silvershadow21's page

Kthulhu wrote:

I was beginning to think I was the only person who prefered hardcovers.

Nope, they look better on a bookshelf.

EDIT: Besides, opening one feels more like consulting the Book of Armaments.

Pratically everyone prefers Hardcovers. Durability and all that.

Btw, how are people reasoning that Hardcovers are cheaper than multiple Softcovers (assuming same content / page count)? The Softcovers should still be cheaper (I buy a lot of book from different hobbies, RPGs to Wargames and my experience has been Hardcovers are expensive, not the other way around).

I don't buy into the cost argument. Companies just don't choose to make them, that's all.

Make 3-4 small Soft Cover books instead of 1-2 big Hardcover ones. Look at Fantasy Flight Games' Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 3rd Ed. Boxed Set. It is a recent one, well packaged, and has a SRP of $100.

An alternative to having the player play a Gestalt or a group of characters, is to style the campaign around the perspective of a solo character.

There's a number of adventure styles or perspectives that are far easier to run with a single player.

Stealth
A stealth game would play similar to the Thief video game series. A solo player sneaking through enemy infested places to attain some goal.
This could be infiltration work, theivery, assassination, etc. A ranger playing guerilla warfare against an oncoming army, as he "works better alone".
This is always hard to run with groups because you are either risking metagaming with the other players seeing what happens to each other when separated, or long waits between each player's chance at doing things.
For a one-on-one game, this is perfect.
I've been thinking of running something like this with my brother. Rules thoughts on this, I've been thinking of emphasizing the "non-combat" aspect of the game by making it easier to knock people out, refine the stealth rules and possibly add facing rules, and bring in the idea of complex skill checks for certain skills (disable device on a complicated vault lock as opposed to the bathroom door, etc).

Survival
Think of Lost... only by yourself. The player will have to know what he's getting into, so building a Ranger or at least a character with the survival skill will likely be required.
Emphasize the idea that he's alone, and make normally mundane encounters scary because he's alone.
This works very well with adding in the horror... Silent Hill was fun because of the primarily "I'm alone in this" element.
Heroes of Horror has a number of good rules-based ideas for Dread, Shock, etc, and how to build adventures and campaigns with a Horror theme.
A solo player can't do everything himself (combat, skills or magic). Groups often rely on each other to protect each others weaknesses.
A horror game emphasizes the solo player's weaknesses, making him feel very fragile where he isn't strong....

Hehe, the Stealth based idea reminds me of MGS Games and the Social Scene of an old anime I liked to watch called Cased Closed.

Not to sound disapproving of Pathfinder but, are there other RPGs out there that are better for Solo / Low PC play? I was thinking that, in theory, a Supers RPG might lend to very powerful PCs. One that it's setting looks interesting is Necessary Evil.

The Wargamer wrote:

On the reproductive subject: You could take the Asari approach from Mass Effect (this is very sci-fi, bear with me). The Asari are an asexual (although female in appearance) alien race who reproduce with any species by establishing a mental connection with their partner (the time it takes to develop this link varies from case to case). Their skin becomes permeable and recipts the DNA from the partner and they combine the better traits from both parents. Because of this, Asari disapprove of Asari-Asari reproduction as nothing is gained into the species and inter-species reproduction is fostered.

That whole thing was debunked (or retconned?) in the second game. The Asari don't use any DNA from their partner, but many of the less scientifically inclined ones think they do and it's a piece of popular myth in their culture.

Never played ME2 ;)

4 - 6. 4 is the standard.

Hmm...So a Gestalt (roughly 1.5 in power) and 2 subordinates is too little?

@ DeathQuaker: Thanks for the reply about DAD. Both my bro and me are Greek Mythology freaks, and I like Norse and Egyptian Mythology as well. Being able to incorporate our favorite Deities into the campaign (perhaps the Hero(es) are decendants of Zeus, ala God of War / Clash of the Titans and perhaps encounter them) will make this more immersive.

