>>Ask *James Jacobs* ALL your Questions Here!<<


Off-Topic Discussions

73,101 to 73,150 of 77,469 << first < prev | 1458 | 1459 | 1460 | 1461 | 1462 | 1463 | 1464 | 1465 | 1466 | 1467 | 1468 | next > last >>
Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The NPC wrote:

Mr. James Jacobs,

I am planning on running Return of the Runelords. However it is for a 1 PC, 1 GNPC group. As such I was going to add a few mythic tiers. In you estimation, where in the first adventure would be a good ascension moment?

Two come to mind.

Spoiler:
1) Getting control of the Sword of Pride. The PC's first contact with the semi-dormant artifact could trigger their mythic power.

2) Finishing the adventure and appeasing the ghost. As Sir Roderic moves on to the afterlife and is put to rest, Pharasma is pleased and awards the PC their first mythic tier.


James Jacobs wrote:
The NPC wrote:

Mr. James Jacobs,

I am planning on running Return of the Runelords. However it is for a 1 PC, 1 GNPC group. As such I was going to add a few mythic tiers. In you estimation, where in the first adventure would be a good ascension moment?

Two come to mind.

** spoiler omitted **

I had similar thoughts. Thank you very much.


In hindsight, seeing how many folks(including me) are confused by the word Strange Aeons, I think it would be better to name aeons something else in Second Edition. At first I thought Strange Aeons are about aeons, not knowing Lovecraft himself used the word first. What do you think? Do you think changing the name of the neutral outsiders into something else would be a viable idea? Also, giving them their own language would be good, too. Unlike good and evil outsiders, neutral outsiders like aeons, axiomites or psychopomps(maybe except for proteans) don't have their own language, which is very strange.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Aenigma wrote:
In hindsight, seeing how many folks(including me) are confused by the word Strange Aeons, I think it would be better to name aeons something else in Second Edition. At first I thought Strange Aeons are about aeons, not knowing Lovecraft himself used the word first. What do you think? Do you think changing the name of the neutral outsiders into something else would be a viable idea? Also, giving them their own language would be good, too. Unlike good and evil outsiders, neutral outsiders like aeons, axiomites or psychopomps(maybe except for proteans) don't have their own language, which is very strange.

I think that since we've already done the "Strange Aeons" adventure path that we don't have to worry about it in 2nd edition.

Aeons is staying as the name for these outsiders. No need to change it. Whether or not they get their own language isn't a decision we've made yet and likely won't make said decision public until after the game launches.


I found out that the core deities have four domains in Second Edition, while they had five domains and six subdomains in First Edition. Do deities and demigods have only four domains in Second Edition? And are there no subdomains in Second Edition?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aenigma wrote:
I found out that the core deities have four domains in Second Edition, while they had five domains and six subdomains in First Edition. Do deities and demigods have only four domains in Second Edition? And are there no subdomains in Second Edition?

That concept wasn't part of the design team's goal, as far as I know, in presenting playtest options, and how it works in the final game has yet to be figured out.


Do you have a favorite Stephen King novel, or at least one you've read more than the others?


In Strange Aeons the players have the opportunity of defeating the husk of Xhamen-Dor on Golarion before leaving to Carcosa. If they do so, does this permanently slay the Great Old One? If not, why not?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

3 people marked this as a favorite.
bananahell wrote:
Do you have a favorite Stephen King novel, or at least one you've read more than the others?

That's probably a tie between "The Stand" and "Pet Semetery." Probably Pet Semetery in the end when all is said and done.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.
bananahell wrote:
In Strange Aeons the players have the opportunity of defeating the husk of Xhamen-Dor on Golarion before leaving to Carcosa. If they do so, does this permanently slay the Great Old One? If not, why not?

It doesn't, because mortals can't slay Great Old Ones.Best the PCs can hope for is to delay the Great Old Ones. Unless your GM says otherwise.


