Where has all the magic gone


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 317 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In my opinion being an adventurer or not is a state of mind.

Some soldiers volunteer for every dangerous mission. Others do their job then go home to their families.

Some tourists go off the beaten path and others stay in five star hotels.

I might consider parachuting to be adventurous, to the instructor it is his routine day job.

Sometimes it is hard to define the difference because it is largely a matter of approach and belief.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:


Like let's say the various APs are canonical in a sense, did the people who saved the world from Karzoug stop being adventurers once they were done so that the "world's only adventurers" label could go to the group of folks who need to rescue Baba Yaga and prevent eternal winter"?

After the player characters have 'won the Super Brawl' and 'have gone to DisneyPlane' then their concerns are focused at a whole different tier of 'crisis management' than the 'new adventurers'.

The world is always in need of new heroes, and the dilemma that faces one region may either be A. Too far removed B. Not pertinent to the crisis that other APs faced C. A chance for a new generation to rise while those who slogged hard through a different AP take a well-earned rest.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think an adventurer is a person who enjoys or seeks adventure...

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:
Won't challenge your logic but will point out there is a disconnect between what the CRB says GMs can do and what APs give out for loot.

I actually don't think there is a disconnect at all. Just that Paizo sets a certain standard with it's product, doesn't mean that you can't deviate from that standard. And with phrases like the one that I quoted, Paizo simply acknowledges this fact.

Quote:
The APs and PFS kind of set the standard and the standard is far closer to a realization of the "magic mart" than it is to the "holy ####! that guy has a magic sword that does what?" end of the spectrum.

And I'm not denying that. I'm basically just saying that in your home game, you are not only allowed to deviate from that standard, but that the game is flexible enough to allow for those deviations without breaking down.

And that's why I'll never accept "Go play another game" as an acceptable answer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
So, what is an adventurer to you? Because if it precludes scholars and archaeologists...
It doesn't. But it does require more than just being one of those groups.

So, again, what is an adventurer? :P

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

A subject for another thread.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Based on the title of the upcoming hardcover it sounds like it's hard to be in a golarion organization without being an adventurer :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
So, what is an adventurer to you? Because if it precludes scholars and archaeologists...
It doesn't. But it does require more than just being one of those groups.
So, again, what is an adventurer? :P

A murderhobo with PC class levels?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:

I guess we need a definition for what counts as an 'adventurer' then, because most people I know would not agree with you.

Dr. Jones was VERY much a different animal from his peers.

Except for Belloq, and Forrestal, and probably Ravenwood, and who knows who else in that franchise...

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Who, who, and who?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
Who, who, and who?

TOZ!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't know what that is either.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

On mention of PC class levels... many, of the mostly more important NPCs, in my campaigns will have PC class levels and not NPC class levels. As such, this distinction is not helpful.

Also, I am in agreement with some that there would actually be many adventurers of different skill and ability even NPCs. Saying that the Player Characters are the only adventures in all of Golarion is completely stupid. The way I see it the world should not revolve around the players, and that there would be other adventurers both new and more experienced.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sad TOZ wrote:
I don't know what that is either.

Iz you. With the hood and mask and the ghost.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
JonathonWilder wrote:


Also, I am in agreement with some that there would actually be many adventurers of different skill and ability even NPCs. Saying that the Player Characters are the only adventures in all of Golarion is completely stupid. The way I see it the world should not revolve around the players, and that there would be other adventurers both new and more experienced.

When we took odd-ball path choices in our home RotRL campaign, that completely removed us from certain aspects of the AP, our GM had 'other adventurers' do the things we missed, and then we'd get synopses of what happened with that depending on their success levels, etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JonathonWilder wrote:

On mention of PC class levels... many, of the mostly more important NPCs, in my campaigns will have PC class levels and not NPC class levels. As such, this distinction is not helpful.

Also, I am in agreement with some that there would actually be many adventurers of different skill and ability even NPCs. Saying that the Player Characters are the only adventures in all of Golarion is completely stupid. The way I see it the world should not revolve around the players, and that there would be other adventurers both new and more experienced.

