I go on a bit of a blog rant over at the Spes Magna site about people who rant against the Christmas Tree Effect and the impossibility of running PF as a low-magic game. Along the way, I also try to maintain a modest level of coherence and pass on some useful advice.
Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games
I've also been playing RPGs for many years, and have also played at a couple places called "Fort" in my time. I am in full agreement that the group of people you play with is much more important than the rules system you play by.
You offer one way to quickly and easily adapt Pathfinder to a low-magic campaign, and I agree that whatever method you decide to use, it's quite a simple task - so long as you're playing with friends. I'd love to see Paizo publish one or more of these simple campaign options so that more rules-depended groups can use them.
For example, I used to manage a game store and we'd run drop-in D&D games. You really can't afford too many house rules in a "public" game, but if there was a two page "low magic option" published somewhere, you could adopt it.
Good article and you're right. It never mattered what system I played, whether it was one a friend invented or a published system, we always had fun because we worked together to make it fun.
In the games I run : I do not allow magical items shops or sale/buying of items to wizards. Items are always given or loaned in return for quests. The item is reward or price of a favour done, so this prompts another adventure to tie into the main or sub plot.
I use dreams, superstitions, crystal balls, animal recognising planar beasts etc, so that magic is everywhere in different ways, not just X spell/item does Y effect. There should be much about the world that the characters do not know, but through interaction with people they can find out.
These things encourage alot more interaction within the party and with NPC's. NPC's and PC's nearly always have quirks, even if it's just an accent or mild addiction. I always tell players not to play Lone wolves and to find reasons in game to work together. They do not have to be best buddies but atleast work in small teams. Going anywhere alone in a world with magic and monsters is suicide. We make it fun.
In the games i've played in : One was a homebrew world with only 5 arcane casters, one of them was a PC. The tech level was bronze age, with a few new iron tools. There were heaps of dinosaurs and Psionics was more common than Divine magic. There were healing herbs taken from Rolemaster, but they were rare. We used alot of nets, alchemists fire and poisons to hinder opponents. It was great fun.
Then of course there is Darksun. No metal items and you have to be careful who you trust. We stuck together like glue, always watching eachothers backs as everyone tried to swindle us. We managed to help a few people, but half our adventuers we had to flee and come back. But we had a lot of laughs that campaign. We made it fun and had few normal items let alone magical ones.
Good article and you're right. It never mattered what system I played, whether it was one a friend invented or a published system, we always had fun because we worked together to make it fun.
+1
Nice article...but made me kinda...melancholy. Didn't help that I brought out all my first edition stuff earlier today. Think I may take a break from Pathfinder to run a one shot of AD&D. My group has been together since '89. And all of us played in the gygax books. I think it would be fun.
Greg
I'll start off by saying this isn't intended as an attack on you, the system you wrote, or the way you choose to game.
First off, I don't understand the hippie commune mentality that people have toward gaming. You talk about this "perfect" group of great friends who all love and respect eachother, and make it sound like nothing ever went wrong. I honestly can't even fathom this. Every gaming group I've been part of has fought. Some more so than others, of course, but there has always been a large amount of conflict. The only time I've ever heard of a group like yours, is, well in a situation like this. Some remembering way back when, in this golden age of prosperity that was ten, twenty, or thirty years ago, depending.
As to the point of your article...I'm curious on how your system works. I understand this is something you're trying to sell, so I'll understand if the answer to any of these questions is "you need to buy it to get that info." Though, do understand that that's unlikely to get me to spend any money.
1. How long do these benefits last? I'm under the impression it's until you spend the action point on a different benefit, though at the same time I'm worried it's only for a single round.
2. Is this ment to replace magic items in general? As there is still a lot of holes (namely utility abilities like flight) left unfilled.
3. Anything for spell resistance or energy resistance?
I like the idea behind what you created, though I'm seeing it more as a step in the right direction than a solution to the problem.
Lastly, I'm curious on how many people are actually on one side of the fence on this or the other. Me personally, I can understand the desire to play a low/no magic campaign, though at the same time I enjoy campaigns with lots of magic loot.
