M P 433's page

Yes, that's the one!

Before he worked on that, Nelson had a draft he was willing to share with gamers by email of some original ideas and work that had to be cut from the module. Was glad later to see he got to expand things running through his head.

My only advice for tournaments is to give the other players scripts to play the other competitors. Otherwise, it's boring to watch someone do the entire archery part with the DM rolling 5 other competitors. I let everyone grab an NPC based off their intros (like professional wrestling intros, lots of buildup), and some had cheating scripts or tactics. For example, I changed Villamor Koth so that he would do absurd things like try to shoot the bow behind his back, take drinks during his turn, go kiss an adoring fan, etc. (It was considered poor taste for the Pitax champion to dominate on Pitax soil, so he's only competitive in the joust and in some other river kingdom's annual tournament, given they rotate it...and not all invite the PCs).

Redcelt32, also wanted to say thanks as I am currently doing a reboot of Kingmaker with a new group of players after starting a campaign 10(!) years ago. My reboot took a lot of your ideas and ran with it; glad we did!

While I'm not running on the "bones of old," I did create a prior kingdom that rested on the ruins of the current one as that seemed to make sense. I turned Candlemere into the Harrowstone Prison from Carrion Crown AP. The old kingdom's money-maker was getting BPs to make a prison for all neighboring kingdoms to send their worst and pay the old kingdom to maintain them. In the AP, the prison burns and the worst criminals become ghosts trapped by a ghostly warden. When the ghosts got loose (thanks to Nyrissa feeding the old kingdom's wizard a false ritual on how to deal with the ghosts, her way of bringing down yet again another kingdom on her way to uniquely toppling 1000 mortal kingdoms), the old kingdom was wiped out to a man.

Our players did research and discovered the flaw in the ritual, but it's a mystery why the wizard did what he did in the way he did it.

Tiressia and Falchos (dryad, satyr).

In my campaign, she's as close to an Eldest as there could be, and no ordinary fey wants anything to do with that. Just saying her name, invoking a thought of her, could bring really bad things to them. That's why all my fey refer to her in descriptive terms (e.g. the Bride of Autumn). And generally at first they're fine with just letting her do her thing. After all, existence is pretty big and this is just a tiny part of the Second World.

However, fey are complicated. Even the seemingly benign ones don't exist on the same world as the PCs. In my game, these so-called harmless fey killed Breeg for hunting and trapping a few of them by seeing how he liked being crushed in one of his own traps. Because fey are somewhat eternal in the sense they can lose their body but not their essence, they see death differently (they don't want it, but it's just something different). They don't quite get how Second World creatures like humans don't work that way.

With all that in mind, Nyrissa killed their unicorn friend, who doesn't get a new body. That's a problem for some fey as the unicorn didn't make any deals (Contracts) or do anything to justify messing with his body. Nyrissa has done something taboo. They just don't know what to do about it because normally that's something the Eldest would handle. So at first, once they trust the "bigguns" aren't like the rest, they might let slip a few things that bother them, very indirectly (e.g. there's a dead champion of the forest you should see). They want to know how Second World creatures react.

Late campaign, friendly ones who don't want their Second World friends to lose who they are (aka die) might get more direct, and this might end up costing one of them their existence (e.g. introducing Zuddinger's Picnic book before Book 6, or relating there's bad things coming and the PCs are better off moving, or a hint not to trust so and so).

I've run this through under 1E rules and am currently running a 5E conversion, so a lot will depend on how much the DM plays up Brevoy and Iobarian history. Regardless, the more immersion a character has, the more enjoyable the story can be.

Desna plays little role in the Greenbelt. Otherwise, Gorum and Erastil have heavy influences. There's nothing to keep you from wondering, for example, if Erastil's influence with animals contributes in some way to your mystery.

There are no known lycanthropic communities and as a minor spoiler only 1 known preset lycanthropic event in all 6 modules. Even so, the frontier attracts those who otherwise would be outcasts, who form their own settlements or hunt the land in a simple but harsh existence. So, a man might be possessed of strange powers that would be condemned in a city but come in handy to the farmers, hunters, and settlers in the Greenbelt. Such a man might be more valuable to those who obtained a charter to scout those lands and/or connect with its settlers.

As such, the setting really opens itself to any race, any background.

That all said, my players and I agreed on a more political "game of thrones" style game focusing heavily on Brevoy. Given Brevoy is a human nation, anyone who wanted to be a baron/ess and immerse in that story (e.g. alliances, marriages) would tend to be human.

Update

Ran our session and had Nyrissa through a painting offer the services of a dragon (Ilthuliak) to the barony, playing on her religious creed (and some unique shops, with the affirmation some had an interest in seeing their land thrive). Player immediately accepted.

Next morning, Grigori was doing his thing, riling up the crowds, yet again. The PCs had just settled down to counter his growing influence by plying the crowd with free beer and not being goaded by his words. Then, Ilthuliak came, landed in the town commons, announced there would be no traitors, and sprayed Grigori's front row admirers with acid.

When the dust settled, the dragon circled the town for hours, then the countryside, attacking no more. Many were dead, Grigori had a leg burned off (saved by the PCs, who sent him back to whatever master they believed sent him), and over the next few days, fear settled upon the fledgling barony. Yet, not all were upset. Settlers from Brevoy clashed with River Kingdom folk in the belief you respect your lords, not draw obscene graffiti of them. Others praised the safety on the roads now that word was a dragon was patrolling.

Of course, not all will be well. Once word spreads a dragon is around, dragon hunters of the worst type may come as well as every idiot with a sword hoping to make a name.

Plus, the "shop" ended up being a First World bazaar where the fey offer special "deals" that appear fantastic at first, but always have hidden catches. Our PCs accepted many of these...including the Ruler who took a 24 year aging hit and up to 1 minute per day may be summoned away (like a summon monster spell) to serve the fey lord he made a deal with. Of course, the people went in too, and it's not good.

