BPorter's page

Please cancel the Pathfinder Rulebook and Starfinder RPG subscriptions from this order. I have also sent an email regarding this subject.

Thank you.

In an attempt to better-support Paizo through the pandemic, I initiated 3 subscriptions at the beginning of July. Even assuming a large GenCon order cycle, GenCon is more than a week in the rear-view mirror and all of my subs are still sitting in Sidecart.

Looking at the various threads in this forum isn't exactly inspiring confidence, either. Are subscriptions no longer the best vehicle for supporting Paizo and getting product ASAP?

COVID be damned, I'm hoping to see Paizo's success continue to climb. But I have to say, things like this and the Customer Service forum threads in general aren't creating optimistic feelings. I'm really hoping a get-well-plan is in place and things improve soon.

I've weighed in periodically to comment on my rules-reading perceptions, GM prep, at-the-table after-action reports, and player feedback. I've been fortunate to play often for the last six months, and everything continues to improve.

The release of the Gamemastery Guide really helped fill in a few blanks from my side of the screen. The NPC rules are great and I love the unique abilities and shorter stat blocks. That said, I don't really find them to be a time-saver when creating NPCs because they are more free-form. Sure, I could take a "it's close enough for government work" swag and move on, but I find tinkering with the NPC rules is always time well spent in helping me better understand the rules and making a unique - and hopefully recurring - NPC.

I was a big advocate for Starfinder Stamina rules in PF2 and the Gamemastery Guide certainly delivered. However, PF2's rules and mundane healing via Treat Wounds certainly shifted Stamina from a "must have" to a "nice option, if desired". I do, however, think Treat Wounds is almost too generous and if combined with Stamina rules, I cut the number of die restoring hit points in half. My groups have ultimately come down on the side of Stamina not being necessary, but I tend to wonder if their feelings will change if party composition ever lacks a magical healer...

This is, without question, the easiest fantasy RPG I've ever run at the table. It's internally consistent and intuitive. Even codifying little things like secret checks and rarity nerf pointless bickering and keep the action moving. Conditions are easy to apply and track and are intuitive for players to understand.

From the player side, PF2 has been nothing but amazing. Every player feels that their character is effective, that they can contribute in and out of combat, and that each character has unique cool abilities, even when encountering the same class. Ancestries and backgrounds feel relevant. If a player isn't "feeling their character", it's readily apparent that it's the ancestry and/or class that they chose, not that they built an ineffective character.

Anyway, with PF2 coming up on it's 1st birthday, I just wanted to say thanks to the entire team for developing such a great game. Best wishes for ongoing success for Paizo, Pathfinder 2, and Starfinder!

Hi goblins & scittermanders.

I purchased several subscriptions, however, an old payment method was applied. I can find no way to delete the old - and now obsolete - card and apply my current payment method to my new subscriptions. I need help in getting the correct card applied to my subscriptions.

FYI, I've also emailed customer.service@paizo.com

Thanks for your assistance with this.

B. Porter

I know archetypes teasers are generating much of the buzz, but has there been any sneak peaks pertaining to new backgrounds in the upcoming APG?

Starfinder is still a young game and I understand the need to build out character options, starships, and the flesh out the setting. However, science fiction is filled with vehicle chases, mechs, aircraft, submersibles, speeders, exploration & colonization vehicles.

Now that we have a starship book in the pipeline, can we PLEASE get a vehicles book? One that includes vehicle creation rules and mech rules? Pretty please? The minimalist section in the SFCRB just isn't enough.

PF2 continues to delight in the "ease of GMing" category and I've found that the 3 modes of play are intuitive for old and new players alike -- for the most part.

Downtime has been the one with the highest incidence of "player paralysis", which isn't incredibly surprising as most of a typical campaign's focus is on Exploration and Encounter activities. I've always found downtime activities enrich a campaign and help invest the players in the story and setting, so I'm looking to get better use out of Downtime. I really like PF2's approach to codifying Downtime activities as providing players a list of options provides examples of what's possible and helps GMs come up with their own ideas.

In the PF2 CRB, there's an understandably limited selection of Downtime activities. I know some others have been introduced in the Adventure Path installments and Players Guides, but aside from the Age of Ashes Players Guide I don't know of any specific Downtime activities and the issues where they were added. I haven't been able to find a consolidated list online anywhere, either.

So, if you know of or have access to a product that contains Downtime activities, please list the name and the product that contains them here for a running total. Don't reprint the activity in total as I assume that would violate Paizo's rules, but it would be nice to know what activities are available and where they're located.

Pathfinder 2 Core Rulebook:
Craft
Create Forgery
Earn Income
Long-term Rest
Retraining
Subsist
Treat Disease

Undefined examples/suggestions: Acquire property, manage a business, join a guild or civic group, curry favor, command an army, acquire an apprentice, start a family, minister to a congregation.

Age of Ashes Players Guide:
Befriend a Local

I’ve long been wanting to implement more of Ultimate Intrigue’s subsystems into my games but then-current adventures hadn’t presented a lot of natural opportunities and I wasn’t looking to do it just for the sake of doing it. After all, if they weren’t well-received, I’d burned valuable session time.

I like to run games heavy on world-building and verisimilitude and I learned long ago that unexpected turns and outcomes often produce the richest plot hooks/seeds/campaign fodder. So, when the heroes of one of my campaigns found themselves gaining local hero status in a town suddenly beset by troubles, I knew that I wanted them to participate in the baroness’ council meeting. I didn’t want them to be bystanders watching me role-play 5-6 different nobles and town leaders. That would be difficult for me to pull off and boring for them to watch. I also didn’t want to arbitrarily skip to the end and just summarize an outcome as I knew the players wouldn’t remember any of the NPCs and wouldn’t really care beyond “Quest giver will pay X”.

I was able to run an “out of session” session. The two heroes would be joined by two brand-new players for our game session on Saturday. I ran a session on Friday night for my 2 returning heroes and enlisted my older son (who plays with his own group or just with his younger brother) for the council meeting.

What follows is the prep that I did to help me learn the Verbal Duel rules as well as present them to the players in what I hoped would be an interesting way. I’m sure that there are many ways to introduce verbal duels into PF play, plenty of which would be better than what I came up with, but I thought I’d share in case it could be of use to other GMs.

1. I typed up a 1-page Verbal Duel rules summary that outlined the “combat sequence” of Verbal Duels & exchanges.

2. I typed up a 2-page Verbal Duel tactics summary that explained the available tactics for verbal dueling and the PF2 skills associated with them.

3. Each player was given a tent card. The table-facing side had 2 pictures with title & name labels – one for each of the NPCs they would be representing. The player-facing side had the same 2 pictures & name labels but also listed the NPCs motivations and relevant skills and skill bonuses. The tent cards didn’t assign personalities so that the players could bring the NPCs to life however they liked. They also didn’t list alignment. I knew what the NPCs’ alignments were but I left it to the players to interpret the NPCs motivations as they saw fit and play accordingly.

4. The goal of the council was to persuade the baroness, her steward, and the captain of the guard on a course of action for the barony. Side A were the “attackers” – lords and ladies advocating for mustering forces and attacking the threats head-on. Side B were the “defenders” – lords and ladies whose manors hadn’t been directly impacted and/or who were resistant to committing their resources to defending the barony at large for fear of weakening their own lands/position. To keep things even, I had to play 2 NPCs just like the players.

I’m sure I made a ton of mistakes with the rules and I was much more concerned with the spirit of the rules than the letter of RAW, but it worked out better than I expected.

From a GM perspective, by having the players take on the roles of various NPCs, personalities were defined, insults were hurled, and rivalries were created in the moment rather just through my GM prep. NPCs that I had envisioned as potential allies are now bitter rivals, schemes and stratagems have been hinted at, and a lord’s honor was insulted inadvertently by a PC and a grudge is definitely being held!

From a player perspective, the verbal duel rules were well received. The players found it interesting and as with any subsystem, they recognized that repeated use would lead to quicker play. One player said he wouldn’t want it to be part of every session but thought it would be cool when strategically used. This player struggled the most with choosing a tactic and then role-playing the exchange. Ultimately, for his turns we let him role-play what he wanted to say and then chose which tactic that equated to. The other players found it much easier to select the desired tactic & skill and then formulate/role-play the exchange.

Bottom line, we found the verbal dueling rules to be effective. They took what would have been boring exposition and turned it into a memorable campaign event full of role-play. All of the players said it was much better than the standard Bluff/Diplomacy/Intimidate check approach of PF1.

As a GM, it effectively turned what would have been typical prep into a meaningful encounter that also created numerous plot seeds for future adventures. My players will now remember who Lord So-and-So is and that Lady-What-and-What doesn’t like him because of this council meeting. Yes, I had to put in some extra/unusual prep for this initial use of the rules but the next time the heroes need to persuade a ruler, a mob, or take part in a trial, they will be at least passingly familiar with these rules. I also found them easy to adapt to PF2’s skills and I think the mechanics of PF2’s critical success and failure system further enhances the verbal dueling gameplay.

In any case, if you found any of this helpful and if you haven’t already done so, I hope you give the Verbal Duel rules and other Ultimate Intrigue subsystems a try. There ARE other battlefields to fight upon and they can’t all be won with a weapon or a spell! Happy gaming!

This restful and enjoyable Christmas season included three sessions of PF2. The players were a mix of PF1 veterans and RPG newbies. The PF1 veterans were flexing their RPG muscles by playing character ancestries and classes that they hadn’t in our PF1 campaigns and the TRPG newbies were getting their feet wet on all fronts. So here are some comments and tidbits on characters and gameplay from those sessions.

