|
I took a break from the boards for a while but returned in anticipation of Carrion Crown. That's because I let a buddy use my Serpents Skull books to run, and I haven't had an AP to read for 6 months!
One thing I noticed in the few CC Players Guide threads is the concern over what races might not be good. Or this class won't work, etc. When did this become an issue?
From my own experience, this is an example of most of the people I've played with over the years:
GM: Ok, I've given you some background material. I want to reiterate, this city doesn't like barbarians and they certainly don't like Half-Orcs. So anyone have any character ideas?
Player 1: Half-Orc Barbarian.
So in Ustalav there aren't many non-humans. Boo-hoo. All the more reason to play one. I mean what are we talking about here?
And then the paladin thing. I ran Council of Thieves and I know there were various threads about them cooperating with some of the NPCs. And I know everyone you meet has a different opinion on Paladins. Did some people not read the whole Paladin entry in the core book? It specifically states a Paladin will co-op with evil to fight a greater evil under exceptional circumstances. Now if we are going to start arguing about exceptional circumstances then the Paladin might be unplayable. It's an adventure path. It's exceptional, it counts.
If your a GM, encourage your players to do something different if they are comfortable with it. Don't make it harder or punish the player for playing, say an Orc. Make it interesting and fun.
If you are a player, think outside the box once in a while. Paladins might be a challenge in this one? Go for it. Role play the heck out of it.
If this type of thing is an issue, get the whole group together and discuss it. If the GM and players can find the balance, it might make an interesting and enjoyable game.
Now get out there and make that Orc Paladin of Asmodeus for Carrion Crown!
I'm pretty easy-going about who plays what, but if a character choice is so outrageous that it takes away focus from all of the other players, that's probably too much.
E.g. everyone is a level 1 human rogue except for one guy who wants to play a half-minotaur ghaele eladrin (with a twist of lemon).
My feeling isn't that playing the half orc barbarian (from the example) shouldn't be dissallowed...it should be known to the player that they are likely going to run into issues, and give them a heads up on what those issues might be.
When I run Carrion Crown, I HOPE I have someone run a paladin...though I'm definately going to let them know there will be parts they're really going to have to think through. Same thing for nonhumans. One of my most favorite characters ever in D&D was a drow wizard, who I ran as a complete ethnocentric, racist, elitest, prick. I look forward to channeling some of that long lost character into the NPCs some poor halfling or elf runs into in Ustalav or Westcrown (the possibilities of this are WHY I started picking up Council of Thieves).
Some players might not want to have to deal with all that extra roleplaying though...and that's fine. That's why I think we should let people know ahead of time that there will be these issues, rather than just springing it on them. Playing an elvin paladin who ends up deep in the supersticious rural parts of Ustalav, suprised to find the townsfolk are not so happy to be brought into the light could be one hell of a roleplaying opportunity...but finding out your character concept has ten tons of bagage you weren't expecting is likely to end up as one hell of an exercise in frustration.
I think that as long as it's a standard race and class (PFRPG/APG) it should be allowed and it's part of the GMs job to make sure there is some place in the game for that character, as long as the player realises that there may be some difficulties and isn't being a total jerk with her character.
|
I think you guys have very different expectations and approaches to your games and this affects your gaming style. This is not a problem - until you try and assert that gaming style upon others as a "correct" or "better" way to play.
In the specific example above, when discussing races and classes for Carrion Crown this past week, (apart from my outright banning the Summoner for balance reasons) I did suggest that the Barbarian would be an inappropriate class and should not be chosen.
("Orc" was never an option to begin with.)
The campaigns I run aren't all about flash and razzle dazzle of the moment. I'm trying to assist in creating something with a mood, feel and verisimilitude for the setting. That's what the players want, too.
In the case of Carrion Crown, the mood and vibe is Ustalav is not medieval nor swords and sorcery. It has very much a late renaissance/ early-modern feel of Central Europe, circa 1710. Out of my 6 players, only one chose not to play a human - and the the lone dissenter went for a half-elf for meta-game reasons. That makes me happy as well in terms of "feel" for the setting. I'll be trying to keep things as human-centric as I possibly can. While that approach does not fit in something like Kingmaker, it is perfectly appropriate to Carrion Crown.
It might be that the people you play with would then ask to play a Barbarian. My players wouldn't -- and didn't.
