|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
This post is basically me thinking out loud, so it will be rambly--you've been warned. I'd like other people's thoughts on my thoughts if you have any, if not maybe me just writing it will help.
I've had a few short experiences as a player in Pathfinder or D&D and have really been taken with it--but have seen GMing that I liked to different degrees, and have a few things I don't like about Path. I kind of want to be a GM to (a) unleash my imagination on the world and (b) try to do a better job. ;)
I'm a nonviolent vegetarian sort in real life, and it makes me very uncomfortable when the campaign forces my character to go kill sentient beings for no real reason. In one really great one-shot my character actually was being coerced by the other party members, and it was a huge part of his development and really drew me into the world, which was fun, but I don't like when it seems like the only way to play the campaign is to roleplay a supposed hero who isn't behaving in a way I'd ever consider someone heroic for.
So, what I think I'd do differently if I were a GM:
1. Divorce character progression from combat. Great quote in this post: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qv0d?Expanding-the-noncombat-side-of-Pathfinde r#4
‘Once you remove the "how much experience do we get for killing the guards as opposed to sneaking past them" mindset out of the way, the players are much less likely to feel pressured to kill things, and can instead approach situations as though they were real people trying to solve a problem instead of bloodthirsty murderhobos looking for their next fix.’
There are apparently a lot of ways to do this:
-Be good about rewarding noncombat encounter XP
-Reward constant XP progression per gaming session
-Reward XP based on story goals
-SKR’s step system: http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/AlternativeLevelAdvancement.pdf
-Remove XP and award levels after a certain amount of time
-Remove XP and award levels after a certain amount of story progress
-Remove XP and award levels when the characters do something super-cool and a certain amount of time/story progress has happened
My GMs so far have synched levels among party members, and I’d continue to do that as a good practice. I’m leaning towards removing XP entirely and awarding levels at my discretion as a GM.
2. Take a “combat-optional” approach. That is, as a GM I will never force the characters into combat--they’ll always be able to run away or take a nonviolent approach.
This will involve a lot of contradictory moral choices. For instance, maybe the dragon offers to get out of their way if they do something for it. Killing the dragon instead could end its reign of tyranny on the surrounding peoples… I don’t want the decision to be clear-cut.
When getting a party together, I’d obviously have to get players who were at least close together in how pacifist versus hack-and-slash they wanted to play. I wouldn’t be the GM for anyone who didn’t want something roleplay heavy and who expected to be wiping out any goblins, orcs, etc. that got in the way without a thought for the value of their lives. And if some players wanted to be absolute pacifists but others wanted combat once every session or two, I’d probably tell them not to run in the same group if they weren’t comfortable compromising--I don’t want every session to be frustrating for several players as the dominant player gets their way, or for it to always be a verbal slogging match between players/characters with extremely different moral compasses.
If people wanted to do a combat-heavy campaign, I’d probably have it involve fighting the undead or be based in sheer self-defense since I find that more morally defensible.
3. Ditch alignments. I think it screws with roleplaying when someone’s thinking “Well, I think X would be the best solution, but would a lawful/chaotic character ever do that?”. Sure, stay in character, but in real life people are complex, and morality tends to be compartmentalized and situational. The very idea of good and evil as concrete forces in the universe gives indeterminate moral situations like the “to kill or not to kill” one described above less force, and it hampers noncombat roleplaying when someone can’t pursue a certain solution because it doesn’t match their alignment. (It’s one thing if it’s not something their character would do, but it’s another thing if it is something they’d do but it’s “out of character” because situational morality doesn’t exist in the system.)
Luckily Alzrius has detailed instructions on how to do this: http://alzrius.wordpress.com/2010/11/01/removing-alignment-from-pathfinder- part-one-classes/
Not sure if that would work with newbie players (creating characters is already too complicated; creating characters with alternate rules to look up is worse), but then again it would only need to be addressed if and when it arose.
4. (In an ideal campaign where I had like-minded players and tons of time to spend on planning) Create a character-driven story where the party members have interesting relationships with each other, rather than slotting a bunch of separately-created strangers into a campaign made for a generic party.
