|
Coridan's page
RPG Superstar 6 Season Marathon Voter. Organized Play Member. 2,929 posts (2,937 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. 1 wishlist. 6 Organized Play characters. 2 aliases.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I think we're all missing the most important question here: Is it going to delay Kingmaker 2e?
Blackbeard2025 wrote: Mackaroni wrote: For chapter 2, event 2: "Explosion at Bottleneck Bridge" I am going to have the Powderkeg Punks ambush the PCs outside of his home. Logically, it's the only place I can think of aside from the brewery where they would know to set an ambush.
Alternatively, it could be interesting to have a 3 way battle at the brewery between the Punks and the Clearwater Cleaners.
My Group plays online and I made a map for this type of ambush and I just wanted to share it. I used the gold tank reserve map from the PDF and edited in GIMP.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aN1Ky-bLwpGHWjOg2sEH2ptOIhBTjkiR/view?usp= sharing My group used this map: https://www.deviantart.com/gamaweb/art/Entrance-bridge-to-the-City-Day-Batt lemap-25x50-863194742
I love the idea of buildings built onto the bridge, which I think is mentioned somewhere in the flavour text, though certainly not visible in the Alkenstar art. I also moved Gattlebee's house to the other side of the river because duh.
NotASeagull wrote: I hope that someday this sees a Foundry module! Seconding this. I know there was some talk of it before, hopefully some updates?
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Wild West and Steampunk go hand-in-hand though. They're both based on the late 1800s
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
My group is just finishing up the Cradle tonight, I'm glad I saw this post as forewarning for me to make some changes in Book 3
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Eyeball Tsunami wrote: Am I missing something?
Hows does a group of 4 level six characters not die to the advanced Hound of Tindalos?
Positioning is the key. The hound is weakened if they can move it away from a corner, and it has to be a 90 degree or tighter corner. There's a number of places in the dungeon that doesn't have any. Including: D2, D11 D13, D14 (where the final fight takes place) and D15 (though the entrance could be argued to be either 45 degree or 315 degree). My party is gonna fight it tonight having cleared out the rest of the dungeon, my greater worry is that they aren't going in fully rested, but thankfully they had a rest between Droxolos and now.
More frustrating is that the whole damn section is a wild goose chase that has no actual bearing on the plot. This AP started off so strong but story-wise this book is absolutely awful. I had to really change Kosowana's goals and outcome to make him a threat that the PCs would want to do something about (he plans to use the Cradle to time travel so he can invent the formula before Gattlebee. The Brighites are concerned about the damage messing with the timeline can do, and the party is concerned about the damage he could do if he succeeds)
UnArcaneElection wrote: Dragon Nexus Games wrote: Dancing Wind wrote: Will your law firm be working with creators to help them make sure what they publish stays firmly within the Creative Commons license? I myself and business is not a lawyer/law firm. However I have familiarity with the IP laws.
There are lawyers that may be interested in helping to thread the legal needle. Some are already into RPG. Lovecraft's work and the years since his death is presumingly reaching a point where the work falls into public domain and so to be inspired by his work can lead to your own depiction. You can add elements into a depiction that wasn't in his or even in WotC or Chaosium's depiction of say Mind Flayers and Cthulu. So, specifically, how long do we have remaining to wait before we can have a Pastafaraian Azathoth?
So, Azathoth was originally created in 1922, which would have put it in the public domain 5 years ago (2018), unfortunately it wasn't published until 1938 which would mean no later than 2034. It's murky af though because they would have had to have been renewed by the 70s etc.
As to Pastafarian, because they purport themselves to be a religious faith I do not believe they can claim copyrights.
Totally Not Gorbacz wrote: One of my favourite parts of this story is people (not necessarily referring to anybody in this thread) who, 3 years ago, swore Paizo off forever for betraying their feelings by publishing a new edition of the game but are now back cheering for the Purple Golem because it's the only entity that stands a chance of pushing back against legal action by WotC and hopefully preventing a de-authorisation of OGL 1.0a (and thus effective killing of any future PF1-compatible material). I only came back a few months ago. When 2E was announced I was about to move across the Atlantic, I ended up selling my PF1 physical collection rather than move it with me, and after moving got really into PbtA like Fellowship and Masks. I tried 2e once on Roll20 with my (now overseas) friends, but it was a lot of hassle. It was only after they started putting stuff out for Foundry that I fell in love with 2e.
