|
My point is that the extent to which encounters or parts of adventures can be bypassed was pretty much established in full by the core books, and everything released after is largely just filling in the gaps. It's certainly possible to make new rules options that are just way more powerful than the existing ones, but so far it hasn't been much of a problem, even with "bloat"-heavy systems like 3.5.
I'm not entirely sure you are right, though I certainly hope you are.
Let me pose another example to you - the spell "Spider Climb, Communal". This was introduced in Ultimate Combat and results, as far as I can tell (though I'm sure you'll correct me), in the new ability to send quite a sizeable force swarming over castle walls with a 3rd level spell (I don't know what the numerical limit is on "creatures touched" when it comes to spells like this). That's pretty world-changing as far as I can see.
Richard
My point is that the extent to which encounters or parts of adventures can be bypassed was pretty much established in full by the core books, and everything released after is largely just filling in the gaps. It's certainly possible to make new rules options that are just way more powerful than the existing ones, but so far it hasn't been much of a problem, even with "bloat"-heavy systems like 3.5.I'm not entirely sure you are right, though I certainly hope you are.
Let me pose another example to you - the spell "Spider Climb, Communal". This was introduced in Ultimate Combat and results, as far as I can tell (though I'm sure you'll correct me), in the new ability to send quite a sizeable force swarming over castle walls with a 3rd level spell (I don't know what the numerical limit is on "creatures touched" when it comes to spells like this). That's pretty world-changing as far as I can see.
Richard
The limit is set by your caster level - the spell's duration is divided amongst its targets. Since duration is determined by caster level, and the minimum you can assign to a single target is 10 minutes, it essentially becomes a 1 target/caster level spell. At 5th level (when you can cast this spell) you're really only able to give your own party the ability to climb the walls. A wand of Spider Climb (a really, really useful, core-only item) would give you a much scarier siege force.
|
|
Sure - maybe the difference is more marginal than I'm imagining.
In a funny sort of way I'm testing my own theory out in the campaign that I'm playing in - Council of Thieves - because it was written a long time ago and I'm playing a "utility" wizard (i.e. all my money goes on spells so that I might have the right spell for the right occasion, particularly via bonded object).
I'd missed Spider Climb, Communal, funnily enough, but it's certainly going in my spell book now.
Richard
Sure - maybe the difference is more marginal than I'm imagining.Maybe, maybe not. I'd say the terrible remorse spell is a huge game changer. In the hands of a spontaneous caster, that one spell can turn many mid-level encounters that used to be challenging into total push-overs.
Are you familiar with the errata to Terrible Remorse? Or its FAQ ruling? It is not the game-changer that you think it is.
Me? I want even more new options.
|
|
Well, let me ask this.
The more options you have, the more players can specialise their characters.
The flip side of this is that, as you lose genericity, the more likely it is that you're going to hit situations that you simply cannot handle. Situations which you *could* handle had you chosen your options differently.
Is it the GM's job (as I believe it seems to be saying in the Gamemastery Guide) to ensure that players are not presented with this sort of problem?
Or is it the player's job to ensure that their party covers, as much as possible, all the bases reasonable for their level of power?
Richard
But you can do that just using core book characters, if the players don't try to create a well-rounded party.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Very much looking forward to when Erik has more time!
Keep on looking.
It is my observation that at Paizo, workload is created to completely fill up any available time, and often marginally more that that which is available.
It is this principle that allows the FAQ system to be understaffed for most of any given calendar year and yet adventure path books are (usually) on time. If it isn't a new miniature line it'll be a new card game. If it's not a new card game it'll be a boxed starter set. If it's not a boxed starter set, it'll be... whatever. Paizo never stops.
Really interesting thread. It's awesome to see so many Paizo staff here.
I love character options, and always wants more of them. I can understand the problems Richard sees, but for me each new character option are more possible characters I (or my players) can make.
How many time have passed since Ultimate Combat? Since that book, with the possible exception of Race Guide, there have not been hardcovers dedicated to rules about character options, and no more classes. The next 2 hard-covers (UCampaign and Mythic) will not increase character's options on a normal way.
But I also don't like character options on setting books, specially on soft-covers ones, for a different reason. There are MANY softcover books, each one with just a few feats/ traits/spells/archetypes. That makes tracking them really difficult sometimes. I will much prefer the Setting Line be nearly free of rules options, and a few book covering the options for the setting. That's why I really liked books like Inner Sea Bestiary or Paths of Prestige; that makes more easy tracking all are those things you know are there, but can't remember where. Trait specially are a true hell to find "that one I'm searching".
And seems time for next year to a hardcover with MOAR character options, specially for a duelist / swashbuckler class. ^^
Well, let me ask this.
The more options you have, the more players can specialise their characters.