My best experience as a player has been that one-shot where I was a member of a homebrew goblinoid race, exiled from my extremely lawful island homeland on penalty of death unless I redeemed myself for a crime by tracking down a halfing who didn’t realize he’d violated the laws of the land while in its waters. I was lost and uncertain, new to human lands, when I got thrown together with the halfling I was tracking (another PC) and two humans (also PCs, who were at that point traveling together). We were camping in a town square when goblins woke us up in the middle of the night, setting nearby tents on fire--I failed a check and was the last to awake, not knowing who attacking first in the middle of the combat and shouting out to the goblins in Goblin to explain what was happening. When events became clearer, I tried shooting at a goblin and hit the human monk instead. Under deep suspicious as a goblinoid, for speaking to the enemies in goblin, and for hitting the monk, I had to accept that same monk’s forgiveness in exchange for being dragged along to clear out the goblin den. During the terrible events that unfolded there, my naivety was shattered in many ways. I really felt like I was immersed in a story, and being in character came easily because the story and the other players reinforced and helped me develop who I was. I’m sure that’s an intensely difficult experience to give to a player--let alone making the entire party each feel like the PoV character in a novel--but as a GM I’d like to at least try.
My thought on how to do that would be, in the pre-campaign session, to get everyone together and say we’re going to create a party, together. People can throw in their character ideas, but should also play off each other’s ideas to create a group with relations and motives related to each other. Characters can have very different motives, but they need to be cohesive. Some example thoughts:
-Most of the players are rebels who see themselves as freedom fighters, and have been hired to kidnap a noble of the ruling class. When they pull it off, however, this noble turns out to be a PC--and to have goals not so different from theirs. Maybe it’s a princess who wants to go adventuring, maybe the noble is actually on the rebels’ side and has been living as a hostage with his uncle the king who belongs to a different religion, maybe the noble character has dirt on the rebels’ leaders that make them question their ideals and agree to run off with the noble to find out the true answers in the tangled-up intrigue of this country, maybe the kidnappers are of negotiable alliance and agree to adventure with the noble in search of greater wealth and their own lordship titles.
-The players comprise a family business, which could be any number of things, could be situated in one place or peripatetic, combat-oriented or non-combat, and so on.
-The players belong to a single organization and share a common goal. Maybe they’re traveling healers trying to combat a plague, maybe they’re exorcists of a sort, traveling the land setting ghosts to rest, maybe they’re an exploration party sent out by a rising city power to explore the coast of a wild land--and under the sea--and convert small local groups into trading partners, maybe they’re scouts or messengers sent into enemy territory during a war. I think the combat-optional GM philosophy would make it a lot easier to have single-class parties--so maybe all wizards from the same guild pursuing some arcane mystery--because the risk of death is limited.
After the party and characters therein were built, I as the GM would go home with a hell of a lot of homework to create a campaign around them--but I’d be aided by the cohesive party composition, which would point the way to a lot of other story elements.
Okay, I need to go to dinner, thanks anyone who’s still with me, but one last thought/question--Would creating a sandbox world and then getting some test subjects to play oneshots in it be a good way to start GMing?
I'm likewise in your shoes, DTC. I've been playing tabletop games for sixteen years and have never really GM'ed before. I asked around the forums for some tip and several veteran GMs have suggested testing the waters with some of the many Pathfinder modules out there, typically a 1-2 level module to get the hang of things. They also suggested trying out an AP to get the hang out things.
Now, granted, that may not be your cup of tea as you seem to have a very specific idea of how you'd like to run your games and these options might be too linear for your taste.
As far as creating your own sandbox world... if you feel comfortable doing so, then I say go for it. Just something to remember with that option though... make sure you have more areas fleshed out in the event your PCs don't necessarily follow the path you may have planned out. Or, if you're the kind of person that can whip up information at the drop of a hat, then perhaps that advice is not as pertinent.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
I wish you good luck in your attempts at GMing.
Several things to keep in mind -
First, you don't have to be perfect. We all learn sometime and you have to start somewhere.
Second, know your audience. You run the game to entertain the players. This doesn't mean make it a cake walk for them, unless all of your players actually want a cake walk badly.
I support your idea that you can award XP for handling a situation without violence (diplomacy or subduing opponents, for example). Of course, most fantasy stories revolve around some sort of conflict. This does not mean a conflict has to be dealt with by violent means, it just seems to be the tool of choice at times.