12Seal wrote: thejeff wrote: Hasbro's not selling D&D. They'll mothball it for a few years in the worst case.
And that's only if the movie completely flops. To them, it's an IP more than it's a game.
Well, I mean the modern trend seems to be taking legacy IPs and the utterly destroying them for short-sighted cash grabs and poorly-conceived political and activist agendas that might have been decent if people cared about the product and audience as much as they did their bottom lines and big ideas.
Hatewatching shouldn't be a thing, but it is, and I weep inside for it. Oof that attempted remake of the 4400....
I still don't understand how NFTs could even apply to anything. It's just a boogeyman as far as I can tell, but a really outlandish one. They may as well say it also keeps tigers aways.
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Orthos wrote: Oceanshieldwolf wrote: My main takeaway is that even people who are vociferous about the behaviour of WotC are all too ready to forgive given enough concessions are made and “go back to playing beloved DnD” because this is all too stressful. This is definitely the impression I got with some of the conversations I had about this on the D&D Reddit. There are a lot of people who are already to say this "doesn't matter", this "doesn't affect players/customers", that any opposition like the ORC "won't go anywhere", and that WOTC is "perfectly within their rights", this is "all going to fly", and "the complainers will get bored in a month and everything will go back to normal". Reddit is absolutely rife with astroturfing, keep that in mind.
So for Trademarks, I think they'd have to have individually registered each specific thing as a trademark (such as Drow, Magic Missile, Owlbear etc.) so those won't be protected under trademark law. Magic Missile and Owlbear might be too generic to copyright and they've never attempted to defend it as a copyright even against non-OGL stuff. IANAL though and I have a feeling this is gonna end up in court. Just make sure not to sign onto 1.1/2/3/4/etc because they will all have clauses forcing you to agree with their interperetation of everything and banning you from class action suits.
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
My friends and I only registered our LLC last week, were still working on our first book (hope to publish in the spring/early summer). Looking forward to joining on with Ramtown Games.
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Leon Aquilla wrote: Quote: (Contrary to what it says in the 1.2 draft, though, it's not technically true that "This means that Wizards is not placing any limitations at all on how you use that content." There is a limitation in that you're required to give them credit. But that's it.)
There are in fact additional terms and limitations in Clause 6 and 7, including a Conduct clause, which would mean that if that Rick and Morty D&D splat was published under OGL 1.2 they could revoke it now that they've found out Justin Roiland has been indicted for felonies. The idea that the reason they're focused on deauthorising the OGL1.0a because they want to protect people from hateful content, yet still specifying that their license will only cover SRD5.1 and future releases not 3.0, 3.5 or Modern's SRD shows exactly what they are full of.
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I just finished film school recently, and we had a class on audiences and reception. For my final I did one of these kinds of surveys about the various new Star Trek series. I had an open response field at the end of it, and it was by far the most valuable part of the survey. I could find the outliers in the survey response (in my case, people who genuinely loved the new series) and see their reasoning. It was also great for pulling quotes to put in my paper and up the word count ;)
I only had about 300 responses to go through, not thousands, so I get them not wanting to read 50 pages of feedback from each person's playtest, but the multiple choice bits are great for picking out the extreme opinions and seeing why those opinions are extreme. My suggestion whenever doing one of those responses is to give strong opinions in the multiple choice, dont just be "somewhat" satisfied or dissatisfied, go to the extremes.
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
They can make any concession they want, the only thing that is acceptable at this point is if they acknowledge the 1.0a OGL can not be revoked or "deauthorized"
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Raynulf wrote: Then it is a masterpiece. You just need to enter into it with the right expectations, and treat it like the pinnacle of Adversarial GM design it is. I consider it dethroned by Slumbering Tsar
emky wrote: I hope so!
But I'm pretty sure they were cancelled because paperstock and shipping prices skyrocketed, and pawns use a lot of paper and are heavy to ship relative their price.
The POG market will never recover :(
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I find it very funny that they're acting like they want to support small publishers, but don't want the OGL to support big competitors. Wizards, please. Paizo WAS a small publisher until you screwed them over and the community flocked to them.
So is there some kind of threshold now where you can be a 3pp, but don't be too successful!?
