I think this product line is purposeless.
For one, Players wouldnt by this type of book, be on Cheliax, Andoran, or anything else. If i were playing in a campaign, it would be much easier to ask the GM for something from the Ultimate Magic, than Cheliax, since the latter is setting specific. How many GMs run a Golarioncentric product, where such a specific regional product would apply?
Secondly, as a GM i find the products to be scant. I can find similarly inspiring information in the larger settings books, where there is also a lot more of fluff and crunch to peruse. Also, the 32 pages is so scant; i always felt as if i got a small glimpse of a bigger feast, leaving me very dissatisfied. It also makes the information scattered for easy use.
I would love for someone to summarize, in one sentence what all the products in this line provides the players that is unique or essential.
|
I, for one, like some of the options that they do provide. Andoran, Dwarf, and Quadira where really good for offering mechanics for their respective subjects that do set them apart from the others. Spells that are useful for that style of play, Feats that added to that race/location, and things like that.
Not all of the books do this, or not in the same amounts. Humans in my opinion, offered next to nothing that I wanted, but was filled with a lot of fluff I already have. Over all, I like the line moreso than some other lines. I honestly wish they offered more, and more evenly across the classes (like some of the Players Guides to the APs).
So I guess, in a sentence, they potentually offer ideas and options for players to better represent memebers of their respective race or region.
Ergo the issue;each book has a very limited scope/audience that it applies to. Therefore the subscription model does not work for this product line.
Ergo the issue;each book has a very limited scope/audience that it applies to. Therefore the subscription model does not work for this product line.
Oh, I think it works, but perhaps not for the desired target audience. Instead it works for GMs, who build up a library of these things both for reference and so their players can access them.
But I may be alone in that regard.
Ergo the issue;each book has a very limited scope/audience that it applies to. Therefore the subscription model does not work for this product line.Oh, I think it works, but perhaps not for the desired target audience. Instead it works for GMs, who build up a library of these things both for reference and so their players can access them.
But I may be alone in that regard.
You can count on my sword!
I enjoy the content of the line. But really there's a lot about the format that I really don't enjoy.
1: Spineless. I have hundreds of books on my shelves. Finding these was annoying to the point where I had to go out and buy some little sticky tabs to add onto them to be able to find them.
2: Cost vs content. Although I do own most of the books, I feel like I'm getting ripped off a little bit each time I buy one. 32 pages for $11 compared to say... An AP book. Which is 96 pages for $20. I dunno.
3: Content. It just doesn't always feel worth it, especially when I finish some of the books and feel let down. The races books especially. I would have loved to have gotten some more specific history on each race. I'd be more willing to buy a thicker book with some actual meat to it.
4: Separate books? After buying the 3 faith books, I have to wonder why they were printed separately. Combine all 3 of them into a single book, save your customers some shipping fees. It'd be a nice change.
5: Odd choices for the line. Some of these books (almost all of them, actually) seem like they'd fit better in the Campaign Setting line. Aside from maybe the adventurer's armory, that is.
I'm curious what other people think about these sections as well. From what it sounds like, there seems to be general agreement that rules and crunch should go in a separate section of Player's Companion books, which is largely what we try to do with the Combat, Faith, Magic, and Social sections at the back of each volume.
I suppose I'm wondering something to this effect: are these sections effective in collaborating the rules bits of these books in logical locations that are easy to find and present the information in a way that is useful to the players? What do other people think about shrinking other sections to expand others such as in the case of books that would be more combat- or magic-focused?
Continue to weigh in on other matters that interest you, of course; all the feedback is great so far!
These sections are fine. Include it where it makes sense but don't feel obligated to do it if you have to force it. I want Golarion-centric material, not rules bloat for the sake of fulfilling the "crunch" quota.
At the risk of being repetitive...
I really did not enjoy Orcs of Golarion, and that was the book in the line I had been most excited about before it was released. For a book that was ostensibly for players, it seemed more about discouraging players rather than opening up possibilities. Making a player's guide for a race and then selling them hard as Always Chaotic Evil just doesn't feel right, especially when it could have covered a range of possible cultures and put a fresh new spin on orcs like what has been done with gnomes and halflings. A Companion book focusing on races should at least have some flavor support and advice for players that want to play something other than CE. The goblins book at least had a little, but the orc book, and I'm afraid that it'll be the only orc book we ever get for Pathfinder, had nothing for people that wanted good or neutral orcs. If we get more Companions for "monster" races, please don't let them repeat the mistakes of the Orcs book. (and please let us have another orc book that opens up some wider possibilities in the future!)
Less cleaving to always-evil monoculture stereotypes for those races, and more options and possibilities. After all, not everyone wants their good X to be a Drizzt-style "lone rebel against his evil kin". Some players want a non-always-evil cultural option to pull from, and some want backstories that don't have to be rooted in tragedy.
Going back further, "toxic" player advice like what was suggested in Elves of Golarion regarding their attitudes towards half-orcs is something I hope is gone for good. That little segment just seemed like a license to grief, like the roleplaying advice for Spellscales and Kender.
I don't really mind repeated content from the other lines to a degree, as these books are meant for players.
And a big +1 for giving Aasimar their book as well, especially if they get the same treatment Tieflings got in their Council of Thieves article. The big stereotype that hurts that race's popularity was...