Probably the craziest session I've had in the last decade or more. I love Kingmaker.

And, I've still got the wedding offer in my pocket for another day!

Nice! There's plenty of gems that have gotten lost over the years in these forums (e.g. dead links), good to see that one back.

While not specifically session zero, it's super critical to foreshadow big N...

Absolutely. The idea (later used in the computer game) that she was cursed for her crimes against the fey originated on these forums. My linked DM notes have a history based on those ideas where, like the CRPG, she is tasked with toppling 1000 kingdoms (however you define those), and in mine, each manner of destruction must be unique (so as to artistically entertain the fey lords).

She ideally is behind virtually every rising and falling kingdom, including the Bandit Lord (he didn't get far enough to count), Hargulka (a must use idea), perhaps even Tartuk and the Sootscale Kobolds (raise them into a horde and conquer these lands), the fall of Varnhold (by awakening Vordekai), and she took aim at Pitax but Irovetti has deduced she's something ill and has taken steps to thwart her efforts against him.

Each agent should be "fey touched" in some way. This could be an item (e.g. a ring woven of her hair), a deformity, a power, or even allies (e.g. will o wisp advisors). They don't refer to N by name, but it'll become clear something is moving pieces in these regions. If you run the Forest Kingdom's Campaign adventures (an awesome supplement designed specifically for Kingmaker by a writer of a Kingmaker module), there's one about the Unicorn (they were going to tattle on N so she had them taken out). It's also possible if you run Fellnight Queen at all, they mistake the BBEG as the ultimate bad guy.

From there, I'd increase the fey presence in these lands, and give the party a chance to meet opposing Courts (not every fey is keen on N, but they all fear her). They can't say her name and can't speak of her quest, but they can let it be known to be careful.

Eventually, the PCs should be visited by an agent of N, designed to subvert their kingdom in some way. Like all fey deals, it appears awesome and impossible to resist, but like all fey deals, there's a hidden catch. Whatever form that may be, all fey deals have an "un-deal" where you can get out of the contract, but few mortals can figure out what it might be.

I've created a dropbox link for all my Kingmaker DM resources through the beginning of Rivers Run Red, for a fey-heavy, intrigue heavy campaign with a revitalized Nyrissa story. I ran this 10 years ago under Pathfinder rules and am rebooting it for a new generation, albeit under D&D rules. Still, the ideas are all there, drawn from years of masterful DM and player posts, stuff I wish I'd know about, and my own ideas from way back when and today.

The list of influences from this forum is innumerable, but includes:

Dudemeister and his monster kingdom/clockwork kingdom, Redcelt32 and his game-of-thrones-esque ideas, pennywit for lots of great posts, orthos for fleshing out Nyrissa, the artists who made up Zuddiger's Picnic, Jason Nelson who shared his full Blood for Blood with a bumbling DM years ago and then spearheaded some phenomenal product (Forest Kingdoms Campaign Compendium is a MUST BUY for Kingmaker though you can buy the individual books piecemeal), N'wah who started a fey prank post, Erik Freund who raised the idea of capital venture and where that 50 BP came from, the internet for all its great access to fairy tales, the Quest for Glory Sierra computer games for the rusalka storyline, and all the ones I missed but shameless borrowed from as every DM worth their grit does.

The dropbox link HERE includes:

* Session 0 using Wedding Knight for political intrigue beginning
* Political cheat-sheet
* Player's Guide to supplement the free original guide and DM's quick-reference (for 5E rules and a Celtic pantheon, but the ideas are what count)
* Capital Venture deals + visual (to keep track of everyone)
* Faery Tales (many my own creation, mixing in a variety of myths)
* Fey Pranks (edited the list down to 20)
* Fey City Encounters (heavy influence from Legendary's Forest Kingdoms, again, a must buy, I might add to this but for now should give you something)
* Extra Hex Encounters, heavy fey style (incorporating Forest Kingdoms, Fellknight Queen)
* Candlemere using the Haunting of Harrowstone (Carrion King) prison. With some changes and ties to a failed kingdom long ago
* Partial RRR notes for 5E (incomplete but figure it'll get you started with ideas)
* A really cool map by someone on this forum
* A fan-made kingdom building flowchart, kingdom sheets. If you use Legendary's Ultimate series for expanded kingdom rules, they do have free kingdom/army/settlement sheets that you have to get separately from the pay product
* Tartuk's journal. It may leave you disturbed
* River Freedom's Handout (more important if a certain deal is cut)
* Nyrissa backstory, timeline, and gyronna prophecy

Not included but perhaps to be added are my changes to Varnhold Vanishing. When I originally ran it, "Nomen" was a derogatory term and the centaurs were called the Simbani (QFG influence), with ancient spirits and with rituals for outsiders to prove themselves. One poster recommended Curse of the Crimson Throne, A History of Ashes (converting the Shoanti or supplanting the centaurs with them).

Like many, I had a few biggies I'd do differently the 2nd time around:

1. Nyrissa foreshadowing. She needs in earlier as something mystical but ever present as a danger.
2. More politics. Brevoy is so interesting but disappears quickly.
3. Change in Kingdom building. It breaks down when cities get too big and require a computer program to manage. After Varnhold Vanishing, I'm considering pushing the Kingdom rules to the side and using some version of Colville's Strongholds and Followers, with only major role-play events coming to light.
4. More fey. It's took good to not flesh this out. See Forest Kingdoms for many good ideas beyond what I borrowed.

The two systems were never designed to work together, so be wary.

Breaking even on a major investment within less than, or equal to, 1 year is a phenomenal prospect, and from there it's only profit. If PCs figure out how to "game the system" using the math under this dual system, they'll figure out how to invest, and reinvest, and possibly generate a crapload amount of gold.