The flip side of this is that, as you lose genericity, the more likely it is that you're going to hit situations that you simply cannot handle. Situations which you *could* handle had you chosen your options differently.
Is it the GM's job (as I believe it seems to be saying in the Gamemastery Guide) to ensure that players are not presented with this sort of problem?
Or is it the player's job to ensure that their party covers, as much as possible, all the bases reasonable for their level of power?
Richard
That's something that should be established ahead of time. For example, I typically run published adventure paths. I don't really alter their content to any significant degree (beyond conversion between editions), so my players know that they need to be capable of handling anything that a typical adventure path might expect of them.
That said, it is a rare, rare case where an adventure requires a specific solution to a given problem. The game is far more interesting when it poses challenges that the party can then use to showcase their own unique sets of strengths and weaknesses, but without creating a situation where the game cannot move forward.
Well, let me ask this.
The more options you have, the more players can specialise their characters.
The flip side of this is that, as you lose genericity, the more likely it is that you're going to hit situations that you simply cannot handle. Situations which you *could* handle had you chosen your options differently.
Is it the GM's job (as I believe it seems to be saying in the Gamemastery Guide) to ensure that players are not presented with this sort of problem?
Or is it the player's job to ensure that their party covers, as much as possible, all the bases reasonable for their level of power?
Richard
That's something that should be established ahead of time. For example, I typically run published adventure paths. I don't really alter their content to any significant degree (beyond conversion between editions), so my players know that they need to be capable of handling anything that a typical adventure path might expect of them.
That said, it is a rare, rare case where an adventure requires a specific solution to a given problem. The game is far more interesting when it poses challenges that the party can then use to showcase their own unique sets of strengths and weaknesses, but without creating a situation where the game cannot move forward.
On a completely tangential note... are you still converting everything to 4th edition, or are you now running Pathfinder?
|
|
My players tend to specialise in "offense". Nothing to do with rule-bloat as it happens, but it showed me quite clearly what can happen with specialisation when a party of 8th level characters complained about having to fight from a row-boat!
I mean, it's not fair is it! Having to get on a row-boat, when you're only 8th level! :-)
But anyway, my concerns as always are for the plight of the GM.
It times gone by module writers used to put up little guidelines like "party must include a cleric", and that was in 1st ed days when options were massively fewer. It doesn't really happen now, possibly because it's not necessary or maybe because it's just too complicated. I certainly don't think it's fair to expect a GM to evaluate a partty's abilities to see if they're suitable for any given adventure - unless it's reasonably obvious. That would be too difficult.
It may well be, as Scott is arguing, that there is no real risk of new rules breaking old modules. If that is the case, then I can only imagine that the folks at Paizo are thinking along these lines when they publish new rules, and long may it continue.
The alternative, which is something I'm tempted as a GM to do, for safety's sake, is to only allow extra rules to be used for an adventure if they were in print at the time that the adventure was published.
Richard
I am quite familiar with the errata to terrible remorse and its FAQ, and having played in a campaign where those rulings are in effect, I can say with certainty that terrible remorse is still a game changer. (The same is true of fickle winds.)
Conventional wisdom used to say that a successful saving throw is always better than a failed saving throw. Now, thanks to the terrible remorse FAQ, that's no longer true. Assuming you have access to a wand of cure light wounds after the fight, dealing 1d8 damage to yourself each round as a non-action but otherwise acting normally (the results of a failed save per the FAQ) is almost always more desirable than losing an entire turn and taking an AC penalty for 1 round (the results of a successful save). That turns the entire concept of a saving throw on its head.
Terrible Remorse doesn't cause you to lose an entire turn. It staggers you for one round, which just means you only get one action for a turn, rather than the full set. In other words, if you successfully save, you lose a move action and take a hit to AC for a round, and the spell ends. If you fail the saving throw, you continue to take damage.
That's why I asked whether you were familiar with both the errata and the FAQ (as I suspected, it looks like you aren't familiar with the errata, and that's where the perception that the spell is a game-changer is coming from). It sure as hell doesn't make anyone significantly more powerful than they were before the spell was released.
On a completely tangential note... are you still converting everything to 4th edition, or are you now running Pathfinder?
Still 4e, currently working on Legacy of Fire and Jade Regent.
And something else.
It may well be, as Scott is arguing, that there is no real risk of new rules breaking old modules.
The risk exists, but I think that history has demonstrated that it is a manageable risk, and that risk certainly shouldn't outweigh the desires of a huge segment of Paizo's customers for more rules options.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hope so because that small segment of Paizo's customers, the GMs, whose purchasing power is less than 20% of the player segment, is still vital for the game to happen (unless all the player segment is interested in doing is rolling up characters without playing them).
Richard
I hope so because that small segment of Paizo's customers, the GMs, whose purchasing power is less than 20% of the player segment, is still vital for the game to happen (unless all the player segment is interested in doing is rolling up characters without playing them).
