Just as an anecdotal side to this I'll go for my own current "state of gaming" as it's pretty much relevant directly to this thread.
I started up a PF game because I LOVED the changes of the game overall. I thought it cleaned up the 3.x mess quite nicely, and enhanced many other things in ways that were really, really fun!
Then I started GMing ... and you know what? I got BURIED under minutia of rules bloat, and not in a good way, or even what most would call rules bloat. I'm meaning rules bloat NOT from multiple sources, etc. I actually don't mind the new stuff generally because they're just options, more or less to tack onto the root system. So it's NOT a traditional "rules bloat" as it gets referenced mostly.
No, my "rules bloat" is the amount of detail recorded to the smallest minute detail of ... nothing. Or maybe it's everything? Yeah - EVERYTHING is traced with ticks and tocks and gears and cogs ... but NONE of that adds a damn thing to the enjoyment of the game for me. I'm not even sure if players like juggling #'s by default as a exercise in just juggling #'s. More and more that's what I've begun to find as the underlying weight of the 3.x core/D20 core revision since 2e went away. For whatever reason, it finally clicked only recently.
End result, I just had to stop the game. Admittedly, some things in my life were demanding more time, but the amount of effort on my end as GM to try and just run #'s became overwhelming, and it was something I dreaded attempting to do rather than game as something I was looking forward to do.
The players were fine, the game itself was fine, but running the damn #'s ... that sucked the fun right out of it for me, so I walked away.
I've not been all that active on the forums, but when I just came back now, I'm seeing Samuria, Ninja's, and Gunslingers and I'm even more disoriented and wondering what the HECK I've missed!
Sounds like massive expansion of genre-building - that's AWESOME!!! Then I think about to root problem that drove me away before, and I'm back to "damn #'s" and wondering what new classes will mean for MY end as the GM trying to run such a game (because I'm almost always the GM when I do get to run/play).
So ... yeah, I'm torn on it.
To the OP, though - I get the tone/tenor that comes from a lot of message boards like things that hold up player's creative nuggets as "the most precious resource" or something at the table, and then demonize GM's for saying "no" to something. It's starting to strike me more as the petulant child that doesn't like being told "no" and then throws a temper tantrum. If a player's going to behave like that, I'd just a soon not play with such a player, let alone *run* something for someone that is constantly going to whine and cry foul.
End result, I LOVE Pathfinder for the changes it's made. I LOVE the exploration into the new genres and taking classes into that direction (rather than insisting that an asian archetype for a western class can manage). I love the development of Golarion itself as a campaign setting. I do NOT love running #'s and tracking minutia, or fighting with players over tracking minutia or how I run my #'s ... so as a game running choice, it's going to remain kind of on the low side. As a game resource for supplements, and EVEN the rules themselves I'll constantly keep mining the material for ways to import it to other games that *I* find less ... counter-intuitive to my GMing style and zone.
The players were fine, the game itself was fine, but running the damn #'s ... that sucked the fun right out of it for me, so I walked away.
Running the numbers was always my least favorite part of GM'ing too, and is why I was so happy to find that these days, VTTs can handle the bulk of that grunt work for me. Sure, they're not perfect, but they reduce combat number-crunching time to probably about 20% of what it would otherwise be. It's like magic!
So now I can focus on the parts of the game I actually like, namely the characters and the roleplay and the storyline of the AP itself, and I'm having great fun as a GM.
Oh, and picking out cool pictures for the monster minis, that part's pretty fun too. Ahahahaa cannot wait until Hook Mountain Massacre.
The players were fine, the game itself was fine, but running the damn #'s ... that sucked the fun right out of it for me, so I walked away.Running the numbers was always my least favorite part of GM'ing too, and is why I was so happy to find that these days, VTTs can handle the bulk of that grunt work for me. Sure, they're not perfect, but they reduce combat number-crunching time to probably about 20% of what it would otherwise be. It's like magic!
So now I can focus on the parts of the game I actually like, namely the characters and the roleplay and the storyline of the AP itself, and I'm having great fun as a GM.
Oh, and picking out cool pictures for the monster minis, that part's pretty fun too. Ahahahaa cannot wait until Hook Mountain Massacre.
If it were just the combat #'s or skill #'s, sure.