Ultimately, I aim to visualize what I'm adding to the game. For example, over the years many (including myself) feel the Kingmaker/UC kingdom building rules get stale and break down around Varnhold Vanishing. Having rebooted Kingmaker, I've looked into some alternate kingdom-building rules, including Matt Colville's Strongholds and Followers (a 5E product but essentially a mini-game, still waiting the 2021 kingdom rules), where the focus isn't the number crunching of UC but how cool it is to have a stronghold that you can invest in that gives you cool stuff.

Anyhoo, it's not really the math I'm worried about, it's the "thrill factor" and whether players would be entertained with playing capital investment banker to get their GP or whether they'd be more thrilled finding a rare ruin in the wilderness with a hoard warded by an ancient riddle from ancestral spirits.

Several years ago, I posted my observations of what worked and didn't work to make Savage Tide amazing in my DM Notes. Those notes ended when we had a party wipe during the Lightless Depths, a beloved player had to leave for a new job, and it didn't feel right bringing a new player in at high levels.

Anyhow, years later, I moved to a new community, found a great gaming community, and we're venturing into this one again! So a few things:

1) If anyone is still active here, I'll post my notes and hope if we can to share notes. This is a classically fun campaign path, wish I could've finished it. My other posts give credit to the DM who inspired me quite a bit. I aim to follow his intent and expand Vanthus's role (his group never finished as well, alas!)

2) If you've run it into the City of Broken Idols and beyond, I want to know what worked and didn't work! I don't have DM notes generated yet, and given we're just getting started, plenty of time.

3) If you've got notes for 5E, great! If you have little things that worked, lemme know! (e.g. art for Lavinia, Vanthus, Avner, tips on running them). I've scoured this directory but might have missed something. I remember my first group absolutely hating (and thereby fondly remembering our campaign) Vanthus and Avner...

Drawing from what others have done and my own touch, laying out what seems to be working and not working as far as style and personal touches for future DMs. As we're just getting started (using 5E rules if it matters), a work in progress.

A Matter of Honor

- Largely running as-is, with a prologue that I call Session 0 to allow players to create a story to unify them without any dice rolling. Ours dealt with surviving the events of Kyuss that gave rise to the Wormfall festival. During that event, they saved Vanthus, who was a jerk making inappropriate comments about paying them with his sister since he thought they were "mercs."

- Lavinia, using the princess from Braveheart, thick French accent. Having her cover up her loss of wealth, a fancy dinner to start but then when the party visits next, Kora is making stew. It's so important to get the party to like her, to play her not as a damsel in distress but a person whose life has imploded as her parents have recently died, her brother struck her, and now she's head of a declining household. Played up her memories of Vanthus (a laugh describing the good old days of the elixir of love and then a somber description of him hitting her).

- Playing Kora as the matron (she knows one PC already), concerned about their weight and health. The sole servant / messenger / seneschal, she's also a great cook who likes to have some blueberry scones handy for her favorite visitors.

- Changed Soller Vark to being in the act of getting it on (we're all adults and things like this are a lot more interesting than monsters just waiting in a room to be killed) as the party navigated a boat rented from a jilted noble whose girlfriend never showed up. Since it was his stepdaddy's boat, he didn't care. Later, the party lamented they didn't keep his fishing poles on board to make it look more authentic as they snuck up on the Blue Nixie.

- Burning monkeys curling up into little balls as they died really, really got the party fired up and angry at the smugglers on the Blue Nixie.

- The vault below Teraknian Castle has a unique puzzle lock; DMs should carefully read it to understand the sequence. If your PCs are really having a difficult time, maybe allow them to hear a "click" if they've gotten a tumbler in sequence.

- Sasserine is such a troublesome setting. Love making it come alive, but 90% of the path takes place somewhere else. Wouldn't overplay the city.

- Factions (affiliations) didn't grab everyone's attention as I thought they might. Different strokes for different folks.

We will pick up after clearing the vault. The party talked Lavinia into taking her last chest of coin in case Vanthus (whom they suspect) comes back to clean her out. Party is invested in her cause, and since she's a big part of the story line, this is important.

Two issues:

1. How to make magic interesting. House rule (see suggestions forum) to incorporate "plus" items into leveling. The current Pathfinder system does not bode well for giving "plus" items a story. No matter how interesting you make that +2 sword's background, it's gone the minute a +3 weapon comes along. That +2 Belt of Strength was worn by the famous General Armageddon when he slew the Pit Fiend Malicious, thus saving the world from a demon war? That's great, but I'm pawning it off so I can buy a +4 Belt. Don't bother with a story, I'm moving to +6 as soon as I can.

2. The Magic Shoppe? An eternal question on these forums. Since the game is pretty much fashioned mechanically on the idea players will get "plus" items and be more likely to die if they don't, you can't restrict too much on those. Just have the players role-play their search for items, whether by barter, trade, or other ways. If you don't approve of what they want, don't let it into the campaign.

Done is done. I'll rant first about good players assassinating with poison, then finish by congratulating your players on creativity.

Shakespeare set the tone for the contemporary view on poison: a dishonorable tool allowing those with lesser strength, wits, and political power to prevail, thus serving as a tool against order and hierarchy. Contrast this with combat, believed to be righteous because divine providence was afforded an opportunity to intervene (whether it did or not is another question...)

Poison strips men of defenses normally guaranteed them by strength or skill. We see this with Hamlet. His superior skill with a sword allowed him to hit Laertes mutliple times, but then Hamlet is hit with an otherwise non-fatal wound that carries poison. A foe with poison needs no skill, no courage, no wits, to slay someone of greater skill and status. A servant can kill a king.

Assassination means the players have taken it upon themselves to be judge, jury, and executioner, without consideration of the citizens or what they want (or who they want to rule them...may be odd but a corrupt ruler may protect them from far greater harm).

With that rant out of the way, your players may not have been role-playing alignments as I might see it done, but they engaged in some creativity that you properly let play out. Chances are they'll be talking about that one for awhile, and why not. So, I'd chalk it up as a good day for everyone and a good game overall.

Pack mules. Porters. They served a purpose once, and for those who track encumbrance, they will rise again and have relevance.

