Digitalelf's page

I was wondering if you could provide the status of this order.

Thank you in advance. :-)

Awesome! Thank you.

I was wondering when I should expect this order to ship?

Thank you in advance,

-That One Digitalelf Fellow-

I was thinking that moving it over to Qadira, which is less well defined, might also work.

My initial thought was Qadira as well, but then I thought, no... This area seems flavored after India more than flavored after the middle east. However, I do suppose it is a close enough fit that it would work with just a minimum amount of tweaking.

But you're right, Qadira is far less defined than Katapesh, or any of the nations along the southern coast of the Inner Sea (i.e. Osirion, Thuvia, and Rahadoum), which could also work quite well (but that whole reagion has a lot of information concerning it).

If you wind up running this, please post about it. I'd be curious as to how it plays out. :-)

I found this for recommended levels using 2nd Edition AD&D rules:

A party of 4-6 characters level 4-6 starting this adventure should be fine, presuming they are character kits/classes particular to Zakhara. If they are foreigners, they're going to have a tougher time. But it's a very open-ended adventure, so they may stumble into something beyond their abilities and either die or run away.

So, bringing that forward using PFRPG rules, I would have run it for characters of levels 5-7.

I say "would have" because I currently use 2nd Edition AD&D, but I did use 3.5 and PF for over 8 years. And while I am very familiar with the Al-Qadim setting, I too have never run Golder Voyages.

As for placement within Golarian, Katapesh and the Obari Ocean look like the closest, if not the best fit. While the coast off of Katapash lacks the sheer number of islands within Al-Qadim's Crowded Sea, the islands actually used and/or mentioned are small enough that at the very least, those could be very easily added.

You could look to the 2e Maztica adventures and campaign set as well as the 1e module "C1: The Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan" for inspiration. All of which are available on PDF at The DM's Guild.

I find PDFs useful while DMing, as I like to pull up any maps for an adventure or setting I am running. But I do like having a hard copy when available for reading purposes.

I've had to cancel more than one game due to my innards fomenting rebellion against the rest of my body.

Sadly, I've found that as I've gotten older, my once Cast-Iron stomach has rusted.

You know your GM hasn't read the scenario when the response to EVERY player question or PC statement (to an NPC) results in a five-minute search through the scenario PDF to find the answer.

Or maybe, the GM is getting old, and can't remember every little detail and/or nuance of the adventure, which nowadays tend to run over 100 pages long...

Just sayin'!

Please remove the items in my side-cart.

Thank you in advance. :-D

you can't defend someone on the basis of "society's changed" if they haven't changed with it.

Well, we are in a thread devoted specifically about his writings on how he felt players should "Master the Game".

Citing "nits making lice" approvingly as an old adage is creepy as hell. I see what he's trying to say, but it's still using a quote used to justify real world slaughter based on racism.

And though AD&D was a while back, from what I can tell, those quotes aren't nearly that old.

I don't think he was citing it "approvingly", and I would not use the term myself, but since it's been brought up, it would apply to characters killing goblins simply because they are evil; because it justifies slaughter based on ones race (in this case, goblins).

Which goes against today's gaming expectations, because at best, that is the slaughter of possible innocents. Especially if one plays goblins as intelligent beings that can be of any alignment they wish, and not being limited to evil.

But yeah, he said those things over on the Dragonsfoot forums back in 2005. But it seems clear enough to reasonably assume that he never changed his style of running a game, or his view of how good and evil work within the game.

Unless they are, of course.

This is true, but we have been working with the assumption that the characters are not murderers... At least that's how I've read the last few posts.

The game has changed a lot since those days too, in terms of story and expected motivations.

This is also quite true, and that probably has a lot to do with how morality has changed on a cultural and ideological level. At the very least in terms of how alignment is seen and used (LOL... If it's used at all).

