|
Seriously though. I HATE playing campaigns in a happy happy joy joy b%@@%#!% city. I like a place that needs a Big Damn Hero. Look at Firefly...there's a verse in the crapper. That's why Mal and his crew are such inspirations.
This is pretty much my exact philosophy when it comes to running a game. For me, the victories mean so much more when you need to fight uphill, against all odds, in the face of certain death to attain them.
I haven't read CotCT, but I have read SCAP, and there is at least some explanation as to why the PCs simply aren't obliterated once they start getting things done.
However, the more personal connections to the Cagewrights you build, the harder it is to claim that they simply don't notice the PCs the whole time. Is that what happened with your group, Mary? At that point, I think it would have to come down to the specific group and connections, and would be up to the individual GM to come up with justifications for keeping the PCs alive.
I also have no problem with Korvosa being a nasty place and still feeling like home to the PCs. For another great example of people trying to improve their home, knowing they have almost no chance of success, and not only trying anyway but actually loving the city, check out HBO's "The Wire."
City adventures are really, really hard.
But I think you stack the deck against yourself when you emphasize, as big central plot events, things as difficult to justify as these. It's not that I want explanations, so much as I want more plot elements that *don't need extensive explanations in order to make sense.*
Mary
Don't worry Nick! I liked your adventure. Though, not enough incestuous hillbilly ogres and deformed babies! Shame on you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is pretty much my exact philosophy when it comes to running a game. For me, the victories mean so much more when you need to fight uphill, against all odds, in the face of certain death to attain them.<snip>
I also have no problem with Korvosa being a nasty place and still feeling like home to the PCs. For another great example of people trying to improve their home, knowing they have almost no chance of success, and not only trying anyway but actually loving the city, check out HBO's "The Wire."
I totally understand your point of view. A lot of people like this. I'm just not one of them.
If the PCs repeatedly succeed against impossible odds, it doesn't seem like a victory to me at all. I tend to suspect that the GM is fudging. Or maybe, I think, I am an idiot who can't assess odds. Either way, it's not a win. Being able to come up with a smart plan against hard but not impossible odds feels like a win to me.
And I just wouldn't play _The Wire: The Roleplaying Game_. It's more downbeat than I personally want out of my entertainment. I can watch things that I would never be willing to roleplay: spending many hours inside the heads of deeply depressed characters is too bad for me.
This is no criticism of people with different preferences. These are mine, that's all. I really liked Sandpoint. I don't like Korvosa as much; I don't feel excited about getting to play there, just depressed in advance.
All of my capacity for fighting gamely against impossible odds, I have to save for real life. I don't want to spend it on a game. In a game, I want to feel I really have a chance.
Mary
|
I am not sure what that means :) Every game begins with some premise, why should this one be different
Implication of the death: the churches of, at least, Abadar, Pharasma, and Asmodei (maybe Sarenrae as well--the level of the HP here is not given) must be in league with the villain or see their own ends furthered by this event.
Those three churches at *least* have Raise Dead, and they have Commune. It's beyond my belief they wouldn't ask "Was the Queen involved in the King's murder?" Then they know, and there must be a reason they aren't acting; easiest that they're all in league, but that moves toward the city is all evil, which my player finds untenable.
A sidebar here would really have helped. Set up something about the culture or setting that explains how death is handled in a setting with Raise Dead/Resurrection.
And the head mage of the Academae can *also* cast Raise Dead and Commune (via Limited Wish) so he also has to be in on it, probably.
The easiest answers are most often the wrong answers. Raise Dead only works if the dead wishes to be raised, or if it is free to be raised. Most deities are not going to be very happy to receive the soul of the faithful to have some petty mortal try and steal it away. So, if the king was all bad his deity would be jealous and not release him, and if her were good he certainly would not want to go back. Also, if the Queen, the new ruler of the land, says "No" you may be suspicious, you may be upset, but I do not think it likely that the church will attempt a full outright overthrow of a monarchy just to raise an unpopular leader based on suspicion. And, since this is the very first adventure in the Path, how do we know that the churches and academy are not suspicious. In fact by the end of the story a great deal of the nobility believes she was the cause of the kin's death and even riots.
Then there's the very end. It's a movie. Blackjack does all this cool stuff, but--how? We're given that he's 6th level. Does he have high level items? Then we should know. What if the PCs intervene? What about the low-level mages with Magic Missile and low-level clerics with Hold Person? (This is ignoring the top-level folk!) This works in a low magic setting but we are *not in a low-magic setting.* It's a fine dramatic scene but it doesn't make sense. If he has defenses and the PCs do something, I need to know about those defenses; if he doesn't have the defenses how does he get away? I just don't know. How does he defend against Locate Person/Object?
First, Locate Person/Object would not work to begin with. To find a Person you must be familiar with him/her. As a masked avenger no one is going to be "familiar" with Blackjack. They will know the name, but not many people have sat at dinner with Blackjack, had a few beers and laughed the night away. For Object the object must be well-known, must be observed first-hand and within range for starters. So the most likely items to be searched for are the most recognizable ones, his costume. I imagine that he keeps it in a box lined by the thinnest layer of lead, which of course prevents this spell from working as well. What about his rapier? Well, the spell will find a lot of nearby rapiers. But you have seen his rapier before, can you describe in enough detail to separate it from all other rapiers in the city? I collect swords and pay attention to them, but am not likely to see one a few times and be able to describe it in enough detail for the spell to work for me.
