I've been away for a while so I've not kept up on the goings on of Pathfinder's latest adventures and upcoming products.
But I'm wondering if a new Kingmaker-like (as in sandbox, land-based, exploration-like) campaign is in the works any time soon. Adventure campaigns like that really hit the spot.
Creative Director
|
I've been away for a while so I've not kept up on the goings on of Pathfinder's latest adventures and upcoming products.
But I'm wondering if a new Kingmaker-like (as in sandbox, land-based, exploration-like) campaign is in the works any time soon. Adventure campaigns like that really hit the spot.
None that we've announced.
Although there's a LOT of overland travel in Jade Regent, which takes the PCs from Varisia over the north pole into Minkai via a Varisian Caravan.
Thanks much for the reply James. I'll check that out.
Yeah, it would be kind of interesting to see a sort of "Kingmaker 2: King Harder" r whatever you'd call it. Refined domain rules, maybe as a part of that possible hardback idea.
Finish KM 1
Move timeline on a few years,start KM2: the next generation
and play in an area with your new 1st level PCS who know many legends about past heroes
I was actually thinking my spinoff game from Kingmaker would be the players starting off in the kingdom the players started in the previous game.
Wayfinder #4 (and the upcoming #5) have expanded goodies for kingdom building.
|
For me I think a KM 2 would be great. Just some adventures sort of do the campaign part of the AP and use the rules from KM. I would like to run it for a group, but I am currently playing in a game with one of the players from the other group so he wouldn't really find a second game that interesting story wise, but I bet a King Maker located somewhere else would appeal to him.
Must admit that I'd like to see another "world building" style campaign coming up. Doesn't have to be building a kingdom, but something that is focused on the characters investing in the game world and building something up. Don't know what else you could do other than maybe have the group as pirates or something and have them build up a clan/faction/guild and their ships.
My guys love that sort of stuff no matter what alignment they play. Years ago we did an evil campaign and the blackguard and Necromancer who became a Lich built up a small bumpkin town into a trading metropolis. Did all kinds of good stuff for that little community to partly build/maintain a cover and partly revenue generation. Was funny to see a necomancer organising a sewerage system and a blackguard setting up training schools for accountants and such...
...but I am currently playing in a game with one of the players from the other group...
I'm still not sold on the Kingmaker Ruleset honestly, it feels a bit detracting from what we know as "D&D". In fairness we've only been using the rules for 2 gaming sessions, so we're still learning and whatnot, hopefully it will speed-up once we're stumbling less.
I could easily see CotCT and RotRL both being adapted into Kingmaker-style campaigns. As well as Sperpent's Skull, from what VERY little I've read about it, it screams explore uncharted territory, enslave the smurfs, rape their land of precious resources and call it your own.
I personally enjoy the smaller scale city life as opposed to the 'responsibility' of running a kingdom (so far)... Korvosa, Sandpoint and Brand(Brute's homebrew town, similar to Sandpoint). There's something to be said about feeling as if you 'know' the NPCs, even if the guy giving you quests for the last 7 levels was actually (and UNKNOWN to us) the evil mastermind behind the curtain.
•Finish KM 1... Move timeline forward.
•Start KM2: the next generation
•Play in the existing area with your new 1st level PCS who know your about past heroes.
THIS. I've done this a few times and it's actually really fun to play in a pre-explored world that may or may not be different due to the previous party of adventurer's and their exploits. I like to call it 'GENERATIONS' ala Phantasy Star 3 (sega genesis) for those who might remember the game, same concept... it's been done to death in videogames since as well, the Fable and Dragon Age series' are more recent examples.
THIS. I've done this a few times and it's actually really fun to play in a pre-explored world that may or may not be different due to the previous party of adventurer's and their exploits. I like to call it 'GENERATIONS' ala Phantasy Star 3 (sega genesis) for those who might remember the game, same concept... it's been done to death in videogames since as well, the Fable and Dragon Age series' are more recent examples.•Finish KM 1... Move timeline forward.
•Start KM2: the next generation
•Play in the existing area with your new 1st level PCS who know your about past heroes.
You made my day with the Phantasy Star 3 reference. ^_^
You made my day with the Phantasy Star 3 reference. ^_^
Happy to be of service! *waits for his cookie* :D
It was a great game for it's time, it's where my mind instantly wanders when I think of playing generations of heroes. If I remember correctly PS3 had 2 NPCs that tied the old heroes to their children aka the new heroes, one was a mutant-anime-elf chick (Rai? very long lifespan) and the other was an android.