James Jacobs wrote:
bananahell wrote:
In Strange Aeons the players have the opportunity of defeating the husk of Xhamen-Dor on Golarion before leaving to Carcosa. If they do so, does this permanently slay the Great Old One? If not, why not?
It doesn't, because mortals can't slay Great Old Ones.Best the PCs can hope for is to delay the Great Old Ones. Unless your GM says otherwise.

To clarify, the Husk of Xhamen-Dor's special ability states it is a "Latent Great Old One", and that it loses the immortality and mythic benefits from the Great Old One subtype until it "recovers its power completely". If not the Great Old One, what are they slaying? If they are slaying what remains of the Great Old One, how does Xhamen-Dor continue to exist? I'm the GM for my group and I'm trying to determine what exactly they are accomplishing in this instance.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
Aenigma wrote:
I found out that Alaznist secured alliance with the qlippoth lord Yamasoth and gained knowledge of fleshwarping. But I thought it was the drows that first discovered the art of fleshwarping. Maybe Alaznist taught the elves of Celwynvian the knowledge of fleshwarping?
Alaznist discovered it first, but by the time the drow came along after Earthfall, she was out for the time being. The drow discovered it on their own, but weren't the first.

Was re-reading Ecology of the Alghollthu when I came across a reference to Aboleth slime's role as the actual origin of fleshwarping.

Considering the role Aboleths played in Azlanti culture (which Thassilon calved off of), did Alaznist perhaps know what to ask Yamasoth for based upon things observed by the Azlanti, or was it an independent inquiry?


Will Paizo publish a new campaign setting book for the Darklands someday? I really wish it will, because Into the Darklands were published under the 3.5 rules and the book didn't detail the Darklands that much. For example, according to the map in the book, Nar-Voth does not extend to the northeast side of Avistan, and I personally hope more settlements are added in Nar-Voth and Sekamina.


Hi James,

I'd like to ask you what kind of action is "attack of opportunity".
I mean, I've looked everywhere on the core rulebook, but couldn't find it. Then I found on the Melee Tactics Toolbox (on the last page) that it is a "free action".

Is the tactics toolbox right or not? Maybe an error?

PS: I know it might be a "rules" question, but I'm interested more in an opinion more than anything

Paizo Employee Creative Director

3 people marked this as a favorite.
bananahell wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
bananahell wrote:
In Strange Aeons the players have the opportunity of defeating the husk of Xhamen-Dor on Golarion before leaving to Carcosa. If they do so, does this permanently slay the Great Old One? If not, why not?
It doesn't, because mortals can't slay Great Old Ones.Best the PCs can hope for is to delay the Great Old Ones. Unless your GM says otherwise.
To clarify, the Husk of Xhamen-Dor's special ability states it is a "Latent Great Old One", and that it loses the immortality and mythic benefits from the Great Old One subtype until it "recovers its power completely". If not the Great Old One, what are they slaying? If they are slaying what remains of the Great Old One, how does Xhamen-Dor continue to exist? I'm the GM for my group and I'm trying to determine what exactly they are accomplishing in this instance.

Up to you. Again, my take is that you can't kill a Great Old One. The husk is not a Great Old One, though. It has the potential to be. If the husk is killed, the PCs should prevent Xhamen-Dor from coming back in any sort of timeline they or the rest of Golarion will have to worry about, though...

(I created Xhamen-Dor; it's one of my personal additions to the Lovecraft mythos, so I'm pretty precious about him I guess.)

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aenigma wrote:
Will Paizo publish a new campaign setting book for the Darklands someday? I really wish it will, because Into the Darklands were published under the 3.5 rules and the book didn't detail the Darklands that much. For example, according to the map in the book, Nar-Voth does not extend to the northeast side of Avistan, and I personally hope more settlements are added in Nar-Voth and Sekamina.

Maybe, maybe not.

