...", you've put TOO MUCH detail into your world, which is as much of a detriment as having too little.
It means your world is essentially stagnant from the get-go, and stagnation is quite boring. There needs to be wiggle room, unplanned facets, room for the players to have some creative agency in the world or it's hard for them to become invested in anything beyond their immediate circle of their character, the party, and the current quest.
What really happens is:
Player: Here's the back story I'd like to go with.
GM: OK, that works fine. You're from village X in country Y which is on the edge of river Z.
Player: Sounds good. I would like to have events A, B, and C to have happened to my character and/or family and that's why I'm adventuring.
GM: OK, here's how those events took place and here are the names of the people that will have been involved.
Now the player and I have created the back story together and we're both invested in it. Now we'll both know the actors that may need to show up later to help or harm that character. Sorry if you find that boring or stagnating.
And when did I ever say that the player's actions will never have an effect on the world? That's the point of dropping them in there, isn't it? I have a world that I have fully fleshed out, now it's time to get the players in there to make a mess of it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM and a Player (though sadly more GM) my GMing philosophy at it's most basic can be described as "Be the kind of GM you would like to play under." And I know that if what I want to play is a Tengu Hexcrafter, I would want the GM to work with me to make that fit. And thus I am that kind of GM.
I'm not going to say its the only or the best way. But I will say that does make for enjoyable sessions. Especially when you are the person GMing the OTHER GM this time and will have to play in their campaign later.
Likewise - and this is just me - I've always been the sort of player who designs a character that will suit a particular campaign because I want to play in that campaign, not the sort who designs a character and expects the campaign to contort itself around me. I don't play through Wrath of Righteous when I want to play an evil character. I don't play through Skull n Shackles when I want to be a Paladin. I play through those campaigns because I want to take advantage of what they offer.
Just like I don't go into an Italian place and demand Mexican - if Mexican is what I want, I go to a Mexican place rather than expect the Italian place to accommodate my demands.
@Simon Legrande - I don't think that is bad necessarily, but I do think that players should be able to add something to the over arching story through back story elements and plot hooks. If a world is too "hardcoded", then the game really starts to sound like story hour instead of a collaborative effort. Maybe you should try incorporating your players into some of the world building? It certainly can't do anything but help people with context.
Pardon me for sometimes having an overactive imagination and being smart enough to make it all work. I know it's not the norm. When I build a world, I build the @*^# out of it.The few times I've created campaigns from scratch I have created every facet of every world the players ended up in. Boy, I guess I'm a real sucker for putting in time and effort to build a world I know inside and out.as if the GM doesn't know the entirety of the world he created.Waitasecond, leaving the rest of your post aside for a moment, since when does the GM know the entirety of the world he created?Every last facet, huh?
I assume I failed a Sense Motive check vs sarcasm before.
Nothing wrong with that.
I do much the same.
Forgive me if I continue to suspect truly wild hyperbole, albeit whilst being unable to determine whether it is sarcastic hyperbole or sincerely intended.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So does Pathfinder...
CRB Page 369 "The Gamemaster must be the final arbiter of everything that occurs in the game. All rule books, including this one,...
I recognize this, and as a GM I appreciate this, but using this absolute authority without consideration for those playing with you is counter productive. The game needs some internal consistency in the rules, or else the players won't know how to play. It's fine if you lay these things out ahead of time and EVERYONE AGREES, or at least agrees to the point where they won't fight it.
But saying "Players wanting things? The fiends!" is a poor way of handling that responsibility, and shows a lack of respect for people in your game. Magic Items are fun, let them be fun, and make them fun however you and your players best want. But don't talk like limiting items because it's the right way to do things is anything but a personally held belief, because anyone coming to the table with knowledge from the CRB should be told if a metropolis won't have 16k+ items in it.
GM dominance has to be married to GM flexibility, or it will lead to GM loneliness.