1. Human Alchemist – played by PF1 player that had never played an alchemist previously but had one in his party for years. He found PF2’s alchemist very flavorful, was glad that alchemy was its own thing rather than “spells in a bottle” and was loving it when he made the clutch move of taking out the BBEG with his alchemical lightning and narrowly avoiding a TPK/capture event.
2. Halfling Fighter, Half-Orc Barbarian, Human Fighter & Human Ranger – between class options and 3-action economy, these players felt like they always had meaningful tactical choices to make and every "warrior" was distinct/unique.
3. Dwarf Bard – Played by a fan of Starfinder’s Envoy, this was a big departure for the player from a Pathfinder perspective but he quickly found his footing and felt the character was a contributor on social, magic, and combat fronts. He got his Envoy experience and was very pleased.
4. Human Cleric – Another instance of playing against type, this warpriest of a god of strength had multiple moments where he felt like an avatar of Thor. A cleric convert was born.
5. Goblin Druid – A gambler wild druid for a brand new player. He loved the primal fury bound inside a conniving gambler that was much more cosmopolitan than your average goblin. As it turned out he was part of a party infiltrating the lair of a goblin tribe that had fallen under a barghest’s rule. This sneaky, deception-focused, primal engine of death acted as advance scout and infiltrator and helped set up multiple ambushes. The heroes were able to act in stealth-commando mode almost the whole way to the barghest – and the players loved every minute of it.

The Rule of Cool - things that were very popular with players & the GM
1. New Action Economy – called out on multiple occasions by the PF1 veterans as a huge improvement.
2. New Magic Economy – cantrips + focus + spells; spellcasters said that they always felt that they had magic/spell options at their disposal. The action economy as it’s applied to spells was also super-intuitive for the new players to understand.
3. Conditions – super flavorful yet incredibly easy to apply, understand, and remember. Specifically, Dying & Wounded replacing negative hit points was received very positively by the PF1 veterans as being simpler, yet more flavorful.
4. The 4 degrees of success – this was a huge hit, even when a failure or critical failure didn’t go the players’ way. Sometimes it was the result achieved but I think the players just liked that it wasn’t a binary outcome.
5. Feel like an Action Hero – a combination of greater access to broader skills, higher hit points, ability to recover HP without an 8-hour rest, and hero points. Even at 1st and 2nd level, the players felt like their characters were heroes.
6. ABC character creation – even though PF2 is a crunchier system that creates detailed characters, the new character creation system was intuitive and easy for the newbies to understand.
7. Martials Being Bada-$ – Shield block was very popular as was the spell-less ranger. The new class abilities, level & class design, and 3-action economy had everyone happy with their characters but those who traditionally played casters were impressed with the new flexibility of martials.

The What Now? Effect – things that weren’t viewed as bad but did cause a pause or discussion as it produced an unexpected/unusual effect
1. Treat Wounds – The ability to keep going as you would expect in books, TV, or movies was great. A character going from 1 hit point to full HP from a critical success on a Medicine check did kind of break suspension of disbelief momentarily. I’m really hoping that the GMG’s implementation of Starfinder’s Stamina/HP system finds a better middle ground for those who want little more grit but who don’t want to abandon some rapid healing/recovery.
2. Secret Checks – It was an unexpected change for PF1 veterans but everyone liked these and said that they made perfect sense.

Gifts for the GM – things that I appreciated from the other side of the screen
1. More robust characters – characters still have roles to fill but aren’t the 1-trick ponies of PF1. Players embraced trying new things much more readily and weren’t afraid to try things that grognards would say were “suboptimal”.
2. Easier to run Monsters – I was a multi-decades long “monsters should be built via PC rules” guy. Starfinder put cracks in that wall but PF2 tore the wall down. Monsters with shorter stat blocks but more flavorful abilities are a joy and a breeze to run at the table.
3. Exploration Mode – being able to shift focus from between Encounter - Exploration – Downtime in a more codified way was not only easier for me to run but to explain/set expectations with the players. They understood it almost immediately and it prevented being stuck in combat/encounter mode and dragging out the actions & events between combats.
4. Conditions – as noted above but worth a 2nd shout-out
5. Secret Checks – the “my teammate rolled low so let me try too” effect is dead. Thank God. The game moves faster, players don’t know things that their characters shouldn’t, and no one is arguing about “seeing the roll”.

All in all, PF2 has been met with tremendously positive feedback by my players, both new and old. The game is easier to teach and runs faster. I also continue to find that its internal consistency and flexibility make it far easier to create new/missing game mechanics. Creating/adapting game mechanics is my least favorite part of GM duties but unlike with PF1 or other RPGs, I’m much less fearful that I can create something that is tremendously unbalanced or broken. And once I have the Gamemastery Guide, which I now consider to be PF2’s 3rd core rulebook in my hands, I expect to have more tools to tinker with and more examples of how to adapt prior subsystems to my PF2 campaigns.

While my intake of PF2 via reading, GM prep, and at the table continues to progress, I wanted to shout out to Paizo that PF2 is amazing, thus far. I really appreciate the approach the design team took with this game. I appreciate the ability to walk the tightrope of preserving the core experience while taking the opportunity to innovate and clean up problematic areas. As my experience with the game and the new rules continues to grow, the word I keep coming back to is “elegant”. This game is easier to prep, easier to run, more thematically consistent with itself, easier to teach, faster to run, more dynamic tactically, and – in my experience, anyway – consistently facilitates the creation of interesting characters. While a core rulebook can’t possibly contain the breadth of character options that a decade-long edition can, I definitely feel that PF2’s CRB supports a range of character options that is orders of magnitude greater & meaningful than PF1’s CRB did.

For the most part, I’ve been persuaded by some of the design or production choices I was less excited about. Although I think the exclusion of NPC creation in the core rulebook was a misstep (and would have been a better section than the Setting gazetteer chapter), Paizo at least provided those creation rules for free. I was never a fan of NPCs using different rules than PCs prior to Starfinder but now I am. I like PF2’s take even better. Combat level/power separated from social/skill level of ability? 'Bout damn time. NPCs that are a social challenge/obstacle without having to also be a combat threat? Thank you!

As for the launch, the only real criticisms I have is that the Gamemastery Guide should have been called out more explicitly as the 3rd pillar of the core trinity (Core, Bestiary, Gamemastery Guide) rather than the GM customization book. NPC creation, chases, hazards, etc. are all core GM content, IMO. While I understand the desire & need to get updated setting info out early, I think the GG should have taken higher priority than the two Lost Omens books released to date. Having to wait until February to get the GG is taking FOREVER. I don't run my games in Golarion but even if I did, the need for the GG would far outweigh the importance of the content in the Lost Omens books.

I know that min-maxing builds was part of the appeal of PF1 for some people. While I don’t begrudge anyone their desire for fun, I am glad to see that PF2 really wasn’t built with min-maxing in mind. At least, that appears to be the case for me. Balance and meaningful choices are much more consistent across the board and kudos for reworking the underlying math to make that design philosophy possible.

Thanks, Paizo, for this awesome game.

I didn’t get to test drive PF2 in play this weekend as I’d hoped, but I did get to spend a large portion of the weekend converting close to 30 NPCs over to PF2 using the character creation rules.

Major Impressions:
Characters are much more well-rounded and fleshed out via PF2’s ABC creation process. Backgrounds are surprisingly impactful mechanically while also rooting some basic backstory into the character in a way that PF1 Traits tried to do, but rarely succeeded.

The class chassis are more flexible. It is easier and more intuitive to create different builds using the same class. The general “pick a feat” structure is superior to PF1s archetype “packaged features”. BTW, PF1’s archetypes were hands-down one of my favorite features of that edition.

The idea that all PF2 NPCs follow the Starfinder model of NPCs “belonging” to a character class took some getting used to after years of having dedicated NPC classes. However, that hill was easily climbed once I realized that it opened up some different NPC interpretations. So far, the PF2 interpretations have turned out better than the original PF1.

Characters are also more well-rounded with respect to skills, in general. The streamlined skill list combined with somewhat broader skills plus greater access to skills for all classes means that you can build an educated fighter, social characters of any class, and other builds that previously required significant trade-offs to achieve in PF1.

The combination of armor training, unarmored defense, and level proficiency actually result in a feeling of a greater verisimilitude. Specifically, one can reasonably expect PCs and NPCs to dress appropriately to circumstances if desired. No longer does the heavy-armor warrior have to rely on heavy armor in every circumstance. Getting caught outside of one’s armor, while less effective and undesirable, isn’t a death sentence. The range between unarmored to heavily armored is lower but still has mechanical benefits. However, GMs don’t have to through reasonable plot constraints out the window for fear of nerfing a heavy armor character. Sorry, you’re a guest not a guard, so no, you can’t wear your full plate armor to the royal wedding…

Surprising specific character concepts that PF2 core allowed me to build:
Mystic Theurge – in my campaigns, I use Green Ronin’s Book of the Righteous (3.5 era) pantheon. For a priest of the god of magic, I was converting a character that was built using Kobold Press’ theurge class. Using a core cloistered cleric with wizard dedication multiclassing, I built an effective theurge character whose skills and feats really reinforced the character.

Mage Guard of Tinel – the warriors of the god of magic, as presented in the Book of the Righteous, the Mage Guard are ‘holy warriors’, i.e. paladins of different alignments. They protect Tinel’s temples and libraries but also hunt spellcasters seeking forbidden knowledge. While I could have built this character as a champion, one of the original concepts of the 3.5 class was that a Mage Guard got a familiar rather than paladin’s steed. They are also known for fighting sword-and-board. Using fighter with wizard dedication, I got an arcane-fighting sword-and-board warrior with a familiar to act as scout before wading in to give the shield bash.

PC Conversion, multi- to single-class – I helped my son convert his PF1 cleric/ranger to a warpriest cleric. The only reason he multi-classed the original character was because his PF1 cleric had so few skills and he wanted to be effective in the wilderness as well as better represent the goddess of athletics. His PF2 build is a straight-up warpriest cleric, complete with trained ranks in Athletics and Survival. No multi-classing necessary.

