|
That's a good question and I'm not entirely sure how to best answer it. I used to be a big fan of FR, but I started to dislike it at about the midway point between 3.5 update and 4e release.
I think the thing that makes the biggest difference to me is the amount of luggage carried around by FR. Pathfinder (Golarion) has none of that. There is no Elminster, or Drizzt, or 7 Sisters. In other words, there are no big meta-characters running around. Also, the FR novels are problematic. Game designers were always haveing to come up with new game mechanics to justify what the meta-characters were doing in the novels, instead of making the characters conform to the standard game rules. Those were two of my biggest gripes.
But when you really get down to it, I think I like Pathfinder because it's new and fresh. Hope that helps.
-Skeld
Easy.
They are identical in many good ways...
But in Pathfinder the PCs are the heroes. Most other D&D settings were basically compiled campaign notes from a single or several GMs, who are obligated to include PCs from their game in the setting. In FR, specifically, this really felt like you were "the little heroes" always following in the footsteps of real events.
GMing in Pathfinder APs is like finding your way around a planned city— it is much easier to navigate because you don't have to worry about stepping on the plot's toes. Some people don't concern themselves with that in FR campaigns and the like, but I can really tell the difference when I experience not only a lack of resistance, but a good deal of assistance coming from the campaign setting.
Also, monsters. In the APs especially, monsters are given a fresh yet classic treatment that just doesn't feel random. FR ecologies always seemed extremely arbitrary to me.
It comes down to the difference between compiled campaign notes from an already-played private game, and a group of consummate professional RPG writers who laid out the product to be played. They aren't sharing material from their private stash, they are running a game for us.
|
The Pathfinder material is darker, for a start.
For the world, I'd say that although it's a potboiler/kitchen sink setting like FR, internally the regions make a lot more sense and are more interesting. Also and it's significant, a lot of Golarion is clearly based on our real world regions through history, suitable made fantastic.
"The" Realms is misleading. There are the 2nd Ed. Realms, the 3rd. Ed Realms, and the 4th Ed. Realms. Each one of them looks and feels like completely distinct settings. I just love the 2nd Ed. Realms, years later realized how much 3rd Ed. is so much different, and not for the better, and 4th Ed. does not exist in my world. But I think, neither of those incarnations is really that generic, when you really get into the details.
Out of curiosity (and for some understanding), is the generic Pathfinder world the same thing as Golarion?
I have to admit I know only very few things about the pathfinder world, but, at least to me, optical presentation has a great weight in shaping the image and feel of a setting. And to me, it feels very much 'pulpy', eberronish, and, sorry to say that, like 4e. Barbarians with fur-bikini and buster-sword, comic-gnomes, semi-nude sorceresses, 18th century military uniforms, ...
And, I might be completely mistaken here, it seems to be a bunch of real world cultures thrown together and labeled as something new.
It probably is really great, but not my cup of tea.
I'd also add that areas of Golarion are more vividly defined. In forgotten realms I always felt like the world had different areas, but basically just a slightly tweaked map of Europe. The rulers were all more-or-less good, the evil empires were all more-or-less evil. But all pretty bland. Each area Golarion, from what I've read, is strikingly different and have a lot of well thought out flavor.
The other thing: FR has (had maybe) dozens of gods, with tons of overlapping concerns and domains (again, rehashed greek-roman gods with a touch of Norse). I always thought this was a bit overkill and boring. Golarions gods are quite different and not the cliches of dark-evil-shadow god vs. overwhelming magic god vs. good-healing-moon god. Golarion has things like the childbearing-demon-mother of monsters, contract-signing devil-worshipers, giant-world-destroying monster gods, and of course clever gods of justice, law and order -- all with great background and real ideas for game play (like how their churches work, what their priests do, special domains and spells, etc).
I'd take a look a the Gazetteer as a nice introduction to the world, or if you're interested in a deeper plunge, the Campaign Setting and Gods & Magic book.