Richard
Speaking as a DM, the products that excite me most are player supplements. I'm sure that's not universal - it might not even be widespread - but there are definitely DMs who find player-centric content exciting, simply because it means they get to see what their players do with it. It can also provide inspiration for NPCs, but for me that's of secondary importance.
I don't think that the GM population is in any danger of abandoning Paizo due to a perception that not enough setting material is being produced. As we've noted, they're churning out more setting material than just about any other company right now. Even if the GMs did decide to jump ship (and they won't, because Paizo is meeting or exceeding their needs), they'd have no better option to turn to.
I hope so because that small segment of Paizo's customers, the GMs, whose purchasing power is less than 20% of the player segment, is still vital for the game to happen (unless all the player segment is interested in doing is rolling up characters without playing them).
Richard
Speaking as a DM, the products that excite me most are player supplements. I'm sure that's not universal - it might not even be widespread - but there are definitely DMs who find player-centric content exciting, simply because it means they get to see what their players do with it. It can also provide inspiration for NPCs, but for me that's of secondary importance.
I agree with Scott here. Though I think that fact that I can use those options to build interesting and/or Challening NPCs the my players to encounter is of equal importance to what the players do with them.
Also...I am wondering about something. Your problem stems from a players using a options to bypass a challenge in a module. Who cares? If that is the 'worst' thing that happens during a game session you should consider yourself lucky. I have also seen this happen more often to dice rolls or PCs thinking outside of the box. In the end it is just going to happen...just congratulate the players and move on to the next encounter would be my advice.
That's why I asked whether you were familiar with both the errata and the FAQ (as I suspected, it looks like you aren't familiar with the errata, and that's where the perception that the spell is a game-changer is coming from). It sure as hell doesn't make anyone significantly more powerful than they were before the spell was released.
Well, unless you count the large period of time before the spell was errataed, y'know.
And Fickle Winds in its current version completely shuts down archers, so I think it is kind of a game-changing spell.
|
|
Also...I am wondering about something. Your problem stems from a players using a options to bypass a challenge in a module. Who cares? If that is the 'worst' thing that happens during a game session you should consider yourself lucky. I have also seen this happen more often to dice rolls or PCs thinking outside of the box. In the end it is just going to happen...just congratulate the players and move on to the next encounter would be my advice.
Bypassing a challenge by thinking outside the box is laudable.
Bypassing because of die rolls is fortunate.
Bypassing it because it no longer makes sense in the light of new rules is embarrassing.
What's there to congratulate?
And I *do* care because that sort of thing can ruin everyone's enjoyment - players and GM.
I dare say it's not the 'worst' thing that can happen though your statement about considering myself lucky has intrigued me. What worse problems do you encounter during your sessions?
Richard
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think that the GM population is in any danger of abandoning Paizo due to a perception that not enough setting material is being produced. As we've noted, they're churning out more setting material than just about any other company right now. Even if the GMs did decide to jump ship (and they won't, because Paizo is meeting or exceeding their needs), they'd have no better option to turn to.
Well, you're speaking as *every* GM now, and I don't think you know any more than I.
I think the biggest danger to this game will come through a GM shortage crisis. I, personally, reached the decision after the last 6 years of solid GMing that GMing was half-work-half-fun and playing was all-fun, so I announced to my group that I was no longer prepared to do it all and we now have a round-robin system which more and more players are joining in with. In my opinion, this was the best decision I ever made, because now we share the responsibility for rules policing, interpretation, judgement, and for everyone having a good time around the table, as well as sharing the work. I believe that in time this will happen more and more. I honestly think that's the future of the game.
Of course I know there are plenty of people out there right now who will be prepared to GM full time forever, though not always for the right reasons, I have to say. However I think that there will be a gradual movement towards GM sharing which might even eventually reach the stage where if you're not prepared to take your turn as GM you will find it difficult finding a group that's prepared to carry you along as a player.
Just my opinion, though!
Richard
Well, you're speaking as *every* GM now, and I don't think you know any more than I.
To put it simply, D&D (in its various forms) has now existed for nearly half a century, especially if you count the proto-D&D rules of the 60's. In that time, no company has produced setting material at a consistent rate higher than Paizo has (save, perhaps, a few unsustainable years of TSR's run). Given that, what cause do you have to believe that now, suddenly, when more setting material is being produced for the game than ever before, we will start seeing a GM shortage? There would have to be a clear factor motivating scores of GMs to give it up - a factor not present for the last 40 years.
So what is it?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's pointless asking me why I might expect a trend to change when neither of us have any idea what that trend has been.
The only survey-based fact that I have ever heard, and I can't remember where it was, was that most gaming groups only last 6 months or so.
Even then, I might be wrong, however if you know of any statistical analysis along these lines that we can all look at then please point in the right direction.