So, we know then, that Locate Person/Object would not work anyway.
As far as his role, Blackjack is the inspiration that someone can stand up to injustice and make a difference. If the PCs want to attack him, well they all need to change their character alignments to evil and enroll in the service of the queen and start worshipping demons. So, his role in the fight is narrative and rules need not apply nor be worried about.
I do not really see any organization in Korvosa being evil other than Asmodeus's church. The Hellknights are lawful, making no other judgement regarding good or evil, so LN. They enforce the law, end of story. The City Guard is obviously not evil as the PCs get all the assignments to figure out stuff from them. The Guard is even shown to suspect the queen of evil doings when they want to get the accused murderer before the queen does. The Seneschal suspected the queen but she had him killed so the Castle is not evil. If the other churches had gone against the wife/queen and forced the resurrection of an unpopular king then they would surely be evil. But they did not. The assassin's guild... ok they are evil.
As far as Lamm goes, he was not a BBEG, but a BBBG (Big Bad Beginning Guy). He was the hook for the PCs to gather together. Most games gloss over that part. If your group had a suitable reason for being together outside Lamm, then ignore that background element, the rest works fine.
I really think that the real problem is that you are trying to over think everything. You assume that because a church does not violate a wife's request that her husband not be raised that they must be evil. Which is obviously not true. They would be evil IF they did so. You assumed that certain spells should work, when by reading the spell those spells would not work anyway. And lastly it seems you are trying to take a roleplaying scene and turn it into a combat scene. The Blackjack scene should require no dice rolling at all, no character sheets, no books and no NPC stats at all.
My impression is that you are making judgments based upon other games before you have even really digested this one. This AP does not start like a normal adventure. This is not your normal D&D adventure. This AP is designed to let the PCs become swashbuckling HEOROS, not hack and slash masters. For once, the PCs can tell their story and be held in the same regard as the Three Musketeers. This is the first adventure I have seen where the PCs are expected to rise above being simple swords for hire and be real heros of legend.
My suggestion is walk away from it for a few months, then read the Three Musketeers and then read this adventure.
And if my assumptions and such are way off mark, sorry :) Just trying to help some :)
And I just wouldn't play _The Wire: The Roleplaying Game_.
This crystallizes everything for me. I would KILL to play a game as nuanced, interesting and gritty as The Wire.
I see now our styles are at odds and that is all. No problem there. Your fun is your fun, mine is mine, both are good, just different. Good gaming to you Mary.
|
Nick, if it makes you feel better, I can tell you with absolute certainty that, based on what I've read from this thread, my group will have incredible heaps of fun playing in CotCT, and I am anxiously awaiting to pick it up this week!
Also, I do like seeing the 'behind the scenes' look at what's going on from the designer's point of view, so this thread was a very interesting read.
Nicholas, I'm sorry to bring you down. But if you don't want to know, DON'T ASK. Please. I would never have posted that, but you asked me two or three times for details. Clearly I shouldn't have given them, but it would help if you refrained from asking.
Mary
Its fine Mary. I think you and I are just of SUCH different minds about gaming. And that's okay. G'night everyone.
EDIT: Also, I gotta admit I'm bummed and baffled someone would throw out an adventure out of hand based on a couple of things they found weren't explained in detail (when explanations are pretty easy to imagine for all of them).
With regard to your edit, Nick, I recall reading somewhere that Mary felt considerably vexed when she made up explanations on the spot in Rise of the Runelords, only to later discover something in a subsequent module, where the improvised explanation caused yet further problems.
(Although this is a potential serious problem encountered in running any Adventure path when all the parts have not yet been released.)
That's a fair point. I personally wouldn't run a path until I have all of the components in my hot little hands.
|
|
Mary I can understand your vexed look on EoA. I am having it as well, but I will also be looking at other groups work so that I can find a way to make it work. Half the issue I have found with the APs so far is that just isn't enough to always go by and this is an unfortunate editing issue that can not be fixed without cutting something else.
I am sure the fine folks at Paizo are doing everything they can to get what best represents the basic ideals of their line of adventures.
In the end I try to make sure my players all have something to look forward to or even dread to deal with as it makes it more real for them.
I also don't tend to run the AP until I have the first 3 in my hands as it gives me enough of a buffer to understand how the AP evolves for adventure to adventure. This way I can add personal touches to make the players feel involved with the world they live in.
In the end I am sad that your group will not be playing CotCT, as I find your reviews and input interesting and refreshing, but I also respect why your group is not going through with it. You are all being true to oneself and that is what matters.
"Actually, you're supposed to kill him off early in the adventure". I think your DM (who's apparently your husband or boyfriend) is telling you way too much before the adventure is even started.
I also don't think he is doing his job - making it fit his style. Your best experience is a homebrew. Stick with that. Use published modules the same way all good DMs do - cherry pick and drop into your own salad.
The idea that no one would want to offend a deity by casting Raise Dead has a lot of trouble with the part of the Korvosa sourcebook which describes how the city authorities Raised 13 virgins who'd been sacrificed to Asmodei (to find out if they'd truly been willing sacrifices). I mean, that's *got* to have offended the god. Apparently it was done to prevent or suppress riots. We're having riots now....