I mean back then (using antidotal evidence), I did not see anyone try to redeem "monsters", but now, I see it quite frequently. Just right here on these boards (as I'm sure you're well aware of) there are innumerable threads about how the various intelligent humanoid races are not irredeemably evil, stating that if raised outside of their race's cultural influence, they could be any alignment they chose.

I wouldn't be interested in playing by that code.

There's some deeply creepy stuff in the essay those quotes are from.

There are some things in there that I disagree with, but I would not go so far as to call them "creepy". But that too probably has a lot to do with the changes in morality and ideology.

It's not a modern world. Most of those concepts don't really apply

This is true, and to bring it back to the game's roots and how Gygax saw the game, there is an unquestioned morality; true evil exists, and it MUST be vanquished. In that light, killing goblins and other "evil" sentient beings, is not only justified, but expected of goodly characters.

Gary even said that it is not evil for a paladin to kill an evil hostage (even AFTER it had been redeemed):

a paladin can freely dispatch prisoners of Evil alignment that have surrendered and renounced that alignment in favor of Lawful Good. They are then sent on to their reward before they can backslide.

He went on to say (concerning what is expected of any character of Lawful Good alignment):

Mercy is to be displayed for the lawbreaker that does so by accident. Benevolence is for the harmless. Pacifism in the fantasy milieu is for those who would be slaves.

While I know that this is not a discussion of the lawful good alignment, nor paladins, the quotes above serve as an example of the absolute morality he saw within the game.

So the term "muderhobo", when seen through that lens, is not applicable. The characters, while they may call home wherever it is they temporarily hang their proverbial hat, they are most certainly NOT murderers.

Hey Digitalelf!!

*WAVES & SMILES* :-P

Was wondering if you were still hanging around these parts.

Good to see that you are. :-D

f the player's are being stealthy then the would notice the servant and the servant wouldn't notice them.

Are you sure? How many movies and novels feature the stealthy hero, being cautious to a fault, and yet all of a sudden has a freak, dare I say, chance encounter that the hero DID NOT SEE coming, that ruined everything.

Heck, this happens in real life. With real people that are trained professionals (e.g. Green Berets, Nave SEALs, etc.). And no, I am not trying to equate real life with the game. I am only using this as an example to say that a stealthy party will not always notice every little detail (such as the servant in my previous post).

Crap happens that is totally unforeseen sometimes, even to the best of them... And random encounters when used correctly, can provide that nail-biting, tension-strewn true element of chance, however small it may be, to your games; which has the potential to make a good game, great.

I mean sure, you obviously can run your games as you see fit of course, and I don't think anyone here is telling you otherwise. And if your players are all on board with your stance of no randomness, more power to you.

I, and a few others here are merely trying to point out that maybe, just maybe, you're leaving a valuable game mastering tool untapped and unused.

Either way, good gaming to you. :-D

For that matter the players don't even need the GM. Just roll to see if they meet monsters and then battle them themselves.

That's a bit extreme don't you think?

And it's a far cry from having randomized guard patrols within a castle for example.

Think of this example: The PCs are sneaking though the king's castle, and they turn a corner and... run right into one of the servants bringing a midnight snack to the queen. Can this be scripted? Sure, but if your players know you don't use random encounters, well, then they know that no matter how careful they were, this encounter would have happened anyway. Or, that you placed this encounter by fiat alone...

its gotta have a root somewhere I've just never seen it

It goes back to Original D&D (and somewhat to 1st Edition AD&D) where monsters provided very little XP, and treasure was the major source for a party's XP (which included XP for magical items). So the thought was to avoid random encounters, because they ate up valuable resources and gave little in the way of XP/treasure.

Coming from a background with this mindset, I like random encounters; but then I don't think everything in a campaign needs to have a reason for being there - or a need to contribute to the overall story.

Definitely didn't make sense for an eel though.

Agreed... Another fine example of bad game mastering.

But my point was in response to you saying that you expected "to very much follow the AP"

I will concede that if the GM and Players agree before-hand that this or that adventure/AP/or what have you is to be explicitly run as written, then it IS in-fact the game master's responsibility to do just that.

