|
I happen to enjoy the exploits of Eando Kline. I liked this pathfinder’s journal entries in the Pathfinder magazine, and I would save them for last because they are one of my favorite parts of the Pathfinder magazine. Now we have another pathfinder. A half elf druid named Channa Ti. Her story is interesting as well.
I think it might be interesting to do a story arc involving a pathfinder, and his or her adventuring party. I find there is often a subtle difference between fantasy literature and the stories we cooperatively create with our role-playing games. The difference is this: a character in a fantasy novel, often is the hero, and has to save the world himself. Often they are very capable and have to handle a variety of situations.
The characters in a role-playing game, and Dungeons and dragons in particular, are often specialized. It often takes a group, a fighter, Cleric, Wizard and Rogue, to handle the variety of challenges put to them.
I think it would be interesting to see some fiction about an adventuring party. Perhaps the iconic pathfinder characters might be a good source. What does everybody think?
|
I agree the standard RPG character probably could not face all of the challenges presented in a story or novel. For a collaborative game I think that is just fine. But it does mean that most inspiring literature doesn't QUITE fit with the gaming experience.
Honestly I would not mind a few adventures that are designed for a single player and a GM. Let's face it, there are a LOT of people out there that would like to play, but can't get a full group of 4-5 people together. A product aimed at just needing two people I think would be well received.
Honestly I would not mind a few adventures that are designed for a single player and a GM. Let's face it, there are a LOT of people out there that would like to play, but can't get a full group of 4-5 people together. A product aimed at just needing two people I think would be well received.
I'd buy them. Some of the very best games I've run have been 1on1 games. Of course, some of the really big advantages of 1on1 games are the way you can tailor it so much to the player/character and how easily you can improvise when you're not playing against multiple viewpoints, and you lose those a bit in a pre-written adventure.
So would I.
But such a product will soon exist. 1 on 1 adventures.
|
It often takes a group, a fighter, Cleric, Wizard and Rogue, to handle the variety of challenges put to them.
I think it would be interesting to see some fiction about an adventuring party. Perhaps the iconic pathfinder characters might be a good source. What does everybody think?
During the days of adnd Forgotten Realms had a few adventuring party books which were quite fun (Avatar trilogy, Knights of Myth Drannor books) but then they moved more toward hero and collection of sidekicks (Drizzt, Cleric Quintet, Azure Bonds).
I agree that it is an interesting facet of D&D related fiction that it often doesn't involve a full party of characters. It's something of a failing, though I imagine it's also easier to write one main character rather than four or so main characters. Still, certain classes manage better by themselves than others, so it can work. It'd just be better to see fiction accepting the assumption of the D&D game.
|
|
Perhaps authors could take a page from DMs, A good Dm will give every one of his players a chance to have their characters to be in the spotlight every now and again. Often the spotlight will rotate from adventure to adventure. That would be a good way to write about an adventuring party. Each installment could involve one character or another. Well anyways it is late.
|
I agree that it is an interesting facet of D&D related fiction that it often doesn't involve a full party of characters.
And, when it does, such as R.A. Salvatore's earlier books, which focused on a four man party (a conspicuously mage and priest-free party!), one of them turns into a breakout star and future books end up being about him alone.
As much as we gamers like to see a party work together, all Fantastic Four-like, and not read yet another chapter of the amazing solo adventures of Jack Macho, Guy with a Gun, the general reading audience identifies more strongly with a single protagonist.
There are some authors whose works lend themselves more strongly to ensembles, such as Stephen King (who has spent the last twenty-some years writing and re-writing a story about four guys who were friends as kids re-connecting and getting into a sort of adventure together...), but entirely too many D&D novels turn into the fantasy equivalent of Mack Bolan, with one character becoming the primary protagonist and everyone else becoming part of the scenery, or some hapless bystander who can't contribute meaningfully to the action, like Shandril Shessair's boyfriend. ("Hey babe, did you see me blow those two dracoliches out of the sky?" "Yeah hun, I threw my one magic missile at it too, although you may not have seen, being blinded by how awesome you are...")
The ensemble thing, IMO, works better in a visual medium (TV show, cartoon, comic book), where we are following a picture, and not necessarily following the internal monologue of any one 'speaker.'
Even some 'buddy comedy' two-man adventuring groups in D&D fiction, in the vein of Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, would be a step up, IMO, so long as the author threw a bone towards the conventions by having them be able to cover a few bases between themselves, like a Paladin / Bard team-up, instead of the Drizzt, Catti-Brie, Bruenor and Wulfgar party of fighter, fighter, fighter and fighter...
A roleplaying game can work as a fantasy novel as long as, as a GM, you don't predispose yourself regarding what the players -should- do to overcome obstacles.
Each character class has its own toolset to do things their own way:
Locked door/container:
-Warriors: Bash it.
-Spellcasters: Open/bypass with magic.
-Skill monkeys: Pick the lock.
Information:
-Warriors: Try to socialize OR Intimidate/tortute.
-Spellcasters: Try to socialize OR bewitch into talking.
-Skill monkeys: Social skills.
Perilous terrain:
-Warriors: Feats to aleviate Armor Check Penalty are required.
-Spellcasters: The right spells are required.
-Skill monkeys: Use skills.
Traps:
-Warriors: Hurts.
-Spellcasters: Hurts...LOTS.
-Skill monkeys: Use skills.
Magic:
-Warriors: Hurts.
-Spellcasters: Use magic.
-Skill monkeys: The right tricks are required.
Combat:
-Warriors: Smash.
-Spellcasters: Prior preparation is required.
-Skill monkeys: Avoid direct confrontation, fight on your own terms only.
