paizo.com Recent Posts in Backing Your Adventure with the Rulespaizo.com Recent Posts in Backing Your Adventure with the Rules2011-03-17T07:29:39Z2011-03-17T07:29:39ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Backing Your Adventure with the RulesSpes Magna Mark (alias of Mark Chance 476)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2m0dp&page=2?Backing-Your-Adventure-with-the-Rules#812011-03-18T22:16:02Z2011-03-18T22:16:02Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">james maissen wrote:</div><blockquote><p> I know you meant this basically as rhetorical, but the answer would be yes.</p>
<p>Just look over the thread and you'll see it from some posters.</blockquote><p>I have read the thread. Didn't notice, so I hazarding the guess it hasn't been something that's been expressed often.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">james maissen wrote:</div><blockquote>...yes there is a distinction between wanting a NPC to be able to do X to further a bit of your story for the moment and wanting people to have the ability to do X in the game as an option that can occur. </blockquote><p>Not that I'm seeing. Perhaps some clarification would help me.james maissen wrote:I know you meant this basically as rhetorical, but the answer would be yes.
Just look over the thread and you'll see it from some posters.
I have read the thread. Didn't notice, so I hazarding the guess it hasn't been something that's been expressed often. james maissen wrote:...yes there is a distinction between wanting a NPC to be able to do X to further a bit of your story for the moment and wanting people to have the ability to do X in the game as an option that can...Spes Magna Mark (alias of Mark Chance 476)2011-03-18T22:16:02ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Backing Your Adventure with the RulesAsphesteroshttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2m0dp&page=2?Backing-Your-Adventure-with-the-Rules#802011-03-18T22:14:12Z2011-03-18T22:14:12Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Spes Magna Mark wrote:</div><blockquote>Has anyone in this thread said they prefer to do the latter rather than the former? I know, at least, I haven't. </blockquote><p>I know for myself most of the FUN is figuring out how things work within the rules. It makes it feel like the world is a living breathing place that I'm discovering and interacting with, rather than merely a baseless idea I'm dictating. I tell you if I wanted to just make stuff up, I'd be crazy to bother with a game with volumes of rules. I'd play indi rpgs.Spes Magna Mark wrote:Has anyone in this thread said they prefer to do the latter rather than the former? I know, at least, I haven't.
I know for myself most of the FUN is figuring out how things work within the rules. It makes it feel like the world is a living breathing place that I'm discovering and interacting with, rather than merely a baseless idea I'm dictating. I tell you if I wanted to just make stuff up, I'd be crazy to bother with a game with volumes of rules. I'd play indi rpgs.Asphesteros2011-03-18T22:14:12ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Backing Your Adventure with the Rulesjames maissenhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2m0dp&page=2?Backing-Your-Adventure-with-the-Rules#792011-03-18T22:11:01Z2011-03-18T22:11:01Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Spes Magna Mark wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
Has anyone in this thread said they prefer to do the latter rather than the former? I know, at least, I haven't. </blockquote><p>I know you meant this basically as rhetorical, but the answer would be yes.
<p>Just look over the thread and you'll see it from some posters.</p>
<p>And perhaps I've started on the wrong foot with you here, but yes there is a distinction between wanting a NPC to be able to do X to further a bit of your story for the moment and wanting people to have the ability to do X in the game as an option that can occur.</p>
<p>-James</p>Spes Magna Mark wrote:Has anyone in this thread said they prefer to do the latter rather than the former? I know, at least, I haven't.
I know you meant this basically as rhetorical, but the answer would be yes. Just look over the thread and you'll see it from some posters.
And perhaps I've started on the wrong foot with you here, but yes there is a distinction between wanting a NPC to be able to do X to further a bit of your story for the moment and wanting people to have the ability to do...james maissen2011-03-18T22:11:01ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Backing Your Adventure with the RulesSpes Magna Mark (alias of Mark Chance 476)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2m0dp&page=2?Backing-Your-Adventure-with-the-Rules#782011-03-18T20:16:03Z2011-03-18T20:16:03Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">james maissen wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Do you add it just to the NPC because you want such and such situation?</p>
<p>Or do you add it to your gameworld as something that you want to have in it?</blockquote><p>That seems a lot like a distinction without a difference. Is the NPC not part of the gameworld?
<div class="messageboard-quotee">james maissen wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Do you sit down and think "How can I do this within the rules?" ....</p>
<p>Or do you say 'I don't have time for those details, it just is'?</blockquote><p>Has anyone in this thread said they prefer to do the latter rather than the former? I know, at least, I haven't.james maissen wrote:Do you add it just to the NPC because you want such and such situation?
Or do you add it to your gameworld as something that you want to have in it?
That seems a lot like a distinction without a difference. Is the NPC not part of the gameworld? james maissen wrote: Do you sit down and think "How can I do this within the rules?" ....
Or do you say 'I don't have time for those details, it just is'?
Has anyone in this thread said they prefer to do the latter rather than...Spes Magna Mark (alias of Mark Chance 476)2011-03-18T20:16:03ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Backing Your Adventure with the Rulesjames maissenhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2m0dp&page=2?Backing-Your-Adventure-with-the-Rules#772011-03-18T19:51:04Z2011-03-18T19:51:04Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Spes Magna Mark wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
Every GM ever makes rulings and adventure-design decisions about things that aren't explicitly supported by the rules. </blockquote><p>I guess the divergence comes from what happens when do you add something to your world.
