As a disclaimer the following is entirely from my point of view and does not mean that you are playing the game wrong if you don't have the same issues that I do.
I wanted to start a thread to discuss the concept of simulation within Pathfinder and how simulation focused GM's deal with certain spells, items, monsters or abilities. I as a simulation focused GM from time to time encounter aspects of Pathfinder that to me ruin the simulated fantasy world as presented by a sourcebook or adventure path. These are the type of issues that I would like to discuss in this thread. If other simulation focused GM's or players have other types of issues I would love to explore those as well.
First I should probably explain what I mean by simulation focused. To me simulating an internally consistent fantasy world is how I derive the most pleasure from gaming. It is why I enjoy crafting campaign worlds, adventures, mechanics, NPCs, monsters, maps, dialogue, etc. All of these elements are a part of simulating a "believable" fantasy world. I put "believable" in quotes because obviously a fantasy world by its nature is unbelievable, but what I am referring to is given certain assumptions about the world (elves, dragons, magic, etc) that within those assumptions things should function rationally. If there are dragons then dragons should affect the campaign world in some manner dependent on their abilities. The campaign world achieves some form of equilibrium based on dragons being a part of it.
This concept is also sometimes called verisimilitude, or referred to as being rational or logical. While the setting itself is fantastic, once you get past that things operate within it in a reasonable manner given the things nature. This is not saying that every creature acts logically or optimally all the time, but that as a whole the setting acts consistently. If dragons are all super powerful monsters and really powerful sorceror's then they will hold a position in the world that is commensurate with those powers and they will use those powers as befits beings of extremely high intelligence.
The way that this point of view comes into conflict with Pathfinder at times is when something comes up that in the context Pathfinder presents it would negate the game setting itself. I will use my favorite example of the lyre of building. The lyre of building is a magical item that by its very existence would completely change the typical pseudo feudal fantasy setting that is base line for Pathfinder. Kingdoms would focus much of their economy around constructing lyre's of building and training people to use or create them as they are so much more efficient at construction than a force of normal people are. However from the perspective of a dungeon crawling group of adventurers it is a cool item that allows them to set up a nice camp for the night.
I understand that this issue is created because Pathfinder is a game trying to simulate a group of adventurers going into a dungeon (in some form or another) and that because of that focus things outside of it will create conflicts. I don't use that example as a complaint more as an illustration of what I mean by simulation and how that conflicts at times with Pathfinder. I love Pathfinder as I have been playing DnD for almost 30 years and I think it is a great system. However I mainly get enjoyment in gaming from simulating a fantasy world so when things like this come up it breaks my "immersion" as a GM.
Ultimately my question is are there other GMs or players out there that are as crazy as me? If so what are some things that you have had issues with in regards to simulation? How have you overcome these issues either with modifications to rules or ignoring rules? What setting elements do you find create or encounter the most problems? How do you handle high level magic and the conundrums it can create? Thanks for reading or commenting on this post I appreciate your time and consideration.
Don't have much experience this way, but I agree (and like) the perspective of running a coherent gameplay setting.
I think the stuff that you consider world breaking really isn't. Take for example the Eberron setting from 3.5. They tried to base a lot of the economy around stuff like that: lamps which were basicly permanancied light spells, animated golems as a race, etc. I think you need to step back and remember two things though when trying to flesh out your world:
1) The world is what you make it
2) Most people in your world are probably ignorant peons (even most nobility)... remember that you live in a day where most people have internet access. Your NPCs do not.
#2 more references the lyre of nobility issue. Kings and royal architects can't just look up the big book of rare magical items when determining how best to orchestrate their kingdoms architecture. It's very possible for such items to exist without most people putting two and two together. On the other hand, maybe one kingdom did and became wildly powerful based on their closely guarded secret of the lyre of building.
Remember, the NPCs in your setting only know what you want them to know. Technically the PCs shouldn't have an encyclopediac knowledge of magical items either, but most gms look the other way at this tiny devience in meta gaming in the hopes that they don't abuse it.
The biggest problem as a simulationist GM that I've had is with players---specifically, there's a rough initial learning period for them insofar as the assumptions of simulationist play. The big one is the feature that I will in no way scale encounters for them or tailor treasure to them. It is up to them to determine and research their own targets.