What I've noticed in Pathfinder is less of an emphasis on Tolkienesque fantasy, and more elements from pulp fantasy/scifi. If anything, Golarion is closer in feel to old school Greyhawk then FR. There's also no focus of high profile NPCs, which I found became a detriment to FR as time went on. It has the same kitchen sink ethos as FR, but the sources used a far broader and help make the setting it's own beast.
|
For me Golarion is currently some sort of half-conceived impossible dream, standing right between Greyhawk in 'old-school' feel and sense of wonder and imagination, and yet incorporating some of the richness and 'flavor' and texture that made the Forgotten Realms stand out and transcend just being a 'map of a fantasy world' and become more of a living, breathing place.
Golarion has a lot of whacky stuff that suits my sensibilities (just as the Expedition to the Barrier Peaks and all that Erol Otus mythos-evocative art did, when I was a teen), and yet also goes extra levels into detail, making it like some amazing blend of both sensibilities.
It's possible, once we start seeing more of Absolom and the Council of Thieves AP, it will capture some of the urban setting 'lightning in a bottle' that Keith Baker managed to build into Eberron.
But that would be some idealistic perfect trifecta. I'm pleased with the world already!
Golarion's still a toddler, relatively speaking, but I'm happy to see that it's got both Greyhawk and the Forgotten Realms in it's DNA.
|
|
1. Sheer Diversity. the setting has elements ripped off from practicaly everything; real-world history, classic fantasy, pulp fantasy, pulp sci-fi, serious sci-fi, horror movies (both slasher and psychological), LotoR, Lovecraft, and classic D&D. plus, real-world history/mythology. The main chaotic evil goddess was lifted straight from the Babylonian pantheon, the great Old Ones exist, there are Bunyips, and a nation stuck in an eternal bloody revolution.
2. Adaptation Distillation. Its the same old cliches, but done well. It takes old, boring ideas and makes them exciting again. at least, thats what it did for me.
3. maturity level. The AP and Module content in particular bespeaks a very gritty world. Goblins arent generically evil chumps or misunderstood underdogs; they're nasty little baby-eating freaks. The list goes on.
4. Great Art. Say whatever else you will, the Pathfinder line has really good artwork. sure, there are a few bad examples, but the overall quality level is really, really high.
Early Forgotten Realms (late 1e/early 2e) was really great. Most areas were defined in gazetters and adventures which left a lot of room for the DM. By 3.5, all of the blanks spots were being filled in. WOTC also stopped using adventures to define areas. Adventures allow for unexpected discoveries.
I am going to date myself a bit. I got into D&D pre greyhawk. The first campaign setting I had access to was the Wilderlands area by the Judges Guild.
I find that Golarion reinds me a lot of the Wilderlands (and the early AD&D modules). The PCs do not know the major NPCs by heart. In fact, very few exist. Only one region is largely defined to any degree, and even then a GM could run a number of adventures without touching on anything related to cannon.
This what the Realms originally felt like (and the reason I still have my 2e books).
|
Out of curiosity (and for some understanding), is the generic Pathfinder world the same thing as Golarion?
Yes, Golarion is the 'default setting' for Pathfinder RPG.
Barbarians with fur-bikini and buster-sword, comic-gnomes, semi-nude sorceresses, 18th century military uniforms, ...
And, I might be completely mistaken here, it seems to be a bunch of real world cultures thrown together and labeled as something new. It probably is really great, but not my cup of tea.
To be fair - The iconic barbarian's sword is a giant's Bastard-sword, and therefore one weapons size bigger than what she would normally use... from the blog entry with her backstory:
"After wandering the mountains, she came to an immense body at the foot of a cliff—the giant had fallen to his death weeks before, and at his side lay his immense bastard sword. Although Amiri knew that she had not killed the giant, she also knew that all she needed was his sword as proof—certainly her kin wouldn't think to dispute her claim with such a grand trophy. Yet when she returned to the place she had left her kin, she found the camp empty. Concerned, worried that they had fallen victim to the region's dangers, she tracked them, catching up with the warband halfway back to the tribal camp. As she approached the camp, though, she realized something was amiss—they were talking of her, and they were laughing."
In a similar vein Sioni's attire is more based on the Varisian culture (which is based on gypsies) than the fact she is a Sorceress.