Sandbox adventures give players a great deal of freedom, though the disadvantage is that it requires a GM to do a great deal of preparation work to provide material for such a wide variety of choices a group may take. There is also the danger of losing direction as some groups tend to drift in interest without some clear goal to accomplish.
if you want a pre planned AP that is a sandbox look in to skulls and shackles. your basically pirates or sailors. the access to the boat makes it very sandboxy. I am not running it but I am playing in to. the DM has described it as a pirate political thriller. you could easily take that and make a very role play oriented campaign. we are working towards a cover as a merchant ship. this game could be up your alley and it gives you a base to start from. we have a group that enjoys the role play and combat.
It should be mentioned that your first DMing experience is difficult and make more difficult by creating your own campaign. I am doing that for my first try at DMing and the party hasn't complained. mine is rather linear with a focused plot and I will be trying to gently railroad them to the plot. in the skulls and shackles campaign we have not real plot right now and we have floundered a little. make sure the style the group wants. sandbox is very player driven and some people don't handle that well. the perk to plot is that the whole party can generally that following the plot is a good idea while in the sandbox its what ever they want. we had a bit of an argument over where we would go because we all wanted to go in a different direction.
I do like and try to get my group to handle situations without violence. but combat is a big feature in this game so that is the default mode. I have them trying to stop a small war and I have told them in and out of game that they could complete this quest with no blood being shed if they so choose.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
A good DM adjusts based upon what will be most fun for themselves and their players. You want to run a game that reflects your own non-violent non-killing personal feelings? Great, if you find players that enjoy that then everyone will get along. If you don't find players that enjoy that, then you have to understand that your own thoughts don't need to be pushed into the fantasy game world you are creating and then make something they will enjoy. If that is not something you are capable of enjoying, then please, do not force yourself into the DM slot. Any unhappy PC or DM Will Ruin the game for the others. But, it is not all negative and it never hurts to try things and see how they go. Just be ready if things don't work out to re-evaluate and possibly step down.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The Pathfinder system really focuses characters on combat. You build your character to maximize damage output or to control the combat. There isn't much to designing characters in regards to non-combat actions other than assigning a few meager skill points. Pathfinder is made for combat, and it is a fun system for that.
I think if you are going to do what you are thinking about (having a game not based on combat so much), you are going to need a different game system. The Fate system might work for what you envision.
Quote: Okay, I need to go to dinner, thanks anyone who’s still with me, but one last thought/question--Would creating a sandbox world and then getting some test subjects to play oneshots in it be a good way to start GMing? Short Answer: Yes they don't even necessarily have to be one shots, they could be "episodes" one shots that connect in the background but stand alone just fine. Or whatever else you are comfortable doing.
Longer Answer: Long time ago (late 1978) my new friend, who I'd met at the college freshman get together, said he had this game he wanted to try out. Shortly after I found myself as a first time player with a first time DM doing a one on one run with the pregen characters (me trying to play all 6 <O.O>) in the back of the TSR module "Tomb of Horrors". Needless to say between us we managed to kill off the entire party with the majority of the adventure still unseen. The last two characters dying to a pair (trio?) of nasties that jumped out of a 'treasure' chest not far inside the dungeon entrance. This would not be my first recommendation on how to go about learning the game or how to learn to GM ... but it must have worked anyway I'm still doing this 3+ decades later.
- Start as they say at the beginning.
- Start small even if you are thinking big, keep it manageable (includes books, rules, options etc.). You can always add stuff but taking away things after the players already have it is tough. Worry about what's actually in the "here be dragons" reaches of the map when the players start moving beyond their Hommlet or Eveningstar (at least in any detail).
- Same goes for rewards, go easy. It's much easier (and less 'hostile') to add extra rewards later than to have to say sorry guys but going to have to take that back if you feel the PCs need a boost.
- As for not killing stuff for xp, just broaden the view on what defeat means. Talking, bluffing or sneaking past the guards = 'defeating'. Reward good roleplay and non-violent solutions and let your players know what that 'extra' 50 xp is for. Let them know upfront how your plan to run stuff whether it's rewarding non-violent solutions, that moral dilemma's will happen and grey areas exist or that they may run into things they aren't supposed to be able to defeat. Bottom line you can reward xp how every you see fit and for what ever you see fit. I'd probably start following the guidelines in the book (with the broader idea of defeat) before trying the numerous alternate methods out there.
