Is there any chance a "Living Pathfinder" campaign similar to other living campaigns will be released?
There are a ton of soon to be displaced Living Greyhawk players looking for something with a Greyhawk feel that is not Forgotten Realms.
Many of my fellow gamers in New England have picked up Pathfinder and like what they see.
Think of how many Pathifinder sourcebooks could be sold.
That sounds like it would be fun. So what is your oppinion on this oh great gods of Paizo?
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I hate to say it, but the way Paizo has set Golarion up, with details here and there fleshing out a world that is otherwise pristine and new, it lends itself very nicely to the Living X campaign template.
Take a look at all the play-by-post games going on over these message boards now.
In other words, heaven help us, this actually sounds like a good idea.
I wrote some of regional adventures for LG and helped with some admin/creativity things (not an official Triad member or anything, but worked with them, ran some cons, etc.) before LG turned into Living Paperwork. Then I wrote a few for the D&D Adventure runs (Green Regent and Mark of Heroes). I liked the global feel of LG before it got so cumbersome and would be willing to help get something like that going again, especially in Golarion as I intend for it to be my setting of choice for all games moving forward. And there's a con coming up hereabouts in March that I'll be DMing at that needs a few extra spots of games...
I'm just sayin'...
In an Age of Magic...
For a Land in Need...
Heroes will Arise!
Gentlemen, Destiny calls.
Someone get the phone.
I like it when the Paizo guys say "no comment" when they aren't able to say more; it tells us that they are following these threads and care enough to let us know it.
Thanks Mike. :)
I love it when Chris posts. He's a smart guy.
|
I’m not really familiar with how the “Living…” campaigns work – never been involved in them; would someone be able to post a brief description?
I’d be interested in how (if at all) these campaigns, and the outcome of different people’s games would influence the development of or the “story” of the campaign setting.
I’d be interested to know how compatible a “Living” campaign might be with play by post games (given that such games tend to move more slowly than face to face play).
What would people be looking for in a "Living Pathfinder" type of campaign?
--Erik
~shrugs~ Honestly Erik, I don't know. I never participated in any LG (Living Greyhawk) games. However, I have a feeling that having a LG (Living Golarian) game would be fun to play in.
As far as a Living campaign goes, I'd like to see something run here. It doesn't have to go quickly by any means, maybe 1 / 2 posts a day tops by Paizo staff in the PbP section, with genuinely randomly selected players (could even use the iconic pregens), with the outcomes influencing the canon of the world.
|
I would like the adventures to be made available to everyone, not just GM's running the games at cons.
I agree. I always wanted access to Living Greyhawk adventures after playing them at Cons, so I could GM them for my home group. But they would have to be released to the general public AFTER they've had their run at Conventions, because otherwise it leaves open the temptation for players to access and read the adventure before playing them at Conventions, which would spoil it for everyone.
|
It doesn't have to go quickly by any means, maybe 1 / 2 posts a day tops by Paizo staff in the PbP section, with genuinely randomly selected players (could even use the iconic pregens), with the outcomes influencing the canon of the world.
This actually sounds like a ok idea. The problem I see with it is that the Paizo gang then has to keep track of everyone who is playing in addition to their jobs. That is part of why it's hard to DM things for RPGA lots of paper work and things. Honestly using the all the Iconics(when they get finished) would be a decent idea to cut down on some paper work. Sticking with the Iconics means that magic items and such will always start with what is in their stat blocks.
In addition if this becomes a really viable idea I could see using gamemastery modules and maybe even Pathfinder to run the Living Campaign. To put it simply as the RPGA has those forms that get filled out and turned in to see what "really" happened with an adventure, Paizo could add a www.whatever.com address with a few questions to see how the module/pathfinder turned out. In order to make sure that games are ran correctly I would just say that the Paizo team give DM's who "qualify" the ability to answer the questions for a month or two after an adventure or pathfinder came out. By qualify it could be a login number next to the web address. That way anyone who buys a Paizo adventure could help influence the world!
I had some more ideas but while typing this I have lost them in my haze of sleepiness. If I remember them tomorrow, I'll post them.
In closing on my thoughts I will put out that I would be happy to help with anything along the lines of this project.