Yes there are 18th century military uniforms in one country, but that is the militaristic country of the setting.
I Guess what I'm trying to say is that the best way to look at the setting is not at the iconics - they are the way they are because of their own histories.
Browse the Blog or looks at the countries and people with articles in the Fan Created wiki The design team strives to allow any type of fantasy adventure believably come from part of the world, you have areas representing: Australia, Africa, Arabian nights, Egypt, America, Feudal Europe, Asia, Jungle, underwater cites and more!
Also Those designers not only read the boards, but contribute to them daily. If you ask a question about a product, fans will answer, but if they don't get it right, or can't answer, or there is a different view that can be expressed, you will get comments from the module's author, one of the editors, the publisher, the CEO, or if you're really lucky all of them! Comments from these boards also assist in the creation of the world, Nations have been added from threads on these boards (the Australia-like continent comes to mind), and they hold weekly chats where they answer questions about the world and ask the fans questions about what they want in the world
I think the thing that makes the biggest difference to me is the amount of luggage carried around by FR. Pathfinder (Golarion) has none of that. There is no Elminster, or Drizzt, or 7 Sisters. In other words, there are no big meta-characters running around. Also, the FR novels are problematic. Game designers were always haveing to come up with new game mechanics to justify what the meta-characters were doing in the novels, instead of making the characters conform to the standard game rules.
This happens with almost any setting though, and could happen to Pathfinder once it's novels start coming out. The problem is that most combat game rules do not lend well to a novel combat scene in written text. Then the problem of what is canon material comes up as well, and it always causes controversy because most people's opinions on that will vary widely.
Two things draw me into Pathfinder more than anything else:
1) The feedback level and general friendliness of the staff.
2) The darker, more mature theme of the setting. Especially things having to do with the Cthulhu mythos (but that's just me).
Golarian is a bit of a funky hodge-podge of pulp, fantasy, and fantasized history influences. As such, it's hard to completely grasp as a whole unit. I can see quite a few areas that would be interesting places to base a campaign, and that's what matters most to me.
|
|
What the differences between FR and Golarion?
FR is lame Golarion is not. That is the simple answer.
Now, to be honest Golarion is based upon in part upon James Jacob's Homebrew world he has used for decades and decades and decades :)
However, it takes what is best from different settings, books, movies and pushes that which is good up a notch.
It definitely has some pulp feel to it. But it also has classic fantasy aspect as well. There is some sci-fi on the periphery. The countries fit together, but also manage to reflect recognizable historic cultures with enough changes to feel unique.
A GM can easily take Golarion and put an emphasis on any one genre he prefers. Classic fantasy, Vikings, Egyptians, Devil Worshippers, Empires, Revolutionary lands, Demon infested lands... Pick what you want to play and there is a place for it.
|
Ultimately, nothing.
There is no functional difference between any settings.
All of them have background, NPCs, varying locations, and all that other stuff.
The only actual difference is whether a particular individual uses that specific setting.
And, just as individual preference in ice cream flavor and such, that is an overwhelmingly important factor.
A setting is "different" because a person buying it perceives it is different, and focuses his attention on those perceived differences.
A setting is "better" because a person is using it.
Beyond that, Golarion is currently an "active" setting, with large amount of new material being published for it. I suppose that constitutes a real difference as well.
A GM can easily take Golarion and put an emphasis on any one genre he prefers. Classic fantasy, Vikings, Egyptians, Devil Worshippers, Empires, Revolutionary lands, Demon infested lands... Pick what you want to play and there is a place for it.
To me, that seems not to be a good thing. In a setting, I want many variations of one theme. But a collection of many themes just kills for me the experience of really getting into it. It's just not a cool norse viking world, when it's two weeks by ship to get to the cool steampunk gnome land.
Chose one theme for the whole setting and make all the regions different approaches and variations of the theme. That's what I belive makes a really good setting. If you want to play with another basic theme, use another setting. Trying to please everyone only leads to pleasing noone.
Golarion will continue to receive 3e support, whereas FR will not.