The other side of the problem is getting players to decide on INTERESTING things to do.
Insofar as high magic is concerned, I tend to treat it a lot like technology. Most magic items aren't really a huge deal though from a world-building perspective, because they have vastly lower ROI than do mundane investments. Where they really crop up is in places like desert monasteries, bases in the Artic, and the like.
EWHM wrote: The biggest problem as a simulationist GM that I've had is with players---specifically, there's a rough initial learning period for them insofar as the assumptions of simulationist play. The big one is the feature that I will in no way scale encounters for them or tailor treasure to them. It is up to them to determine and research their own targets.
The other side of the problem is getting players to decide on INTERESTING things to do.
Insofar as high magic is concerned, I tend to treat it a lot like technology. Most magic items aren't really a huge deal though from a world-building perspective, because they have vastly lower ROI than do mundane investments. Where they really crop up is in places like desert monasteries, bases in the Artic, and the like.
I don't think tailoring magic items is that big of a deal. If I have a game set in Rome, you can expect to find a magic gladius at some point.
The deal with tailoring magic items is when you get a bunch of players that refuse to use a gladius. "Sorry, my character is from the east and will only use his master's weapon, the no-daichi." Well then buddy, you are out of luck when it comes to magic swords. Play along or take the hard road.
Really though, there are WAY WAY WAY too many things in the book that just poop all over the idea of a coherent narrative, all of it having to do with characters leveling over maybe 6th level, 5th even, and the magic items they can make. I dealt with it by simply cutting out that part of the game and not playing it.
Magic items create themselves.
Characters don't advance past 6th.
There are not enough magic items in the world to have stores. All the magic items are owned by someone. Maybe a Diplomacy roll can turn up an item or two in a big city for sale. That's it.
Trayce wrote: Don't have much experience this way, but I agree (and like) the perspective of running a coherent gameplay setting.
I think the stuff that you consider world breaking really isn't. Take for example the Eberron setting from 3.5. They tried to base a lot of the economy around stuff like that: lamps which were basicly permanancied light spells, animated golems as a race, etc. I think you need to step back and remember two things though when trying to flesh out your world:
1) The world is what you make it
2) Most people in your world are probably ignorant peons (even most nobility)... remember that you live in a day where most people have internet access. Your NPCs do not.
#2 more references the lyre of nobility issue. Kings and royal architects can't just look up the big book of rare magical items when determining how best to orchestrate their kingdoms architecture. It's very possible for such items to exist without most people putting two and two together. On the other hand, maybe one kingdom did and became wildly powerful based on their closely guarded secret of the lyre of building.
Remember, the NPCs in your setting only know what you want them to know. Technically the PCs shouldn't have an encyclopediac knowledge of magical items either, but most gms look the other way at this tiny devience in meta gaming in the hopes that they don't abuse it.
Thank you for your reply!
I think Eberron is a great campaign setting and it is one of my favorites because I think the author took a somewhat simulationist approach to designing it. He looked at what DnD was, based on the powers, abilities, items and creatures and tried to make a campaign world that reflected those realities. I don't know that Eberron did a perfect job of it, but it did so much more than many other settings and it has a great framework to build off of.
Your advice is sound and it totally works for a non simulationist. For me the world has to react logically to the things that are in it for me to enjoy it. While I can try to come up with reasons no one knows about the Lyre of Building it really only takes one person to discover it before eventually it warps the campaign world. While there is no internet there is magic and information can travel quickly through the halls of power. While peasants might be ignorant of it wizards, kings and sorcerors would not be for long once the power of this item became known. It only takes someone with either a caster level of 3 or a character level of 7 to take craft wondrous item and therefore be aware of something like the Lyre of Building. It would only take one person to learn of it and exploit it before it either began to dominate the world or others would learn of it and begin emulating it because it is so powerful and relatively easy to create.
I'm not saying it would happen over night, but over years, decades and centuries the campaign world cannot avoid being shaped by the presence of this item. That's what I mean by the pseudo feudalistic base line campaign world is changed by the presence of the Lyre of Building.
Also isn't it kind of unrealistic to not have a "big book of magic items" when the world has entire schools and academies dedicated to training young spellcasters? Do the sages and learned people of these worlds not write things down? Sure not every item ever would be in every book written, but wouldn't cataloging magic and magic items be part of a rational world where magic was learn able, observable and real?