<p>Do you add it just to the NPC because you want such and such situation?</p>
<p>Or do you add it to your gameworld as something that you want to have in it?</p>
<p>To extend the analogy of the undead army:</p>
<p>Do you sit down and think "How can I do this within the rules?" I can give him a command structure of other intelligent undead and evil clerics who in turn control portions of these unintelligent (and intelligent) undead.</p>
<p>Or do you say 'I don't have time for those details, it just is'?</p>
<p>To me, the DM is representing the game world. </p>
<p>If an NPC is controlling an undead army in this world, then there is a way to do it. This is knowledge in-game for my PC as it's happening in their world after all. They can reasonably ask 'how is this happening?'. Depending upon their knowledges, access to libraries, divinations, scoutings and the like they should be able to ascertain some answers to that reasonable question.</p>
<p>As a player I feel much better about the campaign when there really is an answer here rather than just fiat. It adds a dimension to the situation that just isn't there when the DM handwaves it into being.</p>
<p>The party could find out that the BBEG has sub-commanders that when taken out fragment good amounts of his army. Now when all those undead become free willed there are its own repercussions to deal with of course.</p>
<p>But that's something that would be entirely missing in the other scenario which can boil down to linearly 'find BBEG's mcguffin to destroy his hold on the army'.</p>
<p>Part of the immense fun in DMing is laying out a scenario and seeing how the party goes about solving it in a manor that you never intended.</p>
<p>For example the party finds the BBEG's mcguffin but doesn't destroy it as it would free all of those undead, which would be just as devastating as the directed army. At which point they decide to command the army 'for good'.. they use them to rebuild destroyed areas, and to defend the shattered countryside from its neighbors so that they don't come 'to the rescue' with their mundane armies..</p>
<p>Sorry, this became too long of a rant. My long winded point is that if you put something in your world, then you should be happy with it being a part of your world. I've encountered many DMs that add something as an expedient but don't really want it part of their world. That's a mistake in my mind.</p>
<p>-James</p>Spes Magna Mark wrote:Every GM ever makes rulings and adventure-design decisions about things that aren't explicitly supported by the rules.
I guess the divergence comes from what happens when do you add something to your world. Do you add it just to the NPC because you want such and such situation?
Or do you add it to your gameworld as something that you want to have in it?
To extend the analogy of the undead army:
Do you sit down and think "How can I do this within the rules?" I can...james maissen2011-03-18T19:51:04ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Backing Your Adventure with the Rulesvoska66https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2m0dp&page=2?Backing-Your-Adventure-with-the-Rules#762011-03-18T18:14:42Z2011-03-18T18:14:42Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Shadow_of_death wrote:</div><blockquote><p> rules every step of the way, the players tend to appreciate it more when they are traveling in a world that has the same limitations they do.</p>
<p>The thousand year old necro deserves an army of at least a 100 soldiers you say? Well the PC lich can't so why should he </blockquote><p>For me the PC lich can have thousands of undead if they want but first they need to spend a thousand years as a Lich. Since that's not going to happen I'm not going to worry about. If it does happen then I'll house rule it as I'm running something non standard in the first place.Shadow_of_death wrote:rules every step of the way, the players tend to appreciate it more when they are traveling in a world that has the same limitations they do.
The thousand year old necro deserves an army of at least a 100 soldiers you say? Well the PC lich can't so why should he
For me the PC lich can have thousands of undead if they want but first they need to spend a thousand years as a Lich. Since that's not going to happen I'm not going to worry about. If it does happen then I'll...voska662011-03-18T18:14:42ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Backing Your Adventure with the RulesSpes Magna Mark (alias of Mark Chance 476)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2m0dp&page=2?Backing-Your-Adventure-with-the-Rules#752011-03-18T17:57:51Z2011-03-18T17:57:51Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">james maissen wrote:</div><blockquote> ...perhaps we just misunderstood one another?</blockquote><p>That seems the most likely reason for conclusion jumping from not wanting GMing to be an extended exercise in CharOp R&D straight to "storytime" campaigns and not being "concerned with the framework".
<p>One thing I always find interesting about these sorts of discussions is (almost?) every single GM who claims to do everything "by the book" ends up admitting to not doing everything that way. I've also observed that (almost?) no GMs who admit that everything in the game "universe does not have game rules associated with it in order to model it" ever claim that the resulting "violations" of the rules simply happen "just because I said so".</p>
<p>Every GM ever makes rulings and adventure-design decisions about things that aren't explicitly supported by the rules. The idea that any RPG requires the GM and the other players to use the exact same rules the exact same way seems to only exist as a thought experiment. It seems to be neither supported by reality nor by the rules of any RPG I'm aware of.</p>james maissen wrote:...perhaps we just misunderstood one another?
That seems the most likely reason for conclusion jumping from not wanting GMing to be an extended exercise in CharOp R&D straight to "storytime" campaigns and not being "concerned with the framework". One thing I always find interesting about these sorts of discussions is (almost?) every single GM who claims to do everything "by the book" ends up admitting to not doing everything that way. I've also observed that (almost?) no...Spes Magna Mark (alias of Mark Chance 476)2011-03-18T17:57:51ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Backing Your Adventure with the Rulesjames maissenhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2m0dp&page=2?Backing-Your-Adventure-with-the-Rules#742011-03-18T17:35:25Z2011-03-18T17:35:25Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Spes Magna Mark wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
I'm sensing shifting goalposts and hints of strawman added to the slippery slope fallacy. </blockquote><p>Rather than throwing out names.. perhaps we just misunderstood one another?
