Wicht's page

This is amazing news! I’d like to echo the call for AP maps as well. I realize that old ones are pretty low-res but you could for example commission high enough resolution maps for VTT for upcoming APs so that newer material sets a higher bar of VTT friendliness.

And to help mitigate the cost of commissioning the higher resolution maps, you could charge folks for the AP VTT packages. I know I'd pay a reasonable fee for something like this. Up to maybe $7.99 per AP book.

This could be a time to make sure the maps also matched up with the dimensions in the AP text and the creatures supposedly within the maps. I.e. No 5 large creatures in a 10x20 room.

CrimsonKnight wrote:

An AP on exploration. expanding the world

lots of encounters with beasts magical and otherwise. skills like cartography and survival playing a big part. another option would be like around the world in X days: a competition with glimpses in all sorts of locations with fights, troubles, mysteries, and puzzles along the way.

I think the around the world in X days would be fun. Especially if the party was in a friendly competition with another adventuring party, like Nellie Bly was with Elizabeth Bisland, although finding the magic Sail of Spirits or fixing the Axle of Ever-spinning three times might become a bit boring.

Oh, a race around the globe! Getting to pick a track with a bunch of set encounters set around and some "roaming encounters". Could be set up sandbox style similar to Kingmaker but with much larger "hexes" to which encounters would be encountered. As they gain levels, they get magic or better traveling technology. Including perhaps steampunky zeppelins (airships) and things like that. This could be super fun.

I still suspect there were already expanded options in the AP. Seems like there would have needed to be to make the police part work.

Those were overridden by the blanket "no lethal damage" in the Guide.

But I agree that part of my problem with the Guide's rule is that it does allow the cop heroes to go on just as in any adventure, acting exactly as they would in any other AP, just not having to worry about killing anything.

At some point though, you have to put the onus on how this plays out on the GMs and Players. Regardless how many unique sub-systems they create or campaign rules they choose to use for this AP, if players and GM's see certain problematic behaviors as "no big deal", that's what they are going to do. And even if they choose to use the most restrictive rule in the sidebar, you are going to have players making characters designed to do massive amounts of non-lethal damage that (at least in 1st edition) are still capable of killing fairly easily.

And yes I do assume, or rather hope a 21st century mindset and morals is the default. I don't want to play with any more "that's just how it was back then".

And therein lies the social contract you make with the groups you choose to associate with. You get to choose what sort of people you want to game with.

But first, I do want to apologize when I speak of 21st century morality, I was not referring to horrible treatment of women, LGBTQIA+, or various ethnicities. I was quite glad to see the 2nd edition Lost Omens go more towards slavery just being evil to be defeated rather than something that exists in polite company.

What I meant by 21st century morality, is more the argument about trying to apply due process and 21st century law and order to what is essentially a collection of feudal societies in various states of authoritarianism, plutocracy, and fledgling democracy. And that may not be what you meant when you say 21st century morality.

I prefer though, to say that the fantasy dressing of the 18th Century France/French Revolution Galt, Pulp/Steampunk/Monster Ustalav, etc. overcomes much of the subjugation and punching down morality in our real history. In a fantasy world, women get to be heroes, leaders, etc. Much like what we see in Once Upon A Time (Regina, Snow, Emma, etc.), Red Sonja, Star Wars (Leia, Rey), etc. I don't consider that 21st century morality. I consider that one of the positive fantasy tropes that gets overlayed on the period and genre settings.

Sorry for the confusion.

Tallow wrote:

Golarion most certainly is a period-specific setting. Or rather, various different regions are different period-specific areas. This is not like its an analog of 21st century earth with fantasy trope dressing. The fact that Galt is the analog for the French Revolution, then it reasonably follows both the 18th Century France morality and French Revolution sub-genre morality along with fantasy trope dressings genre morality and Galt-specific sub-genre morality would be the default. Not 21st century morality. Andoran would be more akin to post-Revolution through Antebellum period US. Ustalav would be akin to pulp-style, 1930's-1950's monster genre, and maybe some steampunk (Verne-esque, Gas Light England/Victorian period, Dr Frankenstein/Dr. Jekyll-Mr. Hide style) tropes. Which is certainly not 21st century morality. I'd be hard put to find the 21st century morality analog anywhere within the varying different genres that Golarion presents.

Dangerous to the verisimilitude of the game you are playing. Anytime I'm playing in a game and the GM or players demand that I apply 21st century morals to the fantasy, period-specific setting, I usually end up opting out of the group. Because If I wanted to roleplay with 1st century morality, I'd play a game which was set in the late 20th to early 21st century and in an earth or near-earth setting. When you start overlaying an inanalogous morality onto a game that is set in the analog of a time period or genre, you threaten to bring your players out of that setting and offer chances for there to be more arguments about alignment and morality than just everyone agreeing on the setting you are playing in. If your play group defaults to 21st century, great. But please don't assume this should be, or is the default for what I'm assuming will be a vast majority of roleplayers.

Do you think the vast majority of players have more than the vaguest idea of what 18th century French morality was like? Maybe French Revolution subgenre morality - but that in...

Players may not know exactly what those moralities were. But they certainly know the world was not 21st century morality. That's the main takeaway. Trying to pidgeonhole 21st century morality into period settings tends to cause more argument than not at the table, in my experience. YMMV.

Tallow wrote:

Rysky wrote:

TwilightKnight wrote:

Finally, we are trying to layer 21st century irl morality and international law onto a fantasy campaign that has neither.

Golarion very much does have a 21st century morality. Perhaps a bit beyond that in all honesty.

I know you and I agree on a lot, but this is not one of those things. I do recall in years past we've had quite a few arguments on this specific topic. I think its dangerous to overlay 21st century morality on a period-specific genre-specific setting. Morality germane to the setting should be more akin to the period-specific and genre-specific settings as you correlate them to a similar time-period in the real world. In this case, somewhere between 2,000 B.C. and the Renaissance.

As always, in your personal circle of friends and/or gaming group, you all tacitly sign a social contract to adhere to a common morality, and if that group wants to overlay 21st century morality over Golarion, then you are not wrong to do so. But claiming that is the demonstrable default is kinda a disingenuous supposition.

