DMs ONLY: Haunts


Carrion Crown

151 to 157 of 157 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

MurphysParadox wrote:
You have stated that a Haunt isn't any different than a puzzle or a trap that you could make.

I would say that I have not encountered a haunt, 'game mechanic' that was even equal to something I could create. Game mechanic only though. Some of the histories, stories, and descriptions of haunts I have read were incredibly well written and worthy of praise.

That being said, what makes me truly sad is how much of this amazing writing becomes lost in bad 'standardized' game mechanics, that have been repeatedly agreed upon as needing work.

MurphysParadox wrote:
The rule for them are a bit iffy. Yes, I agree, I believe the majority of GMs playing Carrion Crown have had trouble with the specific details.

I would also agree, which is why it would be great to get the 'standardized' mechanics of Haunts a bit more balanced and flushed out.

MurphysParadox wrote:
But that doesn't mean the entire system should be scrapped.

Again, I agree, there is no reason to scrap the overall concept. They just need to have an overhaul.

MurphysParadox wrote:
Can a pit trap, using the rules for traps, provide priority targeting to someone with a specific Holy Symbol?

No, a mundane hole in the ground can not do the same thing as a supernatural event. However, a magical pit trap could have any number of triggers, including targeting holy symbols, race, sex, weapons.

MurphysParadox wrote:
then refuting every attempt to come to a consensus by stating that if we don't agree with you then we are obviously just not listening hard enough isn't going to actually get anything out of the discussion.

I kept asking questions that until yesterday people just were ignoring. I then also kept responding to new questions, and was still being ignored.

Also, it seems that you and I agree on most points over all, and if we listed out everything in a list, we would probably come to a very close consensus.

MurphysParadox wrote:
taking an initial stance of confrontational sarcasm

I have re-read all of my previous points, and they were confrontational in the sense I was saying there was a problem, along with thrikreed, and then being ignored or brushed off.

I could not sense any sarcasm from my previous posts, so I am thinking that has to do with the perspective of the reader, of which I apologize.

MurphysParadox wrote:
Sometimes people cannot agree and that isn't the same thing as bruised egos and glad-handing.

I agree that people will not always agree.

I disagree, and wrote up the examples of bruised egos and glad-handing, however, pointing out peoples faults, instead of their content would be vitriolic; and, adding malice has no benefits to productive discussions.

Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 4

necronus wrote:
I would also agree, which is why it would be great to get the 'standardized' mechanics of Haunts a bit more balanced and flushed out.

For what's worth, I wouldn't mind seeing rules for Haunts-v2. If just for clarity, standardization (as you say), and with more robust options.

When you put it like that, its easier to agree. I have felt that way before while writing haunts.


Jim Groves wrote:
The GM benefits. They're able to introduce a hazard that is flavorful, thematic, challenging, and provides XP.

In my opinion, "Players benefit" is the only thing that matters in the game. A GM's goal should always be to make a fun and engaging environment for their players.

I, absolutely, agree that Haunts (when done right) add a great flavorful and thematic experience to a campaign. Of course, so do Monster encounters, traps, and puzzles.

Everything provides XP, so I'm not sure what point is being made with the XP line of thinking.

Jim Groves wrote:
It is also mechanics based, rather than relying on subjective GM narration. Haunts provide an objective structure to introduce these supernatural hazards.

This is a definite disagreement. The 'subjective' nature of GM narration is what role playing games are based on. After all, the game is about the players having fun, and the ability of the subjective GM is what keeps the game fun and going.

Also, just because rules for haunts are written down, doesn't make them inherently objective. In earlier posts, thrikreed has pointed out the major flaws in the Haunt rules, and so have I. These problems with Haunt mechanics, which seems to be a general consensus, needs to be addressed and fixed.

Jim Groves wrote:
3.)Honestly, word count plays a factor.

That is a very interesting perspective, and I appreciate this take on my question. That was a line of thinking I hadn't pursued before, so thank you.

Jim Groves wrote:
Haunts can be a little more flexible in that regard (still, even they have limits).

Haunts have a save or die mechanic... that isn't limits, that exceeds all other mechanics.

Jim Groves wrote:
4.) This question is too subjective to provide a fair answer.

Don't sell yourself short, I not only understand but respect that answer a great deal. You gave a very fair and detailed answer, that helps develop a great thought process to offer solutions for future GM's and writers.