The reason that I am concerned about GM shortage is because I think over the last 10+ years or so GMing enjoyment has been sacrificed for the sake of player enjoyment.
I've been GMing since 1979, and I certainly feel that way from my own experience. I love all of Paizo's material, but I love it much more as a player than as a GM. I've changed from someone who used to be happy to GM constantly to someone who would rather play than GM, though I'm happy do my fair share of GMing both for the sake of the group and because I enjoy it as long as I'm not doing it all the time.
This is entirely on the basis of my own personal experience, which is all I am qualified to comment on, nothing to do with underlying logical factors or world-spanning charts or examples. If my experience is typical, then I *feel* that there is a danger that good GMs will start to become harder and harder to come by.
And if I'm in any way right, then I think that gaming companies, like Paizo, need to try to look ahead 5 or 10 years to see if there is a trend. And if there is, and there may well not be, and I might be completely wrong, but *if* there is, then I think that the game needs to start repositioning itself a little bit towards a more gestalt approach to players and GM, where GMs are seen more as the "keepers of secrets" for a given module rather than anything with any more power or accountability, and where it is expected that the role of GM will rotate between the members of the group.
Richard
It's pointless asking me why I might expect a trend to change when neither of us have any idea what that trend has been.
I think it's pretty clear that there have been enough GMs in the hobby for the last 40 years to sustain the hobby. You're talking about a change from that, so what's behind the change? What is suddenly different, that would result in GMs giving up the hobby en masse?
The reason that I am concerned about GM shortage is because I think over the last 10+ years or so GMing enjoyment has been sacrificed for the sake of player enjoyment.
I think that's probably for the best.
Yeah, I don't know if I'd suscribe to that point of view, that GM enjoyment has been sacrificed. Assuredly players have gotten more control over their characters, but the depths to which AD&D gave leeway to GM's to completely control how good a player character was allowed to be was way, way too much in my opinion. 3.x and PF have struck a good balance overall, even if certain aspects could need some more refinement ( i.e. magic item crafting, by giving players more customization power but taking away the financial incentive ).
GM enjoyment IS different now then when I began in 1982. Those rule sets ascribed nearly ultimate power to the GM. I won't go any further unless someone needs more, but anyone who has played those rules knows what I mean.
However I am only talking about DnD. Many other games never had that level of GM control. And the storytelling game surge from 1990 onwards with the "troupe" style play certainly began a trend moving to a more collaborative playing style. Lots of games encouraged this style, and it was really DnD 2nd ed core that lagged somewhat.
DnD 3.0 just caught up to where most games already were. GMs in 3.0 now had a comprehensive ruleset covering most eventualities which now set player expectations. Making up rules and situations ad-hoc via GM fiat was no longer required.
So, the days of GMs having complete control over the vast majority of the game rules are gone. Now they have to interact through those rules with the players. For GMs who don't enjoy that, I can see how that may grind.
|
|
Well, I've certainly been in plenty of discussions over the last 40 years where players complained that they couldn't find a group.
And, AFAICS, all you need to form a group is a GM. One GM plus one player still works, any number of players without a GM doesn't.
I don't know what the trend has been in players being able to find groups or not. If it is getting harder, whatever the whys and wherefores, the trend will eventually hit a threshold where it will start to cause interest in the game to wane. This wont be the result of a sudden new factor that we all have to spend time trying to discover, it will be a gradual change over the years which suddenly becomes noticeable.
I do not think that the changes in GM/Player balance are reversible, and I don't actually have a problem with them, in the sense that this is a different game we're playing now it's but just as enjoyable in its own way as the old one. What I'm reporting from personal experience is that whereas in the past I was happy to just GM, now I want to do both. If this is typical then I think that the way forward for the game is to encourage more co-operative game ownership and round-robin GMing.
Richard
I think being a forty year veteran is going to skew your perspective. Presumably a more "normal" lifespan in our hobby is tennish years or so.
|
Well, thanks for your confidence in my abilities :-)... because anything Paizo does at that level is going to blow away whatever I can do.Disagree.
Well, it was more a general comment in regards to the prevailing attitude here that anything that someone does for Paizo is automatically better than anything anything that someone does that isn't for Paizo. How's that Kool-Aid, guys?
I think one of the most amusing examples is that someone accused Greg Vaughn of not understanding the Pathfinder system because of an encounter in Slumbering Tsar. Yep, the ONLY guy who has contributed one adventure to each of the APs so far is obviously lacking in comprehension in regards to the system.
Bypassing a challenge by thinking outside the box is laudable.
Bypassing because of die rolls is fortunate.
Bypassing it because it no longer makes sense in the light of new rules is embarrassing.
What's there to congratulate?