First off, I don't understand the hippie commune mentality that people have toward gaming. You talk about this "perfect" group of great friends who all love and respect eachother, and make it sound like nothing ever went wrong. I honestly can't even fathom this.
The word "perfect" appears nowhere in what I wrote. If you can't fathom people gaming together without fighting, perhaps you need a better class of gamers.
As to the point of your article...I'm curious on how your system works. I understand this is something you're trying to sell....
I'm not trying to sell anything in the article. I merely reference a PDF I wrote. The system I briefly outline in the article is not the system in the PDF I reference. Thus, I'll address your question in reference to the article, not to Rewarding Roleplaying, which is a more involved treatment.
1. How long do these benefits last? I'm under the impression it's until you spend the action point on a different benefit, though at the same time I'm worried it's only for a single round.
2. Is this ment to replace magic items in general? As there is still a lot of holes (namely utility abilities like flight) left unfilled.
3. Anything for spell resistance or energy resistance?
1. The benefits last "for the duration of an encounter" (as noted in the article).
2. Also as noted in the article, Action Points are meant to replace the Big Six items (weapons, armors/shields, rings of protection, cloaks of resistance, amulets of natural armor, and ability-score boosters).
3. Not sure I understand the question.
I like the idea behind what you created, though I'm seeing it more as a step in the right direction than a solution to the problem.
Thanks, and thanks for the feedback.
First off, I don't understand the hippie commune mentality that people have toward gaming. You talk about this "perfect" group of great friends who all love and respect eachother, and make it sound like nothing ever went wrong. I honestly can't even fathom this.The word "perfect" appears nowhere in what I wrote. If you can't fathom people gaming together without fighting, perhaps you need a better class of gamers.
Just what I was going to say, you need to find a better class of gamers.
Lest you think that all of the great gaming groups exist only in the mythical past, I have one right now. For the last year and a half I've run a game at my house every Tuesday night. We liked gaming together so much that, when I got a little burned out on GMing, one of the players stepped up and is now GMing his own game while I play. We're all adults with busy lives, so it's sometimes been a logistical struggle to get everyone together, but we always find a way.
While we may argue a rule now and then, it's generally outside of game time and more of a fun 'how should this work' argument. We never fight.
Before i get to the article
The word "perfect" appears nowhere in what I wrote. If you can't fathom people gaming together without fighting, perhaps you need a better class of gamers.
This is rude and insulting to people that, you should realize, are friends to the other poster. Friends argue sometimes: about rules, about pizza, because they're tired, hungry, or showed up to DM despite having a splitting headache because they didn't want the activity they were looking forward to.
I've been playing with my core gaming group for almost 20 years now. I can't imagine any two people on the planet getting along for that period of time without SOME disagreement cropping up: much less 8 people. Its normal human behavior, not the activities of some degenerate subclass.
I'm not trying to sell anything in the article. I merely reference a PDF I wrote. The system I briefly outline in the article is not the system in the PDF I reference.
Ok, so first you insult people who feel that Without “level appropriate” equipment, encounters become too difficult. Attack bonuses, armor classes, saving throws, et cetera, can’t compete with more powerful creatures and effects." .. you think these people are wrong. Your solution to show that they're wrong is... a major rules rewrite in a PDF ......
Before i get to the articleThe word "perfect" appears nowhere in what I wrote. If you can't fathom people gaming together without fighting, perhaps you need a better class of gamers.This is rude and insulting to people that, you should realize, are friends to the other poster. Friends argue sometimes: about rules, about pizza, because they're tired, hungry, or showed up to DM despite having a splitting headache because they didn't want the activity they were looking forward to.
I've been playing with my core gaming group for almost 20 years now. I can't imagine any two people on the planet getting along for that period of time without SOME disagreement cropping up: much less 8 people. Its normal human behavior, not the activities of some degenerate subclass.