Ultimately the way I handle it is similar to your suggestion, I either remove it or make it an artifact that can't be reproduced. The rules need to simulate the reality of the campaign world I am trying to express for me to enjoy the game. I understand that not everyone has this problem and for people not of this mindset it might be hard to fully understand. I know this brings up lots of issues and it is better if "I don't go there". Unfortunately I can't help but have my mind go there and so I come here seeking other like minded individuals to see how they cope with this.
Thanks again for your reply and input!
Cranewings,
Yes, you will tend to find a lot more weapons that are magical of types that are common for the culture that made them. By tailoring, though I mean that the probability of, say, a magical halberd, being discovered is no higher than normal simply because one of your fighters specializes in that weapon.
Now if you research---where was halberd X last reported to have been seen, and go adventure in that area, you ARE more likely to get such a weapon as treasure.
EWHM wrote: Cranewings,
Yes, you will tend to find a lot more weapons that are magical of types that are common for the culture that made them. By tailoring, though I mean that the probability of, say, a magical halberd, being discovered is no higher than normal simply because one of your fighters specializes in that weapon.
Now if you research---where was halberd X last reported to have been seen, and go adventure in that area, you ARE more likely to get such a weapon as treasure.
So what's your trick?
Do you do so much prep that you know where the Halberd is ahead of time?
Do you write up a few dungeons you don't know what you are going to do with, and you place the Halberd in one of them when someone asks about it and rolls well on a Gather Info roll?
Or do you just put it in as a matter of course when you think enough time and distance has past that it is believable?
The monsters that are in pathfinder/Golarion would destroy many ecosystems if they existed. There is a thread going into this at great detail. PF economy also fails. In short if you want the game to make sense while being viewed very closely you pretty much need an entire rewrite.
Why isn't that soldier's arm broken when he tries to use a shield to block a blow from a dragon or giant?
PS:IIRC there is also a thread on many other things that kill immersion if you think about them to much.
Monsters are rare one-offs created by annoying or evil gods to poop on human civilization. They don't destroy the ecosystem because of constant intervention by Miliki.
Dragons do break bones every time they hit. Any "hit" that leaves a fighter with hit points remaining is actually a miss. (make lots of other changes to health and healing)
Economy = don't think about it much.
cranewings wrote: Monsters are rare one-offs created by annoying or evil gods to poop on human civilization. They don't destroy the ecosystem because of constant intervention by Miliki.
Dragons do break bones every time they hit. Any "hit" that leaves a fighter with hit points remaining is actually a miss. (make lots of other changes to health and healing)
Economy = don't think about it much.
Your post is a good way to handle it. Fluff all the illogical parts away, and just enjoy the game.
As an example maybe there are only 1 or 2 bulettes in the entire world.
cranewings wrote: EWHM wrote: Cranewings,
Yes, you will tend to find a lot more weapons that are magical of types that are common for the culture that made them. By tailoring, though I mean that the probability of, say, a magical halberd, being discovered is no higher than normal simply because one of your fighters specializes in that weapon.
Now if you research---where was halberd X last reported to have been seen, and go adventure in that area, you ARE more likely to get such a weapon as treasure.
So what's your trick?
Do you do so much prep that you know where the Halberd is ahead of time?
Do you write up a few dungeons you don't know what you are going to do with, and you place the Halberd in one of them when someone asks about it and rolls well on a Gather Info roll?
Or do you just put it in as a matter of course when you think enough time and distance has past that it is believable? What I do is estimate how rare such a halberd might be (let's say it's a +2 halberd or what have you that the PC is looking for). I use that to set the difficulty of the research or gather information.
If you're following a solid lead on an item or items, if a random weapon is rolled, a fair fraction of the time, it'll be a halberd. Here's an example of how it works in progress, names changed to protect the guilty.
Barjin the fighter tells his comrades---I really need a magical halberd, we haven't found any such and I lack a good weapon for some of the targets we've been contemplating raiding.
Nick the rogue says---let me use my contacts to see what options are out there---halberds aren't really common in this nation.
<cue research>---but they WERE common back before the Great Apocalypse in THAT nation. Bet if we explored some of the older delves a month's journey to the north we might find one. The threats in that area that we know about are <X, Y, Z, rare W, very rare V>.