I'd be okay if no one in the setting ever used Raise Dead, and we could therefore pretend it wasn't there--just a hack to rescue dead PCs. But it appears repeatedly in the citybook. Clearly people *do* cast it. They just don't cast it when that would be bad for the plot.
There's a phrase J. Michael Straczynski used when he was asked "How fast do the little fighter ships in Babylon 5 fly?" He said, "They travel at the speed of plot."
Some people like things to travel at the speed of plot; some don't.
Mary
Nick, if it makes you feel better, I can tell you with absolute certainty that, based on what I've read from this thread, my group will have incredible heaps of fun playing in CotCT, and I am anxiously awaiting to pick it up this week!
Also, I do like seeing the 'behind the scenes' look at what's going on from the designer's point of view, so this thread was a very interesting read.
Glad to know good came of this thread at least. I don't mind fleshing out options or troubleshootng on threads at all. Happy to do it!
|
|
The idea that no one would want to offend a deity by casting Raise Dead has a lot of trouble with the part of the Korvosa sourcebook which describes how the city authorities Raised 13 virgins who'd been sacrificed to Asmodei (to find out if they'd truly been willing sacrifices). I mean, that's *got* to have offended the god. Apparently it was done to prevent or suppress riots. We're having riots now....
I'd be okay if no one in the setting ever used Raise Dead, and we could therefore pretend it wasn't there--just a hack to rescue dead PCs. But it appears repeatedly in the citybook. Clearly people *do* cast it. They just don't cast it when that would be bad for the plot.
I believe Queen Domina ordered the resurections of the virgins and paid for them? It might take a royal decree (or the equivalent) to get a raise dead spell tossed around.
|
|
There's a phrase J. Michael Straczynski used when he was asked "How fast do the little fighter ships in Babylon 5 fly?" He said, "They travel at the speed of plot."
Some people like things to travel at the speed of plot; some don't.
Mary
That's a great quote. I looked over this thread with some interest as I'm planning on running this AP in the near future. While I somewhat understand the OPs feelings I'd have to agree more with the Straczynski quote. I really dig the setup for CoCT and to my mind the quibbles re the verismiltude of it are just that and more to the point, they get in the way of what is promising to be a great plot arc.
For instance, the story re the adventuring party that slew the ankhegs below the city losing one of their own and having a statue erected in their honour, well that's far more interesting and poignant than it ending with "so we took a short stroll down to the closest LG aligned temple for a raise dead scroll."Stressing the mechanics and particularly the magic system in D&D is invariably going to lead to finding fault with any setting be it economics, social hiearchy etc, let alone political events such as the one in EoA. I guess its a matter of balance still drawing upon what is in the rules but still having a dramatic, gripping setting/scenario.
For what its worth, I think Logue and the Paizo crew have so far setup what should be a pretty neat AP. Korvosa looks to be a lot of fun. The episodic structure of EoA I think is a plus rather than a minus. It felt a bit like the first batch of episodes of a first season. They're interconnected but they are their own eposide and a good way to gradually introduce the setting, conflict etc. A little bit like Babylon 5 actually (and I mean that in the way of praise). Well there be my two cp.
Those three churches at *least* have Raise Dead, and they have Commune. It's beyond my belief they wouldn't ask "Was the Queen involved in the King's murder?" Then they know, and there must be a reason they aren't acting; easiest that they're all in league, but that moves toward the city is all evil, which my player finds untenable.
As for the raise dead thing, Korvosa (and many other "kingdoms") may have laws against raising a monarch from the dead... think about how much it would play hell with the issue of succession if some cleric used a true resurection spell to raise the current monarchs grandfather who died saving the kingdom from XX invasion...
Most settings break down if you assume that Raise Dead is used too often. It's bloody expensive, and churches might not want to use it for people, even important people, who passed of natural causes, like the King appeared to. Casting raise dead for someone who died of old age wastes a perfectly good diamond.
I'd argue its worse then that. raise dead and their ilk basically destroy any possibility that a campaign can emulate something from fantasy literature. I can't think of any fantasy literature that presumes that raising the dead is anything close to as easy as it is in D&D. If death is easily side stepped the result on the culture is profound. It changes everything.
It just gets worse if one stays in the same local - especially a big city because this shoves the contradictions in our face. Easy access to spells that bring one back from the dead mean that powerful people can't actually be killed. Kill them and some one just raises them again. Assassinating the Emperor can only occur if you bankrupt the treasury. Essentially the Assassins don't actually kill the Emperor - they just make taxes to go up to pay for all these true resurrection spells. This also impacts the rest of the society in all sorts of strange ways. Whats the net cultural impact of the Churches have phenominal amounts of wealth? Why aren't all D&D countries Theocracies? I mean the church is crawling in gold as they have the ultimate commodity to sell- life itself.
Here I've pointed out two inconsistencies within how we view a standard fantasy world and what we really have in D&D terms but I doubt I've even scratched the surface of impact this would have on the culture.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Most settings break down if you assume that Raise Dead is used too often. It's bloody expensive, and churches might not want to use it for people, even important people, who passed of natural causes, like the King appeared to. Casting raise dead for someone who died of old age wastes a perfectly good diamond.
Limited Wish also costs XP, i.e. life force, so many mages might simply refuse to cast it unless they have a mighty good reason.