If someone's not interested enough in our game to do something without being bribed/paid, I don't try to dangle incentives. For some players, there's a hard time tracking NPCs and details. What you could do is hand everyone an "NPC/story" sheet (there's a couple out there for campaigns) so they can track anything important. You could also try going around the table asking for a volunteer, having last week's person be the last one you ask.

@ ParagonDire Raccoon: Treasure Hunt for 0-level players, someday I'll convert this to PF. It's a trope in most heroic stories that at some point the hero is stripped of everything but their wits, creativity. While it should be sparingly used, it's designed to test characters when their sheet doesn't tell them what they can and can't do. Treasure Hunt is probably the truest form of "making it up as you go."

For those who haven't experienced such "old school" style of play, there may be no life experience telling them they can play an RPG with more creative freedom. An RPG is far richer when the players and GM can interact with one another rather than with the dice.

I also took note of a prior post where the ranger character you made probably looked similar to a dozen other rangers out there. So to distinguish him, you added flavor, story. Your strongest memories weren't of times "I rolled a 12 and the king became friendly." They were more of the times you went "outside" the figurative box and did something novel, and it either spectacularly succeeded or failed. You tried it because there wasn't anything telling you that you'd fail or couldn't.

Take them for the role playing immersion experience, same thing as your tent and bedroll. Are you getting a numerical benefit for spending the gold pieces for a bedroll? No, but when it comes time to make camp, would a real adventurer neglect all these things "because the rules don't provide a negative?" Even a cleric might bring them on the off chance they cannot safely renew spells. It's about putting yourself into the game regardless of a mechanical rule justifying your decision.

...What I've done is ask players to dig a little deeper...

That's part of it. The system encourages new players to engage in "roll" play by replacing most, if not all, player interactions with the game world with a specific check and rule. At its extreme, players can anticipate mathematical results like a computer game. Of course, we hope there's GMs who are not simply there to referee die rolls and guide players from one numerical combat to the next. But unless one has been exposed to the "old school," what are new players to think? Maybe it's good enough, or maybe they just don't know there's more out there to an RPG than numbers.

It's a Herculean task to envision modifying Pathfinder, and D&D Next got the jump on a new system (dibs). If Pathfinder ever considers revision, good ideas may be barred from duplication. Fundamentally, it starts with character classes, the phenomenon of more focus on a sheet and what it can do "by the numbers" versus imagination and what it can do "by the story put forth before you." May be mixing threads into what people would want to see for a Pathfinder 2E, but moreso if we perceive the character rules bloat as the effect which has caused a mechanical focus versus a creative one, then we are really expressing a thematic perception of where the game should be.

The essence of AD&D that made is so amazingly wonderful was this, simply this...

I was 12

One group's essence may not be another's. I played AD&D 2nd until my curiosity about 3.5 outweighed my reservations with a crew of people ranging from 25-45. I'll put my take on the essence starting with a 2004 quote by the late Mr. Gygax describing 3rd edition:

The new D&D is too rule intensive. It's relegated the Dungeon Master to being an entertainer rather than master of the game. It's done away with the archetypes, focused on nothing but combat and character power, lost the group cooperative aspect, bastardized the class-based system, and resembles a comic-book superheroes game...

Essence of AD&D? To me, simply that players spent more time looking and interacting with one another than interacting with their character sheet or the rulebook.

I fear we're headed for a system that replaces the creative/social aspect of the game with a rules search that encourages character building to excel in a grid-based combat system and where the story boils down to a series of combat rolls interspersed with skill checks. I advocate for a shave of the rules to a simpler time, where if there's 40 useful feats out of a list of 2000, then let's eliminate 1,960 and see what players can do with what they've got. Is it the rules that make a character special, the story that the characers create, or is it the player and their imagination?

Amen. Some of my 1e games had quite a bit of "epic". Those "epic" combats just took up WAY less time looking stuff up and adding a zillion modifiers (stuff that is decidedly not "epic", quite draggy and boring, actually).

That's where rules bloat gets in the way of the story. AD&D wasn't anywhere close to perfect, but there wasn't a lot of mechanics to get in the way of an epic story. If the 1st level gamer wanted to throw acid at the roof of the building to weaken the rafters to smash a rampaging basilisk that he has no chance of beating in a traditional "grid-based" combat, that's a whole lot more epic than stopping play and flipping to page 2xx to argue the relative hardness of each rafter, much less finding the rules for "cave-in" once, if ever, the ceiling falls. This may simply be a matter where a DM steps in, adjudicates "normally the acid splash is too weak to do real damage to treated wood, but termites have been working on the building along with some exposure to weather over the years. The ancient rafters give a creak and groan...you'd better think about finding something to hide under..."

There's also something non-epic about being engaged in the middle of battle with the Death Knight Lord Sinister who has razed the local church atop his flaming nightmare steed, and stopping play to recount "...ok so I get a +1 from bless, a +1 from prayer, a +2 from blessing of fervor, a +1 from (oops, that's a morale bonus, doesn't stack with bless, scratch that), a +1 from haste, a -2 because of the shaken effect, did I count that +4 for the Potion of Bull Strength, (no wait, that should only be a net gain of +2 because of my strength already)...so I hit AC 30. No wait, I forgot that I had activated a swift action to gain a temporary +2, I think that's a class bonus so it counts...(and now another player indicates his abilities grant a bonus so long as they're in proximity), and was bard song playing? What's that grant again? Hold on, I lost my count on the plusses..."

You may argue that a player should know the rules, but just as easily those same rules are getting in the way of what should be a pulse-raising battle to the finish.

Could simply be that refined mechanics are all that's needed. I certainly don't need more rules (than now) to recapture the spirit and creativity inherent to RPGs that should encourage gamers to immerse in a story about a character, not a character's stats. Make no mistake, I want some stats; I want players to brag about that time due to their great strength they lifted the portcullis in the flooding basement for everyone to escape. I just don't want that heroic story to get lost amongst memories of rules lawyering.