Haunted Girl – one of the upcoming NPCs in one of my campaigns was giving me problems on how to represent the character mechanically. Conceptually, she is haunted/can see/hear spirits in her home that no one else can detect. I hadn’t statted her up yet as I wasn’t sure which class would work best. For PF1, Spiritualist didn’t quite nail it but was the front-runner. Medium and Sorcerer were possibilities. Witch was out since I didn’t want her to be reliant on a familiar. My initial PF2 build was a undead blooded sorcerer, which I felt was adequate. However, a spirit instinct barbarian won out as the barbarian rage nicely depicts her fear and frustration of abilities she doesn’t understand. And I can still multiclass with sorcerer later, if desired.

Mercenary turned Priest – one of the adventures I’m using has a village priest who used to be an adventurer. She’s also an elf. In the original PF1 build, she’s a cleric 6 with few stats to represent her backstory and thus, she was in my ‘rebuild someday’ queue. In PF2, she’s a ranger with the cleric dedication with plenty of elven flavor. The ranger class and elven ancestry better represent her background and the cleric dedication are more in line with a small village priestess than a level 6 cleric.

All in all, I'm loving how flexible PF2 is while being easier to use. I don't know if class builds were as big a part of the "better representing the stories we want to tell" design goal as game math & mechanics were, but they're certainly helping me better realize the vision for my game world.

I'm still making my way through reading the PF2 core rulebook and Bestiary. Between readings, I'm building characters in Hero Lab Online to get a better feel for how characters are built and grow, and the potential impact of game mechanics in realizing character concepts. So far, it's been great and characters seem to be much better realized in PF2 than in PF1. I'm hoping to get to kick the tires in actual play this weekend. Thus far, PF2 is shaping up to be a home run!

One thing that is bugging me, however, is the lack of NPC-building rules. I came around to the NPCs-by-different rules camp after seeing Starfinder's implementation in action. Starfinder placed them in the first Alien Archive. The lack of NPC creation rules in neither the core rulebook nor the bestiary seems like a significant miss in an otherwise excellent launch.

Given PF2's rebuild-from-the-ground-up design approach, although I can use PC rules for creating NPCs, I feel like PF1 creation assumptions don't hold and I've got tons of questions.

What's a "representative" level spread for a village, town, or city?

Are 0-level NPCs the lions share? If so, what does that even look like?

Will NPCs be built differently but still be considered as belonging to a PC class ala Starfinder?

Do crafting level/feat requirements apply to NPCs or just PCs?

Etc.

I feel like I'm swinging blindly trying to convert existing NPCs over to something I can use in PF2.

I know we don't get Monster-building rules in Bestiary 1, I know we can build NPCs using PC rules, and I know we're getting streamlined NPC rules in PF2. But does anyone know if NPC-building rules - meaning the new, streamlined system - will be in the PF2 CRB?

Also, has there been any mention as to the form it may take? I was always a proponent of building NPCs via PC-building rules but Starfinder's NPC rules made me a convert. Based on Starfinder, I sort of assumed we'd see something similar but the Pathfinder Society teases about NPC faction leaders only cite alignment, race, and gender. For example, Calisro Benarry (N female half-orc) instead of Aibretta Fulson (CN female human mechanic).

Per the title.

Pretty please.

Wealth by Level is a useful tool for providing GM and PC guidance on appropriate gear balance in the context of the game. I get it, it’s useful, and I’m glad we have it in the game as a guideline.

Unlike Pathfinder, however, the application of WBL to an advanced society and economy like the one depicted in Starfinder needs to (or at least should be able to) account for much more than your typical roving band of fantasy adventure heroes. Corporations, advanced banking, investments, planetary economies, interplanetary economies, etc. all exist and are commonplace elements of Pact Worlds societies.

Since Starfinder is a game about science-fantasy adventures, the relevant application of WBL is rightly on adventuring gear. No one is seeking to play Starfinder Drift Barons or Starfinder Accountants. This is acknowledged in both leveled gear and the explicitly stated “can’t sell starships for cash” part of the SFCRB.

Also, before anyone makes the “post scarcity” argument, that’s clearly not in play as a signficant factor. Treasure/wealth/gear are clearly explicit rewards of the game. The problem, however, is that in order to steer PC wealth towards leveling up their gear appropriately, some really wonky stuff is thrown around for the rest of the Starfinder economy. Here are a few examples:

1. A sleep pod (communal showers/restrooms) costs 1 Cr per night. A 1-2 person suite is comparable to a standard hotel room by today’s standards and cost 10 Cr per night for 2 beds. Quite the deal! Yet a 0-level spell costs 20 Cr. But spellcasting requires skill has a rarity component, etc. Fair, and true enough. However, the hotel has to be a profitable business.

2. Starship passage (good) costs 300Cr / day of travel per person. Makes sense as space travel encompasses much more than a standard hotel room, right? But is it really worth 60 times what a hotel room would cost (Suite, 1 bed = 5 Cr/night)? It could very well be that starships are that expensive to operate, but then there's the following examples (#3, 4, & 5).

3. In the Penumbra Protocol, renting a private hangar for the PC’s starship is a measly 10 Cr/day. This is despite the fact that “Cuvacavra is a densely populated metropolis with only one allocated area for landing spacecraft”. If the goal is to make starship operations costs irrelevant, simply say something like “docking fees are assumed to be paid out of starship operation funds” and move on.

4. In The Reach of Empire, the PCs will be paid 4000 Cr for delivering supplies to the colony. This is presented as PC wealth. I certainly hope that’s profit after starship operations costs are accounted for because I question the viability of starship freight transport, otherwise.

5. Starship salvage is effectively ignored. The only time I’ve seen it addressed is in The Diaspora Strain and it amounts to “they carried nothing of value” from a NPC, as though the ship itself is of no intrinsic value.

6. The apparent setting conceit that robots exist but can't be purchased by PCs.

However, in addition to providing in-game rewards for PCs, the use of economic hurdles, items of value, mining and salvage and host of other topics are all excellent fodder for stories. Greed-motivated villains, piracy, bounty hunting, mercenary work, ‘get a job, keep flying’-style merchant campaigns, etc. all need at least a somewhat plausible 'economy' in order to make sense contextually. Sure, non-adventuring economic topics shouldn’t take the focus away from adventuring but they don’t have to be dismissed, or worse, made nonsensical or trivial in a way that calls attention to it. Saying “your ship is like a corporation and the UPBs and credits that pay for it aren’t available as PC personal wealth” is perfectly acceptable. Creating scenarios where selling a relatively commonplace weapon will pay for living expenses for an extended period of time isn’t.

I really hope that a future supplement addresses or expands topics like cost of living, downtime money-making activities, starship operation costs, salvage, & trading outside of the constraints of WBL. If we can accept level-gated gear, we should be able to accept separate sources of wealth, income, and expense that can only be applied to certain areas. Let’s not close off story opportunities or internal setting logic because of a fear that PCs will break WBL restrictions.

I’ve been a Paizo fan since Burnt Offerings. Pathfinder has been my primary RPG since the Core Rulebook arrived at my house a decade ago. My experience with new editions of most other RPGs did not get me excited because it usually was more about revenue goals than refinement or evolving the game. (Savage Worlds being a notable exception of how to do it right.) Change for Change’s sake is NOT a good thing, in my experience.

Even with new-edition ‘signals’ such as PF Unchained! and Starfinder I was hoping that when the inevitable PF2 came around it would be a Refinement approach instead of the Rebuild mentality traditionally adopted by WotC. I was not interested in a new edition. I did, however, understand the likely necessity of PF2 from a business perspective.

Then the blogs began teasing PF2. Initial resistance gave way to intrigued interest. Not only that, it seemed that many “wish list” items were being incorporated: spell-less rangers, ancestries and backgrounds vs. the inelegant trait system, the new action economy, and yes…even Resonance. I found myself eagerly awaiting each new tease of PF2 info and it became evident that a genuine desire to innovate for the betterment of the game – on both sides of the GM screen – was a driving force. Some changes might be radical, but they weren’t changes for Change’s sake.

Like many on the forums, I suspect, that (in my case unexpected) enthusiasm caused me to lose sight of the Playtest goal, or at least it’s primary one: to playtest the rules. Like many, I got caught up in the cycle of “speak loudly and often lest your voice go unheard”. And I was disheartened, annoyed, and disgusted when stating a design preference about a game resulted in…we’ll call it less than meaningful discourse. I was told my preferences had no place in Pathfinder, ANY restriction of magic or demigod-like power was bad, that the power curve HAD to climb or PF2 was a failure out of the gate, and that 5e was a better place for my desire for more grounded fantasy. The boards were becoming increasingly toxic, they weren’t fun to read or a way to decompress anymore. So I decided to check out 5e and see if they were right.

D&D 5e is a fine game. I actually found a lot in the design that I liked. Unsurprisingly, a lot of that design looked like a Pathfinder variant (i.e. similarities, not plagiarism). However, the ‘well-intentioned’ claims of Club Take-Your-Ball-and-Play-Elsewhere were wrong. 5e was not a low, or even lower-magic game. Sure the math was flatter but magic was just as prevalent as it was in 3e. And presumably, 4e. I dunno, I skipped 4e for Pathfinder. Bottom line, 5e wasn’t going to scratch my Pathfinder itch.

After experiencing the design changes of Starfinder (which I love, btw), I started revisiting PF2. I wasn’t in a position to participate in the Playtest but I weighed in on the surveys where possible. More importantly, I started digging into the system more by making characters and running some mock combats. I watched the Paizo videos. I listened to the Glass Cannon playtest sessions.

I don’t know what the final form of PF2 will take. It has become abundantly clear to me, however, that Paizo is truly seeking to innovate and improve Pathfinder, to separate the PF1 wheat from the 3.x chaff that perhaps got improved in PF1 but never got fixed. I’ve taken many PF1 characters and rebuilt them as best I could in PFP form. In every case, the PFP version is more thematically interesting. They appear to be more competent in the way action heroes and swords-and-sorcery heroes are without going the trite route of MOAR POWER. I can see how they are trying to clean up areas and open up new design space. I can see the potential for (please, oh please, oh please) modular dials and levers that a GM could employ to use the PF2 chassis to fit a variety of play styles.