OTOH, I would say that the PCs might not even be adventurers in any professional sense. That, to wrap back to the original point, there doesn't have to be an economy of adventurers selling loot to magic shops.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
]OTOH, I would say that the PCs might not even be adventurers in any professional sense.

In my games (and depending on the players), PCs often get drawn into the events because of some personal stakes or just because there's no one else there who can do what must be done. So most often, they do not even consider themselves as adventurers and won't get seen as such by their surroundings. So to me, the term adventurer mostly belongs to the meta part of the game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:

It's been that way for over a decade now, and I(as a player) never found much wonder in magic items, and a lot of players feel that way. Making them rare doesn't translate to "more special" for everyone.

For the players that do see them as special, giving them something that is not in any official book still makes their eyes twinkle. What I plan to do next time I run a campaign is to use the unchained rules that allow enhancement bonuses to be built into the character. That way they can spend gold on magic items for the "cool factor" vs the "need factor".

You know I find a problem, the amount of +1 weapons around at high level.

Dark Archive

Yet, there is some merit to certain magic items being found in magic shops but this would mostly be in larger cities or "metropolises". Things such as potions and wands, though enchanted armour and weapons may have to be custom ordered and picked up by the character once completed.

The important thing in my eyes is that the expectation is set that a player cannot depend on the exact item they are looking for being available. That they may have to made due with whatever they can find until or if they are able to find an NPC able and willing to create for their character the exact magic item they want.

Part of the wonder I feel though is simply not make certain magic items, particularly armour, weapons, and wondrous items overly common. More, consideration of such with more then simply numeral bonuses. With this a distinction of what is and is not a common magic item that most every adventurer uses and less common or even rare magic items.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
Who, who, and who?

The evil French archeologist, the competitor of Indy who was killed by the spike trap before Raiders started, and the guy that taught Indy (and whose underage daughter he started schtupping) respectively.

Honestly, pay attention and you won't have to ask.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I watched those movies twenty years ago. I'm honestly not sure if my attention span has improved or worsened since.

And your explanations were of no help.


WormysQueue wrote:
thejeff wrote:
]OTOH, I would say that the PCs might not even be adventurers in any professional sense.
In my games (and depending on the players), PCs often get drawn into the events because of some personal stakes or just because there's no one else there who can do what must be done. So most often, they do not even consider themselves as adventurers and won't get seen as such by their surroundings. So to me, the term adventurer mostly belongs to the meta part of the game.

That's pretty much how our games usually go.

There might or might not be other groups doing similar things in other parts of the world, but it's not common. It's not a career choice. There aren't adventurers constantly bringing loot from old ruins back to shops to sell.

If it was that common, there wouldn't be anything left in those old ruins. :)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:

In Pathfinder, at least according to JJ, your party is the only group of adventurers. Adventuring is not only rare but unique.

He did? That sounds mighty strange, seeing as I just ran an "ex-adventurer" NPC from Hell's Rebels, and I've seen plenty others in other APs. Do you have a link please? Or are you referring to this, perhaps?

James Jacobs wrote:
Adventures aren't that common actually. Don't confuse the fact that there are many many many thousands of gamers playing campaigns and adventures set in Golarion for a direct corollary to an equal number of adventurers being in Golarion. Adventurers aren't so much not surprised to meet other adventurers not because they're common, but because they generally congregate in the same regions.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Klorox wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
So, what is an adventurer to you? Because if it precludes scholars and archaeologists...
It doesn't. But it does require more than just being one of those groups.
So, again, what is an adventurer? :P
A murderhobo with PC class levels?

Murderhoboes are not adventurers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think even if "every single human being who plays pathfinder corresponds to an adventurer on Golarion" were the case, they still won't be particularly common.

The population of an entire planet is going to dwarf the number of people on earth who play a specific roleplaying game by a wide margin.


Razcar wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

In Pathfinder, at least according to JJ, your party is the only group of adventurers. Adventuring is not only rare but unique.

He did? That sounds mighty strange, seeing as I just ran an "ex-adventurer" NPC from Hell's Rebels, and I've seen plenty others in other APs. Do you have a link please? Or are you referring to this, perhaps?

