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.
You don't just have examples of people calling members of the military suicidal, you have historical examples of people avoiding military service en masse precisely because of how dangerous it was.
But I'm glad you brought up the military and police.
There are more than 1,685,000 full time equivalent members of the United States Military. In 2010, there were 1,485 U.S. military deaths. Over the course of a year of service, there was less than a one-tenth-of-one-percent chance of dying in service to the country. And most people consider that incredibly dangerous!
Law enforcement is even worse (or better, I suppose, from the perspective of the police)! There are around 800,000 police officers working in the various municipalities of the United States. In 2012, there were 127 line-of-duty police officer deaths. That's barely one-tenth-of-one-tenth-of-one-percent! And people still consider that dangerous!
Meanwhile, adventurers. In my experience, it is a rare game indeed that doesn't see between 10 and 25% of its PCs bite the dust over the course of the campaign, often at levels low enough to make resurrection prohibitive (some adventures/campaigns feature death rates many times higher!). That's literally hundreds of times more dangerous than military service and police officer service combined.
This is to say nothing of the "killer-for-pay" part - the nature of war (insofar as it involves soldiers fighting other soldiers) dictates that your average soldier has less than one kill to his or her name (police officers have way less than that). Compare to your average adventuring party of four, with probably hundreds of kills (humanoids and otherwise) by the time they reach mid levels.
Fantasy adventuring takes what we already consider dangerous and red-in-tooth-and-claw and inflates it beyond reason and recognizability.
Again, if you have priorities above and beyond your own life that are important enough to roll the dice with those kind of odds, then that might make sense. But I don't think that's true for most adventurers. I think that, for most adventurers, the best explanation for their actions is that they are actually not real, and are being controlled by a bunch of guys and gals sitting around a kitchen table eating pretzels and drinking Mountain Dew, and laughing about pit traps.
You don't just have examples of people calling members of the military suicidal, you have historical examples of people avoiding military service en masse precisely because of how dangerous it was.
But I'm glad you brought up the military and police.
There are more than 1,685,000 full time equivalent members of the United States Military. In 2010, there were 1,485 U.S. military deaths. Over the course of a year of service, there was less than a one-tenth-of-one-percent chance of dying in service to the country. And most people consider that incredibly dangerous!
Law enforcement is even worse! There are around 800,000 police officers working in the various municipalities of the United States. In 2012, there were 127 line-of-duty police officer deaths. That's barely one-tenth-of-one-tenth-of-one-percent! And people still consider that dangerous!
Great now look up the stastics of say during WW2? I think you'll find those numbers are alot higher. Or the stastics for dangerous cities. And yet during all wars people have also voluntiered to fight. And you have people specficaly join the police force in dangerous areas. Sure some of them might be psychotically-suicidal killer-for-pay...but I strongly doubt all of them are...or even that most of them are. Their reason varied...but that is really nothing new.
Fantasy adventuring takes what we already consider dangerous and red-in-tooth-and-claw and inflates it beyond reason and recognizability.
Again, if you have priorities above and beyond your own life that are important enough to roll the dice with those kind of odds, then that might make sense. But I don't think that's true for most adventurers. I think that, for most adventurers, the best explanation for their actions is that they are actually not real, and are being controlled by a bunch of guys and gals sitting around a kitchen table eating pretzels and drinking Mountain Dew, and laughing about pit traps.
The great thing about PF or any RPG is that you can play it your way, Richard Develyn can play it his was, and I can play it my way. If you choose to veiw as you do that is your right...but Richard is not Wrong in the way veiws as I am not wrong in the way I veiw it.
And while you can't imagine yourself doing anything dangerous for any reason except money...I can imagine myself doing things like that.
Great now look up the stastics of say during WW2? I think you'll find those numbers are alot higher.
That's not the point. I provided modern U.S. military death figures because many people consider joining the military voluntarily to be prohibitively dangerous, despite the benefits of service. And yet we know that being part of a fantasy adventuring party is multiple orders of magnitude more dangerous. If the average person considers modern military service dangerous, the average person ought to consider the life of a fantasy adventurer to be suicidally dangerous.
Or the stastics for dangerous cities.
Actually, they're basically the same, if not less. The New York City Police Department is the largest in the country (with more than 22,000 patrol officers). They suffered nine deaths in 2011 - an unusually high number for that department (by way of comparison, in 2012 they suffered only one death). Five of those nine deaths were due to illnesses arising from the events of 9/11/2001. But, even counting those, that's still a yearly death rate of 0.0004, or four-tenths-of-one-tenth-of-one-percent. The reality is that line-of-duty police fatalities are extremely rare, and yet the duties of a uniformed officer create a public perception that they are placed in harm's way often.