Goodnight everyone.
(Time to go shove the fat dogs out of my spot on the bed.)
|
|
Living Pathfinder? I think WotC holds trademark for the "Living" Campaings, and grants licences for such status and support. As with so many other licences prior to the 4th Edition announcement, WotC declined to renew "Living" licence to the Living Arcanis setting. So in all likelihood, Pathfinder couldn't be referred to as "Living" Pathfinder, unless Paizo reach some agreement with WotC (which is of course entirely possible).
Arcanis is second only to Greyhawk as a Living Campaign here in Melbourne. Arcanis will continue at Cons without "Living" support, but I'm sure there is a lot of work involved to set up and run any Convention games.
I would never have given the Arcanis campaign a second look, had it not been for playing a Convention slot for it when no Living Greyhawk table was available at my character level one session. Having whipped up a character for that one session, it then became a fall-back option whenever I couldn't be fit into a Greyhawk session. Before long, Arcanis became a favoured setting, and I've now purchased most of the books and am playing an Arcanis home campaign.
The point to be made here is the degree of exposure a setting could receive if given enough support at Convnetions. Pathfinder already has a level of recognition and a growing reputation. Promoting gameplay at conventions could help spread the campaign further.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Living Pathfinder? I think WotC holds trademark for the "Living" Campaings, and grants licences for such status and support. As with so many other licences prior to the 4th Edition announcement, WotC declined to renew "Living" licence to the Living Arcanis setting. So in all likelihood, Pathfinder couldn't be referred to as "Living" Pathfinder, unless Paizo reach some agreement with WotC (which is of course entirely possible).
What about "Pathfinder: Evolution"?
I left Living Greyhawk shortly after they did away with the item certificates and went for a "buy whatever you want" model. Sure it made for more individualized characters, but it really took away a lot of the feeling of finding something special. "This is the masterwork greatsword I found in the tomb of Ravid Madoor" turned into "I bought this at the market."
It also suffered from a glut of expansions that bloated the campaign with too many options for prestige classes, new feats and magic items. Some may like the variety, but it was a rare table that wasn't dulled by the presence of min/maxed uber characters designed to be as superhuman as possible.
I'm still grumpy that I missed out on the early days of Living Arcanis. Everything I've seen recently about that campaign seems awesome. The developing timeline, recurring villains, community-building metaorgs, campaign-specific prestige classes, they even let PCs own land and houses!
What kept me from getting started with it in the beginning was a distaste for the way they mutated the tropes of D&D (elemental elves? gnomes as medium-sized human/dwarf crossbreeds?)
If a Living Pathfinder could match the same campaign development as Living Arcanis while still sticking to the foundation of D&D, I'd be there in a heartbeat.
|
|
What would people be looking for in a "Living Pathfinder" type of campaign?
I know one thing I would like to see handled differently:
The one thing I dislike *intensely* about Living Arcanis (probably the one thing others enjoy so much about the campaign), is the secret societies. In too many adventures, one player has a secret agenda to obtain a story item that is contrary to the goals of everyone else at the table. Too often I have seen players who I have played many sessions with and respected as players, reduced to tantrums when one player claims the object before they do, risking disfavour in their secret society. It is awfully disruptive to games, sometimes grinding play to a halt for an hour while player and GM argue it out, calling for the senior GM to adjudicate, etc - no fun for anyone else at the table, who just want to continue and enjoy the game.
Secret societies add a layer of detail perhaps lacking in other Living campaigns. However, to work successfully, there needs to be better handling of conflict resolution, or at least writing adventures so players aren't forced to go head to head against one another to achieve their individual goals.
|
|
I have seen two models used for leveling of characters: a) the APL (Average Player Level) method used by Greyhawk; and b) the level bump method used by Green Regent and Eberron campaigns.
Of the two, I greatly favour the Greyhawk method. It allows players to start at 1st level, and work their way up at their own pace. The downside being adventures are more complex to write, as authors need to write encounters scaled to different APLs.