<p>I read into what you said, I guess I was wrong?</p>
<p>-James</p>Spes Magna Mark wrote:I'm sensing shifting goalposts and hints of strawman added to the slippery slope fallacy.
Rather than throwing out names.. perhaps we just misunderstood one another? I read into what you said, I guess I was wrong?
-Jamesjames maissen2011-03-18T17:35:25ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Backing Your Adventure with the RulesSpes Magna Mark (alias of Mark Chance 476)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2m0dp&page=2?Backing-Your-Adventure-with-the-Rules#732011-03-18T16:58:05Z2011-03-18T16:58:05Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">james maissen wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Yes.</p>
<p>A DM not as concerned with the framework in which he places things in lieu of the story he wants to unfold...</blockquote><p>I'm sensing shifting goalposts and hints of strawman added to the slippery slope fallacy. I never said anything about not being "concerned with the framework in which he places things in lieu of the story he wants to unfold". (Indeed, I'm not even sure what that statement is supposed to mean.)james maissen wrote:Yes.
A DM not as concerned with the framework in which he places things in lieu of the story he wants to unfold...
I'm sensing shifting goalposts and hints of strawman added to the slippery slope fallacy. I never said anything about not being "concerned with the framework in which he places things in lieu of the story he wants to unfold". (Indeed, I'm not even sure what that statement is supposed to mean.)Spes Magna Mark (alias of Mark Chance 476)2011-03-18T16:58:05ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Backing Your Adventure with the RulesAsphesteroshttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2m0dp&page=2?Backing-Your-Adventure-with-the-Rules#722011-03-18T16:56:12Z2011-03-18T16:56:12Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">James Jacobs wrote:</div><blockquote>I rate good/evil actions based on a combination of my own interpretations about what is good and evil and what is tagged with an "Evil" descriptor in the game. </blockquote><p>Big difference between the game and real life is that alignemnt is a tangible thing, not just an oppinion. Evil and such can emit a palapable aura. It's detectable, like radiation.
<p>Moral philosophy talks about how doing evil, even with good intentions, can taint the soul - but in the game world it's literal. A magic item can make you evil by contact, or chanelling evil power can infuse you with evil same as how handling plutonium can make you radioactive. </p>
<p>Way I consider it, good or evil <i>acts</i> generate good or evil energy. </p>
<p>So someone like a paladin is a dynamo of good, generating good energy with all the good acts they do like it's static electricity, until eventually it's even detectable as a residue where they walk. Likewise, the whole neitchian "those who fight dragons beware they do not become dragons themselves" is literal. Keep doing evil or using evil power, though with the best intentions for furthering the greater good, nevertheless risks personal corruption as the taint of evil builds up inside, threatening to overwhelm the good.</p>
<p>Let it go far enough, Anti-paladin.</p>James Jacobs wrote:I rate good/evil actions based on a combination of my own interpretations about what is good and evil and what is tagged with an "Evil" descriptor in the game.
Big difference between the game and real life is that alignemnt is a tangible thing, not just an oppinion. Evil and such can emit a palapable aura. It's detectable, like radiation. Moral philosophy talks about how doing evil, even with good intentions, can taint the soul - but in the game world it's literal. A magic...Asphesteros2011-03-18T16:56:12ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Backing Your Adventure with the Rulesjames maissenhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2m0dp&page=2?Backing-Your-Adventure-with-the-Rules#712011-03-18T16:53:25Z2011-03-18T16:53:25Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Spes Magna Mark wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
A GM not wanting (or not being able to) devote
<br />
</blockquote><p>Yes.
<p>A DM not as concerned with the framework in which he places things in lieu of the story he wants to unfold...</p>
<p>-James</p>Spes Magna Mark wrote:A GM not wanting (or not being able to) devote
Yes. A DM not as concerned with the framework in which he places things in lieu of the story he wants to unfold...
-Jamesjames maissen2011-03-18T16:53:25ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Backing Your Adventure with the RulesSpes Magna Mark (alias of Mark Chance 476)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2m0dp&page=2?Backing-Your-Adventure-with-the-Rules#702011-03-18T16:52:48Z2011-03-18T16:52:48Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">vuron wrote:</div><blockquote> I don't even think it's remotely cheating in fact I think it's something that has been encouraged across all iterations of the game and it's only the extreme obsession in 3.x with describing everything in concrete game system terms that can get in the way.</blockquote><p>Agreed. As I mused elsewhere:
<p>All players using the exact same rules is a key feature of competitive games. Consider a game of <i>Risk</i>. Every player uses the same rules without exceptions because the game is competitive. There’s going to be one winner, and everyone else loses. If one player decides to use different rules from everyone else, then that player is cheating. The same applies to checkers, football, and five card stud.</p>
<p>RPGs are not competitive games. There isn’t a winner or a loser. Rather, RPGs are cooperative. Every player (including the GM) cooperates to create an entertaining story. The rules assist the storytelling, to be sure, but that’s only because there needs to be some mechanism to determine resource management and the success or failure of story elements.</p>
<p>The rules provide a structure for the players’ characters to ensure that they all use the same resource management and success/failure mechanisms. This structure sets the characters’ abilities in relative balance one with the other. The GM sets up situations to challenge how well the players manage their resources and exploit their characters’ strengths in order to tilt the success/failure mechanisms in their favor. Consequently, the challenges set up by the GM need to work within the parameters of the game’s system or else meaningful collaboration can’t happen. But this collaboration does not mean the GM is limited to the structure meant to balance the characters with each other.</p>vuron wrote:I don't even think it's remotely cheating in fact I think it's something that has been encouraged across all iterations of the game and it's only the extreme obsession in 3.x with describing everything in concrete game system terms that can get in the way.
