Sure, but what good is an advancing timeline if nothing canonically happens?
I guess the question is how deep the canonical changes you want are.
Do they have to be centered around the adventure paths? For example, if the novels were made canon but not the adventure paths, would that satisfy folks?
There's also the fact that Shattered Star, and to a lesser extent Jade Regent, do have an advance in continuity, with some adventure path outcomes assumed (admittedly, with ways to get around those assumptions if you didn't play that way). If that's what folks are looking for, it might be a good idea to voice your support for Shatter Star if you haven't already done so.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes I see this not just as a function of time, but of space.
That sounds like a cool line, but I mean it literally.
For the most part, AP's happen in diverse geographical locales. Note, this is a general statement. There is a great big exception to that rule—and we all know it.
APs neatly explore and showcase different areas of the Inner Sea, with the added benefit is they also avoid deal continuity issues. AP events in Katapesh need not have anything to do with AP events in the Mwangi Expanse, the River Kingdoms, the Shackles, or Irrisen.
Varisia is something of an exception, because it begs the question 'How can these major events take place within 500 to 1,000 miles of one another and not have an influence on the region?' I thought Shattered Star handled that situation neatly.
At some point, a really great story is going to want to be written in the same region as a previously published Adventure Path. My preference is that we bravely tell the best stories we can think of, even if it is in the same region where another story has taken place once before.
I know there is a lot of concern about a making a campaign wide determination on the outcome of an AP, but I wouldn't want render us unable to explore the return of more Runelords, or deal with the return of Tar-Baphon because there is no logical way two different APs could be happening simultaneously in the same region without a disconnect of logic and believability. That's what I mean by it as a function of both "space" and "time".
I'm not worried about this however. There is too much emphasis on what WOTC did once upon a time in a different campaign. That was a different company, with different priorities, and a different Creative Director. I will say no further negative remarks about that company other than I'm not going to saddle Mr. Jacobs with the "sins of the father." He has demonstrated nothing but respect and humility towards the fanbase, and in my opinion deserves that trust.
At some point the canon must be determined, but only when necessary, and done in a manner that respects the fanbase. I trust Paizo do just that.
Well put. Think that about sums it up.
so...basically Mass Effect IIIˆˆ on paizo's side ? with players asking for more indiviualization ?/agree
On one hand, yes. The Mass Effect writers did a superb job of integrating the first game into the second, and then the first and second game into the third game. Well, until the last 20 minutes, that is, but that is a rant for another day. Fans were able to accept that everybody had a slightly different canon.
On the other hand, the writers currently say that they can have their three non-compatible endings for Mass Effect 3 and still do an Mass Effect 4 game which is not a prequel. I don't see how they can do that, without just refusing to divulge which ending "canonically" happened in Mass Effect 3. Basically they have comitted themselves to either writing the next Mass Effect game as a prequel or a side-story, because if they make a sequel, there is no way as to not commit themselves to a new status quo. Which is where I draw the parallel to Golarion and the creators stance on how they want to handle the setting.
What I meant - most of what you actually achieved throughout the ME-AP did not really affect the ending. yes, perhaps who survived etc. But the universe as was - ended on a very similar note
@geraint and Groves : if Second Darkness happened, events in most other parts would be very different.
Few would consider founding a kingdom in the Riverlands. Trading along the west coast of Garund.. would become absolutely essential to provide food to Avistan , leading to a massive concentration of forces by Cheliax, and a very different world for Skulls and Shackles. And who would even note Reign of Winter in the middle of an asteroid strike winter which would cause a premature Ice Age - similar to the "little ice Age" in the real 17t century ?
Nevermind setting free the Spawn of Rovagug in Legacy ( have a quick look at how that affected the whole of Casaron )......... Or not resinking/eliminating the Rise of Xin Shalast.... ahem...
waking a vengeful evil god might be one of the lesser worries ( I never really saw the deeper logic in Serpent' Skull ).