And Nar-Voth does NOT extend to the northeast side of Avistan. Nar-Voth isn't as big as the others. That's part of what makes it Nar-Voth. That wouldn't change just because we published a new book about the subject.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cole Deschain wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Aenigma wrote:
I found out that Alaznist secured alliance with the qlippoth lord Yamasoth and gained knowledge of fleshwarping. But I thought it was the drows that first discovered the art of fleshwarping. Maybe Alaznist taught the elves of Celwynvian the knowledge of fleshwarping?
Alaznist discovered it first, but by the time the drow came along after Earthfall, she was out for the time being. The drow discovered it on their own, but weren't the first.

Was re-reading Ecology of the Alghollthu when I came across a reference to Aboleth slime's role as the actual origin of fleshwarping.

Considering the role Aboleths played in Azlanti culture (which Thassilon calved off of), did Alaznist perhaps know what to ask Yamasoth for based upon things observed by the Azlanti, or was it an independent inquiry?

She did not, and my preference is that the slime isn't the actual origin.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Roberto Indellicati wrote:

Hi James,

I'd like to ask you what kind of action is "attack of opportunity".
I mean, I've looked everywhere on the core rulebook, but couldn't find it. Then I found on the Melee Tactics Toolbox (on the last page) that it is a "free action".

Is the tactics toolbox right or not? Maybe an error?

PS: I know it might be a "rules" question, but I'm interested more in an opinion more than anything

It's its own type of action that doesn't fit into the others. Don't get hung up on what kind of action it is, because it has its own rules for how it works.


What were some of your influences in the way you designed Xhamen-Dor? I want the fight with the Husk to be very thematic, so I was hoping you could point me at some short-stories or films.


According to Humans of Golarion, Azlanti didn't use surnames. And every Azlanti and Thassilonian that mentioned in adventure paths have no surnames, only first names. I really wish this aspect would be changed in Second Edition, because the lack of surnames seems a bit odd too me. In Starfinder, Azlanti in the Azlanti Star Empire all have surnames, for example, and I think this is a good change.


Hello, MR Jacobs, first i would like to state, that i have enjoyed your work that i have played thus far. :)

However I do have a couple questions.

The First, Is there a Relative timeline to the adventure paths? currently I am playing Hell's rebels, and I will be joining a new group for CotCT shortly. And to be honest I love tying stories and characters together.

The Second, If you could have any Magic item in real life, which would you choose, and why? :D

Paizo Employee Creative Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.
bananahell wrote:
What were some of your influences in the way you designed Xhamen-Dor? I want the fight with the Husk to be very thematic, so I was hoping you could point me at some short-stories or films.

That's a weird question for me to answer, because While I did write the Xhamen-Dor articles, I didn't actually write or develop the stuff in the adventures. So I can't say much about the husk part.

But the main two Xhamen-Dor themes would be the loss of humanity to fungal infection and the spread of evil simply by knowing about it. The former has several short stories that inspired me, but "The Voice in the Night" by William Hope Hodgson was the first of them. The latter one doesn't really have one movie or story that sticks out for me, but a LOT of them that use the theme of having the wrong knowledge be toxic for you. Alas, nothing really immediately comes to mind... but that might be because I just got back from a crazy long trip down to Portland to see the Lovecraft film festival only to find out when we got there that they were sold out...

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aenigma wrote:
According to Humans of Golarion, Azlanti didn't use surnames. And every Azlanti and Thassilonian that mentioned in adventure paths have no surnames, only first names. I really wish this aspect would be changed in Second Edition, because the lack of surnames seems a bit odd too me. In Starfinder, Azlanti in the Azlanti Star Empire all have surnames, for example, and I think this is a good change.

Please ask questions in this thread. Azlanti and Thassilonians don't use surnames though; that's not gonna change.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Trixzy wrote:

Hello, MR Jacobs, first i would like to state, that i have enjoyed your work that i have played thus far. :)

However I do have a couple questions.

The First, Is there a Relative timeline to the adventure paths? currently I am playing Hell's rebels, and I will be joining a new group for CotCT shortly. And to be honest I love tying stories and characters together.

The Second, If you could have any Magic item in real life, which would you choose, and why? :D

There is not a timeline to all the adventure paths, no.