- Don't be afraid to say "NO!" to something that doesn't fit your vision or version of the universe. Likewise don't be afraid to say yes even if it's just mentally to something the players want or do and go with it. Sometimes the best ideas come from things the players (or characters) say or do. Altering your story on the fly from the "plan" based on something a character says or does can be very rewarding. Don't get locked into "the one true way". The best story is written by everyone involved.
- And don't be afraid to make mistakes or admit to them, it is going to happen.
Lastly Pathfinder/3.5/d20 is immensely versatile ruleset and can accommodate a very wide range of styles. That said the rules be they d20 based or any of the many others out there all mean virtually nothing compared to the person running them. A lousy GM will mangle any rules system while a great GM can do magic with a lousiest of systems.
Thanks for the feedback, all. (Btw I love how respectful and useful everyone on this forum is! Thanks for not just being all, "No, don't play Pathfinder like that, you're dumb.")
Thanks for the link to Fate--I was planning on investigating other RP systems. I don't think that I'll ever have 0 interest in playing D&D/Path nonviolently but of course I may not find a group that's interested in that and I wouldn't force anyone to play my way. :P
I think there's a lot more to non-combat in Pathfinder than you're giving credit to, demontroll. There are more than a few skills, and all the base stats like strength, charisma, and intelligence apply equally well to non-combat as to combat situations, if not better. Most of what classes like rogue or bard specialize in has nothing to do with combat. A cleric could be a traveling healer just as well as an adventurer, a druid could have tons of uses of shapechanging and speaking to animals that are unrelated to combat. There are rules for insanity, drug addiction, crafting items, traveling in difficult terrain... There are hundreds of species and cultures, racial and religious tensions, dozens of languages, all kinds of schools of magic--so much to explore without necessarily whacking it open. You character has traits, maybe a profession, religion. Sure, the densest section of the rules involves combat, and wading through character creation when you're not interested in combat is more of a chore, but I don't think a game system having a ton of rules your campaign isn't going to need is actually a blocker on using that system. I know this because I enjoy Pathfinder while not actually liking combat, and I don't know about your games, but the ones I'm a player in spend a lot more time out of combat than in it. We actually had one campaign before the pre-gen one we're doing now that we abandoned after several sessions in which the party refused every combat the GM threw at us and he didn't have time to figure out what to do instead.
But, yeah, all that said, a Fate or other system campaign could be a better experience all around, and if I want to GM Pathfinder I probably should start with the basic stuff and if I can't handle that, quit while we're all ahead. Still, I wonder how important the specific rules system is vs. the actual roleplaying--do the specific rules or the people you've gathered shape the story more? (This is a serious non-rhetorical question for any experienced GM who's tried vaguely similar campaigns on different rule sets.)
I did get rid of XP after using it for a while... I eventually got a feel for how often on average players tend to level up (though this will vary depending on factors including what XP track you have them on, as in fast, vs. slow and so on), and just figure out when they should level taking into account how many sessions the player has made it to, storyline progress, things they have done in game as a group, as well as things they have done as individuals.
The end result is that it is much easier (there's all ready more than enough things to track and numbers to crunch in PF without XP) for me, and beyond that I don't give players an XP number the outcome isn't much different in terms of how often they level.
However even when I was tracking XP I always included it for things outside of combat (which, IMO has the potential to make XP even more of a pain).
I have mostly gotten rid of alignments for setting reasons. But, I'm using a homebrew game, where it makes sense. If you want a setting where morality is something about as clear as mud, then few (if any) things should even have an alignment.
When I was running a Planescape game I used their belief point rule (which I updated for Pathfinder). Planescape's belief point rules required each character have a list of personal beliefs. An important part of that setting is belief, and a DM should involve when possible things in the game that challenge a character's personal philosophy. When a character takes risks for their personal beliefs, or does things that involve their beliefs in a way that makes for solid RP they gain belief points for it.
