Palace of the Silver Princess. It's a fabulous little meat-grinder of an adventure. Shoot, there's a decent chance on the first floor that the first thing the players will encounter is a mama bear and her two cubs. I like to convert it to each new edition as one of my many yardsticks for measuring the changes.
Scott Betts wrote:
I happily and proudly fly my gaming elitist flag. I've never claimed anything else. If you aren't awesome, don't bother coming to my table. I don't pull punches, I don't go out of my way to ensure players' survivals, and I don't care who that bothers.
Scott Betts wrote:
If a player's investment to the campaign is at all tied to their character's involvement in the campaign, then removing that character from the campaign (via death or otherwise) necessarily lessens that player's involvement.
Involvement does not equal investment. You should still be just as interested and excited abou the campaign, whether you die a thousand times or not at all.
Save-or-die effects didn't have a lot of fans to begin with. Every major player in the industry is moving away from them, Pathfinder included. This is a good thing.
Irony, thy name is difficulty arguments.
Yes, I want the whole of gaming to move towards more difficult territory. I want all of society to stop being so wussified.
Scott Betts wrote:
They just want a game where they aren't going to have to start over from scratch due to poor luck on their part, because having to start over from scratch destroys the character's investment in the story and seriously damages the player's.
But it shouldn't. Going through a couple of characters during a campaign should not lessen your personal investment in the campaign. Poor luck can be a killer. That's simply a part of the gameplay that people like myself enjoy - otherwise, we'd houserule away save or die effects.
Now, I know that gaming, in general, is moving away from concepts that I tend to prefer. I just had almost this exact same conversaation not a week ago. I want games to be harder. Tabletop, video game, etc. - all of it. For video games, the difficulty of Ninja Gaiden, Demon's Souls, and pretty much anything from the coin-op era ought to be standard for the "easy" settings, IMO.
Indeed. I would LOVE to see A Witch Is Born, Tower of the Elephant, or Queen of the Black Coast done as a movie.
Scott Betts wrote:
The complaints I hear most often leveled at old-school gaming are:
1. Combat is too "swingy".
If you have to adjust to increase character survival to get younger players to make an investment, you are making it easier.
And yes, sometimes, rocks do fall, and you die.
I am sort of in the same situation. Group fell apart recently, trying to get them back together. Younger players tend to want to win too much for my taste. I wonder if things will continue this way, and if in 30 years, the players just getting into the game will sneer at how easy the youth of that day and age want everything to be.
I'm hoping this is some kind of very clever satire. I really am.
I can also cite people in podcasts who work for Paizo (IIRC) who stated you don't need to give everyone the "big 6" to compete in Pathfinder.
And they're absolutely right.
I, personally, have never had a problem with magic marts. Sometimes they show up, sometimes they don't. It makes little difference.
Thomas LeBlanc wrote:
Tell your liver, kindneys and pancreas that I feel their pain.
Crimson Jester wrote:
Words fail me at times and this is one of them. Some seem to think that faith lacks any reason or forethought. I am just the opposite, while I lost my trust in religious institutions for a while, I cannot ignore the truth that I have witnessed. Expressing it is much harder than I am used to, being fairly quiet on many subjects in person. This being quite personal on many levels.
Faith is its own reason.
As an outspoken RAW DM, I totally understand this. Experience advancement is usually the first thing people alter, including myself. I only play with a couple of houserules, and my experience rules are one of those. We use the slow chart, and I halve the experience gained from each encounter, including rp and skill encounters. When players level less often, they are far more likely (IME) to concentrate on making memorable rp choices than to worry about gaining that next feat.
I make tea (I live in Georgia, so saying that feels redundant) with a minimum of sugar - one level cup per gallon. It isn't syrupy like most restaurants make, but it also doesn't have that acrid edge that unsweetened tea has.
I was raised in my faith (Christianity, of the Protestant flavor) but was never satisfied with a church until I was introduced (by my then girlfriend, now wife) to The Plymouth Brethren tradition.
In my humble opinion, the denomination which I am now part of is a set of true seekers after the will of God.
Shadrayl of the Mountain wrote:
I'd like to say a word on iterative attacks,since several people now have mentioned them. Iterative attacks are not a bad thing, regardless of how much bookkeeping they lead to. Multiple attacks are something I really, really like about the system. What I don't like is the degenerating base attack bonus applied to them over several strokes - after all, 1st and 2nd edition din't make anyone take a penalty to extra attacks. It would work out far better if they all got the same bonus (So, for example, a 20th level fighter would get 4 at +20, while a 20th level rogue would get 3 at +15).