1) Golarion is not a "period specific" setting.

2) How is it "dangerous"?

Golarion most certainly is a period-specific setting. Or rather, various different regions are different period-specific areas. This is not like its an analog of 21st century earth with fantasy trope dressing. The fact that Galt is the analog for the French Revolution, then it reasonably follows both the 18th Century France morality and French Revolution sub-genre morality along with fantasy trope dressings genre morality and Galt-specific sub-genre morality would be the default. Not 21st century morality. Andoran would be more akin to post-Revolution through Antebellum period US. Ustalav would be akin to pulp-style, 1930's-1950's monster genre, and maybe some steampunk (Verne-esque, Gas Light England/Victorian period, Dr Frankenstein/Dr. Jekyll-Mr. Hide style) tropes. Which is certainly not 21st century morality. I'd be hard put to find the 21st century morality analog anywhere within the varying different genres that Golarion presents.

Dangerous to the verisimilitude of the game you are playing. Anytime I'm playing in a game and the GM or players demand that I apply 21st century morals to the fantasy, period-specific setting, I usually end up opting out of the group. Because If I wanted to roleplay with 1st century morality, I'd play a game which was set in the late 20th to early 21st century and in an earth or near-earth setting. When you start overlaying an inanalogous morality onto a game that is set in the analog of a time period or genre, you threaten to bring your players out of that setting and offer chances for there to be more arguments about alignment and morality than just everyone agreeing on the setting you are playing in. If your play group defaults to 21st century, great. But please don't assume this should be, or is the default for what I'm assuming will be a vast majority of roleplayers.

TwilightKnight wrote:

Finally, we are trying to layer 21st century irl morality and international law onto a fantasy campaign that has neither.

Golarion very much does have a 21st century morality. Perhaps a bit beyond that in all honesty.

I know you and I agree on a lot, but this is not one of those things. I do recall in years past we've had quite a few arguments on this specific topic. I think its dangerous to overlay 21st century morality on a period-specific genre-specific setting. Morality germane to the setting should be more akin to the period-specific and genre-specific settings as you correlate them to a similar time-period in the real world. In this case, somewhere between 2,000 B.C. and the Renaissance.

As always, in your personal circle of friends and/or gaming group, you all tacitly sign a social contract to adhere to a common morality, and if that group wants to overlay 21st century morality over Golarion, then you are not wrong to do so. But claiming that is the demonstrable default is kinda a disingenuous supposition.

On the non-lethal rules. As a GM, I like for things to make sense. And just changing all damage to non-lethal doesn't make sense. However, I do like the idea that the police would be required to use non-lethal force.

So the idea is, that all character training and backgrounds leading up to being in the city watch, would come from police academy training. I'm not up on 2nd edition, so not sure if these are things (yet?) But options could be strongly encouraging choosing weapons that don't take penalties to do non-lethal (blunt weapons) or offering a feat or trait that allows them to do non-lethal without penalty. Or perhaps non-lethal is the default and they take a -2 to do lethal damage. Because its all about how they are being trained. You could even switch up the weapon categories, where any weapon that traditionally does lethal damage becomes exotic and requires an exotic weapon proficiency feat to use. Its all about the training and how the character was trained.

Furthermore, all spells are modified to do non-lethal damage. That's how the spells are created and work. And you can even come up with different names for them. Like heat ball instead of fireball. And if they find a badguy wizard's spellbook, they might be able to learn fireball, with the understanding that using it could get the fired from the watch and executed for breaking the code. Perhaps because its nonlethal, the reason why heatball is still a 3rd level spell is because it does 1d8/cl instead of 1d6 or whatever.

Sure, that causes a fair amount of extra work by the GM, but it allows the non-lethal damage from the PCs to make sense within both the verisimilitude of the story, and the meta of the game rules themselves.

Finally, badguys don't have this restriction, because this isn't about the rules simply saying, "everything is non-lethal" but rather, "all watch are specifically trained as non-lethal combatants, so that's the default player characters start with."

...this opera-star-turned-ninja concept ...

I am so making this the next new campaign I get to play in.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

The one bit of advice I was looking for that I didn't see is "what if some people want to play officers, and some people don't?" As in, how do you handle a mixed party here? How to adjust the narrative for having both Starsky & Hutch and Nick & Nora Charles in the Party?

Play at the comfort level that allows everyone to have fun. Discuss it with your players, and adjust your solution if actual play becomes uncomfortable.

Well yeah, but a little practical advice on mixing the two would be useful, since there are practical ways the adventures will need to change.

At first glance, I don't see a good way to do it - maybe making the non-cop characters consultants or something? A "party" of officers doing their jobs and concerned citizens trying to help out isn't going to work too well.

Its quite simple really. As the GM you tell the players that you will be playing the most restrictive version of this based on player request, where the minority (even one) gets to choose.

Frankly, that's how gaming groups who actually give two figs about their friends should be playing their games anyways, instead of making the one or two people with more sensitivities to play uncomfortably.

My opinion, is just like its difficult for parents to cook two meals based on child food wants (no, NUGGETS!), its nearly impossible to run two different campaigns based on different player sensitivities, and when you try to allow for all attitudes to play in the same game, that's when you wind up with inter-player conflict when players get made at one another because the Paladin won't allow the Rogue to torture a hobgoblin for information.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

So again, I have to wonder, what big historical changes have been driven by centrism, not causing a fuss, and quietly hoping people in power will just one day become better people?

Because every major progressive movement victory has protesting, rioting and civil disobedience to drive the change. Read a history book.

Okay, first centrism means someone who takes policies from right and them left. Centrism doesn't mean fence sitting. For example, I've always agree with same sex marriage and adoption rights, does that make me a leftist suddenly?

Second, please, don't mix civil disobedience and protest with rioting. Perhaps I am being simplistic, but rioting implies the use of force and violence and that legitimizes the use of force against you in the eyes of the spectator. If anything its poor tactics. I would recommend you read Rules for Radicals or watch a video about it if you are short on time.