DesertTreeclimber wrote: Still, I wonder how important the specific rules system is vs. the actual roleplaying--do the specific rules or the people you've gathered shape the story more? (This is a serious non-rhetorical question for any experienced GM who's tried vaguely similar campaigns on different rule sets.) Kayerloth wrote: Lastly Pathfinder/3.5/d20 is immensely versatile ruleset and can accommodate a very wide range of styles. That said the rules be they d20 based or any of the many others out there all mean virtually nothing compared to the person running them. A lousy GM will mangle any rules system while a great GM can do magic with a lousiest of systems. Pretty much why I made this last statement, restated above. The rules set is almost trivial when compared to the GM and players involved. Certainly the rules system used can help or hinder the GM (and players) but I definitely believe a highly competent GM will make for an enjoyable experience no matter what rule system they are using ... of course choosing a system which helps and minimally hinders their own style is part of what makes them "competent".
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Say a player makes a barbarian with rage and power attack and he carries a big two handed hammer. For that character his tool set consists of a big hammer. And to that character, every problem is going to look like a nail that needs to be pounded with his hammer.
I think you can use Pathfinder for what you want to do, but you are going to have to communicate your vision with your players so they can make versatile characters with more than one tool in their toolbox.
demontroll wrote: Say a player makes a barbarian with rage and power attack and he carries a big two handed hammer. For that character his tool set consists of a big hammer. And to that character, every problem is going to look like a nail that needs to be pounded with his hammer.
I think you can use Pathfinder for what you want to do, but you are going to have to communicate your vision with your players so they can make versatile characters with more than one tool in their toolbox.
That's where the second part of your post comes into play. Letting the player know so he can get creative with a seemingly singularly focused character. Maybe SMASH must use that hammer on things other than foes that need killing. SMASH meet annoying boulder in the way, turns it to pebbles faster than anyone else could. Or drives in spikes holding the rope bridge or uses massive strength to pull the anchors of the bridge out. Or digs and smashes his way thru to those trapped in the cave-in before they run out of air (or food or water etc.) SMASH always did have a soft spot for baby kittens >> SMASH can have all sorts of dimensions the game never bothers with creating stats or having mechanics for (like soft spots for baby kittens) that the player can give him.
And if or when SMASH actually does go all medievil, Raging and Power Attacking the Dragon that just burnt his favorite kitty of all to a crisp (along with the rest of the town) it will be all that more memorable because there is more to SMASH than just smashing an endless supply of creatures. Players just need some encouragement (sometimes) to see their 'one tool' as a Swiss Army knife and not just a singular blunt instrument for slaughter.
TL, DR, (OK I read some of it) but I'd like to encourage you to try GMing-
Keep alignment, or else your players might run amok. You can grant XP for 'solving' an encounter beyond combat. Some scenarios in APs specifically say this. It's my own rule- an encounter has many solutions, not just combat. Also, if you are a new GM, you want to change as little as possible in the game; you are better off learning the ropes before tying the knots.
That said- there's gonna be combat. Unless you happen upon a group of players that are totally OK with never lifting a weapon to solve an issue, there will be blood. And it isn't fair to tie players to a totally non-combat game without caveats. That is your job as GM, though.
GMing is more about harmonizing your vision of the campaign with your player's expectations. If they are bloodthirsty curs, and you present them with a game where non-combat skills and outside-the-box problem-solving are paramount, they'll get pissed off and so will you.
You cannot, and should not, push players into roles for your game. If someone wants to play a smashy barbarian, give him stuff to smash. Intimidate is a useful skill, too. If you've got players who want to explore skills and roleplay, toss them a rope. Acrobatics and select feats make them viable combatants. Make your encounters solvable by either brute strength or wits and charm, or a mix of both.
The Serpent's Skull AP allows for what you might be looking for- a mix of brains and brawn. Much of the AP can be handled through non-combat skills and tactics, but a certain amount of it (and any adventure) will rely on combat.
Good luck!
Don't ditch alignments, it's a reference system, not a forced system of behavior, Lawful Characters can behave Chaotic sometimes, and it will influence in their alignment, people change alignment through time IRL, all the time, and in the Fandoms too.
While i do not believe you should remove combat entirely if your group can get past an encounter regardless of if there was combat or not give em full xp
DM Soanso wrote: Keep alignment, or else your players might run amok. In my experience, if players want to run amok, then two words written on a character sheet tend not to stop them. (Especially if one of those words is Chaotic and the other one is Neutral.)