The Wargamer wrote:

How strong would be 2 Gestalt (Primary and subordinate) be? Would it equate to 4 people? Or would it be better to have a primary Gestalt Character with one or two regular subordinates?

A gestalt is a power increase around 50% (because they still have the same nummber of actions). So two gestalts would equal a party of three. They are definitely better than one gestalt and a normal character, but one gestalt and two normal characters would be even better. However, that's also more management.

What is the Standard / Average Party size now days? 3? 4?

On the reproductive subject: You could take the Asari approach from Mass Effect (this is very sci-fi, bear with me). The Asari are an asexual (although female in appearance) alien race who reproduce with any species by establishing a mental connection with their partner (the time it takes to develop this link varies from case to case). Their skin becomes permeable and recipts the DNA from the partner and they combine the better traits from both parents. Because of this, Asari disapprove of Asari-Asari reproduction as nothing is gained into the species and inter-species reproduction is fostered.

Khuthulu beated you to the punch, but thanks. :)

The link has some cool OGL stuff. I may use some if I buy into Pathfinder.

I've just released a Pathfinder NPC Generator.

You can have a play around with it on:
http://www.dinglesgames.com/tools/NPCGenerator/pathfinder/

It's not quite completed but all the basic classes, skills and feats are there. I'm still in the process of updating all the monsters from 3.5 to pathfinder (and adding in the new ones).
NB: Once you have added in any extra feats and magic items press the "Recalculate" button to update the stats.

Please let me know what you think of it..., and if you find any errors, it's still in the beta test at present.

Very nice, I'm sure a lot of hours went into this :)

The Wargamer wrote:

The Gestalt things sounds interesting, but buying a whole book for a single rule/mechanic sounds bothersome.

Luckily, that portion of the book is open content.

Thanks for the link. Cool stuff. Gestalt sounds mighty powerful if you used the Warmage (from the D&D Miniatures Handbook, I own it) as one of the classes along with a strong spellcasting class.

How strong would be 2 Gestalt (Primary and subordinate) be? Would it equate to 4 people? Or would it be better to have a primary Gestalt Character with one or two regular subordinates?

The Gestalt things sounds interesting, but buying a whole book for a single rule/mechanic sounds bothersome.

The Leader / Cohort is another nice idea, but in your situation, you had 2 players with 2 PCs each which sounds easy but with one Player I'm not sure.

P.S. Anyone care to address momentarily the Panteon and Race questions? :)

Pathfinder solo play is extremely hard to pull off, even moreso than 3.5 was, or 4E is. Going Gestalt would really help, or allowing the player to make multiple characters. It will be particularly difficult for single players, and the only viable option I think (depends on game style) would be Paladin or Fighter. Rogue is possible, but I would stay away from casters completely.

Multiple player characters could be an option (which kinda turns the Pen & Paper RPG to a video game RPG where you control a whole party) but kinda destroys Role-playing (even the most creative can't role-play a lot of separate people).

One option could be that the player Role-plays the Main / Leader character and the DM role-plays the secondary ones. In combat, etc. the player controls everyone. BUT this may put an extra / unnecessary strain on the DM....

Hello everyone. I'm interested in playing a RPG again. I used to play DnD back in the early 3.5ed days. Due to owning around 10 DnD 3.5ed books (among them some "Complete" books, "Races of" books, and Deities & Demigods [one of my favorites]) Pathfinder looks appealing. But I have a problem, I used to play with 2 neighbors and my brother, and our neighbors moved far away. I only have my brother to play RPGs with (therefore, 1 player and the DM).

I recall DnD was a good experience in a group, as separate people roleplayed and took individual actions (you could fight / screw up a fellow party member) and with a single Player that may be reduced / lost. So I ask, is there a good way for doing a one player Campaign / Adventure in Pathfinder?

Lastly, a couple of general Pathfinder questions:
- Is there an equivalent to the Half-dragon & Half-deity/demon (i.e. DnD's Thieflings) races in Pathfinder? If so, on what book?
- How easy is to implement other Pantheons (i.e. using Deities & Demigods)?

If other questions pop-up, I'll post them. :)