I'm still not sold on the Kingmaker Ruleset honestly, it feels a bit detracting from what we know as "D&D".
It may depend on when you started playing. People who walked up the Red Box line are familiar with hitting Name Level at 9th, whereupon your character builds or otherwise gets his or her stronghold, with the dominion and mass combat systems in Companion Set soon approaching. For me, growing up playing to those rules, I feel the KM-esque stuff as inimical as a dungeon.
I'm still not sold on the Kingmaker Ruleset honestly, it feels a bit detracting from what we know as "D&D".It may depend on when you started playing. People who walked up the Red Box line are familiar with hitting Name Level at 9th, whereupon your character builds or otherwise gets his or her stronghold, with the dominion and mass combat systems in Companion Set soon approaching. For me, growing up playing to those rules, I feel the KM-esque stuff as inimical as a dungeon.
I've been playing since Advance 1E, became "familiar" with it as a hobby during 2E, and got back into it significantly in 3.5E. Inbetween years were filled with CarWars, Marvel Superheroes, Videogaming, etc.
I can honestly say that most characters I've run never made it past 7th level, with the rare few approaching 12-14. (All due to campaign death, not lack of interest or character death) So the whole 10th level Fighter becoming a Lord and getting a Keep stocked with Followers... yea, never happened.
I have done 'mass combat' in the D&D system and I found it extremely tedious and clunky, it really wasn't designed that way. Besides don't we have "Axis & Allies" or "Warhammer" if we want to play 'mass combat' games? I guess I'm just not a big fan of shoe-horning mechanics into a game, especially when they overwhelm and/or replace (or attempt to) the existing game. Story: A similar debate goes on in the videogame world with games released multiplayer 'co-op'(MMOs), then the developer thinks it would be grand to add player-vs-player and 99% of the time it's horrible or game-breakingly unfair for one reason or another... because the game wasn't designed for it. So why wouldn't I just go play the games designed for PvP? Same applies here... why wouldn't I just go play Warhammer if I wanted 'mass combat'?
Opinions aside, I did say we were 'still learning' the kingdom building rules, I haven't thrown them under the bus yet. :)
EDIT: I am enjoying the revitalization of mapping, it makes it feel a bit more like exploring and less like the next stage/wave of badguys. I haven't really 'had' to do mapping since 1E.
Conquistadores, maybe? Heroes are put in a ship, sent to Arcadia, and told to carve out a little corner of somewhere out of nowhere, explore this largely unexplored continent, make alliances with the natives (or enslave them) and, of course, pick up trade with the old world.
This time around, you could offer a number of options about who sent you to do this, each with a few different perks (sort of like the factions you chose from in Serpent's Skull).
Depending on for whom you are working, your exact goals, methods and so on would change (working for Cheliax would mean getting a new source for slaves; Kelesh would send you over to spread the word of the Dawnflower, while Absalom is mainly interested in sating their curiosity and boosting trade and so on).
Some sub quests would also play differently depending on faction, or wouldn't be available at all.
Since you're far, far away from your homeland, you'd be completely on your own.
I even have an idea for the first steps: You're just there as explorers working for the leader of the "expedition force". You're sent around to eplore the area around where you landed, come into contact with some natives, and when you go back to report, he reveals his own, private agenda: set himself up as king here and gather enough influence to stage a coup back home. Since the rest of the expedition (sans the party if that's how they feel, of course) isn't cool with that, he promptly burns all the ships and murders all navigators so you're stranded here for the foreseeable future (maybe he as leader knows about the next fleet coming in looking after things in a few years' time, by which he wants to be done).
The goal of the first book in the AP will ultimately be to kill the madman and either repel the attacking natives (who got wind of the whole thing and want to toss you back into the sea right now) or manage to diffuse the situation.
Beyond that, you build your new nation, secure resources, make and break alliances with the local factions, go to war with the factions, explore ancient ruins, probably awaken an even more ancient evil by accident and then try to fight that off before it eats your kingdom as a snack before going to the Inner Sea Region to make that the main course.