I don't wish to be argumentative, but I wholeheartedly disagree with this post.
I want my orcs to be evil. Exceptions can exist, but what makes them stand out is that they are the exceptions -- the anomalies. I WANT Golarion-theme on the COMMON elements of the race, culture, etc.
I DO NOT want the equivalent of an orcish Drizzt. While I am perfectly fine with expanding the racial choices available to players, I want it done so with setting consistency. The core races are the core for a reason. Your monsters-as-PCs or niche races should not be treated as common, optimal, or as accepted as the core races.
I'm all for player choice, but I'm tired of player entitlement. "What do you mean orcs are evil?", "Why am I treated badly in every settlement we travel to?", "I wouldn't have picked an orc (or substitute tiefling, goblin, etc.) if I knew I was going to be persecuted". REALLY?!?
The shiny-happy-change-the-setting-to-accommodate-my-PC-whim school of supplement design is NOT what Golarion needs.
I thought Orcs of Golarion was an excellent book, for providing players with the tools to make an orc different from a dwarf, elf, or human. Yes, there are disadvantages, but you are looking to play an orc for more than the mechanical benefits. Right?
I would love for someone to summarize, in one sentence what all the products in this line provides the players that is unique or essential.
The Pathfinder Companion line provides Golarion-specific player-oriented material to enhance their character and role-playing immersion in a format and page count that achieves its goal while balancing against the issue of players not wanting to read too much material before being able to dive into their player concept and play.
|
I don't wish to be argumentative, but I wholeheartedly disagree with this post.
One good way to avoid being argumentative is to avoid insulting those you disagree with and assigning assumed motives to them.
I want my orcs to be evil. Exceptions can exist, but what makes them stand out is that they are the exceptions -- the anomalies. I WANT Golarion-theme on the COMMON elements of the race, culture, etc.
I DO NOT want the equivalent of an orcish Drizzt.
I want to have stuff that will fit into Golarion too, the setting that was originally tauted as having room for any kind of game one might want.
And orcish Drizzt is exactly what you wind up with when a race is sold simply as hard and fast Always Chaotic Evil. That forces anyone that wants to play a non-evil orc to essentially play a Drizzt. Having some actual range beyond that stereotype, even a little, cuts down on that.
While I am perfectly fine with expanding the racial choices available to players, I want it done so with setting consistency. The core races are the core for a reason. Your monsters-as-PCs or niche races should not be treated as common, optimal, or as accepted as the core races.
Where did I ask that non-evil orcs be as common, optimal, or accepted as the core races?
I'm all for player choice, but I'm tired of player entitlement. "What do you mean orcs are evil?", "Why am I treated badly in every settlement we travel to?", "I wouldn't have picked an orc (or substitute tiefling, goblin, etc.) if I knew I was going to be persecuted". REALLY?!?
Where did I request that orcs not be treated badly or persecuted anywhere?
Is it player-entitlement to expect some token support for the most PC common alignments from a book intended for players?
The shiny-happy-change-the-setting-to-accommodate-my-PC-whim school of supplement design is NOT what Golarion needs.
Not asking to change the setting. Asking that the setting grows. Having a small minority of non-killcrazy orcs doesn't make the majority of evil killcrazy orcs you prefer disappear.
I thought Orcs of Golarion was an excellent book, for providing players with the tools to make an orc different from a dwarf, elf, or human. Yes, there are disadvantages, but you are looking to play an orc for more than the mechanical benefits. Right?
Mechanical benefits were the last thing I was looking for. What I was looking for was some expansion of the orc's flavor and flavor useful to someone that wanted to play a good/neutral orc and to develop such tribes as a GM, and help them fit into the setting better. All of which would have gone hand in hand with also showing how they still differ from humans, elves, etc.
Goblins of Golarion at least went out of its way to offer advice and possibilities to players that wanted to play something other than an evil goblin. Orcs of Golarion provided nothing of the sort.
One of the reasons I gushed over the Orcs of Golarion Paper Minis so much is that it actually did provide support for those kinds of characters. I just wish we had a text product to go with it.
And that's why I posted the above complaints in the "What are you less than loving about the Companion line" thread.
Oh, I think it works, but perhaps not for the desired target audience. Instead it works for GMs, who build up a library of these things both for reference and so their players can access them.
But I may be alone in that regard.
I don't think you are. In fact, I think you're bang-on, and you've stated the most probable situation.
|
Orcs of Golarion would have been more effective if it had drawn some of its inspiration from the old D&D Orcs of Thar. There are many more archetypes for the PC from a predominately evil race than Drizzt. It is a shame how limited a well we draw from.
Here are some alternatives:
*An amoral orc who believes that the gods, and the gods alone, are responsible for the oppression orcs face. After all, it was a god who drove the dwarves on their Quest for the Sky and thus forced the orcs from the Deep. It was a god who then banished the darkness from the sky, giving savage humanity the respite they needed to avoid permanent extinction on the surface. Now, this orc seeks always to undermine the gods to avenge himself upon them. He will work with any mortal race he just hates the devout and will not voluntarily go into a town with a temple. He thinks all the opposition orcs encounter is due to the gods and their lies.