If you want to play AD&D, why not play AD&D? PF is for PF. It's not like AD&D stopped existing, the rules are still out there and very easy to find.

Still have my 2E books and modules, albeit a bit beaten up. But no desire to go back, and I generally admire the quality of Paizo writers. The alloy comparison is fitting; I'm still working on the mixture.

At today's game at the game store, I saw a 6th level Orc Bloodline Admixture Wizard Arcanist show up with a 10d6+11 Fireball spell. Utterly wrecked the PFS scenario we were playing. The player was really looking forward to 8th level, when his Wayang Spell Hunter would let him Empower that puppy as a 4th level spell slot.

As I get older, I have less and less desire to play with people whose creative outlet is centered on character builds. The difference between Pun-Pun and an optimized summoner is only one of degree, not kind.

At some point in the past some folks simply played an "elf." What one did with the actions and decisions of the elf made that elf unique and special, and barring some dip into options, one elf rogue was largely the same as the next elf rogue. Heroes were made by choices in the game, not by mechanical design. One looked at their fellow players and DM when making decisions, less so at the character sheet. I still love what Pathfinder has done, but it's progressing into something foreign to imagination. Guess there's a market for bad wine as much as good wine, and I don't want the winery to forget its reputation comes from the good wine.

... I think the magic was the antics and ingenuity were left in the hands of the players in the old school style, whereas the new school GM's do most of that stuff now....

That's maybe what I'm feeling with the advent of the "D&D minis" style of adventuring. There's not a need to "invent" a means to an end if you can find a rule for it. Reading the post about a teacher wanting to use Pathfinder in a school setting made me wonder if the students are going to expand their creative and critical thinking or merely become more skilled at flipping to the correct rule.

All in all, I leaning towards the view that, having been a DM & GM for many years, players are now encouraged to spend more time searching for the rule (building a superior character, the unbeatable trip tactic, and so on) than immersing in the world. My theory, perhaps flawed, is if we reduce those rules, reduce the mechanical incentive, the focus returns to the game world and not the game mechanic. Maybe it's as simple as trying a "core only" game to wean players off a rules-laden system.

Feedback from my players and observation of them has been intriguing as well:

* First time gamer #1, Pathfinder is his first system. Hates tracking all the bonuses and forgets some at times. Prefers a class with few features to keep it simple.
* First time gamer #2, likes the system, likes the idea of less rules
* Old school gamer #1 (taking a break now due to career change), likes the classes, overwhelmed by high level play due to sheer volume of options.
* Old school gamer #2, keeps it simple (e.g. plays an evoker, uses the Core spells)
* Savvy gamer #1, knows the sytem inside and out, likes it all, has a mind for numbers
* Savvy gamer #2, same as #1, less about rolling dice and more about the pure RP
* Savvy gamer #3, knows the system and is good any way, played 3rd and transitioned to PF with me, does a decent job at building the world (adds a storyline of his own) without GM hints or prompts

I like the Pathfinder system, but I hold a fear it's drifting from what made AD&D special. I've puzzled out what attracted me to AD&D in the first place (it wasn't the "to hit" system). It was the creative spirit of the game that I fear is being buried under the crush of rule after rule, and added power after power. While more rules have pros and cons (e.g. Pathfinder item creation, a pro compared to hazy AD&D rules), I want to capture the creative social spirit rather than creative mechanical effort.

I compare the RPG creative spirit to the "lunar crash exercise" many did as a kid.

You work as a team, you get creative. Here's the key: There was less emphasis on the mechanics and more emphasis on the creative aspect. I saw a lot of creative attempts in AD&D, not all successful, but attempted because there wasn't a rule saying you can or cannot succeed. For example

The AD&D player had a very limited set of abilities and unlike Pathfinder, there wasn't always a rule of A trumps B, B trumps C (e.g. spells that would bypass spell immunity). Like the lunar exercise, sometimes you had to take an unconventional, creative approach. Now I'm not saying players can't or won't today, but a continued slew of rules may be a disincentive to pure creativity. In the above spoiler, there's a preset "trump" mechanically in place. One doesn't have to get creative, one just has to know which rule to apply. Note, I'm not talking about pure combat mechanics. The game isn't all about combat, and I grasp combat is about mechanics and math, always has been, not where I'm headed.

A system composed of too many rules stifles the need for creativity. You simply apply X ability to Y situation. Problem solved. And that's my personal observation. In AD&D, I saw players try all sorts of imaginative, crazy things, like leaping off a 20' ledge onto a dragon's back hoping it would count as a backstab since they couldn't get behind the dragon. I see far far less in Pathfinder, with some of the exact same players.

So, what to do about it? I'm certainly not going back to AD&D; I like the Pathfinder core classes, the fixes. Nor am I buying the beginner box. My thoughts: simplify the game again as much as possible.

1st Edition's 1976 Expedition to Barrier Peaks was run at Origins to expose D&D players to the sci-fi RPG that became Gamma World. I've got a copy but never run it under the premise it would ruin the atmosphere. Still, I think a one-time shot with guns, sci-fi, and androids would be interesting. But an everyday thing? The fun of the adventure was pretending to not know what these weird devices did and puzzling out how things worked. 2E introduced a Pirates supplement that went heavy into the personal firearms. As a whole, they were a curiosity, and certainly unable to be "swiftly" reloaded or fired in 6 seconds like Pathfinder allows, which really stretches the imagination (because we're not saying it's magic, we're saying it's skill).

If there's no reaction from your game world to character actions, then you're pretty much running a computer game from your gaming table. After a week the captive should be dead. Players should always be aware not every adventure is "kill and get treasure," and to preserve what makes RPGs unique, you have to make the world react to both the players' actions and inactions. If you don't enforce a reactive world because it's easier or you want to preserve a certain storyline, then you're not providing the full experience.

