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


Off-Topic Discussions

78,101 to 78,150 of 78,524 << first < prev | 1558 | 1559 | 1560 | 1561 | 1562 | 1563 | 1564 | 1565 | 1566 | 1567 | 1568 | next > last >>
Paizo Employee Creative Director

Rysky wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Thankies for answering :3

Back to Noqual, what was its genesis?

I wanted an unusual weird material that could be mixed into walls to hamper teleportation and passwall type effects, and explained it via the use of noqual to block those effects. Sort of a mechanical way to duplicate something like dimensional lock, which the game didn't have at the time back in the 2nd edition D&D days. And from there it became a type of metal that could make antimagic-themed things, particularly as an element used to lace golems to explain their high resistance to magic.

Cool.

Was Mithril at any point on the table to become a sky metal?

Nope.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
Rysky wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Thankies for answering :3

Back to Noqual, what was its genesis?

I wanted an unusual weird material that could be mixed into walls to hamper teleportation and passwall type effects, and explained it via the use of noqual to block those effects. Sort of a mechanical way to duplicate something like dimensional lock, which the game didn't have at the time back in the 2nd edition D&D days. And from there it became a type of metal that could make antimagic-themed things, particularly as an element used to lace golems to explain their high resistance to magic.

Cool.

Was Mithril at any point on the table to become a sky metal?

Nope.

*nods*

Aside from Noqual have you made any other special materials?


Rysky wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Rysky wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Thankies for answering :3

Back to Noqual, what was its genesis?

I wanted an unusual weird material that could be mixed into walls to hamper teleportation and passwall type effects, and explained it via the use of noqual to block those effects. Sort of a mechanical way to duplicate something like dimensional lock, which the game didn't have at the time back in the 2nd edition D&D days. And from there it became a type of metal that could make antimagic-themed things, particularly as an element used to lace golems to explain their high resistance to magic.

Cool.

Was Mithril at any point on the table to become a sky metal?

Nope.

*nods*

Aside from Noqual have you made any other special materials?

Should not catch up on threads before coffee, I read Nyquil and was wonder what properties it and what could be made from it. Like does Nyquil Armor give a more restful nights sleep?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Rysky wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Thankies for answering :3

Back to Noqual, what was its genesis?

I wanted an unusual weird material that could be mixed into walls to hamper teleportation and passwall type effects, and explained it via the use of noqual to block those effects. Sort of a mechanical way to duplicate something like dimensional lock, which the game didn't have at the time back in the 2nd edition D&D days. And from there it became a type of metal that could make antimagic-themed things, particularly as an element used to lace golems to explain their high resistance to magic.

Cool.

Was Mithril at any point on the table to become a sky metal?

Nope.

*nods*

Aside from Noqual have you made any other special materials?

I'm sure I've created more than I can remember off the top of my head, but a big one that comes to mind is the Nahyndrian Crystal, which got into Wrath of the Righteous. Those were from my homebrew too, where they were more of an "abyssal crystal that can be worked like iron and inflict extra damage to good targets".

Paizo Employee Creative Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bruce Leeroy Jethro Gibbs wrote:
Like does Nyquil Armor give a more restful nights sleep?

It would certainly give you weird dreams.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

What’s the moon like since Nocticula’s ascension?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
What’s the moon like since Nocticula’s ascension?

Still creepy and alien. If you're talking about the Moonscar itself, then the assumption is PROBABLY that a group of heroes finished that adventure and left he place pretty much cleared out. And since we did an adventure set there already and it's not one that lit the world on fire, chances of a sequel (and thus us ever going back there) are minimal. If we DO go back to Somal, I'd rather visit somewhere else anyway.


What would Nocticula's domains be in second edition if she was still a demon lord? I assume Darkness would stay, but the others I go back and forth on. I own both Wrath of the Righteous and Second Darkness APs, where she has significant exposure.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kelseus wrote:
What would Nocticula's domains be in second edition if she was still a demon lord? I assume Darkness would stay, but the others I go back and forth on. I own both Wrath of the Righteous and Second Darkness APs, where she has significant exposure.

In cases like this I like to make as few changes as possible. The rules changing is not something I like to see as "time to upend things in established flavor."

In 1st edition, Nocticula's domains as a demon lord were Chaos, Charm, Darkness, and Evil. Her subdomians were Demons, Loss, Lust, and Night.