You can either live with the amazing quantity of old FR lore and continue to run your games that way, or you can switch to Golarion and watch the world grow around you.
As for the kinds of adventures you can have there - both worlds are capable of supporting just about anything a DM wants to do, and are certainly large enough to do so.
Ergo, your decision should be based on weather you love FR enough to live in the past, or you are willing to give up one 'love' for something new that will continue to surprise for years to come. Both have their merits, so its a matter of personal choice - NOT what kind of game you can run.
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
To me, that seems not to be a good thing. In a setting, I want many variations of one theme. But a collection of many themes just kills for me the experience of really getting into it. It's just not a cool norse viking world, when it's two weeks by ship to get to the cool steampunk gnome land.
Chose one theme for the whole setting and make all the regions different approaches and variations of the theme. That's what I belive makes a really good setting. If you want to play with another basic theme, use another setting. Trying to please everyone only leads to pleasing noone.
Respectfully, I completely disagree.
Choosing one theme and then building everything around it is a great way to build a CAMPAIGN.
It is not a great way to build a setting, particularly not a setting that is intended to appeal to a large number of people.
You might really like the idea of a Viking setting (I know I do, which is why I created the Lands of the Linnorm Kings). But many of the posters to this thread probably would prefer to play something else. If we made the Pathfinder world all Vikings all the time, a lot of people simply wouldn't buy it.
If you want a Viking only campaign, simply structure the campaign in such a way that the PCs do not leave the Land of the Linnorm Kings.
This is why there are so many different types of nations in Golarion. Ideally, there is at least one area that appeals to just about everyone.
|
|
Yeah, what Eric said!
It would almost be like saying I want to play in a Viking game but I don't want those annoying Barbarians South east, or those Imperials further south of them nor that desert kingdom in decline with pyramids even further south and lordy, get rid of that vast jungle in my Viking game...
A world would just not be one theme. Climate alone dictates a variety in themes. Add in magic and all sorts of odd themes open up. Throw in religions, inhuman races, and things get really wacky fast. In fact, to be honest, I think Golarion is a bit on the tame side.
But if they went where I would like to see it, too many people would not buy it. That is why I take their world and make it my own.
Our own game is going slowly after restarting from an unexpected hiatus. So far we are still in Burnt Offerings. Most of the changes I plan for my own Golarion will never be seen in this campaign.
Adding the Lands of Mystery map from the last Dungeon to a hollowed out Golarion (from Mystara).
Using the Elven and Dwarven gods from Iron Kingdoms.
Dwarves have firearms! And a racial talent is available to gain a +1 bonus to attack with firearms. I LIKE Warcraft dwarves thank you very much.
Speaking of Warcraft, there is a system of messenger gryphons and such critters in major cities. You can rent a gryphon and get to another city faster than just walking. Still takes a while.
Adding secret societies from 7th Sea. That will kick into this campaign though.
MIGHT incorporate some of the overall background from KULT if I can find that darn book.
Vampires and Werewolves from Masquerade.
Planescape will be available with a hint of Stargate thrown in for fun.
And I hope to let them find a dual scimitar wielding Drow someday and hack him to pieces... then they get to attack an overconfident perverted pipe smoking wizard... yeah baby!
James, don't cry too much at what I have done to your world... it will still be fun, really. :)
While I like having a wide variety of locales for adventuring in, there is something to be said for logical design when creating a game world. For instance, if one country had 17th century technology and a neighbouring country had 7th century technology, I'd have to wonder why. Similarly, if there's a high-magic country that's described as having an army of enslaved efreet and noble djinn, I'd have to wonder why they wouldn't have taken a neighbouring low-magic country.
That's why I have to take my hat off to Keith Baker; the Eberron setting came up with a lot of clever answers to various questions I've had:
- If powerful archmages are relatively common, then how do you motivate a party of low-level PCs to save the world instead of leaving it up to the "heavy hitters"? (Eberron: High-level characters are extremely rare.)
- If there are powerful monsters to challenge high-level characters, why haven't they taken over/destroyed the world yet? (Eberron: Demons are sleeping, the quori and dalkyr are on remote planes of existence, dragons are aloof and live on another continent, giants are savages and live on another continent, etc.)