*A racial chauvinist who is convinced that orcs are the future of Golarion and that the entire world is theirs to inherit, provided they are ultimately shown to be superior. A true Nietzschian, this orc will follow any he feels he can learn from and test himself against, showing even loyalty of a sort to those who have demonstrated themselves strong.
*An orc born with a civilized conscience to a tribe of savages, who seeks out the secret of his 'affliction'. He knows he is different and he conceals his true feelings beneath attempted levity, self-deprecation, and minimization. Despite this he cannot help but do the noble thing, the good thing, whenever it is squarely in front of him. With the support of a few humans/halfling friends he moves about in the world not expecting understanding, after all, he doesn't even understand himself, but not nursing a grudge against his people or any other. This gentle soul is out of place everywhere but kind to all nonetheless.
*A humorous orc who believes that the rest of the party serves him and doesn't notice them making fun of his delusions of grandeur. He defends the party and adventures with them because they are his and are serving his greater glory. Eventually the rest of his stupid tribe will recognize his brilliance and proclaim him king but in the meantime, he will make due with these lesser beings.
And so on. I agree with Set that more could be done to make these lines speak to players. Give us, in 32 pages, a snapshot of how to role-play and not just the details of history/culture/etc. Intersperse character sketches with motivations for atypical Golarion-only personalities and tie it to a great picture. That is what lights a player's mind on fire.
*And re-read the old D&D Gazeteer series if you need examples. They inspire my PC generation to this day.
|
|
Ergo the issue;each book has a very limited scope/audience that it applies to. Therefore the subscription model does not work for this product line.
Not sure how you got this for what I said, but no, not at all.
A.) The subscription model works just fine. I personally like the "Buy the PDF version I want" modle better for this one but Subscription works too, especially because a lot of Paizo's books tend to really work off of each other a lot, which tends to mean that with subscriptions, one gets a lot of material that works together, like the Carrion Crown AP, the Carrion Crown Players Guide, Guide to Ustalav, and Humans of Golarion. Or a better example might be The Jade Regent, Ultimate Combat, and the various books that pelt us with Oriental material.B.) The audeience is Players (and that means GM's too) of the fanbase, or in other words 100%ish of their fanbase, plus others in similar hobbies that might pick it up. The scope? The scope of the audience? The scope of the books, as I understand it is amongst the best selling product types in the RPG industry under core materials. Dispite the claim that people what like 90% fluff, and maybe a little mechanics in that other 10% <joking exageration>, my understanding is that "The Complete" books, and "Rules/Classes/Feats/Spells" books far outsell most other types.
C.) That isn't what I said at all. I said that <for Halflings as an example> Halflings of Golarion offers potentual options to players to play Halflings better than in the Core books or regardless of what all the fluff in all the other books combined usually allow for. The uniqueness is that the Players Guides offer a magnified look at specific, more commonly used material, (rather than limited which implies not very often used). Or they expand on 2 of the 3 major mechanics of all characters, and sometimes all three, while also adding options for most of the minor ones, too.
And so on. I agree with Set that more could be done to make these lines speak to players. Give us, in 32 pages, a snapshot of how to role-play and not just the details of history/culture/etc. Intersperse character sketches with motivations for atypical Golarion-only personalities and tie it to a great picture. That is what lights a player's mind on fire.
I think this is where the disconnect between some of us comes from. These are all valid ideas, but they're not what Pathfinder Companions are about, and not what I buy them for. Per the product description, the line is to provide an in-depth look on one aspect of Golarion.
What you're describing seems more like the "Complete Book of X" line from 2e days. While some players may certainly benefit from sample motivations & personalities, that's not why I buy PF Companions. I can come up with that on my own.
Using Orcs of Golarion or Goblins of Golarion as an example, I want to know what the orcish baseline culture is like. That will fuel my ideas that will point me towards a character that closely follows the cultural/racial norms or give me a clear blueprint on how I'm deviating from the norm with my PCs motives, personality, etc.
I think PS's suggestions are all valid. I just don't think they belong in the PF Companion line. Put them in a different product line, perhaps an outgrowth of the Beginner's Box -- i.e. character creation & getting-started guides.
The Companion line should remain focused on presenting Golarion-content for players. Not be a "how to role-play" guide.
My 2 coppers.
<lots of stuff>
Respectfully, you ARE asking to change the setting. Orcs in Golarion were returned to their primary role as MONSTERS. These aren't your WoW Orcs where noble savage is as likely to be encountered as a battle-crazed killing machine.
Orcs were clearly established in the monster camp in Classic Monsters Revisited, APs, Bestiary, etc. Also, product description & back jacket of the Orcs of Golarion book make it pretty clear what orcs are about -- "feel the blood spray", "brutish lifestyles", etc. Orcs of Golarion also went out of its way to explain why it focused on orcs vs. half-orcs and the challenges/rewards of playing a monstrous race.
I'm not saying there isn't room for non-traditional orcs, but those should not be the focus of a book looking in-depth at an aspect of Golarion. The Golarion norm should be the focus, as it was.
I'm sorry I didn't write my post better to show that my issue was with players & fans who ask for things like I cited. It wasn't a direct rebuttal to your specific points aside from "appeal to my niche before we address the norm" aspect of it. No offense was intended.
|
|
I think that the real problem is actually related to the topic: Orcs of Golarion should never have been "Orcs of Golarion". The book could be called "Half-orcs of Golarion" and cover them exclusively, maybe with one paragraph about playing fullblood orc characters.