It is safe to assume that most people are reluctant to come back to the world that killed them in the first place. Solves a lot of the "raise everyone" problem.
City adventures are really, really hard.
But I think you stack the deck against yourself when you emphasize, as big central plot events, things as difficult to justify as these. It's not that I want explanations, so much as I want more plot elements that *don't need extensive explanations in order to make sense.*
Mary
Mary, I always find your posts fascinating, and frequently maddening. I guess I just don't see where the explanations need for some of the things you and your player/GM had problems with in this module and others need top be all that extensive.
I frequently wonder if your real problem is the size of your group. I think you all would actually benefit from having other minds bouncing off the modules with you. It's really felt to me as if you and your player/GM keep running into tunnel vision problems that other groups don't run into as often, because they have more players.
Does that feel like a possibility to you? Not that I know if you can do anything about the problem. Not every place has a lot of gamers easily findable.
After a long discussion yesterday we agreed to abandon the CotCT campaign we'd been planning, having done a couple of introductory adventures but nothing from the printed module yet.
You know Mary you might find that you have a better time with the APs if you waited for the play testing to be done.
In any given AP there have got to be at least 50 and maybe a whole lot more people that are posting on the boards. A great many the problems will have been located given enough time and various DMs solutions will have been posted.
This won't save an AP for you if you just don't like the theme - but in ones were you do like the theme it might really help.
|
The way I deal with churches and the whole pay-for-rez deal is to treat each church as a organisation in which you have to build reputation with in order to be granted boons. The higher the standing in the church, the higher the boon that can be granted. Some players see it as an insurance policy others as a calling which has fringe benefits.
Some churches (in fact most churches in my games) accept cold hard cash, magical items, etc to improve standing but the truth behind the greed is that the characters are building reputation with the deity not the church. For something as important as a Resurrection the deity will expect something of equal value in return for returning a character to life perhaps in a lawful-good church the rule would be a life returned for a life saved and in a Lawful Evil church perhaps a new life granted for an old life sacrificed. Whatever the nature of the price the cost should be restrictive, and should scale with the importance of the character. Remember the biblical quote "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."
Now to the King of Korvosa and his passing. Which church has he given a tithe equivalent to his restoration? Always a King must deal evenly with all parties and this is not contusive with building sufficient patronage with any one church to warrant a higher boon. To favour one would be to alien the others and a boon can easily be wiped out with a bane from another deity. Generally dead is just plain dead.
Sorry for the thread hijack Mary/Nick. I love what I have read of EoA (urban campaigns give me a warm evil feeling inside) but I am trying to avoid reading the PDF until I get the physical product in my hands.
Most settings break down if you assume that Raise Dead is used too often. It's bloody expensive, and churches might not want to use it for people, even important people, who passed of natural causes, like the King appeared to. Casting raise dead for someone who died of old age wastes a perfectly good diamond.
As far as I've seen, the king died of a disease that resembled a rapid form of leprosy. That's not old age. And he's a king. 5000gp isn't very much to get him back. His wife blows a couple thousand gp recovering some minor jewelry.
Instead of all these weird laws and contorted excuses, it is much easier to say that they DID try raise dead, but his soul refused to return. He's okay with his afterlife and he is not coming back.
|
|
As far as I've seen, the king died of a disease that resembled a rapid form of leprosy. That's not old age. And he's a king. 5000gp isn't very much to get him back. His wife blows a couple thousand gp recovering some jewelry.
But resurrection spells are clerical magic. The 5000 gp price are a rule trick to avoid unlimited access to this kind of spells to the PCs, but must not be the only prerrequisite for NPCs to use it. It can be denied by the gods. Only some special people can be returned from the dead (PCs?).
So, it's a expensive ritual that must only work sometimes. Otherwise it is impossible to make a coherent setting where such spells are allowed to everyone that have enough money.
"Actually, you're supposed to kill him off early in the adventure". I think your DM (who's apparently your husband or boyfriend) is telling you way too much before the adventure is even started.
I also don't think he is doing his job - making it fit his style. Your best experience is a homebrew. Stick with that. Use published modules the same way all good DMs do - cherry pick and drop into your own salad.
I think he's doing a great job. Going by the campaign guide, it is very easy to make a character whose life revolves around getting Lemm. He goes down so quickly and easily, many players who follow the written instructions will be left with characters bereft of motivation. I think Mary's DM did the right thing here. He kept her from making a character that she quite possibly would not have wanted to continue playing after the first few hours of game play.
It just gets worse if one stays in the same local - especially a big city because this shoves the contradictions in our face. Easy access to spells that bring one back from the dead mean that powerful people can't actually be killed. Kill them and some one just raises them again. Assassinating the Emperor can only occur if you bankrupt the treasury. Essentially the Assassins don't actually kill the Emperor - they just make taxes to go up to pay for all these true resurrection spells.
Rather than assassination, it's sometimes better to imprison someone and ward against divination attempts to locate them. The spells and magic items to do this are in the srd. It's more involved than just killing a king, sure, but an assassin who steals a kings soul and puts it where no one can find it can still keep His Majesty out of circulation for a long long time.
But resurrection spells are clerical magic. The 5000 gp price are a rule trick to avoid unlimited access to this kind of spells to the PCs, but must not be the only prerrequisite for NPCs to use it. It can be denied by the gods. Only some special people can be returned from the dead (PCs?).