Of course, I do have concerns. Legendary proficiency in many cases seems geared for campaign-consistency-breaking gonzo wonkiness that I despise. I worry that the magic “un-nerf” will swing the pendulum to the other side. I worry that the math will only support one style-of-play (High-to-Epic Fantasy) and will cause the Zero-to-Demigod path to be an express-lane. Will I really like having NPCs utilizing a different character creation system than the players? Will the dreaded Christmas Tree Effect survive another edition? Will magic feel more, well, magical? Will goblins still be menacing, if often inept, fire-loving psychos?

Ultimately, though, those are minor concerns. Since the end of the playtest, developer comments, videos, interviews, etc. have helped me conclude that they’re looking at the right things, that the TEST was a plan and that they’re pleased with what the execution of that test produced. I see character builds that I want to see tried at the table. I see the promise of intrinsic GM tools that will make the game easier to run and easier to teach to new players. I see the potential for a game that is easier to run so that my youngest child who loves to play PF1 will try running a game of his own rather than being intimidated by PF1’s complexity.

I truly appreciate the effort and care that Paizo is putting into PF2. I eagerly await its release. Thanks for the past decade of Pathfinder greatness and I hope that the next decade leads to even greater success for the Pathfinder game and Paizo.

A question regarding Drift Travel that I can't seem to find anywhere: When a course is plotted but before the ship enters the Drift, is the travel time known/calculated?

My read on The Drift is no. Like the age of sail, you have an approximation (3d6 or 5d6 days at Drift 1) but the Drift's unpredictability makes precise calculations impossible.

With respect to in-system travel, however, this absolutely should be identifiable before setting out on a plotted course. This is occurring in real-space, so the distance of a particular course is fixed.

I think this leads to a better risk/reward analysis that the captains and pilots of the Starfinder universe have to employ: Is the potential of a shorter trip better than the known travel time of in-system travel?

The higher the Drift rating, the less of a factor this becomes but I like the premise. If for no other reason it explains why ships aren't always Drift-capable and why in-system travel is still a thing.

Thoughts/opinions?

Let the rampant speculation being! Since this is my list, they're tagged with what I think is likely or less likely but greatly desired.

1. With 3 classes in the playtest, my guess is that this will parallel PF1's Advanced Players Guide with respect to new classes, new class features for core classes, archetypes, and themes for all. New spells, gear, and magic items. (LIKELY)

2. Since its Character Operations aside from potentially seeing new starship roles and role actions, I don't expect to see much on the starship side. That likely is being saved for the Starship Operations Manual...? (please, oh please) (LIKELY)

3. Playtest concludes in Jan. Revisions, Print, ship. Don't compete with PF2 launch at GenCon. Holiday season 2019 release (Nov/Dec)? (LIKELY-ish)

4. Since Alien Archive covers monsters and new species, I don't really expect new species in this book. Doing so would seem to undercut part of what the Alien Archives are about. (LESS LIKELY)

5. I'd love to see expanded downtime rules for character-scale activities. Since Starfinder doesn't really follow PF1s segmentation of player:GM content, I don't see an Ultimate Campaign-style book in the Starfinder line but could see character downtime in this book, starship downtime tasks in a starship book, etc. (LESS LIKELY)

6. Along the lines of Ultimate Campaign-style content, background generators, cohort and hireling rules, etc. would be great. (LESS LIKELY)

And since it bears repeating....THEMES, THEMES, and more THEMES & Archetypes.

What do you expect/hope to see in the Character Operations Manual?

I'm totally on board for the Medicine skill having a Treat Wounds ability. I'm all for extending the adventuring day and the other benefits of including additional healing in the game.

Unfortunately, 1.3's Treat Wounds, as written, solves one problem but creates another. Unless I've overlooked it somewhere, there is no limit on the number of Treat Wounds a character can receive. No resources are consumed, and somehow the caregiver can simultaneously treat 6 people in the same 10-minute period. For all the difficulty this represents, you might as well say "you auto-heal after combat" - which, in case it needs to be said, would suck and completely ruin any chance of immersion for myself and almost every player I've ever played a RPG with.

Also, 10-minutes is not "a significant time expenditure". Not by a long shot.

Starfinder's stamina mechanic is still superior by a country mile.
1. You have the 10-minute rest to get stamina points back.
2. PCs have to expend a resolve point so they can't spam rests indefinitely.
3. Hit Point healing is handled differently and more slowly, so there is a tactical decision and element of risk to pressing on as resolve points get low. This can help create narrative tension, ESPECIALLY during time-constrained parts of adventures.

So, instead, we're getting a Treat Wounds mechanic that swings the pendulum too far the other way instead of using a proven mechanic from PF2's sister RPG because (paraphrasing Jason's comment on the stamina system from memory) "Starfinder is emulating a different genre"?

Starfinder's stamina system does a far better job of emulating heroic fantasy than 1.3's Treat Wounds does.

Mechanically, I'm struggling to understand the limitations imposed on projectile weapons.

Yes, projectile weapons generally roll a die higher (e.g. d6 vs. d4) vs. an energy weapon. However, the energy weapon is rolling against EAC which is typically lower than KAC.

Energy weapons have additional effects on a critical - burn, staggered, arc, etc. Some projectile weapons get knockdown, but not all or even most of them.

So why are projectile weapon's ammo capacities so gimped? Energy weapons have the advantages laid out above yet even Level 1 energy weapons typically have 20 charges. Energy weapons also have higher-capacity batteries, compounding the disparity.

A tactical semi-auto - 9 (which admittedly, isn't terrible). To get 12 rounds in a magazine takes a level 7 weapon.

Level 1 Handcannon - 1 shot. As in musket kind of 1 shot. To get to a 6-round handcannon requires a Level 6 weapon.

Even a level 10 Combat Rifle that costs 16,500 credits only has 12 rounds.

Armory allows for extending magazines (by a mere 20%) but guess what, energy weapons get it too!

What is the design goal of nerfing projectile weapon ammo capacities?!?

Given projectile weapons inclusion and prevalence, clearly they are intended to be a viable option. I'm not even suggesting that projectile weapons should have the same capacity as energy weapons just for something more aligned with real-world firearms' capacities. I just don't get this particular design choice. It seems needlessly restrictive for no particular mechanical balance reason...or reason of any kind, to be honest.

WTHeck?

We have the bounty hunter theme, Sentinels, Hellknights, spaces pirates, space slavers, and other assorted ways for people to get into mischief and people who want them caught.

How would you go about assigning/claiming bounties? Ideally, it's based on the crime vs. a metagame consideration like WBL but that could provide some basis as a higher-level offender can probably pull off more villainous/higher-profile offenses.

Coincidentally, this is as much a question for applying bounties to PC law-breakers as it is for PCs to collect on bounties.

First, let me state that I'm a fan of Paizo APs. My 1st Paizo AP was Rise of the Runelords and I've collected most of them over the years but really only used elements of an AP rather than run one start to finish as written. While I have my favorites, even for AP plots that I didn't love, there's still no denying that PF1 APs have been the gold standard of RPG adventures for many years.

I've recently been diving into Starfinder and since I'm playing in Dead Suns, I decided to adapt a PF1 AP installment to Starfinder. Going in, I wasn't sure if I'd attempt to adapt the entire 6-installment run but I pulled 5 APs that I thought had the potential to be adapted to Starfinder without too much trouble.

My players settled on Strange Aeons. Now, I'm aware that Strange Aeons is an unusual AP based on the "hook" and how that unfolds over the course of the AP. Adaptation worked great and we're halfway through SA-pt1.

In prepping future sessions, however, trying to piece together the villain's plot, how it intersects with "highlighted villains" of other AP installments, and how the PCs stories integrate into the whole was...well, it's a mess. Not the plot itself, but rather how the info was presented. At one point, I had all 6 PDFs open and was flipping between all of them trying to piece together a coherent timeline of what the bad guys were up to and why.

This caused me to reflect on other APs and while this facet stood out to me with Strange Aeons, it isn't the only AP to have this issue. I understand that part of it stems from having 6 different authors. Part stems from condensed recaps and slow reveals that focus on what's relevant to a particular AP installment. But none of that makes it any less confusing, even when a GM has all 6 parts of an AP on hand.

This got me thinking about things like the Starfinder CRB, Beginner's Box, and Strategy Guide. Paizo clearly learned better ways to organize and present the information to make it more accessible.

I can't help but think that a "the villain's plan" summary would be immensely helpful. Things such as "key NPC whereabouts/plots/motivations", something that helps guide the GM while running the game vs. pages of text. I always read an adventure before running it but even doing that, in Strange Aeons, there's a lot of info and nuance contained in the adventure itself forces a GM to keep flipping between the info and the Adventure Background. Mix in other AP installments written by different authors and its a multiplicative factor.

I know that the AP line has experimented with the content that comprises the AP but I don't see a lot that has changed with how the info is presented.

I'm not suggesting sweeping changes but a unified plot/plan summary that encompasses the full AP, even in bullet-point form, would be helpful to me. The AP plan in the back of every APs 1st installment is good broad-brush for player teases or gauging interest but is of little to no help when running a game. I also think sidebars/callouts about key plot points and/or references to relevant pages/sections/mentions in other AP installments would be of use. We get them for items and occasionally for AP subsystems or potential "problem areas", so why not for helping the GM keep the AP's plot on course? Personally, I'd rather get the plot help and have magic item callouts contained in its own backmatter section like key NPCs and the AP bestiary.

Anyone else out there hoping to see some changes/improvements in AP structure/presentation? Has anyone come up with tricks or tips for dealing with this?

Again, I love Paizo's APs. I'm just wondering if their presentation can be further improved the way Paizo has improved the presentation of RPG material.

For those just getting into science-fiction/fantasy RPGs via Starfinder, if you're not aware of 0-hr, it's a company/brand devoted to producing starship deckplans for RPGs.