The one example you given of this is fighting in a fog spell...there is already atleast a dozen options in core that can reduce the diffitculty of this....what is one more?
The bad guys don't know that the players have option x from y soucebook anymore than they know they have a gust of wind spell prepared.
And I *do* care because that sort of thing can ruin everyone's enjoyment - players and GM.
Or as I more often seen the players give the player a high five who does this. While it is ideal that all the PCs are going to be 'awesome'...sometimes due to too many variables to list here one player stands out at one encounter. Or one player just can't do anything. It happens. As long as it is not a consistent thing...there is really nothing you can..or should do.
Also...anytime I run any pre made adventure I change it to reflect the party going through it. I don't get why any GM won't do the same. Mind you you don't have to know what every option is in the game....just what your PCs can do.
I dare say it's not the 'worst' thing that can happen though your statement about considering myself lucky has intrigued me. What worse problems do you encounter during your sessions?
Richard
Um...nothing happened per se at my games...but I would imagine a fist fight breaking out would be worse...players rage quitting...etc. In other words I have never seen really bad things happen as a result of what you are talking about.
The solid fog encounter in Rise of the Runelords is already set back in its difficulty when using Pathfinder instead of 3.5 rules since the spell itself is much less debilitating in Pathfinder:
This spell functions like fog cloud, but in addition to obscuring sight, the solid fog is so thick that any creature attempting to move through it progresses at a speed of 5 feet, regardless of its normal speed, and it takes a -2 penalty on all melee attack and melee damage rolls.
This spell functions like fog cloud, but in addition to obscuring sight, the solid fog is so thick that it impedes movement. Creatures moving through a solid fog move at half their normal speed and take a –2 penalty on all melee attack and melee damage rolls.
This alone makes the spell mostly harmless in said encounter.
|
Hey! Lisa and I were two of the three editors on that book. (I have learned so much since then...)I really loved the small FR books which were called "Volo's Guide to "X"".
Those were awesome. Such books for Golarion - instant buy!See here, for what I mean.
That you've learned so much since then does mean what? That you think those books are great, or rather not?! Do you think such a product would be a possibility for Golarion/Paizo? :)
|
|
The one example you given of this is fighting in a fog spell...there is already atleast a dozen options in core that can reduce the diffitculty of this....what is one more?
I think there's lots more - however, I am happy to concede the point that isn't as much of an issue as I might have thought.
I'm not sure how I feel about running old modules with new rules. I still think it's safest to insist that only rules which are contemporary with the module should be used - but I'd probably let that one go for now until (or if) I ever get burnt.
Or as I more often seen the players give the player a high five who does this. While it is ideal that all the PCs are going to be 'awesome'...sometimes due to too many variables to list here one player stands out at one encounter. Or one player just can't do anything. It happens. As long as it is not a consistent thing...there is really nothing you can..or should do.
"Should" is a bit of a strong word, especially in a forum like this one!
Being "awesome" is also extremely subjective. As a player I consider that I have been "awesome" maybe half a dozen times in the last 30 years of playing. That's where I like "awesomeness" to lie - more often than once a year or so and it would stop to have any meaning for me.
Also...anytime I run any pre made adventure I change it to reflect the party going through it. I don't get why any GM won't do the same. Mind you you don't have to know what every option is in the game....just what your PCs can do.
Complicated rules will not be your friend though, if you like to do this sort of thing.
Personally, I would hate it if a GM adjusted the module to suit my PC, and I would never dream of doing it as a GM. I am not criticising your or your players - each group to their own - but it would not work for me for two main reasons. First, it would insult my sense of world-reality. Second, it would take away a very important part of the challenge of playing.
I'm sure there's a 500+ message thread to be had on this subject alone, though!
Richard
Personally, I would hate it if a GM adjusted the module to suit my PC, and I would never dream of doing it as a GM. I am not criticising your or your players - each group to their own - but it would not work for me for two main reasons. First, it would insult my sense of world-reality.
If you were a player, chances are you'd never know. So it probably would work for you just fine.
As for your sense of "world-reality", I promise it won't be that offended. You're already playing a game where you put yourself in the shoes of a psychotically suicidal killer-for-pay. You will be much happier in general if you continue to avoid looking too closely at your own "world-reality".
Second, it would take away a very important part of the challenge of playing.
Changing the adventure to allow players to better showcase their characters' abilities doesn't mean you're taking challenge away, necessarily.
"Should" is a bit of a strong word, especially in a forum like this one!
Being "awesome" is also extremely subjective. As a player I consider that I have been "awesome" maybe half a dozen times in the last 30 years of playing. That's where I like "awesomeness" to lie - more often than once a year or so and it would stop to have any meaning for me.
I should probably have said effective instear of awseome. I thought you meant that by the players getting upset by a player beating a challenge by himself...IE hogging the spotlight.