But, and I know this is totally anecdotal, that is not normally how most tables (that I have seen anyway) work, even if the name of the adventure is known by the players before-hand.

But again, that is just in my experience.

YMMV... :-D

With the eel, I don't see anything wrong with having it out of its lair, whatever the reason.

Your second example however, is IMHO a valid example of just plain bad Game Mastering.

That said, even though the GM handled that encounter badly, I still contend that altering encounters (if not the entire adventure) is something a GM can do without player knowledge or consent.

we looked up the first book of the AP and found that he was even drastically altering or even straight up ignoring enemy tactics). I don't know if it was fully intentional or perhaps just ignorance

It's one thing to alter game rules on the fly. This IS something that needs to be agreed upon by everyone involved.

However, altering an adventure is totally within the Game Master's prerogative, and IMHO, the GM is not obliged to inform the table of any alterations to it. Nor does he need to seek the table's permission to do so.

In my experience, it is a rare GM that runs an adventure as it was written. Especially when it comes to how the adventure handles enemy tactics. Those are typically seen as "suggestions" rather than commandments.

seriously -- my address and phone number for a character sheet?

You look at it as a simple character sheet, they look at you as a potential customer.

It can be difficult to say something is “just a hobby” or “just something I do” when you have spent so much time, effort, and money into that something for well over 30 continuous years.

So while technically, it IS just a game. However, it has the potential to become so much more, almost a part of your life; not a part of who you are… You shouldn’t let it define you. But if you spend enough time, effort, and money on something, then that something can certainly become an important part of your life.

And that is where I stand. I have spent an immeasurable amount of time, effort, and money on this "hobby" (for over 30 continuous years), that it has become an important part of my life, yet the game does not define who I am.

I too, have reams of old game notes that (in some cases) date back to the early 1980's. I even have articles I had downloaded and printed from the old "TSR Online" on AOL back in the mid to late 1990's.

And like you, a lot of those old notes and articles never saw the light of day. Hopefully, given enough time, they will! :-D

Good luck getting new players- some of whom were born after the last updates to the setting- to find, much less sift through, ancient stuff and read your homebrew material that updates it for a current ruleset.

Not being a jerk, seriously good luck, that takes cult of personality level charisma and dedication.

I don't think I have anywhere near that level of charisma. ;-)

But not only do I still use the old settings, but I actually went back to 2nd Edition AD&D (and have successfully introduced new players to this old edition as well).

I think a lot, or at least a good portion of it has to do with what "ultimatepunch" said above... Run a good game, the players wont care. I know this isn't necessarily true for everyone, but it has certainly rang true for me these past 34/35 years.

They stopped publishing new material for non-FR settings for the most part.

So a setting stops being published, and all of the material for it spontaneously combusts?

If you love a setting, and enjoy running it, why stop playing it if it no longer has any support?

Most of the settings people talk about (e.g. Dark Sun, Ravenloft, etc.) have such a huge backlog of material, that it would take several life-times to play through it all, and that's if you ONLY use the published material and never come up with any of your own!

I know, I know... "But that stuff doesn't use the most current up-to-date rule-system!"

So yeah, YMMV and all of that.

Then don't. If you don't like playing with such characters, that's up to you and your gaming group. If you don't want to find an explanation for it, and refuse any offered one, that's up to you.

Well, as should be obvious, I don't. :-)

But don't get me wrong. I may have a hard time buying into 1st level characters from far away places, I don't come up with backgrounds for the player's characters however, unless they want me to... But like I said in a post further up in this thread, using the samurai as an example, if that player can come back to me with another reason for his exotic character to be where he is, sans the long distance travelling, then I'll work with the player from there to make the character fit into the campaign.

If he was traveling on a boat or a caravan, it's conceivable that there were guards who did the majority of the fighting during the trip.

