|
When the first Adventure Path and creatures for Golarion came out, and later on, up until now, we are told time and time again of how the setting is Old School in style and inspiration.
Disclaimer: I AM a huge fan of Golarion. Don't get me wrong.
My fear is that the more we detail the setting, the more what we end up getting is 3rd edition's Forgotten Realm's Campaign Setting in supplements, aka a uber-described setting down to its last details.
This is NOT what I call Old School. Golarion is NOT the World of Greyhawk or Grey FR boxed sets. This is not the Wilderlands of High fantasy. These settings give a frame for the DM's imaginations to run wild. The more you describe these settings, the more you run into AD&D2's pitfalls of describing too much for not enough adaptability, imagination sparkling value.
The very text of the Pathfinder Campaign Setting reaches back to 3E's FR campaign setting rather than any previous edition's settings.
What do you guys think? Is this a fair assessment on my part?
|
I disagree. So far, we have only one area detailed, namely Varisia (and not fully - many locations are still white spots) and I doubt Paizo will switch to "describe everything" mode - sure, there will be detailed writeups on AP/module sites and surrounding areas, but I am certain many places will be given just a brief description, and DMs can run wild with ideas.
|
What do you guys think? Is this a fair assessment on my part?
I would not say it is particularly fair.
First and foremost it begs the question as to whether "Old School" is defined, exclusively, predominantly, or even significantly, by having only one product for a setting. I would say the basic evidence is a very strong, very resounding, "No!" For Greyhawk, several adventures had already been published that referenced the setting by the time the folio was released, more by the time of the boxed, and yet more adventures and articles in Dragon published thereafter. The publishing history of the Forgotten Realms is quite similar.
It also requires a very unproven assertion, that filling in the blanks reduces adaptability and the ability of imagination to add value. (It also includes the unproven assertion that this was one of 2nd editions pitfalls, something I very much dispute.) Just because more is written for a setting in no way means automatically means you can do less with it. Aside from the simple ability to ignore things, including entire products, that you dislike, many times it is that extra bit of detail that creates that extra connection that helps somone take the campaign off in yet more new and wild directions.
Also critical to the issue is that such a concept is ultimately unsustainable as a product plan. That has always been the conflict with any published setting; either it is only one product then you must create an entirely new setting for the next one, or it is a series of products which inevitably "fill in the blanks" of the setting. And keep in mind the desires of the setting creators to add more to what they have done.
So with two core premises (and one supporting premise) being in near total opposition to your assessment, I would have to say it is not very fair at all.) Add in the economic factor and I see no reason to take issue with the amount of detail being added.
Instead, I submit that it is the method of adding detail to a setting that more closely defines "Old School" style of product content and setting development, and so far Golarion is managing that.
|
|
I disagree. So far, we have only one area detailed, namely Varisia (and not fully - many locations are still white spots) and I doubt Paizo will switch to "describe everything" mode - sure, there will be detailed writeups on AP/module sites and surrounding areas, but I am certain many places will be given just a brief description, and DMs can run wild with ideas.
The same argument could be made of say, Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting for 3rd edition (again, don't get me wrong: I would argue that FRCS is one of the best setting book of its era, really). Not every single location is described in there. That said, I think Golarion is closer to FRCS than it is from FR Grey boxed set for 1st ed at this point.
Fair argument or not?
Benoist, I'm not sure if it's a fair argument. At the same time, its' very difficult to really answer. But let me see if I can get at why.
If 1st ed Greyhawk if "Old School" for someone, how would they have reacted to the FR gray box?
And as far as Greyhawk goes: In my own experience, what was Greyhawk was what we got out of the core books and the modules--we never had the setting materials in my circle when I was young, and so there was a lot of world description we never knew about and never used. To a greater extent then, the world was up to the DM and players. But since we were fairly undemanding at that age as far as world building went, the world was pretty undeveloped: it was a place where we killed things and acquired things.
Now our demands for a developed world are greater, commensurate with our interest in developing a world. We both demand more of our products, and we want greater freedom, effort, and (precious) time to use them to develop and share the world of the game, including our characters and their stories in it.
Coming back to the question of Old School, for me the term and what it tries to capture has both its positive and negative aspects. Nostalgia for and elements of flavor and action from the old days of playing are very desirable for me and most of the players I play with, but there are other elements, such as the lack of immersion and verisimilitude that go into making a compelling world in which to share in our playing, that also were a part of the Old School feel that I have no desire for at all.
Do these suggestions/reflections have anything to offer?
Benoist, I'm not sure if it's a fair argument. At the same time, its' very difficult to really answer. But let me see if I can get at why.
If 1st ed Greyhawk if "Old School" for someone, how would they have reacted to the FR gray box?
And as far as Greyhawk goes: In my own experience, what was Greyhawk was what we got out of the core books and the modules--we never had the setting materials in my circle when I was young, and so there was a lot of world description we never knew about and never used. To a greater extent then, the world was up to the DM and players. But since we were fairly undemanding at that age as far as world building went, the world was pretty undeveloped: it was a place where we killed things and acquired things.