So, it's a expensive ritual that must only work sometimes. Otherwise it is impossible to make a coherent setting where such spells are allowed to everyone that have enough money.
Are you talking about setting specific limits on clerical magic? I don't think resurrection spells are limited in the Golarion in the manner you mentioned. Your setting may impose additional restrictions on types of spells, but those are your rules, not the baseline.
It is hardly impossible to make a coherent setting with resurrection magic. It may be difficult to make one that resembles medieval Europe, but few settings do that well anyway.
Mary - I recall that you had a similar reaction to Sins of the Saviors; you came here and posted a diatribe about how bad the adventure was and how you found it completely unworkable. Then, you took some of the advice you received, tried running it, and were surprised at how well it worked, after all. And you were able to enjoy it in the end, right?
I think you and your GM/player might need to consider some of the advice here. Wait until more segments of an adventure are out before starting to run it. Look for some of the early-experiences advice on these boards ahead of time.
But mostly, stop trying so hard. The two of you apparently do a large amount of modification, both because you think things don't make sense and because the resulting changes you've made cause cascading problems. Waiting for more to be published first would cut down on a lot of this.
Revealing too much of the mystery too early in an Adventure Path (as you described from both your SCAP and your RotRL paths) causes issues, and more of that mystery should be preserved for longer. Try to resist the desire to create PCs that have a strong potential of "breaking" a published adventure path ("scholars" who try to solve every single clue and figure out the true meaning behind the path too early; pseudodragons and other non-standard races). Yes, figuring out the clues is fun for you - but focus on the clues for the part of the path in which you currently are adventuring, and stop seeding the adventures with clues from upcoming chapters.
Ultimately, adventure paths work well for my own group because they're willing to go along with the plot hooks. If I give them strong hints to pursue something, they look for reasons for their PCs to pursue it instead of resisting or finding reasons why their PCs would not. If I give them hints that they're wasting their time on a dead-end (or on something they lack the resources/skill ranks/data to solve at this point), they accept that gracefully and move on. They don't mind following the general plot. And because they're willing to "go along for the ride" on plot-related items, they can really get into, and enjoy, the events as they take place rather than constantly fighting them.
If you and your GM/player are the sorts of people who need so very badly to be able to jump the tracks of the plot, or to follow any individual clue to its logical conclusion no matter how far off the tracks of the written adventure it takes you, then Adventure Paths probably aren't for you. But talking about how badly the adventures are written, just because you want something non-standard, is really not fair. These have been really great adventures that you've been trashing, and if you give yourselves the chance to appreciate them instead of looking for reasons to get annoyed by perceived problems, I think you can learn a lot from them. I certainly have.
As far as I've seen, the king died of a disease that resembled a rapid form of leprosy. That's not old age.
'Old Age' never actually kills anyone. Even 'dying in your sleep' is usually a heart attack or stroke. If I die of a disease when I'm 20, that's tragic. If I die of a disease when I'm 80, we call it 'natural causes'. The king was OLD! Barring actual, obvious violence, it should appear that age killed him.
'Old Age' never actually kills anyone. Even 'dying in your sleep' is usually a heart attack or stroke. If I die of a disease when I'm 20, that's tragic. If I die of a disease when I'm 80, we call it 'natural causes'. The king was OLD! Barring actual, obvious violence, it should appear that age killed him.
As far as I've seen, the king died of a disease that resembled a rapid form of leprosy. That's not old age.
I don't think late 50s to early 60s counts as OLD! Not in my games, anyways. YMMV ;)
|
Are you talking about setting specific limits on clerical magic? I don't think resurrection spells are limited in the Golarion in the manner you mentioned.
But we ARE told that there are only a handful of Clerics in the entire world of high enough level to cast resurrection magic. They had to get the xp from something, usually adventuring themselves. Who says that the Clerics of these churches are present in town at the time. maybe to raise those virgins they needed the queen to send to another city to summon a high enough cleric to get the job done. By the time the cleric is found and summoned to the city to raise the king, the PCs may have already finished the path.
And I just wouldn't play _The Wire: The Roleplaying Game_.This crystallizes everything for me. I would KILL to play a game as nuanced, interesting and gritty as The Wire.
The Wire is the single greatest achievement of Western Civilization.
There, I said it.Every DM should watch the series in it's entirety before they run their next session.
But we ARE told that there are only a handful of Clerics in the entire world of high enough level to cast resurrection magic. They had to get the xp from something, usually adventuring themselves. Who says that the Clerics of these churches are present in town at the time. maybe to raise those virgins they needed the queen to send to another city to summon a high enough cleric to get the job done. By the time the cleric is found and summoned to the city to raise the king, the PCs may have already finished the path.
Are you talking about setting specific limits on clerical magic? I don't think resurrection spells are limited in the Golarion in the manner you mentioned.
We're told that those few clerics are mostly found in Magnimar, Absalom, and Korvosa.
The Guide to Korvosa even discusses times when possible crime victims were raised from the dead and questioned about the events leading to their demises.
|
|
But we ARE told that there are only a handful of Clerics in the entire world of high enough level to cast resurrection magic. They had to get the xp from something, usually adventuring themselves. Who says that the Clerics of these churches are present in town at the time. maybe to raise those virgins they needed the queen to send to another city to summon a high enough cleric to get the job done. By the time the cleric is found and summoned to the city to raise the king, the PCs may have already finished the path.