Complicated rules will not be your friend though, if you like to do this sort of thing.
Personally, I would hate it if a GM adjusted the module to suit my PC, and I would never dream of doing it as a GM. I am not criticising your or your players - each group to their own - but it would not work for me for two main reasons. First, it would insult my sense of world-reality. Second, it would take away a very important part of the challenge of playing.
I'm sure there's a 500+ message thread to be had on this subject alone, though!
Actualy I found most of the time I have to increase the challenge of encounters(adding HPs, adding minions, or even using new rules) from the module standard( this is nothing new either I have been doing it for 30+years). If I reduce the encounter I also do it to challenge the party.
I generally veiw modules to more of guidelines than anything else. I don't cvhange it because of a new option or rule...I change based on my players are doing in character...and what they are playing.
For instance if everybody is not playing a human...than that Human Bane Longsword on the BBEG is really just a waste...I'll swap it out for another + 1 modfier ability.
I just to be clear on what I meant...not saying you have to do this....to each their own.
I am curious how it would insult your sense of world-reality? I have never heard something like this mentioned.
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
That you've learned so much since then does mean what? That you think those books are great, or rather not?! Do you think such a product would be a possibility for Golarion/Paizo? :)Hey! Lisa and I were two of the three editors on that book. (I have learned so much since then...)I really loved the small FR books which were called "Volo's Guide to "X"".
Those were awesome. Such books for Golarion - instant buy!See here, for what I mean.
Mainly, I meant that I'm a much better editor now.
My thought on Volo's Guides in particular is that there probably aren't that many people who want entire cities detailed all the way down to individual menu items in each tavern. Personally, I'd rather give you broader strokes, plus a few examples of specific things that you can adapt for your own uses.
Taking the "menu" example, I'd rather not give you the menu for the Rusty Dragon in Sandpoint; I'd rather we instead tell you what a typical tavern menu in Varisia is, and then maybe a bit about how it varies from place to place. A page that tells me something about *most* taverns is more useful to me than a page that tells me everything about *one* tavern.
|
|
Replying to Scott and John w.r.t. World-reality:
To some people, all FRPGs are is "mechanics with fluff".
To others, myself included, it's about transposing yourself into the body of a fantasy character living in a fantasy world. It's about getting into a fantasy book where "reality" is as important as it is in a book.
I am no more a psychotically suicidal killer-for pay in the game than I am in real life (you'll be pleased to hear). All my characters are fully rounded individuals with unique personalities which are just as important, if nor more important, than their kill-monsters-take-treasure ability. Although I am happy to suspend disbelief a bit to allow for the fact that I am somewhat more gifted and fortunate than the average person in this world (I don't want *gritty* realism), I still want to be presented with a fantasy world that I can believe in when I interact with it.
That, to me, the fun of the game happens outside of the mechanics.
Richard
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not a fan of how the OP crafted his post - but after distilling it I'll chime in with a 'me too' vote - however I'd like to offer a compromise a bit in my request like so...
Example #1 - Sandpoint - why is this so awesome - well each place has a shop - a name - a bit of personality - and some notes on how they interact with the rest of the town.
I have been running RoTRL with my group and all I needed to make that town come alive was my town guide with these notes - every shop NPC has been different and interesting to my players because all I needed was a few notes on personality and how the NPC interacts to make a 'real' town come alive.
Example #2 - City of Monuments - awesome book - lots of info I needed on Magnimar - however the city is so large it won't ever have the 'plop down and play' value of Sandpoint.
Example #3 - ISWG - awesome book - almost nothing that is 'play ready' for the GM without alot of fleshing out - I'm not saying the book wasn't awesome - in fact at my table 7 out of 8 people love it - and the last one just isn't a big book buyer so has no opinion, that should say alot.
Taking all 3 above here is what I'd love to see happen - make a *player companion* that take a 'who's who' of a town/city etc. and takes give us a bit of a tour of the place - along with NPC's and personalities - interactions (rumors that may or may not be true). This doesn't have to be a town - it can be a secret network, a bit higher level as a country setting - a village, whatever.
There is a reason gossip rags sell well - something written the players can dive into - that can also be super useful for a GM would be handy, as well as giving more depth to a place.
I would love something like that - and I think if it's something written as a player travel guide it would be something your players would buy and read - and if you used a 'gossip rag' format - it would be easy enough for a GM to ignore or change any detail without feeling 'hemmed in' by an official text entry.
Replying to Scott and John w.r.t. World-reality:
To some people, all FRPGs are is "mechanics with fluff".
To others, myself included, it's about transposing yourself into the body of a fantasy character living in a fantasy world. It's about getting into a fantasy book where "reality" is as important as it is in a book.