Humbly,
Yawar

That's not actually what centrism is.

centrism

In politics, centrism is a political outlook or specific position that involves acceptance or support of a balance of a degree of social equality and a degree of social hierarchy, while opposing political changes which would result in a significant shift of society strongly to either the left or the right.

That sounds a lot like me to, "keep things as they are."

And when discussing centrism in regards to the spectrum of left/right, you are talking about the median of voters, policies, and politicians. In other words, today's centrism is roughly Reagan-level conservatism and policy, where centrism during Reagan's time was more along Elizabeth Warren's actual policies (not what she tried to sign onto with all the socialist democracy stuff).

The point is, calling yourself a centrist doesn't mean, in common political parlance, what you are saying it means.

Its literally sitting in the exact median of the Far Left and Far Right, and that line shifts over the years and decades. Right now, the Centrist seat sits rather closer to GOP conservatism of Reagan than it did during the Reagan years. Because the GOP and conservative politics has really, drastically, gone far right, where many of the current GOP ideals and platform would have been considered freakishly right-wing in the 1980's.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

The vast majority of people arrested weren’t arrested for rioting, they were arrested for protesting.

Again, source please. As far as I know protesting is legal in the USA. However, if they are facing false charges for rioting, a Legal Defense Fund might be even more useful since the Public Defender system sometimes leaves much to be desire.

Have you actually been paying attention? And not just to Fox News? There was a violin vigil done in a park that the police used pepper spray on. That's hardly rioting.

People were getting arrested for not moving away from certain areas fast enough when they were marching or protesting. The charge was disorderly conduct. So they weren't technically arrested for protesting, as you say, that isn't a thing. But they weren't doing anything else but protesting, peacefully, and got arrested under some trumped up charge, simply because they were protesting the police.

YawarFiesta wrote:

However, defunding the police will bring mob rule and lynching as it always happens when there is no police.

It may be worth doing a bit of reading in regard to how police responses to lynchings in the early C19th US "solved" that problem.

See also the Lynwood Vikings and recent case of Robert Fuller: this is not a purely historical or theoretical matter.

Not to mention, actually doing some research into what "defunding the police" actually means and the programs that will replace it. If all you are doing is hearing, "defund the police," and immediately assume, "that means there will be vast swaths of anarchy and lawlessness," then you are doing yourself and everyone you communicate with a vast disservice.

I mean main reason why 3d combat is hard in pathfinder is stuff like "okay, diagonal squares take different amount of feet to move through than other ones" so it becomes harder to visualize the 3d space you move through and how much movement it takes. Its not really that 3d combat even in normal tabletop is inherently impossible to do, its that it requires tools and rules to make it clearer than 2d combat if you aren't using theater of the mind.

(flying and underwater combat are really same difficulty wise, especially if you get attacked while flying)

My group has famously used the Pythagorean Theorem to figure distances when doing 3D combat. And you treat Up/Down movement the same as lateral movement as far as squares go as long as you figure every small/medium creature takes up a 5' cube and large takes up 10' cube, etc.

FallenDabus wrote:

Tallow wrote:

zimmerwald1915 wrote:

keftiu wrote:

Green Eyed Liar wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

Just popping in to say a "Disney Princess AP," as an elevator pitch for a campaign, is rad.

We could absolutely do this.

And it's not like so many of the stories Disney made movies out of are their stories. All of Grimms' Fairy Tales are in the public domain.

This is pretty much how I view Jade Regent.

You have now made me desperately want a Tian Xia fairytale AP.

NB: fairies and fairy-stories are a distinctively European folklore. Simply transplanting them elsewhere risks misrepresenting "elsewhere" as similar to Europe and erasing "elsewhere's" uniqueness.

I think he was using "fairytale" ubiquitously as folklore tale.

If by "he" you mean James, yes. If you mean Keftiu, you should be using she.

I will also put my hat in the ring for a planar AP that starts, stays, and ends on the planes.

I appreciate that. And I was using “fairytale” as a shorthand for “a massive untapped wealth of folktales and myth, not least of which wuxia,” which is tough to type on a phone.

I apologize for misgendering.

Obligation? No. But when you admit to a particular, problematic style of mistake that leads to problematic content decisions, then it obviously leads to the question.

How are you planning to deal with that concern in the future?

They don't need to lay out an entire itinerary and such. But at least some sort of reaction or response ensuring they are working on steps to help would be nice.

I guess this essay by one of few black people in the gaming industry, Mike Pondsmith from R Talsorian game, the author of worryingly current Cyberpunk RPG, could open a white eyelid or two.

I've been reading a lot of accounts like this from BIPOC people, some of whom I know personally and are friends of mine. Maybe an account like this from a well-respected gamer community icon will enlighten gamers who are still clinging to the "old way." I've also read the account he linked to before; the one from the ex-corrupt cop.

Ixal wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

Ixal wrote:

Some cops really are like on the screen, both good and bad, most are just doing their job.

What makes you think that?

Personal experience not influenced by twitter and other social media which try to push public opinion in one direction or the other + common sense when comparing the statistics of incidents during police contacts with the total amount of police contacts each day.

How representative do you think your personal experience is?

The last interaction I had with a cop was lovely. He pulled me over for speeding and was terribly apologetic that the statute in our state takes away his discretion and that he had to write me a ticket even though he’d rather let me off with a warning. We chatted about local life, he admired my car and he wished me safe travels. He didn’t say “Nice car...is it yours?” I had no fear for my safety when he pulled me over. He didn’t search it, run my registration, examine my license or check it was mechanically sound. In short, it was exactly the kind of interaction everyone should have (and it was exactly what I expected).

Sadly, that’s not the standard experience for many black people. Maybe they’re just unlucky, I’m the statistical norm and as you assert “most cops are just doing their job”. There is an alternative explanation though. You don’t want to question your assumptions? (How much “comparing of statistics” have you actually done? The stats I’ve seen don’t look rosy).

Let us also consider that guilt by association is a valid thing in the eye of perception. It might not get you landed behind bars, or legally be wrong (unless its directly assisting a crime), unless of course your association is with a demographic that is systemically policed against.