I prefer to deal with this potential problem by explaining to the players at the start of the campaign that :-
a) I want to run a heroic campaign where the characters are basically the good guys (if applicable - I am currently running Way of the Wicked, where the opposite applies); and
b) I am intending to run what I consider to be an exciting adventure, and whilst they are obviously free to deviate from it as much as they want, I personally have no interest in running endless combats against innocent villagers, town guards, and bounty hunters employed by the local lord, so if that is the kind of game they want then they will need to find someone else to run it.
I add my 2 cents:
Don't feel weird, you're a normal would be gm :)
Anyone of us gm had some modifications to the rules, one way or another. So don't feel weird. From my side, I never give xp to my players, since I started to gm. So it's an approach I totally support. As well, never given players the combat as the only options, unless it was required from the story or their previous action, but even then, I always try to let them an escape route and try to follow them if they have an idea that didn'tcame to my mind. So thumbs up even here. Chars relationship are ok, to, they tend to create complex characters and you can put some weight on them, rendering the villains truly badasses. Just a note: try to make your pc create relationships even with npc, as you can get more complex worlds.
For the alignment, I'm too lazy to apply it, because the link you give is about only the crb, and I tend to use all the pf books, so it's a long work for me. If you can manage it, go on with it.
For the last question, you can freely do some sandbox or one shot, there's nothing bad.
At last I want to give you an advice a gm gave to me years ago: prepare your adventures like the players are meaningless and insignificant, but when you run them, remember that your players are the best thing of this game. (In other words, try to get a consistent world that is such even if the players would not run in it, and run it for the fun and amusement of your players)
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
A few thoughts:
Welcome to the new challenge!
• Don’t expect to be a perfect GM. No one is. Least of all those that seem to think they are. You will make mistakes and occasionally huge gaffs. Don’t sweat it. If the players are at all reasonable, they will roll with it.
• I have totally done away with xps. I liked the reward system as a player, but it is a tremendous hassle for me as a GM. The guys are optimized an breezing through my encounters, but if I ramp them up in difficulty I will have to re-write all the later encounters for a higher level party. Ok, the guys skipped that whole subsection and now they aren’t at the level I expected them to be at Castle Grey. Is it going to kill them? Well now the PC’s unexpectedly got involved in that whole thing with the smuggler, now the dungeon of light will be too tough for them. Or even worse, JJ hasn’t made it to a 1/3 of the games because of his work and now he’s 3 levels behind the others. If I challenge them, he is toast. I understand liking the reward, but I was spending more time worrying about the xps stuff than the campaign itself.
• As much as you want to change things. I really recommend running some published modules or AP’s first. Usually when I’ve seen a new GM jump right in the deep end, they end-up fixing the wrong stuff, breaking much of the rest, and the story getting lost in the confusion. Run some AP’s or modules, then talk with your players about what went well (or didn’t) and what you are proposing to change. If you don’t like the murder-hobo scene, there is published material with the party being the clear cut heroes (even if they still have some difficult moral decisions to make) or on the defensive. Carrion Crown and the Golden Spear trilogy are the first that come to mind.
• One common mistake a saw in your post. Combat is not the opposite of role play. There is probably some correlation between people that focus on combat and people that do not role play. But it is by no means 1:1. There are players, groups, GM’s, Campaigns, and PC concepts that are very focused on combat and are very much heavily into the role play. I even know of some players that have had very non-combat PC’s that don’t role play worth squat. They focus on high skills and out of combat spells to avoid the need for combat, but they don’t role play out anything. Just “I have a +47 in diplomacy and I rolled a 16. Did I convince him?”
• I agree that often avoiding a combat is a better option. Both as a player and a GM that is often something to be investigated. Some players and/or some PC’s do not.
• If you try to completely or even nearly completely eliminate combat, I think many players will find it boring and very non-heroic. Heroes = Risk in their mind. So if there is no combat, no risk, and no heroes. I’m sure there are players that would enjoy it, but don’t expect everyone to enjoy it.
• Getting the players to have those discussion, planning, and creating a campaign around the cohesive group they created sounds wonderful. In my experience, it is very difficult to get the players to do that and stick with it. Not saying don’t try, but expect it to be a rough slog.
Have fun yourself or it isn’t worth your time.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
amethal wrote: DM Soanso wrote: Keep alignment, or else your players might run amok. In my experience, if players want to run amok, then two words written on a character sheet tend not to stop them. (Especially if one of those words is Chaotic and the other one is Neutral.)