Are you talking about setting specific limits on clerical magic? I don't think resurrection spells are limited in the Golarion in the manner you mentioned.We're told that those few clerics are mostly found in Magnimar, Absalom, and Korvosa.
The Guide to Korvosa even discusses times when possible crime victims were raised from the dead and questioned about the events leading to their demises.
But like I said, even if they are normally found there does not mean they are there all the time, they got the XP to gain these levels somehow... I would hazzard a guess that they may do some adventuring of their own sometimes.
Let the clerics cast raise dead. If I was the king, and got killed by the queen, I wouldn't want to come back from the dead. And rasie dead only works on willing targets.
I don't think late 50s to early 60s counts as OLD! Not in my games, anyways. YMMV ;)'Old Age' never actually kills anyone. Even 'dying in your sleep' is usually a heart attack or stroke. If I die of a disease when I'm 20, that's tragic. If I die of a disease when I'm 80, we call it 'natural causes'. The king was OLD! Barring actual, obvious violence, it should appear that age killed him.
As far as I've seen, the king died of a disease that resembled a rapid form of leprosy. That's not old age.
Yes, but you're missing Ross' point here -- to all outward appearances, the king died of natural causes. The church clerics would likely take one look at the body and say "Nope. Can't be done. He died young, but he essentially died of old age (natural causes(. Our spells can't bring him back."
Even if that's not satisfying enough for Mary and her player, there's one single solution that would work, be very simple, and not require every high level player in every organization to be evil (I disagree greatly with Mary's GM's logic at this, but I digress...) -- trap the soul. With the casting of one single spell, the clerics can burn all the 5,000 gp diamonds they want. The king ain't coming back from that.
Which brings me to my next point -- say a cleric did cast commune and discovers the king was assassinated, so what? Normally, when people uncover proof of an assassination of succession, they go into hiding for the rest of their lives for fear of torture and death. They don't go around telling everybody, regardless of how incontrovertible their proof is. Why? Because they don't know who else is in on the conspiracy, and when an assassin will be coming along to kill them.
Mary, I appreciate your GM's problems with the module, but it really seems to me that he only thought these things part way through. There's some big issues he's missed that completely change the conclusions he's leaping to about the module.
Also, I would strongly second the suggestions not to run these APs until you have all six issues.
I don't think late 50s to early 60s counts as OLD! Not in my games, anyways. YMMV ;)
You are, of course, free to use whichever house rules you like. According to the PHB (p. 109), a human is "old" at age 53. I'm stilled "middle aged" for a few more years, then. :)
I think he's doing a great job. Going by the campaign guide, it is very easy to make a character whose life revolves around getting Lemm. He goes down so quickly and easily, many players who follow the written instructions will be left with characters bereft of motivation. I think Mary's DM did the right thing here. He kept her from making a character that she quite possibly would not have wanted to continue playing after the first few hours of game play."Actually, you're supposed to kill him off early in the adventure". I think your DM (who's apparently your husband or boyfriend) is telling you way too much before the adventure is even started.
I also don't think he is doing his job - making it fit his style. Your best experience is a homebrew. Stick with that. Use published modules the same way all good DMs do - cherry pick and drop into your own salad.
Umm...no. Mary's DM is giving away essential plot elements before they happen. Lots of people go through their lives obsessing about something that seems crucial and important and then calamity strikes and they realize that it wasn't that important after all.
This plot hook serves to lift the eyes of the PC from her own concerns to those of the bigger picture. The gang leader wasn't the be all and end all...something bigger is going on.
Or, you could go in a different direction, and the king's ghost doesn't know himself. Being dead doesn't mean you automatically know everything that happened, ever. Heck, he might even think that it "was his time to go," and never knew about the poisons. He was extremely sick for the last few weeks of his life.
Which brings me to my next point -- say a cleric did cast commune and discovers the king was assassinated, so what? Normally, when people uncover proof of an assassination of succession, they go into hiding for the rest of their lives for fear of torture and death.
Heh. I'd meant to try and make that point too, but clearly I'd left it out for some reason.
Also, I think Mary's GM needs to read all the divination spells very closely. There are few, if any divination spells that, even at high level, provide perfect knowledge of something, even when diving from the gods themselves or other extraplanar powers.
Having high level spell casters capable of divination and contacting the dead does not automatically do what Mary's GM seems to think it does.
I'd also like to add the final point that I think Logue is getting close to something with his first guess as to Mary and her player's problems with these modules -- logic. Even though Mary said she didn't recognize Logue's description, I think there's still a logic issue going on. Or perhaps an insight issue.
I think Mary's GM is applying too much insight to these high level NPCs he's decided must be evil. He's running these high level NPCs as if they know as much about the plot of the adventure as he does. He's finding fault in high level NPCs for not taking actions that, from what I've seen so far (and I haven't read through all of EoA and the Korvosa Guide yet) they would have no reason to take based on the information available to them.
Why isn't the king just raised by one of the churches?
Read the PH. Raise dead wouldn't cure the magic poison, he'd just die again. It would also require a 9th level cleric with a 15 wisdom to cast and cost 5k gold. What levels are the clerics of these churches? 9th is fairly high for a non-adventurer.
True Resurection would do the job, but would require a 17th level cleric with a wisdom of 19 and would cost 25k gold. Are there 17th level non-adventuring clerics in this city?