Probably because when my players hear me say "no" -- they do not take it as "code" for, nor an invitation to, somehow hold a "vote".
When I say "no" at the table as a GM -- it means "no".
I think you guys have very different expectations and approaches to your games and this affects your gaming style. This is not a problem - until you try and assert that gaming style upon others as a "correct" or "better" way to play.
As you said it's all about styles.
In the specific example above, when discussing races and classes for Carrion Crown this past week, (apart from my outright banning the Summoner for balance reasons) I did suggest that the Barbarian would be an inappropriate class and should not be chosen.
What? There is a big long thread I thought that showed a Summoner isn't overpowered. You think it's so bad you have to ban them, or is this a "only for this campaign" thing?
There are a lot of those threads. :) In his defense though, the summoner has a lot of special rules, and he might not feel like having to comb over the character sheet every time someone levels up.
One thing I noticed in the few CC Players Guide threads is the concern over what races might not be good. Or this class won't work, etc. When did this become an issue?
It became an issue when adventure paths starting having themes instead of simply being world-ranging dungeon crawls.
RotR you can get away with playing pretty much anything and you'll have fun. With a gothic-horror-themed adventure path, you're asking your players to commit to easily a year of playing a character and you want them to have fun. You want their characters to have something to do and to understand the environment they're being asked to put themselves into for a lot of playing time. This isn't a one-shot, it's an adventure path.
So maybe you think it's okay that your players don't know a ranger who takes favored enemy (fey) will be bored for a year, or that a wizard who plans out a bunch of feats to optimize enchantments or illusions will also be bored. Also, you may think that it's okay to leave your players in the dark so they build a half-orc Diplomacy specialist, not knowing that the environment they're going to be in is inherently hostile to that choice.
This isn't about max/min. This isn't about coddling players. It's about having enough context to know what the consequences of their choices are likely to be.
isnt that what the players guide is for?
|
|
So maybe you think it's okay that your players don't know a ranger who takes favored enemy (fey) will be bored for a year, or that a wizard who plans out a bunch of feats to optimize enchantments or illusions will also be bored. Also, you may think that it's okay to leave your players in the dark so they build a half-orc Diplomacy specialist, not knowing that the environment they're going to be in is inherently hostile to that choice.
This isn't about max/min. This isn't about coddling players. It's about having enough context to know what the consequences of their choices are likely to be.
Is this a general statement for everyone or am I to take this literally? How do you come to this from my original post when I said this...
If this type of thing is an issue, get the whole group together and discuss it. If the GM and players can find the balance, it might make an interesting and enjoyable game.
Of course it's silly for a player to make an Urban Ranger for Serpents Skull. It's doubly silly for the GM to let him do it. That's why there needs to be communication during character creation. Most of the responses have had similar comments.
I was only trying to make a point about the gut reactions of "Well the book states that "x race" is very rare here. I guess I can't play x race" Me personally, in 30 years of gaming, never really came across attitudes like that. The players approach the GM with an idea and then discuss it. No it's not a good idea, yes no problem, or yes but there might be some issues. What's so hard about that?
Let's look at the 'Other Races' section in the CC Players Guide. The Changeling, Dhampir, and the Orc. Obviously playing these will present challenges in the AP. If the GM and a player is up for it, great. If the GM says no, that's also fine. The point is, they're in the book for a reason; someone, somewhere might want to play one of these races. If game groups never wanted to play something 'outside of the norm', there would be no halfling barbarians, dwarf druids, or half-orc wizards.
I don't know how 'play styles' came up. I don't think I did, but if I somehow implied how someone should play, that certainly wasn't my intent. I'm most certainly in the 'play the way you want and have fun camp'.
isnt that what the players guide is for?
The guides don't always have the amount of info needed depending on the questions being asked.
Let's take the "serpent's skull" AP example.
The characters are NOT expecting to get stuck on a deserted jungle island, they are not expecting to get shipwrecked. The are taking a minor trip on a ship from A to B, something that is usually glossed over in game play as "you pay X gold for passage aboard Y ship, it takes 4 days to get there, the route is uneventful, do any of you do anything specific during these 4 days, or just enjoy the ride?" If the PCs dont do anything more than ride, the game moves on.
Making characters optimized for shipwreck on jungle island is a little out of place, lame and metagamey.
that being said, all our characters were dwarves starting out.
We had a wizard, a paladin, a ranger, a druid and a zen archer.