It was also the design of NPC's and what have you - the whole lot of it just has become too much for me. I like the ideas presented in 99% of all the resources - it's just ... to bogged down a process overall for anything I'm willing to put the effort into anymore. I mean ... there's a LOT of garbage to track just to make a character the PC's will ultimately just try and obliterate at the first opportunity ... it's a double edged sword, and I'm feeling the cut on the backswings pretty hard basically.
I am suffering from GM fatigue. But that is probably just a side-effect of a clinic depression. I sometimes have great fun when I GM, sometimes not. Sometimes the mere notion of having to GM makes my gut churn.
Used to run two homebrews that my players loved, with free reign and more ideas than a bong-sucker on his best high. Plane jumping (both metaphysical and air-plane kinds), the creation and demise of gods, in the same campain being worshipped by savage dinosaur-riders to running from advanced age war-golems with rocket launchers and railguns, piloted by mind flayers.
Now, I don't feel like doing much, and let APs take over where my creativity bit the dust.
Never had a problem with the players having "power". Heck, it allowed me to make some really insane NPCs and monsters to pit against them. Or, I did, until we started doing APs. Then I either had to re-write the entire things to make the encounters even worth playing out instead of just saying "you win in less than 20 seconds, without much risk". So I just limited them to core to get rid of the invincible wizard, swift action channeling and the less than 10k items that mimic epic feats, which I am sure makes CoDzilla think less of me. Personally, I don't mind it all that much if I actually make stuff from scratch, but I am growing weary and lazy, and can't be arsed anymore.
Do you feel the Ap is in part responsible for taking the creativity out of GMing with its set progression? It seems the gameis really suffering from magic item inflation. A +1 sword used to be something you were level 3 before you could get your hands on and you might be level 9 before getting something better. Now people stop paying attention to weapon damage because it becomes a non-issue relatively early in a game. I think RP games have lost a little something and it seems to be the desire to have fun creating something memorable and fun. Now I would be willing to bet a character made to pay for gimping a stat might just play your game and accuse you of being the jerk.
The players were fine, the game itself was fine, but running the damn #'s ... that sucked the fun right out of it for me, so I walked away.Running the numbers was always my least favorite part of GM'ing too, and is why I was so happy to find that these days, VTTs can handle the bulk of that grunt work for me. Sure, they're not perfect, but they reduce combat number-crunching time to probably about 20% of what it would otherwise be. It's like magic!
So now I can focus on the parts of the game I actually like, namely the characters and the roleplay and the storyline of the AP itself, and I'm having great fun as a GM.
Oh, and picking out cool pictures for the monster minis, that part's pretty fun too. Ahahahaa cannot wait until Hook Mountain Massacre.
You wouldn't happen to be running a D20pro game anytime soon would you?
If this is true, I'd guess that the problem isn't all with this player.Poor form to challenge people on their story when only they have any first hand knowledge of it.Who's challenging? I feel like Slick Willy here: "Can you define the word 'IF,' please?" To me, it means I don't know one way or the other, and therefore haven't ruled anything out a priori.
So I asked, and Cydeth answered, and now I know the situation. Nobody's attacking anyone.
Sorry, guess I was being needlessly oversensitive.
Do you feel the Ap is in part responsible for taking the creativity out of GMing with its set progression?
Nah. If it weren't for APs, I probably wouldn't be GM'ing at all right now. My experience (which seems to be shared by several people in this thread) is that they spur creativity rather than strangling it.
re: d20Pro -- I'm running a weekly RotRL campaign in it now (or, well, should be; technical glitches killed yesterday's session). So if that qualifies as "soon" then yes. If you were asking whether I intended to start a new game soon, then no. One's all I can handle at the moment. ;)
I'll add a whole new system like psionics mid-campaign without blinking an eye, in a game like that.Somehow this link seems relevant.
Gary Gygax's childhood friend Don Kaye created Murlynd for the second-ever session of Gygax's Greyhawk campaign in 1972, rolled up on Gygax's kitchen table at the same time as Rob Kuntz's Robilar and Terry Kuntz's Terik. Gygax later recalled that "Murlynd" was the first attempt by a player to make a creative name for a character; in the early days, most players—including Gygax himself—simply used their own name as a basis for their character's name. (Tenser = Ernest, Yrag = Gary, etc.) In the early days of D&D, cross-pollination with other fictional "universes" was common, and in one of these sessions, Gygax transported Murlynd to America's Wild West, a setting that Kaye loved. When Murlynd eventually returned to the world of Greyhawk, he brought his six-shooters back with him. Although Gygax did not allow the use of gunpowder in his Greyhawk setting, he made a loophole for Kaye by ruling that Murlynd actually carried two "magical wands" that made loud noises and delivered small but deadly missiles.