In 2nd edition, demon lord Nocticula would grant four domains, just like any other divinity, and I would set those as follows:
Passion (to cover for Charm and Lust)
Trickster (to cover for Chaos and play into her role as being something of a manipulator and trickster)
Darkness (a flat conversion)
Death (to cover for Evil and to play into her role as a demon lord of assassination)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Do you ever play campaigns where characters are something other than superhero adventurers? For example, many awesome movies have protagonists of many different types and styles even action films, yet I rarely see anything about people playing characters of different styles unless they change the whole genre to focus on that type. For example, I never see detectives in a Golarion/Greyhawk type setting, nor the horror film trope of normal people escaping terrifying monsters/killers.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Interesting Character wrote:
Do you ever play campaigns where characters are something other than superhero adventurers? For example, many awesome movies have protagonists of many different types and styles even action films, yet I rarely see anything about people playing characters of different styles unless they change the whole genre to focus on that type. For example, I never see detectives in a Golarion/Greyhawk type setting, nor the horror film trope of normal people escaping terrifying monsters/killers.

Try Call of Cthulhu for both.

That said, the Pathfinder game I'm running at the office right now is focusing on the exploration of a haunted house, and it has elements of the PCs playing detectives AND running from terrifying foes. Both of those happened in the last two sessions, in fact.

So the answer to your question is: Yup! Those are two of the most common elements in games I run.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

What would a Succubus Investigator be like?


James Jacobs wrote:
Enough that publishing what remains in my homebrew that hasn't been ported over to Paizo as a stand-alone fantasy setting is no longer viable, alas.

While I personally have no illusions about breaking into the industry (or really any desire to, happy to stay a consumer), a few comments like this have struck me at various times.

Do you have any advice for aspiring developers who come to work at any RPG company about bringing in or not bringing in elements of their setting to their employer's work? It seems that there are definite pros and cons to this if I'm not misunderstanding your experiences based the few times you've commented.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:

...

Try Call of Cthulhu for both.
...

Why would I want or need a different system? The best part of d20 is how capable it is of handling anything and everything if you don't mind fluffing things yourself (in this fluff is appropriate as it is the least important part of a system, it isn't even necessary for a system). Yet for some reason, discussion of purely flavor elements has people suggesting different systems as though system has anything to do narrative. Are people that afraid of handling flavor on their own?


My other question is about your characters. Are they normal people? There's a big difference between including elements of investigation vs characters that are ordinary people whose job is to investigate crimes, or even to simply be Scooby-doo characters.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

So in reading one of the older adventure paths I noticed that Coeurl is in the bestiary of one, but not used in any scripted or random encounters. My understanding was that you needed to get permission to use the creature (maybe with payment). Do you remember the reason why the effort was made to get permission and then not using it in the adventure?


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

Have you ever considered doing an AP set in Golarion’s mythic past, (before the gods started getting more hands off) as a chance to explore their personalities through more direct interactions, like the olden myths with meddling, politicking gods?

Part of the reason I enjoy Golarion is because of its relatability: it’s a bleak world sprinkled conservatively with hope and wonder. Encounters with the divine and triumph of good over evil, when they happen, really feel special. Which is really saying something for a genre that feels kind of inundated with that stuff sometimes.

Still, part of me wants to see an early, hopeful era of Golarion, before Aroden’s tragedy rocked the world, when there seemed to be no limit to what magic could accomplish (Jatembe and the Magaambya, Geb and Nex, the Starstone, the flying city of Kho, ancient Osirion, etc) and the future looked bright. An era of “humanity against the monsters in the dark” rather than a “humanity against itself” kind of setting.

Maybe when ya’ll get around to stuff after level 20.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
What would a Succubus Investigator be like?

Distracting but effective I suppose.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Insapateh wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Enough that publishing what remains in my homebrew that hasn't been ported over to Paizo as a stand-alone fantasy setting is no longer viable, alas.

While I personally have no illusions about breaking into the industry (or really any desire to, happy to stay a consumer), a few comments like this have struck me at various times.

Do you have any advice for aspiring developers who come to work at any RPG company about bringing in or not bringing in elements of their setting to their employer's work? It seems that there are definite pros and cons to this if I'm not misunderstanding your experiences based the few times you've commented.