James Jacobs wrote:
Adventures aren't that common actually. Don't confuse the fact that there are many many many thousands of gamers playing campaigns and adventures set in Golarion for a direct corollary to an equal number of adventurers being in Golarion. Adventurers aren't so much not surprised to meet other adventurers not because they're common, but because they generally congregate in the same regions.

Well, sure. "ex".

No it was a response to a question i asked him a year or so ago, about whether or not the standard 4 PC party of wizard, cleric, rogue, Fighter was common enough that bandits etc would KNOW to hit the wizard first. The answer was no, they wouldnt not without knowledge ranks, since adventurers are so rare your party is the only one they have ever encountered.

So, the answers dont really contradict one another. Adventurers, as in a party of heavily armed multiracial people, all with class levels- is very rare or unique.

Adventurers= a party of heavily armed often multiracial people, all with class levels, willing to do quests for glory and loot. Not usually on a payroll.Usually fairly independent. Usually mostly Good aligned.

It's just not common for a elf wizard, a dwarf fighter, a halfling rogue and a human cleric to join together for this sort of stuff.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.
The first time, DrDeth wrote:
In Pathfinder, at least according to JJ, your party is the only group of adventurers. Adventuring is not only rare but unique.
Once called out, DrDeth wrote:
...adventurers are so rare your party is the only one they [bandits] have ever encountered.

Those are pretty different statements, DrDeth.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:

No it was a response to a question i asked him a year or so ago, about whether or not the standard 4 PC party of wizard, cleric, rogue, Fighter was common enough that bandits etc would KNOW to hit the wizard first. The answer was no, they wouldnt not without knowledge ranks, since adventurers are so rare your party is the only one they have ever encountered.

Of course you're the only group they've encountered. Bandits rarely survive encounters with PCs. :)

DrDeth wrote:

So, the answers dont really contradict one another. Adventurers, as in a party of heavily armed multiracial people, all with class levels- is very rare or unique.

Adventurers= a party of heavily armed often multiracial people, all with class levels, willing to do quests for glory and loot. Not usually on a payroll.Usually fairly independent. Usually mostly Good aligned.

It's just not common for a elf wizard, a dwarf fighter, a halfling rogue and a human cleric to join together for this sort of stuff.

Based on that description, I've rarely played an "adventurer". It's the "willing to do quests for glory and loot" part. Outside of congames or organized play, we've always had more personal reasons for doing the crazy things PCs do.


WormysQueue wrote:

... I'm basically just saying that in your home game, you are not only allowed to deviate from that standard, but that the game is flexible enough to allow for those deviations without breaking down.

And that's why I'll never accept "Go play another game" as an acceptable answer.

IMO they say the game is flexible enough but (as explained by thejeff and Jiggy and others up thread), it really isn't without way, way, way, too much other fiddling. And while it could be argued that I like fiddling with game mechanics as much as the average gamer, it is certainly true that this isn't the way I like to fiddle.

Also, you don't need a reason to "never accept 'Go play another game' as an acceptable answer", it does however impact the pertinence of your continued participation in a thread of this topic.

And besides the obvious reason thejeff states, bandits are typically very local. They may never have traveled more than 10 miles from their favorite ambush spot. I understand what JJ is driving at, Keith Baker made similar claims about how "unusual" the PCs are in Eberron, but I look at the official stuff* and I get a different feel for what a campaign with adventurers typically looks like.

* Including modules/APs written by or with the direct help of JJ and KB!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Razcar wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

In Pathfinder, at least according to JJ, your party is the only group of adventurers. Adventuring is not only rare but unique.

He did? That sounds mighty strange, seeing as I just ran an "ex-adventurer" NPC from Hell's Rebels, and I've seen plenty others in other APs. Do you have a link please? Or are you referring to this, perhaps?

James Jacobs wrote:
Adventures aren't that common actually. Don't confuse the fact that there are many many many thousands of gamers playing campaigns and adventures set in Golarion for a direct corollary to an equal number of adventurers being in Golarion. Adventurers aren't so much not surprised to meet other adventurers not because they're common, but because they generally congregate in the same regions.