Fail on some of the APs you are facing a very different world. Back in the Dungeon Times, not winning Savage Tides had mostly extraplanar repercussions. Similar for Shackled City. but for the Pathfinder APs ?
ouch. Basically you get condemned to either reset to a previous point of the timeline or ignore the effects.
If you doubt such consequences... take a good hard look at KotDT's "pack of Doom" storyline.
PS I never liked the "points of light" concept of the FR. but it was consequent in a way.
Nevermind setting free the Spawn of Rovagug in Legacy ( have a quick look at how that affected the whole of Casaron )
But it's not a Spawn of Rovagug. It's his body, inhabited by an Efreet, who has an entirely different agenda than a mindless beast intent entirely on destruction. I mean, even the AP itself clearly states that Jhavhul soon leaves Katapesh for Plane of Fire, why would you assume he goes on a rampage through the whole Inner Sea Region?
Nevermind setting free the Spawn of Rovagug in Legacy ( have a quick look at how that affected the whole of Casaron )But it's not a Spawn of Rovagug. It's his body, inhabited by an Efreet, who has an entirely different agenda than a mindless beast intent entirely on destruction. I mean, even the AP itself clearly states that Jhavhul soon leaves Katapesh for Plane of Fire, why would you assume he goes on a rampage through the whole Inner Sea Region?
for one - i have sinceredoubts that an efreeti lord can hold the raw power of a Spawn in check. that thing is similar in power to a Tarrasque. According to the AP Xotani will merge with Jhavul and is thereafter only called Xotani (!). He will then blast a major gap into the landscape (10s of miles around - cracatoa volcanoe sed up..... ) and planeshift away.........Pactmasters and others (Ossirion's Pharao) will now be very angry
the players will have created a now plane-shifting spawn of rovagug...
nothing major
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the fact my sourcebooks are still (mostly) accurate is one of the things I really like about golarion. I hope they continue with their current policy (the "linking" of shattered star with other APs didn't add anything to the story from my perspective but no doubt added complication when it came to development).
I think this would be doubly true if PF2 were to be released - if the world suddenly changed as well as the rules, I'd have less reason to keep buying stuff. The completist in me may well decide that was a good point to draw a line under golarion and move on to other things.
Nevermind setting free the Spawn of Rovagug in Legacy ( have a quick look at how that affected the whole of Casaron )But it's not a Spawn of Rovagug. It's his body, inhabited by an Efreet, who has an entirely different agenda than a mindless beast intent entirely on destruction. I mean, even the AP itself clearly states that Jhavhul soon leaves Katapesh for Plane of Fire, why would you assume he goes on a rampage through the whole Inner Sea Region?for one - i have sinceredoubts that an efreeti lord can hold the raw power of a Spawn in check. that thing is similar in power to a Tarrasque. According to the AP Xotani will merge with Jhavul and is thereafter only called Xotani (!). He will then blast a major gap into the landscape (10s of miles around - cracatoa volcanoe sed up..... ) and planeshift away.........Pactmasters and others (Ossirion's Pharao) will now be very angry
the players will have created a now plane-shifting spawn of rovagug...
nothing major
That's just your opinion, not a fact. As written, he blows up Kelmarane, does a bit rampage and moves on. AP also mentions nothing about 10s of miles around the volcano, it mentions miles.
I know Forgotten Realms wrote in Time of Troubles/Whatever they did for 4th to deal with rules updates, but I don't really understand why. Granted, I don't read the fiction but from reading several (many many many) sourcebooks I don't see why a grand overhaul would need to be done for PF2.
I don't think a new set of rules would require updating the campaign history, rather if you're going to do it for other reasons—that would be the optimal time to do it. Because that is when the company would logically be releasing new versions of the campaign books. So as to be compliant with those new rules. Not because of new rules, but when would be the best time you were going to do it all.