I am no more a psychotically suicidal killer-for pay in the game than I am in real life (you'll be pleased to hear). All my characters are fully rounded individuals with unique personalities which are just as important, if nor more important, than their kill-monsters-take-treasure ability. Although I am happy to suspend disbelief a bit to allow for the fact that I am somewhat more gifted and fortunate than the average person in this world (I don't want *gritty* realism), I still want to be presented with a fantasy world that I can believe in when I interact with it.
That, to me, the fun of the game happens outside of the mechanics.
Richard
I don't disagree with you on this. Except I veiw the mechanics as a important (though not only) building block in setting the reality of the fantasey world you are transporting yourself in to. Which is why I'll change things in a module.
For instance to me a Alchemist is so much better represented by the Alchemist class in the APG than a wizard reskinned as such that in a certain pre-Pathfinder AP I took a wizard alchemist and rewrote her as a Alchemist. It in my veiw atleast made the adventure more in line with the 'reality of the game world.
I get where you are coming from...I am very similair to you in this. I still don't get how changing a module would insult your world-reality?
I am no more a psychotically suicidal killer-for pay in the game than I am in real life (you'll be pleased to hear). All my characters are fully rounded individuals with unique personalities which are just as important, if nor more important, than their kill-monsters-take-treasure ability.
I'm skeptical. It's nearly impossible to avoid playing the part of psychotically-suicidal killer-for-pay in D&D or games like it. You habitually fight extremely dangerous monsters, throwing yourself into combat situations with many times more frequency than the most decorated and daring of military groups, and nearly every group finds itself motivated primarily by wealth for at least one of their quests in each campaign. I mean, really, really think about it. If the fantasy world of D&D were real, and you were really an adventurer, everyone would view you as insane and suicidal. There's no other way to put it. "Wait, the four of you are going to purge the catacombs of undead by yourselves just so you can get to the treasure map that might be in one of the crypts?" That's ridiculously self-destructive behavior. And even if, out of sheer determination, you've managed to never create a character who considers adventuring to be a reasonable profession, I'm certain you've had others in your party who fit the bill. But you got along fine with them, probably, because you know that it's better not to look too closely at such things. Making a tabletop fantasy game superficially "real" is fine, but past a certain point you find yourself up against the brick wall of realizing that the core conceits of the game are incredibly unrealistic.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People do crazy things like climbing Everest, hunting dangerous game, bullriding, and jumping out of airplanes all the time for fun. I don't see why someone who can shoot lightning bolts and summon angels wouldn't engage in dangerous activities when something significant is at stake.
|
|
I still don't get how changing a module would insult your world-reality?
It depends why you're doing it, obviously. If you're doing it to make the world more believable then fair enough. Tailoring a module to suit the players is dangerous because it can look suspiciously like there's a bit of deus ex machina going on. For example, if you always found suitable magic items in treasure hoards, you'd start to lose belief in the fantasy world - "oh, that's handy: +1 bolas, fancy finding that in the wight's cairn. Must have been a gaucho wight." ;-)
"Wait, the four of you are going to purge the catacombs of undead by yourselves just so you can get to the treasure map that might be in one of the crypts?" That's ridiculously self-destructive behavior.
Ridiculously self-destructive adventurers die. The ones that go in are the ones that reckon they'll survive the experience, or at least have enough money available to patch themselves up / raise themselves afterwards.
I am actually quite protective of my characters. Lower levels are the most dangerous, of course, but I don't actually think I've had a character permanently blitzed for quite a few years.
In fact, if Remove Disease cures cancer, then I reckon I would have a better chance of a long life in the D&D world as an adventurer (with, admittedly, better than population-average stats, opportunities and eduction) than I have in the real world.
And as for suicidal behaviour, I think what goes on in the real world takes some beating!
Richard
I'm skeptical. It's nearly impossible to avoid playing the part of psychotically-suicidal killer-for-pay in D&D or games like it. You habitually fight extremely dangerous monsters, throwing yourself into combat situations with many times more frequency than the most decorated and daring of military groups, and nearly every group finds itself motivated primarily by wealth for at least one of their quests in each campaign. I mean, really, really think about it. If the fantasy world of D&D were real, and you were really an adventurer, everyone would view you as insane and suicidal. There's no other way to put it. "Wait, the four of you are going to purge the catacombs of undead by yourselves just so you can get to the treasure map that might be in one of the crypts?" That's ridiculously self-destructive behavior. And even if, out of sheer determination, you've managed to never create a character who considers adventuring to be a reasonable profession, I'm certain you've had others in your party who fit the bill. But you got along fine with them, probably, because you know that it's better not to look too closely at such things. Making a tabletop fantasy game superficially "real" is fine, but past a certain point you find yourself up against the brick wall of realizing that the core conceits of the game are incredibly unrealistic.