- If there's so much magic in the world, why is it still a medieval-type setting instead of being more modern? (Eberron: Low-level magic is common and is used in many modern-ish inventions.)
- How can you integrate psionics in a seamless way and still have it be optional for people who don't like psionics? (Eberron: Psionics are common on another continent.)
I love FR (2nd edition, of course)… and I do not think that Golarion can never replace it in my table. Its complexity and its feeling are exactly what I'm looking for a fantastic world. Their NPCs never bothered me. In my FR campaigns the PCs have always been the heroes. Neither Elminster, or Drizzt, neither the Chosen have never clogged.
Now ... Golarion also has some very interesting things. Enough classic flavor, with some innovations, and monsters and interesting places. But I confess. Withouth the Adventure Paths, Golarion would not have found a place at my table. And not because it is bad: it is a good world, with original touches. But neither offer me anything really new nor maintains 100% the feel of the classic fantastic medieval worlds that I love (these supermarkets of magic items ... and more)
Even so, give him a chance, William Edmunds. It is a good world, well-built, and rather classic in its feeling.
The Forgotten Realms was great. Pathfinder is great.
Respectfully, I completely disagree.
I'm perfectly okay with agreeing to disagree. It's two different approaches to an issue and since it's all about what people like and not what is best, I think this is really a matter of preference.
And the single most important aspect of design is that the designer thinks it works for him.It's not that apealing to my tastes, but obviously there are a lot of people who really like it. So you're obviously doing something very right. ;)
|
For me, the attraction is that it's new.
I started playing D&D with 3rd edition, by which time both FR and Greyhawk were "old." I was never really able to get into them because it always felt like there was so much lore and backstory associated with them that I would never be able to absorb it all and do the setting justice.
For me, Golarion has similar old-school flavor, but is an opportunity for me to get in on the ground floor and not have to feel like I've missed out on stuff.
|
|
While I like having a wide variety of locales for adventuring in, there is something to be said for logical design when creating a game world. For instance, if one country had 17th century technology and a neighbouring country had 7th century technology, I'd have to wonder why. Similarly, if there's a high-magic country that's described as having an army of enslaved efreet and noble djinn, I'd have to wonder why they wouldn't have taken a neighbouring low-magic country.
That's why I have to take my hat off to Keith Baker; the Eberron setting came up with a lot of clever answers to various questions I've had:
- If powerful archmages are relatively common, then how do you motivate a party of low-level PCs to save the world instead of leaving it up to the "heavy hitters"? (Eberron: High-level characters are extremely rare.)
- If there are powerful monsters to challenge high-level characters, why haven't they taken over/destroyed the world yet? (Eberron: Demons are sleeping, the quori and dalkyr are on remote planes of existence, dragons are aloof and live on another continent, giants are savages and live on another continent, etc.)
- If there's so much magic in the world, why is it still a medieval-type setting instead of being more modern? (Eberron: Low-level magic is common and is used in many modern-ish inventions.)
- How can you integrate psionics in a seamless way and still have it be optional for people who don't like psionics? (Eberron: Psionics are common on another continent.)
Well aside from Psionics I think Golarion has answers to all of these.
But to note the comment about technology differences... Ancient Egypt remained a Bronze Age civilization while other surrounding areas were well into the Iron Age (and had been for a few centuries).
The developed countries right now use state-of-the-art high tech devices while in other areas of the world (Sub-Saharan Africa, some South American lands, North Korea) are decades, and in some cases centuries behind in development. Some areas are still, in effect stone age-iron age, gaining their technology and equipment only through imports and cast offs by more developed countries. Their own technologies having developed little beyond ancient methods.
I don't think it is fair to hold fantasy settings to a standard above the real world...
|
|
Respectfully, I completely disagree.I'm perfectly okay with agreeing to disagree. It's two different approaches to an issue and since it's all about what people like and not what is best, I think this is really a matter of preference.
And the single most important aspect of design is that the designer thinks it works for him.