I'm not trying to sell anything in the article. I merely reference a PDF I wrote. The system I briefly outline in the article is not the system in the PDF I reference.Ok, so first you insult people who feel that Without “level appropriate” equipment, encounters become too difficult. Attack bonuses, armor classes, saving throws, et cetera, can’t compete with more powerful creatures and effects." .. you think these people are wrong. Your solution to show that they're wrong is... a major rules rewrite in a PDF ......
Interesting take. I actually was a bit offended at Faust's original statement. His first paragraph said he wasn't being offensive. Yet the second paragraph came across as offensive to me. FOR EXAMPLE: " Don't take this personally, I do not mean it offensively in the least, but you are fat and ugly." Granted, my example is much more extreme. I do not think Faust was trying to be offensive. I think he was being critical of a system and tried to make it witty. Wasn't witty to me.
However, same could be said of Spes's reply of trying to be witty and failing for you.
The odd thing to me is your defense of your friend is exactly what Spes was saying in his article. NOWHERE does it say anything about his gaming over the years and NOT having arguements. I am pretty certain over the years he had arguements with his buddies. It happens. People move on. It does say, that playing with your friends is the most important thing. And coming up with ways for your friends to enjoy the game is more important than a particular ruleset.
So many problems with gaming groups could be avoided if people would remember that the highest purpose of any game is to have fun with friends. Everyone in a gaming group should play the game in such a way as to maximize everyone else’s fun. What that fun looks like will vary from group to group, and that’s okay.
How does this relate to low-magic gaming? Simple. If everyone agrees that abandoning most or all of the Big Six, for example, will be fun, and that the group will work together to make the game work, what more is needed? This is true no matter what the game system or style of play.
He doesn't say this rule works for everyone. And in fact, in my group it would be a horrible decision. He just suggests that groups can overcome any "buit-in" problem in a gaming system.
I just do not equate... enjoying time with friends... as some "hippie commune thing" or being respectful of others (something you seem to be accussing Spes Magna Mark of not being) is a mythological thing.
Greg
This is rude and insulting to people that, you should realize, are friends to the other poster.
My intention was not to be insulting. Mea culpa.
Friends argue sometimes....
I've been playing with my core gaming group for almost 20 years now. I can't imagine any two people on the planet getting along for that period of time without SOME disagreement cropping up: much less 8 people.
Yes, friends argue. They also disagree. No one has said otherwise. What I was reacting to was this (emphases added):
Every gaming group I've been part of has fought. Some more so than others, of course, but there has always been a large amount of conflict.
I've been in gaming groups like that. I quit them. I don't game to fight or experience a "large amount of conflict".
Ok, so first you insult people who feel that Without “level appropriate” equipment, encounters become too difficult. Attack bonuses, armor classes, saving throws, et cetera, can’t compete with more powerful creatures and effects." .. you think these people are wrong. Your solution to show that they're wrong is... a major rules rewrite in a PDF....
I didn't insult "people who feel that Without 'level appropriate' equipment, encounters become too difficult." I didn't even say such people are wrong. Indeed, that I suggest ameliorating the effects of removing the Big Six via an Action Point mechanic indicates that I don't necessarily think they're wrong. What's more, Rewarding Roleplaying (which is not the subject the article) is hardly "a major rules rewrite in a PDF". It's comparable in length and scope to the Hero Points found in the APG.
I do not think Faust was trying to be offensive.
Nor do I. Of course, as I tell my students, any time you start a statement with "this isn't intended as an attack" or "I don't mean to be insulting" then you're already off to a bad start.
Nice blog rant, but...
Every gamers have their own definition of ''low magic'', so arguing about the balance in low magic campaing is pointless. However, we can have an interesting discussion about how much you can increase or decrease the WBL without having to modify the rules.
Nice blog rant, but...
Every gamers have their own definition of ''low magic'', so arguing about the balance in low magic campaing is pointless. However, we can have an interesting discussion about how much you can increase or decrease the WBL without having to modify the rules.
My group doesn't even use it. I am certain 3 out of five players haven't even looked at the chart. :P And I certainly don't base my game around it.