If you want to ever do something on your own with your ideas and own them and profit from them long term, don't do it. If you want to profit from them short-term and want to see your ideas expanded and enhanced by talent you don't have or resources you lack, go for it! But keep in mind that once you do, it's no longer yours.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Interesting Character wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

...

Try Call of Cthulhu for both.
...
Why would I want or need a different system? The best part of d20 is how capable it is of handling anything and everything if you don't mind fluffing things yourself (in this fluff is appropriate as it is the least important part of a system, it isn't even necessary for a system). Yet for some reason, discussion of purely flavor elements has people suggesting different systems as though system has anything to do narrative. Are people that afraid of handling flavor on their own?

Because different systems handle those things better. Think of an RPG as a tool to tell stories. And as with any tool, they work better at doing what they were built to do. You can put out a fire with a bomb, but using a fire extinguisher is better.

And because the type of game you play triggers different expectations from your players. If you tell a group that you're playing Pathfinder, most players will immediately start thinking of characters and plots that are more heroic and less passive/subtle.

And please use words like "flavor" instead of "fluff" since fluff means "writing of little consequence" and/or has connotations that are insulting or diminishing to the hard work writers do to make compelling, fun-to-read content.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Interesting Character wrote:
My other question is about your characters. Are they normal people? There's a big difference between including elements of investigation vs characters that are ordinary people whose job is to investigate crimes, or even to simply be Scooby-doo characters.

Never. The WHOLE POINT for me when playing an RPG is to play someone else who is exceptional and memorable and someone who I might aspire to be but cannot be.

Even characters I play in Call of Cthulhu aren't what I would say is "ordinary." They're exceptional in at least one way, if only in the fact that they exist in a world where they can, in theory, do magic.

I play games to escape reality. Reality is ordinary. Games about ordinary people doing ordinary things aren't games to me.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.
fujisempai wrote:
So in reading one of the older adventure paths I noticed that Coeurl is in the bestiary of one, but not used in any scripted or random encounters. My understanding was that you needed to get permission to use the creature (maybe with payment). Do you remember the reason why the effort was made to get permission and then not using it in the adventure?

We wanted to honor the creator of the creature and present it in it's original format and respect the creator by securing permission to use it in an RPG rather than just change a few things and pass it off as our own or not change anything at all and just use it without permission. In the discussion with the rights-holder, they gave us a one-time license to use the creature once, and that meant it got specifically excluded from the OGL, and we wanted to respect their decision and never used it in our adventures. We did this a few other times too, such as with the Deep Crow.

Part of it is because we are fans of the creatures. Part of it is that we want to highlight others' talents. Part of it is we want to try to set an example of how to do RPG content based on properties others own without giving the stuff away for free.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Opsylum wrote:

Have you ever considered doing an AP set in Golarion‘a mythic past, (before the gods started getting more hands off) as a chance to explore their personalities through more direct interactions, like the olden myths with meddling, politicking gods?

Part of the reason I enjoy Golarion is because of its relatability: it’s a bleak world sprinkled conservatively with hope and wonder. Encounters with the divine and triumph of good over evil, when they happen, really feel special. Which is really saying something for a genre that feels kind of inundated with that stuff sometimes.

Still, part of me wants to see an early, hopeful era of Golarion, before Aroden’s tragedy rocked the world, when there seemed to be no limit to what magic could accomplish (Jatembe and the Magaambya, Geb and Nex, the Starstone, the flying city of Kho, ancient Osirion, etc) and the future looked bright. An era of “humanity against the monsters in the dark” rather than a “humanity against itself” kind of setting.

Maybe when ya’ll get around to stuff after level 20.

Check out Return of the Runelords; that's about as far as we'll likely go with an AP set in the past.

The problem is that setting an AP in the distant past is the same as setting an AP in an entirely different setting. Because that's what it is. We'd have to support that AP with a brand new set of world books and rules and that's too much work to do to for a one-time exception. This sort of thing is much better handled by individual GMs who take what we publish as a starting point and then alter things as they wish to do what they want in their home game.

As a specific example, if we set an entire campaign in a pre-Earthfall era, your players wouldn't be able to play gnomes or worship Iomedae, and that means that anything we have printed that references or touches upon those things aren't available, and suddenly we've made our own products obsolete for that game and would have to either just be satisfied with an Adventure Path with built-in option gaps, or we'd have to do work to replace that content.