Now our demands for a developed world are greater, commensurate with our interest in developing a world. We both demand more of our products, and we want greater freedom, effort, and (precious) time to use them to develop and share the world of the game, including our characters and their stories in it.
Coming back to the question of Old School, for me the term and what it tries to capture has both its positive and negative aspects. Nostalgia for and elements of flavor and action from the old days of playing are very desirable for me and most of the players I play with, but there are other elements, such as the lack of immersion and verisimilitude that go into making a compelling world in which to share in our playing, that also were a part of the Old School feel that I have no desire for at all.
Do these suggestions/reflections have anything to offer?
What he said. I say make Pathfinder to be what you want it to be. If all you want is a blank world to play in, just download the maps and make up the rest.
I think I’m about as Old School as they come. I’ve been playing for over thirty years. I started with home brewed campaign settings and later GH when the folio came out. I bought the FR grey box, but never really got into the setting. FR never seemed as interesting as GH. Plus with the myriad of FR source books that came out it was hard to get to know. For years the charm of GH was the dearth of source material beyond a few modules. And later the GH source material that came out was often contradictory and internally inconsistent – or just plain crappy.
GH was also a hodgepodge of cultures, climates, races, and critters. The effect was much like having every possible aspect of a gaming world thrown into a bucket, mixed liberally, and then dumped out and more or less molded into shape. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if that was the way it was actually conceived and put into production. The sheer scope of variety offered by GH was one of the things that made it a fun setting for a GM to make his own. He could move in, take out a few walls, renovate the kitchen, and voila – you have a GH setting that matches no one else’s except maybe the drapes. And that has certainly bred to distinct flavors of GH: fixer-up’er GH and canonical GH – and countless arguments on the old Greytalk Board.
Golarion feels hodge-podgey like GH. Paizo certainly replicated the GH atmosphere there in spades. Golarion isn’t medieval Europe where every nation is a feudal monarchy, mercantile oligarchy, or theocratic autocracy. And sometimes it does seem like the designers suffered from “we must include this and such” in order to cover all their bases (or whatever effect they were going for).
Golarion doesn’t currently have huge amounts of detail. Some GM’s like detailed settings, some GM’s like just the bare bones. I know as a GM it is frustrating to pour countless hours of development and personal home detail into a particular part of a setting only to have the publisher come out with something that totally does something different. To some GM’s that is tantamount to a crime – some GM’s don’t care and just roll with it or ignore it. Some settings go out of their way to declare portions of the map supplement/source-book free (Chaosium did this with Glorantha and I recall seeing it in other settings as well). And so far the level of detail I’ve seen in Golarion allows for quite a bit of customization – heck I’m customizing the bejesus out of the AP’s I don’t expect the setting is going to be any different. And I like that Paizo seems to support and encourage that. That doesn’t mean I’m not going to liberally use what is available though – I’m pretty lazy these days.
I think that Golarion has the makings of a fine Old School setting. So far the creators have been very responsive to fans/players/customers and I don’t think that is going to change. The creators are also in their heart of hearts, fellow gamers. I don’t foresee them mucking up the countryside with Gods Walking The Land or other things that detract from the focus on the heroes (PCs). I’m certainly moving into Golarion these days: taking out a few walls, repainting the front room, and probably converting the nursery into a kick-ass media room.
CJ
|
|
Here's the thing, you can use what you want and don't want. If you don't want to be told about the elves of Golarion... don't buy the elf book. However, there are those of us that enjoy "the official" vision of the elves. There are those of us that would rather play in Paizo's world, then well.. our own.
Simply put, if I wanted to play in my own setting, I wouldn't be buying anything.
As for the 3rd edition's Forgotten Realm's Campaign, I think it's the best setting book ever made (I just wish it were just better organize like the 4e guide.)
The maps and the story lines are merely canvas for your own story line, no matter how "old school" you are. My CotCT group actually all started in Toril but I ran them through Dungeon Mag 58 A Bad Batch of Brownies which
Now my group is headed toward The Cinderlands, but I installed The Caverns of Thracia (an old Judges Guild module) east of Janderhoff where the Mindspan Mountains meet the Storval Rise
Another of my groups playing in the RofRL wanted to play a phraint (and as I am old school David Hargrove fan) it was easy to accomodate by placing a Phraint hive southwest of Wartle in the Mushfens ... I decided that the Thrikreen were part of the hive.
I could go on .. but the point being take your canvas and add your own paint or the paint from many other imaginations. You'll find the possibilities unlimited.
Good stuff, Akasharose. Since you seem new to me: Howdy and Welcome!
Thanks .. I am a bit new to these boards (and Golarion) but as a GM I am finding these boards a wealth of ideas and characters.
...as a GM I am finding these boards a wealth of ideas and characters.
If your experience is anything like mine, you'll find more than you can use!