And that opinion comes with the conceit that many of the setting peculiarities and mechanics in PF/D&D have anything to do with our own world. Real active deities, undead and mythical monsters, magic, insanely tough "high level" characters, actively good people who attain incredible supernatural power from their goodness ( and vice-versa )... all of these are things which are not realistically possible in the world we live in. As such we cannot realistically compare our mentality to how people perceive adventurers.
Sure, I totally agree that low-level commoners will see adventurers as a little ( or more than that, depending on the characters personality ) insane for putting their lives at risk. Then, however, that commoner always has to keep in mind that without adventurers there probably would be doubly as much orcs, goblins, ogres and worse which want to raid his village and eat him and his family.
I am no more a psychotically suicidal killer-for pay in the game than I am in real life (you'll be pleased to hear). All my characters are fully rounded individuals with unique personalities which are just as important, if nor more important, than their kill-monsters-take-treasure ability.I'm skeptical. It's nearly impossible to avoid playing the part of psychotically-suicidal killer-for-pay in D&D or games like it. You habitually fight extremely dangerous monsters, throwing yourself into combat situations with many times more frequency than the most decorated and daring of military groups, and nearly every group finds itself motivated primarily by wealth for at least one of their quests in each campaign. I mean, really, really think about it. If the fantasy world of D&D were real, and you were really an adventurer, everyone would view you as insane and suicidal. There's no other way to put it. "Wait, the four of you are going to purge the catacombs of undead by yourselves just so you can get to the treasure map that might be in one of the crypts?" That's ridiculously self-destructive behavior. And even if, out of sheer determination, you've managed to never create a character who considers adventuring to be a reasonable profession, I'm certain you've had others in your party who fit the bill. But you got along fine with them, probably, because you know that it's better not to look too closely at such things. Making a tabletop fantasy game superficially "real" is fine, but past a certain point you find yourself up against the brick wall of realizing that the core conceits of the game are incredibly unrealistic.
I kinda of disagree with you here, Scott. Just because some one veiws some thing as insane and suicidal does not mean it actualy is. I mean in the real world there are people who would describe people who join the military or become polices officers as psychotically-suicidal killer-for-pay. Does not mean they are.
Though I would say not everyone would bow down and whorship at a adventures feet in such a world. I can see commoners being fearful..or even blaming adventures for 'stirring up trouble'. I can see merchants raising their prices due to some the veiwpoint of adventures being incredibly wealthy. And I can see goverment thinking them dangerous.(My favorite country in the pre spellplague FR was Amn where being a adventurer was illeagle. Not sure if they kept that in 4th ed.).
Also...I do find it ironic you are descibing something as unrealistic using modern world conciet that don't exist in the fantasy world.
People do crazy things like climbing Everest, hunting dangerous game, bullriding, and jumping out of airplanes all the time for fun.
A lot of those things are not particularly crazy (skydiving has a very low accident rate), and the most dangerous of them (in this case, Everest) involves unbelievable levels of preparation, with every possible precaution taken to eliminate unknowns.
I don't see why someone who can shoot lightning bolts and summon angels wouldn't engage in dangerous activities when something significant is at stake.
You're talking about a world in which the people they're up against shoot lightning bolts and summon devils right back at them. We're not talking about a situation in which they are able to effectively minimize risks to a manageable level (you can prepare for certain situations, but the reality of adventuring is that unpredictability is unavoidable simply because adventures need an element of unpredictability to keep them exciting). We're talking about repeatedly throwing themselves into dangerous situations where they stand a very good chance of dying.
If something truly significant is at stake, it does sometimes make perfect sense to place your own livelihood and safety below other priorities (saving the world, for instance). But nearly every D&D campaign features quests where the world is not at stake, where the village doesn't need to be saved, where the princess isn't in mortal peril, and where the primary motivator is power or wealth (I'm pretty sure I could find such an example at least once in every Paizo adventure path). Your character continues to participate simply because it means you get to keep playing them, and that's fun. Look too closely at the "reality" of the game world, though, and it just seems like your character is throwing himself into mortal peril for relatively little gain. A 3rd-level PC will do just about damn near anything for 1,000 gp.
Ridiculously self-destructive adventurers die.
Adventurers die. They're all ridiculously self-destructive. I guarantee that your favorite PC of choice qualifies at least some of the time.
The ones that go in are the ones that reckon they'll survive the experience,
That may be true, or it may not be.
or at least have enough money available to patch themselves up / raise themselves afterwards.
Ooh, let's not start on resurrection magic. That's its own bag of worms.
And as for suicidal behaviour, I think what goes on in the real world takes some beating!
Sure, there are plenty of maniacs in real life. And we call them maniacs, because that's what they are.
Again, the lesson is this: don't look too closely at the "reality" of a game like D&D (or Pathfinder). It won't look as "real" as you want it to, no matter how hard you try. Suspend whatever disbelief you need to, and focus on enjoying the game for what it is.