That's just your opinion, not a fact. As written, he blows up Kelmarane, does a bit rampage and moves on. AP also mentions nothing about 10s of miles around the volcano, it mentions miles.
they merge. The following entity is now called Xotani. not Jhavul (I'd go along the thesis that in a merger the dominant part gets tobe named ).
and .... but not befoe katapesh suffers greatly from the reborn Spawn of Rovagug. I would also recommend page 54 of he AP#6... the only thing jhavul s
achieves is healing of its 1000 s wounds and possibly being absobed into it, no control over anything-
oh, and page seven Jhavul becomes th e newest incarbarnation of xotani. laves little doubt to his evebtual mega-lomanic occupatio...
the only thing jhavul s
achieves is healing of its 1000 s wounds and possibly being absobed into it, no control over anything-
So, it's Xotani's idea (with his Int 3) to leave Golarion to court Ymeri and not Jhavhul's? I considered that odd, to say the least, since that was Jhavhul's plan all along.
oh, and page seven Jhavul becomes th e newest incarbarnation of xotani. laves little doubt to his evebtual mega-lomanic occupatio...
Once again, speculations without basis.
I don't think a new set of rules would require updating the campaign history, rather if you're going to do it for other reasons—that would be the optimal time to do it. Because that is when the company would logically be releasing new versions of the campaign books. So as to be compliant with those new rules. Not because of new rules, but when would be the best time you were going to do it all.
This, pretty much. If you are not goint to update the timeline, why are you even going to release a new campaign setting book? To update few spells, magic items and feats we got in there?
the only thing jhavul s
achieves is healing of its 1000 s wounds and possibly being absobed into it, no control over anything-So, it's Xotani's idea (with his Int 3) to leave Golarion to court Ymeri and not Jhavhul's? I considered that odd, to say the least, since that was Jhavhul's plan all along.
oh, and page seven Jhavul becomes th e newest incarbarnation of xotani. laves little doubt to his evebtual mega-lomanic occupatio...Once again, speculations without basis.
ahhh, oooops. We mean the creature with Int 3, Wis 17 and and a CHA of 14 who is utterly immune to any mind-effecting effects and... just by the way... a direct offspring with a single-minded pupose of a major deity ? I have known live priests (with huge followings) and lesser Stats
aka = this guy www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/magical-beasts/spawn-of-rovagug/ xotani-the-firebleeder/xotani-the-firebleeder-original
a thing that is an aspect of a a deity incarnate ? I can only see Jhavul ( a mere Efreeti-Lord) who has done nothing but heal the beast lose to it and being sucked in - or rather - as described, enclosed in its ribcage. If Xotani can now command his plane shift powers... even worse. Taking command of his ability to grant wishes.... please no
Never mind that wishes do not beat spell resistance per se?
So now we seem to have a plane shifting monstrosity, ready to burn a hole into the background of existence to free Rovagug (the sole purpose of the Spawns ). Whether that thing has the desire to smooch Ymeri (or whoever) seems pretty irrelevant.
That is not speculation, that is a thesis,and I would await some reply
This, pretty much. If you are not goint to update the timeline, why are you even going to release a new campaign setting book? To update few spells, magic items and feats we got in there?
While it's still probably a while before a new campaign setting guide is released, I would be surprised if there weren't at least some updates in a hypothetical new version.
For example, Shattered Star has already effectively added some things to canon, and I'd expect those to make it in.
A cool possibility, which could even be a fan project, would be to have a web document available that marks what canon changes are reflective of which adventures. That way, it could be easy to isolate and edit things that don't mesh with individual campaigns.
The big thing that Golarion has in its favor regarding any future updates is that there hasn't been a world-breaking event that changes the very nature of the setting. By comparison to other settings, the Realms had the Time of Troubles and the Spellplague (and a million other things), Greyhawk had the Greyhawk Wars, Dark Sun had the Prism Pentad, and so on. If Golarion gets a future update, people can replace names of rulers or certain settlements easily enough, but they thankfully won't have to redraft an entire pantheon of gods or change the very nature of the setting itself.
The Spawns actually have no purpose other than to spread destruction. Even in the link you posted states as much.