Amoung them (because our skill points were rather low and limited) everyone had one of the useful skills one might need in adventuring, and we kinda built our characters that way on purpose so we didnt waste skill points in redundancy. All our characters started out knowing eachother and growing up together.
The shipwreck and stranded on the island part was the most fun for us out of the entire AP so far, because our characters were not "made" to do it, we were ill prepared for adventuring in the jungle, particularly the dwarf paladin in splint armor.
It was a ball of fun.
Only one dwarf remains (and one who was a dwarf but is now reincarnated as a half-elf).
Our ranger (the one remaining dwarf) began the game as a 'tunnel fighter' and took deep warrior and things like that, because where he came from there weren't goblins, orcs or giant to contend with, but abberations.
He is an abberation slaying ranger.
So far, halfway through the AP, we haven't fought a single abberation.
He also now has levels in Barbarian (after being held hostage by savages he went a little loopy) Oracle ( a run in with a possessed alter changed his life) and rage prophet (to round it all out).
That being said, character concept is one thing, and improvise, adapt and overcome is another, more fun aspect of them game, at least at our tale.
|
From my own experience, this is an example of most of the people I've played with over the years:
GM: Ok, I've given you some background material. I want to reiterate, this city doesn't like barbarians and they certainly don't like Half-Orcs. So anyone have any character ideas?
Player 1: Half-Orc Barbarian.
So in Ustalav there aren't many non-humans. Boo-hoo. All the more reason to play one.
To be honest, that's the kind of behavior which nearly took the fun out of roleplaying games for me for some time. Because I love to run games for characters who really fit into a given setting (aka 'everyday people') and I know a lot of players who prefer to play outsiders (in relation to the setting) and therefore chose a character who doesn't fit at all if anyhow possible.
That doesn't mean that I'm aversed against exotic characters and as I'm not inclined to say 'no' if I don't have to, I try to work with such players to integrate even those characters into the setting.
But I admit that I tend to feel a little bit disappointed when I lay out all the information pertinent to the campaign and the players (no matter what the info) decide to ignore all the stuff in favor of playing an outsider character (I call it the Drizz't syndrome).
I'm not saying that this style is anyhow wrong or inferior to mine. It's just not my cup of tea and I'll probably never understand what is so attractive about these characters.
Luckily Paizo succeeded in making humans so interesting again, that this 'problem' kinda solved itself with Golarion. I've just started the Legacy of Fire-AP and the most exotic character is a gnome rogue (which I knew beforehand as the person in question must have been a gnome in a former life^^). The rest is all humans from Katapesh which is exactly how I like it (and I didn't even make any suggestions).
So in Ustalav there aren't many non-humans. Boo-hoo. All the more reason to play one. I mean what are we talking about here?
I am a big proponent of playing characters that have a reason to be in the region. This is related to my style of play before I began playing D&D.
I will typically play a local to the region. I have had:
* A Galten ranger (I came in when they were in Galt).
* A Mwangi Druid (Mwangi campaign).
* A Chelaxian Wizard (Council of Thieves).
* A Colonial Rogue/Witch/Arcane Trickster (a character I'm planning on playing in Serpent's Skull).
All of them have been human, but only because I enjoy playing humans. However they have been appropriate classes to the region though (my rogue/witch colonial is going to start out as a Rogue and then when the plot causes him to "go native" and live amongst the locals, he'll learn their voodoo ways and use it to his own advantage).
As a DM I require that the player come up with a reason to be in the area that the campaign starts. I'm willing to work with them on that reason, but they need a reason. I had an Elven Paladin of Alseta (the elven goddess of travel) in a campaign set in the Realm of the Mammoth Lords. This was because I didn't know where the campaign was going to begin, so I made a generic character that would have a reason to be in the region that we were playing in.
That said, Carrion Crown has a reason for players of any race to come to this land. That said, I will warn players they will face prejudice and hardship if they play an unfavourable race. Anyone that plays an elf will find most NPCs to have a starting mood of hostile. They aren't exactly going to lynch the elf right there on the spot and will be open to becoming more favourable to the PC. But the PC will have to work on it. And it appears that there will be lots of travel in Carrion Crown, so I would point out to the PC they will have to go through that process every single time they enter a new village. As a player I would get tired of that. But if someone wants to go for it, then they're welcome to.