I liked your answer to 5 & 5(A) especially, about the loot.

Jim Groves wrote:
Necronus, you have conceded that haunts can be good tools in some instances. I concede that their use requires some thoughtful consideration and not every implementation in the Pathfinder line has been perfect.

I would say, they can be GREAT tools when used in the correct instance. I also agree with you on them not being implemented perfectly, and would counter that the same could be said for monsters and traps as well.

Thoughtful consideration, is definitely the cornerstone to any good encounter; and when not used it can be a great pitfall that has caused many bad encounters.

To be honest, most of my problems with haunts is how close they align themselves with traps, but nullify rogues. The feel of Haunts, to me, is they are just a big Rogue 'screw'.

I think, Haunts should be completely different to monsters and traps. They should have a completely unique feel.

Contributor

2 people marked this as a favorite.
necronus wrote:
I have re-read all of my previous points, and they were confrontational in the sense I was saying there was a problem...
necronus wrote:
I disagree, and wrote up the examples of bruised egos and glad-handing, however, pointing out peoples faults, instead of their content would be vitriolic; and, adding malice has no benefits to productive discussions.

Let me lay it out for you nice and simple, Necronus. If you were interested in a positive, interactive discourse and answers to your questions, you might have started by not calling those haunt-using freelancers involved in this thread "lazy," then sticking by that attack. That does indeed cross into vitriolic territory, and ceases to criticize the mechanic you have a problem with in favor of personal mischaracterizations. You *might* have meant to refer to the rules mechanic itself, and not the writers personally, but when given the chance to clarify, you stuck with it. It's kind of like when that guy last week said he thought Paizo writers were on drugs. I think my response there is particularly fitting here, as well. More flies with honey, and all that.

necronus wrote:
I could not sense any sarcasm from my previous posts, so I am thinking that has to do with the perspective of the reader, of which I apologize.

That's because there *was* no sarcasm. It was a direct insult, particularly for those of us who take on these assignments for pretty meager pay at the expense of months of time with our families and personal lives so we can contribute a little game content to the world. Remember that all of us go through the exact same complicated thought process to evaluate the inclusion of haunts that Jim Groves outlined in his post, so I hope he shed some light on freelancers' motivations outside of "laziness." There are myriad reasons writers resort to using an approved rules mechanic that the majority does not seem to have a problem with, and a LOT of hard work, time, dedication, and consideration that goes into writing adventures. And you recognize that, saying "some of the histories, stories, and descriptions of haunts I have read were incredibly well written and worthy of praise," not to mention your acknowledgement of Jim's explanations given above. So you get it. But also know that apologizing for how someone was insulted by an insult you uttered is not an apology.

Necronus, the tenor of these boards over the last year has unfortunately taken a nosedive in the manners department, and this sort of thing is a prime example of why more and more freelancers are posting less and less often. If we're going to continue interacting, we're going to do it with reasonable folks who don't resort to insulting characterizations right out of the gate. I *know* you are a reasonable guy because I can read your otherwise well-thought-out responses. So please keep it clean, and please watch the personal attacks.


Jim Groves wrote:

For what's worth, I wouldn't mind seeing rules for Haunts-v2. If just for clarity, standardization (as you say), and with more robust options.

When you put it like that, its easier to agree. I have felt that way before while writing haunts.

Yes, agreed; I believe this is what my and thrikreed's main issues were, and why we were pursuing revisions.

I would like to see Haunts, being their own entity; a story in themselves, and something that brings a 'unique' element to the game. I don't like the idea of them taking the place of a creature or trap.

I see a Haunt as an environmental affect. Haunted house. Haunted graveyard. Haunted church.

It shouldn't be limited to a room, it should be something more significant.

The Haunt might have an affect in a room, but it should all be one haunt.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Brandon Hodge: I thoroughly enjoyed your response in "OPs response to "are paizo writers on drugs", it was well written.

Myself wrote:
Many haunts is just over use of lazy writing.

I can see how you would take offense to this. After reading through much of the written materials in these campaign materials, such as Carrion Crown, it is obvious the time and dedication that goes into these works of fiction.