I discovered these incredible designs years ago when I was putting together my Savage Worlds science-fiction campaign. The product line started back in the days of d20 Modern/Future - or at least started out using those stats - but I found the ships easily adapted to Savage Worlds. Now, Ryan Wolfe, the owner & artist of 0-hr has created Starfinder stats for almost the entire line available for free, including blank starship sheets, and a conversion notes doc that shows how the ships were built using Starfinder rules!

You can find them at 0-hr.com

These downloads also include the basic deckplans as a single-page PDF.

I've purchased a bunch of these over the years and they typically include battlemap-scale pages, a sample crew write-up (personalities/histories rather than stats), and art shots of the ship in action. I've found them to be a tremendous value and the fact that Ryan's already done the conversion work to fit them into my Starfinder game blew my mind. They are definitely worth checking out!

If this sounds like a shameless fanboy plug, so be it. Kudos to Ryan on the great products and for making them so accessible for Starfinder GMs!

For Legendary Games fans out there, how well can Legendary Planet by integrated with Starfinder's Pact Worlds setting?

I know Legendary Planet was originally released for PFRPG and was an awesome-sounding sword-and-planet style AP. As I understand it, it was originally supporting the concept of the PCs being fish-out-of-water as 'standard' fantasy characters exposed to a much bigger world/universe.

Now that at least some of the parts of Legendary Planet have been converted to SFRPG, I'm looking at the possibility of running at least the early parts of it for my own Starfinder campaign. However, I'm curious as to how well it would work with the Pact Worlds setting.

In other worlds, I'm fine with Pact Worlds inhabitants being taken on a far-flung journey to alien worlds via stargates. (Although I'd love to be able to integrate spaceships into the story as well.)

I'm less ok with the idea that I'm yanking my Pact Worlds characters into a story that is great for planetary romance-style adventure but can't really support the more traditional science-fiction/space opera tropes as presented in Starfinder such as advanced societies, gear, computers, robotics, drones etc.

For a first Starfinder campaign, can Legendary Planet seamlessly fit into a remote corner of the galaxy or is the tone/setting/feel of the AP cement it as a "different science fantasy taste"?

With Armory just around the corner and Alien Archive 2 on the horizon, what rulebooks are you hoping to see next?

Vehicles/Starship Book
Personally, I'd really like a vehicles or a vehicles/starship book that greatly expands the vehicles of Starfinder. While the small number we get in the SFCRB is understandable given the amount of material that needed to be covered, they are somewhat lacking. Heck, the vehicle rules in PF1 are more extensive! In fairness, that didn't happen until Ultimate Combat, though, but I'm hoping Starfinder vehicles get an upgrade soon.

And let's face it, one can never have too many starship options in a game like Starfinder.

Near-Space Sourcebook
Obviously, this is an ever-expanding topic but I couldn't come up with a better category/name. It would be nice to see the Pact Worlds' neighboring galactic governments and some of the Pact Worlds' colonies get write-ups similar to the Pact Worlds book.

Factions-Organizations Sourcebook
With 10+ years of PFS, PF1 APs, PF1 campaign setting books, and Ultimate Campaign, etc. Paizo has a lot of data when introducing faction and organization rules into the game and what works and, more importantly, what doesn't. I would love to be able to see that know-how applied to the varied organizations, factions, and groups of the Starfinder setting.

In the same way that factions play a role in SFS and PFS, I'd love to be able to work with story possibilities of a party comprised of mixed factions with boons, subsystems, gaining rank/prestige or other in-game representation to further support the role-playing possibilities.

What's on your Starfinder rulebook wishlist?

I started gaming with Star Frontiers and science fiction gaming has always been my true gaming love despite most of the time being spent – unsurprisingly – on fantasy. The fantasy genre has done much over the decades to close the gap to where the affection gap between them is pretty narrow but sci-fi still wins out. However, science fiction and fantasy have always been “two great tastes” that didn’t really taste great together for me. For every Star Wars (and there are few), there are dozens of examples of poorly mashing the genres together. Planetary romance and pulp managed it before Star Wars was a thing but the only thing close to Star Wars that did it successfully IMO was Farscape.

So going into the announcement of Starfinder, I was intrigued but not thrilled. From a Paizo perspective, it made perfect sense – it gave the company the opportunity to satisfy Lisa’s love of Star Wars with Paizo intellectual property and no licensing headaches and also could satisfy Erik’s love of planetary romance/pulp as well as fully realize the science fantasy seeds planted in the PF1 era Golarion system.

I picked up Starfinder and while I was impressed with some elements, others on first glance didn’t quite satisfy my physics-degree based-desire to keep magic out of my science fiction. I’d found Savage Worlds years before and it provides the science-fiction toolbox I was looking for. (BTW, Pinnacle has a kickstarter for the Irongate expansion for their highly recommended Last Parsec setting underway right now).

Specifically, I wasn’t crazy about NPCs operating by different rules, the gear progression system, and what appeared to be the restrictive nature of the base classes. I was running multiple Pathfinder campaigns and struggling to find regular times to run those and still had my intermittent Last Parsec campaign so there was little incentive to add Starfinder to the mix of games I’d run.

But a month ago my eldest son said he wanted to purchase Starfinder with an eye towards running it. For the first time in many years, I would get to be a player rather than a GM, so I threw my Starfinder reservations aside and eagerly dove into Starfinder.

It iS GLORIOUS!!

Yes, it’s more Farscape and Guardians of the Galaxy than Aliens, Dark Matter, The Expanse, or Firefly (but it can do these also). Yes, it has a specific tone/feel just like Pathfinder is for fantasy so it can’t be molded to suit any style of science fiction. Also, yes – it’s a blast to play!

My love of Savage Worlds and free-form/magic-free science fiction caused me to forget a lesson I learned when introducing my kids and their friends to Pathfinder. For most new players, class-based games provide structure that facilitates learning the game vs. being so overwhelmed by possibilities that a player doesn’t know where to start. The same goes for the gear list and while, yes it is a concession to game balance & structure, it’s not as intrusive or problematic as my casual initial Starfinder read-through appeared. And at the end of the day, it’s a game and not a physics simulator which is true of every RPG I’ve played in the past 35 years.

Once my preconceptions and biases were thrown aside, I’ve quickly grown to appreciate the design of this game. We are 4-5 sessions into the campaign and it’s fantastic. Some of my favorite SF facets:

1. Every class is broader than I originally believed. For example an operative, envoy, and even a soldier can be a skilled engineer, not just the Mechanic.

2. Every class is distinct but can contribute to similar roles via different means. The SF classes are very flexible. Themes allow for further differentiation out of the gate. Having multiple characters of the same class in a party isn’t detrimental.

3. Stamina Points + the removal of non-lethal damage provides a smooth cinematic experience without the limitations of Ultimate Combats Wounds+Vitality system. I like it so much I wish it would be in PF2. I understand why it won’t be, but I want it all the same.

4. Starship combat is excellent! It brought back Knight Hawks nostalgia but without the rough edges. If Knight Hawks was a classic car, Starfinder is the refined, high tech model of modern engineering.

5. Ability advancement is vastly superior to PF1. It’s easier to make well-rounded characters instead of having to hyper-specialize.

6. The broader magical classes that are differentiated by themes/sources/story is superior to PF1’s specialized spellcasting classes. I like that Priest is a theme rather than hard-wired into a class. The removal of arcane/divine makes magic seem more like a universal mystical force that can be interpreted multiple ways. In this respect, magic in SF seems more mystical than magic in PF, which is so categorized & defined that it seems more scientific in comparison.

7. Bulk is much more manageable than PF1’s encumbrance system. It has its own quirks but I like the system overall.

I’m still early into the system and have much to learn. While SF may not provide the pure science fiction of say The Expanse or the new Lost in Space out of the box, it does provide an exciting system and setting for science fantasy. As most players and GMs (and Hollywood directors) are perfectly happy moving “at the speed of plot”, the SFCRB provides a new-player-friendly toolkit for expanding beyond FRPGs. It builds off of PF1, the PF Beginner Box, and current media influences and refines the whole into a fun, yet familiar, science fantasy RPG.

Kudos, Paizo! Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to prep my ship. We’re heading into the Drift!

Most of the PF2 blogs have been focused on class mechanics, skills, ancestries, etc. - the building blocks of player characters, and rightly so.

With the lessons learned over 10 years of publishing Pathfinder and specifically with respect to the RPG line, Beginner Box, Strategy Guide, and most recently the Starfinder CRB, the how & what of explaining RPGs at Paizo has evolved. Given Eric Mona's charter for the PF2 CRB of "it can't be bigger than PF1's CRB" combined with those lessons learned, it seems less likely that PF2's CRB will follow PF1's CRB chapter-for-chapter. We also know that Paizo no longer sees the hard division of setting-neutral RPG content vs. Golarion setting content as being more trouble than it's worth. Despite the fact that I don't set my campaigns in Golarion, I can see why they would arrive at that assessment from a business perspective.

Using the Starfinder CRB as our most recent reference point, the system for generating NPCs was pushed to Alien Archive, while a chapter on Starfinder's setting made it into the SFCRB. Starfinder is a different beast, however, and the inclusion of setting info makes sense given that Starfinder was carving out a new(ish) setting and lesser supported genre (science fantasy). The move to put NPC-generation rules into a "monster" book, however, seemed to me like a missed opportunity for a "core rulebook" that is supposed to serve both players and GMs.

I'm a world-building GM and the GM "game within the game" is as much a part of the hobby for me as running the game itself, so I certainly hope NPC rules make the CRB cut. If Downtime is core, I'd also like to see rules for the construction of buildings/strongholds as well.

While I'm not interested in a Golarion primer/summary in the CRB (and would vote against its inclusion), I wouldn't be shocked by it's inclusion as part of a PF2 "teaching mindset".

While we know (or strongly hinted) that Downtime will be in the PF2 CRB, what are your thoughts on other non-character-building content?

Should rules for generating NPCs be in the CRB or is the Starfinder approach preferred?