Instead, we got a monster character book for a race that's assumed in-setting as CE ravaging rapist rampaging revengers. And folks like good old Mikaze with his Non-Evil Monster Appreciation Movement got their hopes up and flaring. And then these hopes got dashed when the book followed James and Erik's vision of orcs being, well, monsters.
I really want to encourage Paizo to follow the less-with-more philosophy with the Companion line: produce however many is viable given time and other constraints; but for the love of Sheylin, please add more content. 64 or 96 pages. Make it something that a player would *want*, rather than an afterthought.
"[i]Hey, my guy worships Abadar and comes from Cheliax, let's see if there's some trait in these Companions[i]" is not enough for me.
Goblins of Golarion at least went out of its way to offer advice and possibilities to players that wanted to play something other than an evil goblin. Orcs of Golarion provided nothing of the sort.
To be fair, that is probably because they learned from their mistakes in Orcs of Golarion. A lot of people were disappointed with that book. If they were ever to redo it, I'm certain they would do things a bit differently. (Edit: Of course, the thousands of copies still sitting in Paizo's warehouse means it is unlikely to get redone.)
With any luck the Advanced Races Guide will give you some orc support, since it is world-neutral and thus does not have to be as tied to one of Golarion's iconic monster races.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that the real problem is actually related to the topic: Orcs of Golarion should never have been "Orcs of Golarion". The book could be called "Half-orcs of Golarion" and cover them exclusively, maybe with one paragraph about playing fullblood orc characters.
Instead, we got a monster character book for a race that's assumed in-setting as CE ravaging rapist rampaging revengers.
This is pretty much all that needs to be said.
It's a 'players' companion, and should have information useful to players, not a 32 page essay on how one shouldn't play this particular race.
I'd love a 'good' description of a Golarion specific evil orcish race, either connected to the Land of the Black Blood, or having been tainted by Rovagug, or devoted to Orcus and crawling with necromancers, or whatever, but orcs pretty much are the same here as in previous settings. I think, as a setting book, Orcs of Golarion was a bit premature, since Orcs don't seem to be all that interesting or different in Golarion from Greyhawk or the Realms.
Goblins of Golarion at least detailed a type of goblin that was so different from the goblins of previous settings as to warrant their own primer.
|
I think this product line is purposeless.
For one, Players wouldn't buy this type of book, be it on Cheliax, Andoran, or anything else. If I were playing in a campaign, it would be much easier to ask the GM for something from the Ultimate Magic than Cheliax, since the latter is setting specific. How many GMs run a Golarioncentric product where such a specific regional product would apply?
This is one of the Golarion lines (along with APs and CS).
The success of the APs, and Golarion in general, means that lots of people are playing in the campaign setting. Some of those are playing PFS, some are playing APs, some using Modules and some homebrew campaigns set on Golarion.
It would not make any difference to me, as a GM, if a player asked for something from UM, Qadira Companion or a 3pp release: I would look at the content and make a judgement.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My biggest problem with the companion books is that it is essentially a Whole Lot of Very Little. I only bought a couple before it just seemed to be a possible book bloat...
I'll +1 the need for extra pages... Or possibly, specialize them more. Like, "Player Companion: Magic of Golarion" that would have just Golarion specific spells, feats, traits, prestige classes (ie crunch). Perhaps a small section on the how and the why magic works in Golarion. A campaign setting book might have more big flavour bits, monsters, npc archetypes/prestige classes and whatnot.
Or a book of tidbits of various roleplaying bits, like lingo, looks and behavior of a set of related of places/nations/cultures/races. For example "Player Companion: People of [some name]" could deal with say the mentioned bits in Geb, Nex, Mana Wastes and Jalmeray. And how they view others, and so on. And the book would have no crunch...
Oh well, I guess this would alienate various buyers, instead of having a bit of everything so everyone could get something out of the book.
In other words, I'd stick to hoping for more pages per book.
I'll +1 the need for extra pages... Or possibly, specialize them more. Like, "Player Companion: Magic of Golarion" that would have just Golarion specific spells, feats, traits, prestige classes (ie crunch). Perhaps a small section on the how and the why magic works in Golarion. A campaign setting book might have more big flavour bits, monsters, npc archetypes/prestige classes and whatnot.
Now here's an intriguing idea. How would you feel about a whole 32-page Companion that was all Golarion-specific arcane spells, all traits, all alchemical items? Or had a very tight theme, like "Player Companion: Bakers of Golarion" with a brief overview and general discussion before launching into varied topics, the remainder of which are largely relevant to only a single (or small number) of classes (in this example... bards. Performance baking bards.)
If not like this, how might you make a Player Companion more specialized?
Or a book of tidbits of various roleplaying bits, like lingo, looks and behavior of a set of related of places/nations/cultures/races. For example "Player Companion: People of [some name]" could deal with say the mentioned bits in Geb, Nex, Mana Wastes and Jalmeray. And how they view others, and so on. And the book would have no crunch...