I have had really bad experiences with Eberron's level bump method. Eberron isn't supported well in Melbourne, so you spend hours working on leveling up your character to the next level bump, only to find that it isn't being offered at the Convention as advertised. I have had this happen on more than one occasion, and missed more than one level bump through no fault of my own. This severely undermines confidence in the campaign, so you stick with tried and true campaigns like Greyhawk or Arcanis instead.
|
|
What would people be looking for in a "Living Pathfinder" type of campaign?
Hints buried throughout Pathfinder and Game Mastery lines that we're dying to know more about - unexplored map locations, recurring villains, Murder Maw, the Sandpoint Devil, the real story behind the Chopper murders, secrets of the residents of Sandpoint and elsewhere, you get the idea - and these are just ideas inspired by Pathfinder#1. Varisia and Golarion are full of advetures just waiting to be told!
Pathfinder: Evolution...that's not half bad.
What would people be looking for in a "Living Pathfinder" type of campaign?
--Erik
A compilation of adventures for those of us that are only able to attend a maximum of 1 Con a year. Or, release the adventures with no RPGA point availability after the expiration date.
I hate that I can't play a Living campaign game because I have to go to a Con or establish a Game Day in my area.
|
|
Simply put, I WANT MORE RIVER OF BLOOD!!!
The overall design of the way Living Greyhawk ran during the first year was nice (it became bad later when level 10s would hand level 1s +3 swords). What I would really like in an "evolved" campaign is the ability for the players to mold the setting, and the ability to play any time, anywhere, with anyone. That's it. The rest is really just semantics.
I was involved, back in around 2001, with a website called "Living Web". It was a Living style Forgotten Realms campaign that was entirely online (using OpenRPG). A WotC member found his way there one time and mentioned the copyright they held on Living campaigns. Within a week we had contacted WotC, and all they required to allow us to keep the name was a paragraph on our frontpage acknowledging them.
I'm sure, with the history Paizo has of working with WotC, that they could make something happen. I'm also sure that whatever extra expenses occur in the maintaining of a living campaign would be well compensated due to the increased exposure and free advertisement that most certainly comes with this type of activity.
There are a ton of soon to be displaced Living Greyhawk players looking for something with a Greyhawk feel that is not Forgotten Realms.
I would like something to replace Living Greyhawk. Its very very popular among the gamers in my region; they regularly fill all the tables at the many mini-conventions, and there are a lot of active local groups.
From what I understand, Living Realms will be the new "Living" campaign setting for WOTC. The problem of a company like Paizo running the Living stuff is the overhead - someone's got to organize it all, do data entry on all of the session sign-in sheets, etc. For free. That's a huge job, and there's no profit in it. As much as we love them, I don't see how a small company like Paizo who just had to change their business model can afford to do it. I would jump headfirst into "Living Golarion" if it was offered though.
As far as what I would like in a Living campaign, I guess I would say for me that I would love an alternative to the SCA-inspired "regional" system. In my region, we were often stuck with very badly written regional adventures, and there was nothing we could do about it. We'd hear about great and awesome adventures from other regions, but we couldn't run them. I don't know how it would be organized (I'd be curious how its done in the other Living campaigns), but I'd like to scrap the whole "You're from X State/Province, so we'll shove you automatically into Region Y" system. If all of the adventures were available at a national level, we'd quickly be able to weed out the bad adventures and promote the production of good ones.
Thanks for responding, Paizo, even if it was only to give "no comment". Just more evidence of Paizo being a customer-friendly company.
Contributor
|
My brain is refusing to give up the details, but I have a vague recollection that at least two of Erik, Jason, and James were major players (and by players, I don't mean that they just had characters) in some incarnation of the Living X campaigns.
I suspect that they have a pretty good idea of what would be involved in setting something like this up.
I also expect that 'no comment' means they've already been discussing the possibility. I'd lay good money that this thread and other discussions will be used as a gauge of how much interest there is in this idea, and as a resource to determine what would make it succeed or fail.
So, to answer Erik, I have never played a living campaign, and have very little idea of how they work. That said, I'd love to help make this happen. Frankly, this is the first time since TORG that I've felt even remote interest in playing in some kind of shared-world/living campaign.
I never participated in TORG's infinverse, but I bought the updates, and was fairly aware of what was generally going on. All I can tell you from that is a few things to NOT do. Mostly, don't set up a campaign wherein the setting will be catacalysmically destroyed if the players don't focus on things that are largely ignored by the published materials. But I suspect that's obvious to most people.