Forgive me if I continue to suspect truly wild hyperbole, albeit whilst being unable to determine whether it is sarcastic hyperbole or sincerely intended.Pardon me for sometimes having an overactive imagination and being smart enough to make it all work. I know it's not the norm. When I build a world, I build the @*^# out of it.The few times I've created campaigns from scratch I have created every facet of every world the players ended up in. Boy, I guess I'm a real sucker for putting in time and effort to build a world I know inside and out.as if the GM doesn't know the entirety of the world he created.Waitasecond, leaving the rest of your post aside for a moment, since when does the GM know the entirety of the world he created?Every last facet, huh?
I assume I failed a Sense Motive check vs sarcasm before.
Nothing wrong with that.
I do much the same.
It's a standard human trait to believe that one is the smartest person in the room and nobody else could possibly be above them. It's also pretty common for people to assume that everyone else is just like them to the point where they are totally unable to believe that someone might be different. You hang on to those suspicions, I'm not going to stop you.
I don't see how.The few times I've created campaigns from scratch I have created every facet of every world the players ended up in. Boy, I guess I'm a real sucker for putting in time and effort to build a world I know inside and out.as if the GM doesn't know the entirety of the world he created.Waitasecond, leaving the rest of your post aside for a moment, since when does the GM know the entirety of the world he created?"Every facet"?
Must be a very boring world to play in, then, if the players have no say and no agency in what goes on, every tiny bit of the setting is planned out and set ins tone, with no wiggle room, no possibility of anything new ever being added since every part of the world is already thought up...
And this sounds like every player who has never GMed.
(not implying you have not taken up mantel just saying how it sounds).
The world is the GMs PC. How would you feel if the GM looked at your character sheet and said "no your Barbarian with a 20 STR is all wrong make it 15 and CHA 18, oh and while you are at it lose that extra rage Feat and replace it with Improved Trip.
That is what you are doing to the GM when you start to make demands on how the setting is designed.I really don't understand why "GM" has to mean "Absolute ruler and creator over all things in the setting".
Why does Player have to mean "absolute monarch of all that applies to this PC?"
Why does every single thing have to be planned out beforehand?
Who says the PCs actions are preplanned? You assume too much.
It doesn't really add to the richness of your setting (detail is unnecessary for that, since your players aren't going to get all that detail unless they go there anyway).
You do not write backstory for your character? design little quirks that may or may not be seen by the rest of the party? now that sounds boring.
It makes more work for you (and GMing a homebrew is already hard enough as-is).
You find GMing Homebrew settings hard? there is your disconnect then... Homebrew settings make it easier to design adventures because you do not have to worry that you are violating some preset canon.
And it locks the players out of having any investment in the world itself. They have no hope of adding anything to it besides their character.
I do not see how.
When they say "So I want to be from a small fishing village called Blah Blah on the border of such and such" and your answer is something like "Noooo, the village of Blee bloo is there and it's populated entirely by hobgoblins! That just won't do at all! I know you didn't know that beforehand, and it'll never come up in-game, but...", you've put TOO MUCH detail into your world, which is as much of a detriment as having too little.
I agree that too little detail is a detriment but as a GM I have found you can never have too much detail.
It means your world is essentially stagnant from the get-go, and stagnation is quite boring. There needs to be wiggle room, unplanned facets, room for the players to have some creative agency in the world or it's hard for them to become invested in anything beyond their immediate circle of their character, the party, and the current quest.
I have a highly detailed oriental fantasy setting that is anything except boring. Detail does not equal stagnation.
No actual published setting is that restrictive. Golarion certainly isn't.
because they want to sell more books. If I give you every single detail in one book that is not a wise market strategy.
Hell, some APs (Reign of Winter as one off the top of my head) start off in places that are explicitly called out as being able to be placed pretty much anywhere in the world without affecting much, allowing you to accommodate player backgrounds.
That is so you can also plug them into your Homebrew setting with little effort (again market strategy).
If everyone is from Andoran, you don't want the village to be in Cheliax.
I do If I want the adventure to take place in Cheliax.
Why do you want the adventure to take place in Cheliax if literally none of your players want to be there?
I don't understand why people think that it has to be "Ooh all GM power or no GM power". There are 5 people at the table.