It's not that apealing to my tastes, but obviously there are a lot of people who really like it. So you're obviously doing something very right. ;)
The simple truth is no one game world will ever work for everyone.
[tease]But of the ones that are published Golarion is the best ;)
Just like French Vanilla is the best! ;0[/tease]
Well aside from Psionics I think Golarion has answers to all of these.
Actually, they have a blurb on psionics that explained things to my satisfaction.
Overall, I liked the Campaign Setting. The only bits I didn't care for as much were the "super-high magic" pieces (e.g. the city of Jalmerary being made out of gold and marble, armies of djinn and efreet, the country of Geb being ruled by a super-wizard).
I also thought that they could have left a few things a little more mysterious, but that's just my personal taste. When I first got the Greyhawk boxed set (by good, ol' Pluffet Smedger the Elder), I thought it was tantalizingly vague about the people and places it described.
For me, the attraction is that it's new.
I started playing D&D with 3rd edition, by which time both FR and Greyhawk were "old." I was never really able to get into them because it always felt like there was so much lore and backstory associated with them that I would never be able to absorb it all and do the setting justice.
For me, Golarion has similar old-school flavor, but is an opportunity for me to get in on the ground floor and not have to feel like I've missed out on stuff.
I'll echo this sentiment. While I have been playing for many years, I have only been running a game for maybe half of that time, just after 3rd edition came out, specifically immediately after Oriental Adventures came out (squee!) . Being able to watch a world being built and developed and nurtured from the get go, and being able to interact with those designers in a meaningful way, is quite a powerful sensation, and one I enjoy thoroughly. Golarion has grown organically, and the world has a cohesive feel to it, a feeling that yeah, the designers really did sit down and think about how it would feel to be a character in this world.
I have played in many campaign settings, and each of them have a distinct voice to them, and Golarion is no different. Golarion's feel is very pulpy, a deliberate decision that hearkens back to tales when people feared the night, when what lurked in the dark needed a hero to fight back against it. This does not make it unique - far from it. But so far, Pathfinder's Golarion has avoided brushing aside PCs in favor of NPCs, and that makes the difference to me.
The best way I can sum up, and this a completely subjective opinion, is that Pathfinder's setting has realized some of my objections of other campaign settings, and has done away with them.
Don't like magi-marts? Leave them out.
Don't like high level NPCs mucking about in your PCs' bidness? Not a whole lot of them to spare, and they've got bigger concerns. Like the Worldwound.
Don't like psionics? Don't use them (I personally love them).
Don't like gunpowder weapons? Avoid Alkenstar, or rework Alkenstar's backstory. Heck, make it a point of controversy in your game. What if the Living God's followers wants to use Alkenstar's machinery to lead a crusade against the sheep who follow "gods" ?
Don't like sci-fi in your fantasy? Numeria is probably not the place to set your campaign.
Like urban adventures? Absalom, City at the Center of the World! Go. Play. Sneak. Intrigue. Spy. Take the Test of the Starstone.
Again, these are things that can be done in other settings. The difference is that it's been made much easier for me, the GM at home with a full time job and a busy life, to have a flavorful campaign setting with elements that I can drop or expand upon with ease. The catch phrase in the adverts in the back of the adventure paths has been "It's YOUR world now," and it truly is. Everybody's feedback on these boards is a way for us, the fans and consumers, to have a level of impact on the world's setting, to say what we like and don't like, and yeah, the developers really are listening.
Now that my cheerleading is done, I'm going to go to lunch now.
Speaking of having an impact on the world, have you looked at RPG Superstar lately? Some of those winning entries ended up in the Campaign Setting.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
For me, the attraction is that it's new.
I started playing D&D with 3rd edition, by which time both FR and Greyhawk were "old." I was never really able to get into them because it always felt like there was so much lore and backstory associated with them that I would never be able to absorb it all and do the setting justice.
For me, Golarion has similar old-school flavor, but is an opportunity for me to get in on the ground floor and not have to feel like I've missed out on stuff.