Ring of wishes, because obviously. :P


Mr. James Jacobs,

Another Sorshen question. Did Sorshen have a champion at the time leading into Earthfall? Someone who wielded Asheia, the Sword of Lust.

What would the relationship between Sorshen and her champion have been like?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The NPC wrote:

Mr. James Jacobs,

Another Sorshen question. Did Sorshen have a champion at the time leading into Earthfall? Someone who wielded Asheia, the Sword of Lust.

What would the relationship between Sorshen and her champion have been like?

Likely yes, but we haven't revealed who that was. The relationship would have been one where her champion was 100% loyal and devoted to being her bodyguard, but she wouldn't have been too attached to them at all probably.


James Jacobs wrote:
Trigger Loaded wrote:
Assuming you're familiar with Ravenloft, which Golarion figure would be most likely to be pulled into the realm and given/imprisoned in a domain, and what would their curse be?

I'm VERY familiar with Ravenloft. Both as the campaign setting and as the original 1st edition D&D adventure that came years before that.

As for most likely... that's impossible to narrow down since so many of Golarion's NPCs could fit that category. Any of the bad guys from any of our Adventure Paths would work well, but since using one in this capacity would effectively remove them entirely from the settting, and thus rob our own canon of a potential villain... I'd prefer to pick an NPC whose influence and impact on the world has come and gone and who we would be very unlikely to want to do anything else with in the future.

Which makes it tough for me to pick, since if an NPC in Golarion is interesting enough to send to Ravenloft, that makes them by definition interesting enough to keep around.

I don't suppose adding 'hypothetically' would change that answer? You seem to be approaching the question from a mix of writing as well as marketing, picking who would be the least disruptive to the Golarion line. If you could ignore all that, (Tracy Hickman notably did not approve of Lord Soth being made a Darklord, and didn't consider it canon) does any Pathfinder villain stand out to you as having that mix of unrepentent evil, tragic backstory, and something they would always strive for despite never achieving it to make a good Darklord?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Trigger Loaded wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Trigger Loaded wrote:
Assuming you're familiar with Ravenloft, which Golarion figure would be most likely to be pulled into the realm and given/imprisoned in a domain, and what would their curse be?

I'm VERY familiar with Ravenloft. Both as the campaign setting and as the original 1st edition D&D adventure that came years before that.

As for most likely... that's impossible to narrow down since so many of Golarion's NPCs could fit that category. Any of the bad guys from any of our Adventure Paths would work well, but since using one in this capacity would effectively remove them entirely from the settting, and thus rob our own canon of a potential villain... I'd prefer to pick an NPC whose influence and impact on the world has come and gone and who we would be very unlikely to want to do anything else with in the future.

Which makes it tough for me to pick, since if an NPC in Golarion is interesting enough to send to Ravenloft, that makes them by definition interesting enough to keep around.

I don't suppose adding 'hypothetically' would change that answer? You seem to be approaching the question from a mix of writing as well as marketing, picking who would be the least disruptive to the Golarion line. If you could ignore all that, (Tracy Hickman notably did not approve of Lord Soth being made a Darklord, and didn't consider it canon) does any Pathfinder villain stand out to you as having that mix of unrepentent evil, tragic backstory, and something they would always strive for despite never achieving it to make a good Darklord?

I still wouldn't. I really like the style and themes of Ravenloft, but I don't really like how it poaches cool villains from other settings. I'd rather have horror remain in the setting rather than being sent elsewhere.


As an,extension off of that last question, when I integrated the Curse of Strahd adventure into the Golarion setting, I changed the shadowfell and domains of dread rules around to let it work with pathfinder's domains of evil. This let me keep the villain in the world, while still giving them a special realm to rule.

Given that change, what Golarion villain would you assign their own domain of evil, and maybe as an extension to this question, how would the themes of their own domain differ from that of traditional Ravenloft?


Moving on, then...