If the other 4 want to do something a bit different, you're outvoted bro.
You still control 80% of everything by virtue of being GM. Let your players have fun with the other 20%.
You find GMing Homebrew settings hard? there is your disconnect then... Homebrew settings make it easier to design adventures because you do not have to worry that you are violating some preset canon.
I don't really care about violating preset canon, so that helps.
In a homebrew setting I need to actually come up with stuff. Encounters, locations, etc. are all things I need to make up myself based on what's going on. I really only want to GM a homebrew when it's fairly sandbox-y, so I usually end up coming up with a fair number of things before hand and then presenting a number of options to the party and letting them pick, or make their own fun.
In the interest of full disclosure though, I've only ever run one like that, and it's ongoing. Currently I'm having more fun (and I think THEY are having more fun) making their own adventure, which is looking to be "Crush that a%&%+%~ NPC you made before he has a chance to do anything harmful in the long term" right now. Haven't actually set them a mission in a while.
Published adventures are easy, you take the encounters out of the book, tweak them a smidge to challenge the party (because you'll almost NEVER get the Fighter/Wizard/Rogue/Cleric party the AP assumes). Easy peasy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why do you want the adventure to take place in Cheliax if literally none of your players want to be there?
I don't understand why people think that it has to be "Ooh all GM power or no GM power". There are 5 people at the table.
If the other 4 want to do something a bit different, you're outvoted bro.
Just jumping in here - the GM is the one doing all the work, the vote the PC's get to make is whether or not they want to play in the GM's game, not how, when or why the GM is going to be running it for them.
I don't like the idea of a group of people who aren't working getting together and out-voting the one guy who is with regards to how the fruits of his labor should be distributed. Sounds too much like our tax system to me.
I really don't understand why "GM" has to mean "Absolute ruler and creator over all things in the setting".Why does Player have to mean "absolute monarch of all that applies to this PC?"Just to point out, I've been in a lot of threads with you before. You don't believe the player gets to be absolute monarch of all that applies to his PC, at least as far as previous writings have gone.
More like, he gets to pick his PC from the list of parameters the GM has applied and the GM has the right to alter outside of gameplay time anything he observes to be messing with his game.
If it interferes with the fun of the other players (that includes the GM)?
You bet your sweet bippy I do.The GM is the one who has to ensure everyone has fun. If one player is making the game no fun for the others; guess whose responsibility it is to fix that.
Why do you want the adventure to take place in Cheliax if literally none of your players want to be there?
I don't understand why people think that it has to be "Ooh all GM power or no GM power". There are 5 people at the table.
If the other 4 want to do something a bit different, you're outvoted bro.
You still control 80% of everything by virtue of being GM. Let your players have fun with the other 20%.
After being outvoted by the players, does the GM not have the right to have the group decide what else they'd like to do instead of playing the campaign he created? If the game is designed to take place in Cheliax but none of the players want to play there, wouldn't it be in everyone's best interest to do something else?
But in this case we're talking about a campaign that can easily take place anywhere, that was the point.
So why does he need to be SO INSISTENT that it take place in Cheliax when everyone else wants Andoran and have built their characters to be from there?
After being outvoted by the players, does the GM not have the right to have the group decide what else they'd like to do instead of playing the campaign he created? If the game is designed to take place in Cheliax but none of the players want to play there, wouldn't it be in everyone's best interest to do something else?Why do you want the adventure to take place in Cheliax if literally none of your players want to be there?
I don't understand why people think that it has to be "Ooh all GM power or no GM power". There are 5 people at the table.
If the other 4 want to do something a bit different, you're outvoted bro.
You still control 80% of everything by virtue of being GM. Let your players have fun with the other 20%.
Sure. The GM can say at that point "I have nothing else planned... who wants to GM?"
I have done that on several occasions.And every time the players insist I GM.
So at that point it is play the adventure I designed or wait a week for me to design a new one.
But in this case we're talking about a campaign that can easily take place anywhere, that was the point.
So why does he need to be SO INSISTENT that it take place in Cheliax when everyone else wants Andoran and have built their characters to be from there?
