| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMHO, the problem is that PF (and D&D from 1e to 3e) is already Mythic in its default configuration. PCs get otherworldly powerful very rapidly, and the effects of deities and other worlds are commonly and readily apparent.
For games that have done the discrimination between mortal and mythic well, you might compare 2e Runequest and 2e Hero Quest. Same world, very different game feel and emphasis.
OTOH, not sure that helps us here.
I will say that I think having played through the playtest a bit now, the mythic rules largely feel like "harder to kill" or than "stuff of legend" -- although being hard to kill can make you stuff of legend I guess.
I think the rules have the potential to get mythic but it needs to get a little more outside the box, less bonuses and more cool bursts of abilities, and things which can affect not just combat but the day to day life as well.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that what makes our own myths special is that the mythic characters operate outside of the rules governing mere mortals. To reflect this, I think the best approach to mythic role playing would be to allow mythic characters to break the rules. Not just bend with bonuses or feats, but snap them in two and dance on the remains.
Instead of complicated rules sets, why not just say that a mythic character can ignore a game rule 1/day per mythic teir? A natual 1 always misses? Nope! Summon monster is a full round action? Nope! Obviously, limits would have to be set and durations established, but I think this would be a more elegant solution.
Instead of complicated rules sets, why not just say that a mythic character can ignore a game rule 1/day per mythic tier?
I can imagine the new hardback rulebook with gorgeous cover art and a grand total of one sentence of content. $19.99, $9.99 PDF.
Might not be what Paizo were hoping for :)
I see people complaining from things that are "overpowered" like the amazing initiative and then complaining about lack of epicness...
Chiming in here... I love the high level concept of the Mythic rules - "separate from levels" - but agree that the doc as it stands seems like it's "just some more bonuses" and therefore hard to distinguish from more real levels/magical loot powerz. "Adding fluff" doesn't completely mitigate that problem, it just obscures it.
I think the problem is that to be truly mythic, a more narrative approach is required, and the whole history of 3.5e/Pathfinder/Organized Play is staunchly against that and in favor of complex legalistic rulesets.
Let's look at some other games and see how they might do this. Over the Edge, or any FATE game, would simply give a character the descriptor:
"So strong he can hold up the sky." (Heracles)
"The LORD will deliver him in battle." (David)
"The man without fear." (Daredevil)
"The face that launched a thousand ships." (Helen of Troy)
Not "+10 to his strength," etc. Then you spend a hero point to do something ultra strong and badass, or autocrit a giant.
It's an entirely different approach. I'm sure we've all ready the arguments about Superman. How come everyone he punches that's a normal dude doesn't red-mist? (Or worse, I'm sure we've all read the lengthy description of "if Superman and Lois Lane had sex...") Why doesn't that happen? Mythic, durr. In the end you can say "well he pulls his punches" but that doesn't always hold water logically, the real answer is narrative.
Furthermore, it requires a different kind of storytelling, one where threats aren't just "you're getting fireballed" but include "the sky falls on your dumb ass." What CR is a sky falling trap? What level spell causes the sky to fall, sounds higher than 9th! That's the trap you get into.
OP and the need for legalistic rules continues to push us towards 4e land, where GM interpretation is a no-no, we need an objective hard-rules definition of everything that can happen to make it all "the same" and fair. But that's the opposite of mythic.
Now, it's fine to mechanize that some, and correspond levels to how boss your descriptors can be/be used, etc. But in the end I think what this ruleset is bumping up against is the desire of some sorts of players for legalistic definition and that being a poor fit for myths in general.
In my opinion I don't see anything wrong with Mythic being an "advanced" ruleset that people who are comfortable heading outside of the well-defined can use. Too many folks nowadays have never played anything but some variant of D&D and therefore have no real understanding of how fanatic balance, etc. are not necessary for a game to succeed and be eminently playable and a simple narrative scheme like the above works well for... Well, frankly, about the majority of other games out there.
Our group already does a couple things along these lines (and we're not alone, from the online discussions we've seen).
1. In some campaigns we flat graft FATE aspects/points onto Pathfinder.
2. In my campaign we're using a beefed-up Hero Point system where the points are really powerful.
Both these techniques could be trivially extended in to a Mythic ruleset that still worked with the system but wasn't restricted to "+X to thing Y!".