Like the majority of Rovagug's ruinous children, Xotani is wrath and devastation given life. It has no desires or intentions beyond destroying all that crosses its path and consuming the ashes
Why would Paizo need to advance the timeline?
Even if the ruleset advanced that does not mean that Golarion has to.
Golarion has already seen one ruleset change without advancing the timeline.
I would be really resentful if Paizo decided to invalidate major portions of hundreds of pounds worth of books I have bought from them without a much, much better reason than: "Ooh, new ruleset."
And, anyway, this just begs the question: why even have PF2.0?
Paizo are creating great adventures in a great setting right now."Hey, guys, is this thing broken?"
"No, it works really, really well."
"Ah, right, better change it then..."
My personal reason being: "I hate Medieval Stasis." Worlds advance. That's a fact. I have always been annoyed when a fantasy world goes six thousand years and barely advances in fashion, let alone culture and technology.
That said, advancing the timeline can work well to preserve the present setting... if you do it far enough. Move to a late 1800's/Early 1900's-equivalent in technology. Gunpowder is just moving past the Black Powder stage to primitive (military) rocketry, Ships going to the Ironclad level, and maybe a primitive Gatling-style weapon or two. Steam power is being used to move ships and Constructs, and maybe even skipping up to the first trains.
Hell, maybe even Magic could advance. If Ezren is any indication, anybody can learn magic anytime they want to. Maybe the advancement of technology (and discoveries by Pathfinders and other adventurers) has made magic easier to learn, and a much larger percentage of people know a few cantrips and can use magic items. Maybe 0- and low-level attack magics have become a little more restricted, to prevent misuse.
On the other hand, this advancement may not be universal. If Cheliax is still Devil-controlled they may restrict scientific advancement, for example, as might other places.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, here I disagree. The magic-medieval stasis is necessary to preserve the feel of the setting. When everybody and their mother gets firearms, this gets very much into steampunk territory. Which is an interesting setting, but would risk splitting the fanbase much more than just advancing the setting storyline a bit.
But that's the point. Move it far ahead to allow a new setting in the same world, but let any players who want to go back to (or keep) the classic Medieval European/African/Asian Fantasy to do so in the "Classic" era.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But that's the point. Move it far ahead to allow a new setting in the same world, but let any players who want to go back to (or keep) the classic Medieval European/African/Asian Fantasy to do so in the "Classic" era.
And which of these eras is going to be supported in the playe companion, pathfinder setting, pathfinder modules, and pathfinder adventure path product lines? some people would not be interested in this new, 19th centurty feel you suggest, and Paizo might lose some customers.
Also, one of the things I like about advancing the setting only a few years is to see where all the NPCs are at which we came to know in the AP's. If we advance the setting by a hundred years, most of them are dead, which sucks. Same stupid thing happened with the Forgotten Realms. Only worse.
But that's the point. Move it far ahead to allow a new setting in the same world, but let any players who want to go back to (or keep) the classic Medieval European/African/Asian Fantasy to do so in the "Classic" era.And which of these eras is going to be supported in the playe companion, pathfinder setting, pathfinder modules, and pathfinder adventure path product lines? some people would not be interested in this new, 19th centurty feel you suggest, and Paizo might lose some customers.
This. When WotC revised 3.0 into 3.5 they no longer produced support materials for the earlier version but concentrated on the newer and shinier rules for all their subsequent releases. Granted those two versions could be "retrofitted" into one another with a certain degree of work on the part of DMs, but that was far easier to do (since they both were set in the same time-universe) that it would be to match up a "medieval" PF1 and a "steampunk" PF2. If Paizo were to do as you suggest they would either have to abandon the PF1 timeline (which I very seriously doubt they would even consider) or split their publication capacity to support two rule sets and two timelines. (I rather doubt they'd do this either, as it would cut in half the material usable to all players and would probably tick off a great many of their existing customers to boot.)