Greg
Nice blog rant, but...
Every gamers have their own definition of ''low magic'', so arguing about the balance in low magic campaing is pointless. However, we can have an interesting discussion about how much you can increase or decrease the WBL without having to modify the rules.
My group doesn't even use it. I am certain 3 out of five players haven't even looked at the chart. :P And I certainly don't base my game around it.
Greg
You don't have to use it: it's a guideline, not a rule. However, even if you don't use it, it would be interesting to calculate how much wealth you PCs have only to check how far away they are from the suggested WBL. For example, if you find out that your PC have about half the suggested WBL and you're game is running fine, then you could share your gameplay experience with other gamers on this very forum with terms that everyone could understand. Saying "50% WBL works fine" is more precise than saying "low magic works fine", because low magic could be anything between 1% WBL and 99% WBL, and I don't believe that 1% WBL works fine. :P
However, same could be said of Spes's reply of trying to be witty and failing for you.
I don't see how calling people a lesser class than yourself can be construed as "wit"
The odd thing to me is your defense of your friend
I don't know fraust. I can't remember having convo with him here before.
is exactly what Spes was saying in his article. NOWHERE does it say anything about his gaming over the years and NOT having arguements. I am pretty certain over the years he had arguements with his buddies. It happens. People move on. It does say, that playing with your friends is the most important thing. And coming up with ways for your friends to enjoy the game is more important than a particular ruleset.
It is easier to have fun when the rules are balanced though. It's easier to have fun when my character isn't useless. This is how fighters in my group have felt when the DM's have been trying to be thematic and go with a low magic campaign. Its not opinion that such changes hit fighters harder: its a fact. Messing with the Christmas tree effect, which IS an inherent part of the game, warrants more consideration than "well its thematic so i'm going to go ahead and do it, and anyone that gets upset by this and other types of decisions is some sort of underclass..."
I've had both of the more heavily rp characters in the group get upset when their characters just didn't work in 3.5 (with a monk , a halfling rogue who could never get in position to flank, and an elven wizard trying to use the touch spell at a distance feat.)
He doesn't say this rule works for everyone. And in fact, in my group it would be a horrible decision. He just suggests that groups can overcome any "buit-in" problem in a gaming system.
Which is very Kumbaya. I'm sure such groups could have fun playing bunnies and burrows as well. I know that when i spend 3 minutes calculating all of my attacks and bonuses, have all of them miss even though i didn't roll poorly, and then have the wizard turn the bad guy into a carp with one spell or disintegrate them in one shot it rankles a bit.
In a group of 6 you could very easily have
-The dm Petitioning for the low magic campaign.
-The role player who thinks its a good idea
-two people who can't care because they don't realize that it does to game balance
-the one person who's against it because they know what it does to game balance but is too much of a wall flower
-The person who knows what it does to game balance who is laughing maniacally because he knows that no fighter will EVER make a save against the wizard he's going to make
I just do not equate... enjoying time with friends... as some "hippie commune thing" or being respectful of others (something you seem to be accussing Spes Magna Mark of not being) is a mythological thing.
I do not equate getting upset that the game continues to go poorly , and having that spill over into a friendship that largely spends its time together with evidence of being some sort of underclass. I have had games get to the point where they weren't fun anymore (and magic items were a big issue in one of them) and withdrawn from the game, seeing a lot less of those friends for a while.
As to fraust's reply being more insulting: I'm not an elementary school teacher. I do not expect people to reply to rudeness with perfect civility or calmness.
You don't need game balance to have fun with an RPG - 3.5 was in it's time the most popular game out there and it was horribly unbalanced - but I will not deny that it probably helps.
The most important factors in a good game are in order of importance:
1) A good bunch of players who all want the same thing out of the game.
2) A good GM who wants the same as their players.
3) A good system.
BigNorseWolf highlights where a system's imbalance exacerbates the problem that not all the players want the same thing out of the game. In his example both the 'role player' and the 'wizard player' are being selfish for very different reasons: the 'role player' is being selfish because he's not taking into account that his intense experience is at the cost of everyone else's fun, and the 'wizard player' because he is prepared to exploit the system at the expense of everyone else's fun.