You took the words right out of my mouth. This is one of the major attractions Golarion offers that other settings don't. I like being the expert on things, and it's tough to be such when I'm playing in Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms with guys who remember buying these settings in their first incarnations and have followed them for decades. This way I get to be that guy, amassing volumes of setting knowledge that the older grognards haven't yet absorbed cause they're still reading twenty-year-old books that are falling apart.
And there're tons of other reasons I love Golarion as well, but they've also been mentioned upthread so I won't retread on them, but thought your point was worth seconding.
|
|
French Vanilla is the best ice cream
and Golarion is the best setting.
No possible way these can be deniedOh yes they can!
Blueberry cheesecake is way better than french vanilla!
(And Al-Qadim and Scarred Lands have a certain rustic charm.)
We make a blueberry cheesecake gelato that would rock your socks off...
French Vanilla is the best ice cream
and Golarion is the best setting.
No possible way these can be denied
;)
who eats french vanilla when there is mint chochlate chip
and, as an aside, caramel pretzel klondike bars rock
|
|
I think the thing that makes the biggest difference to me is the amount of luggage carried around by FR. Pathfinder (Golarion) has none of that. There is no Elminster, or Drizzt, or 7 Sisters. In other words, there are no big meta-characters running around. Also, the FR novels are problematic. Game designers were always haveing to come up with new game mechanics to justify what the meta-characters were doing in the novels, instead of making the characters conform to the standard game rules.This happens with almost any setting though, and could happen to Pathfinder once it's novels start coming out. The problem is that most combat game rules do not lend well to a novel combat scene in written text. Then the problem of what is canon material comes up as well, and it always causes controversy because most people's opinions on that will vary widely.
I'll agree that FR suffers from trying to make the game setting match up to the game fiction, but why not try and make the fiction match the game instead? Paizo has done an outstanding job in the Journal articles of turning game mechanics into events in the fiction instead of turning fiction accounts into mechanics. For example, Eando Kline's attack of opportunity against the wounded elf (or half-elf) casting a spell while threatened in Korvosa.
Given that Eando's about to be retired from the Journal as a mid-level character (which should put him about on level with characters from the 4th or 5th installment of any of the AP's). I think Paizo's approach to fiction will work better as long as they stick to the "little guys" and don't stay into 29th-level epic archmage land for the heroes.
-Skeld
|
|
I think Paizo's approach to fiction will work better as long as they stick to the "little guys" and don't stay into 29th-level epic archmage land for the heroes.
-Skeld
YEP! I much prefer reading stories about lower level guys than epic ones. Conan being an exception, though I still figure he was about 15th level with a STR of about 18(00)
*wonders how many catch that reference?*
1. Sheer Diversity. the setting has elements ripped off from practicaly everything; real-world history, classic fantasy, pulp fantasy, pulp sci-fi, serious sci-fi, horror movies (both slasher and psychological), LotoR, Lovecraft, and classic D&D. plus, real-world history/mythology. The main chaotic evil goddess was lifted straight from the Babylonian pantheon, the great Old Ones exist, there are Bunyips, and a nation stuck in an eternal bloody revolution.
2. Adaptation Distillation. Its the same old cliches, but done well. It takes old, boring ideas and makes them exciting again. at least, thats what it did for me.
3. maturity level. The AP and Module content in particular bespeaks a very gritty world. Goblins arent generically evil chumps or misunderstood underdogs; they're nasty little baby-eating freaks. The list goes on.
4. Great Art. Say whatever else you will, the Pathfinder line has really good artwork. sure, there are a few bad examples, but the overall quality level is really, really high.
I think you hit upon it right here with all four points. To me, Golarion is a very literate setting. It acknowledges traditional fantasy tropes, adds in pulp, scifi, and horror elements, while also incorporating cultural elements from real world history. In many cases, you really need a higher education in history just to catch them all. While some elements are very much in your face, there's a lot of subtlety worked in as well. While many settings like to stick with one thing, like emulating medieval Europe, Golarion takes the significance of the whole of Afro-Eurasia civilization into consideration.