And I'd say that the era of Golarion we're in right now is the MOST hopeful. It's the only one where there's Player Characters active, and that means that even if we were to say in print something like "Rocks fall. Everyone dies," somewhere out there a GM and a group of PCs would say "NOT TODAY" and game away.

SO since building a well-supported AP is something we value, and building a non-supported one isn't, we'd have to build what is essentially a brand new setting. And personally, if I'm going to go into a "brand new setting" mode, I'd rather do that: build an honest-to-goodness new setting than a variant on Golarion.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

What kind of treats does Nocticula like?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
What kind of treats does Nocticula like?

Challenging works of art from people who have struggled or who have been persecuted for their artistic integrity by others, yet have not given in to fear and pressure and have stayed true to their vision and muse.


Weird question regarding the Hunter Archetype Forester:

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/hybrid-classes/hunter/archetypes/paizo-hun ter-archetypes/forester-hunter-archetype wrote:

Animal Focus (Su)

As a forester has no animal companion, the aspects granted by this ability always apply to the forester herself, just as if a normal hunter’s companion were dead.

This alters animal focus.

Would this imply that the Hunter would have TWO Animal Foci, one 'permanent' and one that lasts for minutes per level?

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/hybrid-classes/hunter wrote:
If the hunter’s animal companion is dead, the hunter can apply her companion’s animal focus to herself instead of her animal companion. This is in addition to the normal one she can choose, and (as with a companion’s focus) remains in effect until the hunter changes it instead of counting against her minutes per day.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ederook wrote:

Weird question regarding the Hunter Archetype Forester:

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/hybrid-classes/hunter/archetypes/paizo-hun ter-archetypes/forester-hunter-archetype wrote:

Animal Focus (Su)

As a forester has no animal companion, the aspects granted by this ability always apply to the forester herself, just as if a normal hunter’s companion were dead.

This alters animal focus.

Would this imply that the Hunter would have TWO Animal Foci, one 'permanent' and one that lasts for minutes per level?

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/hybrid-classes/hunter wrote:
If the hunter’s animal companion is dead, the hunter can apply her companion’s animal focus to herself instead of her animal companion. This is in addition to the normal one she can choose, and (as with a companion’s focus) remains in effect until the hunter changes it instead of counting against her minutes per day.

Rules questions should go to the Design team, and/or be asked in rules-adjacent forums such as the Core Rulebook's product page forum.


James Jacobs wrote:
Ederook wrote:

Weird question regarding the Hunter Archetype Forester:

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/hybrid-classes/hunter/archetypes/paizo-hun ter-archetypes/forester-hunter-archetype wrote:

Animal Focus (Su)

As a forester has no animal companion, the aspects granted by this ability always apply to the forester herself, just as if a normal hunter’s companion were dead.

This alters animal focus.

Would this imply that the Hunter would have TWO Animal Foci, one 'permanent' and one that lasts for minutes per level?

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/hybrid-classes/hunter wrote:
If the hunter’s animal companion is dead, the hunter can apply her companion’s animal focus to herself instead of her animal companion. This is in addition to the normal one she can choose, and (as with a companion’s focus) remains in effect until the hunter changes it instead of counting against her minutes per day.
Rules questions should go to the Design team, and/or be asked in rules-adjacent forums such as the Core Rulebook's product page forum.

Moved to appropriate forum. Thanks!

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Ryze Kuja wrote:
...wrote lots...

Please keep posts to this thread to questions for me; I want to avoid getting into back-and-forth discussions or long posts so as to keep the thread easier to manage, navigate, and read.

Furthermore, please keep in mind that I can't read unsolicited pitches for adventures or games for legal reasons.


James Jacobs wrote:
Ryze Kuja wrote:
...wrote lots...

Please keep posts to this thread to questions for me; I want to avoid getting into back-and-forth discussions or long posts so as to keep the thread easier to manage, navigate, and read.

Furthermore, please keep in mind that I can't read unsolicited pitches for adventures or games for legal reasons.

I deleted it, my apologies.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I used "fluff" precisely because in a system, it is inconsequential. It has zero meaning. Only when conveying setting or narrative does it have any importance and that is unrelated to system, much like Hamlet is unrelated to the english language, no matter what language used Hamlet is the same story. That was part of my point in using it.