Yes, and it's also possible that he stumbled through one of Sissyl's "magic portals"... ;-)

But the caravan/boat trip theory breaks down when the same character is on an adventure travelling by caravan or boat and jumps out to help the guards fight the threat.

"Oh, but he wasn't an adventurer before play began."

"Oh but he..."

One can make up counter arguments for every angle to justify how pre-game globe-trotting neophyte characters remain 1st level.

Such travel, pre-game, by adventure oriented characters (I play 2nd edition, where NPC specific classes such as "Commoner" or "Aristocrat" do not exist. Such characters, are simply "0-level"), tends to break my suspension of disbelief.

If one wants to hand-wave pre-game events like world-wide travel, that's fine... I don't like to hand-wave such events. :-)

first level doesn't mean what you think it means. Look at the iconic Wizard and the iconic investigator. The Wizard is 42 his parents were traders. He's been places seen things but at 42 he's still a first level wizard. The investigator is similar except he's 36. So travelling from one end of the world to the other say by ship - or form Tian to say Varisia across the crown of the world - doesn't mean you still won't be 1st level.

...And then, all of a sudden, once actual play starts, the aforementioned wide and far traveled 1st level character, instantly begins to accumulate XP, being beset by goblins or what have you just while simply traveling from one city to the next - which as it so happens, is exactly what he has been doing all along before play began (i.e. simply travelling)... It's amazing, this far traveled globe-trotting neophyte character, never once, encountered bandits, goblins, or anything else that would have normally provided XP if said travel actually occurred during a game session, now all of a sudden, is a monster magnet.

Makes sense to me... 8-)

But hey, whatever works for you and your games. YMMV and all of that. :-D

Warhammer has nothing to do with this.

It does in the context of the conversation regarding the question of whether or not a GM/DM is bad if he bans or places limitations upon in-game options, as that question transcends game systems, editions, and genres.

So it does not matter if the examples used are: Space Marines, Kender, or Bazookas; the question remains unchanged.

It sounds weird with either gender as the subject.

And aside from its social commentary, it is just an awful way to run an encounter with an NPC, especially when it leaves such things as "possible liaisons" as randomly generated... Even back when I started playing D&D in the early 80's as a pre-teen, we may have randomly determined an encounters general attitude (e.g. is the NPC hostile, friendly, neutral, etc.), but we role-played the encounters with NPCs from that point forward. And we certainly didn't have a die roll or table for "will this NPC have sex with my character or not" (which is what most of the article in question focuses on).

Found this little tidbit from a 1978 Judges Guild supplement for D&D.

Women

The following tables are used upon encountering women to determine the presence of any comrades etc. Regardless of the “Type of Encounter”, a successful “Repartee” usage (see booklet J) will allow a check of the woman’s “Inclination” towards the player, after the woman’s basic “Disposition” and attendant modifier has been noted. Assuming a successful “Inclination” roll (4 or higher), the player may obtain a relationship by paying the Gift Cost. This relationship will last the number of weeks shown under the Duration column; to extend the relationship with their inamorata’s “Inclination” towards them, may pay another Gift Cost (which will not cost towards extension of duration) to allow a re-roll; one re-roll per week. Likewise, a player who was unable to establish the liason because of an inclination roll of 1-3, must first roll a successful Request Granted roll before re-rolling the women’s inclination towards him. Players may establish as many liason’s as they are able but the possibility of disclosure is equal to the other inamorata’s SL stated as a percentage, per week.

It goes on to list the various tables mentioned above as well as explanations of the different results.

Truly a different time.

...how, mechanically, did the character become a first-level fighter in the first place? How many years, and how much adventuring, did it take to achieve first level? The game rules don't worry so much about that sort of thing, so why should I?

I can see that working in PF, as a character can gain a new class as easily as buying a new long sword... But I run 2nd edition, and use the optional training rules where it could take weeks just to gain access to the new level. So I think about such details, and would as a DM reject such a background as the samurai from a far-away land... Having said that, I would still allow the samurai character if the player could rework the background to something a bit more believable.