Bardess wrote: Kobold Catgirl wrote: Sounds like WotC is trying to walk things back now. It doesn't matter. We now know that they believe they can do this, legally.
Notably, they have specified that already published properties should be unaffected, so PF1 should be fine for now.
EDIT: Darn my slow texting! Old products, yes, but they said nothing about new products compatible with PF1 and other old versions. It also seems less certain that Paizo could do new printings of 1e material?
OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0 wrote: Kobold Catgirl wrote: Apparently the page for cancelling subscriptions went down from sheer traffic. You love to see it. Checking Ginny Di’s Twitter linked from Linda Codega’s article linked above shows a lot of people have their hearts in the right place. Cancellation after cancellation, many of them truly wrenched by giving up a tool they use regularly and love. If you know anyone who uses DnDB, let them know cancelling is giving Wizard$ and Ha$nobros a major headache.
A PR nightmare. Really interesting to see this happen in 2023 - it is true that bosses and shareholders will literally shoot themselves in the foot to try to make maw cashola, don’t understand people and care not a jot for anything except that cashola stuff. They see so many other companies getting away with it, whether it's games forever in early access, kickstarters that take over a decade to make anything, or really bad battlepass monetisation. So many companies are able to find whales that will prop up their bad behaviour
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Leon Aquilla wrote: Makes sense. I never thought about it before but Wizards of the Coast pivoting to "D&D as subscription games services" would be in keeping with what every other marketing guru has told various companies the wave of the future is these days -- in which case the books don't matter, just the subs. I love that you have -
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Next to your name. Just a reminder that you can run subscription services and still provide value.
27 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I think accepting the idea of "corpos being corpos" is the path that leads us to Cyberpunk dystopian nightmare.
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I expect we'll see a response from Paizo in the 13th, which is when I expect we'll see the final version release from WotC
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Dancing Wind wrote: Coridan wrote: I think the Communications Workers of America should be speaking out about this too. 'Should' is someone's fantasy about an imaginary world.
Freelancers aren't organizing a boycott. CWA isn't speaking out. Why do you suppose that is?
Could be the fact that it's not even been a week, and that the RPG creators that they represent haven't pushed the issue with them yet (which would be Paizo's workers, since I don't know that they represent any other ttrpg developers) and it's probable that Paizo's workers are waiting on Paizo's official response first.
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I think the Communications Workers of America should be speaking out about this too. It's one thing to say let's get all the customers to boycott WotC over this, but we should also be pushing for freelancers to refuse to work for them.
Every freelancer got their start plinking away and doing their own thing on the OGL. It's how the entirety of the RPG workforce came about over the past 20 years. None of them would have their gigs today without it, and closing it now hurts everyone trying to follow the same path.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Xenagog wrote: Raynulf wrote: I honestly don't think it needs to go that far. Paizo has already removed all proprietary names (Mordenkainen, Bigby etc) from Pathfinder 1 and 2, and it is debateable whether any attempt by WotC to claim they hold copyright on "Magic Missile" would actually fly. Paizo couldn't have used "Mordenkainen" and "Bigby" if it wanted to; they weren't in the SRD. (The spell Bigby's crushing hand, for instance, was just crushing hand in the SRD.)
Raynulf wrote: On created names: In an incredible sense of irony, I believe WotC do hold copyright on "Treant" - a word they invented to get around the copyright of "Ent" by the Tolkien estate. As copyright holds only within the given medium, this means that while Blizzard and others can merrily use the term, likely Paizo will need to rename them. IANAL, but I'm pretty sure you're confusing copyright and trademark there, which are two very different things. First of all, you can't copyright individual words; you can only copyright entire works. Secondly, when you trademark a term, you have to specify the medium or business it's going to be used for, but that's not true for copyright.
That being said, I very much doubt WotC has specific trademarks on individual monster names like "treant" and "xorn", but it doesn't have to; they're parts of a copyrighted work, and anything else using them could be argued to be part of a derivative work.
As for their use in computer games... for whatever reason, WotC has been much more lax about enforcing their proprietary rights to certain monsters in computer games than in other media. Heck, that was true of TSR back in the early days, too; the early Ultima CRPGs ripped off a whole passel of D&D monsters wholesale, some with some very minor name changes (carrion crawler -> carrion creeper, xorn -> zorn, mind flayer -> mind ripper); and the early Final Fantasy games used a lot of D&D monsters too, though the transliteration to Japanese and back to English somewhat... The pixel remaster of FF1 still has Mind Flayers in it, but it's possible they got permission or it's a result of "you needed to bring this up 30 years ago"
Zaister wrote: Battlezoo has gained access to the whole license, and they have published it here: ogl.battlezoo.com.