Rather than assassination, it's sometimes better to imprison someone and ward against divination attempts to locate them. The spells and magic items to do this are in the srd. It's more involved than just killing a king, sure, but an assassin who steals a kings soul and puts it where no one can find it can still keep His Majesty out of circulation for a long long time.
It just gets worse if one stays in the same local - especially a big city because this shoves the contradictions in our face. Easy access to spells that bring one back from the dead mean that powerful people can't actually be killed. Kill them and some one just raises them again. Assassinating the Emperor can only occur if you bankrupt the treasury. Essentially the Assassins don't actually kill the Emperor - they just make taxes to go up to pay for all these true resurrection spells.
Sure and we can think of creatures of immense power who can trap souls and such but your basic assassination, noble feud, sending a really big dragon to flash fry the king or any of a huge number of fantasy tropes just don't work. Even if we can, some effort, come up with why a creature of great power might kill the king we can't do this with things like nobles and rich merchants - they all just seem to come back.
Blimmey, now I have a headache:) You people have amazing minds - it's been a while since we had such a strong debate with so many interesting points.
As much as I hate to admit it, Logue really got my attention on this one as it is almost a topsy turvy path from the start, getting the Pcs into the heart of events immediately. To even think about this is ambitious enough in an AP with so many players and readers, but that's typically Nick, trying to go for something totally different, no matter how challenging, that’s why I think we’ll still be talking about his adventures for many years.
I think Jeremy is right though, in that waiting a short while until several adventures have come out helps - some of the ideas that come out after publication on these boards are so awesome I'd like to go back and do a directors cut - this was particularly the case with the Prince of Redhand and I’m sure will be the case with Escape.
After writing Skinsaw, I’ve weaved elements from that adventure back into the main campaign I’m running now and I think Aldern in particular (and his family) has a lot more mileage – but that highlights a limit with any writing for public consumption in that we don’t know your players or DM, and can only give our take on events.
Tonight I have a single sided A4 sheet for the whole evenings session and nothing more, because I know my players and exactly what they want – everything else will be improvised because the whole campaign has gone that way because the players have made it like that – but such an AP would be impossible to publish as it has altogether too many twists and turns, too many NPCs with too many motives.
Many people will love the APs because they give a string of adventures suitable for most players, some people will prefer other situations however, and, like us, much more improv in sessions – this is fine, as an AP gives a whole host of ideas, and with PDFs the potential to take chunks out and play with them and mingle them into your own campaign – so that, for example, the scarecrows from Skinsaw will shortly make an appearance in my own AP as part of a mad dash from half sahaugin in a vast marsh with howling dogs at your back sidetrek.
Finally, I’d say that I’m sure these APs will grow as they continue, I know the chaps at Paizo are always working to come up with new ideas – but please take a look at the rest of this AP, see if your DM can alter or change or add, and if not, see if any elements of it are useful in your own homegrown campaign, with your own unique twists on our twistedness.
Great debate guys, and lovely to see the Styes hijacking another Logue thread.
No Escape…
Since the discussion is happening here I'll post this here.
No government (that wasn’t a theocracy) worth it bureaucracy would let a religion get involved in the succession of the throne with Resurrections. Could you imagine the number of civil wars (or assassinations/ruinations of Priest capable of brining kings back) that would happen if an heir had to wait until a king died of a non-rezable means of death? There’s going to be exceptions but in general a government is not going to want to give a religion the power to put a ruler BACK on the throne. Death is a natural part of life kings die, new kings come around.
As for religions getting involved in law enforcement… if a faith isn’t already tied into the policing force it’d be an admission of failure for detectives (or whatever) to approach a church and ask for a locate person/object. And if the faith offers, just picture those scenes when the FBI becomes involved in a crime and how the local PD is resentful on those coming into their territory and telling them how to do things. The phrase “What, you don’t think I can do my job?” comes to mind.
It’s not a faiths job to use divine intervention to make things easier for people. Aside from exceptions (“we’ve got a missing child with two hours to live”) most faiths will tell people to do things on their own. Otherwise EVERYONE would be pestering a temple for quick fixes. Most faiths (especially those that would have temples in a major city) want people to be independent, just independent according to their doctrine.
As for Korvosa, the king got sick and died, it happens, people are rioting during the transition, social unease happens. The Queen is unpopular, the King wasn’t exactly an America Idol winner either. Even if a faith felt the King should be raised, they’d go to the Queen who would say something like: “Thank you for your offer, it’s very generous, but the last thing my husband said to me was that he’d earned his rest and would rather not be brought back, so no thank you.” End of story.
I made this point earlier, but it may have gotten lost.
I think Mary and her player's biggest issue, though is the lack of players. Playing with just two is tricky under the best of circumstances. Even with players playing multiple characters, these modules are just not designed as one-on-one adventures. Playing four PCs is not at all the same thing as having four brains processing, reacting and responding to things.
But also it is four different understandings of the rules. Few if any actually understand all the rules in depth. The rules are dense, and pretty much all of us skim over paragraphs and miss important details. I've found it important in pretty much all RPGs, but especially in 3.5 and Shadowrun(any), to read all the way to the end of the rules section you are looking at. Despite designers best efforts, most of the time there are important details that will directly affect any given situation buried in the second, third, forth or fifth paragraph. Details that completely change the "correct" application of the mechanic.