Thanks, Razcar, for posting this. I see adventurers as sort of like celebrities—inexplicably wealthy, inexplicably important, and fairly uncommon (but not so uncommon you won't have heard of them).

I'm not too interested in the second quote DrDeth alludes to. As Mr. Jacobs has said himself, he's not a rules source. His own personal rulings while GMing are about as significant as my own. :P


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The magic was inside you all along.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Neurophage wrote:
The magic was inside you all along.
Murderhobo wrote:
But more importantly it's also inside everyone else! So you got to kill them and take it for yourself. Don't forget to loot the corpse afterward!

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:

IMO they say the game is flexible enough but (as explained by thejeff and Jiggy and others up thread), it really isn't without way, way, way, too much other fiddling.

And while it could be argued that I like fiddling with game mechanics as much as the average gamer, it is certainly true that this isn't the way I like to fiddle.

Well, what you like is your prerogative. Telling me that I can't do it because you (general you) don't want to is not. Apart from that, how much fiddling it really is highly depends on what you exactly want to have in your game and what compromises you are willing to accept.

For example for the homebrew I'm working on, there is a lot of fiddling involved, probably so much that it never comes to fruition (doesn't matter because I'm doing it for my own pleasure, not for anyone else's). If it does it probably comes in the form of a variant rules handbook

But if it's just about having a bit more down-to-earth approach in your games, there's actually not much fiddling necessary.

Quote:
Also, you don't need a reason to "never accept 'Go play another game' as an acceptable answer", it does however impact the pertinence of your continued participation in a thread of this topic.

Well, with all due respect, but I don't think that you're in any position to decide about the pertinence of my participation in a thread of this or any other topic. It's basically saying that if I don't share your opinion I'd better shut up and go away. As I said, not acceptable to me.

Quote:
I understand what JJ is driving at, Keith Baker made similar claims about how "unusual" the PCs are in Eberron, but I look at the official stuff* and I get a different feel for what a campaign with adventurers typically looks like.

Well I don't, neither with Eberron nor with Golarion (as long as you ignore Pathfinder Society, that is, which is mostly not a problem). That's the one advantage static settings have over metaplot settings. Doesn't matter what's in any book. If it doesn't happen at your table, it doesn't happen at all. And in the typical AP situation it's "if you don't save the day, no one will".

The Exchange

4 people marked this as a favorite.

At the risk of alienating certain folks -

Games like World of Warcraft, Rift and Everquest all have amazingly high magic worlds and have a magic mart setting. Nothing about those settings diminishes how magical the world is, yet all of them basically encourage you to continually upgrade gear.

The world itself is what brings the magic. Dragons bathing in pools of coalesced magic, stones infused with the pure essence of the elements, ley lines, life trees, demon infestations, crazy magic users overcome with power, undead corrupted by magical means, elves forced to subsist on an impure magic that has made them junkies and near zombies as they feast on any source of mana they can get (including all living things on the planet as magic is effused in all things).

In settings like that, the gear just becomes another part that makes your character awesome. It provides stat boosts and some special effects that just allow you to better deal with the ever escalating level of magic that surrounds you. The world, the story and your character are what drives games here.

Eberron did something very similar, and its still one of my favourite settings.

Harry Potter universe is exactly the same as far as the wizarding world goes. Apparently it seems to be popular too, if JK Rowlings wealth is anything to go by. (I love the stories myself, and the setting is just cool).

I'm running Iron Gods at the moment. I'm very much running it as a post apocalyptic style country with barely understood tech, mingling with magic (I'm running this in 5th ed though). That land is absolutely pervasive with tech and gear for the players. There are less magic items, but only because tech is so much more readily available and easily adapted by even the most non magically affinitive person.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
WormysQueue wrote:
And in the typical AP situation it's "if you don't save the day, no one will".

It's close a necessity for the writing of the AP's to ensure the entire AP actually get's played, but it's a form of railroading I hate as a player.

I would infinitely prefer to play in a world that's flexible enough to account for my choices and continue to exist 99% of the time. You can only do a 'the world ends because you chose not to participate in this specific set of events' plot so many times before it becomes incredibly stale beans.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
WormysQueue wrote:
And in the typical AP situation it's "if you don't save the day, no one will".