Would you want a book, for example all about the people that live in Varisia, Ustalav, Lastwall, and elsewhere, or would you rather have a book specifically on Varisians, that tells all about this distinctive racial group, things unique to their culture, and then small sections on how they differ from nation to nation? I feel like the more these book attempt to diversify, the less they say. Covering a single topic at length seems like the path to a more satisfying product than trying to summerized a range of topics.
But how would you feel if you got a Player Companion on Varisians (or whatever) and it had no rules elements in it - not traits, not new equipment, not nothing? Just a pure primer with tons in-world details, background suggestions, character suggestions, etc.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think what I'd like to see, both as GM and as player, are player companions that focused on certain world facets which would both give deeper insight into Golarion as well as being exportable into other universes, both homebrewed and other published settings.
"Bakers of Golarion" is a bit silly (though one of my players would buy it immediately, because his character is a baker and is obsessing about bread when he isn't beating things with a sword) but you'd have an immediate market if you wrote something like "Markets of Golarion" or "Ships of Golarion" or even "Taverns of Golarion" or "Apothecaries of Golarion."
How many times do characters go to the marketplace? How is a Katapeshi souk different from the famous fleamarkets of Galt? What about the watermarkets of the Sodden Lands where goods are sold from ships and barges? How does this differ from the sampans marketwives of Tian Xia paddle up to sell their good?
And that transitions to ships--How is a sampan different from a clipper or a galleon and wouldn't it be nice to have stats for all of these in one place so players can know what's there when they buy a ship? How many ship-based feats and items can you think of, and moreover, wouldn't it be nice to have these divided by culture?
Taverns? Same thing. We all know the classic adventurers' tavern, but an opium den? A hookah bar? A fine salon with an absinthe fountain?
And dull as "Apothecaries" might sound on the surface, I know that a book with long lists of poisons, drugs, potions, and assorted alchemical substances would be hugely popular with my players.
The other big benefit to a book like this is the ability to sand serial numbers off as need be. If I'm running a game with Egyptian dynasties, for example, I may not have much use for the minutia of Osirian history or even culture, but I will certainly want the stats for the Osirian river barge.
|
|
I'll +1 the need for extra pages... Or possibly, specialize them more. Like, "Player Companion: Magic of Golarion" that would have just Golarion specific spells, feats, traits, prestige classes (ie crunch). Perhaps a small section on the how and the why magic works in Golarion. A campaign setting book might have more big flavour bits, monsters, npc archetypes/prestige classes and whatnot.Now here's an intriguing idea. How would you feel about a whole 32-page Companion that was all Golarion-specific arcane spells, all traits, all alchemical items? Or had a very tight theme, like "Player Companion: Bakers of Golarion" with a brief overview and general discussion before launching into varied topics, the remainder of which are largely relevant to only a single (or small number) of classes (in this example... bards. Performance baking bards.)
If not like this, how might you make a Player Companion more specialized?
Or a book of tidbits of various roleplaying bits, like lingo, looks and behavior of a set of related of places/nations/cultures/races. For example "Player Companion: People of [some name]" could deal with say the mentioned bits in Geb, Nex, Mana Wastes and Jalmeray. And how they view others, and so on. And the book would have no crunch...Would you want a book, for example all about the people that live in Varisia, Ustalav, Lastwall, and elsewhere, or would you rather have a book specifically on Varisians, that tells all about this distinctive racial group, things unique to their culture, and then small sections on how they differ from nation to nation? I feel like the more these book attempt to diversify, the less they say. Covering a single topic at length seems like the path to a more satisfying product than trying to summerized a range of topics.
But how would you feel if you got a Player Companion on Varisians (or whatever) and it had no rules elements in it - not traits, not new equipment, not nothing? Just a pure primer with tons in-world...
I would be cool with more tightly focused Companions.
But how would you feel if you got a Player Companion on Varisians (or whatever) and it had no rules elements in it - not traits, not new equipment, not nothing? Just a pure primer with tons in-world...
I would support this 100%. I personally dont pay any mind to the crunch. It just seems to be there arbitrarily... x amount of weapons, x amount of feats that I cant use in my GM's home game, x amount of traits that... well hey, I draw on these... but I digress.
I definately agree with Kevin. While at a glance this seems more GM focused, I'd say the opposite. I tend to keep my companions open when I play PbP games. They're a fantastic resource for amping ones roleplay up at a 11, and are totally impractical for a similar use on the game table, where I'd wager they'd only really be drawn on for some character ideas. How does everybody else use their Player Companions?
Varisia non-crunch all flavour, yes please!
A bakery (or just cooking) would be hillarious if one concerning fireworks (or alchemy in general) would also come out, combined with the Goblin Companion :p
I would actually most likely buy the bakery one too, simply because I am quite sure you guys would make it interesting, and if I ever wanted to have it partake in any campaigns, I'd just need that one book. Instead of looking up bakery in half a dozen companions... :)
|
|
The fact that the line between CS line and Companion line is still sometimes blurry. Faction Guide should have been a Companion book, ditto for Pathfinder Society Field Guide. Country books should have never been part of this line... unless they're done like the Dragon Empires books, a CS line book for GMs and a Companion book for players. I still despise the fact that Cheliax has a measly 32 page book, while Darkmoon Vale has 64 pages. Grumble grumble grumble.