In this case, there is a solidarity among most police officers, that they remain silent. Its a culture of "no snitching". So if you see an associate doing something wrong, or even dangerous, and you don't speak up or stop it, aren't you complicit in that action? In this case, the idea that there are only a few bad cops and the majority are good... If the "good" cops aren't ousting the bad cops from their ranks (or at least doing their best to rehabilitate), then aren't they tacitly approving of the poor actions? And if they are tacitly approving of the bad cops, doesn't that in turn make them bad cops?

To bring us back to the conversation about why this seems to be such a hot-button topic:

Anything that through our common modern media has been romanticized, tends not to be a hot button topic. Pirates, medieval, sword & sorcery, etc. has been romanticized in literature and film for far longer than the Pirates of the Caribbean have been a thing. Its why those movies have been able to be popular. Sure, pirates were, by-and-large, horrible people. And medieval times were pretty awful to live in as far as quality of life (at least as far as we consider what is comfortable living.)

The reason why a police-centric theme is a hot-button topic, and a hard one to swallow, is because of how demonized police are in our society right now. Because its happening RIGHT NOW. Its also a situation in which our society hasn't figured out how exactly to deal with it yet. We are all kinda on this edge of a precipice wondering what our police force is going to look like in 10 years and whether its going to get cleaned up in how it treats BIPOC. And its affecting everyone, so its not something we can easily ignore and stick to the romanticized buddy cop and cop drama tropes we are all so familiar with from film and TV shows.

If we were in a world where piracy was a primary concern, playing a pirate centered game might not be real appealing.

So yes, a large reason why this particular AP's theme is unappealing to many, is because its a right now social issue with man, many nuanced variables that most of us are not equipped to parse, let alone do justice to portray positively without in some way being offensive.

James Jacobs wrote:

That'd require building in some extensive downtime elements tho the campaign, and would force some, if not all, of the players to invest in crafting. Not everyone's into that. A "return the items" Adventure Path will already not be something that a lot of folks are into, I suspect, as interesting and compelling as it is to me and others, and putting further restrictions on PC choices would make this an even riskier thing for us to tie up a six month adventure (or even a three month one) with.

This is EXACTLY the sort of story that I think would work better as a stand-alone adventure. There's a lot of adventures that would work better as stand-alones, even if said stand-alone were hundreds of pages long.

James, first of all, it is really awesome that you weigh in and give us insight like this. I really appreciate it, and communication like this and your live streams are part of why I love Golarion so much.

I agree that you don't want to limit players to only getting items from building them, but a couple of really cool items that can be built, combined with an NPC that could do the building, if convinced, could go a long way to mitigate the "you must have a master crafter to play this AP."

I also think it could be really cool to work against a subset of the pathfinder society, but it might be easier to have some terrible outsider monsters that also bring loot-worthy treasure in the tombs, (something like devils or other extra-dimensional contract bounty hunters) looking to either prevent the items' return or fulfill the curse/original threat.

I could see this working as a super dungeon instead of a AP as well, although I thought having long thematic downtime elements was something APs were looking to include in PF2? There could also be a fair bit of interesting social encounters of trying to get permission to be the ones to return the items to places where the locals might be a little hostile to the people who originally took them.

There are also some tropes that could be built into the adventure at strategic points that allows players to build toward unique iconic characters. Who hasn't read the Riftwar Saga and wanted to be Tomas wearing his Dragon Armor?

If the return of sacred artifacts in turn allowed the organization receiving the returned artifacts to reward the PCs with stuff. Or in the process of seeking out the secret, hidden Tomb of Branthenal to return his Gauntlets of Blasting to his corpse to stop a curse from sweeping over the countryside, the PCs save a mysterious nature spirit disguised as a merchant in distress, who rewards them with things. Or they manage to stumble across another ancient tomb and repository of power and after showing due deference to that tomb the ancience spirit of Bahamut's spokesperson grants each character an item from the hord.

These are ways where you can grant players "kits" of gear that turn them into the Dragon Paladin/Cavalier that Tomas became or the White Gold Ring that turned Thomas Covenant into the White Gold Wielder. A truly epic adventure that allows players to mold their characters into and around and become the story, rather than just being a conglomeration of the best stats and items that disjointedly shoehorns into the adventure.

I'd gobble this up like Mint Chocolate Chip!

Tallow wrote:

Wow, I honestly hope I never run into a group that's okay with acting out a rape fantasy. That really breaths life into the whole neckbeard negative stereotype of gamer dudes.

That’s partially the point. You won’t. Even most racists know they are and are comfortable with it. But, they generally know not to bring it to a public game like PFS because it’s not going to be welcome or tolerated. If they want to participate they have to stifle it. With a few exceptions of course. I’m not saying that OP is devoid of problem players. Just generally it’s not a problem. The places where it will come up most is places where it won’t matter. If you are an open racists then you’re probably playing like minded people. It is quite possible for there to be racial bigots in a lot of our gaming groups, but as long as they check it at the door, you may not even be aware of it.

Sure, but as I don't play PFS anymore (haven't really since the end of 2016), it would be home groups that I'd come across. And it sounded a lot like several posters were promoting the right of groups of players to play in whatever style they want to play. I know that we try our best to be inclusive and not say "badwrongfun". But I'm gonna say it.

Just like tabletop RPGs can help socially awkward people, shy, and people on the spectrum or with high levels of anxiety incorporate into a group of people in a positive manner, so to can such groups perpetuate hatred, bigotry, and negativity. If a group of people get together to roleplay in an echo chamber of misogyny, hatred, etc., how is that really any different than a club of people who think like that getting together to think like that?

Rysky wrote:

TheFinish wrote:

It has everything to do with you and your players sensitivities, or preferences, or however you wish to call them.

You don't speak for everyone, and some people may enjoy such dark plot points in their campaigns. They're not wrong for doing so, just as you're not wrong for disliking it.

If you as the GM or a player at the table spring a mind control and/or rape scenario on another character with out everyone's buy in that is 100% on you.

Consent is paramount, and just carte-blanche declaring [I]some[/I[] people like dark stuff doesn't make it all okay or permission to use it everywhere and anywhere.

Yes some people do, are those some people all the people at the table? It's your kink doesn't make it everyone's kink, nor does it mean such a topic shouldn't be treated carefully and seriously.