I don't have a great idea what these things are.. (I do recall the Torg stuff though). But I would be interested in getting involved.
There's a local Convention next weekend. Really small, not for profit.. but by golly they have some offical WOTC Living events going on, and minor swag for the participants (though the Swag is not from WOTC interestingly enough). Here
All I can say is that I would be willing to run such events when and where I could. I wouldn't do that in a WOTC campaign, because I'm not invested personally or financially in any of them.. But I've gotten into Golarion from the ground up.. so the interest is there on my part. It be swell to see a Pathfinder Living Evolution on that schedule.
And I agree, the Paizo gang wouldn't snap out a 'No comment' really fast if they hadn't been thinking or talking about it. No comment means it's not to be discussed with the public at this time, not that it isn't possible, or even likely.
It is a great way to get some positive publicity, and since I do some communication between face to face sessions on one of the community RPG boards (not the GHOUL one), I have a lot of local folks beyond my players who are looking at Pathfinder right now.
Some quick thoughts on what I'd be looking for:
Fun: Book keeping and rules minutia should not take up the bulk of my time involved in the game. Playing and having a good time with a group (some I've played with for years, others I've just met, but all with the same shared experience of the setting) should take up the bulk of my time involved in the game.
Volunteer-based: I'd suggest the actual Paizo employees and/or contributors not be the resources directly involved in managing the campaign, producing adventures/setting material, etc. (unless they just happen to have the time). My thinking here is two-fold--(1) these folks are focused on the business of Paizo that actually makes them money! and (2) being volunteer-based would allow for new talent to arise without having quite the scrutiny necessary for being an actual published author. Obviously Paizo would need some oversight in the development of the setting, but if they were the final stamp of approval on an item versus the ground-level producers/reviewers perhaps the setting can stay on the general course they expect but also integrate new ideas. Having some incentive for contributing (whether it be a cents-per-word rate Paizo store credit, etc.) would be a nice bonus to the folks willing to do such volunteer work, in addition to world-fame and the adoration of the masses, of course.
Unrestricted: Play the games via PbP, at home, at conventions.
Character Options: The Iconics published with each adventure to provide new folks a quick entry point (“Fastplay” Characters). Characters that are actually advanced through game play (perhaps with an online self-reporting system). Or character fresh made for the module at hand. As long as the character is appropriate to the module (as determined by the GM) don’t restrict the player to missing a game or playing something they don’t want in an “arms race” to avoid “cheaters.” Too much overhead in tracking all of that to be worthwhile, in my opinion…
Setting Influence: The campaign truly matters to the setting. As setting material/adventures are produced, they actually become “canon” (after Paizo approval as above). As adventures are completed, a self-reporting system determines how future events may unfold.
Regions: I do like the regional concept, especially with specific game elements (both RP and mechanical) being tied to a character’s region. However, allow the player to pick whatever region they desire rather than locking into a location based on some Golarion-to-Reality process. Regions should be drivers for character development rather than straight-jackets for creativity.
What would people be looking for in a "Living Pathfinder" type of campaign?
--Erik
I have extensive knowledge and experience with Living Greyhawk: I was there playing when the campaign kicked off, I've written a dozen or more adventures for several regions (including a handful of Core adventures), and served as Triad for almost two years before real life made me step back from my administrative position to being an author again. I plan to play right up until the end of the Living Greyhawk campaign at Origins 2008.
I've also been in deep discussion with some Chicago-area locals about setting up a "Living" style campaign (like Living Greyhawk gamers in many areas, we're asking "okay, what can we do next?"). I actually suggested that we look into Paizo stuff, particularly Pathfinder, for that. Both Erik Mona and Jason Bulmahn have extensive experience with this structure (Jason was a Triad member for much longer than I was, in a neighboring region).
The advantages of a "Living" style campaign (and I keep putting the name in quote because I know we can't legally use it) are that you can play all over--home games, at your local gaming store, or at local cons--and play your same character over and over. You meet a lot of different people, while developing the personality and history of one character in depth. That is, your character isn't limited to a single home game.