<Party weighs the risk and reward as best they can>
<Party tells GM---ie me---yeah, we want to go there next time>
<GM uses time between sessions to build a few delves, with the weapon distribution loaded moreso towards halberds>
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Good stuff.
So here is a practical simulation problem. How do you convey the level of a threat while avoiding metagaming? Something that gets PCs killed in PF Sandbox is not being able to tell how high level an NPC is.
In the real world, a US Navy Seal has at least a fair crack at being able to kill any human being on earth. They aren't going to come at a terrorist and have a WTF moment when he turns out to be 5 levels higher. Unfortunately, this happens easily in PF. You can confront a rogue about his treasure and find out, maybe he is 2nd level, maybe he is 10th level? You don't know. It is whatever the GM picked.
I solve that problem by allowing a Gather Information roll to find out what the baddest dude or monster was killed by the person. I also allow a contest BAB + Wisdom or Sense Motive roll vs. Bluff to determine an NPCs level. This is penalized if the majority of a character's power comes from magic, and given a bonus if initiative has been rolled. In real life, I can usually tell how good someone is at fighting as soon as they put their hands up, and am REALLY GOOD at picking winners in UFC fights. I don't think determining CR with a roll is unrealistic.
This problem is worse when you talk about dungeons though. What the hell is the CR of the stuff in a dungeon? How can the party tell by just looking.
Of course they can do a Gather Information roll to see if they can discover what lived there or who died there, but what about when there isn't any information? How does the party know? Do you really want them to know? If they know they will steadily level up over time, you risk them always picking easy stuff to do. So you can arbitrarily put hard or easy CR monsters and traps in a dungeon, but if the party went through the trouble to investigate it and you do this all the time, it is kind of a prickish move.
You could just stagger them out - farther from civilization or deeper in the ground = higher CR, but that is so predictable.
Any insight?
off-topic:Did you pick Chael or Silva?
wraithstrike wrote: off-topic:Did you pick Chael or Silva?
Eh, I didn't see it. I only ever get to see UFC when I get a group to go out for wings or something. I'm not very familiar with Chael. My powers of picking fights only count when I get there and actually see the two guys in the ring together.
Silva does have a special place in my heart. His "Striking" book is the only martial arts tutorial book I've ever read that I thought was helpful. I've gotten a ton of drills out of it. The guy's writing / photographs are genius. Seriously.
Typical Martial Arts Instruction Book, Text Accompanying Pictures: "Here I block his hand, then I punch him in the chest. Then I kick him in the chest. Then I kick him in the head."
Silva: "Here we are in a ready posture, each looking for an opportunity to strike. When the punch comes, I tap it down while stepping to the outside. Note the position of my foot. This will allow the cross to be immediately followed by the elbow up. Notice the cover as I step back and assess the damage." Or so. You get the idea.
Cranewings,
People know at least indirectly about levels---if only levels of spell casting. People also use benchmarks---like he's a match for a giant, or an ogre, or the like. The better you are at information gathering, the closer to reality your estimates are going to be.
For instance, keeping with the delve example with the halberd:
Ok, so what do we think is likely in this delve?
We believe it is populated presently by a pair of fire giants with hell-hounds and other servitors. It was once an outpost of <Empire X> who was fond of magical constructs, so we might have opposition of that sort also.
PCs weigh the estimation of whether they can take this and decide whether to go.
Traps tend to be of similar CR to whatever sorts of monsters dwell there.
Also, if your party is doing due diligence---ie working a decent intelligence network, you'll usually have a fair number of options as to what to go after available to you. I don't have any issue at all with going after much weaker or much stronger targets than you can handle, and running away or ransom is usually a possibility.
Human NPCs are looked on with the most wariness by my players generally, because there is so much variance. I do allow the attempt to 'take their measure' as you describe---high level people can usually recognize their equivalents and sometimes their superiors.
Insofar as areas (non-dungeon), research and information gathering will tell you what sorts of foes are common in the area (the rares and very rares require better information gathering).
EWHM, so with novice players, do you let them look at the beastiary or tell them the creature's CRs when they find out about them?
The concept of, "Giant" may mean really different things to different players. I've had n00bs that would rush head long into dragon caves but were initially really scared of Trolls for some reason.
With genuinely novice players, I tell them to ask me this question frequently:
What does <my character> know about X?