And...where exactly did I say you shouldn't get consent for this kind of stuff? Or use it all the time? Oh wait, I know: nowhere.

My issue was mostly at you saying this:

Rysky wrote:

In game if a character uses mind control to rape another character it's not a fun game.

It has nothing to do with my or my player's "sensitivities".

Because:

a) You don't get to declare what is and isn't fun for anyone, except yourself.

and

b) As I already said, it absolutely has to do with you and your player's sensitivities.

Because RPGs are all group activities, you should always speak to the group when it comes to...well, everything mostly, but especially stuff like this.

And if the whole group is ok with it and wants to partake, that's excellent. And if some people do and some don't, you either reach a compromise of some kind, or one of the sides leaves.

And everyone gets on with their lives.

Wow, I honestly hope I never run into a group that's okay with acting out a rape fantasy. That really breaths life into the whole neckbeard negative stereotype of gamer dudes.

Tallow wrote:

keftiu wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

zimmerwald1915 wrote:

Hythlodeus wrote:

from james l. sutter's twitter account

Can we gloat now?

About what?

In the worst case scenario this is a very unfortunate story that delivers bad or mixed messages regarding the police. That's not something to celebrate.

There’s a degree of “everyone told us our concerns were hyperbole and now we have word from one of the writers that they were pretty much on the money.” Am I happy about it? Of course not. But a good chunk of this discussion has been people saying we were wrong to worry at all and there’s a bitter kind of vindication in seeing this.

If we say there’s a problem, and the writer says there’s a problem, then maybe everyone else can also admit there might be a problem...

Sure, however the comment, "Can we gloat now?" Is extremely tone deaf from someone who stands on their soapbox quite often in regards these issues. Like they cared more about winning the argument, than the issues the argument was over. That's called performative allyship, and isn't a good look.

I don't disagree. I hope you can understand where the frustration that motivates that sentiment comes from, even if it isn't a helpful one.

Certainly I do. But if you are going to proselytize being better, then it becomes hollow sentiment if you don't practice what you preach.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

zimmerwald1915 wrote:

Hythlodeus wrote:

from james l. sutter's twitter account

Can we gloat now?

About what?

In the worst case scenario this is a very unfortunate story that delivers bad or mixed messages regarding the police. That's not something to celebrate.

There’s a degree of “everyone told us our concerns were hyperbole and now we have word from one of the writers that they were pretty much on the money.” Am I happy about it? Of course not. But a good chunk of this discussion has been people saying we were wrong to worry at all and there’s a bitter kind of vindication in seeing this.

If we say there’s a problem, and the writer says there’s a problem, then maybe everyone else can also admit there might be a problem...

Sure, however the comment, "Can we gloat now?" Is extremely tone deaf from someone who stands on their soapbox quite often in regards these issues. Like they cared more about winning the argument, than the issues the argument was over. That's called performative allyship, and isn't a good look.

Tallow wrote:

TwilightKnight wrote:

zimmerwald1915 wrote:

Today police are universally, without exception, the armed thugs of capital which is everywhere without exception dependent upon exploitation.

No, just no

While I typically haven't agreed with zimmerwald1915's narrative lately, and the rhetoric is quite inflammatory, outright dismissing what they are saying, instead of engaging with what the reasons might be for why they feel that way, certainly does not help the general positive forwarding discourse on why #Blacklivesmatter needs to be a thing.

No, I’m not going to engage in conversation with someone who makes universally disgusting comments vilifying entire group of people just because they are mad at a few of them. Are some cops corrupt? Most certainly. And if what was said was “police are armed thugs” then we could all agree that the “not all” tag could reasonably be applied and therefore the statement would be arguably reasonable. However, that not what was said. “Universally, without exception” is not even close to being a reasonable statement. When someone makes such a claim (1) no, I am not going to let it stand and (2) no, I don’t owe that person anything anymore than a person who supports black lives matter owes a white supremist a general positive forwarding discourse.

But you did engage, in a dismissive way, by responding at all. If you truly find the comment that repulsive and don't want to engage, then don't. But posting up dismissive comments without any followup language does not help all the rest of us who are following the conversation. If you have a different viewpoint, then state it, so the rest of us can make an informed decision on who we feel best represents what's real and true. But when you just say, "No." You aren't just shutting down conversation with that person, you are making it exceedingly difficult for anyone else to engage and have a meaningful conversation.

Honestly, we know what sort of conversation to expect from different people when we've engaged with them long enough. You and I are no exception. And if we choose not to engage with that person, that's fine. That's an incredibly valid choice. We have to take care of our own mental health before we start worrying about what some nitwit on the internet said. But engaging in a negative and dismissive way is not helpful.

zimmerwald1915 wrote:

Today police are universally, without exception, the armed thugs of capital which is everywhere without exception dependent upon exploitation.

No, just no

While I typically haven't agreed with zimmerwald1915's narrative lately, and the rhetoric is quite inflammatory, outright dismissing what they are saying, instead of engaging with what the reasons might be for why they feel that way, certainly does not help the general positive forwarding discourse on why #Blacklivesmatter needs to be a thing.

Windjammer wrote:

Shisumo wrote:

The sheriff also explictly says "bring them in alive" and is not happy with PCs who don't do so.

Did the sheriff solicit pre-meditated killing as an option? Yes or no?

No, she absolutely does not. I'm not even sure where you're getting the impression from. Acknowledging that you might have to kill someone in self-defense is light-years away from saying that you should totally straight-up murder them.

Going in with the intent to bring a law-breaker and heinous mass-murderer, alive, but given the right to defend yourself, lethally if need be, is the exact opposite of justifying premeditated killing.

The nuance here, though, is whether the group of players use that as an excuse to just kill. Which, frankly, is often the case from my experience.

That is not the fault of the AP though, that is the fault of players who choose to be bloodthirsty hooligans instead of the upstanding citizens the AP assumes they are.

That's how I've read it too Shisumo.

I see. The new consensus is that a person about to be arrested by citizens screaming "Help me! These people are trying to kill me!" - without even exercising physical means of self-defense or trying to flee her home -is unlawfully resisting arrest and deserves to get killed.