Others point to the goal of shaping the campaign world through your actions, but this has honestly never been a very big part of Living Campaigns. Generally, only a small subset of players, if any, are able to nudge the storyline. This makes sense, because there is a key disconnect between the ideas of (i) everyone's actions matter in changing the game world, and (ii) lots of people are playing. If my character saved the duke and your character let him get assassinated, what happens the next time the duke is supposed to make an appearance? If he's dead, then my experience didn't matter; if he's alive, then your experience didn't matter.
But to answer your question more specifically, Erik:
I'd like to see a series of adventures, of the high quality Paizo produces, available for me to play and run at large and small conventions. Preferably, these adventures should be thematically linked. There should be some sort of tracking mechanism to record the xp, items, successes, and failures that my character earns that I can take from game to game. The "shaping the campaign world" isn't important to me because, as I mention above, it is a nice idea but it isn't typically practical.
Note that this structure is already fundamentally in place: the Pathfinder adventures are already off and running, and thematically linked. I'd like to see the Gamemastery adventures thrown in, as well, in order to provide adventure variety and in order to have lots of different adventures of a lot of different levels to play. Although we could allow tracking to be handled on a personal, honor-system basis (just write down your XP and items on your character sheet), virtually all "Living" campaigns have required a more rigorous or genericized tracking system to prevent cheating from game to game ("Yeah, I came out of Burnt Offerings at 10th level with a +5 vorpal dogslicer!").
How about this idea, to crib a good idea from LG: Paizo produces a one-page "Adventure Summary" for each Pathfinder adventure and Gamemastery adventure they produce. Participants who are going to run an adventure as a "Living Pathfinder" game might be required to log on to Paizo in order to get these Adventure Summary sheets (or otherwise formally request them, so that Paizo can track play). Each sheet lists all of the XP, gold and treasure available in the adventure, as well as a few pertinent adventure outcomes (such as the variable outcomes from Conquest of Bloodsworn Vale). The DM runs the game as usual, and after the game he or she notes--on an Adventure Summary sheet printed out for each character--what each character did or didn't get, and what the party as a whole did or didn't do. Each character gets a sheet that they can take with them to the next "Living Pathfinder" game. A player's collection of these sheets shows the total xp, gp, abilities, and items that the character has obtained. That way, when you have a player sit down to play an adventure you're running, he'll say something like, "I have a third-level sorcerer wearing the Crown of the Kobold King." You can quickly look at his adventure summary and find out that he played CKK, earned 3,500 xp during it, and gained the Crown as loot. And off you go.
I would be particularly interested in getting involved in the design and administration of something like this, and I'd love to discuss it in more detail.
Thanks,
Ron
What would people be looking for in a "Living Pathfinder" type of campaign?
--Erik
I've never been to a Living Greyhawk game, and actually haven't made a gaming con yet (helped run some Trek Cons in Germany though). But I'd jump at the chance to play in a Living Pathfinder game, whatever the venue. (Especially since I'm DM'ing right now, would love to play).
What would I like in a "Living" style Pathfinder?
Eliminate silly paperwork and micromanagement. A certain level of paperwork is understandable, but do we really need to micromanage down to reporting what treasure was found in ruin Y? Restrictions on artifacts and the like makes sense.
The story's the thing. This does seem to be the point of a Living campaign, but having the PCs action have an impact upon the setting, even in some small way, it a beautiful thing.
R-Type mentioned several good points - unrestricted play settings (PbP, PbEM, online tabletops, heck poker chips and a card deck), no regional-to-reality silly analogy, character options, etc. Putting out material is the thing, and y'all are swamped as is, and even getting a content approval setup would be taxing, to say the least.
Quality is what Paizo is known for, and as giddy as the concept of a Living Pathfinder campaign makes me, I wouldn't want it if meant the overall quality of Paizo's goods went down.
WARNING! Shilling ahead!
End shilling!
I have been an active participant in Living Greyhawk since 1993, and have also enjoyed Living Arcanis quite a bit. Based on what I've seen, I'd like to offer my opinions and suggestions regarding an ideal “Living” campaign.