It was my own oversight, that lead me to the claim of lazy writing. Where I didn't mean to point the finger at anyone in particular (which it is, at this time, incredibly obvious that I did), the true meaning of my words was this:

It was my poor attempt to express my frustrations of the great writing that went into the creation of back stories, descriptions that brought those haunts to live; being lost in a mechanic akin to nothing more than a modified, spooky trap.

That is an injustice.

I also, thanks to Jim Groves's insights, had my understanding of what goes into a 'published' module expanded.

Carrion Crown-Prison: In my perfect world, the Prison itself would have been the haunt. So instead of walking into a room and having to immediately deal with the 'haunt encounter', I would envision a party opening a door, witnessing the haunt from safety, and then try and understand what was transpiring, have the opportunity to analyse the situation, discuss among themselves, read through their notes and back-stories they have already been given, and decide if it is worth the risk of trying to deal with this particular encounter and suppress this haunt manifestation (with in the prison haunt) or move on. Maybe, there are some books, or items within the room of value. Maybe, each time they are able to suppress a manifestation, it weakens the haunt as a whole; making the ghosts that manifest a little less powerful.

Through better game mechanics, the existing writing could have reached amazing heights. My frustrations are not in the authors, it is in the bad, standardized mechanics that limited the feel of the game.

So, I do apologize for causing offense, when none was meant. I should have better formulated my thoughts and explained them with more clarity.

Thank you for taking the time to express your concerns.

Brandon Hodge wrote:
"approved rules mechanic that the majority does not seem to have a problem with"

I concede that you are right, the rules have been approved. Also, the majority, of posters, might not take issue.

I had a long time friend stand up and walk away from the table when he found out there was a haunt. He detests them enough to leave a campaign and not take part in that campaign, with his close friends. In carrion crown, our GM allowed us to ignore certain rules, such as drawing a haunt siphon and activating it in the same action. In fact, when a Haunt manifests it is a surprise round, and you can not do more than one action; so drawing the siphon is an action, and activating is an action. Which is too many actions.

The majority of the population might not have a problem, because they haven't specifically encountered the issue, or their DM glossed over RAW to balance issues, and they were unaware there was even an issue to begin with.

Just because they are approved rules, doesn't mean they can't change and be made far better.

I would love to see Haunts becoming a grand location template, that brings spooky, balanced game play in a totally new and interesting way.

Contributor

Thank you, Necronus. I really appreciate you seeing it from my point of view and taking the time to say so. Happy we could come together.

Jim very succinctly summed up my thoughts on the use of haunts, so I won't belabor those points. I do think the single-most effective solution presented in this entire thread (beyond Knowledge checks and alternate means of damaging haunts) is making haunts go off on Initiative count 0. That might unduly pull their teeth, however. I would have to try it in action, and I might, even if we're not having table problems with them.

I guess the reason we've never had someone at our table refuse to play with haunts is that getting shanghaied by a haunt isn't seen as any more or less frustrating that getting shanked by a hidden thief they didn't see or having an invisible wizard cast fireball during the surprise round. In that regard, we suppose that haunts aren't any more 'save or die' than the spell they are built off of, but I think that the aforementioned suicide haunt, dating from the more nebulous 3.5-era of haunts rules, is probably an unfair example given the larger scope of haunts.

But I acknowledge that too many haunts can ruin the overall effect, too.

But on that point, Haunting of Harrowstone *might* suffer from a perception issue in this regard. Fact is, in that huge multi-level prison, there's the 5 main haunts with intricate backstories and important contributions to the plot, and only *3* random, less-detailed haunts. Everything else is a creature or a trap, and there are a lot of encounters in that book.

But given that most of those encounters are undead or spectral in nature, combined with the theme, the title, and the encyclopedic list of tons more haunts in the back of the book, it may be that the volume is seen as more haunt-heavy than it really is.

Note I'm not saying that makes criticism of haunts less valid, only that Haunting of Harrowstone might not be as guilty of the trespass of haunt over-use as potentially perceived. Particularly since "Haunting" is right there in the title, so we'd expect to see more than otherwise.

I know I have some upcoming material for Paizo that addresses some of these issues, but we'll have to see what shakes out in development. I also like the idea of the "grand location template." That might be some interesting area to explore. In fact, the Whispers from SoG might very well have served a similar template. Hmmmm...

151 to 157 of 157 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Adventure Path / Carrion Crown / DMs ONLY: Haunts All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Carrion Crown