Agreed. As I mused elsewhere: All players using the exact same rules is a key feature of competitive games. Consider a game of Risk. Every player uses the same rules without exceptions because the game is competitive. There’s...Spes Magna Mark (alias of Mark Chance 476)2011-03-18T16:52:48ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Backing Your Adventure with the Rulesvuronhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2m0dp&page=2?Backing-Your-Adventure-with-the-Rules#692011-03-18T16:25:35Z2011-03-18T16:25:35Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">james maissen wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Spes Magna Mark wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
Because I don't have the time, the money, or (most important) the inclination
<br />
</blockquote><p>I think that this becomes a very slippery slope that leads to a storytime campaign.
<p>That can work, and can even be fun at times, but it is not as rewarding (at least to me) as a well done out campaign that doesn't have to be ad hoc.</p>
<p>-James </blockquote><p>But the APs routinely create new rules or modify existing rules all the time. Everything in the universe does not have game rules associated with it in order to model it. Sometimes plot devices are the best/easiest manner of generating a cool story effect.
<p>The Starstone that can elevate mere mortals to divinity? Clearly not something that is possible to create within the core rules, yet clearly it exists within Golarion. Aboleths being able to summon said world shattering meteorite to shatter civilizations? Clearly well beyond a 9th level effect (if you allow this via Wish your campaign is going to have significant issues).</p>
<p>If the designers of the campaign world have free reign to create epic/divinity level effects I don't really see an issue with the DM being able to throw around similar level effects with ritual magic or artifacts or what-not. I don't even think it's remotely cheating in fact I think it's something that has been encouraged across all iterations of the game and it's only the extreme obsession in 3.x with describing everything in concrete game system terms that can get in the way.</p>
<p>I prefer that NPCs and PCs use the same physics for the most part but plot device level effects should be encouraged as well.</p>james maissen wrote:Spes Magna Mark wrote:
Because I don't have the time, the money, or (most important) the inclination
I think that this becomes a very slippery slope that leads to a storytime campaign. That can work, and can even be fun at times, but it is not as rewarding (at least to me) as a well done out campaign that doesn't have to be ad hoc.
-James But the APs routinely create new rules or modify existing rules all the time. Everything in the universe does not have game rules...vuron2011-03-18T16:25:35ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Backing Your Adventure with the RulesSpes Magna Mark (alias of Mark Chance 476)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2m0dp&page=2?Backing-Your-Adventure-with-the-Rules#682011-03-18T16:22:24Z2011-03-18T16:22:24Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">james maissen wrote:</div><blockquote> I think that this becomes a very slippery slope that leads to a storytime campaign.</blockquote><p>A GM not wanting (or not being able to) devote "much more time than most [to] doing things like reading Char-Op guides, perusing ALL the Paizo books, and designing characters" ends up with "a storytime campaign"?james maissen wrote:I think that this becomes a very slippery slope that leads to a storytime campaign.
A GM not wanting (or not being able to) devote "much more time than most [to] doing things like reading Char-Op guides, perusing ALL the Paizo books, and designing characters" ends up with "a storytime campaign"?Spes Magna Mark (alias of Mark Chance 476)2011-03-18T16:22:24ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Backing Your Adventure with the Rulesjames maissenhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2m0dp&page=2?Backing-Your-Adventure-with-the-Rules#672011-03-18T16:07:43Z2011-03-18T16:07:43Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Spes Magna Mark wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
Because I don't have the time, the money, or (most important) the inclination
<br />
</blockquote><p>I think that this becomes a very slippery slope that leads to a storytime campaign.
<p>That can work, and can even be fun at times, but it is not as rewarding (at least to me) as a well done out campaign that doesn't have to be ad hoc.</p>
<p>-James</p>Spes Magna Mark wrote:Because I don't have the time, the money, or (most important) the inclination
I think that this becomes a very slippery slope that leads to a storytime campaign. That can work, and can even be fun at times, but it is not as rewarding (at least to me) as a well done out campaign that doesn't have to be ad hoc.
-Jamesjames maissen2011-03-18T16:07:43ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Backing Your Adventure with the Rulespsionichamsterhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2m0dp&page=2?Backing-Your-Adventure-with-the-Rules#662011-03-18T16:07:30Z2011-03-18T16:07:30Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Spes Magna Mark wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">psionichamster wrote:</div><blockquote> Why wrack you brain for the "new rules" when they've already been written, playtested, published, and (in most recent instances) both emailed & shipped to me?</blockquote><p>Because I don't have the time, the money, or (most important) the inclination to do this:
<div class="messageboard-quotee">psionichamster wrote:</div><blockquote> That being said, I tend to spend much more time than most of my players doing things like reading Char-Op guides, perusing ALL the Paizo books, and designing characters.</blockquote></blockquote><p>Fair enough.