Living Greyhawk had many great things going for it. The campaign’s division into geographic regions allowed the writers and players to develop ongoing plotlines and themes for each of the continent’s lands. The campaign staff developed detailed rules limiting character access to feats, classes, magic items, and spells: These ensured that the flavor of the setting wasn’t distorted by “broken” class and feat combinations. The campaign record system made it difficult for cheating players to illegitimately boost their characters’ power, ensuring that high-level characters in the campaign have truly “earned” their status.
Living Arcanis has a number of great features as well. Their system for crafting magic items and magic item certificates allows players to trade off items they find or make, but limits the abuses such a system can cause. The secret societies provide great fodder for roleplaying (even if they sometimes cause conflict between characters and players). Their adventure recording system works well.
These campaigns have their weaknesses, as well. Greyhawk’s system makes it difficult for low and mid-level characters to keep interesting magic items that they find. They can’t make magic items for each other or trade the ones they have. On the other hand, the numerous small certificates issued in Arcanis can be a nuisance to organize and manage. Party members sometimes try to get the most impressive magic items just to sell them off, depriving less fortunate players of cool items.
Both campaigns have had occasional problems with plots written to encourage conflict between party members: While some moral conflict is a good thing and encourages deeper roleplaying, major conflicts between party members can be very discouraging.
If I were responsible for the structure of “Pathfinder: Evolution”, I would incorporate aspects of both campaigns. I would start with Arcanis-style certificates and magic item documentation, strictly limiting how many items can be traded. (Each item would have a minimum level listed, below which no character is allowed to possess it)
I would encourage regional identities for different areas, not limiting people’s ability to play other regions’ scenarios, but encouraging different writing teams to concentrate on particular areas of the continent, developing ongoing plots and NPC relationships there.
Unfortunately, the "Living" name won't do, since that's the RPGA's/WotC's baby. “Pathfinder: Evolution” is a catchy alternative.
Occasionally, adventures in the living campaigns were adapted for a wider range of party levels than was really appropriate. Some scenarios just aren’t appropriate for all party levels. Instead of scaling these adventures to a broad range of levels, perhaps a Pathfinder campaign could adopt structured limits and rules for starting off characters at higher levels. This would reduce the need to scale adventures, because players could more easily come up with an appropriate character of any given power level.
I have been an active participant in Living Greyhawk since 1993, and have also enjoyed Living Arcanis quite a bit. Based on what I've seen, I'd like to offer my opinions and suggestions regarding an ideal “Living” campaign.
Hard to believe, since the Living Greyhawk campaign began in 1999! :)
Living Greyhawk had many great things going for it. The campaign’s division into geographic regions allowed the writers and players to develop ongoing plotlines and themes for each of the continent’s lands. The campaign staff developed detailed rules limiting character access to feats, classes, magic items, and spells: These ensured that the flavor of the setting wasn’t distorted by “broken” class and feat combinations. The campaign record system made it difficult for cheating players to illegitimately boost their characters’ power, ensuring that high-level characters in the campaign have truly “earned” their status.
Very true. Every "Living" campaign has to build in some limits to conform to the global play environment. Common restrictions include: no evil characters, players cannot own "evil" magic items, restrictions on the use of the Leadership feat, etc. One common trouble: XP loss in D&D is a *bad* thing, as it generally puts you behind the rest of your party power-wise. In "Living" games, however, it's usually a *good* thing because you end up with much more gear relative to your level. As there is a universe of players of varying levels, you can just go play a lower-level adventure with lower-level folks.
As much as the regional system had its advantages, I think it had some serious drawbacks, too. Most significant is the large number of amateur authors made for some pretty bad adventures. Also, overemphasis on regional plotlines sometimes made out-of-region characters feel hopelessly lost about what's going on in an adventure. The division between regions sometimes had a skewed power curve: kewl items or abilities given out in Region X (balanced because of other factors present in Region X) could be taken over to Region Y, where characters could run roughshod with them.
I'm starting to see that design of a "Living" game requires a lot of thought about the fundamentals of the campaign design in areas that deal with personal preference; there isn't a "right" or "wrong" answer for some of these. For example, a lot of people love the regional system--but I think it creates too many problems and would prefer to limit or eliminate it.