FR also did this, but to a more limited degree. Other cultures were represented, but they were never core. Mulhorand was Egypt, but aside from about a page in the 3E setting, it was mostly ignored until they did a whole book on that area. East Asia exists in the form of Kara-Tur, which is mostly ignored these days. The middle east is represented in the form of Al-Qadim, which many feel is one of the worst offenders of projecting a stereotype of a real-world culture.
So with Golarion, not only are these real-world based civilizations present, but they're core. The main campaign setting book spends just as much time talking about Osirion and Katapesh as it does Cheliax or Varisia. I also think that Golarion goes to lengths to be fair to borrowed cultures while making them exciting, dynamic, and unique enough to be interesting.
- More thoroughly saturated in the roots of DnD as presented by GG in the DMG appendix.
- Darker, and grittier. "Feels" more like DnD to me, in a lot of ways. Sometimes, FR feels a little too harry potterish to me.
- Fresh, and unencumbered by so much material.
- An approach to the whole setting that just makes a lot of sense and bespeaks a favorable future.
|
|
What I've noticed in Pathfinder is less of an emphasis on Tolkienesque fantasy, and more elements from pulp fantasy/scifi. If anything, Golarion is closer in feel to old school Greyhawk then FR. There's also no focus of high profile NPCs, which I found became a detriment to FR as time went on. It has the same kitchen sink ethos as FR, but the sources used a far broader and help make the setting it's own beast.
TRUE, TRUE, TRUE... can't agree more.
I always loved Greyhawk, it had grit. I only liked the FR (2nd and 3rd Ed., but the grit was gone..4E FR....well, I better not dwell into that; some like it a lot, some don't and I keep missing Greyhawk (now more than ever...but Golarion makes me (almost) forget greyhawk, save for quite a few memories. And thats the point, In all my almost 30 years of roleplaying, the FR never gave me any fond memories save "the times of trouble". And that part did not leave a really strong impression.
PFs Golarion is more promising, well defined, not overdone by "famous" NPCs and it brings back the gritty feeling. Also with FR and even Greyhawk it seemed one knows it all. Nothing NEW, only slightly different. With Golarion there is new excitement...something new around each corner, for GM and Player alike. This might only be true for the moment and might change when all has been explored. But till then...a lot of water will go down ANY RIVER....and if PAIZO keeps up the work, something new and exciting will always show up, at least for the next decade or such.
|
|
What I've noticed in Pathfinder is less of an emphasis on Tolkienesque fantasy, and more elements from pulp fantasy/scifi. If anything, Golarion is closer in feel to old school Greyhawk then FR. There's also no focus of high profile NPCs, which I found became a detriment to FR as time went on. It has the same kitchen sink ethos as FR, but the sources used a far broader and help make the setting it's own beast.
i think this sumarizes eficiently anything i was going to say
Edit: another setting i really love is Ravenloft who also has different cultural leves, from barbarism to renacentism (which is what i see in Golarion) both settings have pretty well defined how the medium affects such cultures, similar culturesbeing toguether while quite defferent ones being far away
its a logical and realistic world... i am growing to love :)
and yes the only big heroes in general are now gods that doesn't really interfer with your actions... Iomedae has already my ehart even before i saw her great picture :D
|
|
A GM can easily take Golarion and put an emphasis on any one genre he prefers. Classic fantasy, Vikings, Egyptians, Devil Worshippers, Empires, Revolutionary lands, Demon infested lands... Pick what you want to play and there is a place for it.To me, that seems not to be a good thing. In a setting, I want many variations of one theme. But a collection of many themes just kills for me the experience of really getting into it. It's just not a cool norse viking world, when it's two weeks by ship to get to the cool steampunk gnome land.
Chose one theme for the whole setting and make all the regions different approaches and variations of the theme. That's what I belive makes a really good setting. If you want to play with another basic theme, use another setting. Trying to please everyone only leads to pleasing noone.
that is boring
also unrealisticsee the real world by itself
there where clearly different cultures even a few weeks form the other without knowing their existence or having little contact
or having contact and commrce... limited worlds are no fun
ew and ew.who eats french vanilla when there is mint chocolate chip
and, as an aside, caramel pretzel klondike bars rock
have you ever had a caramel pretzel klondike bar? hmmmm, have you? well?