And yet during all wars people have also voluntiered to fight.
Absolutely, because a lot of people have placed a cause they believe in above their personal safety and well-being, or they did not like the other options available to them, or they were thrill seekers, or they felt they had something to prove, etc.
The point is that, no matter the reason, most people consider voluntarily joining the armed services to be dangerous. And adventuring is literally hundreds of times more dangerous than that.
And you have people specficaly join the police force in dangerous areas.
That actually approaches a rational decision. Law enforcement tends to pay well (compared to other professions requiring similar levels of education and experience), offers excellent benefits, can be personally fulfilling, and comes with societal stature, prestige, and countless intangibles that make it a very attractive career choice for many people. And all uniformed officers are well aware of how rare a line-of-duty death is, despite what impression the media might give you.
Sure some of them might be psychotically-suicidal killer-for-pay...but I strongly doubt all of them are...or even that most of them are. Their reason varied...but that is really nothing new.
Sure. But we're talking about a profession that is hundreds of times more dangerous than modern military service. If we were to be honest with ourselves, it is a life choice only taken by the foolish, the suicidal, the desperate, or the selfless.
The great thing about PF or any RPG is that you can play it your way, Richard Develyn can play it his was, and I can play it my way. If you choose to veiw as you do that is your right...but Richard is not Wrong in the way veiws as I am not wrong in the way I veiw it.
As long as you're having fun, that's fine. In fact, what I'm encouraging is to make an emphasis on realism secondary to an emphasis on enjoyment by relying on your suspension of disbelief as much as is possible (now, if realism is where the majority of your enjoyment comes from, I don't know what to tell you; D&D/Pathfinder only goes so far as a fantasy world simulator). But this isn't about how we choose to have fun. This is about the fact that a good, hard look at the realities of fantasy adventuring life reveals that the core conceits of the game create some irreconcilable inconsistencies between how the game is typically played (and I mean "typically" in the sense that these inconsistencies are nearly universal across gaming groups) and how the game world would look if it were "real".
And while you can't imagine yourself doing anything dangerous for any reason except money...I can imagine myself doing things like that.
Did you miss both parts of my post where I acknowledged that there are lots of good potential reasons to act in a manner that puts your life in danger that aren't money or power?
|
The most sensible comparison would be with life around 700 years ago, when we had real live knights.
I would rather be a knight in the D&D world that this one back then. I would certainly risk my life fr 1000gp because of what 1000gp can buy - particularly against disease.
And I'm more than happy to open up a debate about magic, like resurrection spells and the like. I'm not goading - I find it interesting, and I don't think people ever think this through beyond the first hurdle.
For example, it's been said that investigative scenarios cannot happen any more because of Speak with Dead, but anyone committing murder would first of all magically disguise themselves so the dead man's testimony would be worthless.
Resurrecting a dead king wouldn't work either, because a king without high-level supporters would never get his crown back no matter how legitimate his claim (same as the real world). Some high-powered individuals would claim he was an impostor, execute him for treason and then bury him under tons of rock.
Etc, etc.
Richard
The most sensible comparison would be with life around 700 years ago, when we had real live knights.
That doesn't strike me as any more or less sensible, since I'm not arguing from a position of historical parallels.
I would rather be a knight in the D&D world that this one back then. I would certainly risk my life fr 1000gp because of what 1000gp can buy - particularly against disease.
With even a moderate investment of the same character resources you'd have at that point, you could be hauling in in excess of 1,000 gp annually using nothing but the Profession skill (heck, even if you invested basically nothing in it, you'd still bring in 500 gp a year), with no appreciable risk to life or limb. Given that one can live easily (though perhaps not in total comfort) on 100 gp per year (the annual wage of a skilled worker), it seems quite trivial for such a character to be able to spend 150 gp of his 900 gp worth of disposable income on a Remove Disease spell once a year, which is probably much more frequently than he'll need it to avoid any fatal illness. In other words, there is precious little reason for your PC to head down the path of risking his life for a reward of 1,000 gp just to be able to afford a Remove Disease cast.
Again, such treks, from any "realistic" point of view, would only be undertaken by the foolish, suicidal, desperate, or selfless.
That's not the point. I provided modern U.S. military death figures because many people consider joining the military voluntarily to be prohibitively dangerous, despite the benefits of service. And yet we know that being part of a fantasy adventuring party is multiple orders of magnitude more dangerous. If the average person considers modern military service dangerous, the average person ought to consider the life of a fantasy adventurer to be suicidally dangerous.