You don't have to use it: it's a guideline, not a rule. However, even if you don't use it, it would be interesting to calculate how much wealth you PCs have only to check how far away they are from the suggested WBL. For example, if you find out that your PC have about half the suggested WBL and you're game is running fine, then you could share your gameplay experience with other gamers on this very forum with terms that everyone could understand. Saying "50% WBL works fine" is more precise than saying "low magic works fine", because low magic could be anything between 1% WBL and 99% WBL, and I don't believe that 1% WBL works fine. :P
Good responce, and I probably should look at it and compare. However, I do not claim to run a "low magic game". I have a game in which the players are low powered (by builds,play style, and feat selection they are not even close to combat optimized) and I exert a much greater control of magic items created and sold. For example, for some reason, you want to create a ring of air walking, it will probably be of no problem at all. If you want to create five of them, then most likely, one will have drained the resources of "magical components" in the area, and need to go on a quest to retrieve some more roc eggshells, wyvern sting poison or whatever. In my games, (as in my group's USUAL games) a town will usually have a shop that sells magic items and magical components, but one will not find a magic factory. The shops will sell a variety of magic items, but probably do not have a "big six" combo package sale.
This "style" has grown over the years for D&D. Different games use a different "style". If you were to play ww's Mage with us, it seems more like a superhero game then some of the Mage games I have read about. And when third edition first came out, we ran a very Monty Hallesque game in the Realms. But those are exceptions. But I do not endorse our style for others. It works for us. The people at the table like it. It may be a compromise for some. ( and it kind of is for one, he even likes a more restrictive game) But this is the gaming style WE get the most enjoyment from.
My quoted responce was more for the WBL chart then for the "low magic game" part. My group has alot of magic... just pretty varied and probably not optimal selections.
I do not equate getting upset that the game continues to go poorly , and having that spill over into a friendship that largely spends its time together with evidence of being some sort of underclass. I have had games get to the point where they weren't fun anymore (and magic items were a big issue in one of them) and withdrawn from the game, seeing a lot less of those friends for a while.
I never said anything about being underclass. ( oh found it, it was in Spes's responce, thought it was in reference to my quotes) Enjoying time with friends and being respectful is not a "class" thing. It sounds like your group of friends is not playing a game you enjoy. When my friends watch boxing matches on HBO on our game night, I do not have fun with them. I usually end up reading a book at home or hang out with my parents. If it were a minority, like on sometimes our gaming time conflicts with a WH40k tournament, and two players do not show, then PROBABLY we end up playing without them. But that is schedule conflict.
As for your example of a group of six could easily include... Well, it turns out two people want it. two people do not care. and two people don't want it. As for the "roleplayer" I guess I do not understand the concept of low magic=roleplaying that seems to have come about. One is refering to character and world building and the other is refering to how one interacts in playing. Off tangent pet peeve. Anyway, the player that doesn't speak up seems to be the issue. Until they start saying something, it is four against the one that doesn't like the low magic. ( At least it will appear that way because one will have Two asserting for Lower Magic, two going "what ever group decides" and one remaining strangely quite...none of which supports the lone disenting person's desire) So at that point, they have the tough choices . Play and not enjoy, because it is still hanging around friends. Play and work to make game miserable for others.(I've seen people do it) Find new group that plays in style they like. Not play for time of campaign. Pretty unlucky situation. Got no advice for a group like that. Maybe ask if it is possible to compromise up a bit to a minimum magic level that the disenting player can still see as effective, withoutbeing miserable. If that has been tried and there is no compromise... back to the tough decision board. Sometimes life has no good answers. Doesn't make those players wrong or bad, it just means they have more fun doing something the lone person does not. I don't hang with my buddies on poker night or fight night. They do not hang with me for Renn Faire's or blues festivals.