It's close a necessity for the writing of the AP's to ensure the entire AP actually get's played, but it's a form of railroading I hate as a player.

I would infinitely prefer to play in a world that's flexible enough to account for my choices and continue to exist 99% of the time. You can only do a 'the world ends because you chose not to participate in this specific set of events' plot so many times before it becomes incredibly stale beans.

1) A good chunk of APs don't involve the world ending, though there's usually something pretty nasty going on.

2) I'd rather have that than "Meh, let's go bowling instead. Someone else will take care of it."
3) High level characters need high level threats. CR 20+ villains are rare and why are you fighting them if they're not causing problems? The kind of problems that people that powerful cause tend to be serious and widespread.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
2) I'd rather have that than "Meh, let's go bowling instead. Someone else will take care of it."

I feel like when this happens, it's mostly an issue of "the fantasy the players are indulging is the power to blow off their responsibilities" which you can indulge for a while, but eventually you have to loop the nasty thing that's happening back to their bowling league (eternal winter is causing a shortage of pins, your primary rivals in league play were drafted to fight the hordes of the damned so you won't get your chance to outbowl them, etc.) and they'll actually start cooperating.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
thejeff wrote:
2) I'd rather have that than "Meh, let's go bowling instead. Someone else will take care of it."
I feel like when this happens, it's mostly an issue of "the fantasy the players are indulging is the power to blow off their responsibilities" which you can indulge for a while, but eventually you have to loop the nasty thing that's happening back to their bowling league (eternal winter is causing a shortage of pins, your primary rivals in league play were drafted to fight the hordes of the damned so you won't get your chance to outbowl them, etc.) and they'll actually start cooperating.

That's just forcing them onto the railroad. :)


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Razcar wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

In Pathfinder, at least according to JJ, your party is the only group of adventurers. Adventuring is not only rare but unique.

He did? That sounds mighty strange, seeing as I just ran an "ex-adventurer" NPC from Hell's Rebels, and I've seen plenty others in other APs. Do you have a link please? Or are you referring to this, perhaps?

James Jacobs wrote:
Adventures aren't that common actually. Don't confuse the fact that there are many many many thousands of gamers playing campaigns and adventures set in Golarion for a direct corollary to an equal number of adventurers being in Golarion. Adventurers aren't so much not surprised to meet other adventurers not because they're common, but because they generally congregate in the same regions.

Thanks, Razcar, for posting this. I see adventurers as sort of like celebrities—inexplicably wealthy, inexplicably important, and fairly uncommon (but not so uncommon you won't have heard of them).

I'm not too interested in the second quote DrDeth alludes to. As Mr. Jacobs has said himself, he's not a rules source. His own personal rulings while GMing are about as significant as my own. :P

No, he's not a RULES source. He's *THE* setting source. That is a setting question. As long as he is talking about Golarion, he is THE Source.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
That's just forcing them onto the railroad. :)

I recommend using it as a comedy beat. The conditions under which the PCs must bowl become increasingly harsh and unreasonable (e.g. all the bowlers must share one ball, as all the others have been taken for trebuchet ammunition for the war) until the PCs realize that this is intolerable and decides to do something about it.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Razcar wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

In Pathfinder, at least according to JJ, your party is the only group of adventurers. Adventuring is not only rare but unique.

He did? That sounds mighty strange, seeing as I just ran an "ex-adventurer" NPC from Hell's Rebels, and I've seen plenty others in other APs. Do you have a link please? Or are you referring to this, perhaps?

James Jacobs wrote:
Adventures aren't that common actually. Don't confuse the fact that there are many many many thousands of gamers playing campaigns and adventures set in Golarion for a direct corollary to an equal number of adventurers being in Golarion. Adventurers aren't so much not surprised to meet other adventurers not because they're common, but because they generally congregate in the same regions.

Thanks, Razcar, for posting this. I see adventurers as sort of like celebrities—inexplicably wealthy, inexplicably important, and fairly uncommon (but not so uncommon you won't have heard of them).