I can´t say about old-school or not, but from what I´ve seen so far, Golarion has enough blank space to be filled just however you like. The campaign setting gives the bones of the setting, filling it with flesh is your job. The setting is described in more detail with modules, adventure paths and sourcebooks, which is just normal (with GH, this happened in the modules only back in 1e days, with sourcebooks only appearing in the 2e days for the most part). You might as well argue that the "supermodules" like ToEE, Slavers, or QotS detailed way too much of GH if you follow that line of reasoning. But I wouldn´t be able to follow you there. Furthermore, as others said, as a publisher of gaming material, you need to, well, publish stuff in order to stay in business. TSR had probably not published all that much setting material up until the mid-80ies because the game as a whole was still developing, they had several lines in production, and the conflict with Gary leaving the company was causing some upheaval. Had TSR concentrated on one setting/game line like paizo is doing right now, they would have produced a similar amount of material for it, I´d guess. Not to forget that TSR had to break the ground for game publishing in many regards, which differs wildly from todays situation.
I don´t think that Pathfinder/Golarion is too detailed right now, and will lose its old-school feel any time soon, if it has it to begin with. Furthermore, the bare bones that represent the "old school" gaming are not what most people are looking for today - the RPG audience is more demanding today, generally speaking.
Still, Golarion is such a huge place that there will always be enough space to do just what you want. The campaign setting does not much more than detailing a general geography with a plethora of ideas sprinkled in.
Stefan
|
Never understood the complaint about a setting being Hodge Podgey.
With the Known World it was a common complaint. So many different cultures jammed into a small area surrounded by massive empires and unexplored region just wasn't realistic.
I always asked them to look at Europe. Dozens of tiny kingdoms and tribes surrounded by the empires of Asia and unexplored wilderness of Africa.
What would really be unrealistic is a static land of very few cultures, tribes and customs.
But that is just me! I suppose ANYTHING is possible in a fantasy game.
CEO
|
Just had to chime in with my 2 cents here. One of the reasons that we have our Chronicles books at 64-pages is so we give more of a bare bones in our coverage instead of going into minute details. The Realms products tended to be 160-page books that covered everything that you could ever want to know about a certain area, faction, city, etc. In our coverage of Golarion, we are giving you the basics in just enough detail so you can run it, but without so much detail that it is hard to adapt to your campaign. As an old-school D&D players myself, and as someone who has about 1,000 gaming books in my library, I want the flexibility to add things from other worlds, game systems, sourcebooks, and whatnot, into my Golarion campaign. I think we do a pretty good job of walking that line.
-Lisa
Speaking as another old-school player, since when haven't DMs adapted things to their own worlds? I remember freaking players out in 1st edition (to their delight, for the most part) when they found that in my world, Lolth was not yet a goddess, but the very powerful queen of the Unseelie Court and sister to Mab, the Faerie Queen of the Seelie Court. And Cobweb (later to be seen serving Titania) was one of her handmaids.
When asked about Correlon Larethian, she was dismissive, since to her, he was just her spoiled nephew (and of course Mab's son).
So Golarion has a different origin for the Drow. Why is this a problem? Any DM worth their salt will adapt things to their own world.
The bestiary is good. The settings and adventures likewise. And some adaptation has to be done to keep it from being a clone of Greyhawk anyway.
Johnny Cash says hellooooo.....
|
|
Johnny Cash says hellooooo.....
Play this song for your Second Darkness players if they need a little bit of inspiration or acting a little unheroic as they leave Riddleport.
What do you guys think? Is this a fair assessment on my part?
I think that you are partially right, although I personally blame the "pitfall of Forgotten Realms" on the canonization of the novels. While I didn't mind supplements that detailed regions (I liked them pretty much actually), I found that the storyline involving the "main forgotten realms characters" took too much space in the grand scheme of things.
Focus should remain on the PCs, not on mega-powerful NPCs...
'findel
When the first Adventure Path and creatures for Golarion came out, and later on, up until now, we are told time and time again of how the setting is Old School in style and inspiration.
Disclaimer: I AM a huge fan of Golarion. Don't get me wrong.
My fear is that the more we detail the setting, the more what we end up getting is 3rd edition's Forgotten Realm's Campaign Setting in supplements, aka a uber-described setting down to its last details.
This is NOT what I call Old School. Golarion is NOT the World of Greyhawk or Grey FR boxed sets. This is not the Wilderlands of High fantasy. These settings give a frame for the DM's imaginations to run wild. The more you describe these settings, the more you run into AD&D2's pitfalls of describing too much for not enough adaptability, imagination sparkling value.
The very text of the Pathfinder Campaign Setting reaches back to 3E's FR campaign setting rather than any previous edition's settings.
What do you guys think? Is this a fair assessment on my part?
I think the level of description in the Campaign Setting is just about right from an "old-school" perspective (high-level descriptions of countries, a few launching-off points for adventures each, description of culture); it's a little bit more than the Greyhawk boxed set gazetteer, but that's fine. I'm unlikely to buy the Complete Guide to Jalmeray/Rahadoum/Hermea/ad nauseam, but I don't begrudge anyone else the opportunity to do so. There are even a couple of places that I might be interested in more information on, like Numeria.
My only complaint about the setting is that I think the magic level was lathered on a bit thick in places, but that's just a matter of personal taste.
I prefer information and detail. The more the better. If I do not like something, I do not use it. But if the supplements do not give me enough information I do not think it is worth spending money. If I have to invent the world, why buy? To do it for myself is free.
Yes, I love AD&D Forgotten Realms supplements.