As long as you play fair and avoid bottlenecking the challenges (ie only one right way to solve them), any character should be eligible to shine as long as the player can think outside the box. In fact a friend and I are running two "1 PC" games, and results have been good enough as of yet.
P.D: By warrior/spellcaster/skill monkey, I'm not talking about classes, but about -character concepts-. You can build a Rogue like a warrior, a Ranger like a skill monkey, and a Bard like a spellcaster for example.
How come in examples, a caster is never allowed to use their many spells for bypassing traps?
|
|
I agree that it is an interesting facet of D&D related fiction that it often doesn't involve a full party of characters.A whole lot of cool stuff.
I think the problem can be addressed with authorial voice.
Pratchett can, and does, write about a mob (such as the Ankh Morpork Guard, or his Witches) without fear or favour because of the writerly techniques he employs (few can match him for opening paragraphs).
Excellent third person, or, with great skill, second person, writing can capture seperate, individual personalities within a grand narrative but many writers settle for first-person or a third-person voice with a kind of kindly angel persona that constantly looks over a single characters shoulder.
In essence, the larger the sections of Drizzt's diary - the worse the book.
How come in examples, a caster is never allowed to use their many spells for bypassing traps?
In an ideal world, a caster would always have the right spell for the right time. Sadly, cleric/wizards don't have enough spell slots, and sorcerers don't have enough spells. Furthermore, to deal in time with a trap you have to see it coming, and not all spellcasters out there are optimized-for-perception elven sor/wiz builds with a familiar that grants perception bonuses, so chances are, they only see the trap when it's already jumping to bite them in the @ss... and then not all arcane spellcasters are optimized-for-survival elven sor/wiz builds with a rat familiar and Great Fortitude, so chances are they won't succeed the saving throw.
The only spellcaster with the -right- spells for the situation is a spellcaster who has a Rogue to scout for him beforehand to relay the pertinent intel.. and then that only works in dungeon crawls.
The only spellcaster with the -right- spells for the situation is a spellcaster who has a Rogue to scout for him beforehand to relay the pertinent intel.. and then that only works in dungeon crawls.
There's a spell that gives casters great trapfinding. Magical traps have an aura you can see with detect magic. Etc.
"I walk slowly down the suspicious hall."
"20 feet in you sense a magic aura."
"I stop and concentrate until I can pinpoint and identify."
Meh.
I'm just saying that they can, but everyone acts like they can't. It's like saying you can't make a battle mage.
There's a spell that gives casters great trapfinding. Magical traps have an aura you can see with detect magic. Etc.
"I walk slowly down the suspicious hall."
"20 feet in you sense a magic aura."
"I stop and concentrate until I can pinpoint and identify."
Meh.
You forget that the entire trap doesn't glow - only the salient part which is magical. If it's a magical trigger, chances are that the trigger is hidden (and thus the glow as well).
I'm just saying that they can, but everyone acts like they can't. It's like saying you can't make a battle mage.
Oh you can, indeed, it's just not cost-effective. Your spellcaster may have a spell that allow him to detect traps, but then you have to prepare specifically that spell... several times, taking into account that "detect-something-or-other" spells usually have a maximum duration of 1 minute/level.. it's either that or spending hard cash on scrolls/wands, and taking into account using Perception is -free- well... cost-benefit, cost-benefit.
That is not to say I wouldn't try it, in fact I play a non-combatant psion who does -just that-, he's the party's walking enciclopedia and divining rod (but then -that- is his character concept, and even so I gave him a decent Perception score...again, cost-benefit). =)
I'm just saying that they can, but everyone acts like they can't. It's like saying you can't make a battle mage.Oh you can, indeed, it's just not cost-effective. Your spellcaster may have a spell that allow him to detect traps, but then you have to prepare specifically that spell... several times, taking into account that "detect-something-or-other" spells usually have a maximum duration of 1 minute/level.. it's either that or spending hard cash on scrolls/wands, and taking into account using Perception is -free- well... cost-benefit, cost-benefit.
That is not to say I wouldn't try it, in fact I play a non-combatant psion who does -just that-, he's the party's walking enciclopedia and divining rod (but then -that- is his character concept, and even so I gave him a decent Perception score...again, cost-benefit). =)
Yes, I know. Again, I'm just saying that the implication is that they are incapable of it. Which they aren't.
You forget that the entire trap doesn't glow - only the salient part which is magical. If it's a magical trigger, chances are that the trigger is hidden (and thus the glow as well).
Not if I was running. If you can't detect the trigger, how does it detect you? Take Rune of anything, it's an actual rune inscribed on a surface, it might be invisible or what have you, but it shouldn't be obstructed. Same with any magical trigger. Spells generally need line of effect, and I would say the same goes for a spell trigger. You can't just create a trap that makes a forcecage and bury it fifty feet from where the trap goes off. It doesn't work that way.
Are you saying that you think a magical trigger could be put on a brick, then inserted so it faced inwards so that no one could see it? That's crazy, it wouldn't detect anything but the rats in the walls.
I can understand if you're thinking that you could put a tapestry over it or something, but I hardly think that would block the glow for detect magic.
Well, I recall reading that the magical glow isn't that strong. Putting magical items in a closed chest hides the auras, so why shouldn't a tapestry too
|
Putting items inside a container is done to specifically hide them.
What's being discussed here is that a magical sensor has to be able to sweep the surroundings, and therefore, has to have an unobstructed view.
Now, you could make it small, and put it behind an arrowslit, or in a dark corner, but you couldn't stick it inside 3' of lead sheet, and still expect it to do its job. So I'm with Kuma on this one.
As to the chore of having to prepare the spell multiple times, not any more. Infinite cantrips at will, nowadays.