I'm not too interested in the second quote DrDeth alludes to. As Mr. Jacobs has said himself, he's not a rules source. His own personal rulings while GMing are about as significant as my own. :P

No, he's not a RULES source. He's *THE* setting source. That is a setting question. As long as he is talking about Golarion, he is THE Source.

1. He's not. He is the original source of the setting, but how he chooses to run his games is not the end-all-be-all. Especially when it's just from an off-the-cuff answer in an informal forum AMA.

2. He has repeatedly asked that people stop using his casual answers in the Ask thread as ammo for their own arguments. Shit like this is why he closed down the thread before.

Grand Lodge

tony gent wrote:

Hi all just a quick rant but after I had been looking at few post I just have to say .

IS it me or have magic items just become another resource to be brought and sold as needed players and by default thair characters see them as no more than aids in making them machines that are mathematical more likely to smeg the next encounter.
So they can get more loot to take to ye olde magic mart and buy another gross of scrolls potions and other magical gear to fit in with there pre-planed character concept.
Where is the wonder gone and the excitement when players find a new item among a treasure trove, I'm not saying players should not be able to buy minor magic items in big citys , but when I see people comparing the price of things to find the most cost effective way of doing things then sorry in my mind your missing out on the point a bit magic items like staffs,wands and other items should be rare and wonderful.
Not just something to be crossed of as you use them like torches arrows and rations

Just my two copper pieces but my character in rune-lords sees the items he owns as Family heirlooms to be passed from generation to generation.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Razcar wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

In Pathfinder, at least according to JJ, your party is the only group of adventurers. Adventuring is not only rare but unique.

He did? That sounds mighty strange, seeing as I just ran an "ex-adventurer" NPC from Hell's Rebels, and I've seen plenty others in other APs. Do you have a link please? Or are you referring to this, perhaps?

James Jacobs wrote:
Adventures aren't that common actually. Don't confuse the fact that there are many many many thousands of gamers playing campaigns and adventures set in Golarion for a direct corollary to an equal number of adventurers being in Golarion. Adventurers aren't so much not surprised to meet other adventurers not because they're common, but because they generally congregate in the same regions.

Thanks, Razcar, for posting this. I see adventurers as sort of like celebrities—inexplicably wealthy, inexplicably important, and fairly uncommon (but not so uncommon you won't have heard of them).

I'm not too interested in the second quote DrDeth alludes to. As Mr. Jacobs has said himself, he's not a rules source. His own personal rulings while GMing are about as significant as my own. :P

No, he's not a RULES source. He's *THE* setting source. That is a setting question. As long as he is talking about Golarion, he is THE Source.

1. He's not. He is the original source of the setting, but how he chooses to run his games is not the end-all-be-all. Especially when it's just from an off-the-cuff answer in an informal forum AMA.

2. He has repeatedly asked that people stop using his casual answers in the Ask thread as ammo for their own arguments. S&&% like this is why he closed down the thread before.

Well, it's how he sets up and does Golarion, not just his own games.

Only for rules questions. I mean if asked about some bit of history of background on Golarion, he is the Source. And, since no one else is, since the rules guys only officially answer rules FAQ, what your saying is that no one has the say of what Golarion is like.

Of course, you can play there are hundreds of thousands of adventurers on Golarion if you like. No one will tell you "thats against the rules". Because it isnt.

But Golarion and the APs were set up more or less as if your party were it. If you fail, Elminister or the Circle of Eight or whoever wont ride in and save the village/kingdom/world. At best you can bring in another party.

So what were talking about is the general campaign setting guidelines for Golarion.

Which you are free to ignore.

But still for many of us, it's nice to read and hear from the Creative Director what their assumptions are in writing APs, etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:

Well, sure. "ex".

No it was a response to a question i asked him a year or so ago, about whether or not the standard 4 PC party of wizard, cleric, rogue, Fighter was common enough that bandits etc would KNOW to hit the wizard first. The answer was no, they wouldnt not without knowledge ranks, since adventurers are so rare your party is the only one they have ever encountered.

So, the answers dont really contradict one another. Adventurers, as in a party of heavily armed multiracial people, all with class levels- is very rare or unique.