<p>Like I said, of our group of 7-8 players, I am one of 2 who routinely GM's, and usually the only one who is interested in the "behind the scenes" design stuff.</p>
<p>Most of the crazy, wild, probably should have failed stuff the PC's pull on me ends up being improvised on the fly. I've gotten pretty good at that, mostly due to my players wanting crazy shenanigans from time to time.</p>Spes Magna Mark wrote:psionichamster wrote: Why wrack you brain for the "new rules" when they've already been written, playtested, published, and (in most recent instances) both emailed & shipped to me?
Because I don't have the time, the money, or (most important) the inclination to do this: psionichamster wrote:That being said, I tend to spend much more time than most of my players doing things like reading Char-Op guides, perusing ALL the Paizo books, and designing characters.
Fair...psionichamster2011-03-18T16:07:30ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Backing Your Adventure with the RulesSpes Magna Mark (alias of Mark Chance 476)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2m0dp&page=2?Backing-Your-Adventure-with-the-Rules#652011-03-18T16:01:47Z2011-03-18T16:01:47Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">psionichamster wrote:</div><blockquote> Why wrack you brain for the "new rules" when they've already been written, playtested, published, and (in most recent instances) both emailed & shipped to me?</blockquote><p>Because I don't have the time, the money, or (most important) the inclination to do this:
<div class="messageboard-quotee">psionichamster wrote:</div><blockquote> That being said, I tend to spend much more time than most of my players doing things like reading Char-Op guides, perusing ALL the Paizo books, and designing characters.</blockquote><p>psionichamster wrote:Why wrack you brain for the "new rules" when they've already been written, playtested, published, and (in most recent instances) both emailed & shipped to me?
Because I don't have the time, the money, or (most important) the inclination to do this: psionichamster wrote:That being said, I tend to spend much more time than most of my players doing things like reading Char-Op guides, perusing ALL the Paizo books, and designing characters.Spes Magna Mark (alias of Mark Chance 476)2011-03-18T16:01:47ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Backing Your Adventure with the Rulesvuronhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2m0dp&page=2?Backing-Your-Adventure-with-the-Rules#642011-03-18T15:49:17Z2011-03-18T15:49:17Z<p>Rituals are far easier to implement and are much more limited in scope.</p>
<p>Incantations or Ritual Magic can be implemented pretty easily within the framework of a game without completely unbalancing the game. Furthermore ritual magic can be a good late game reward for PCs that want to engage in ritual magic.</p>
<p>So the NPC necromancer needs a zombie army relatively quick? Well he might offer up 100,000 GP worth of component materials (gems, incense, etc) to Urgotha and spend several days casting a ritual with his chosen acolytes (say 50+ caster levels) and at the end sacrifice 100 HD worth of people including at least one individual from a rare or unique bloodline (reduces the ability to replicate said spell) in an orgy of bloodletting.</p>
<p>At the end of the ritual a gateway to the negative energy plane is created which rapidly infuses the population of an entire city of 20,000 individuals with necromantic energy. Low level creatures become zombies while higher level creatures might become Wights or even more powerful undead.</p>
<p>Some individuals might be shielded from the effect with personal magic or the effects of being on consecrated ground. As the gateway closes they try to flee the town.</p>
<p>These are the types of events that I think make for good backgrounds (PC x is a survivor of said disaster and has sworn to bring the necromancer to justice- Ranger with favored enemy undead). In theory the PCs could replicate said ritual (I personally like limiting really big ritual effects to planar/stellar conjunctions and other rare events or the ritual requires rare components) but it would make them irrevocably evil.</p>
<p>Good aligned rituals might give an entire community the protection of a consecrate effect or a fortress might gain a forbidance effect against dragons, demons, undead, etc.</p>
<p>That way I can bring in epic level effects into the game without needing to include the horribad epic level spell rules. Being able to include epic level effects prior to the PCs being epic is also a major benefit.</p>
<p>Plus it's really fun to have an insane acolyte of a god like rovagug to be able to "summon" some completely out of control death machine monster despite being relatively low level. It's very Call of Cthulhu in my mind giving isolated groups of individuals being able to summon the crawling chaos ;)</p>Rituals are far easier to implement and are much more limited in scope.
Incantations or Ritual Magic can be implemented pretty easily within the framework of a game without completely unbalancing the game. Furthermore ritual magic can be a good late game reward for PCs that want to engage in ritual magic.