I think it is interesting to note that the document only talks about the SRD v5.1, not v3.0 or v3.5 or d20 Modern.
This is very interesting. While I still think they are unable to "deauthorise" a previous version, if they're claiming to only apply it to 5e material, there will be less companies (specifically Paizo) inclined to take them to court over it.
thejeff wrote: But that language used the phrasing "You may use any authorized version of this license" and they're now claiming that they can and will "unauthorize" old versions. There is no actual clause allowing the license to be revoked or unauthorized, but it's likely to be up to lawyers to determine if that's legit or not and who has the money to fight Hasbro's legal team? There is a clause determining how it may be revoked, and it specifies that it can be revoked for IP infringements after 30 days notice. That in itself is good argument for it being the only way to revoke it, as identifying one reason could be construed as identifying the only reason.
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Dancing Wind wrote: DungeonmasterCal wrote: This was just posted by a person named Noah Adams, "a licensed attorney with a focus on business, and intellectual property issues in the tabletop and digital gaming industries" on medium.com.
Let’s Take A Minute To Talk About D&D’s Open Gaming License (OGL).
This guy is not only an IP lawyer, he also specializes in tabletop gaming.
His conclusion is pretty stark.
The key point is that OGL 1.0a never says that it is irrevokeable. Therefor, Hasbro can revoke it at any time.
There are cascading effects, which are as dire as you might expect: once revoked, no one can produce or SELL anything based on that license.
So everything in the warehouse, and everything paid for but not yet delivered is illegal to sell. Eating those inventory costs will be deadly.
And, in the future, no one can produce any materials that use the 1.1 license without giving Hasbro an unlimited, royalty-free license to do whatever they like with your material. My problem with his take is that he doesn't address precedents in Open Software Licensing cases, which is relevant as the OGL is based off of those licenses.
Leon Aquilla wrote: Coridan wrote: First, as amusing as that would be, it's almost certain that KotOR had a separate agreement with WotC, as at the time Wizards held the RPG license for Star Wars. I doubt their agreement had any reliance on the OGL. Well, they definitely didn't sign a separate agreement with the BBC, because the 1.0a OGL is reprinted in Doctors & Daleks. So they are asserting they have the right to put Dr. Who in 6th edition. which is equally as amusing.
I can't help but notice you're eagerly carrying a lot of water for a Fortune 500 corporation in this thread, by the way. I hope you get something out of it. Maybe a tote bag? lol, have you actually read my other comments in this therad? Or are you basing it off of that one comment. There's a lot of people terrified here, particularly of "nuclear lawfare" but that's not how the court system works. Hasbro is a "big" company but they are barely fortune 500 (they were 494 in 2021 and I don't think they got on it at all last year). Burying Paizo & Others in legal fees isn't going to work in this sort of case. There's no need for discovery and the only expert Paizo would need to testify is Ryan Dancey and I doubt he'll charge for his testimony considering he'll probably be a co-complainant. This is such a slam dunk in Paizo's favor that it can only have been a mistake on Hasbro's lawyer's part or pure incompetence.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
First, as amusing as that would be, it's almost certain that KotOR had a separate agreement with WotC, as at the time Wizards held the RPG license for Star Wars. I doubt their agreement had any reliance on the OGL.
Second, they're not trying to fine you for driving yesterday, but the fear is that they'll try to stop people from continuing to sell more copies of stuff previously published under the OGL.
A lot of people are panicking though over something that is really really gonna go poorly for WotC in court, and probably wasn't their actual intention. It was likely meant to be a poison pill clause like the GSL but phrased differently. Or someone with no concept of caselaw on open source licensing thought they could get away with it and is probably getting an education right now in between the leak and the official release (which is supposed to be on the 13th according to the leak)
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I know there's this idea that big companies can throw lots of money and win a case, and in certain situations that's true, but this isn't really one of those situations.