Jumping in with a few question, Kirth and TOZ:
Have you found that some new material is a lot easier to integrate than others? Do you find that there is any material that just doesn't fit your world, no matter how cool the players think it might be?
When you integrate new material do you do so gradually or organically, as would be the case with the invention/discovery process, or do you just retcon the world so that it always existed?
What do you do if one player really wants to introduce something, but others are opposed, perhaps because it will make the existing characters they already have less relevant/powerful?
|
I don't think I'm qualified to answer, having only DMed for a few short years, and the military lifestyle has kept me from having a cohesive group for more than a year. As a result I tend to have a pretty blank slate of a campaign world, with the game fleshing it out as we go. I have had a character want to become a tattooed monk midgame, and found that pretty easy to integrate, thanks to Shackled City having such an NPC already.
I removed some posts.
Jumping in with a few question, Kirth and TOZ:
1. Have you found that some new material is a lot easier to integrate than others?
2. Do you find that there is any material that just doesn't fit your world, no matter how cool the players think it might be?
3. When you integrate new material do you do so gradually or organically, as would be the case with the invention/discovery process, or do you just retcon the world so that it always existed?
4. What do you do if one player really wants to introduce something, but others are opposed, perhaps because it will make the existing characters they already have less relevant/powerful?
1. Material that is mechanically sound is easier to integrate than poorly-desgined/poorly-playetested material, for obvious reasons -- the more time I spend tinkering with the material to make it work with the existing rules, the less time I'm spending writing the next week's adventure.
2. If it's mechanically-sound, the answer for me would be "no," because I believe the campaign world should be a shared setting meant to be played in, not a pristine not-to-be-touched showpiece. I don't see it as my job to tell the players what they can or cannot play. Granted, that wouldn't work if some jerk off the street came up with something totally egregious ("I want to play Bugs Bunny!"), but I'm very picky about who gets invited to sit in at my home game.
3. Already answered, but totally new material usually intergrated as a "new discovery" in-game. New options that become popular with players then have the built-in game explanation of the word spreading, etc. On the flip side, minor mechanical fiddling/errata get retconned.
4. I've never had this happen. If something were egregiously overpowered, I'd propose modifications, the player and I would discuss them, and we'd take a vote.
Let me elaborate that any major changes (e.g., the recent moving of Will save modifier from Wis to Cha) get put up for vote with the home group; as referee, my vote counts only in the event of a tie. This means that I have a lot of trust in the players, which in turn is possible because of the initial screening process. I try and make it a point not to play with people I don't like. If I were stuck with some group of randoms (like at a convention), I'd be a lot more strict and a lot less trusting. So, in answer to the title question of the thread, I should preface any response I make with "as long as I like/trust the players."
Jumping in with a few question, Kirth and TOZ:
1. Have you found that some new material is a lot easier to integrate than others?
2. Do you find that there is any material that just doesn't fit your world, no matter how cool the players think it might be?
3. When you integrate new material do you do so gradually or organically, as would be the case with the invention/discovery process, or do you just retcon the world so that it always existed?
4. What do you do if one player really wants to introduce something, but others are opposed, perhaps because it will make the existing characters they already have less relevant/powerful?1. Material that is mechanically sound is easier to integrate than poorly-desgined/poorly-playetested material, for obvious reasons -- the more time I spend tinkering with the material to make it work with the existing rules, the less time I'm spending writing the next week's adventure.
2. If it's mechanically-sound, the answer for me would be "no," because I believe the campaign world should be a shared setting meant to be played in, not a pristine not-to-be-touched showpiece. I don't see it as my job to tell the players what they can or cannot play. Granted, that wouldn't work if some jerk off the street came up with something totally egregious ("I want to play Bugs Bunny!"), but I'm very picky about who gets invited to sit in at my home game.
3. Already answered, but totally new material usually intergrated as a "new discovery" in-game. New options that become popular with players then have the built-in game explanation of the word spreading, etc. On the flip side, minor mechanical fiddling/errata get retconned.
4. I've never had this happen. If something were egregiously overpowered, I'd propose modifications, the player and I would discuss them, and we'd take a vote.