That said, if someone wants to play a half-elf that is shunned by polite society, I have no issue with it. As a player of human character I quite enjoy having a half-elf to hate on.
Don't make it harder or punish the player for playing, say an Orc. Make it interesting and fun.
This is an important point to make. Playing a race that's hated on, means you have trouble being a member of polite society. It should give you a similar bonus to interactions with the underworld of society though.
That's why I think we should let people know ahead of time that there will be these issues, rather than just springing it on them.
Exactly. As we use to say in my group that played Dark Sun "no-one wants to play the elf-loving human." If there is tension between certain groups, PCs should know about that so they can properly play up the tension.
If I were to run Carrion Crown I would send an e-mail with the PDF which included notes on the point buy, allowed books, along with notes on how Ustalav differs from standard D&D and things to keep in mind when deciding upon a character concept. When we were talking about playing Carrion Crown, half of us were talking about playing divine characters when someone suggested we play an all-divine party. Which I'd totally allow. I'd just make them aware of the issues involved and work on modifying the plot-hooks appropriately and adventure to cater to that.
I think that as long as it's a standard race and class (PFRPG/APG) it should be allowed and it's part of the GMs job to make sure there is some place in the game for that character
I respectfully disagree. Going back to my Dark Sun scenario (which wasn't really Dark Sun, but simply inspired by Dark Sun). If the campaign is a city-based campaign and someone wants to play a halfling despite the fact they're a cannibalistic race that can't even speak common and are killed on sight. I, as the GM, will simply tell them no.
But different strokes for different folks. At the end of the day, as long as you're having fun then it doesn't matter.
When I say "no" at the table as a GM -- it means "no".
That's how I expect the GM to behave as well. Last session my GM made a ruling I disagreed with. I said "I believe that's wrong because Rogues use acrobatics precisely for that ability and it's a fairly core aspect of that class." But despite the fact the GM still didn't agree with me, I didn't say anything else.
After the game I might continue the discussion. But at the table the GM's word is law. I allow one short statement to try to persuade the GM and then the game moves on. Again, this harkens back to how I played roleplaying games before I came to D&D.
What? There is a big long thread I thought that showed a Summoner isn't overpowered. You think it's so bad you have to ban them, or is this a "only for this campaign" thing?
In my experience the summoner is overpowered. At first I felt my group was overreacting. But I've seen the summoner take away half a monster's hit points in one blow when it took the rest of the party several rounds to get even that much down (summoner's PC was rolling extremely poorly). I've also heard horror stories from another summoner player about his character soloing Pathfinder Society modules. As a fan of Final Fantasy I really wanted to like the summoner class. But I just have to agree that it's broken. I've got two optimisers in the group both saying it's broken.
Personally I'd prefer a Carrion Crown campaign be entirely human PCs. So much so, I'd be inclined to give PCs a free third trait if they pick human. For me, a horror campaign works best when the horrors are the monsters, not the PCs. That said, I enjoy playing humans. If I were to DM I would have to realise not everyone shares that enjoyment, so the feel of it wouldn't be ruined if the players chose from human, half-orc (blend in feat), half-elf (blend in feat), halfling (blend in feat), gnome or dwarf. I'm really only banning one race. Although I realise strongly encouraging a particular feat for half the playable races isn't exactly standard Pathfinder.
But I admit that I tend to feel a little bit disappointed when I lay out all the information pertinent to the campaign and the players (no matter what the info) decide to ignore all the stuff in favor of playing an outsider character (I call it the Drizz't syndrome).
I roleplayed in a game where you had to get staff approval for your character background every single time you rolled up a new character. I had over a hundred characters in a 7 year period (it was a very lethal game). That's over 50 pages of backgrounds for characters. Each one different.
As such, I require GM vetting of character concepts before the campaign starts. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a paragraph for a single character that will last an entire campaign.
|
Remember that in Carrion Crown the PC's can have come from anywhere in the world, not necessarily Ustalav. One of the principle themes of horror is for the characters to come across a horrible situation as outsiders. Therefore I would encourage the players to come from elsewhere as that will take them out of their comfort zone. By all means play whatever you like, it makes things that much more fun...
Having said that, there is a thin line in play here. Playing a character who is unwelcome and even ostracised in a society that he is thrust into can be a lot of fun. Overcoming prejudice is a fantastic roleplaying opportunity. So long as the player knows that is what he is letting himself in for then that's great.