Should Golarion setting information (beyond deities) be in the CRB or reserved for a PF2 setting guide?

With the insight into the four essences, how much detail are you hoping to see in the CRB?

What other GM-specific content are you hoping to see in the PF2 CRB?

From AD&D to PF1, I’ve played the incarnations of the game (except for 4e & 5e) for 30 years. For pretty much that entire time, high-level play has always been part of the game, albeit a problematic one. Inflating math that makes die rolls meaningless at worst or drives numbers bloat at best, involuntary tonal shifts in a campaign, GM burden, and other issues have existed pretty consistently through all of these as well. These, combined with the seeming unconscious need to expand spellcasters’ power in each subsequent edition has exacerbated the issue where the “Appendix N” inspirational material has to be discarded in favor of the saga of Beowulf and heroes of Greek myth (most of whom are demigods) just to keep up, resulting in a game that more closely resembles cosmic-tier superhero RPGs than swords-and-sorcery or high fantasy.

Paizo’s blog on the Legendary tier looks to continue that trend where feats that would be considered impossible barring technology or magic will be unlocked via level & skill feats.

If you like it, that’s cool. If you don’t (like me), you’re very likely going to be disappointed unless Legendary is easily removed (as has been suggested – we’ll see). It did get me wondering about the business side of it, though.

Anecdotal ‘realities’ of high-level play:
1. The math breaks down at higher levels

2. The caster-martial disparity is very prominent

3. Most campaigns end by 10-12 (this one is often cited by proponents of high-level play as part of the “what’s the harm in having it” argument)

4. The ‘vast majority’ of games take place in the level 1-12 range.

5. The campaign focus/tone shifts whether the GM or players want it to by virtue of the power the players wield. For some, this is a feature. For others, it morphs the campaign into something radically different that often isn’t as entertaining (thus contributing to point #3).

6. High-level play devolves into rocket tag

7. Proponents of high-level play are fine with “quadratic wizards” and want “quadratic martials” to match to avoid player ‘disenfranchisement’.

Comments on business realities of high-level products made by Paizo (seminars, forum posts, etc.)
1. Low-level modules sell better than high-level ones (significantly so)

2. The 6th installment of an AP typically sells far less than installments 1-3

3. Mythic was not particularly well received and thus was only used for 1 AP and rarely applied to monsters in later products. Whether this was due to WotR being developed while Mythic rules were being written and the disconnect that created in the AP or if it was in response to the Mythic rules themselves, has not been stated to my knowledge.

4. Pathfinder Society tops out in the level 12-13 range

Which begs the question:If high-level play is problematic, or at least challenging to design for, and is less popular by significant and measurable means, how does it make sense to devote ½ of your new edition’s core product to supporting that style of play?

Businesses often like referring to 80-20 rules. We have no way of knowing what the ratio of low-level vs. high-level play is, but the conceptual extrapolation stands: does it make sense from a business standpoint to devote ½ your development effort and page count to something that (for example’s sake) only 20% of your customers will use?

If high-level play equated to a high-end product generating equal or greater revenues, the answer would be obvious. But RPG content doesn’t work that way. So why do it for PF2?

Here are my suspicions:
1. Sacred Cow/legacy/nostalgia – since it’s always been there, the fear is that its absence will be poorly received even though most groups don’t utilize that content.

2. Bestiaries & Monsters – Paizo wants to continue to create high-level monster content for bestiaries and AP backmatter even if most of them won’t see play at a table. Developing monsters that PCs have no mechanical means of challenging would kill enthusiasm for such creatures.

A model that would seem to make more sense would be something similar to what was done in D&D’s early days with the Basic-Expert-Companion-Master-Immortal series: gate the core rules by the style of game desired by the level range. Say, PF Heroic (CRB1 = levels 1-10); PF Legendary (CRB 2 = levels 11-20), for example. Bestiaries would be unaffected. We’re already seeing Aps of varying lengths and level ranges with Starfinder. Thus, PF2 APs could be written for Heroic tiers, Legendary tiers, and follow the legacy model of spanning the range. Additionally, Paizo could expand GM advice to address both all levels of play. Finally, Paizo would have a more concrete segmentation of what is selling and what isn’t.

I know it’ll never happen but to me it’s a more elegant solution as it allows the customer to avoid purchasing content that they don’t want need while allowing Paizo to target more efficiently on the content being created for a particular tier of play.

Since PF fans are presumably ok with a steady publication of supplements, would you rather see content divided this way for more targeted focus for both Paizo & customers or do you prefer the all-in-one/across the spectrum approach? (This is a theoretical/curiosity thread, so high-level/epic/mythic fans you can put your flamethrowers away.)

As one of the unlikeliest PF2 converts, I received the news of PF2 with…well, resignation more than anything. I appreciate business realities of new editions and no one can argue that PF1 has had a monumental run. Diving into a new system, transitioning campaigns, etc. just isn’t something I was looking to do again. So color me shocked as with each blog release my interest in PF2 has grown. Here are my initial thoughts thus far, based on the admittedly limited info revealed in the blogs:

Class previews: Strongly approve. Each supports its theme and seems to have taken steps to address areas that could use improvement or outright problem areas. I’m really digging the Fighter and Rogue classes, which is a must-have for me given how almost all of my favorite fantasy fictional characters tend to be one of these classes. I also really like the anathema mechanics of clerics and paladins.

Ancestries: Seems like a nice tweak and I really like the idea of species/race staying relevant across the PC level spectrum. Ancestries seems like a more elegant approach than past implementations.

Resonance: I love this. I’m sure it will undergo tweaks but providing mechanical and story reasons for why magic “costs” something is fantastic! Please allow me to roast marshmallows over the insect-riddled corpse of the Magic Item Christmas Tree effect. Don’t listen to the optimizers wailing, Paizo. This is a great concept.

Backgrounds: I like Traits in concept but it evolved into a grab bag of bonuses with little real character relevance. Backgrounds seem like a better execution overall and if it helps new players conceptualize their PCs better/faster, it’s all to the good.

Monster-building using different rules: Jury is still out on this one. What’s been teased is much more intriguing than PF Unchained!s approach or Starfinder’s implementation. Honestly, the opportunity to divorce PF monsters from some of 3.x’s weird design philosophies – primarily with respect to mundane animals – is great. Improved from Undesirable to Cautiously Optimistic on this one.

NPCs using different rules: One of my biggest concerns. This has been mitigated greatly by the blog in that building NPCs with PC rules is still an option and it doesn’t appear that PF2 is going to embrace Starfinder’s NPC ridiculousness. Improved from Non-Starter to Cautiously Optimistic.

Weapons and Armor: LOVE these changes. Having more degrees of quality for mundane items beyond average and masterwork is fantastic and long overdue. Rune-infused items is thematically in-line with fantasy fiction source material and is more intuitive for new players familiar with current video games such as Dragon Age, Shadow of Mordor/War, the Witcher, etc.

Bulk: Encumbrance is always a thing in my games. If the bulk system provides a more intuitive and faster way of tracking it, great. If it creates more problems than it solves, no thanks.

Critical Hits & Failures: This is great! I love the varied degrees of success applying across the system inclusive of skill checks and saving throws! Spare me the “but PCs face more of these than monsters” argument. They’re adventurers. They also have more mechanical benefits than any other creature in the system. Cowboy up.

Magic, alchemy, and domains: So far, so good. 10th-level spells causes me some concern but the blog and supporting comments seem to suggest it’s a reclassification instead of a new gonzo power level. Please, please, PLEASE take this opportunity to reassign spells to more appropriate levels. I really don’t care if a spell has been 2nd level since 1977 if it’s clearly a “too good for its level to pass up”. Integrating alchemy into the game from square 1 is long overdue.

Proficiency: Overall, I love this. The overall approach of flattening the math without going overboard is great. The proficiency tiers look promising. However, I have one HUGE issue with it – Legendary. Just, no. Survival training doesn’t allow you to survive in a vacuum without gear based solely on your knowledge. You can’t steal armor off of a person without them being aware. Trying to emulate a myth from an oral tradition or early written form that has little-to-no character development and isn’t concerned with consistency is not a good basis for a game, even at high-level play.

“But it’s a fantasy game!” Yeah, so what? You still have to maintain some form of internal consistency or the game is weakened or ultimately collapses when rules suddenly go out the window. Look at the Marvel movies. Unlike the comics, they have to maintain an internal consistency. The superheroes have powers that in some cases dwarf what a PF character could do. Yet Iron Man needs his armor to do most of his tricks. If Wolverine survives in space, it’s because of his mutant healing factor, not because of his ranks in Survival. Legendary proficiency should stretch the boundaries, not throw internal consistency out the window. Legendary proficiency as described, is Mythic – as in imbued with divine power. Legendary instead, should be “I’m the best there is”.

I won’t say this is a deal-breaker/non-starter. My campaigns, like most, don’t often go to the 16-20 range, so it’s not a huge issue but I was hopeful that with PF2, I might be able to enjoy the full 1-20 level spectrum. Unless Legendary leaves Mythic behind, it does mean that PF2 has a level cap for me of 14 or 15. Period.

So overall, I’m pleasantly shocked and incredibly optimistic about what’s been presented. I’m eagerly awaiting the playtest and looking forward to PF2 in a way that I would have said wasn’t possible. Thus far, it is shaping up as approaching a new edition in my desired way: refine, fix, and improve vs. change for change’s sake. So far, it looks like the power curve is being maintained or perhaps even being flattened a bit. So long as Paizo doesn’t succumb to the vocal “turn it to 11 or it sucks” crowd, I foresee being a PF2 GM for all of my fantasy campaigns in about 18 mos.

Keep it up, Paizo!

Please take the opportunity in PF2 to redesign armor types and how they work.

I'd love to see more historically-accurate armors such as brigandine, and a removal/de-emphasis on things like "banded mail", flexible leathers holding the leather armor category and boiled leather holding the hide armor category, etc.