A good campaign has events moving regardless of what players are doing. Sometimes those events intersect, and we have grand adventures. In this case, the girl is kidnapped and presumably going to die in a few days. That's the background; players may not even know this and you've hinted at it through an NPC brother. If the players dawdle, do nothing, and so on, the event occurs and the girl perishes. By finding out their "slow and steady" approach didn't work, they'll gain some "experience" about your game world moving on, unlike the computer world of Skyrim where every quest waits indefinitely for you to drop by and do something.

I'm also betting players will respect the game more if you "keep it real" instead of trying to beat them over the head with a timed plot device by sending NPCs ("OMG I just saw her and she's about dead, hurry!"), visions ("The God of Justice demands you get your butt down there in 24 hours!"), or more annoyance by the brother ("I oh so certain she's going to starve in 2 more days if you don't hurry after you've piddled around for a week! Hurry please!")

You can also check out the Gifted Children's Association of San Fernando Valley's website. They've endorsed D&D as a creative and social outlet for their gifted kids.

http://www.giftedca.org/

As noted, primary benefits are advanced socialization and creativity. Unlike traditional board games, the game is created in the imagination, and solutions to problems are only limited by the capability of the players to be inventive. Pathfinder rules should not be seen as a mechanism to restrict this creativity (e.g. "you can't do that because the rules say so..."), and the GM running the game should instead strive to accomodate innovation and not stifle ("you want to break the dam in order to flood the dungeon, and you've hired engineers to do so? Let's hear your proposal..."). It is unmatched in socialization and is an excellent way to get socially awkward students engaged. By assuming the persona of a character, they can express more easily through a character than may be possible one on one. Eventually, as gamers build relationships, the socialization will expand past the table and into other activities.

If you're really innovative, you'll find a way to slip in math problems, moral dilemmas, puzzles, and the like into your game as traps or challenges. Dungeon Magazine had 6 prints of a "Challenge of Champions" that created puzzle solving tournaments where heroes of any level could participate since it relied on player cooperation and ingenuity rather than the character's game mechanics. It gives you a chance to make learning fun.

Finally, I'd recommend against a field trip to Society play given you can't be sure the nature of the people you'll find and Society play is pretty structured. While I'd like to think everyone in Society play would leave a good impression on kids, my wife has visited our gaming store on "no deodorant Saturdays" and wasn't impressed. You can figure the reason why...

A personal story:

Always keep the threat of a character "audit" in mind. If you ask them what their encumbrance is and they don't know, then enforce a penalty of being encumbered until they figure it out. Same should go with food and water.

I will tell you the tale of the rise and fall of Cops & Robbers. In days of yore we used our imaginations and the rules were simple. I say I shot you and you fall down. I tag you and I take you to jail. Everyone is having fun, everyone is playing in the spirit of the game.

Then one day someone declared "nuh uh" when shot because for that person, the spirit of the game meant less than that person "winning" the game. They didn't want to be shot. The game stops for everyone. People take sides. The spirit of the game is forgotten. Now everyone is not having fun. Someone declared "let there be a rule! Let the person be within 10' and declare the words "bang bang, else there be not a shot." Everyone was appeased, and the spirit of the game resumed, enhanced by a simple rule.

Then another rule was made, and another. Soon, the players stopped running around and having fun. They spent more time arguing the rules than actually playing the game. Discussions about "line of sight" and "flanking" and "terrain bonuses" became more important than the fun that was once had.

Soon, players were more focused on how to beat the game using the rules than they were with the spirit of the game: that one person was a cop and another the robber and you had fun simply from that.

The moment rules cease to enhance the enjoyment of everyone at the table and detract from the game is a sad one.

Agreed don't "push" her into playing what you think is advantageous. If she has a concept but can't seem to find the right archetype or spells, help her look. But if she wants to be half-elf, don't take that away from her by making her feel she's made an "unwise" or "disadvantageous" choice. Unless you're running killer campaigns, most players should be able to play a wide variety of race and class combos without too much grief.

Suggest you see if she can describe her character in 1-2 sentences, such as "My character seeks to learn the secret of lycanthropy and has devoted herself to the powers of the moon. She shies away from conjuring others to do her bidding and instead relies upon the inner powers the gods give her."

What exactly are they feeling useless about?

Suggest you don't make all your roleplaying and out of combat scenarios about skill checks. Otherwise players are there simply to make the dice move.

Have NPCs interact with them, flirt, ask their opinion. Make them chat their way through a situation. RPGs are supposed to be a social gathering. Have a drunk mercenary challenge the monk to punch through a block of stone, and if he does the merc will buy him a drink. Some friendly NPC fun when not chopping heads off monsters.

Also consider some metagaming challenges such as riddles and puzzles in game. These are tricky because they draw upon player intuition and not necessarily the mind of the character. The Dungeon Magazine Challenge of Champions are great examples if you can get your hands on them.

A lead-line castle isn't feasible or healthy, but it ignores my focus on the historical progression of "scry and die." Here's the recap of "Viewed Once" by edition:

1st Ed: Description conflicts by stating spell transports caster to "well-known destination" but then offers a "Never Seen" option. Describes "very familiar" as a place one has been to ("actual proximity") and says "lesser known areas" seen "magically or from a distance" increase error. Ambiguity as to whether spell requires one has been to the location and is visualizing it from a distance; for example a mountaintop you can barely see 10 miles away, cannot visualize your landing spot so may count as "never seen" despite fact you can "see" it. No confusion one can teleport to places they've already been. Crystal Ball only way to Scry. Abuse tempered by decent risk of death.

- Crystal Ball basic version is vision only. Audio, ESP, and Telepathy variants exist. You can view a person or object. Only spells cast through the Ball are detect magic/alignment. Read literally the visual is only the target itself and not the surrounding area, and there is no provision for seeing anything more than the target. This is the position taken unofficially by James Jacob in his Q&A posts - you see the target only.