So the NPC necromancer needs a zombie army relatively quick? Well he might offer up 100,000 GP worth of component materials (gems, incense, etc) to Urgotha and spend several days casting a...vuron2011-03-18T15:49:17ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Backing Your Adventure with the Rulespsionichamsterhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2m0dp&page=2?Backing-Your-Adventure-with-the-Rules#632011-03-18T15:45:50Z2011-03-18T15:45:50Z<p>When I GM, I strive to create encounters mostly grounded in the ruleset.</p>
<p>Artifacts, <i>BBEG-only magic items</i>, and other stuff seems like "cheating" to me.</p>
<p>That being said, I tend to spend much more time than most of my players doing things like reading Char-Op guides, perusing ALL the Paizo books, and designing characters.</p>
<p>I found that almost anything you want to achieve, in game, has been suggested and codified somewhere, somewhen. Why wrack you brain for the "new rules" when they've already been written, playtested, published, and (in most recent instances) both emailed & shipped to me?</p>
<p>If a PC wants to do something funky and weird, and can justify the time/energy used at the table (i.e., won't be dully boring for everyone, can include at least most of the party, doesn't overtly offend me or others), then that usually gets worked out as we go. </p>
<p>A recent example: </p>
<p>In our Kingmaker game, the party druid kinda-sorta challenged Erastil. To his "face" essentially.</p>
<p>The end result: the Champions of Erastil encounter, where the party Sorcerer died.</p>
<p>The new plan: <i>Reincarnate</i> the dead Sorcerer, but into a Human with 100% surety.</p>
<p>On came a new adventure, wherein the party traveled to a Druid circle, the PC Druid met with and befriended someone capable of such a ritual, and the group dealt with the surviving Champion.</p>
<p>End result: satisfied players, in-game goals completed, new "Human Rebirth" ritual learned, NPC allies & enemies made, and a new adventure hook if I need it (that Naga Druid who taught you the Rebirth ritual is calling in a favor...).</p>
<p>Almost all of that was straight up RP, with a (very) short combat to collect the Champion's body, and no actual "rules" were shared for the ritual itself. An improv session, it still sticks in my (and my players') memory quite vividly.</p>When I GM, I strive to create encounters mostly grounded in the ruleset.
Artifacts, BBEG-only magic items, and other stuff seems like "cheating" to me.
That being said, I tend to spend much more time than most of my players doing things like reading Char-Op guides, perusing ALL the Paizo books, and designing characters.
I found that almost anything you want to achieve, in game, has been suggested and codified somewhere, somewhen. Why wrack you brain for the "new rules" when they've already...psionichamster2011-03-18T15:45:50ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Backing Your Adventure with the Ruleshogarthhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2m0dp&page=2?Backing-Your-Adventure-with-the-Rules#622011-03-18T15:25:23Z2011-03-18T15:25:23Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">sheadunne wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">joela wrote:</div><blockquote>Now I'm curious. How many of y'all as GMs actually go through the rules to verify your major NPCs and, especially, the BB, can actually do major plot scenes like the above (or transform into a dragon or summon/conjure hordes of minions with a swift action as she makes her escape, etc....) </blockquote><p>There's always a PrC for that. Just make the requirements unobtainable to the players if it's an issue for the game.
<p>Command an army of undead? Undead Commander PrC. Requirements 1000 year old lich.
<br />
</blockquote><p>I like Set's suggestion of using rituals better, personally.sheadunne wrote:joela wrote:Now I'm curious. How many of y'all as GMs actually go through the rules to verify your major NPCs and, especially, the BB, can actually do major plot scenes like the above (or transform into a dragon or summon/conjure hordes of minions with a swift action as she makes her escape, etc....)
There's always a PrC for that. Just make the requirements unobtainable to the players if it's an issue for the game. Command an army of undead? Undead Commander PrC. Requirements...hogarth2011-03-18T15:25:23ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Backing Your Adventure with the Rulessheadunnehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2m0dp&page=2?Backing-Your-Adventure-with-the-Rules#612011-03-18T11:55:34Z2011-03-18T11:55:34Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">joela wrote:</div><blockquote>Now I'm curious. How many of y'all as GMs actually go through the rules to verify your major NPCs and, especially, the BB, can actually do major plot scenes like the above (or transform into a dragon or summon/conjure hordes of minions with a swift action as she makes her escape, etc....) </blockquote><p>There's always a PrC for that. Just make the requirements unobtainable to the players if it's an issue for the game.
<p>Command an army of undead? Undead Commander PrC. Requirements 1000 year old lich.</p>joela wrote:Now I'm curious. How many of y'all as GMs actually go through the rules to verify your major NPCs and, especially, the BB, can actually do major plot scenes like the above (or transform into a dragon or summon/conjure hordes of minions with a swift action as she makes her escape, etc....)
There's always a PrC for that. Just make the requirements unobtainable to the players if it's an issue for the game. Command an army of undead? Undead Commander PrC. Requirements 1000 year old...sheadunne2011-03-18T11:55:34ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Backing Your Adventure with the RulesSlaunyehhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2m0dp&page=2?Backing-Your-Adventure-with-the-Rules#602011-03-18T11:13:15Z2011-03-18T11:13:15Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Ashiel wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
To me, this was my biggest let down with the live-action X-Men movies that we got. They, IMHO, ruined his character by making him an <i>obviously evil douchebag</i> instead of the compelling villain that he was; and as a fan of the story, it hurt me here! •points to heart• </blockquote><p>Slightly off topic, but I couldn't agree more. :)Ashiel wrote:To me, this was my biggest let down with the live-action X-Men movies that we got. They, IMHO, ruined his character by making him an obviously evil douchebag instead of the compelling villain that he was; and as a fan of the story, it hurt me here! *points to heart*
Slightly off topic, but I couldn't agree more. :)Slaunyeh2011-03-18T11:13:15ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Backing Your Adventure with the RulesAshielhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2m0dp&page=2?Backing-Your-Adventure-with-the-Rules#592011-03-18T11:00:36Z2011-03-18T11:00:36Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Slaunyeh wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Ashiel wrote:</div><blockquote>Also, thanks for the props, I appreciate it. It was a bit thrown together (it was a request, I had about one evening to prepare, etc) and I'm glad it turned out like it did.</blockquote><p>Sounds like an awesome fight, and an even more awesome conclusion to the fight. I always like villains you can reason with. I play with a bunch of incredible vindictive players who wants to murder everyone we cross, whereas I'm more easygoing and don't mind the BBEG getting away once we've foiled their plot.