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Most likely it's whoever in charge of WotC wanting to impress their bosses in Hasbro. This happens a lot in game studios where a studio head will be in a meeting with the big boss (like EA) and the big boss starts singing the praises of one branch who brought in x money with microtransactions and live services, them goes to the other studio head "so what have you guys got coming up" and the guy who heads a studio known for epic single player RPGs then comes up with Anthem on the spot
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Dancing Wind wrote: Coridan wrote: I absolutely believe they will try to fight it, and the first step would be an injunction against WotC to keep the 1.0 in place while the legal battle ensues. Precedent is entirely on their side. Here's what Paizo has actually said about what they're going to do
Quote: Paizo Inc., publisher of the Pathfinder RPG, one of D&D’s largest competitors, declined to comment on the changes for this article, stating that the rules update was a complicated and ongoing situation. That's them declining to comment until A - Wizards actually announces what they intend to do (remember this is just a leak) and B - They have (several) meetings with their attorneys to discuss the situation. That's a statement of nothing at the moment.
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Dancing Wind wrote: Coridan wrote: I really don't see Paizo doing that. Lisa and those who are still there from the magazine days I think still remember the fear when they lost those licenses and weren't sure what was going to happen next for all of them. I don't think they want the company to ever be dependant on Hasbro/WotC again. So your belief is that they would accept the new version of the OGL rather than negotiate better terms?
Or is your belief that they will be the paladins leading the fight for retaining the old OGL, even as Hasbro cuts off all their income? I absolutely believe they will try to fight it, and the first step would be an injunction against WotC to keep the 1.0 in place while the legal battle ensues. Precedent is entirely on their side.
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Dancing Wind wrote: Danbala wrote: Their lawyer will tell them to pick one of the lanes above and then either seek a TRO/Pre Inj against the new license or a dec relief action to find that their product in non-infringing. Or, their lawyer may help them negotiate a separate, individual licensing agreement with WOTC that only applies to Paizo. I really don't see Paizo doing that. Lisa and those who are still there from the magazine days I think still remember the fear when they lost those licenses and weren't sure what was going to happen next for all of them. I don't think they want the company to ever be dependant on Hasbro/WotC again.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
WatersLethe wrote: I suppose someone must stop by once a fortnight to chase out the goblins. I thought the goblins were the staff?
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Eeveegirl1206 wrote: Here’s a article by a IP lawyer
https://medium.com/@MyLawyerFriend/lets-take-a-minute-to-talk-about-d-d-s-o pen-gaming-license-ogl-581312d48e2f
TL DR the $750,000 threshold is gross revenue not profits. Profits is what you get when you subtract the costs of making and selling a product from the gross revenue
It seems to revoke the original OGL and it may be able to be challenged in court.
An interesting and well thought-out take, but possibly mistaken based on precedent. Using the term "non-revocable" in Open licenses wasn't common practice at the time the OGL was written because it was thought to be unnecessary. Later on, after some court cases involving Open source software (which found in favor of Perpetual being the same as non-revocable), open source licenses started updating to make it clear by including non-revocable and avoiding any confusion. The OGL 1.0 simply predates those precedents.
https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/4012/are-licenses-irrevocabl e-by-default
Quote: A non-exclusive copyright license (such as most FOSS licenses) can be revoked at any time only if there was no consideration involved. The United States Federal Circuit Court of Appeal took this on in Jacobsen v. Katzer in 2008 and ruled that there is consideration exchanged in the use of FOSS by a licensee. This indicates that an FOSS license that's silent on revocation is likely revocable only for violation of it's conditions.
Totally Not Gorbacz wrote: Xyxox wrote: John Lance wrote: I'm amused by the timing of that PBS hit-piece on the OSR community that just so happened to drop right in the middle of this growing OGL situation. WotC doing a little media battlefield prep, if I'm not mistaken. Wizards really must be worried about the optics of this whole thing if they're already thinking along those lines.... What they want is for everything to be handled by a license that is more draconian than the GSL was and may try to accomplish it, but their own words about the OGL would rise to the level of contract in a court and their attempts would be thrown out. The FAQ was used to make business decisions more than 20 years ago and they clearly state that every version of the OGL would always be permanent. I wonder if Hasbro even knows that FAQ exists as it has subsequently been removed from the WotC web site, but as we all know the internet is forever. Nothing in law is forever. People get divorced (despite promising publicly to be together till the end), contractual clauses get thrown out by judges, obligations - even one you've imposed on yourself - get voided. That's what courts are for, among others, to untangle yourself from legal situations you did not foresee 20 years ago.