Also, in such cases I'll frequently give them a 'folk bestiary' populated with the sorts of foes that are seen in the area where they're from (pretty much every 1st level adventurer will have done service in their early teens in the local militia, this represents what said militia knows about what they've fought).
This folk bestiary will give you a rough idea how many militiamen-equivalent a foe is---usually phrased in the form---don't try taking on one of these without at least X soldiers, and only if you're willing to accept massive casualties.
Trolls really are scary though---you know why?
Because they're on the KoS (kill on sight) list for most intelligent creatures. A dragon if you get in over your head, you might be able to surrender and get ransomed. Not so with a troll usually. They're one of nature's most highly optimized eating machines.
cranewings wrote: wraithstrike wrote: off-topic:Did you pick Chael or Silva?
Eh, I didn't see it. I only ever get to see UFC when I get a group to go out for wings or something. I'm not very familiar with Chael. My powers of picking fights only count when I get there and actually see the two guys in the ring together.
Silva does have a special place in my heart. His "Striking" book is the only martial arts tutorial book I've ever read that I thought was helpful. I've gotten a ton of drills out of it. The guy's writing / photographs are genius. Seriously.
Typical Martial Arts Instruction Book, Text Accompanying Pictures: "Here I block his hand, then I punch him in the chest. Then I kick him in the chest. Then I kick him in the head."
Silva: "Here we are in a ready posture, each looking for an opportunity to strike. When the punch comes, I tap it down while stepping to the outside. Note the position of my foot. This will allow the cross to be immediately followed by the elbow up. Notice the cover as I step back and assess the damage." Or so. You get the idea. last off-topic post: I am not even a martial artist, and I have noticed the way he strikes. He hits people precisely where he wants to hit them. It is simply amazing.
Also, one thing any PC with any sense does is attempts to share or gain information from groups that regularly conduct operations against monsters and the like. Want to know more about trolls? Talk to militia sergeants and captains in an area where they're regularly part of the opposing force.
cranewings wrote: EWHM, so with novice players, do you let them look at the beastiary or tell them the creature's CRs when they find out about them?
The concept of, "Giant" may mean really different things to different players. I've had n00bs that would rush head long into dragon caves but were initially really scared of Trolls for some reason.
Isn't that what Knowledge rolls are for?
I mean, it doesn't specifically say CR, but it does seem like that's the kind of thing you should be able to get from it. I wouldn't give out actual CR numbers, but probably power levels relative to the PCs. After all it would seem a little odd if you could learn that a particular monster was vulnerable to cold iron weapons but not whether it was a threat to entire kingdoms or only to small children.
Thejeff,
I only tend to fall back on knowledge rolls when its something that is beyond your direct or explicitly shared experience. How tough is X is the sort of question you'd ask a militia sergeant. For instance:
How tough are those trolls you fought?
It took <fill in the blank here> direct hits with crossbow bolts to bring him down! I'd not go up against them with less than two full squads (20 men in this area), and I'd expect to lose at least a handful.
This sort of information tends to be ordinal and somewhat imprecise, but it's adequate usually for a threat metric.
wraithstrike wrote: cranewings wrote: wraithstrike wrote: off-topic:Did you pick Chael or Silva?
Eh, I didn't see it. I only ever get to see UFC when I get a group to go out for wings or something. I'm not very familiar with Chael. My powers of picking fights only count when I get there and actually see the two guys in the ring together.
Silva does have a special place in my heart. His "Striking" book is the only martial arts tutorial book I've ever read that I thought was helpful. I've gotten a ton of drills out of it. The guy's writing / photographs are genius. Seriously.
Typical Martial Arts Instruction Book, Text Accompanying Pictures: "Here I block his hand, then I punch him in the chest. Then I kick him in the chest. Then I kick him in the head."
Silva: "Here we are in a ready posture, each looking for an opportunity to strike. When the punch comes, I tap it down while stepping to the outside. Note the position of my foot. This will allow the cross to be immediately followed by the elbow up. Notice the cover as I step back and assess the damage." Or so. You get the idea. last off-topic post: I am not even a martial artist, and I have noticed the way he strikes. He hits people precisely where he wants to hit them. It is simply amazing. It is a big advantage for sure.