YMMV. :-)

The issue I have with characters from exotic locals (e.g. the samurai from Tian Xia), is if the location is far away (e.g. the other side of the planet), how is such a character, a would-be adventurer, still only 1st level after such a long journey? I mean even the far-side of the continent stretches my suspension of disbelief.

I love 3.X even so, but it makes me happy that 5th edition went back to previous models of DMing.

You refer to both 1st and 2nd edition as "ugly hacks", and yet praise 5th edition for going back to their model of DMing??

I'm confused... Isn't their style of DMing, what pretty much made those editions what they were (i.e. Rulings, not rules)?

Mabey it is your use of the phrase "ugly hack", which I take to mean you highly disliked them.

Not that it really matters in the grand scheme of things. I'm just curious. :-)

I never did see 2nd edition. My group had so much invested in 1e books that we just shrugged off 2e when it came out, like "Why bother with a new version?"

Second edition really didn't bring in a whole lot that was new, rules-wise - I mean, while most people associate THAC0 for example, with 2nd edition, it was actually introduced in 1st edition as an "official" game mechanic in 1986 with the "Dungeoneer's Survival Guide" (1983, if you count the Module "UK2 - The Sentinel").

Even Specialist Wizards were introduced with 1st edition. They appeared in the 1988 Forgotten Realms supplement "FR6 - Dreams of the Red Wizards".

So yeah, 2nd edition was, for the most part, just a streamlined version of 1st edition (with a few exceptions, of course).

Sometimes, I miss 2e D&D, but then I crack open the books and recognize the problem. A lot of stuff there is so flavorful and interesting, but trying to balance it all? Doesn't work very well.

I missed it so much, that in 2013 (give or take a year or so), I went back... I got so utterly disgusted with 3rd edition and Pathfinder, with their rules for almost every little detail.

Second edition may have its warts, but to me, it's a beautiful system, as it gives me ample room to breathe.

YMMV of course. :-)

Who is Xanxost?

Xanxost

Xanxost is a blue slaad with a penchant for exploring the planes, explaining their secrets to everyone interested, and eating whatever he can catch, particularly mephits. He appears as a character in the Planescape accessories Faces of Evil: The Fiends and The Inner Planes. Both of these books are written as if they were created by someone within the Planescape setting, and within that writing style, both books have an 'editor' who collected the investigations and opinions of various planar creatures on the topic at hand. Xanxost is one such character. "Though his mannerisms are often odd, his information is always reliable".

In Faces of Evil he is one of the 'authors' of the section on tanar'ri, and in The Inner Planes he 'wrote' the section on the Quasielemental Plane of Steam. (The editor of the latter book claims that he was recruited to pen the chapter because feedback to his commentary in the former book was overwhelmingly positive.) Xanxost seems less chaotic than other slaadi in that he can write a mostly coherent piece of text, though his nature still shows through in his writing style, with many wanderings off-topic (mostly to the subject of food), repetitions of earlier remarks, and a seeming inability to count. He also refers to himself in third person. He also admits that his conflicts with tanar'ri have edged him slightly from pure Chaos towards the side of Good, at least for the time being. Xanxost is referred to as "it" in Faces of Evil, which makes some sense given the unusual nature of slaadi reproduction, but as "he" in The Inner Planes.

5E sounds perfect for them. What happened that you stopped playing it?

The reason is in the OP:

I struggle to enjoy 5E since I just miss all the options that are in Pathfinder.

My wife only plays because I do (though she enjoys the experience)... That said, she prefers 2nd edition over 3.5 and PF.

Since the early 80's (starting back when I was using 1st edition AD&D), I've been using weapons with names and histories. Nothing truly exceptional however, except for the handful of times I've introduced powerful weapons from Dragon Magazine or published modules, like the famous blades from module "S2: White Plume Mountain" for example.