Actualy that is the point. You are taking what the modern average person would think. Which would have no logical bearing on what a average person living in a fantasy world would think. As far as I know the mordern average person does not have to deal with evil races raiding their villages or cities. The average mordern person does not have to deal with the dead raising to eat them. The average modern person does not even think about these things...only gamers do. Well atleast some of us do.
Besides....Adventures are not the average person in a fantasy world. I mean realisticaly....the percentage of active adventures in a fantasy world would probly be a fraction of 1%.
And I'm more than happy to open up a debate about magic, like resurrection spells and the like. I'm not goading - I find it interesting, and I don't think people ever think this through beyond the first hurdle.
I love discussing and thinking about such things too. But I would suggest you start another thread...as it is way off topic for this one.
Actualy that is the point. You are taking what the modern average person would think. Which would have no logical bearing on what a average person living in a fantasy world would think. As far as I know the mordern average person does not have to deal with evil races raiding their villages or cities. The average mordern person does not have to deal with the dead raising to eat them. The average modern person does not even think about these things...only gamers do. Well atleast some of us do.
So your point is that we don't deal with those things, therefore we can't imagine what those people might think, and therefore their minds are alien and inscrutable?
I'm not sure how you reconcile an inability to put yourself in the mind of someone living in a fantasy world while posting on a message board for fans of a game that revolves around putting yourself in the mind of someone living in a fantasy world.
Besides....Adventures are not the average person in a fantasy world.
That's my point. They have very little in common with what you might expect a realistic denizen of a fantasy world to look like. If that's because they are foolish, suicidal, desperate, or selfless, then sure, that's a solid explanation. But I'd wager most PCs are not created with one of those traits in mind - in which case we must look for another explanation, which invariably ends up being, "Because it's a game, that's why."
I mean realisticaly....the percentage of active adventures in a fantasy world would probly be a fraction of 1%.
Yes. And with a remarkable turn-over rate.
Actualy that is the point. You are taking what the modern average person would think. Which would have no logical bearing on what a average person living in a fantasy world would think. As far as I know the mordern average person does not have to deal with evil races raiding their villages or cities. The average mordern person does not have to deal with the dead raising to eat them. The average modern person does not even think about these things...only gamers do. Well atleast some of us do.So your point is that we don't deal with those things, therefore we can't imagine what those people might think, and therefore their minds are alien and inscrutable?
I'm not sure how you reconcile an inability to put yourself in the mind of someone living in a fantasy world while posting on a message board for fans of a game that revolves around putting yourself in the mind of someone living in a fantasy world.
Actualy you are the one who is taking the average modern veiwpoint to the fantasy world population. I am not. I am imagine what it would be like without looking at it with a real world perspective.
That's my point. They have very little in common with what you might expect a realistic denizen of a fantasy world to look like. If that's because they are foolish, suicidal, desperate, or selfless, then sure, that's a solid explanation.
Yes I agree with you on how non-adventurers might look at adventures...I even pointed out the possiblities before hand. But how others veiw you has little bearing on reality for the most part.
But I'd wager most PCs are not created with one of those traits in mind - in which case we must look for another explanation, which invariably ends up being, "Because it's a game, that's why."
That is your experience...my experience is different. Unless you get real stastic it impossible to determine how 'most' people play the game.
I am just going to agree to disagree with you on this point.
That is your experience...my experience is different. Unless you get real stastic it impossible to determine how 'most' people play the game.
Your experience is that, in most gaming groups you're familiar with, all the PCs are created to be either foolish, suicidal, desperate, or selfless?
That would astonish me.
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I'm more than happy to open up a debate about magic, like resurrection spells and the like. I'm not goading - I find it interesting, and I don't think people ever think this through beyond the first hurdle.I love discussing and thinking about such things too. But I would suggest you start another thread...as it is way off topic for this one.
Yeah, the discussion is pretty far off topic now.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My issue with all theese rule books, is that it doesn't seem that the design team keeps abrest it's own rules and rulings.
The recently faq on half elfs is a perfect example, not only does it contradict a previously ruling about a feat from the APG in the FAQ, but it pretty much contradicts what's written in the ARG about subtypes.
My appreciation of the these rules books is steadly declining when it appears to me, that the design doesn't know about its own rules anymore, and the player or group like mine, that buys all the books, spent hundreds of dollars, and when we finally get to play, which can be hard to schedule because we all have careers, spend 4 hours aruging about what happens if someone wants to make a half dwarf since the designers have completely borked the rules regarding races and effects with contridictory rulings.