I still think that the whole idea of forcing material into "Faith/Magic/Social/Combat" chapters needs to be done away with.
+100
Also, I proudly support all the requests for extra informations about fluffy crunch that we poor DMs need to know on the fly, such as architectural quirks, culinary habits, kind of crops cultivated and cattle herded, dress codes and so on.
BTW, that is also very player friendly information, quite useful when building up someone's character with appropriate and colorful details.
|
|
I'll +1 the need for extra pages... Or possibly, specialize them more. Like, "Player Companion: Magic of Golarion" that would have just Golarion specific spells, feats, traits, prestige classes (ie crunch). Perhaps a small section on the how and the why magic works in Golarion. A campaign setting book might have more big flavour bits, monsters, npc archetypes/prestige classes and whatnot.
Now here's an intriguing idea. How would you feel about a whole 32-page Companion that was all Golarion-specific arcane spells, all traits, all alchemical items? Or had a very tight theme, like "Player Companion: Bakers of Golarion" with a brief overview and general discussion before launching into varied topics, the remainder of which are largely relevant to only a single (or small number) of classes (in this example... bards. Performance baking bards.)
If not like this, how might you make a Player Companion more specialized?
I'm not sure how serious this question is, but honestly, Bard is specifically one of the classes I have enough extra stuff for. I'm getting pretty sick of Bards. As far as a focused book, (like the rebels and Robin Hood's of the other thread), I'm all for it, though I really think that it should focus on the elements that DO NOT typically already have an "in" in those concepts, but rather how to bring the other classes or races into it. So no Bard, Fighter, Rogue, or Ranger, and fluff and mechanics for Cleric, Monk, Paladin, and Barbarians. I don't mean that the Bard, Rogue, and Fighter should be left out completely. Just that they already have a lot of elements in the base material to fit into those settings with ease.
Or a book of tidbits of various roleplaying bits, like lingo, looks and behavior of a set of related of places/nations/cultures/races. For example "Player Companion: People of [some name]" could deal with say the mentioned bits in Geb, Nex, Mana Wastes and Jalmeray. And how they view others, and so on. And the book would have no crunch...
Would you want a book, for example all about the people that live in Varisia, Ustalav, Lastwall, and elsewhere, or would you rather have a book specifically on Varisians, that tells all about this distinctive racial group, things unique to their culture, and then small sections on how they differ from nation to nation? I feel like the more these book attempt to diversify, the less they say. Covering a single topic at length seems like the path to a more satisfying product than trying to summerized a range of topics.
But how would you feel if you got a Player Companion on Varisians (or whatever) and it had no rules elements in it - not traits, not new equipment, not nothing? Just a pure primer with tons in-world...
To be honest, I probably wouldn't be that interested. There are already a lot of other products that do this, and I buy those products for that purpose. I buy the "Players" products for the material and a little bit of "fluff" to use as a player. But, at the same time, when I make a character, I ignor a lot of the "fluff" and create my own, as that is a lot of the fun of making a character or an NPC. Unless there is a mechanical benefit to being of this order versus that guild, (which otherwise I can just make up and say that I am), there really isn't much point, from my point of view. To me, the fluff portions are the easy part, while the mechanics are the portions that make me think and give me ideas, or introduce a new concept I really want to play. If I where buying a novel, then I'd be all for it. Not much for a Players Companion, though.
|
|
But how would you feel if you got a Player Companion on Varisians (or whatever) and it had no rules elements in it - not traits, not new equipment, not nothing? Just a pure primer with tons in-world...
Would love it: right now I'm suffering rules (options) bloat.
But that's from a DM point of view - and I admit I wouldn't mind some themed equipment - and I understand that most players would like to see something more... "useful" in a product geared for them. No pun intended.|
|
. . . I admit I wouldn't mind some themed equipment - and I understand that most players would like to see something more... "useful" in a product geared for them. No pun intended.Could you explain that a little more?
Uhm... as the Companion line is aimed for players rather than DMs, I feel that's quite appropriate to have some crunchy bits in them; as a DM I'm currently swamped by feats, traits, spells, class options, archetypes, and so on, so I'd prefer close to zero crunch - and some themed alchemical items or cultural equipment would be the perfect blend of crunch/fluff, at least for me.
But again, I understand players claiming for something more. A cultural archetype maybe, or a new and somewhat exotic class option, a couple of traits, or spells, or even minor magic items.Regarding the pun, it struck me funny my own phrasing of "themed equipment in a product geared for" etc. Maybe it's just because english is not my primary language.
|
|
. . . I admit I wouldn't mind some themed equipment - and I understand that most players would like to see something more... "useful" in a product geared for them. No pun intended.Could you explain that a little more?Uhm... as the Companion line is aimed for players rather than DMs, I feel that's quite appropriate to have some crunchy bits in them; as a DM I'm currently swamped by feats, traits, spells, class options, archetypes, and so on, so I'd prefer close to zero crunch - and some themed alchemical items or cultural equipment would be the perfect blend of crunch/fluff, at least for me.
But again, I understand players claiming for something more. A cultural archetype maybe, or a new and somewhat exotic class option, a couple of traits, or spells, or even minor magic items.Regarding the pun, it struck me funny my own phrasing of "themed equipment in a product geared for" etc. Maybe it's just because english is not my primary language.