Would have splendid after-campaign opportunities, too: once your nation is big enough, you might come into contact with full-blown nations (as opposed to smaller tribes which were your mature point of contact before) and might have to fight those. You could realise your old leader's plan after all, using the resources you have gathered to make a bid for the throne back home (and introduce some changes). You might even gain access to their version of the Test of the Starstone...
It's interesting: the point when RPGs really took off for "us" when growing up was that 10ish level, and I think it was because we really took the whole notion of dominion management on in a whole hog sort of way.
I have done 'mass combat' in the D&D system and I found it extremely tedious and clunky, it really wasn't designed that way. Besides don't we have "Axis & Allies" or "Warhammer" if we want to play 'mass combat' games? I guess I'm just not a big fan of shoe-horning mechanics into a game, especially when they overwhelm and/or replace (or attempt to) the existing game.
I understand your critique. The counterpoint is granularity. A D&D-based mass combat system isn't trying to be Warhammer. It's never going to be first chair to the party, and never going to have the degree of detail and figitability of a more mass combat specific system. But what that doesn't mean is that it doesn't deal with mass combat to the degree it needs to deal with it.
You made my day with the Phantasy Star 3 reference. ^_^Happy to be of service! *waits for his cookie* :D
It was a great game for it's time, it's where my mind instantly wanders when I think of playing generations of heroes. If I remember correctly PS3 had 2 NPCs that tied the old heroes to their children aka the new heroes, one was a mutant-anime-elf chick (Rai? very long lifespan) and the other was an android.
That definitely deserves a cookie. Yeah, Wren and the other android-whose-name-escapes-me were consistent through the three generations. Awfully handy. :D
..Damn it, now I've got an idea for another game...
I understand your critique. The counterpoint is granularity. A D&D-based mass combat system isn't trying to be Warhammer. It's never going to be first chair to the party, and never going to have the degree of detail and figitability of a more mass combat specific system. But what that doesn't mean is that it doesn't deal with mass combat to the degree it needs to deal with it.
I agree with you. Pathfinder doesn't have to create some highly detailed state of the art mass combat system...on the contrary...they can create something that works in Pathfinder and allows for reasonable results with some classes/skills/feats/spells that can come into play and there you have it, a workable system for Pathfinder that allows the roleplaying aspect to shine.
I understand your critique. The counterpoint is granularity. A D&D-based mass combat system isn't trying to be Warhammer. It's never going to be first chair to the party, and never going to have the degree of detail and figitability of a more mass combat specific system. But what that doesn't mean is that it doesn't deal with mass combat to the degree it needs to deal with it.I agree with you. Pathfinder doesn't have to create some highly detailed state of the art mass combat system...on the contrary...they can create something that works in Pathfinder and allows for reasonable results with some classes/skills/feats/spells that can come into play and there you have it, a workable system for Pathfinder that allows the roleplaying aspect to shine.
I completely get J.S.'s point and it does succeed at adding something NEW to the pathfinder system.
However, I'm not getting how you think "roleplay shines" whatsoever during mass combat or any form of, for lack of a better term, Kingmaker-style 'strategy' gameplay. The decisions might be done because, "that's what my character would do", but it's hardly roleplay. It's a series of (usually) strategic decisions made in order to WIN (or be successful)... it's the anti-roleplay if anything.
Ex: We build a 2 farms, why? Because we need to meet our consumption. We build a graveyard, why? Because we need more economy.
If you TRY to build via roleplay (aka "that's what our characters would do"), you QUICKLY find out that you need a do-over, as our group did couple of times.
Do you roleplay the squad of dwarven barbarians advancing forward 3 hexes north to engage the enemy? I'm thinking no, you move them, they follow orders, you roll dice and hope they live. That may be 'simulationist' or whatever, but I personally don't even want to roleplay each of the 20 dwarves in a squad that your actual character may not have even met personally. That would be a tremendous amount of effort wasted on something that could be gone a minute later in mass combat, dust in the wind. :\
On the non-combat side of things: While I think roleplaying 12 miles of farmland into existence could be humorous, I think your DM might be a bit irritated as you wander the country-side having meet & greets with each farmer, their families, their farmhands, etc. 60 miles of farmland and thousands of NPCs later... LOL!
EDIT: BTW, I just want to say that I'm enjoying the conversation(s) and hopefully it's not coming off as snarky, that's not my attempt at all.