For when you DM, and perhaps for Golarion as well, do intelligent undead think/learn/adapt differently? I'm thinking in-universe descriptively, though it can expand to addressing the rule of undead not having age categories, and thus don't gain the stat bonuses from the passage of time.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pharasmin wrote:

As an,extension off of that last question, when I integrated the Curse of Strahd adventure into the Golarion setting, I changed the shadowfell and domains of dread rules around to let it work with pathfinder's domains of evil. This let me keep the villain in the world, while still giving them a special realm to rule.

Given that change, what Golarion villain would you assign their own domain of evil, and maybe as an extension to this question, how would the themes of their own domain differ from that of traditional Ravenloft?

I'm not sure why folks are this interested in this question...

I guess really it depends 100% on the type of story I want to tell. Each villain would suggest it's own story. Some days I might want to tell a tragic one, and might choose Nualia from Burnt Offerings. Other times I might want to do one that's all epic, and might choose Karzoug. It really really depends on the goal of the story that needs to be told... and I still wouldn't really. I prefer to do games set in Golarion these days and not in other companies' settings.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Trigger Loaded wrote:

Moving on, then...

For when you DM, and perhaps for Golarion as well, do intelligent undead think/learn/adapt differently? I'm thinking in-universe descriptively, though it can expand to addressing the rule of undead not having age categories, and thus don't gain the stat bonuses from the passage of time.

Nope. They learn the same way anything else with intelligence learns.

And I generally don't use the age bonuses/penalties pretty much EVER except for humanoids. It's not really intended to be something you apply to everything else.


Sorry if it felt like I was pushing for an answer to an already answered question. I thought what I said made a difference but I apologize if it didn't feel that way to you.

On another note, I'm planning to start a new one on one campaign soon with the express goal of impoving my sandbox and open world style of GMing. I really like telling a cohesive story but I find my style often feels too linear and railroad-y. Do you have any personal experiences or tips that could help facilitate a cohesive story along with maintaing a sandbox style of play?

Additionally, happy thanksgiving from Canada. Thank you for all your help on this forun and your work done outside if it!

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pharasmin wrote:

Sorry if it felt like I was pushing for an answer to an already answered question. I thought what I said made a difference but I apologize if it didn't feel that way to you.

On another note, I'm planning to start a new one on one campaign soon with the express goal of impoving my sandbox and open world style of GMing. I really like telling a cohesive story but I find my style often feels too linear and railroad-y. Do you have any personal experiences or tips that could help facilitate a cohesive story along with maintaing a sandbox style of play?

Additionally, happy thanksgiving from Canada. Thank you for all your help on this forun and your work done outside if it!

I find that linear styles of game work better for most groups, as long as the group is interested in the storyline. Sandbox games are tough to do, especially when the party doesn't all want to do the same thing. It's no fun to spend an entire game session arguing about what to do next or not knowing what to do next.

If you really want to do a sandbox, I suggest starting small. Pick a town or region that you've detailed a lot of, or that someone else has for you, so you can have a lot of inspiration to build from, and be comfortable ad-libbing as the PCs make choices you don't expect.


I asked earlier about what you thought "rules" were, and got an intetesting reply, but you never actually answered the question.

Life got in the way so I didn't continue then, but I have thought about your responses to various things.

I am rather curious about a statement you made that rules is what makes a game, as though no rules means it is not a game, but it also implies that you believe that including rules somehow makes it a game. Would that be correct?

If so, how would handle the concept of trying to put together something for playing freeform roleplay, but to aid in communicating more clearly and accurately? For example, a player says his character is "very strong," but there is a whole ocean of what that could mean. Does he mean like a amatuer weightlifter, strongest man of the world competitor, or perhaps even the Incredible Hulk?

I know that some people can handle impossiblities and inconsistencies without even noticing them, but other folks can't (like me), quite simply because consistent details are essential to understanding the narritive world and thus the story, and incosistencies therefore break the story everytime they come up. For such folks, having a better, faster, and easier way to communicate such details and maintain consistency is important to making the experience enjoyable, especially when we rely on that to make meaningful choices.

So, how would you handle this without turning it into a boardgame?