No, your pun was perfect. I was curious what idea you had for themed equipement, though. Could you give an example, just so I can see if the idea I had is similar to what you mean. I am intrigued.
|
|
For an Isger Companion for example, some items related to fighting goblinoids still roaming the land (tracking them, luring them into traps, exploiting weaknesses), or stuff for the varied bandit gangs that have formed in the aftermath of the Goblinsblood wars.
For a Druma Companion, items useful for merchant caravans (for defense, ease of travel, quick deploying/packing of merchandise). For a Nirmathas Companion, equipment related to the guerrilla style fighting that goes on there. For a Nidal Companion shadow-themed stuff, both for those who fight the Zon-Khuton horrors and for those who exploit them for their purposes.
In general, items that are mostly used in specific situations (no uber all around stuff that could show up both in Hermea, the Hold of Belkzen, Irrisen and Taldor, that is), with an accessible pricing (generally under most of the magic items) and at the same time fitting for the character of the nation described.
All sounds really cool guys, and - again - rest assured that I'm reading and taking notes. Keep the cool ideas and the want/don't want lists coming.
It might be a bit early to ask, but I'd like to see more on the demihuman races. James mentioned exploring different ethnicities for dwarves, elves etc. in another thread, and I'd love some more ideas for Elf and Gnome characters.
+1 for army and trade stuff, also. I'd love to see my PCs be, say, Lastwall veterans.
But how would you feel if you got a Player Companion on Varisians (or whatever) and it had no rules elements in it - not traits, not new equipment, not nothing?Ecstatic! However, I used to love the FR Volo's Guide series.
I'm perfectly happy with non-mechanical information in books, so long as it serves some sort of purpose. Consider this paragraph:
Mental Qualities
Humans live their lives in uncertainty and so try to construct permanence in their ever-changing lives. No matter how fatalistic or idealistic a human might declare herself, at her core is a strong survival instinct, and few can overcome the inborn need to survive and thrive. Humans are a competitive species, full of ambition, and though many declare that they wish nothing more than a comfortable life, they generally find ways to ensure they are never satisfied with their lives. Humans constantly push themselves to find new experiences, to live more fully within the confines of their lives, and occasionally to break free of those confines. When they stop challenging themselves, they begin to die a little (albeit in a more metaphoric fashion than gnomes succumbing to the Bleaching).
What is this information good for? What do I as a GM or player do with this information? It seems like it was put in because someone wanted a section on mental traits, yet this information doesn't feel like something I could apply, other than knowing that "humans like to do stuff."
Contrast it with this one:
Azlanti
Many of these modern descendants of the Azlanti, however, turn their obsessions into virtues. They are intelligent and studious, well read in classical philosophies and sciences, and extremely knowledgeable about history, producing a surprising number of powerful wizards and learned scholars. They also take a great interest in civic life, seeking to restore some of the gentility of their favored age. Surprisingly, for all this, they are strong individualists, believing that each person must make his or her own mark on the world, working for the betterment of all. Thus, they do not adopt surnames, for the accidental ties of birth should have nothing to do with an individual’s actions in life.
Ah. This I can do something with. I can portray Azlanti as scholarly, or involved in local politics. If there's a sole Azlanti in a town, they might refer to him as "the professor," even if he's not actually associated with a university. This is good.
Again, this isn't about artistic quality, merit, or any of that eye of the beholder stuff, it's about art as part of the product's content. What might make it more useful to you or engaging to your players?
Okay, I get what you're saying there, so I moved this over from the art thread. Thing is, sometimes when I'm doing something else -- perhaps in a lull at work -- I will stop, remember, and grimace, "Oh gods why did they do that." Halflings of Golarian, p. 22. Photoshopping rocks into an illustration. No. Just no. Please make sure that no one ever does that again.
I mean okay, I get that it's a little weird to hate whoever chose the horrible font for the Dodge Startus-oh-wait-it's-supposed-to-be-Stratus, but I just have very strong feelings about certain things. And I think that's okay, as long as I realize that it's just me and don't try to insist that everyone else has to feel the same way.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thing is, sometimes when I'm doing something else -- perhaps in a lull at work -- I will stop, remember, and grimace, "Oh gods why did they do that."
Don't take this as me jumping on ya, as I totally understand where you're coming from. If I didn't have the vantage I do, I'd probably wonder the exact same thing. But let me explain with a holiday themed analogy.
You're getting ready for the holidays and you're having a huge get together - all your friends, family, neighbors, co-workers, everyone's going to be there, dozens and dozens of people. You want to make it the best holiday party ever, and you've got it in your mind exactly how you want everything to be and you plan out everything just right.
You've been talking it up for weeks and weeks and tons of people have told you how much they're looking forward to it, have brought dishes and gifts to share, and finally the day of the party comes around. And things are fantastic! You've got the catering done, the house prepared just so, the bodies well hidden, and the decorating is per- wait a second... the tree isn't here yet. So you get on the line with the tree people, figure out what the deal is, and it turns out you were overlooked. BUT! There one's tree left on the lot and they're bringing it right over.
Then, as promised, the tree shows up, gorgeous, just in time... but, uh wait, what? This entire side is dead, it's all dried and brown, and there's a crow's nest in it. And guests are going to be here in 15 minu- Oh frack! They're here now!