With that kind of readership response, Edgewatch's plot lines should not pose any problems whatsoever.

Again, I think you are misrepresenting, for some reason, what's actually written in the text of the AP. And you just actively ignored the part where the Sheriff wants this person brought in alive.

Shisumo wrote:

CorvusMask wrote:

Yeah, I don't think police is synonymous with violence, or at least they shouldn't be :P

As has been noted elsewhere, to a certain extent the concept of law and therefore law enforcement is rooted in the threat of violence to be meted out against the violator of those laws. That said, while violence can never be fully removed from the toolbox of the state as a means to carry out its will, there's a pretty substantial spectrum of options one could theoretically employ before even nonlethal violence would have to be placed on the table.

You say that, but that is culture shock to me since while on some level that isn't wrong, its not how local police here is perceived(as "they COULD use non violent options, but don't" I mean), so the idea that any police force is perceived as violent thugs makes me wonder "Why are they allowed to exist? Police isn't supposed to be like that"

Like what kind of police goes for violent solutions as the first solution? :/ (well okay the fascist police or ones that behave like street gang :P Police having that type of reputation does explain to me why people hate the word itself, but its still really shocking to me)

I don't know if you are of the BIPOC community or not, so please take what I'm about to say in that context.

What you are saying is exactly what most white privileged people say, who are from predominantly white privileged neighborhoods. White people don't often view police in the same way as BIPOC people do, because our experiences are drastically and fundamentally different. This is food for thought.

I imagine the Heist AP could be written a couple ways:

1) Robin Hood-esque: Where the PCs are stealing from the rich to give to the poor. Probably starting in a small city district or hamlet (or fiefdom where they are doing mostly heists of transport carriages and perhaps the Lord Knight's Mott and Bailey keep. And eventually merge into needing to do the heists of the BBEG's domain to steal the powerful artifact he's going to use to own the world.

2) Morally Ambiguous: Where they are a group of morally questionable people doing heists for their own ambitions, and during one heist happen across something really nefarious and evil. Probably after shrugging about it, they keep heisting, but the evil knowing the PCs are a loose end, the BBEG commands his henchmen to take out the meddling rogues. So for self-preservation, the PCs have to continue conning and heisting their way to learning where, who, and what the BBEG really is, and then figuring out how to take him out in a really cool, well-staged heist/con.

A Heist or Espionage focused AP would be awesome!

I'd like an AP that surrounds picking a high level patron, convincing (or supporting) them to take the Test of the Star Stone, and then essentially building the trappings of church heirarchy. What they stand for, and who the enemies are.

For a First World AP, I think it would be pretty fun if the PCs flitted between the First World and the parts of Golarion where fey are prominent, taking the party across the inner sea. The Verduran Forest, various parts of the River Kingdoms, Axan Wood, IIRC there are a couple mountain ranges, etc.

The Fangwood in Nirmithas as well.

It could certainly be a way to revisit several locations already visited in other APs as well.

Paradozen wrote:

Sporkedup wrote:

Paradozen wrote:

I'd love to see an AP set in the Impossible Lands. There is a whole lot of cool stuff going on over there. Plus, fleshing out Oenopion is a great excuse to bring the Oozemorph to 2e.

Agreed.

Though I thought I heard that the person responsible for this region is no longer with Paizo and no one else is that interested in telling stories in their region? Shame if so.

I'm pretty sure the Impossible Lands (or at least Nex) is one of the corners of the world from Erik Mona. They're still with Paizo so we might see an AP there yet. Plus, Lost Omens Legends will have information on the wizards Nex and Geb (last I checked anyways), so that's nice.

Oh! Okay. Wonder which region I was thinking of. Eric does have a lot on his plate right now though.

Previously, various different creators, designers, developers, and publishers "owned" various countries or regions of Golarion. And that area of the planet was usually left alone, unless there was consultation with that person, so that any "plans" or "canon" would not get stepped upon. Which is why you didn't really see anything in Geb, Nex and not much in the Mana Wastes. But as Publisher, Erik Mona didn't have much time to actually write material, and so nothing got done in that region. Other areas had similar fates.

My understanding, as PF2 was getting off the ground, that regions were going to be detached from specific people, so that developers could work on any region. Although, this might have changed, and out of respect, many developers might still choose to stay away from Erik's region.

I understand the relevance of European colonization, but focusing only on that interaction to the exclusion of others is it's own form of white bias. After all most of us posting learned an Indo-European language as our first tongue and the shared cultural elements from the Yamnaya (or its close cousins from the Eurasian steppe) is very arguably way more of an impactful homogenizing event. Even less widespread conflicts are significant parts of local history. Assuming that modern European influence is the only trauma and issue needed to understand them really strips local ethnicities of agency and the importance of their own history prior to the Age of Discovery.

You could say that Genghis Khan also colonized a huge portion of the world, stretching from the China Sea, to parts of India, across Asia, and deep into Eastern Europe. While it wasn't necessarily the exact same type of colonization (in that it wasn't a rich, white man, exploiting the foreign lands for more wealth at the horrid expense of indigenous lives), it was still a conquering nation--so much so that 0.5% of the world's population (roughly 17 million) can trace their DNA to him.

Where is the best space for the discussion on paizo content being too white European focused that the OP and Zimmerwald seem to want to have ?

At this point its probably best moved to another thread. Almost everything that can be said has been said. It would be nice to see people respond with ideas for what the OP asked instead of sidetracking the conversation past the suggestion for what Zimmerwald wants to see. That's been done. No need to now hijack this thread for purposes of discussing the merits, ethics, and politics of his suggestion or what Paizo already does.

Depends. Some of the early and other side plots in APs feel very small. Especially if the players have characters tailored for the adventure, where sometimes they feel really disconnected while it's fetch quests and things.

Sure, if all the GM does is present them as fetch quests and unnecessary side things just to get folks experience or to fill out an adventure, its no wonder why players might feel disconnected. While I would prefer the authors/developers/editors to ensure that these side quests are tied more closely to the story either as a red herring or a foreshadowing of things to come, that's not always realistic to expect. And a GM who makes the NPCs behind these quests interesting and even recurring characters (even if they are just throw-away shop keepers within the AP), then the players can feel engaged and have fun regardless of how closely tied they are to the adventure itself. Why? Because you are directly creating fun character relationships that the players get to explore and have fun with throughout the story.