James Jacobs:
What do you make of the story 'Sweet Ermengarde' by H.P. Lovecraft?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:

I asked earlier about what you thought "rules" were, and got an intetesting reply, but you never actually answered the question.

Life got in the way so I didn't continue then, but I have thought about your responses to various things.

I am rather curious about a statement you made that rules is what makes a game, as though no rules means it is not a game, but it also implies that you believe that including rules somehow makes it a game. Would that be correct?

If so, how would handle the concept of trying to put together something for playing freeform roleplay, but to aid in communicating more clearly and accurately? For example, a player says his character is "very strong," but there is a whole ocean of what that could mean. Does he mean like a amatuer weightlifter, strongest man of the world competitor, or perhaps even the Incredible Hulk?

I know that some people can handle impossiblities and inconsistencies without even noticing them, but other folks can't (like me), quite simply because consistent details are essential to understanding the narritive world and thus the story, and incosistencies therefore break the story everytime they come up. For such folks, having a better, faster, and easier way to communicate such details and maintain consistency is important to making the experience enjoyable, especially when we rely on that to make meaningful choices.

So, how would you handle this without turning it into a boardgame?

That sounds pretty close to you asking me to design an entire roleplaying game here, and that's not something I want to do in the context of a messageboard post when I could instead get paid to do so. :-P There are plenty of games out there that tackle this sort of gaming style, though—my current favorite is "Dread."

If I were to design my own game that would embrace its own form of freeform but structured roleplay, it'd use some sort of visual/physical element like how Dread uses a Jenga tower to resolve situations, in other words.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charles Evans 25 wrote:

James Jacobs:

What do you make of the story 'Sweet Ermengarde' by H.P. Lovecraft?

It's forgettable. In that I know I've read it but it left no impression on me.


If I'm remembering correctly, you were originally going to be the Lead on Strange Aeons before Adam was assigned. While I absolutely love Adam's vision of the Adventure Path, what were your original ideas that didn't make it in? Would the entire AP have been different plot-wise, or were your ideas mostly incorporated?


James wrote:

That sounds pretty close to you asking me to design an entire roleplaying game here, and that's not something I want to do in the context of a messageboard post when I could instead get paid to do so. :-P There are plenty of games out there that tackle this sort of gaming style, though—my current favorite is "Dread."

If I were to design my own game that would embrace its own form of freeform but structured roleplay, it'd use some sort of visual/physical element like how Dread uses a Jenga tower to resolve situations, in other words.

Dread is interesting but it does some gamey things except it does not do anything at all for adding consistency and clarity.

The question was how would you add consistency to the narrative details, and clarity to discussing the narrative, without turning the game into a boardgame-like rpg. In essence, without rules to be balanced and relied upon for a gamey fashion of playing.

Dread doesn't do that. It might be fun, but it fundementally relies on a basis that doesn't work for details oriented folks.

I'm not asking for a game, not even a core of one. I'm just looking for a perspective that won't treat the result as a boardgame while still providing the details consistency and clarity benefit I get from using 3.x.

I'm asking cause all I really see in the industry is games going rules-light and dropping most if not all support for consistency and clarity, or they go for a boardgame with story, as though people somehow can't use rules without playing like a boardgame or abstracting beyond usefullness for consistent details. I'm trying to figure out how to get something that provides that consistency in details and clarity in communication that works for the detail oriented people without people turning it into a boardgame because it looks like a boardgame.


Urgathoa is not among the deities of the Azlanti Pantheon in The Flooded Cathedral. Doed that mean Azlanti didn't know about Urgathoa at all? Maybe she didn't exist before Earthfall?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.
bananahell wrote:
If I'm remembering correctly, you were originally going to be the Lead on Strange Aeons before Adam was assigned. While I absolutely love Adam's vision of the Adventure Path, what were your original ideas that didn't make it in? Would the entire AP have been different plot-wise, or were your ideas mostly incorporated?

I wrote the outline for the adventure, so the bulk of my original ideas made it in. I'm not sure what would have made it in if I'd developed the AP, since I didn't do it and thus never got to the point of having those ideas in the first place. Adam kicked ass with it, in any event, so it's all good!