Which is very Kumbaya. I'm sure such groups could have fun playing bunnies and burrows as well. I know that when i spend 3 minutes calculating all of my attacks and bonuses, have all of them miss even though i didn't roll poorly, and then have the wizard turn the bad guy into a carp with one spell or disintegrate them in one shot it rankles a bit
But those do not seem to be "built-in" mechanics problems. Those seem to be based on play style problems and a poor adjustment problem. (at least I would assume the person calculating attacks was some sort of warrior type) I would assert you are probably refering to that "low magic" setting. But if only one is having issues, it is not a group problem... it is an individual problem. Hopefully, the group can compromise to make it better for the individual. If not, that is his problem. It sounds like one person is not enjoying what the others are enjoying. Maybe run a game for the others with your ideals of gameplay, maybe they will find out it is more for them. But truthfully, if the "maybe you have a group of" people is your group... the wizard player needs to conform and the "wallflower" needs to speak up.
Greg
You don't need game balance to have fun with an RPG - 3.5 was in it's time the most popular game out there and it was horribly unbalanced - but I will not deny that it probably helps.
The most important factors in a good game are in order of importance:
1) A good bunch of players who all want the same thing out of the game.
2) A good GM who wants the same as their players.
3) A good system.BigNorseWolf highlights where a system's imbalance exacerbates the problem that not all the players want the same thing out of the game. In his example both the 'role player' and the 'wizard player' are being selfish for very different reasons: the 'role player' is being selfish because he's not taking into account that his intense experience is at the cost of everyone else's fun, and the 'wizard player' because he is prepared to exploit the system at the expense of everyone else's fun.
Really good responce, Dabbler.
the 'role player' is being selfish because he's not taking into account that his intense experience is at the cost of everyone else's fun, and the 'wizard player' because he is prepared to exploit the system at the expense of everyone else's fun.
The role player probably isn't being selfish, they tend to not realize
1) low magic has effects on the game in different proportions to different classes (that it does something to game balance
2)That anyone cares about game balance.
|
Just what I was going to say, you need to find a better class of gamers.
Our group has very little conflict in it. We had one high conflict player that was with us for a year or so. He would start something with the GM that he thought wasn't fair even when it was not his character that was engaged in the contested situation. Eventually his character died and the group was at 8th level. I suggested he make up a new 8th level character and he informed me that he would only make a first level character - I suggested he would most likely die soon being what the group was going to face. He choose not to play anymore.
Since he has made noise about coming back but things have been so calm at the table since then that there is just no way I would put myself or the group through that again...
It sounds like your group of friends is not playing a game you enjoy. When my friends watch boxing matches on HBO on our game night, I do not have fun with them. I usually end up reading a book at home or hang out with my parents. If it were a minority, like on sometimes our gaming time conflicts with a WH40k tournament, and two players do not show, then PROBABLY we end up playing without them. But that is schedule conflict.
The groups games have changed and gone back and forth before. As i said, magic items have never been THE issue but they have been A issue.
As for your example of a group of six could easily include... Well, it turns out two people want it. two people do not care. and two people don't want it. As for the "roleplayer" I guess I do not understand the concept of low magic=roleplaying that seems to have come about. One is refering to character and world building and the other is refering to how one interacts in playing.
Most of the impetuous for low magic seems to come from people wanting a variety or not liking the "feel" of magic mart campaigns where magic looses its wonder and mystery. These are largely role playing considerations.
Off tangent pet peeve. Anyway, the player that doesn't speak up seems to be the issue. Until they start saying something, it is four against the one that doesn't like the low magic.
See thats the trap there. Its actually TWO against one. The ambivalent middle isn't either for or against the changes so they can hardly be counted against the wallflower. The willof the majority argument looses a lot of oomph when there's very little difference between the majority and the minority.
Doesn't make those players wrong or bad, it just means they have more fun doing something the lone person does not. I don't hang with my buddies on poker night or fight night. They do not hang with me for Renn Faire's or blues festivals.
Right, but the problem is that the "fighters will suck now" trap isn't visible to everyone (to the point that, even with it being pointed out, some people will deny it exists) and might not be readily apparent in the campaign either.