I'm not going to say that all APs are flawless. They clearly aren't. But even a bad adventure can be made fun if the GM puts in the effort to do so. If the GM just runs the script, then even the most engaging and fun adventure can be a slog though.

thejeff wrote:

zimmerwald1915 wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Perhaps it shows that they're trying to have a world that matches a lot of fantasy genre fiction (of different flavors in different places so they can tell different stories), rather than making some ideological point? Glossing over a lot of the horrors of real world history, while keeping some in place to play with.

Not that they think capitalist monarchies are the ideal form of society, but that monarchical trappings are a mainstay of fantasy stories.

. . . They literally restored a Romanov. You can't get much more on-the-nose about your ideological orientation.

Put another way, "why not both?"

Also, admitting that you're whitewashing for the sake of some other goal doesn't make the whitewashing something else.

And therefore what: Paizo developers are monarchists? They believe in the divine right of kings? Why does this say anything about "ideological orientation"? One can enjoy fantasy stories in medieval kingdoms and still not want to live in a real one.

There’s also the commercial reality. They need to produce what they think they can sell as well as what they’re interested in.

And part of appealing to a wider audience is offering that wider audience more representation within the story. As a Gen X, Cis-Het White Dude, I don't know what it feels like to never read a book, comic book, see a movie, or TV show without seeing someone that looks or feels like me. But I do know that I've heard many folks who are either POC or don't identify the same as me gender or sexuality-wise saying that they had a hard time getting into sci-fi/fantasy or comic books because they didn't see someone that represented them (side note: Its why spiderman became so ubiquitous and popular amongst the nerd culture.)

So I have no issue with Paizo choosing to show a wider representation within their published works so as to include more people who are different than me in their fandom and this hobby. One way to get sales is to also find a wider market for those sales.

What really chaps me, is the comment using "representation" as a pejorative and using "verisimilitude" as a way to justify this view. What I garner from that, is the reviewer wants to only adventure in a world that represents them. They can't conceive of a fictional world that doesn't look like the history of the real world or don't find it enjoyable to play in that fictional world. They like the idea of being misogynistic, racist, and/or homophobic, even if on a subtle, inferred, or undercurrent level, within their game. Because somehow, without the Patriarchy of heterosexuals, the world doesn't seem realistic to them.

My take, is that Paizo is trying to have a world where anyone, regardless of race, creed, ethnicity, sexuality, gender identity, or anything else, can be a leader of people. And that's awesome!

Tallow wrote:

I think we are really starting to narrow down the specific issues in transition between books.

.

Yeah, for me, to get what I was hoping for from this Thread, I'd love to see some posts really detailing a few specific cases in individual AP volumes. (I had to not-read the Council of Thieves posts because it, along with HR and HV, are the ones I can't have spoilers to.)

And then, looking at those cases, see if it's really true at all and how significant or insignificant a problem it is.

I've only run* Kingmaker and Ironfang Invasion, and played* Reign of Winter and Skulls and Shackles.

*I've done bits and pieces, mostly of book 5 and 6 for PFS, of Rise of the Runelords, Shattered Star, Jade Regent, Iron Gods, & Giantslayer and I played through book 2 of Carrion Crown as an AP. So none of these are really APs I can speak to in regards to transition.

Kingmaker: The transition between book 1 and 2 was the most seamless. Book 2 and 3 was maybe a little jarring, since the entire book more or less had nothing to do with the overall metaplot except for I think a couple kingdom events (which were like secondary and tertiary side encounters). Book 3 to 4 also had some issues in transition and book 4 to 5 kinda did, but it actually made sense. Book 6 tied it all together so its transition was fine. But what tied it all together was doing the Kingdom Building, and as long as exploration and expansion was the focus of the adventure, then the jarring transitions were mitigated almost entirely. I can imagine if you played without that aspect and just played the story, with the kingdom stuff in the background, the GM would have had to work hard on the transitions. I did not have to work hard on them.

Skulls & Shackles: I've only played the first 3 books, and the transitions are pretty good as it follows the natural progression of shanghai'd slaves to pirate lords without missing much of a beat (at least through book 3, no idea if this trend continues.) The only issues I had were the sub-games in book 1 and 2 became monotonous. Book 3 rocked.

Reign of Winter: I've played through book 5, and the central conceit of the entire AP makes the transitions fine. They would be jarring if the players don't buy into this central conceit. But with buy-in to the central conceit, the transitions make perfect sense and work very well. Each book is entirely and incredibly different from the last (with the exception of book 1 & 2), and without the central conceit, they would literally be 6 separate adventures barely stitched together with any cohesion. But it actually works really well, because of the reason why they are so drastically different.

I feel like, perhaps (and I'm kinda speaking out of turn, because I'm assuming) the reason some transitions are seen as faulty, is because the developer did not devise a cool tool by which to help the GM transition from story to story smoothly.

No s!&~.

If someone is spouting hateful nonsense like that their credibility is already in the gutter, whatever other points and their attempt at validity are swept away.

Agreed. I'm not going to waste my time listening to someone who is full-on bigotry. Even if some of their points are valid, I tune them out entirely.

Another Council of Thieves inconsistency (no spoiler is necessary here):
The biggest reason this AP is held in such low regard ist failed expectations. From the start it seems, the PCs have a chance to strike against House Thrune. If the beginning of the campaign would have concentrated on themes like "Make Westcrown Great Again" or "We are Batman" the reviews would have been much more favorable, because then the expectations would have met the outcome of the AP.

I think we are really starting to narrow down the specific issues in transition between books that W E Ray initially spoke about, when they are written by different authors. In many cases, an author of an earlier book might make unintentional promises that never get realized because it wasn't in the outline/adventure skeleton assignments handed to the authors by the developer. This is why more comprehensive collaboration is important, in my opinion.

I mean, I agree that GM advice of "If players make a really long deduction that they are proud of, you can change things so its true so that players feel happy about being right" can be good idea, but it can also be good idea to let players sometimes just be wrong about their assumption.