Paizo Employee Creative Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aenigma wrote:
Urgathoa is not among the deities of the Azlanti Pantheon in The Flooded Cathedral. Doed that mean Azlanti didn't know about Urgathoa at all? Maybe she didn't exist before Earthfall?

She existed. She just wasn't one of the core deities of Azlant.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
James wrote:

That sounds pretty close to you asking me to design an entire roleplaying game here, and that's not something I want to do in the context of a messageboard post when I could instead get paid to do so. :-P There are plenty of games out there that tackle this sort of gaming style, though—my current favorite is "Dread."

If I were to design my own game that would embrace its own form of freeform but structured roleplay, it'd use some sort of visual/physical element like how Dread uses a Jenga tower to resolve situations, in other words.

Dread is interesting but it does some gamey things except it does not do anything at all for adding consistency and clarity.

The question was how would you add consistency to the narrative details, and clarity to discussing the narrative, without turning the game into a boardgame-like rpg. In essence, without rules to be balanced and relied upon for a gamey fashion of playing.

Dread doesn't do that. It might be fun, but it fundementally relies on a basis that doesn't work for details oriented folks.

I'm not asking for a game, not even a core of one. I'm just looking for a perspective that won't treat the result as a boardgame while still providing the details consistency and clarity benefit I get from using 3.x.

I'm asking cause all I really see in the industry is games going rules-light and dropping most if not all support for consistency and clarity, or they go for a boardgame with story, as though people somehow can't use rules without playing like a boardgame or abstracting beyond usefullness for consistent details. I'm trying to figure out how to get something that provides that consistency in details and clarity in communication that works for the detail oriented people without people turning it into a boardgame because it looks like a boardgame.

You're still asking for something that's beyond the scope of this thread to be able to provide answers for, and beyond my energy and interest for posting to thread. I reply to questions here. I don't want to build games or provide examples of how to create games or create campaign settings, particularly if it feels like someone wants a back-and-forth about the process.

Pathfinder 2nd edition is not going to turn into a boardgame, if that's what you're asking, but it's tough to see a question in the wall of text.


What were some of your key moments in the outline for Strange Aeons? Things you were like, "Oh, that is really cool; that definitely needs to happen".


It seems that all runelords are very tall, likely above 170 cm or even taller, I guess. If you have to list the runelords in order of tallest to shortest, how owuld you rank them? I personally think Xanderghul is the tallest, by the way.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

Hi, James.

Have you ever played one of the "Powered by the Apocalpyse" RPGs, like Dungeon Word, Monsterhearts, or Bluebeard's Bride?

If so, what was your opinion?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

What is your favorite Ravenloft antagonist, or antagonists.

If you don't want to answer that's cool, I just thought to put a different spin on the Ravenloft questions.

And yes, Strange Aeons is so good I bought two of each, one for me and one for my nephews.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

3 people marked this as a favorite.
bananahell wrote:
What were some of your key moments in the outline for Strange Aeons? Things you were like, "Oh, that is really cool; that definitely needs to happen".

Let's see...

Spoiler:
Waking up with no memories. Traveling to the Dreamlands and meeting Alhazred. Meeting Erich Zann. Traveling to the Parchlands and exploring there. Finding the Necronomicon. Traveling to Carcosa and visiting the cities trapped there, particularly Paris. Encountering Bokrug. Recovering memories in the Dreamlands.

Those are the ones that come to mind first.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aenigma wrote:
It seems that all runelords are very tall, likely above 170 cm or even taller, I guess. If you have to list the runelords in order of tallest to shortest, how owuld you rank them? I personally think Xanderghul is the tallest, by the way.

I'd probably roll randomly, with Belimarius being the shortest.

73,101 to 73,150 of 77,469 << first < prev | 1458 | 1459 | 1460 | 1461 | 1462 | 1463 | 1464 | 1465 | 1466 | 1467 | 1468 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / >>Ask *James Jacobs* ALL your Questions Here!<< All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.