Or the first two words are "Neutral" and "Good" and the third one is Andoran. :)
For some strange reason in PFS play, though it's supposedly a "good" nation. Andoran PCs are pretty much the ones that fit into the murderhobo mode.
I understand that the OP wants to run a game that uses more nonviolent paths of conflict resolution. His real challenge will be to make sure that his players are actually playing the game he wants to run.
amethal wrote: DM Soanso wrote: Keep alignment, or else your players might run amok. In my experience, if players want to run amok, then two words written on a character sheet tend not to stop them. (Especially if one of those words is Chaotic and the other one is Neutral.)
Indeed, in my experience, if players like the idea of alignment, they'll play it up, and if they don't, then they'll just ignore it unless it affects them in some noteworthy way (such as a Paladin losing their abilities).
Alignment is also something very setting-dependent as far as whether it is even appropriate to have. In many settings something else (maybe dealing more with personal beliefs, or loyalties, or something else) would be far more appropriate, and trying to force alignment, as is, if at all, results in a mechanic that clashes badly with the world the game takes place in.
Sounds like you got some great ideas, and I really hope you can find the players to make the ideas come to life...
I played in a campaign with something like this once:
Combat was ok, but KILLING was bad... Minus xp, and a lor of roleplaying to stay out of prison. This worked very well, because it made self defense possible. It favored weapons and spells that could deal non lethal damage. It alliwed criminal behaviour, but held up on "normal" laws and moral...
Killing was only ok:
-with permit from a judge
-undeads (they are already dead anyway... They just need help understand it...)
Alignment... A lot of spells and effects are based on alignment, so instead of removing them I suggest:
-only allow some alignments (ie. LG, NG, CG, LN, TN)
-Make your players understand that "this is what my char would do, due to his alignment" IS NOT good roleplaying. Alignment does not dictate actions, actions dictate alignment.
-during char generation have each player explain in his background what actions and moral made his char the chosen.
-Have your players write 3 things their chars do that show their alignment
-Have your players write 3 things their chars don't do that show their alignment
--- this could be something like: my char try to always keep his word, follow the laws of the land he is in & when possible with no injury to others do what he can to get rich. He NEVER betrays a friend, he NEVER hurt an unarmed foe (spell casters will be considered armed if proved dangerous) & never pay for services that can be gained for free. This makes my char LN
This whole alignment idea is used in all my campaigns, and work very well. New players will need time to adjust though. YOU need to be fair too. If a char isn't acting according to his players background give a fair warning b4 taking actions. Ie if a lawful char keeps bluffing his way throug any encounter tell him out of character that you deem lying unlawful, and if he keeps it up he will be shifted towards chaotic alignment. Some players will be ok with that, but is it is a monk or paladin (who must be lawful) the char needs to change his way, and maybe even atone... Also make sure the players know if you need to change an alignment to one that wasn't allowedduring char ggeneration that char will become a NPC, and the player must make a new char.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
One house rule you might consider is eliminating the -4 penalty for trying to do nonlethal damage with most weapons.
if you are still set on the sandbox idea and like Golarion you could look into Taldor there are various pathfinder moduals run there and at least 2 that are not PFS. Taldor is run by an overly decadent monarchy. there could be some great elements of roll play in dealing with the nobility, I have always wanted to play a political thriller. or they could have to cronvice people to follow them to over throw the monarchy
either through brute force or destroying their enemies socially.
or if the party wants more combat but pliantly of roll play another option is Lastwall. this is a Paladin lead nation so they would need to be the good guys. for the combat option there are the undead that the Knights of Ozma(what the military of this nation calls itself) regularly fight in Ulstava their northern nation. Undead are a favorite foe because the lesser ones are mindless.
The other main option is the Hold of Belkzen which is a rather violent nation of Orcs. having to make peace with some of the tribes or having to protect a group that wants to flee their bloodthirsty nation could be an interesting approach both have a high probability for great roll play and a need for tactical approaches and a want to avoid combat. their order could be to make peace and if they fight to much there will be various penalties. one their boss/questgiver will not give them the reward and players love boon. another is that they could bring hoards down upon the whole nation innocent farmers will die!
try to create quests that emphasize the need to avoid combat. honorable duals could give a chance for combat. you send forth your champion and I will send mine.
|