Living Arcanis has a number of great features as well. Their system for crafting magic items and magic item certificates allows players to trade off items they find or make, but limits the abuses such a system can cause. The secret societies provide great fodder for roleplaying (even if they sometimes cause conflict between characters and players). Their adventure recording system works well.
These campaigns have their weaknesses, as well. Greyhawk’s system makes it difficult for low and mid-level characters to keep interesting magic items that they find. They can’t make magic items for each other or trade the ones they have. On the other hand, the numerous small certificates issued in Arcanis can be a nuisance to organize and manage. Party members sometimes try to get the most impressive magic items just to sell them off, depriving less fortunate players of cool items.
Another preference issue: I'm among those that thing that cert-based systems (like Arcanis, Blackmoor, Living City, and early Living Greyhawk) are inferior to adventure-record systems because they cause arguments and are prone to substantial abuse. Others prefer the cert-based system, primarily for its authenticity and ease of engaging with other players (via trading).
Both campaigns have had occasional problems with plots written to encourage conflict between party members: While some moral conflict is a good thing and encourages deeper roleplaying, major conflicts between party members can be very discouraging.
Again, a preference issue: I agree with you completely, but I keep coming across players that prefer the adventures with the potential to create strong intra-party conflict.
|
|
I'd like to see a region of Golarion set aside and devoted to an evolving campaign where the outcomes of the adventures helped to shape the region and--to some extent--the world. (I havent played more than one or two "living" adventures in the last decade, so perhaps this is already how they work?)
For example, if Conquest of Bloodsworn Vale was an adventure for this new "Living" style interactive campaign, Paizo could ask those running the adventure at conventions, etc, to tell them whether the party successfully completed the road through Bloodsworn Vale. If the majority of groups did complete that mission, future adventures would assume that the road is complete and travel is possible through that pass. If the majority failed to complete that task, future adventures would assume that the region was still hazardous. Each adventure could include one or more world development points like this, so the canon of Golarion--at least in that particular part of the world--responds to the success or failure of those playing in the 'living' campaign as it evolves.
The mapmaker in me thinks it would be cool to set up this campaign as an exploration chronicle. Paizo could give us a map of the region that shows the basic geography and gives us a well-fleshed-out starting point (say, the bottom third of the regional map is explored and populated, while the upper two-thirds remains a mystery), and provide DMs with a limited amount of background regarding how this region became closed off to the rest of the world. Then, aspiring writers could craft adventures that take groups of heroes into the wilds and uncharted places and submit them to Paizo. The best of these adventures get selected to be published for the "living" campaign and run at conventions, and the developments of these adventures (for example, the discovery of a ruined city or an isolated village in a given location) become part of the canon of the setting, included in future maps of the region.
If they decide to do something like this, I think it would be cool if Paizo took advantage of an organization they've created as the cornerstone of their setting: The Pathfinders. They have already established this group as the perfect starting point for this sort of campaign; adventures could be propelled by a request from the organization to scout out a location or investigate strange rumors and record their findings.
In this way, each individual player could have a role in developing the setting, by actually writing journals for their characters that could be hosted here at Paizo's website. Each month (or whatever) Paizo could highlight particularly well-crafted journals in their blog, encouraging the public to read about the exploits of current Pathfinders. This could, in turn, propel greater participation in the living campaign as people get a taste of what it's like and seek to be a part of it. The "Pathfinder Chronicles" could become synonymous with a shared-world D&D exploration experience.
Paizo could publish a yearly newsletter (in-character, as a bulletin from the higher-ups of the Pathfinders) that encapsulates the progress and developments of that year's adventures, keeping players up to date on the changes to the setting.
I don't know a thing about the logistics of running such a campaign, so it may not even be feasible. But I think it could be very cool if it works.
I have been an active participant in Living Greyhawk since 1993, and have also enjoyed Living Arcanis quite a bit. Based on what I've seen, I'd like to offer my opinions and suggestions regarding an ideal “Living” campaign.
I look for typos, and I check my spelling, then I see that I've been dumb.
(Sigh...)
I meant 2003.
That's a great starter there, Chris!