<p>In fact, my character in our current campaign is wooing one of the main baddies of the setting. Sure, they might be enemies in the field, but that doesn't mean you can't enjoy a good meal and pleasant conversation once in a while. :) Just can't let the other players know. They wouldn't understand. </blockquote><p>This wins so much. 6.^
<p>EDIT: My younger brother actually called out Magneto of X-Men fame for being a great villain for this reason. Stan Lee himself, in an interview, noted that Magneto was such a compelling villain because often times the reader wouldn't know if he was wrong or not. Even Charles Xavier and his X-Men had met Magneto as a nemesis, but also met him peacefully many times, and he and Xavier were old friends. Even Xavier questioned if Magneto was in fact right sometimes.</p>
<p>To me, this was my biggest let down with the live-action X-Men movies that we got. They, IMHO, ruined his character by making him an <i>obviously evil douchebag</i> instead of the compelling villain that he was; and as a fan of the story, it hurt me here! •points to heart•</p>Slaunyeh wrote:Ashiel wrote:Also, thanks for the props, I appreciate it. It was a bit thrown together (it was a request, I had about one evening to prepare, etc) and I'm glad it turned out like it did.
Sounds like an awesome fight, and an even more awesome conclusion to the fight. I always like villains you can reason with. I play with a bunch of incredible vindictive players who wants to murder everyone we cross, whereas I'm more easygoing and don't mind the BBEG getting away once we've...Ashiel2011-03-18T11:00:36ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Backing Your Adventure with the RulesSlaunyehhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2m0dp&page=2?Backing-Your-Adventure-with-the-Rules#582011-03-18T10:49:39Z2011-03-18T10:49:39Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Ashiel wrote:</div><blockquote>Also, thanks for the props, I appreciate it. It was a bit thrown together (it was a request, I had about one evening to prepare, etc) and I'm glad it turned out like it did.</blockquote><p>Sounds like an awesome fight, and an even more awesome conclusion to the fight. I always like villains you can reason with. I play with a bunch of incredible vindictive players who wants to murder everyone we cross, whereas I'm more easygoing and don't mind the BBEG getting away once we've foiled their plot.
<p>In fact, my character in our current campaign is wooing one of the main baddies of the setting. Sure, they might be enemies in the field, but that doesn't mean you can't enjoy a good meal and pleasant conversation once in a while. :) Just can't let the other players know. They wouldn't understand.</p>Ashiel wrote:Also, thanks for the props, I appreciate it. It was a bit thrown together (it was a request, I had about one evening to prepare, etc) and I'm glad it turned out like it did.
Sounds like an awesome fight, and an even more awesome conclusion to the fight. I always like villains you can reason with. I play with a bunch of incredible vindictive players who wants to murder everyone we cross, whereas I'm more easygoing and don't mind the BBEG getting away once we've foiled their plot....Slaunyeh2011-03-18T10:49:39ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Backing Your Adventure with the RulesAshielhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2m0dp&page=2?Backing-Your-Adventure-with-the-Rules#572011-03-18T09:57:53Z2011-03-18T09:57:53Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Mynameisjake wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Ashiel wrote:</div><blockquote> A really great game </blockquote><p>I think you fall more into the "Half and Half" category than you may realize.
<p>I assume you built the Lich using the established rules and ran the combat the same way. But did the Lich have to pay for the tower out of her WBL? Having a prepared defensive position did make her more combat effective, yes? What about the valuables? Where did the other creatures come from, Leadership? Were they purchased somehow? If so, was that taken from the Lich's WBL? In other words, what rules would a PC have to follow to get the exact same set-up that the Lich did?</blockquote><p>The tower was not part of her wealth by level, but then again neither is stuff that is used primarily for roleplaying purposes. Wealth by Level is noted as being the expected combined value of a character's equipment. Ergo, if a player takes time to expend gold to build a school (say a magician's academy) for roleplaying purposes, it would be recommended to even their wealth by level back out over some time through adventures; because the school - while a major party of the character - is not part of the character's equipment.