Let me elaborate that any major changes (e.g., the recent moving of Will save modifier from Wis to Cha) get put up for vote with the home group; as referee, my vote...
Thanks for the thoughtful response. Sounds like a very dynamic and fun world to play in, provided, as is probably true for all groups, that you have the right group of folks. One of my primary rules for gaming enjoyment, and probably one of yours, is "Don't Game with Jerks".
I have to say that I kind of shrink before the sheer time investment needed to run a campaign like that, and don't think I could manage it on top of all my RL responsibilities. Currently, I'm stretched just to do the considerable work needed to make necessary adjustments to Kingmaker.
It's also a little too democratic for my tastes. I tend to be more of a benevolent dictator as a GM. We make most rules decisions and decisions on what material will be included via consultation between the three of us who DM regularly during conversations before and after game sessions. DM rules is pretty much law during the game, unless one of the DMs not playing is able to quickly point out a rules error in time for a timely reversal or change. The other players either aren't really qualified (my two daughters currently, although rapidly advancing in system mastery), don't care (my wife and one other guy), or have bad powergaming instincts (the final guy).
One final question: How do you keep the world logical, cohesive and immersive when you are constantly grafting new rules and material on?
I don't think I'm qualified to answer, having only DMed for a few short years, and the military lifestyle has kept me from having a cohesive group for more than a year. As a result I tend to have a pretty blank slate of a campaign world, with the game fleshing it out as we go. I have had a character want to become a tattooed monk midgame, and found that pretty easy to integrate, thanks to Shackled City having such an NPC already.
If your military lifestyle takes you back to Afghanistan some time between 7/2012 and 7/2013, look me up. I plan on bringing at least some of my books so that I can at least write even if I can't find a group to play. Probably can't bring the minis, though. :(
I've noticed more and more of a trend for GM fiat to be demonized. This has come with the rules being more and more formalized and complex, and the loss of a clear divide between player and GM material. When I first started, players didn't tend to look at GM books or monster books unless they were going to be taking the GM helm.
I've never been a fan of GM fiat, and I've been playing for quite some time now. I'll take RAW over GM attempts to balance the game, thanks.
IRT OP: No. GMing is not less fun. GMing for people who are familiar with gaming forums and let online ideas shape their gaming opinions is frustrating, however. The game is more fun when played with people who don't worry about damage bell curves and 1.7 point differences in hit point potential per level.
|
|
If your military lifestyle takes you back to Afghanistan some time between 7/2012 and 7/2013, look me up. I plan on bringing at least some of my books so that I can at least write even if I can't find a group to play. Probably can't bring the minis, though. :(
Wish I could, but I'm on my way to close out Iraq right now. We'll have to keep track of each others postings for another opportunity. :)
One final question: How do you keep the world logical, cohesive and immersive when you are constantly grafting new rules and material on?
Because the answer depends on what sense you mean the question, I'll have to answer twice.
(1) If you mean "new rules and material" that are newly-released and don't match the existing stuff: Part of the "theme" of any good game world, in my opinion, is constantly pushing the boundaries of exploration. One example is when we added the controversial "morganti" property for weapons (anyone killed cannot be resurrected) -- it came up in-game because someone found one in an adventure, and I didn't veto its inclusion there. So when the PCs learned what it did, I quickly explained that they'd never encountered such a weapon before, and in the back of my head, I had an idea that the sinister forces of evil must have recently learned the secret from sources best not revealed, and were now creating the things in a hidden foundry somewhere. When the PCs later ventured beneath the mountains on a different adventure, I quick altered the adventure to include the secret foundry there, which the PCs then destroyed. (I had an idea for including the source of their secret in a later adventure, too, but never got a chance to play that one.) That way, the whole inclusion, rather than being an "accident," became part of the ongoing story line instead. One of the PCs who was a noble passed a law in his territory outlawing their possession, and the whole thing started to take on Second Amendment-like overtones when the PC who found the first one wouldn't relinquish his. The new mechanic began to drive parts of the story, rather than simply being a bizarre anachronism or something.
(2) If you mean "new rules" like me rewriting the combat system and martial class abilities, on the other hand, those are cases of adjusting the mechanics to allow the PCs to legally accomplish the type of story stuff we'd all been trying to envision anyway, without us having to hand-wave it. In that case it was a "well, of course fighters can do this!" (even though previously the rules as written didn't support it).