So instead of playing we argue, and we paid for the privilige. And what really irks me is the fact, you guys thinks you answered the question, seriously?
I am supposed to divine what it means for the rules when in the racial heritage feat the answer pretty much says, archtypes and feats are effects with regard to race
and then another rulings it says that archytpes are not effects with regards to race,
and that our GM is supposed to figured out what the paragraphs on subtypes means in light of these rulings.
We paid money for this. seriously, so I wholehearly agree with the OP stop with the rules books, because you guys appear to have over extended and are not even aware of the most of the rules in the books or previously rulings you made.
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.
You're probably thinking of the pre-3E market research by Wizards of the Coast, which revealed that most campaigns only last 6 months or so.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're probably thinking of the pre-3E market research by Wizards of the Coast, which revealed that most campaigns only last 6 months or so.
I'm sure you're right. I wonder what the reasons for this are and what's happening now.
@Vic: Please excuse me posting one more time on this discussion Scott and I have been having but I'll keep it brief.
@Scott: My perception of the risk of adventuring is different to yours. I know the game is played a bit differently now but I think that an adventuring group that thinks, plans, invests in healing and defence and, most importantly, knows when to run away, has a pretty good survival rate. Furthermore, the rewards in terms of ensuring future survivability (money and levels) makes the risk worthwhile, whereas forsaking this by going up levels of commoner or expert could well, in the long term, be a more risky strategy for longevity. Only my opinion, of course, and I'm sure we can agree to differ.
Richard
Always interesting to see what an anomaly my group is, where we've been running campaigns which last between 1 1/2 to 2 years ( the shorter ones are APs and the longer ones used to be the homebrewn stuff I used to run ) and we've been doing that since 1999.
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.
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.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
This reminds me of a story about how this guy died and got so mad, he punched me in the face. THAT was an interesting night.
@On topic - I've really enjoyed the product that Paizo puts out. I think the ratio of fluff to crunch is about right and when there are minor inconsistencies in the literature our group discusses it and comes to an agreement about it. I see long threads arguing about how well mechanics are balanced and I think that people have too much time on their hands.
@Off topic - Pathfinder is a game, not a simulation. Adventuring is exciting to role-play because there is a sense of risk. If there were no risk then there would be no game because few would be interested in playing a campaign wherein you are a commoner practicing his or her profession and making wise life choices.
edit: On second thought fantasy commoner sounds very relaxing. Taking ten on profession checks and laughing my way to the bank. In four more sessions I'll be able to afford that new cow and start my cheese making operation!
|
| 1 person 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.
I used the Volo guides exactly as the bolded part above. I like to think that reading them improved my own abilities to detail and describe other places.
For my part, the more tavern menus, styles of drainpipe ornamentation, and fragments of crude rural limericks you can squeeze into your descriptions of Golarion, the better. 95% broad brush and 5% ultra detail for my tastes please.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Welcome to the English language where a person no longer needs a subscription to be one who subscribes. . .Second, why do you not have the lovely little subscriber tag if you're a loyal pathfinder subscriber?You don't need a subscription to subscribe to something. Some people cannot afford automatic payments and have to pick and choose what they can afford.
All my subscriber tags vanished when I changed my default alias so that folks didn't confuse me for that Brock.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Welcome to the English language where a person no longer needs a subscription to be one who subscribes. . .If THAT bothers you, don't go looking too closely at the rest of the language. You might need to lie down.
Indeed. Like, I hate any words that end in 'ough'. WHY IS THERE A G!?! WHY!?! WHAT IS THE PURPOSE!?!
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All my subscriber tags vanished when I changed my default alias so that folks didn't confuse me for that Brock.Welcome to the English language where a person no longer needs a subscription to be one who subscribes. . .Second, why do you not have the lovely little subscriber tag if you're a loyal pathfinder subscriber?You don't need a subscription to subscribe to something. Some people cannot afford automatic payments and have to pick and choose what they can afford.
Yeah, because aliases are commonly used for PBP characters, we only show subscriber tags on the primary alias.
Indeed. Like, I hate any words that end in 'ough'. WHY IS THERE A G!?! WHY!?! WHAT IS THE PURPOSE!?!Welcome to the English language where a person no longer needs a subscription to be one who subscribes. . .If THAT bothers you, don't go looking too closely at the rest of the language. You might need to lie down.
How about the fact that there are three different ways to pronounce that ending: 'uff' (ex: tough), long 'o' (ex: though), and 'ow' (ex: bough). In none is the 'g' sounded.
English is a pain in the butt, even if one has grown up with it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But I would say that the Inner Sea World Guide is at the very least "remotely close" to that book.