The typical weapons I've made myself are hardly ever more powerful than +3, and hardly ever, ever, intelligent; I can probably count on one hand the number of times I've introduced an intelligent weapon to my campaign (specifically for the players to wield), let alone designed one myself.

An intelligent, evil sword that was the main villain from a Dungeon Magazine adventure I ran for 2nd edition AD&D back in the early 90's was perhaps the last most powerful weapon I've introduced/used in a game.

I ran a 2nd edition AD&D game where the party was comprised of a Githzerai, an Elf, and a Rogue Modron (not a modron that was a rouge by class, but a modron out-cast that had broken its connection with other modrons).

The Githzerai was a Psionicist, the Elf was a Ranger, and the Rogue Modron was a Fighter.

In solo games you usually grow more attached to the NPCs as there aren't any other PCs around.

Yeah, I like running solo games. And even though I run a lot of them, I still run games with larger parties.

Though, I do prefer running solo games. :-D

when something bad or emotional happens to a character you like, it's hard not to sympathize with her.

In a solo game I ran for my wife (I run a lot of solo games), my wife's character started out on a journey for the local lord as a caravan guard. During the course of the adventure, she needed to leave the caravan towards the end of their journey in order to do a much more pressing job (again, for the local lord).

During the journey with the caravan, she had gotten to know the NPCs she was protecting and travelling with, befriending them in the process. And because of this, my wife was more than a little sad to leave her character's new friends behind.

I don't think it's always a good thing.

I don't think it's really that much different from tearing up while watching a movie or reading a book.

Freehold DM wrote:

fires shotgun blindly

Werewolf! Werewolf!

There wolf. :)

There castle. ;-)

I posted this to another, similar thread, back in November of 2012... But it is still one of my favorites.

This was back in 98’ so we were using 2nd Edition AD&D.

I was running a solo campaign for a friend, and during this long running campaign, her character encountered a powerful vampire lord that intended to make her [male] character into his “bride”.

Well, eventually she managed to escape this vampire lord's clutches (and caused the vampire lord a whole lot of grief in the process). So as an act of revenge against her character, the vampire lord captured and then turned her character’s lover into a vampire...

Long story short... In a truly dramatic fashion, the former lover wound up so grief-stricken and heart-broken, he committed suicide by going out into the light of day.

We had to stop that particular session and take a short break, as my friend was crying (IRL)...

It was the first time that I encountered a player who was able to place herself so much into the setting, story, and the characters involved, that she was literally moved to tears by a tragic event in game...

Quite frankly, I was honored (if a bit overwhelmed)... :-)

Teaching them THAC0 was a challenge all on its own. There was a lot of "Dear God why would someone design it like this?!" :)

I know, right... You roll like a 12 on a d20 and then subtract that from a THAC0 of say 15, it makes it really hard to comprehend that when you take 15 and subtract 12 it means a character hits AC 3 (and above).

Man grade-school math is hard! :-P

I don't know what the GM had in mind, but he REALLY screwed us players on that one...

The example you give that your GM used is pretty much the kind of stuff found in "Play Dirty". However, if your GM is to be a true student of what Mr. Wick wrote in "Play Dirty", he will have an "escape" for your character (not necessarily a "Happily Ever After" escape, but an escape non-the-less).

Mr. Wick compares the "teachings" in his book like that of the first "Die Hard" movie, where the main character is beaten to a bloody pulp, and yet always manages to get up, shake the dust off, and go on fighting... And in the end, win the day.

Obviously, that style is not for everyone, but like I said, if your GM wishes to be a "true" student of Mr. Wick, he is not doing this to your character out of malice. So perhaps pulling him aside (and in private) and talking to him about your feelings, might change things, especially if he is as you said, one of your oldest friends.

friends don't let friends use THAC0. ;-)

Because 5th grade math is just so... so, difficult; and what's the word I'm looking for here? Ah yes... Unintuitive! ;-)