Dungeon #33: Unofficial errata, author notes this is not endorsed by Gygax. Says he'd allow Crystal Ball to count as "viewed once." This conflicts with the description of Crystal Ball as seeing the target only, hence why likely not endorsed by Gygax.

Unearthed Arcana, 1985: Introduces Teleport w/o Error and Magic Mirror (aka Scry spell). Description of planar travel requires you've been there before in order to count as "studied carefully." First requirement that visualizing a destination through scrying would not be enough. Magic Mirror operates like Crystal Ball, no discussion of seeing an area around the target.

2nd Ed: Keeps "well known destination" as spell criteria, changes "actual proximity" requirement to "previous proximity," still ambiguity as to lesser known areas, same language on rest of spell as before.

3rd Ed: Removes "never seen." Language is no longer "well known" but rather "designated destination." Requires "clear mental image" of layout and location. Brings up point that while you can "see" a place with a Crystal Ball, does that mean you automatically know the location? One cave can look like another. "Viewed Once" defined as "seen, possibly using magic." Spell read literally suggests sight is enough. T w/o E removes planar travel. Removes auto-death risk.

- Scrying modified to include 10 feet around a target. First option for Scry and Die introduced since viewing an area, not just the object.

Pathfinder: Mimics 3E, "Viewed Once" adds language "such as scrying." Adopts the Dungeon #33 unofficial view, officially, but only because spell is modified.

4th Ed: Sight-based teleports only.

We've got a lot of changes over the years. Viewed Once is intended, under current rules, to include sight-based transport, though again the question of mental visualization is questioned. Does the spell "know" where to go even if the caster doesn't, or must the caster know the location and the visual layout? With a mountain 10 miles away, the caster can "see" it, has proximity to the location, but without magic, there's no way he can see the nook and cranny that he wants to land on. Is this the purpose of the "mishap," or must the caster have a visual image? What's to say he lands on the tip, in a cave, on a ledge, and so on? Does the spell simply fail without adequate data upon which to transport, or does the spell "fill in" missing information?

If GMs want to curb Scry and Die, one can simply house-rule Scrying back to its original form: target visualization only.

My two cents as to why there's no FAQ needed but rather some simple reading of the spell Teleport:

From the spell in all cases: You must have some clear idea of the location and layout of the destination. That's two requirements, that the caster know where he's going and what it looks like. You cannot have one without the other. Scrying gives a layout, no dispute. But notice Teleport states "Viewed Once" can be achieved "possibly using magic such as scrying." Scrying "possibly" can give a hint as to the location in addition to layout, but possible indicates that it's not an assurance.

For example, the target is in a cave. Layout is observed but location is unknown. The target moves around enough and the scryer recognizes the sigil of House Abbas (Knowledge Nobility), which owns a gold mine outside of the town of Wistran (Knowledge Geography).

Caster believes he's correct and casts teleport, having a clear idea as to location (through study and knowledge) and layout (having observed the cave). It is possible his knowledge is wrong (the sigil was there but only because House Abbas traded with the dwarves of Murkstone.) If so, he is teleporting to a "False Destination" having visualized the wrong layout with the wrong location.

Went through Kingmaker as well. Go old school. Instead of making your random encounter table all level appropriate, include creatures that will TPK the party (but ensure they have a chance to flee or be ignored). Include night encounters so there's never a guarantee of an 8-hour rest. Use weather events. A tornado at low levels during the spring can be a scary time. Don't overuse weather, but be aware not everything can be solved with combat.

For exploration, just have some random fluff. Not every hex has an encounter, but maybe there's a patch of rare wildflowers, or a calm brook where they have lunch, or a herd of deer. Keep a list of descriptive fluff so it's not "you find nothing. Roll a perception check." Also ensure players are accounting for food, water, shelter during cold weather. At higher levels, odds are you will want to focus more on high fantasy than the mundane, but at low levels, it's good to be ready.

Been there, ran the 3rd edition Red Hand of Doom, months of gaming, hours and hours. At the finale, the 10th level party wiped except for a druid who shifted and escaped. It was a pyrrhic victory because they did (accidentally) cause the entire enemy base to collapse, destroying the BBEG. But, awesome, memorable and players still talk.

I roll dice in front of the players and don't pull punches. If the players believed I was fudging rolls behind a screen, it would lessen the experience, and we might as well go diceless because the GM will make sure we live. The thrill is gone.

That said, not every hero's story ends with one defeat, and I usually arc the story line to cut unlucky die rolling players who perish a break (whether it be finding out their deceased friend's soul is retrievable and about to be sold in the daemon markets, culminating in a side trek where the player's soul is escaping and the party is rescuing, or simply a grateful NPC who they helped at 1st level revealing the raise dead scroll their family has held for generations). It's generally never easy, but it shouldn't be, and therein is some of the fun.

Meh, if the player is furious at encounters with invisible things, what's he going to think of player-foiling tactics such as displacement and DR/- later on? Sounds fairly balanced given the stalkers would not pursue outside a certain zone, leaving the tried-and-true method of "live to fight another day" a valid card in the player arsenal.

As an update, I love one of the primary hooks from the Hall of Harsh Reflections and incorporated it into RHoD.

Been there before. Finding a group of gamers that all share the same expectations can be a challenge. For example, we have a weekly group now, and every few sessions we mix things up by doing a board game day. My players love the story but need variety. Setting up in the same seat with the sheet and the dice and the books may not appeal as much to one gamer as another.

Warning signs that players want to keep meeting but need some variety include: last minute cancellations, calling in sick on game day, complete cluelessness at the story plot or NPC names, not updating the character sheet, and they're playing Skyrim a lot more than usual.

In one campaign I altered Leadership to provide an NPC class (Expert, Adept, Warrior) instead of player class, and that character would serve as a "resource" character who wouldn't adventure but provided a benefit as a Sage, Crafter, bouncer at the Inn, etc. Ultimate Campaign has fleshed out the "downtime" system to provide many of the benefits I altered Leadership to have, so I no longer use Leadership.