But those do not seem to be "built-in" mechanics problems. Those seem to be based on play style problems and a poor adjustment problem. (at least I would assume the person calculating attacks was some sort of warrior type) I would assert you are probably refering to that "low magic" setting. But if only one is having issues, it is not a group problem...
That often is a group problem because the group decided to have a low magic setting without realizing the consequences.
it is an individual problem. Hopefully, the group can compromise to make it better for the individual. If not, that is his problem. It sounds like one person is not enjoying what the others are enjoying. Maybe run a game for the others with your ideals of gameplay, maybe they will find out it is more for them. But truthfully, if the "maybe you have a group of" people is your group... the wizard player needs to conform and the "wallflower" needs to speak up.
The wallflower speaking up is often a problem and spot of contention.
The wizard player IS conforming to the groups wishes, oddly enough. How destructive that is is probably going to depend on how much the group minds one person doing everything.
I know there were two members of my group who had a problem with a wizard type outshining their characters in multiple campaigns, even though he wasn't consciously doing anything or even min maxing all that much: he was just making a good character and they.. well.. weren't.
Besides handing out copies of Harrison Bergeron you're going to get some sort of tension in groups from that, and when you do things to unbalance the system even more (like mess with the magic items) then problems with the game can trickle into the group. The group is the most important thing, but its not the ONLY thing.
I go on a bit of a blog rant over at the Spes Magna site about people who rant against the Christmas Tree Effect and the impossibility of running PF as a low-magic game.
With respect to your article:
You mention that some people feel that PF can't be run as a low magic game without a serious rewrite of the rules; you then present your action point system to address the shortfall of a low magic party.
To me, it constitutes a serious rewrite of the rules.
But then, what qualifies as that varies just as what qualifies as "low magic" varies.
The most important factors in a good game are in order of importance:
1) A good bunch of players who all want the same thing out of the game.
2) A good GM who wants the same as their players.
3) A good system.
I completely agree, and have said the same myself many times.
You mention that some people feel that PF can't be run as a low magic game without a serious rewrite of the rules; you then present your action point system to address the shortfall of a low magic party.
Definitely a moment of zen
Yeah, I wasn't trying to be offensive, nor was I trying to be witty. Sorry if it came across that way.
No, you didn't say your gaming group was perfect, though the impression I got from your description is what I talked about, maybe that's not what you ment, but that's what I got out of it. And no, I can't fathom a group of people getting together repeatedly for a long period of time not having conflict and problems. I'm not talking fist fights, though I've seen it come close durring a magic the gathering game. I'm talking about people arguing over rules, bickering about petty crap. The reasons are pretty well covered by BigNorseWolf above.
Either way, I'm not here to argue. I read a little bit of your blog, and liked most of what I came across. We might not see eye to eye on everything, but over all I think we're on the same page.
You mention that some people feel that PF can't be run as a low magic game without a serious rewrite of the rules; you then present your action point system to address the shortfall of a low magic party.
To me, it constitutes a serious rewrite of the rules.
But then, what qualifies as that varies just as what qualifies as "low magic" varies.
Indeed it does vary. And, just to quibble, I didn't say "serious" but instead "major". I submit that an "action point system" that comes it at less than 200 words hardly constitutes the latter and probably doesn't come close to the former either.
:)
I think it's possible to have a major rewrite of the rules, in terms of the game playing very differently, in a small number of words.
E.G.: Multiply all spell casting times by 10, so a 1 round casting time spell becomes 1 minute, and so on. If you skip my clarification, I've just drastically rebalanced the game's classes in 7 words.
Obviously what you're suggesting isn't quite that drastic.
Obviously what you're suggesting isn't quite that drastic.
Obviously.
Obviously what you're suggesting isn't quite that drastic.Obviously.
... but I still think it's pretty major? Clearly you don't.
If it works for your game and your players are happy, I'm all for it and there's not much more to say.
If it works for your game and your players are happy, I'm all for it and there's not much more to say.
And that's the bottom line for a game. :)