You know, I think there are five main attributes (to put it in gaming terms) that relate how skilled a fighter will seem (how much they will win): Technical Ability, Strength, Endurance, Courage, Resistance to Pain and Injury.
Like Sun Tzu picking battles by knowing how many advantages one side had over the other, I think you can do the same with fighters. All of them have Courage: that's why they want to fight. Most have strength and endurance, because it is easy for a trainer to help you develop those things. Resistance can improve as you grow, but how strong your jaw is, is something you are largely born with and a lot of people don't have.
Most martial artists (not MMA people) have Technical Ability and Endurance, but very often nothing else, which is why they fail. People with courage go straight for the fighting gym and get Strength and Endurance, and if they had some Resistance, to start, it gets better.
People like Silva and GSP are amazing because they are just about the only guys out there that actually have all five attributes. People think martial arts don't work because martial artists aren't usually the sorts of people who actually have the will to hurt someone. I LOVE seeing those guys use a ball of the foot kick or some technical judo throw and showing everyone how it is done.
Unfortunately, technique takes a lot of patients and the reward / training ratio isn't as fast as you get from strength training.
EWHM wrote: Thejeff,
I only tend to fall back on knowledge rolls when its something that is beyond your direct or explicitly shared experience. How tough is X is the sort of question you'd ask a militia sergeant. For instance:
How tough are those trolls you fought?
It took <fill in the blank here> direct hits with crossbow bolts to bring him down! I'd not go up against them with less than two full squads (20 men in this area), and I'd expect to lose at least a handful.
This sort of information tends to be ordinal and somewhat imprecise, but it's adequate usually for a threat metric.
I generally assume that much of the Knowledge skill comes from such discussions, just not all played out. Adventurers probably spend a lot of down time swapping old war stories, but I'm not going to play out several hours of conversation around every campfire and in every tavern.
Would you allow a roll if you're not in a situation where you can ask someone? Either because you've come across something unexpected in the field or, like in the fire giant example, you might be researching some thing far enough away that the locals haven't run into it.
Depends what you ask. Is the question essentially---Is this foe beyond all of us?
If so, I'll ask myself this question:
Is this a foe that has been probably discussed by the party with people in taverns, militias, etc?
If the answer is yes (i.e., this is a foe that isn't really uncommon in the areas you've travelled or adventured in), I'll give you a straight answer. Usually of the form Yes (way out of your league) or No (within your league)
If the answer is no, that's when you roll.
If the question is: how do I fight this creature?, and the answer isn't one that is well known in at least one of the areas you've researched because fighting that kind of creature is fairly commonplace, that's when you roll.
I don't use the knowledge skills anywhere near as much as most folks on these forums. I also don't normally roleplay the swapping of old war stories in any detail but simply assume it takes place if the party is doing due diligence.
Sensible PCs will generally refresh their intelligence with local sources once they get nearer their target if they're not familiar with the particular opposition---people who live nearer them are likely to know more.
EWHM wrote:
Sensible PCs will generally refresh their intelligence with local sources once they get nearer their target if they're not familiar with the particular opposition---people who live nearer them are likely to know more.
All seems reasonable. I'm not quite comfortable with the emphasis some here place on Knowledge skills. Far too often what ever knowledge you gain is either useless or should be obvious. "They're fire giants, don't use fire against them!"
Sometimes it's nice to know something before you travel. Fire giants are CR 10, if you're 3rd level, you might want to postpone the trip for awhile.
An example of folk bestiary: Here's what would be known about orcs, for instance by your local militias of various qualities.
Poor quality militia: An orc is more than a match for a militiaman in melee. They usually carry two-handed weapons and short ranged thrown weapons.
Average Quality militia: Orcs are best dealt with from range. They're like boars, they keep on coming for a while even once they OUGHT to be dead. They do slow down a fair bit after you put a cloth-yard shaft in them though.
Good quality militia: Orcs are best fought with skirmishers and long range troops. If you've got to stop them for whatever reason, use long spears and set for their inevitable charge. But the best thing to do is wither them with a storm of arrows and be ready to fall back while they bleed to death. Ideally you want troops that can fall back and disengage without suffering disrupted morale. If your troops are such that lineholding is a morale necessity, try to dig in and deny clean charge lanes and form double or triple ranks with long spears.
Recent threads in General Discussion
|