Never had a problem with the players having "power". Heck, it allowed me to make some really insane NPCs and monsters to pit against them. Or, I did, until we started doing APs. Then I either had to re-write the entire things to make the encounters even worth playing out instead of just saying "you win in less than 20 seconds, without much risk". So I just limited them to core to get rid of the invincible wizard, swift action channeling and the less than 10k items that mimic epic feats, which I am sure makes CoDzilla think less of me. Personally, I don't mind it all that much if I actually make stuff from scratch, but I am growing weary and lazy, and can't be arsed anymore.You keep mentioning that Epic Dodge thing. But really, 95% of "Epic" feats are complete wastes of space even if you could take them at level 1.
I guess. In this case, the feat in question is Epic Dodge. Just much much much much better. This thing was an immediate-action hit canceler that also teleported you 10 feet AFTER the hit had been resolved, but before taking damage. 3/day. Less than 6k. Also gave a +1 deflection bonus. Carry a few around in your backpack, and you are immune to everything for 3 rounds of every combat. The most broke item I have seen.
Wish I could, but I'm on my way to close out Iraq right now. We'll have to keep track of each others postings for another opportunity. :)
If your military lifestyle takes you back to Afghanistan some time between 7/2012 and 7/2013, look me up. I plan on bringing at least some of my books so that I can at least write even if I can't find a group to play. Probably can't bring the minis, though. :(
Hey TOZ - you settled yet?
Are we in danger of moving D&D/Pathfinder into a game which is great to play but boring to GM?
Will we eventually end up with a game where the players read the module as well as all the other books and a GM is no longer needed?
Has GM-creativity bitten the dust?
Richard
Hi Richard, well, I still DM/GM/Ref/etc. occasionally, generally at conventions or a few times per year at local gaming gatherings.
Certainly there has been a shift towards simpler sessions and adventures.
It is mostly up to the GM. Many GMs (that are confronted with family, work, etc. and have limited time to prep for a big session) actually appreciate the high quality, pre-fab adventures of today.
I don't mind the pre-fab domination myself, but I tend to heavily modify any off the self modules that I buy.
The module has to fit into a world that I am comfortable running.
For example, the half-demon and half-dragon PC races in 4th Ed. do not work for me. So, if they appear in a product then I have to change the product.
Tis true that D&D has shifted into more and more of a tactical boardgame over the past few editions. The very first go was Chainmail, and it was specifically designed as a miniatures supplement, but the original AD&D really pushed players off of the tactical boards. Yes, there were instructions in the DMG for working out miniatures and mass battle statistics, but if you look at the spell lists, etc. it was clear that AD&D was not strictly focused on combat.
It would be hard to play 4th Ed. without a reference grid, and most of the rules apply to tactical situations now.
The console and PC/Mac computer RPGs are quite good now and allow folks to play without having a GM, and MMORPGs also do not require a GM.
As to whether GM creativity has bitten tht dust, I would say no, but if you find yourself without time or inclination then it is definitely easier to do no prep sessions now than it was thirty years ago.
I still get several hundred hits a month on my World Building site Dr. Games World Building.
So, someone must be doing world building.
In service,
Rich
www.drgames.org
Wish I could, but I'm on my way to close out Iraq right now. We'll have to keep track of each others postings for another opportunity. :)
If your military lifestyle takes you back to Afghanistan some time between 7/2012 and 7/2013, look me up. I plan on bringing at least some of my books so that I can at least write even if I can't find a group to play. Probably can't bring the minis, though. :(
I should clarify that I'm civilian, not military. Wouldn't want to give the wrong impression. Keep your head down and firmly attached to your shoulders during your deployment, my friend.
I've been running campaigns in the same world for almost 30 years. I have never noticed any drop in the fun of running a campaign. I've got tie-ins from my latest Pathfinder campaign all the way back to my first 1st edition campaigns.
Of course I don't do modules. I've always considered being the DM an opportunity to flesh out my own world and I like my world better than any module I've ever run.
To this day I don't hesitate to create completely unique monsters, races, magic items, feats, spells, whatever. Yes you have to be careful to keep them balanced, but it's not that hard if you make an effort.
I suppose when running a role playing campaign becomes unfun for me, that's the day you probably better get me to the hospital. Or the morgue.