Ok maybe not to that level of realism. Though i thought that was fine art. What I was thinking wasn't that real looking. I just meant people in the art look like people. No to big muscles, right height to width, and body looking like something you could see on a real person. Even if it is a idealized person, like a professional model or athlete.
Oh, I definitely agree. Retardulous muscles/proportions are an enjoyment killer for me.
Here's the wiki (not the greatest source, I know): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photorealism
Good idea. I love art threads. I paint in my spare time when the mood strikes.
First, a list of artists I love:
And now, some pieces:
Wild Card wrote:
Is min-maxing the root of all evil?
No. Much like the verse you are referencing - money is not the root of all evil, the love of money is the root of all evil - it is not min-maxing, but the love of min-maxing that is the problem. There is a world of difference.
Bear with me.
If you take nothing but feats and skills and features designed to make you better in combat, it isn't a problem. It's only when that becomes the be-all and end-all of the game that it becomes a problem.
The same applies to the verse - to most "rich" people, money is simply an economic necessity, and having more of it simply makes life easier. Most of them don't gloat over their wealth, nor do they tend to get it through greed, cheating people, and any of the other number of ridiculous acusations thrown at them by the MSM.
Daern (who is not a cleric, but a fighter) performs marriages, funerals, and mundane armor crafting for cash.
Gauthak runs an Adventurer's supply shop in skullport.
Haen makes the finest Serren wood bows you can find.
Shump runs a shipping company.
Mordis runs a bar.
Droog (an orc) runs a small dwarven citadel that he and a band of humans founded - go figure.
Brianna (a good drow) owns a set of franchises that manufacture magical armor and robes from spidersilk to order.
Viktor is the Count (and now only ruler of the area, so I guess he's King, by all rights) of a small group of lands and head of a group of knights who patrol on giant bats at dawn and dusk.
Crud has used his Endless Bag of Sausage to start a butcher's shop.
There's plenty of others, but those are the highlights.
2) How can I "legitimately" give my players less XP/Treasure/stuff that they have earned?
I personally shave xp in half, AND use the "slow" xp progression, on the basis that it simply seems too fast to me. Of course, most games seem that way to me, so there you are. And, on top of that, my group's good with it, and the other DMs in the group do this as well, so it isn't so much a mandate as a general understanding.
I'm really becoming disturbed. I mean on an actual real level. I see posts that are literally asking how to mess with their players for seemingly random stuff. Asking how to spite them, punish them, or make them regret playing their characters.
Yeh, I've played with jerky DMs like that. We ejected them from the group.
This is the best advice out there, bar none. Take it to heart.
I love AFFC. Go figure.
I once had a player throw his paladin character off a griffon that was 500' in the air because I told him that the griffon refused to be his special mount. I thing was i was going to give him a griffon mount but not that one. I let the dice rollout and their was a dead paladin. He rarely plays as he only likes 2nd edition which he is a great GM.
That doesn't seem bad, just funny. "You won't be my special mount! I'm going to end it all!" It's like a manic depressive samurai turned up to 11.
Ah, the good old days of, "We don't have a magic user and we foud a potion. Paper-Rock-Scissors to see who drinks it!"
I had some great times like that.
Both of which I love. Can't get into Abby. Ziva David, on the other hand...
Andrew Tuttle wrote:
I enjoyed the first season, but they really drag the whiny introspective emotional parts out far too long.
I have been watching Spartacus (TV Series) and I am inspired to run an all gladiator campaign. Has anyone else done this? What problems have you encountered? Any suggestions you can offer?
I've run several arena-based campaigns. The key is to emphasize to the PCs that while they may be teammates this week, they may be mortal enemies next week.
King's Dragon, Crown of Stars book 1
Finished this one - fabulous book. Looking for the sequel. Rererereading The Arabian Nights in the meantime. Just finished the third calender's tale. Lined up next - Prince of Dogs, if I can find it, and if not, either Seeds of Betrayal or Shadow Gate.
Well, you see, that all derives from the "MONEY AND WEALTH ARE BAD MMKAY" mindset that the show's writers seem to have been duped into. You'll notice that on DS9 (different set of writers, who lifted plots and possibly the whole production bible from the first season of Bab 5) the Starfleet officers have become much more pragmatic - many of them do deals on the side in order to have real currency.