However, if a player is expecting one type of campaign and gets another it can be quite frustrating. That's why the Serpent's Skull player's guide cautions you to let players know that it is not a nautical campaign. There have been mentions on these very boards of people getting into trouble in Kingmaker because they were not expecting to have to run a kingdom. It's my opinion that the players should know vaguely the style of campaign you are running. That way they can make an informed choice about what to play. If they then choose to deliberately play something that is out of place then that's a character decision based on available information.
That's what the players guides do. They give you guidance as to what fits the campaign. If you then choose to play something that may have difficulty then that's fine, at least the player is making that decision conciously rather than accidentally stumbling across a character whose skills do not match the campaign.
I can imagine it being useful if you want to play an enchanter or witch to know that 80% of the critters in an AP are undead. Similarly- the ranger (and would-be paladin) would find such information absolutely awesome.
To me- it helps players pick something that will be useful because of some class's particular abilities. Paladin excel against demons and undead- not so much against golems. Enchanters excel against humanoids, devils, demons.. not so much against undead, golems, swarms, oozes and the like.
Playing a druid or ranger? Knowing the general theme of the AP can help you pick an animal companion and favored enemy.
Any spell caster- especially the spontaneous ones- will want to know if they should avoid X type of spells because "that type" of creature is predominate in the AP and is immune to them.
-S
|
|
Along with what's been said already, a lot of people who would otherwise be jumping right into the "orc barbarian" option for Carrion Crown state concerns because they're worried they'll derail the AP both for themselves and for the other players. I can't do it because I'm already invested in a group concept, but even if I weren't I'd be rather worried about doing it, considering how Orcs and barbarians were talked about in the player's guide.
(really, really want to play a CG orc barbarian in an AP someday)
Stuff about summoner = overpowered
Not to totally go off on a tangent, but my feeling based on reading a lot of the summoner = broken dedicated threads here is that, 98% of the time, someone who thinks the summoner is too good is getting at least one and usually several of their rules wrong (in their favor, power-wise.)
Whether it's a bad class design that leads to that being the case is completely another question.
As one of 'those players' who asks for advice on race/class combinations for specific Campaigns, it's because I enjoy making one of three different character archetypes.
Stranger in a Strange Land: Wizard in a wilderness campaign, Barbarian in a city campaign, Paladin in a spy-themed campaign, then throw being a Goblin Barbarian, a highly educated Human Wizard or a Dwarven Paladin into the mix for fun.
One of us, but only just: The Tieflings around Chelaxian territory. Half-Orcs from any of the wild, untamed lands where Orcs might raid or mix with the locals. A Human of a minority race within a kingdom where they are considered dangerous and/or less than welcome.
Regional Paragon: A race/character concept that fits the theme of a particular nation or region to a T, a true regional hero (or villain) that stands for what's right, by the local's standards anyways. (Or does he? Duh-Duh-DUUUUUUUUUUHN!).
I doubt anyone wants a 'game breaker' character or a 'win at life' character, as being in a game, repeatedly, often ends up with you not being invited back to the table in most cases I have seen. Most people I've seen posting/asking these questions are after a character that can be fun for them to Roleplay, can help the party out by fulfilling one of the four Primary Roles (Tank, Healer, Damage, Controller) and still have a unique flavour to the Player.
i made a halfling cavalier (order of the cockatrice) for kingmaker and he has been the best characters i've ever had, not the same as half-orc barbarian in carrion crown but not something someone usually tries, i really want to make a tengu inquisitor of norgorber or sarenrae, probably not for carrion crown, maybe jade regent (i'll probably sit out carrion crown as i'm busy with kingmaker and serpent's skull).
When my Sunday group's current campaign finishes (for which there is no set timeframe) they are going to be tackling Carrion Crown with an all gnome / halfling party. Possibly even an all gnome party.
When my Sunday group's current campaign finishes (for which there is no set timeframe) they are going to be tackling Carrion Crown with an all gnome / halfling party. Possibly even an all gnome party.
yes! we are doing kingmaker right now with a halfling-gnome party right now (4 halflings, 1 gnome), it is so much fun.
Just for the fun of it, group that just started last night has a Half-Orc (Three guesses whom is playing that guy >_> ), three Humans, one Dwarf and ... a Kobold.
*twitches* Kobold Bard who acts like Deekin.....*twitch*