I think that what makes our own myths special is that the mythic characters operate outside of the rules governing mere mortals. To reflect this, I think the best approach to mythic role playing would be to allow mythic characters to break the rules. Not just bend with bonuses or feats, but snap them in two and dance on the remains.
Instead of complicated rules sets, why not just say that a mythic character can ignore a game rule 1/day per mythic teir? A natual 1 always misses? Nope! Summon monster is a full round action? Nope! Obviously, limits would have to be set and durations established, but I think this would be a more elegant solution.
Excellent idea.
Nearly all of the suggestions I have seen so far are more powerful versions of things that normal characters can already do.
The mythic rule book could contains ideas on how to handle characters who can break the rules on a whim. There could be advice on how to focus on the role playing aspect instead of being bogged down by complex rules. Plus there could be a myriad of examples taken from the myths and legends of cultures all around the world and perhaps a few original ones from the Pathfinder universe.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For how to do this right (IMHO of course) take a look at Exalted by White Wolf. It's my go to game for Epic. I don't love the system, but they nailed the feel.
For how to do this right (IMHO of course) take a look at Exalted by White Wolf. It's my go to game for Epic. I don't love the system, but they nailed the feel.
Absolutely, White Wolf are brilliant at creating interesting settings, but I find their game mechanics to be too simplistic. I liked the gurps conversion for VTM better than the original White Wolf version, it was a great mix of the best features of each game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, having read through the thread, here's my take on all this. Before I give my particular opinion, let's run through some background on what I've been taking away from the discussion thus far.
First up, I should say that I come down in disagreement with the bulk of the OP here. You folks in favor of it do have some great points to make along the way - in particular the idea that a straight numbers boost doth not a mythic game make - but I think that the playtest as laid out so far is a step in the right direction.
Second, I also don't think that it's entirely accurate to say, as some folks have, that only the GM can introduce a mythic feel to the world. Okay, yes, if the GM isn't bothering to try, then nothing is ever going to feel interesting ("Okay, so now you get another mythic tier. Pick your abilities and let's get going." ... *shudder*), please don't misunderstand me. The way the GM runs the game is always, always going to set the tone, regardless of the rules set you're using. The idea here is that the way the boosts are formatted is important, and can make the GM's job easier.
Okay, so here's the main bone I want to pick. Several of the discussions have gotten around to high level (Level 10 Fighter, for instance) vs. mythic (Level 8 + 2 Mythic Tiers), and what that means, functionally. For instance, do we represent Lancelot as a 15th level fighter, or as a 10th level fighter with 5 mythic tiers? Personally, I feel like this is a bad example. Lancelot wasn't actually a mythic character. He was a supreme badass, yes, and achieved things that have passed into legend, but he wasn't mythic in the sense that the playtest was trying to define that term as. He never "Ascended", was never "chosen", he was simply the best knight in a time and place filled with damn good knights. Thus, I think we represent him as fighter (well...cavalier, probably, but that's a different argument). Seems to me that Hercules, or Achilles, is a better choice, so I'm gonna run with that.
Hercules was mythic because of his parentage. He was a legendary force, not because of something he learned to do, but because of who he was. Achilles, by the same token, was not just an amazing warrior, he was invincible, due to circumstances that had nothing to do with his own merits. And that's where the mythic rules come in. If you set out to build Hercules, would you build him as a straight fighter? Heck no. Regardless of how skilled he might be, the fact was that he relied on his godlike abilities to help him get the job done. Similarly, Achilles was damn good, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that being invulnerable probably helped a bit with making his legend. If we have Hercules (Level 10, Mythic Tier 5) and Lancelot (Level 15) face off, they're going to be damn near evenly matched, but for wildly different reasons. Lancelot is a way better fighter than Herc, but Hercules is the child of a god, and that makes a hell of a difference.
So that's the first point that I want to make, that you don't get to be mythic by being skilled, you get there by being something different - better, even - than regular people. Lancelot is the first type, Herc is the second. The question, then, is how do we represent that with the numbers? And yes, we do need to represent that with numbers. If we try to do it any other way, then there's no reason for us to be playing Pathfinder. If all you want to do is tell each other stories about how awesome your characters are, then go play Cowboys and Indians - over here, we're trying to codify how things work within a game world, so that everyone can understand them the same way.