Adventurers= a party of heavily armed often multiracial people, all with class levels, willing to do quests for glory and loot. Not usually on a payroll.Usually fairly independent. Usually mostly Good aligned.

It's just not common for a elf wizard, a dwarf fighter, a halfling rogue and a human cleric to join together for this sort of stuff.

Yeah okay, "ex", but three other examples then.

Mild spoilers SS, HR, HV:
In the later parts of Skulls & Shackles the PCs encounter a whole (opposing) party of adventurers. Not Good, sure, but that's because they are opponents. In Hell's Vengeance you meet a classic Good party who are defending a village. And of course, in Hell's rebels, the PC pick up the mantle of an old adventuring party, that consisted of an urban ranger, an elf swashbuckler, a bard, a cleric and a halfling wizard. Granted, you don't meet many parties in APs, but I would write that down more the fact that the PCs are the stars of the show and to page count, rather than in-world frequency. Easier to add e.g. an owlbear (page xx of bestiary x) than unique NPCs (all stats needed)

Thanks for the quote. I'm not really interested getting too deep into the discourse here, even though y'all seem to be having fun :), my question came from myself thinking about the frequency of other adventurers in our own campaigns that I DM. The prevalence of extraordinary individuals banding together must have a great impact on how the world works, such as for example the commonness or rarity of magic. I have myself shifted from them being as common as about every village having a party (albeit low level) to people with class levels grouping up and camping and spelunking together being quite rare. Or rather, some try, but you know, an owlbear's gotta eat. Having the phenomenon being unique though, was not I ever had considered.


Yeah, between some of the low-mid level NPCs around, the groups in APs (Has Mummy's Mask been brought up?) and the need for a degree of immersion in acquiring replacement PCs, I really struggle with the idea that adventurers are fleetingly rare at low levels.

Level 20 parties are going to be almost unique, but they're the exception to plenty of rules and cases.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
I would infinitely prefer to play in a world that's flexible enough to account for my choices and continue to exist 99% of the time.

I guess that would be a problem for a setting that is mainly driven by Adventure Paths though.

Though I think it's not so much of a railroad actually. The Setting as presented doesn't change to much, so it's mainly the GM's decision how to go about the consequences of a party's failing. You can have another party stepping up to finish what the others started, but you're also basically free to decide how events go from there. So in my games I'm generally much less concerned about what happens if the players stray from the (Adventure) path than I am about the players don't try to choose their own way just because it might go against anything the AP says. Might create some fallout, but well, if it does, that's for another band of adventurers to cope with, if my players do't want to.

I agree with thejeff that the APs aren't about the world ending most of the time, but I'm one of those who actually would like to play in a scenario after one of the APs went wrong. I mean if Karzoug wins, it's definitely not the end of the world but it might be a great scenario for heroes to tackle after they went through the Crimson throne for example.

So in the end, I see it more of an incentive for players to start the thing, because where would be the heroism if basically anyone else could do it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WormysQueue wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
I would infinitely prefer to play in a world that's flexible enough to account for my choices and continue to exist 99% of the time.

I guess that would be a problem for a setting that is mainly driven by Adventure Paths though.

Though I think it's not so much of a railroad actually. The Setting as presented doesn't change to much, so it's mainly the GM's decision how to go about the consequences of a party's failing. You can have another party stepping up to finish what the others started, but you're also basically free to decide how events go from there. So in my games I'm generally much less concerned about what happens if the players stray from the (Adventure) path than I am about the players don't try to choose their own way just because it might go against anything the AP says. Might create some fallout, but well, if it does, that's for another band of adventurers to cope with, if my players do't want to.

I agree with thejeff that the APs aren't about the world ending most of the time, but I'm one of those who actually would like to play in a scenario after one of the APs went wrong. I mean if Karzoug wins, it's definitely not the end of the world but it might be a great scenario for heroes to tackle after they went through the Crimson throne for example.

So in the end, I see it more of an incentive for players to start the thing, because where would be the heroism if basically anyone else could do it.