So, you can either A) call the whole thing off, turn away your enthusiastic guests, disappointing everyone, and making you "THAT GUY" for the next year, B) throw the so-so tree out the window, leaving a stand surrounded by wrapped gifts but conspicuously missing something in the center of the room, or C) dress the tree up as pretty as you can, spin the dead side around toward the corner, and grin and bear it when someone informs you "Hey. The tree looks great, but you know they make ones that aren't half dead" - and, short of that, otherwise having a great time with all the people you invited.
It's like that in publishing ALL THE @#$% TIME.
Happy upcoming holidays everybody. I hope all your decorating comes out just right. ;)
So, you can either A) call the whole thing off, turn away your enthusiastic guests, disappointing everyone, and making you "THAT GUY" for the next year, B) throw the so-so tree out the window, leaving a stand surrounded by wrapped gifts but conspicuously missing something in the center of the room, or C) dress the tree up as pretty as you can, spin the dead side around toward the corner, and grin and bear it when someone informs you "Hey. The tree looks great, but you know they make ones that aren't half dead" - and, short of that, otherwise having a great time with all the people you invited.
It's like that in publishing ALL THE @#$% TIME.
That's... actually a really great answer. Thanks!
That's... actually a really great answer. Thanks!
LOL! Ya! No problem. :)
well, apparently they have a new formula for how these books are goiing to be put together
The Player Companions are just too slim. I've never really been happy with their size; other than in PDF format where it doesn't really matter. That said, I'd rather see a Player Companion every 3 or 4 months; but have it the same size as a Campaign Setting. Or go one step better: merge Companion and Campaign line and produce a single 96-pager every 2 or 3 months.
Other than that - I'd like to see more on regional distinction of classes. I want to see a Qadira fighter archetype and a Cheliax fighter archetype and see how they are distinct and reinforce the setting. I want regional spells, regional treasure, regional racial distinctions.
I'd like to see the connection region/type and flavor more strongly compliment each other. The Cheliax companion with its feats hit a sweet spot in that regard.
I would second this.
|
|
So far I enjoy this line. I only buy when I have money to spare though. I have to agree the slimness is a bit irritating. Mainly because I want to read more and get further ideas of how to play with the concept or concepts presented as possibilities.
I have to agree on the books being a bit dry sometimes though. It leaves me sometimes skimming paragraphs for intriguing things instead of reading it fully.
I do have to say I disagree with not reprinting any information. For me it works as I cannot always buy all the other material that ties into the one I did buy.
|
|
Douglas,
Isn't the point of traits that they reflect your background?
The reason we have a lot of traits is because there is a lot of variety on Golarion but the amount of traits an individual is eligible for is much smaller than 200.
I would like to see a trait search tool, something that let you select your species, location of origin and religious belief. Then it would show you just the relevant traits.
Edit: Just tested this in herolab... Lists 631 traits but my NG Varisian Elf Fighter who worships Andoletta can only choose from 360.
If I could narrow down by region then that would cut out a huge amount more i.e. of the first 15 on the remaining list, 12 are region specific and my Varisian character cannot take any of them, 1 requires me to have been adopted by a member of a diferent race, another requires me to have had a specific education and the last is a specific campaign trait.
Expanding that to twenty and exptrapolating leaves me with 5 traits out of 20 available... if that ratio is consistent then I am down to 90 traits to choose from.
And from those 90 traits an AP player has to choose one of a list of about 7 for his character, then they get to choose one more based upon their character's background.
If campaign traits are taken out of the equation then the list goes down to 83 traits and I can only take one trait from a specific category (combat,social, religion etc.)
So... I don't think the number of traits is a problem. The problem is the ease of use that this proliferation has created.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Douglas,
Isn't the point of traits that they reflect your background?
The reason we have a lot of traits is because there is a lot of variety on Golarion but the amount of traits an individual is eligible for is much smaller than 200.
A player should be able to create his own background, then pick traits that reflect it.
What happens in reality, is that the player comes up with a good idea, then finds that the traits that would be a perfect fit have been needlessly shackled to a specific race, ethnicity, locale, faction...There is too much duplication, because the same game effects are having to be repeated, to allow PCs from different race, ethnicity, etc to claim the same effects, when the whole thing could be avoided by having less straightjacketed flavour text.
There are certain archetypes which exist in many cultures. Those archetypes should share similar traits, regardless of being separated by thousands of miles. Is a street urchin in the Shackles really that much different than one in Katapesh? Or one who was orphaned by the guillotines of Galt? Is there a reason why that particular street urchin trait should be firewalled behind a regional prerequisite?
Does this actually improve the variety of PCs in a game? Or does it just frustrate the players, force them to make cookie-cutter characters? "Oh, you're a street urchin from Katapesh? Bet you have the 'Baksheesh'* trait, same as every other Katapeshi urchin who ever lived."
Such straightjacketing actually does the exact opposite of the stated goal, to provide players with more options.
*This may not be a real feat. This is just an example.
I would like to see a trait search tool, something that let you select your species, location of origin and religious belief. Then it would show you just the relevant traits.
While I agree with this, I also believe that if more feats/traits had more open flavour, there would be less of a bewildering list to trawl through.