And while piecemeal armor didn't exactly pan out in Ultimate Combat, a way of modifying armor using the new equipment tiers would be great. Being able to customize & improve armor in a fashion similar to Dragon Age or the Witcher 3 would be fantastic.

And while I've said it elsewhere, I'm loving what I'm hearing of the new shield mechanics.

So Occult Adventures has been out for a while and I enjoy most of it. My son was able to build a John Constantine-inspired character via the Occultist and has really enjoyed the class. I've also sprinkled some additional Occult Adventures content here and there and most of it fits seamlessly in my campaign.

One of my players was looking for a change and wants to play a mysticism-styled warrior and has made a Monk/Psychic multiclass.

I haven't had to deal with psychic duels yet. Perusing the boards here, opinions vary but now that the rules have been around for a while, I'm seeking some actual play feedback & advice.

Concern #1: No one's home; dog-pile time!
Many of Pathfinders battles involve a single villain/combatant vs. the party. Psychic duels seem like that could be problematic if the villain is pulled into the psychic duel and can't defend his/her physical body. This concern is mitigated by the fact that Hold Person is still in the game along with other Save-or-Die spells.

Concern #2: Time isn't slowed, but it feels like it
The psychic combat exists separately from physical combat yet time passes the same. So psychic duel rounds coexist with normal rounds. I'm not going to stop a normal combat to run a psychic combat or the reverse. Once the rules are understood by all, does psychic combat run slower than normal combat or is it business as usual?

I like the concept of psychic combat and it certainly evokes the astral combat depicted in the Doctor Strange movie, but I don't want it to dominate every combat. Psychic characters aren't the only ones that can initiate psychic combat, of course, but this player wants to use the Psychic Duelist archetype so this will certainly be an element he wants to use frequently.

I'm torn because while this player is incredibly enthusiastic about the game, he still sometimes drifts towards "spotlight hog" mode on occasion. I'm worried that if I allow him to go forward with Psychic & Psychic Duelist that I'm enabling that behavior and it will detrimentally affect my campaign.

Any actual-play experiences to share?

First of all, I greatly enjoyed the Pathfinder Worldscape series! Great stuff and seeing some of our PF iconics interact with some of pulp & sword-and-sorcery's greatest legends was fantastic.

Any chance of seeing the PF RPG backmatter, specifically the archetypes, make their way into Hero Lab? I really enjoyed them and could definitely see them getting use in regular PF campaigns.

A really cool thing happened during and after my most recent Pathfinder session for my youngest son and his group of friends. To put them on the path of looking for a lost city, I set things up so that they were hired by a nobleman to go in search of his treasure-hunting son who has disappeared. In their earlier adventures they had located a series of caves but were wounded and had expended most of their supplies in locating it. They decided to return to the city of Endhome to heal, re-supply, and hopefully hire a healer before tackling the caves and anything that lay beyond. Spoilers ahead for one particular plot in The Lost City of Barakus (TLCoB).

This group of heroes is a collection of misfits & outcasts – a goblin, a lizardfolk, a minotaur, and a gearforged. They’re young PF enthusiasts, what can I say? None of them grew up in the city, so when two of the group went about trying to find a healer, one of the players quickly thought to inquire at the city’s temples. In a rare moment of respectability, they asked a guardsman for directions to a temple.

In this particular instance, I had forgotten after the previous session that they intended to hire a healer and I really didn’t expect them to spend any time in the city given their eagerness to get to the caves. As a result all of my prep had been focused outside of the city. However, The Lost City of Barakus has a great overview of Endhome and while it doesn’t detail every building, it does provide info on three of the major faiths of the city.

I truly love the amount of customization available in Pathfinder. I really enjoy that NPCs and monsters work off of the same system as PCs as situations like this frequently arise that allow me to develop NPCs and monsters as characters rather than just stat blocks by providing me inspiration for developing those characters that I might not have considered.

Anyhow, just a fortuitous scenario that I encountered in my game that I thought was cool and I just wanted to share. Happy gaming!

P.S. I just have to give a shout-out to The Lost City of Barakus and the Lost Lands. They freaking rock! Go Frogs!

I'm looking for feedback and opinions regarding how to present plot seeds for one of my campaigns.

I run several PF campaigns (all set in Frog God Games’ the Lost Lands) that are primarily sandbox in nature – the PCs dictate where they go and what they do but modules are used occasionally depending upon the players’ interests. 2017 kicked off with the flu being passed between myself and my family members which resulted in a protracted gap in Pathfinder sessions (the bad news). However, it gave me plenty of time to prep and plan (the good news).

Another hallmark of my campaigns is that I utilize the “Time Flies” rule as introduced by Kobold Press’ excellent Midgard Campaign setting. Essentially, significant gaps in time occur between game sessions unless a session ends mid-story, in a mission locale, or on a cliffhanger.

One of my campaigns is close to wrapping up a major storyline. Given the sandbox nature of the campaign, there are multiple smaller quests/plots interwoven into the larger storyline but with the conclusion of this story, the Time Flies rule is going to go into effect and the campaign timeline will advance approximately two months.

Recent storylines have centered upon the city of Penmorgh and my players have indicated that they’re interested in traveling a bit. Aside from normal sandbox locations, I have 6-7 plot seeds that will be presented to the players after the Time Flies jump. I’ve prepared in-game handouts and other tools for presenting the plot seeds in game. Some will lead them to adventures I’ve written, some lead to published adventures, and none are throwaway if the players don’t pursue them.

My question is this: Would you, as a GM, present any meta-game information to the players (not their characters)? This would be limited to doing something along the lines of Present Plot Seed in-game -> Provide Quest/Plot Summary (for tracking in Realm Works) -> include player snippet. As an example: Wanted Poster -> Kill Harpies in X -> this adventure is a sequel to The Reaping Stone.

(Note: The Reaping Stone is an excellent adventure by TPK Games)

Normally, this would be a huge no-no to me as a GM of sandbox campaigns. As with many adventures, however, the seed or hook that starts several of these adventures don’t always reflect the true scope or description of the adventure. Given the fact that this will potentially represent a significant shift in the campaign after a lengthy break, I want to ensure I’m giving my players adventure options that really grab their interest.

Basically, I got the idea from the various Player’s Guides to Paizo’s Adventure Paths and lightly applying the concept to sandbox quests/plots.

So, would my fellow GMs utilize a bit of meta-game information in a sandbox campaign (given my circumstances) in the hopes of maximizing player interest?

For sandbox players, would this approach be helpful or would it diminish your sandbox experience?

This isn’t meant to be a “here’s the right way” kind of post but I don’t see a lot of talk about the tools available to GMs these days on the digital front. It’s definitely a great time to be a GM if these tools can benefit you and you campaigns.

Hero Lab and Syrinscape get a fair bit of well-deserved attention and recognition. I’ve been a Hero Lab user from early-on and I love the fact that PCs, NPCs, and monsters are built using the same rules. Hero Lab allows me to quickly create those elements without sacrificing detail. Great, great application and timesaver. I’m getting more proficient in using the Tactical Console as well which is making it much easier to keep track of conditions and effects without bogging down the game. Syrinscape has added much to my game but from a day-to-day perspective, but it’s dessert not meat-and-potatoes. So having given these two great tools their kudos, here are two other tools that have truly revolutionized my game.

Realm Works
This tool is a straight-up godsend. No more 3-ring binders, no more loose pages of notes that get lost. Realm Works allow me to build and manage not only my campaign but utilize all of that information at the game table while also providing my players a means to refresh their memories or reference info without disrupting the game in-session.

I’ve catalogued PCs, NPCs, deities, pantheons, organizations, kingdoms, locales, house rules and maps in Realm Works. All hyperlinked for easy expansion or following topics. Information can be tracked as to whether or not it’s been revealed to players so I don’t have to try and remember anymore or worse, unintentionally reveal a secret. Oh, and I can import Hero Lab stat blocks, too!

I now use Realm Works exclusively to build out my plots, scenarios, and encounters and running it at the game table is a breeze. Realm Works provides a fog-of-war effect for maps, so I can control what has been revealed. I use this for primarily for exploration and recon as combat still takes place on the battlemap or map packs.

I can import images and maps. So, I don’t waste a lot of time describing NPCs anymore, I just throw up the NPCs picture.

I can sync to the cloud and run multiple realms. With the new export/import function, I was able to take the world framework that I built for one campaign and use it for two other campaigns without having to re-enter everything by hand.

Now, I wasn’t a kickstarter backer, so I take the application for what it is and use it. I don’t try and make it my word processor or an Obsidian Portal-style web page. It is a content creation and campaign-session aid and that’s what I use it for. Lone Wolf continues to refine and improve the application and it is now as essential a tool for me as Hero Lab.

Campaign Cartographer 3
Map-making and customization has lots of options available but CC3 has always worked well for me. As with any application proficiency gained equals efficiency achieved so generating detailed maps takes less time than it used to and is far faster for me than hand-drawn.

I’ll be honest that it’s the ability to leverage my CC3 maps in Realm Works that moves CC3 from the “nice-to-have” to the “must have” column for me.
If you have the funds and like leveraging technology to make your GM prep easier, I heartily endorse these applications. They’ve transformed the way I create and manage my campaigns (Pathfinder & Savage Worlds).

Happy gaming!

In the spirit of Thanksgiving, I just wanted to throw a shout out to everyone on Team Paizo. Thank you all, for all of your efforts in bringing us the best RPG products. Thank you for the Pathfinder RPG and for providing myself and my players this unparalleled toolbox for our fantasy campaigns.

May you and your families have a great Thanksgiving holiday.

Happy Thanksgiving, all!

Amidst the various optimization threads, this class is nerfed/overpowered posts, and raging against errata/FAQ nerfs that somehow invalidated a character concept because one item was clarified to not provide the most generous interpretation possible, I just wanted to send a simple message to Team Paizo:

THANK YOU

I just had a tremendous weekend of Pathfinder RPG greatness, running two lengthy sessions for different groups/campaigns. Group A = six 11-yr olds. Group B = seven 16-yr olds. Both groups expressed what a blast that they had. Everyone participated and felt relevant, combat and skill checks ran fluidly, everyone had their moment to shine, and all while new players were introduced.