---
So you don't see any value or fun in stories about normal people in interesting situations? Is that why all the APs are about heroic adventurers and nothing else? You don't get bored from the samey-samey feeling all the time? 90% of all films are stories not fun enough to play as an rpg?


How would you break popular assumptions/perceptions if they would be a problem for a game you want to run?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Interesting Character wrote:

I used "fluff" precisely because in a system, it is inconsequential. It has zero meaning. Only when conveying setting or narrative does it have any importance and that is unrelated to system, much like Hamlet is unrelated to the english language, no matter what language used Hamlet is the same story. That was part of my point in using it.

---
So you don't see any value or fun in stories about normal people in interesting situations? Is that why all the APs are about heroic adventurers and nothing else? You don't get bored from the samey-samey feeling all the time? 90% of all films are stories not fun enough to play as an rpg?

Fluff is a real world word with several real world meanings, but the one that specifically refers to writing is insulting. That's not something you can change, but you CAN change the habit of using it to refer to non-rules writing in RPGs. That's all I'm asking. If you're not interested in adapting to my request, then don't be surprised if I or other writers grow less interested in discourses with you.

Stories about normal people in interesting situations and in which those people achieve something worth noting are not "normal people" in my opinion. They are, by the fact of being the main characters in any story, worthy of telling a story about and are thus unique, not normal.

I do get bored with RPGs that aren't interesting, but that's because of a failure on the writer or GM's behalf, not the RPG itself.

You CAN do investigation plots or horror plots with Pathfinder. I've done so a lot. In fact, every campaign I've ever run has horror and investigation plots. I tailor them to require heroic characters, rather than try to build plots for different types of characters, and it works out well.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Interesting Character wrote:
How would you break popular assumptions/perceptions if they would be a problem for a game you want to run?

By talking with the players beforehand to let them know what I was interested in doing, and getting them to cooperate in the type of game I wanted to run. If they didn't want it, I'd shelve that idea for another group and do something else.

I'd also create a player's guide for that game that does the same thing our Adventure Path guides do—tell the players what is and isn't a good choice for the game that they're about to join.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What I meant by ordinary person is A) someone of normal capacity (By the numbers in d20, a lvl 3 is significantly above average and lvl 6 is literally superhuman, compared to real world humans at least ) and B) someone with a normal place in society, such as a smith or merchant or police or noble, but not some extraordinary hero/adventurer/murderhobo. Think Bilbo from The Hobbit, or the kids in Lost in Space.

If you wouldn't call them ordinary, what would you call them?

The thing that kinda led to this question is a story about a guy in a marketing company who used an rpg as a team building exercise in which each player was a middleclass woman with a product that were trying to sell and were all invited to a social party. "Ordinary" people in an ordinary setting ripe for all kinds of interesting drama and hijinks. It was interesting to read and sounds like it would have been fun to play in as well. But this got me thinking once again of how broad the concepts in movies and stories are in comparison to how narrow RPGs seem to be. I see RPGs with various traits of different genres but almost always the players are far beyond even the elites of their world and usually are explicitly adventurers rather than regular people simply handling a situation because there is no hero around to do it.

It disappoints me that I don't see more variety, but that was the source of my question.

So, what would you call such people if not ordinary?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Interesting Character wrote:

What I meant by ordinary person is A) someone of normal capacity (By the numbers in d20, a lvl 3 is significantly above average and lvl 6 is literally superhuman, compared to real world humans at least ) and B) someone with a normal place in society, such as a smith or merchant or police or noble, but not some extraordinary hero/adventurer/murderhobo. Think Bilbo from The Hobbit, or the kids in Lost in Space.

If you wouldn't call them ordinary, what would you call them?

The thing that kinda led to this question is a story about a guy in a marketing company who used an rpg as a team building exercise in which each player was a middleclass woman with a product that were trying to sell and were all invited to a social party. "Ordinary" people in an ordinary setting ripe for all kinds of interesting drama and hijinks. It was interesting to read and sounds like it would have been fun to play in as well. But this got me thinking once again of how broad the concepts in movies and stories are in comparison to how narrow RPGs seem to be. I see RPGs with various traits of different genres but almost always the players are far beyond even the elites of their world and usually are explicitly adventurers rather than regular people simply handling a situation because there is no hero around to do it.