I think its a long-time trope/inside joke, "Hey, don't say that, you'll give the GM ideas!"

I do, though, enjoy with player assumptions in creating encounters or side adventures that were never intended.

I think that was sort of what Tallow was getting at, but I wouldn't consider it an egregious example. I've sat down to tables and heard GM comments like "well this isn't a very good scenario" and variations multiple times before we even begin. It is really obnoxious, when you realize the GM is basically saying right off the bat we are here to have fun, but it ain't going to happen.

I think a large part of it is a lack of self awareness about how deeply enmeshed 'Comicbook Guy' attitudes are among players and the perpetual meta critiquing.

How easy it was to change this was really made clear to me a few years ago. I played 9-02 at GenCon and I had the worst GM in society play I ever experienced. He clearly did not know Pathfinder rules well, had very low GM skills in general, and I don't think he had any clue about actual PFS rules since he broke about half of them. The scenario itself does not have a good reputation on top of that. As luck would have it I was assigned to GM that scenario at a con about a month later. After actually reading the scenario I could see there were some potentially confusing points, and it was an oddly philosophical scenario. But partially because my experience was so bad I was motivated to give my players a fair shot at enjoying the scenario. All I had to do was decide ahead of time how to handle the rough spots and both of my tables went off just fine. I didn't hear a single complaint, and all it really took was the right attitude.

Exactly! This is exactly my point.

There is one scenario I point to specifically, that while PFS was going, came out as the Season 3 special "Cyphermage Dilemma". The previous Season 2 special was pretty good, and the Season 4 special rocked. But this was just a really odd choice to make the special. It was not a very well written scenario. And yet, as a Venture-Officer at the time (the only ones allowed to run them for 1 year), I ran this one 5 or 6 times (a couple of which were at conventions.) I've had players tell me that they stuck around PFS because of that scenario. I've had brand new players signed up to play after running it for them. Why? Because I did what I could to make it fun for the players. I didn't have to rewrite or change anything. I just approached it with a good attitude and really allowed the players to succeed with nifty plans and roleplayed the badguys in a keystone cop way and it turned out to just be a ball of laughs and fun.

It can be the worst thing in the world, and if you want your players to have fun, don't tell them that during or before play.

Rysky wrote:

Necromancers aren’t required for undead, plenty (and most) just spontaneously arise on their own :3

Fifteen dwaves died. Five rose as undead. That is an extremely high reanimation rate for spontaneous reanimation.

** spoiler omitted **

The high rate of dead dwarves rising as undead persuaded my players that the remains of torture were evidence of a necromantic ritual.

And if I declared aloud to my players,...

Tallow wrote:

Some GMs vocally complain about the problems with the AP during play, which as a player I hate. Don't tell me what sucks, just do what you need to do to make it enjoyable.

So all you're asking is that the GM does unpaid adventure-writing work on your behalf, and that they do it better than the professional adventure writer did, and that they never let you know they're doing it so you don't have to be grateful to them?

As a GM and published adventure author who does just all of that, I don't expect my GMs to do any more than I do myself.

But if they aren't prepared to run an adventure to such a degree that issues within it catch them so off guard that they take valuable play time to complain and moan about the terribleness of the adventure, then that's not a GM I want to play with.

You don't need to be a published or experienced adventure writer to figure out how you are going to handle such a poor writing situation while you run it for your players. Because presumably you spent more than 5 minutes reading that and know what the issues are, and can easily figure out what you are going to do so your players will enjoy it.

An example would be a horse stable that has several 5' x 10' stalls and the monsters inside are all large without actually enough room to all fit in that building let alone fight in the building. So as a GM you just either make the stables larger or the creatures medium-sized instead.

Another example would be if there is a huge plot hole that doesn't make much sense, and as a GM you don't have time to write the filler bit. Just don't talk about it during play. Likely the players aren't going to even catch that there is a plot hole, because there are tons of things players aren't privy to that the GM is when playing the game. So you even bringing up that there is this gaping hole is only going to bring it to the player's attention and help them not enjoy the adventure. Almost zero effort. Actually, more effort would go into complaining during play than just doing nothing about the plot hole.

Not sure why you acted all offended by that comment.

Billy Buckman wrote:

If all APs have one unavoidable, fundamental disconnect it's this: the PCs don't exist. They are faceless entities in the published volumes, and the AP only has enough room to give you a handful of ideas and possibilities. Connecting your weird band of freaks to the world of the AP is the connective tissue that helps bridge potential gaps or lulls in the narrative across the 6 books, imo.

I don't see that as a disconnect so much as a golden opportunity for a GM to take the story we provide and customize it to their specific group. That's the whole point of a tabletop RPG, I think, and the primary advantage that it continues to have over computer RPGs.

Without this "disconnect" it's just a story that you read to yourself or friends.

THIS! I think one of the reasons my players enjoy my running of Kingmaker as much as they do, is because I've done my best to adapt the story to not just the characters, but also the players. It also doesn't help that they love resource management (which surprised me). So much so, that one player who's a coder created a pretty complicated online app (with a hex map and everything) to track all the kingdom building stuff.

Also, I wanted to comment one one of W E Ray's comments about Kingmaker.

I think one thing that would be helpful (and probably happened more to a certain extent on the APs that have the best transitions), is to ensure that your authors collaborate with one another. I seem to recall Thursty holding court at Paizo Con many times talking about collaborating with other authors and making sure something he wanted to do would fit with what the other author was doing (or seeing if that other author could add a paragraph or two) so his thing would make more cohesive sense.

When writing in a shared world, writing in isolation is likely to ensure the most difficult of transitions from one adventure to another. I imagine though, different authors, with the infinite number of writing methodology they use, it may be more or less difficult to quickly and comprehensively collaborate with one another.

But if I had one bit of advice for Paizo, it would be to ensure that their authors do more collaboration on a distinctly comprehensive level to ensure that the story threads remain cohesive.

I doubt Paizo will give you an official ruling on this, because it shouldn't need an official ruling. There is no ruling that once you lose an ability from one source that no other source can possibly give it back to you.

The GM is flat out wrong.