ISWG > FR.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
According to George Bernard Shaw:
ghoti
spells "fish." gh as in "laugh." o as in "women." ti as in "nation."
English is a special language. :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How about the fact that there are three different ways to pronounce that ending: 'uff' (ex: tough), long 'o' (ex: though), and 'ow' (ex: bough). In none is the 'g' sounded.
English is a pain in the butt, even if one has grown up with it.
More like seven ways if you don't restrict it to the end of words. :-)
ThoughtTough
Cough
Plough
Through
Dough
Borough
How about the fact that there are three different ways to pronounce that ending: 'uff' (ex: tough), long 'o' (ex: though), and 'ow' (ex: bough). In none is the 'g' sounded.
English is a pain in the butt, even if one has grown up with it.
More like seven ways if you don't restrict it to the end of words. :-)
Thought
Tough
Cough
Plough
Through
Dough
Borough
Ever been to Loughborough? ;)
|
Developer
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch?;)
I can't even pronounce the first syllable correctly. Stupid double-l.
I love the pronunciation we have on Spanish; you say it the same way you read it, with very few exceptions. Curiously, that sometimes make that we pronunciate some fantasy names in strange ways.
But we are a bit off-topic now, not? Just a little bit. ^^
According to George Bernard Shaw:
ghoti
spells "fish." gh as in "laugh." o as in "women." ti as in "nation."
English is a special language. :-)
Rather a special care language...
ISWG > FR.But I would say that the Inner Sea World Guide is at the very least "remotely close" to that book.
Well, to be fair the Inner Sea World Guide is the best campaign setting book I've ever seen, hence you could as well write "ISWG > all". ^^
I can't even pronounce the first syllable correctly. Stupid double-l.
Isn't it just a th, no wait that's dd.
Oh my gods, did your regular avatars eat too much hamburgers or what happened?For the Love of Desna, please, PLEASE stop releasing an endless stream of additional spells, races, classes, feats, archetypes, etc. Talk about BLOAT!No.
I ate them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone point out that in the Golarion books, the crunch is there in support of the fluff? We knew about Aldori Swordlords for a long time. We knew that in the world they are considered to be amongst the best swordsmen. We didn't know how. They could have all been level 16 fighters by fluff alone, but players want to BE Aldori Swordlords, not just read about them, so Paizo gave us a unique weapon, an archetype, some feats and traits to make a Swordlord mechanically different than just a high-level fighter.
Crunch in support of fluff. That's how Paizo does it. That's how America does it. And it seems to have worked out pretty well so far.
|
|
I love how everyone just got real quiet to let OP argue with the creative director "mano a mano".
In my opinion, OP's a whiney brat. You're complaining that the company doesn't care enough about the setting and is just shoveling out whatever it can to make a buck, but we just sat here and watched the CREATIVE DIRECTOR justify himself and his work to some random upstart in the forums. If that doesn't show dedication, then I don't know what does.
And after all that, the conversation dissolves into messing with the guy who doesn't like "ough" sounds. I f$+!ing love you people. xD
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love how everyone just got real quiet to let OP argue with the creative director "mano a mano".
There was no one more qualified to have that discussion with the OP.
If fans dogpile on someone, we stand little chance of changing their perspective. The Creator Director represents someone in authority who can speak with authority, and not just rile up the OP.
Emotions don't help in changing someone's opinion. The OP likes much of what Paizo produces, and they're a customer. Why should we fans drive them any further away?
Sometimes it is best to allow a staff person to handle it, if you really want to support the company.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Welcome to the English language where a person no longer needs a subscription to be one who subscribes. . .
Since this thread has returned, I will point out that people subscribe to political philosophies all the time, which do not offer subscription services. Food for thought.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Always interesting to see what an anomaly my group is, where we've been running campaigns which last between 1 1/2 to 2 years ( the shorter ones are APs and the longer ones used to be the homebrewn stuff I used to run ) and we've been doing that since 1999.
Yeah. We tend to run multiple campaigns simoltaneious, and rotate who GMs every month or so (usually two at a time). We have had campaigns that assuming weekly play lasted 8 and 10 years (much longer with the rotation). I have a character (non D&D/PF) that I have played off and on since 1987.
The whole done in six months boggles me. At that point I think a game is just getting off the ground and into the good stuff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Have you tried Bunnies & Burrows?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Have you tried Bunnies & Burrows?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.
Or Power Kill?
Have you tried Bunnies & Burrows?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.
If that's anything like "Watership Down", I don't want to have anything to do with it. That stuff gave me nightmares.