It disappoints me that I don't see more variety, but that was the source of my question.

So, what would you call such people if not ordinary?

I would call Bilbo extraordinary, or fated, or lucky, or doomed, just for starters. He managed to endure the one ring's influence and set into motion a whole trilogy of things that brought about the end of an age. That isn't "ordinary" at all. "Ordinary" in this case would be the hobbits who didn't leave the Shire ever, and thus weren't who the story was about.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Surely though you can see how Bilbo is closer to an ordinary person than Aragorn or spiderman or an adventurer? So what would call that whole category of characters?


Pathfinder Pawns, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

"There is a lot more in him than you guess, and a deal more than he has any idea of himself" - Gandalf.

"You are more worthy to wear the armour of elf-princes than many that have looked more comely in it." - the elvenking.

"There is more in you of good than you know, child of the kindly West. Some courage and some wisdom, blended in measure" - Thorin.

(I need to ask a question, so: is that the sort of thing you have in mind when you call Bilbo 'extraordinary'?)

Paizo Employee Creative Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Interesting Character wrote:
Surely though you can see how Bilbo is closer to an ordinary person than Aragorn or spiderman or an adventurer? So what would call that whole category of characters?

Why is it so important for you for me to say someone is ordinary?

Being less powerful than someone else does not mean you have to be ordinary.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No, but it is clearly very different from playing a superhero adventurer.

I'm curious what you call it when someone is playing other than superhero adventurers.

You don't like "ordinary" so some other term is needed.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

3 people marked this as a favorite.
DavidW wrote:

"There is a lot more in him than you guess, and a deal more than he has any idea of himself" - Gandalf.

"You are more worthy to wear the armour of elf-princes than many that have looked more comely in it." - the elvenking.

"There is more in you of good than you know, child of the kindly West. Some courage and some wisdom, blended in measure" - Thorin.

(I need to ask a question, so: is that the sort of thing you have in mind when you call Bilbo 'extraordinary'?)

That's some of it, yes. But mostly it's the fact that I go by definitions for words, and the word "ordinary" in this case is defined as:

adjective
1) of no special quality or interest; commonplace; unexceptional

A character who is "ordinary" by this definition makes a poor choice for a main character of a story, unless the story is about everything AROUND the character.

In my opinion, if you have a story about you, and that story is interesting, you are not ordinary.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Interesting Character wrote:

No, but it is clearly very different from playing a superhero adventurer.

I'm curious what you call it when someone is playing other than superhero adventurers.

Player Characters at the table or when I'm talking about them in an adventure to be read by a GM.

Adventurers in an in-game way (with variants like "heroes" or "mercenaries" or "troublemakers" or other context-appropriate descriptors based on the situation and what NPC is talking).


Ever heard of cryptid called the devil monkey?
It is like Bigfoots eviller and territorial pissed off scary cousin.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizoxmi wrote:

Ever heard of cryptid called the devil monkey?

It is like Bigfoots eviller and territorial pissed off scary cousin.

Yup! That's why I put one in Bestiary 6 back in the later parts of the 1st edition Pathfinder days.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

What is something fun you found out about recently?


Mr. James Jacobs,

If one was running Tyrant's Grasp as a mythic game, what point in the first part would be best as a moment of mythic ascension?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
What is something fun you found out about recently?

You can't "hold a charge" on touch spells anymore, now that the way touch spells work don't require attack rolls.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

4 people marked this as a favorite.
The NPC wrote:

Mr. James Jacobs,

If one was running Tyrant's Grasp as a mythic game, what point in the first part would be best as a moment of mythic ascension?

I dunno. I wasn't involved in Tyrant's Grasp beyond helping with feedback and suggestions during the outline stage. That said, based on my limited knowledge of how it all played out... I'd say RIGHT AT THE START. Doesn't get more mythic than how that campaign begins.


Hello James. A simple one: do elementals have souls?

(PS: customer feedback - I'm loving 2nd edition, and Luis and Eleanor are going great work).

78,101 to 78,150 of 78,524 << first < prev | 1558 | 1559 | 1560 | 1561 | 1562 | 1563 | 1564 | 1565 | 1566 | 1567 | 1568 | 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.