WotC has a VERY long shot here, but it has a shot. And in American law, where business-to-business litigation is brutal and frequently more about who has the money than who is right, a long shot might be all they need to win. If they were still publishing 3.5E maybe they could have an argument, but the whole point is they're doing this to put out a new system. So the desire to "protect" their previous rules editions will be laughed out of court. Any judge will see what this is an attempt to do.
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Kobold Catgirl wrote: I think trying to assert that lizardfolk haven't been coded as indigenous groups is incredibly... well, it just kind of gives the vibe like you haven't seen a lot of content featuring lizardfolk. I have to assume that because the alternative is to assume you're not acting in good faith here, so I don't think there's any point in debating this.
Anyways, if you agree that Pathfinder makes it too difficult to play a suboptimal build, then you must agree that the new swap mechanic is a good change, since it would at least mitigate the problems with playing a suboptimal ancestry/class combo.
I think across the various settings and games, every race has been used as stand-ins for one culture or another. It's really hard inventing a culture from scratch and when world building it's a nice shortcut to say "These people are similar to Aztecs/Italians/Persians/British culturally".
Regarding the change, I won't be implementing it at my tables because I think some of the most fun builds come from trying to adapt around those penalties. My favourite wizard of all time was a Gnoll transmuter in 1e who just buffed himself up and went in swinging. He didn't need an 18 INT, and if someone wants to be a Pixie barbarian I want that to be unusual, that's the fun of playing those builds.
I think the morality argument though is just absurd. Elves, Dwarves, Gnolls, Lizardfolk are different species. Cats can do some things better than dogs. Neanderthals would have had a different stat array to humans.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Leon Aquilla wrote: Coridan wrote: I despise 5e, but one of my friend groups thinks it is far superior to PF2E and won't' give PF2E a try. So we still play 5E weekly. I'm in an online game to get my fix. The whole friend group? Like every one of them? There's one player who wants to try it, but he's also got a reputation as the "min-maxing number cruncher" so he's not really helping me convince the others and is only confirming their biases.
I generally have male and female succubi, as well as male and female incubi. It's mostly in the "how they do it" rather than what bits they have.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I despise 5e, but one of my friend groups thinks it is far superior to PF2E and won't' give PF2E a try. So we still play 5E weekly. I'm in an online game to get my fix.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
James Jacobs wrote: Leon Aquilla wrote: I miss Wesley's editorial touch. His name is on most of my favorite 1e splats, and his authorship is why I gave 5e's Theros a chance. I'm gonna be hanging out with him (and James Sutter) tonight for our yearly holiday horror/scifi movie night, so I'll let him know folks miss him! :-)
Tell him to return to social media! He's disappeared from the internet it seems and is missed by fans.
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
Followed by Sky King's Tomb, a 1-10 AP with a dwarf focus to coincide with the upcoming Lost Omens: Highhelm book!
For Rock and Stone!
It seems someone who did the map and someone who wrote the book did not have communication with each other. This was also an issue in Book 1.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
willfromamerica wrote: keftiu wrote: The Land of the Linnorm Kings has never properly hosted an AP unto itself, and it's got me curious - what Viking-adjacent stories do people want to spend 3 or 6 books with? Luis Loza named that as his top place where he'd like to see an adventure path set, other than Arcadia!
I feel like the no-brainer idea is Linnorm Kings, an AP where the PCs work their way up the hierarchy as they solve some nation-ending threat and eventually become Linnorm Kings themselves. But also... that's basically just the plot of Blood Lords :p Could be better for a less good-aligned game so we can go raiding.
keftiu wrote: Coridan wrote: Three very different things not in the same AP
Kaiju
Full on Wu Xia (Crouching Tiger, Hero, etc)
Mongol Hordes/Mounted Combat Have you read Fists of the Ruby Phoenix? It does deliver on one of these… ** spoiler omitted ** Haven't. Hoping to play in it if a Foundry version is released (which is rumoured to be coming with the Hardcover compilation)
Second Darkness for a Forlorn Elf/Half Elven PC could be really fun.
Three very different things not in the same AP
Kaiju
Full on Wu Xia (Crouching Tiger, Hero, etc)
Mongol Hordes/Mounted Combat
|