As others have noted, the success of a Living type campaign very much rests on (1) properly "visioning" the thing from the start and (2) having talented folks contributing. I know we'll have some debate on the level of character management necessary, for instance. I favor a simple system that allows the GM to look at a character and ensure it's balanced for a module versus having a strict management system that has to certify each character. I'm also of the mind that the OGL nature of Pathfinder will automatically help in limiting the power creep/explosion that occurred in LG when the various Complete..., Races of..., and other such books were added. What's allowed in the campaign? SRD plus the OGL material (and perhaps limited IP material, as deemed appropriate by Paizo) produced for the campaign. That's it.
|
|
What would people be looking for in a "Living Pathfinder" type of campaign?
--Erik
Erik - a few things.
Living Greyhawk got a lot of things right...
Slower XP progression than in the core rules - the XP pace felt right, like what the core rules XP pace should have been - it kept people invested in the campaign longer, which encouraged them to stick with the campaign and to travel
Regional play: this encourages people to travel, and it fuels the regional convention business. From what I've heard (and this may have changed) the new LFR campaign will have regions, but you will be able to order modules to play from other regions in your own region. Some of the con organizers I've spoken to are concerned this will kill their smaller cons - and diminish the international community that LG developed. If someone was to step up to the plate with a true regional model, it would likely grab the attention of these con organizers.
Gritty 1e feel (before Living Paperwork/Magic Mart) - the early version of LG made magic and treasure seem very precious. More 1e than 3e. Not everyone's cup of tea, but I dug it. You really had to earn your treasure and your XP.
The weakness in LG (and probably a hard nut to crack) is that you rarely felt that you made a profound difference in the game world. That, and the competition in regions to out do each other with over-the-top interactives.
R-Type mentioned several good points...
Hey, that was me! R-Type stole my avatar...I know I had it first! If only I could use my standard pointy-finger-man from my other boards, this sort of thing wouldn't be such a problem (well, until people started stealing my pointy-finger-man avatar...)
;^)
|
|
What would people be looking for in a "Living Pathfinder" type of campaign?
--Erik
I know that my fellow gamers who tried Living Greyhawk with me were turned off by the "intense competitiveness" of the sessions. I understand that the modules are originally designed for Convention play, and therefore is a need for time deadlines, but the modules seemed to be set for more hack-and-slash than role-playing, and with a high risk vs reward factor. If the Pathfinder modules/adventures are written with the same mindset as we've seen from your other Pathfinder products, I can't see this as being a worry.
I also like the thought of incorporating the pbp games as part of the "canononical" storyline of Pathfinder. The chance to have characters that we've created to become mentioned as an NPC in a future product (if that was possible) would be a very sweet feather in anyone's cap.
Hey, that was me!
D'oh!! I'm sorry...
*gives erian_7 homemade oreos in apology*
D'oh!! I'm sorry...
*gives erian_7 homemade oreos in apology*
Mmmmm, oreos make just about everything better!
And to not be too much of a threadjacker, I agree that some LG mods (seemed to be a regional issue, though it was also creeping into Core when I dropped out) were very competition-focused. One of the things I liked about my region (the Yeomanry) was that RP, story development, and interesting module designs were in more abundance than hack-and-slash and dungeon crawls*.
* I hate dungeon crawls, generally speaking...I know it's Dungeons and Dragons, but I've played for 23 years and never once enjoyed just mucking around in some labyrinth whacking monsters to take their stuff for hours on end...
D'oh!! I'm sorry...
*gives erian_7 homemade oreos in apology*Mmmmm, oreos make just about everything better!
And to not be too much of a threadjacker, I agree that some LG mods (seemed to be a regional issue, though it was also creeping into Core when I dropped out) were very competition-focused. One of the things I liked about my region (the Yeomanry) was that RP, story development, and interesting module designs were in more abundance than hack-and-slash and dungeon crawls*.
* I hate dungeon crawls, generally speaking...I know it's Dungeons and Dragons, but I've played for 23 years and never once enjoyed just mucking around in some labyrinth whacking monsters to take their stuff for hours on end...
Hey, you're in the Yeomanry? I just submitted an adventure for them! Look for "Dark Gate Stalkers," by me, sometime next year. And it's not a dungeon crawl at all. Let me know what you think!