Combined Player List
Half-elf Fighter
Goblin Rogue
Human Magus
Human Wizard (Conjurer)
Elf Rogue
Dwarf Fighter (Crossbowman)
Human Slayer
Human Occultist
Gnome Alchemist (Chiurgeon)
Human Investigator
Dwarf Gunslinger
Human Fighter
Tengu Magus (Blackblade Magus)

My campaigns are designed as “open area” sandboxes with published adventures dropped into it. The session for the younger group was primarily published adventure; the session for the older group was 100% my adventure plots. But with the Pathfinder RPG, I was able to run both sessions painlessly.

Look, everyone runs a game their own way. I’m not a subscriber to “you’re doing it wrong”; play the game however you like. But after the guests had left and my kids are smiling ear to ear and each one makes a point to come and tell me “that was great, Dad” I took a bit of post-game prep to reflect on what went well and why.

Here’s the short answer: Pathfinder is a damn fine RPG.

RPG forums frequently turn me off because, as with most Internet-related commentary, negativity has an unfettered voice. I’m not saying I love every rule in Pathfinder or that every character concept or subsystem works exactly the way I want it to. But I am saying this: if I look at content, options, flexibility, & support, I feel it’s the best RPG. Others may edge PF out in a single category but nothing comes close in terms of those criteria combined. (My opinion, of course. YMMV)

So thank you, Paizo.

Thank you for taking a good RPG and improving upon it.

Thank you for making it your own by expanding it in new and unique ways like the APG, Occult Adventures, archetypes, hybrid classes, and new subsystems, etc.

Thank you for continuing to open up new design spaces within the existing game.

Thank you for not jumping on the Edition Re-Design Treadmill.

Thank you for providing new options for new adventures and stories; even for the ones that don’t scratch my particular RPG itches (e.g. gunpowder)

Thank you for sticking with the OGL so that my games are enriched by awesome third-party content (Frog God Games, TPK Games, Kobold Press, and Raging Swan Press - my go-tos 3PPs - props to you, too!)

Thank you for looking at other RPG designs for inspiration without attempting to make Pathfinder into a clone of another RPG.

Thank you for listening to your customers/fans in the forums.
But thank you just as much for recognizing/understanding where to draw the line and not compromise critical elements of the game…
…and when the loudest voices don’t equate to or exceed the silent majority.

Thanks to everyone at Paizo, but for this post, I want to single out and sincerely thank the Pathfinder RPG design team. Thanks for the best Fantasy RPG and thanks for your continued efforts to keep making it better. Your game and your efforts are greatly appreciated.

This isn't a character optimization thread. This is a campaign consistency/flavor thread.

I was working on an adventure for one of my campaigns where a NPC wizard is beginning to turn his magical research efforts towards creating a flesh golems. None of my PC spellcasters have explored this route previously and it had been quite a while since I had looked at golem creation in any detail.

Since golems run a fairly wide CR-scale with varying caster level requirements, I had reflexively assumed golems creation could apply to a pretty broad range of mid-high level casters.

In looking at the creation requirements, however, that seems to not be the case. A "simple" flesh golem (the desired golem for my adventure) has a CL of 8th, 10,500 gp cost, but some pretty high-level spell requirements in geas/quest & limited wish.

Now unless I want my NPC wizard to be mid-teens+ in level (hint: I don't), the caster is plunking down some serious change in higher-level scrolls that may or not work for him when cast. While a CR7 lackey isn't anything to sneeze at, this can get expensive really fast.

Obviously, for plot or NPC reasons, I can hand-wave a lot of those concerns away. But from an in-game verisimilitude perspective, for a upper-mid to low-teens spellcaster, are golems worth the cost/effort?

If they're not, why are there so darn many kinds of them?

It was likely to be a shallow step since I love the book, but the pilot ep surpassed my expectations. This is the prettiest sci-fi since BSG. There are movies that don't look this good. The practical sets have a realistic look and feel like BSG, Alien, Blade Runner, etc. The CGI looks incredible.

I can't wait for the series to get rolling!

I'm a big fan of the Pathfinder Battles minis. However, I have to say while the monsters are nice, I need far, far fewer of them than I do minis for adventurers & NPCs. Can we get a NPC Codex set or something similar?

Just got my #1 & #2 issue of Pathfinder Origins.

Can someone enlighten me as to why PF Origins#1 - VALEROS has AMIRI on the cover and PF Origins#2 - KYRA has SEELAH on the cover?

And if, by some chance, someone is going to say they're Paizo variant covers, if true it's a very bad idea. I'm cool with variant covers but putting a different iconic on a book about another iconic is disappointing and confusing to say the least.

Having recently purchased a PS4, my initial batch of games were all FPS (great ones, esp. rendered via the PS4) but Shadows of Mordor came yesterday and damn, what a cool game.

In the early trailers & interviews I jumped to the obvious conclusion that it was a re-skinned Assassin's Creed in Middle Earth. This wasn't particularly a problem for me as it appeared to combine two incredible elements: the Middle Earth setting and the great gameplay of AC2 and had the added bonus of no Animus/modern-day gunk to suffer through. The video highlighting the Nemesis system showed that leaving the comparison their was premature.

Having played about 4 hours of the game, while there is certainly AC-style elements with Talion's ability to climb, Shadow of Mordor's true inspiration (and I'm now seeing interviews confirming this) is Arkham Asylum/City.

The environment is much more reminiscent of Arkham City, where just about everyone is hostile to you vs. AC's ability to hide/blend in plain sight. The gameplay is very good and I do find the combat more reminiscent of Arkham games than Assassin's Creed, which although both are good - I prefer Arkham's combat flow to AC's, so this is definitely a good thing.

The voice acting is top-notch, the lore is rich, again more like Arkham-lore in presentation & tone, IMO and there I love the open-world come-at-it-as-you-choose approach to things.

Hands down, however, the standout here are the villains and the Nemesis system. The orcs are intriguing, varied, and disgusting. I find myself listening to conversations just for the enjoyment of it, sometimes forgetting to plan my next move. I can't express the surprise and glee of seeing orcs that just killed me promoted and gain new weapons/armor as they "leveled".

Thoroughly impressed thus far!

While most of my RPG-experience has been centered around fantasy RPGs, my love of science fiction predates my love of the fantasy genre and while basic D&D was my first RPG purchase, it was Star Frontiers that forever hooked me on tabletop role-playing games.

With my discovery of Savage Worlds, my interest in sci-fi RPGs was rekindled and with all of the various tools I’ve obtained this year (SFC, SPC2, Interface Zero, etc.) I’ve been looking to build a few sci-fi campaigns.

In my experience, one of the biggest challenges with SF gaming is that science fiction is so broad that it can mean many, many things to different people. In a cRPG or FPS videogame, the setting and role of the players is typically defined, allowing the developers to focus on a particular facet of the fictional universe or sub-genre of SF in general.

In tabletop RPGs, however, players come with different expectations – often FRPG-fueled expectations, that mishmash of roles/vocations – the cliché “you met in a tavern” style that doesn’t often translate well to SF gaming. The two most successful workarounds that I’ve found to this issue are the Theme & the Event.

The Theme is where every involved in the game is bought into the same campaign framework: the tramp freighter campaign of Traveller, the Federation starship crew, etc. – with the best depiction of this in recent RPGs is the approach taken by the Star Wars Edge of the Empire/Age of Rebellion. The Theme approach is the one used by most publishers, but I’ve found it to be the hardest to get long-term player buy-in. Even licensed settings familiar to the players doesn’t always help: everyone wants to be the captain, everyone wants to be the bounty hunter, everyone wants to be the Jedi, etc.

The Event lends itself to accommodating a wide mix of player types & backgrounds but sometimes trades long-term sustainability for that freedom. The starship crash, the outbreak, the invasion, etc. – they support scenarios where a diverse mix of people, races, and occupations intersect and have to work together.

While Savage Worlds can easily accommodate either style of campaign, since my current crop of players are new to SFRPGs and I haven’t figured out which Theme-style campaigns will work for them yet, I’ve been focusing my efforts on Event-style campaigns. The Event-style also seems to lend itself easily to the Plot-Point campaign structure. My first campaign is a zombie-style outbreak in space. However, I’m looking at options for a second campaign, and I’m looking at a New Colony framework.

My idea is that the initial plot-point campaign would be the establishment of the colony on a new world. Players would be colonists and the small population and limited resources would lend credibility to the idea that the players would need to work together despite being from different (perhaps very different) backgrounds/occupations. (Yes, Civilization: Beyond Earth is looking pretty good to me. :) )

So, with all of that said, I’m looking for RPG resources – Savage Worlds or otherwise, that could aid in this effort. Specifically:

Would Lost Colony lend itself to such a campaign style? Or is the Deadlands/weird magic element so ingrained that it’s difficult to remove or re-skin as alien tech rather than supernatural?

Is there any type of SF RPG that handles the establishment & running of a colony? Obviously, with the hope of adapting some/all of it to Savage Worlds I’m looking for something along the lines of Pathfinder’s Kingdom-building rules here. I recognize that this probably deviates from SW’s Fast, Furious, Fun focus but my players like the mini-game of developing resources like ships, bases, etc. and I’d like a framework other than GM fiat to run the campaign.

If no RPG resources spring to mind, any recommendations for books or games to mine for inspiration?

Dear Kobold Taskmasters,

This time last year, you had seduced me with all things Midgardian and then announced the Deep Magic kickstarter while I was on vacation. It was my first Kickstarter and Deep Magic did not disappoint!

So...

I'm on vacation. I need to be enticed each day with an ever growing list of stretch goals! I want that PF Southlands hardcover! Please take my money!

Seriously, I have it set aside. When are we going to see a Kickstarter announcement?

Sincerely,

Desperate for more PF Midgard Goodness.