Ten years ago, we did NaNoWriMi—National Novel Writing Minute—on this forum for the first time. Wanna do it again? If so, write as much of a novel as you can in one minute, then post it here. If you do, I will give you high praise and validation!
Rules and example from ten years ago:
My "Novel Zero" was this:
Last Moon at Aggathor
Yes, that's how I spelled "accomplishment." You think I'm wasting precious seconds on spellchecking? I've concluded that the rule "You can finish your last sentence, but for God's sakes, be quick about it" may need to exist, but most people seem to get somewhere with 60 seconds from conception to (a sort of) conclusion.
Anyway, it's kinda taken off on my Facebook page ("novels" by Jason Bulmahn, Owen Stephens, Miranda Horner, and more), so I figured folks here might like in. I'll probably collect them somewhere afterward. Anybody want to climb on board the NaNoWriMi Express?
Speaking of which, how would replaying scenario 1A work at this point? Would we need to rebuild the vault for it, in which case getting the sword is impossible, or are we allowed to run it using the current vault? Reading through the rules I only found something that said that we’re allowed to replay old scenarios, not how to do it.
Just like any other scenario. You don't have to rebuild the vault. However, if you've already gotten the reward for that scenario, you can't get it again.
I imagine that what we'd do in this case is kind of like what we'd do with the ally Ayruzi in Rise of the Runelords 6: move some of the check dynamics out of the check boxes. So something like
Give us your plague-free heroes! Specifically we want a snapshot of what your characters look like after they took on the last challenge in Curse of the Crimson Throne. (That is, you've completed Scenario 6D: Legacy of Blood or Scenario 7A: The Inevitable Betrayal.)
Please respond to this thread with a full feat and deck list of any characters that fit the above description (and only that description!), in very specifically the following format.
Character Name: (name)
Please don't skip or add any lines; if you don't have any of something, just leave the part after the colon blank. Include loot cards under their card type, please. Also, if your character died, let us know that.
Thanks to all saviors of Korvosa!
Late harvest Alsace, please.
Complete side note, I love the "acquire a Magic card" phrasing of Ezren's power because now I can joke about buying a booster pack for an extra explore. ;)
In development, this absolutely was a stated argument against the "an X card" phrasing, but we were like ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
Another common one was "a Giant monster," which we had to stress did not include the Giant Fly.
Brother Tyler wrote:
Right. When we put that in the Conversion Guide, we did not intend it to be optional. The Conversion Guide is correct.
Yeah, I'd say that's any of her checks (and no one else's). By the way, we still use "the X trait" when describing a trait. So "any of your checks to defeat has the Swashbuckling trait" is more accurate.
It's possible I was looking at the wrong Flenta power. Which one do you mean?
Vic hasn't weighed in on the potential FAQ change to Koren, so I'd hold off on that.
Addressing these issues:
That said, I seem to remember a Paizo/Lone Shark person stating way back that they used "she" in the male character powers, and "he" - in female's - ostensibly so they avoid confusion if the character is targeting someone else of him/her/themselves :)
In the core sets, that's true. But we were inconsistent. Reiko, Nyctessa, and Zelhara are some characters that broke that rule, likely because we forgot the rule occasionally.
The singular they is a subject of great debate at the Lone Shark office. Everyone agrees with it philosophically, but the wording is sometimes very awkward. A lot depends on how you feel about the "word" themself. So we try to avoid constructions that lead us down these strange and unfamiliar passages.
Brother Tyler wrote:
This seems likely. Mostly, we have a lot of ideas we'd prefer to do first. But the positive side is that the Core+ format allows us to make Adventure Paths of pretty much any size, so depending on Paizo's interest level in Jade Regent (or anything else), we can now do it a lot easier than we could have. Still, Hayato and Reiko's appearances in Ultimates, plus all of their Eastern-inspired gear, whetted our whistles for Jade Regent for a while.
Brother Tyler wrote:
We're not going to see dedicated Class Decks for the classes that don't yet have them.
This is less clear. We haven't really evaluated whether we're going to do more Class Decks. We are watching the RPG line to see which characters get revived in PF2 and what they look like. Both Valeros and Harsk changed enough in their weapon/armor choices that we will want to make sure we get any new versions of characters right in line with the RPG designers' thoughts.
But if you are playing Curse, you're adding in the Core cards as well, right? So there will still be 2 different Basilisks in a level 3 Curse Adventure, and 2 different Gargoyles in a level 4 Curse Adventure.
Correct. Nothing should stop you from enjoying this, except for the fact that they are Basilisks and Gargoyles.
If you've played Apocrypha, you know that we pulled the "same name, same art, different powers" trick a lot. That's because each chapter of Apocrypha has different mechanics, and we want the cards in each set to respond to its set's mechanics.
For example, the card Paper People in the Candlepoint (e.g., the Base set) chapter's powers are:
But the card Paper People in the Fae chapter has the no-Strike gifts power, but replaces the last power with:
That's because the Fae chapter is where those carnival games powers are, and we wouldn't want the Paper People to be left out of that fun. But in the Base set, that power would make no sense. (Nothing in the Fae chapter makes sense. Guess which Shark wrote it?)
So, after that experience, it wasn't reasonable for us to hold the line in PACG on this subject any more. If there's a Gargoyle in Curse, it should be the Gargoyle it needs to be.
Mike Selinker wrote:
Next week the Core Principles series covers all things conversion-related. We’re taking a list of pre-Core card changes to PaizoCon and discovering anything else we find there.
I misspoke in this comment. I said "next week" where I meant "next Core Principles blog." It'll be up as soon as Vic and company can get the conversion FAQ online, which may or may not be this week.
Thank you, Keith, for the confirmation it is working as intended. I just thought it was counter-intuitive that failing to defeat would have positive consequences, which is very rare - and shuffling into the character's discards seemed even weirder to me. Why shuffle it if discards is open information and I do not know a card that concerns with the card's positions.
While as a rule we don't make cards that care about the position of cards in your discards, we did do it once that I know of: the location Apothecary in Rise of the Runelords. In organized play, we also did that trick with the henchman Lamia Cultist in Season of the Runelords. And if you've played through Apocrypha, you know we made the entire Deathless chapter care about the order of your discards.
So since we might do something like that again, we care that a card like Cultist doesn't let you do something crazy with your discards, because that would give you an advantage we don't want you to have. That is, if we ever did it. Which we probably won't. Maybe.