<p>This is the same with NPCs. An NPC's WBL is only the stuff they can carry on hand, and/or material that counts as part of them for their challenge rating and the like. For example, a wand of summon monster I is is part of a character's equipment, so a Riding Dog summoned this way does not grant XP, while a pet outside of their WBL would.</p>
<p>The tower itself, humorously, wasn't intended to be a true fortress. Honestly it was filled with some servants and sentries, but literally every room was just that a room. It had a study, and so forth. It actually didn't really event contain any real traps, other than what amounted to a magical intercom that allowed the lich to communicate with servants and people on other floors of the tower. The tower itself could have been constructed simply with multiple castings of <i>wall of stone</i> and <i>fabricate</i>, which would have likewise cost the lichess nothing but some time.</p>
<p>That being said, the inhabitants of the tower were either her brothers and sisters in religion, or those that were helpful via Diplomacy, and so forth, and being outside her direct mechanical benefits/WBL retained their own CRs and motivations. In fact, there actually was nothing that she had that a player character couldn't achieve with work or dedication (which is the point, and why I wouldn't touch the lich-only artifacts I was OK'd to use against the party).</p>
<p>In all cases, with the appropriate amount of down time and/or application of money (let's face it, by about 11th level, <i>TIME</i> > <i>MONEY</i> because money can be produced infinitely by this point with a wide, wide variety of methods; but it takes time to produce power. Example: Assuming you're using standard limitations for items (IE - items with a cost greater than X are not easily purchasable anywhere) then you may find that you must craft or commission them yourself, at which point <i>time</i> becomes the limiting factor, followed thereafter by the limits of your level (or the limit of the highest available artisan).</p>
<p>An example would be another game I ran from 1st-29th a couple of years ago. A bit pre-20th level, the party had pretty much determined that their monetary resources that <i>they</i> could produce using their own abilities or time was effectively infinite, and I came to terms with this realization and had a talk with them about how the campaign would be progressing (I think communication is pretty key in a game, honestly). I explained that it would mean that questing for treasure would pretty much be moot; except for things that was out of their grasp based on their level and/or limitations, which they were fine with. </p>
<p>This actually had a positive effect on the game itself. The party was about as geared as they wanted to be, which honestly didn't make them that much stronger. However, what it DID do was make them more interested in downtime, casual role-playing, and pursuing options they might not have done before. When they found quirky magic items, they were less inclined to hurriedly selling them off to get something that gave more power (they had the best +X items their money could buy), for example. They invested in things that let them influence the campaign in ways outside of slaying monsters - and <i>they did</i>. </p>
<p>The party's wizard opened a school atop a mountain where he invited lowborns to come and study magic (as he was a commoner taken in by a wandering wizard). The party's healer opened a hospital and temple that preached the wonders of altruism and unity rather than an actual religion. The party's kobold sorcerer continued to build a small utopia into a hybrid sub/above-ground community that traded through underground tunnels with nearby cities and footed the bill and manpower to produce safe travel between his neighboring settlements and his own. The party's tiefling conjurer/malconvoker took this time to find peace in her existence and to teach others of acceptance and redemption. So on, and so forth.</p>
<p>This meant that when the party learned of a plot by a cabal of wizards who were seeking a forbidden power that could pave the way for a powerful demon to begin causing terrible unrest in the region, which could threaten <i>their people</i> and <i>their work</i> and <i>their families</i>, it was reason enough to meet the cabal of wizards and their minions in epic adventure.</p>
<p>Long story short, given time, sufficiently high level characters can achieve pretty much anything. They can change the world, build roads, bridges, cities, monuments, or even create new life. Money is less of a problem thanks to magic and the like (seriously, today's tech can't keep up with D&D-tech). A 17th level wizard can replicate every miracle in the Christian Bible (I'm a Christian btw, so don't think I'm knockin' the religion) from creating an every-expanding plane and creating its inhabitants out of dirt, to parting an ocean, raising the dead, calling the entire heavenly host down, coming back from the dead, etc, etc, etc (though some of these aren't as easy to do in Pathfinder as SRD-3.5). By this level, Fighters make Beowulf and Hercules look like little sissies ("You killed a hydra? Dude I killed so many of those things that I was wringing hydra-juice out of my 'jammies for weeks"). They're godlike.</p>
<p>There really was nothing that the PCs couldn't have achieved given the lich's level and an appropriate amount of time. The lich's motivations were based on this assumption as well. The lich, with her infinite lifespan had more grand-scale motivations, including an experiment involving the creation of a perfect society (very similar to a certain gold dragon that I didn't know about at the time).</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote>Please don't interpret this as an attack on you or your style of gaming. It actually sounds like a well built and executed adventure. I'd have loved to play in it. I just don't see the problem with building an adventure using the rules to build the encounters (the bricks) and whatever is needed to create the story (the building). </blockquote><p>Hey, not feelings of attacks here. I'm glad you asked actually, as I think it stirs the conversation and facilitates the flow of ideas. Also, thanks for the props, I appreciate it. It was a bit thrown together (it was a request, I had about one evening to prepare, etc) and I'm glad it turned out like it did.
<p>I won't say that it's somehow terribly wrong to go outside of the rules, but I do believe that if you want to make something outside of the (vastly large) toolbox we have with 3.x/Pathfinder, I'd rather see it done in an elegant fashion, rather than "Oh, this badguy has <i>yet another evil artifact of super powah</i>" or poorly defined thing constructed out of handwavium. :P</p>Mynameisjake wrote:Ashiel wrote: A really great game
I think you fall more into the "Half and Half" category than you may realize. I assume you built the Lich using the established rules and ran the combat the same way. But did the Lich have to pay for the tower out of her WBL? Having a prepared defensive position did make her more combat effective, yes? What about the valuables? Where did the other creatures come from, Leadership? Were they purchased somehow? If so, was that taken from the...Ashiel2011-03-18T09:57:53Z