Related to that, even the best cross-referenced books miss important cross references, and the mechanic that actually applies to a given situation is not detailed where you're looking. It's always seemed to me just one of those things that comes with the territory. Having five different people with five different understandings and POVs toward the rules really helps any group play the game better.
Unfortunately, I seem to recall that adding more players is problematic for Mary and her GM, for some reason. I don't remember why, but I do seem to recall that it's just the two of them for some reason.
|
I read this thread this morning and considered replying, but Nic Logue pretty much summed up my thoughts with his, as I share his vision of gaming. That said, I just stumbled across something Mary might want to take note of.
I run Rise of the Runelords weekly, and I deliberately started it after I had received Chapter 3, so, as another poster put it, I'd have enough future info to portray everyone appropriately.
Now, twice a month on a different night, I run a different group of players through a Forgotten Realms campaign. I chose to use the three recent WotC storyarc hardcovers Cormyr, Shadowdale, and Anauroch. It's a 'lighter' game I spend significantly less time prepping for, so the delve format works in my favor.
I just read an entry in the first book that had a section following the encounter with no less than TEN sentences basically starting with the words "If the PC's...". It's incredible. It's as if the designers all tried to cover every single outcome based on "if's".
Is it interesting to read? Heck no, it's horrible. Is it effective? Absolutely! They cover nearly all basic circumstances, reactions from creatures there, and everything. Everyone reacts and acts logically. If they don't, the module actually tells you why or at least hints at it, giving a reason.
Maybe that is more the style of adventure Mary and her group seek?
Reading a Paizo Pathfinder book is almost like reading a novel. I can sit in hammock and just read it through. Reading these WotC books is like stereo instructions. They are precise, helpful and tell you everything you need to know, but they are not interesting to get through! Also, you realize that 9 of the 10 "If the PC's..." are not going to be used, and you get the hint of wasted space.
I don't need Paizo, or anyone, really, to tell me the what if's of the 20 or 30 (or really, infinite) ways PCs can approach and deal with a situation. But if you are one who really gets off on that stuff I suggest Mary and her group gives the first book in this series a look, really. They are not bad, just different. It's for a 'lighter' D&D group I run and for that they fit just right.
But man, give me Nic Logue Pathfinders any day over these. But that's just me.
-DM Jeff
'Old Age' never actually kills anyone. Even 'dying in your sleep' is usually a heart attack or stroke. If I die of a disease when I'm 20, that's tragic. If I die of a disease when I'm 80, we call it 'natural causes'. The king was OLD! Barring actual, obvious violence, it should appear that age killed him.
As far as I've seen, the king died of a disease that resembled a rapid form of leprosy. That's not old age.
Hmm...thats true and it would seem to provide a weird little loop hole. If we cast cure disease on some one every day (hey its a low level spell - the kind should have no trouble getting daily castings) would the not live forever? Or at least for a really long time?
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
First of all... sorry to hear that Curse of the Crimson Throne's not a good one for you. I've said it before; this was the most complicated adventure path we've tried to build yet, and there ARE more parts leaking through that can cause confusion than I'd hope would. The imps vs. pseudodragons thing is one, a problem made worse by the fact that there are TWO pictures of these fights in the Guide to Korvosa. That makes it seem like it's a MUCH more common occurance than it really is; as Mike's said elsewhere, these big fights are rare. His estimate is once or twice a year, mine would be even lower. Imp vs. pseudodragon fights play a VERY minor role in the Adventure Path, in any event; there's, I believe, entirely ONE minor random encounter where the PCs are attacked by imps and some pseudodragons swoop in to help; that's about it. If that's really a deal breaker for a group, it can be cut with no impact whatsoever.
As for the other problems, I suspect they're there primarilly because we weren't clear enough about certain things. Trust me; there's a LOT more written about these Adventrue Paths than ever sees print as we start writing campaign outlines and all sorts of other things to get where we need to get to. And sometimes, by the time we get to the actual adventure, what seems common sense and well-known to us isn't to someone coming to the adventures for the first time. To take two of the "problems" that are being talked about in this adventure...
Blackjack: Locate person and locate object are, to a certain extent, bad for the game. They kill so many plots and stories that it, frankly, kind of sickens me. Find the path and discern location are similar problems. They're "developer traps." You have to keep an eye on them when plots that can be broken by these spells pop up. For Blackjack... remember, he's a fictional character. As Nick says, he doesn't even exist lately; locate creature won't find him except when he's active, and as a result he tries to stay inactive as much as possible. Further making it difficult to track these things down are Blackjack's amulet of proof against detection and location (something we forgot to add to his stash of gear when it's discovered in the third adventure... I'm at home sick right now, but this thread DID remind me of it and I sent Wes a panic email and he made the fix at the last second), so that when he's active the spells have a difficult time of finding him, and when he's not, the items that he uses are kept inside of a bag of holding or other dimensional object that removes the objects from range of a locate object spell pretty easily... I mean, if a thin sheet of lead can defeat the spell, certainly being in a pocket dimension works?
We could have gone into even more detail about all of this, of course, but at the cost of other parts of the adventure that were more important; none of the spoiler stuff above really matters in the first adventure if the GM trusts us to remain logical and to know the rules we work with. If the GM doesn't trust us... well... I guess that's what these messageboards are for.