Though, to sort of argue against myself: The question isn't so much what happens after the PCs fail, but can the PCs just ignore the threats the GMs set up and carry on with their lives? Maybe they want to keep raiding the local dungeons for loot instead of following up the clues to the necromancer who's turning the whole town into zombies. The world may continue, but their home town and base won't.

The ethos here, as I understand it, is that player should be able to pick what they want to deal with without any real consequences from plotlines they let drop. It's really kind of a foreign attitude to me as a player - I like having urgency and plots to foil.

I also don't really see it as a setting issue, though I suppose having lots of adventures around could work as an excuse on the setting level. Mostly I think this kind of thing should be handled on the meta level - if you don't want to play an AP, say that up front, rather than playing it but trying to avoid the actual plot. You need buy in for any campaign concept. If you start and realize that it isn't working for you, talk to the GM and the other players.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
I also don't really see it as a setting issue

I think it's in so far, as in a more sandboxy type of setting, you basically don't have plotlines that aren't made by the characters.

Quote:
if you don't want to play an AP, say that up front, rather than playing it but trying to avoid the actual plot. You need buy in for any campaign concept. If you start and realize that it isn't working for you, talk to the GM and the other players.

I generally agree. I deviate in so far from this concept, as I'm normally not "just" run an AP but more of a combination of an AP's plotline with what the player's come up for backgrounds for their character. I really love it if they use the Player's guide options to deeply root their character into the AP's plot and story, but I won't force it on them. And if they come up with something else I still try to integrate it into gameplay, which may lead to all kind of deviations from the APs critical path. Most of the time, the players will come back to the AP's plot eventually, but if they don't, I don't care as long as they are having fun. Depends on everyone being in the same boat with that. of course.

But that it might mean that for example Karzoug awakens and they will have to defend Varisia (and more) against this even bigger threat is nothing I shy away from. Choices have consequences, after all.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wrath wrote:
Games like World of Warcraft, Rift and Everquest all have amazingly high magic worlds and have a magic mart setting. Nothing about those settings diminishes how magical the world is, yet all of them basically encourage you to continually upgrade gear.

I think there are two conflicting goals being considered here. The more fantastical we make the world, the less fantasical any given aspect of the world will be.

A city where everyone travels around on magical beasts and flying carpets, and most rich people have a genie servant of some kind, might be an evocative place, but in that city, acquiring a magic lamp will become a relatively mundane event.

Or we could go in the low-fantasy direction. You can have a world where magic potion that gave someone the ability to turn invisible was an incredible and shocking discovery, as long as you first make the world a gritty Game-of-Thrones type place.

There's probably a Conservation of Wonder effect at work here.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Wrath wrote:
Games like World of Warcraft, Rift and Everquest all have amazingly high magic worlds and have a magic mart setting. Nothing about those settings diminishes how magical the world is, yet all of them basically encourage you to continually upgrade gear.

I think there are two conflicting goals being considered here. The more fantastical we make the world, the less fantasical any given aspect of the world will be.

A city where everyone travels around on magical beasts and flying carpets, and most rich people have a genie servant of some kind, might be an evocative place, but in that city, acquiring a magic lamp will become a relatively mundane event.

Or we could go in the low-fantasy direction. You can have a world where magic potion that gave someone the ability to turn invisible was an incredible and shocking discovery, as long as you first make the world a gritty Game-of-Thrones type place.

There's probably a Conservation of Wonder effect at work here.

Yep. The problem with making it more gritty, low magic, is you also have to make your opponents the same.

The challenge of creatures factors in the expected WBL of characters they go up against. If you drop gear from that equation, then the CR of creatures needs to go up, or you drop the actual level of the group accordingly. Level 10 Pcs are likely functioning at level 6 power without correct gear.

And that means equal power level drop too. None of this " but mages will just make stuff". If you want to keep any form of balance, or justify a setting of low magic gear, then crafting rules need to probably be dropped. Also the purchasing rules from the book that outlines what can be done and bought in a city.

Essentially, by the time characters are running level 20 apparent power, they are likely level 13 in actual power.

I guess that makes things like level 20+ critters back into the terrifying creatures they are meant to be. But it also limits what the group is going to tackle story wise.

151 to 200 of 317 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Where has all the magic gone All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.