Within the playtest, the way they've done this (or so it seems to me) is by codifying the gains you get somewhat differently than simply gaining another level. You get some of the usual bonuses, notably hit points, but your BAB doesn't increase, your skills don't go up, you don't become a more experienced person as we have come to understand it. When you gain a new mythic tier, you're not a more skilled fighter or rogue or what-have-you, you have gained a new source of power that enhances your abilities in unheard of ways. Your reaction time goes up dramatically, or you can spot weaknesses in your opponent's fighting style that you never could before, or you find your mind expanding to encompass schools of thought you'd never been able to access. This is the source of mythic power.
What I think we need to focus on is more of this sort of thing, and I think both sides of the argument so far have made that point. Nobody wants mythic tiers to feel like gaining a new level always has, they want them to feel like otherwordly power. The question, I think, is what does that for you. They do have to make your numbers go up in some way, or it's just GM fiat - which is fine, as far as it goes, but hardly gives us the basis for needing rules, and doesn't feel nearly as fun. So we need to find a way to increase your power (numbers!) that is different from the usual way. For me, and for some others, some of the new ways that Paizo has introduced in the playtest are the right ways, and what Jason said early on gives me hope that they know which areas to focus on to make it even better. You may not agree that the methods presented so far accomplish the goal, but I hope you agree that this goal is what we're trying achieve, presuming we stick with anything resembling the current system of mythic tiers. Am I right?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK, excellent argument from VK. So what happens if we take Achilles or Hercules and try to make them PF characters? Is there anything there that can't be represented by fairly stock PF abilities?
Achilles was invulnerable in some versions, so DR 30/- except for [insert rule about how to hit his heel here]. He might have some super-rage powers. But otherwise he was probably a fairly stock fighter/barbarian.
Hercules was godly strong (50+? Titans are 45 or 49), and has exceptional Con and endurance (chasing the deer for a year) but doesn't have much else special about him.
In both cases, the mechanical mythic element is fairly limited, albeit extremely powerful. This suggests that instead of a scattering of bonuses and minor special abilities, mythic characters should have a few exceptional things that set them apart.
An interesting thought, Mudfoot, but I'm not sure it cuts the mustard. I agree that for those particular figures out of myth, that would probably be the accurate way to represent them, but that's a mite boring from a gameplay point of view. Those couple of bonuses can be neat, and when on the appropriate level (such as that 50+ strength) can certainly make a character stand out as exceptional, but as players, we love to get new toys as we go along. Take two people, hand one a big lump sum and give the other little bumps as they go along, and the second one will feel more rewarded almost every time.
Not to mention, that sort of thing is ridiculously difficult to balance appropriate encounters for. Pushing the numbers up that high without equalizing the rest of the character's stats turns it into a game of rocket tag, which is rarely fun.
I think the logical conclusion of your idea is something like the Heroic Paths a la Fantasy Flight's "Midnight" setting. The rundown of these can be found here, but the basic idea is something along the lines of a sorcerer bloodline. Every character picks something extraordinary about themselves - they're the fastest, the strongest, the toughest, the jack-of-all-trades-iest, whatever - and finds the Heroic Path that most suits them. As they level up, they get bonuses to represent their "superpower", but they're mostly set in stone along the way. It's a fun system that serves to jack up the PC's power pretty significantly without getting too out of hand.
I don't think it's quite as exciting as the Mythic rules, though, mainly because of the lack of choices. It does progress along with the PC's, instead of giving them a new progression track, which can be nice, but is also a little harder to quantify. You could offer them Heroic Path choices along every step of the way, I suppose, but often those bonuses are very small individually (so as not to throw off the level/CR track too hard), and would be pretty fiddly to bother picking things every level.
|
|
Some interesting discussion going on here, but I didn't see anybody reference what I think actually can give a mythic feel without being a standard super power attack, etc...the feats of (attribute). Herakles had Feat of Strength, not just an exceptional strength. The flamboyant swashbuckler that leaps 30' from the balcony, doing a double flip, and grabs the chandelier, throwing a dagger into the skull of the rampaging troll along the way has Feat of Dexterity. The wizard who gains the service of an ice devil by challenging him to a match of chess, giving up the queen and his rooks, but still winning even as he researches his spells has Feat of Intelligence.
I'm hoping the fluff emphasizes the possibilities of the 'Feat of' feats. They can go a long way toward making the game feel more mythic. I'm sure a number of the other abilities can do the same, provided they're flexible enough to allow a bit of thinking outside of the box.