I've been running campaigns in the same world for almost 30 years. I have never noticed any drop in the fun of running a campaign. I've got tie-ins from my latest Pathfinder campaign all the way back to my first 1st edition campaigns.
Of course I don't do modules. I've always considered being the DM an opportunity to flesh out my own world and I like my world better than any module I've ever run.
To this day I don't hesitate to create completely unique monsters, races, magic items, feats, spells, whatever. Yes you have to be careful to keep them balanced, but it's not that hard if you make an effort.
I suppose when running a role playing campaign becomes unfun for me, that's the day you probably better get me to the hospital. Or the morgue.
I too have a longstanding world - not thirty years but its coming up to its 25 year anniversary.
That said I've used lots of modules in my world over the years and they have really done a lot to shape it. An adventure like Dungeon Magazines Secrets of the Towers (lost elven teleporting towers are scattered around the land) actually has a very large impact on the world itself and how it plays since, once the towers are explored and the links made, that impacts the people around them from this point forward in all subsequent campaigns. Furthermore the history of the towers (in this case made by elves, but 'lost') gets incorporated into the history of the world since the DM must then include why the elves originally made them and why they where subsequently lost.
Maybe that is a story that involves the Drow or it could be about a lost branch of the Elven race or any of dozens of other ideas but the point is modules themselves are very good at pushing a DM to flesh out the campaign world.
Some adventure locations even become iconic. I have a major 'epic' dungeon in my world (I've used 2nd edition's Castle Greyhawk and 3.5's Castle Maure for levels in it) where I tend to stash McGuffins so that my players, in different campaigns with different characters, have visited the site repeatedly. Nol-Daer has been similiar but on a smaller scale so that it has featured in the campaign twice and will probably feature in a campaign one more time as a major adventure local - after that its pretty much tapped out and would only come into play if the story needed a cleared out ruin for whatever reason.
Over the years there have been dozens of truly awesome adventures created and I think a DM is limiting themselves by not including some of the best the industry has to offer in their homebrew. Especially considering that such inclusions drive the DM to flesh the world out in interesting ways - sometimes in ways the DM had not initially envisioned but that can be a very good thing creating a truly unique and fantastic fantasy world.
Over the years there have been dozens of truly awesome adventures created and I think a DM is limiting themselves by not including some of the best the industry has to offer in their homebrew. Especially considering that such inclusions drive the DM to flesh the world out in interesting ways - sometimes in ways the DM had not initially envisioned but that can be a very good thing creating a truly unique and fantastic fantasy world.
Well, your campaigns sound like they would be a lot of fun. And I don't disagree with you so much as I take a different approach. I read modules and other content and if I like a concept, I'll add it to my own world, but I'll do it my way. I greatly enjoy creating maps, defining geopolitics, populating the world with beings and creatures and much more. But dropping a module into my world would feel to me like grabbing the parthenon and dropping it next to the pyramids.
I just want to make it all fit the way I think it should.
Over the years there have been dozens of truly awesome adventures created and I think a DM is limiting themselves by not including some of the best the industry has to offer in their homebrew. Especially considering that such inclusions drive the DM to flesh the world out in interesting ways - sometimes in ways the DM had not initially envisioned but that can be a very good thing creating a truly unique and fantastic fantasy world.Well, your campaigns sound like they would be a lot of fun. And I don't disagree with you so much as I take a different approach. I read modules and other content and if I like a concept, I'll add it to my own world, but I'll do it my way. I greatly enjoy creating maps, defining geopolitics, populating the world with beings and creatures and much more. But dropping a module into my world would feel to me like grabbing the parthenon and dropping it next to the pyramids.
I just want to make it all fit the way I think it should.
We may not be all that far apart. I certianly have to adapt adventures to fit the campaign world. Sometimes with some pretty heavy revision.
An example would be Curse of the Crimson Throne. The city of Korvosa, as it is written, does not exactly work for me, but I can, with some revisions, get it to work. For me I'd have to change the initial prologue into something along the lines of...
"As the Empire's borders recede not everyone is overrun by advancing goblinoid hordes. Some are just left behind to fend for themselves. Korvosa is such a city."
When I deal with the politics, especially the noble families I'd have to change and adapt the story to reflect that these are old imperial families that still consider themselves imperial citizens and heirs to an Empire, even if that Empire has substantially forgotten them, self absorbed as it is in its own crumbling decadence.