Because I have something else in mind to take place in Addoran but have yet to flesh it out beyond a few notes?
Honestly I cannot answer why a GM would do that I do not run Golarian... Strictly homebrew settings for me.
have yet to flesh it out
Hang on now, I thought we just established at length that every single facet was done.
I was also assured that that was not hyperbole.
have yet to flesh it outHang on now, I thought we just established at length that every single facet was done.
I was also assured that that was not hyperbole.
Oh yes... I have and adventure designed for every square inch of the world[/sarcasm]
I design the politics, the economy, the terrain, etc...I decide which races exist on the world, where they are most prolific, etc..
As to being assured it was not Hyperbole...
Look before you leap.
I made no such assurances.
As to being assured it was not Hyperbole...
Look before you leap.
I made no such assurances.
Hm. I was thinking of your fellow citizen there. Apologies, the thread has been moving quickly and I mixed you two up.
...So shall I regard it as settled in your case that the claims in question would be, indeed, wild hyperbole if you had made them? :)
(PS: This has all been probably a pretty transparent way to point out that every campaign world I have ever encountered, published or otherwise, has blank spots with room to be filled in later if necessary)
As to being assured it was not Hyperbole...
Look before you leap.
I made no such assurances.Hm. I was thinking of your fellow citizen there. Apologies, the thread has been moving quickly and I mixed you two up.
...So shall I regard it as settled in your case that the claims in question would be, indeed, wild hyperbole? :)
I Detail out every thing in the world except the adventures. If you consider that a facet of setting/world design then yes it is hyperbole.
If, like me, you consider Adventure Design a separate animal from setting/world design; then, no it is not hyperbole.
(PS: This has all been probably a pretty transparent way to point out that every campaign world I have ever encountered, published or otherwise, has blank spots with room to be filled in later if necessary)
I do not often leave a lot of wiggle room for setting aspects.
But then; the PCs are able to effect the world through in game actions.I do not think it is asking too much to have them respect the setting and the campaign parameters I design.
As to being assured it was not Hyperbole...
Look before you leap.
I made no such assurances.Hm. I was thinking of your fellow citizen there. Apologies, the thread has been moving quickly and I mixed you two up.
...So shall I regard it as settled in your case that the claims in question would be, indeed, wild hyperbole if you had made them? :)
(PS: This has all been probably a pretty transparent way to point out that every campaign world I have ever encountered, published or otherwise, has blank spots with room to be filled in later if necessary)
And anecdotal evidence might as well be fact. Because, you know, you've seen literally everything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And anecdotal evidence might as well be fact. Because, you know, you've seen literally everything.As to being assured it was not Hyperbole...
Look before you leap.
I made no such assurances.Hm. I was thinking of your fellow citizen there. Apologies, the thread has been moving quickly and I mixed you two up.
...So shall I regard it as settled in your case that the claims in question would be, indeed, wild hyperbole if you had made them? :)
(PS: This has all been probably a pretty transparent way to point out that every campaign world I have ever encountered, published or otherwise, has blank spots with room to be filled in later if necessary)
I actually haven't seen literally everything. Sadly there exists no source in which I can even read secondhand about literally everything in the real world, so I envy you your greater level of detail. ;)
Doesn't stop me from using the power of guessing to theorize that the detail of your campaign world lies at least within a few orders of magnitude or so of what I have seen, and thus from questioning whether your hands are really tied by the fact that you've already detailed under every rock in your game world and there's just no room at all for anything you haven't thought of yet.
A France sized country might have (as France does now) about 36000 settlments of hamlet or larger size. All detailed with what is already taking up the space in every one? Absolutely nowhere blank where you could just go ahead and write in what you would need to support some unanticipated player flavor, all of them are just as detailed and set in stone as the village X by river Z you mentioned earlier?
I mean, the basic thesis here was that the GM has already developed everything, and thus there is no space left for anything not anticipated as part of the everything that he has already worked so hard on. I do, indeed, question whether such levels of detail are humanly possible, based on comparisons to the other settings I have seen, and thus whether or not the thesis is sound.