Otherwise, Leadership has been used by everyone I've seen as a way to get a "healbot" or "buffbot," and at high levels it slowed down play as gamers adjudicate the tremendous range of multiple PC character actions. But that rant is for another post.

I have also treated followers as "hirelings" (there was a free Paizo supplement where hirelings provided minor benefits like a guide who grants bonuses to survival or porters to carry things). While none have any real levels, they provide a measureable benefit. Just don't make the jerk GM move and kill them off every time the groupies are left to guard the horses.

Party just hit 4th level.

Unless your PC was Thor, god of thunder, telling a drunk, proud Ulfen who believes you've killed his one true canine friend in life to "f**k off or die" is going to result in a showdown.

The rationale that a roll of the die should replace "role-playing" an encounter lessens the experience of an RPG. While the rules exist to enhance the fun within cognizable boundaries, there will be instances where there is no realistic response other than to ignore a particular roll. Otherwise, the "role-play" associated with the "die roll" becomes meaningless.

Your player did a great job by role-playing his words, and you should encourage players to keep it up. However, he made a poor choice of words that really left the GM with no choice. You made the world more "real" by giving a realistic response.

Suppose your player had said "You're misinformed, and I don't take kindly to strangers accusing me of things I didn't do. F**k off." It's very possible (upon success) that the Ulfen might reconsider his actions and have some doubt based on the sheer conviction of the intimidating player character. On failure, although well said, the Ulfen simply might not be swayed and take it as hiding something.

If it's all just a "die roll," your player could simply say "Snazzle frazzle pink tutus and a snotty nose" and get the same result on an intimidate check. That's not role-playing. I think you handled it well.

Purely a praise post, but Ultimate Campaign is one of the best supplements I've invested in for quite a while. Has added a fresh dynamic to the gaming table.

Your player thought quickly on his feet and I'd reward him, maybe with a partial map (the glass cracks) or some etchings. It'd be a unique exception to the normal reading of the spell. As noted, what may be treasure to the sand creature may be junk to players.

Advise "frank" you are not inviting him back. The lying alone would've gotten him booted from my game. I'm not so desperate to play that I'll suffer a cheater and disrupter at the table. As to "ronald" have a talk about the chatter between games. If he's a true gamer, he'll realize it's bothering other people if you feel it's important enough to bring up. If not, he can join "frank."

There comes a time when you've got to boot a troublesome player. If you're down to attempting to solve issues in-game when out-of-game has failed, you're going to have a 0% success rate. I'm betting she digs in her heels even further when you try to make her "see the light" by exposing how badly she plays.

Your GM should be taking control of the situation and is not, which is a problem. The GM is not solely some neutral arbitrator behind a screen; they're a person sitting down with friends to enjoy a game. Have you talked to your GM about nixing these behaviors, or at least the knitting?

With that said, I have in-game been successful once with a GM and player-coordinated effort, but the player was a good friend so I was willing to try. Every time negative behavior came up, we stopped the game and had a talk. The other players conveyed that their characters wouldn't be willing to sacrifice their life and time for someone who treats them that way. We then discussed we're all friends (in some way shape or form) away from the table, and as friends we didn't want to play that way. In this circumstance (my only experience trying this), it worked, and likely only because we'd all known one another for years.

Seconding talking to the players to ensure they are playing their characters. A 1st level former militia guard turned player character is unlikely to know the weaknesses of a caryatid column. As a joke, you could insist that if players are going to substitute what they know versus what their characters know, they should have to make the climb and acrobatics checks as well or their character fails them. Hopefully they'll get a laugh and see the point.

If the campaign fails, you have a fall guy to blame it on. Screw role-play, everyone knows clerics have to have certain stats or fail. Pathfinder should insist on preset ability scores for classes so players don't make this error as well as mandatory equipment.

The worst written module I've ever seen is Dragonlance #16, World of Krynn, Lord Soth's Keep (2nd Edition).

1. Premise is 18th level cleric and archmage need lower level characters to enter a death knight's keep. They can't do it themselves.

2. Impossible checks. No matter what the players do, if they approach on the drawbridge, they make noise or are noticed.

3. Idiotic encounters. A lich guarding the bridge attacks. Because it makes sense to have wizards who have sought immortality to stand around guarding bridges in the off chance some adventurer will saunter in. Also included are monsters just waiting in rooms (no ecosystem), all capped by a tarrasque chilling inside the keep in the off chance adventurers make it that far.

4. Not knowing your world. The writer includes monsters not native to the game world. Lots of them.

5. Kill versimilitude. The writer gives drow (not native to the gaming world) names such as "Waynoh Castermaster," "Jake," and "Larri Harriharri."

6. Bad guys that follow no game rules. Bad guy death knight gets to teleport in anytime, throw a fireball or summon a lot of monsters, then escape. Text indicates there's nothing the party can do about it as he taunts them.

Don't ever toss in an expectation that the party *MUST* take a certain action to complete an adventure or the entire campaign is ruined. GMs must be flexible and adapt the game world around the PCs actions, though certain actions like intentionally derailing an adventure for no reason other than to test the patience of the GM is not cool. When possible, anticipate multiple ways to "solve" encounters. If a player must make a DC 30 Perception check to notice the secret latch in order to descend into the dungeon, and there's no other way to keep the adventure going, then you've improperly funneled the adventure down to one check that the party may not be able to make.

Never include any description or text that tells players how they feel, act, etc. Don't ever make players feel like you're reading them a novel and they're along for the ride, rolling dice from time to time that really don't matter because your story will turn out the way you want regardless of the player's actions.

I voice my belief to my players that the storyline is richer if character-building decisions make sense and are attuned to the setting and campaign. But I don't make a bright-line rule.

Instead, I plot behind my screen, waiting for the day the player will rue going against my plans, and hope for a Natural 20 confirmed critical hit that will destroy the multi-classed fool who dipped one level of monk...