As was said above, "if it ain't broke don't fix it". There's nothing wrong with PF that a tweak here or there can't deal with, and it certainly doesn't need a complete "PF Version 2" rewrite to accomplish.
If you want to play PF in a Steampunk setting that's a whole different matter, and could be a lot of fun to do. The way to do that, however, is to campaign Paizo (or a 3PP) for an alternate setting using the current rules, not rewrite PF to introduce the new setting.
As was said above, "if it ain't broke don't fix it". There's nothing wrong with PF that a tweak here or there can't deal with, and it certainly doesn't need a complete "PF Version 2" rewrite to accomplish.
Sooner or later there will be a point where they have done all the sensible hardcovers they could and at that point ( or rather, two years before, ideally. Development cycles take a while, after all ) the basic question is: "Do we create a new edition or do we lay off half our people?"
Guess which way they will probably go.
But that's the point. Move it far ahead to allow a new setting in the same world, but let any players who want to go back to (or keep) the classic Medieval European/African/Asian Fantasy to do so in the "Classic" era.And which of these eras is going to be supported in the playe companion, pathfinder setting, pathfinder modules, and pathfinder adventure path product lines? some people would not be interested in this new, 19th centurty feel you suggest, and Paizo might lose some customers.
This may surprise you, but many RPG companies can and do work on more than one game/setting. Hell, some even do multiple systems.
Sarcasm aside, the obvious answer is to do it for both.
Paizo has said in the past that supporting two campaign settings wasn't a move they would be likely to make, since supporting multiple campaign settings means dividing your customer base, making each overall product less profitable.
As is...There is a lot of territory left to cover in the Inner Sea. Add in the Darklands, Planes, other continents, other worlds, etc, I think it will be awhile before they really run out of CS material to cover.
As was said above, "if it ain't broke don't fix it". There's nothing wrong with PF that a tweak here or there can't deal with, and it certainly doesn't need a complete "PF Version 2" rewrite to accomplish.Sooner or later there will be a point where they have done all the sensible hardcovers they could and at that point ( or rather, two years before, ideally. Development cycles take a while, after all ) the basic question is: "Do we create a new edition or do we lay off half our people?"
Guess which way they will probably go.
Don't you think the brains behind Paizo will perhaps be able to think of a third alternative?
Notwithstanding the fact that at three rulebooks per year (including bestiaries and NPC galleries and with potential collations down the track) it's going to be quite some time before they've run out of potentially interesting books.
But that's the point. Move it far ahead to allow a new setting in the same world, but let any players who want to go back to (or keep) the classic Medieval European/African/Asian Fantasy to do so in the "Classic" era.And which of these eras is going to be supported in the playe companion, pathfinder setting, pathfinder modules, and pathfinder adventure path product lines? some people would not be interested in this new, 19th centurty feel you suggest, and Paizo might lose some customers.This may surprise you, but many RPG companies can and do work on more than one game/setting. Hell, some even do multiple systems.
Sarcasm aside, the obvious answer is to do it for both.
Lisa Stevens has said in several places that pursuing this strategy was one of the major factors behind TSR's eventual demise. She was the person responsible for trawling through the company's history to work out what went wrong when WotC bought it out.
I think the new setting would have to be significantly different from Golarion and the perceived demand would have to be enormous in order for them to take the business in this direction. I would think a standalone setting for some other genre (like SciFi, Science Fantasy, Post-Apocalyptic or pure Horror) would be significantly more likely than a 'future Golarion'.
Don't you think the brains behind Paizo will perhaps be able to think of a third alternative?
Notwithstanding the fact that at three rulebooks per year (including bestiaries and NPC galleries and with potential collations down the track) it's going to be quite some time before they've run out of potentially interesting books.
There's a finite amount of stuff they can do which holds the costumers interest. We are already at "campaign fluff" ( Ultimate Campaign ) and "epic rules" ( Mythic Adventures ), and things like "the equipment book" have already been done by now. There's probably room for another round of new classes, feats, magic items and one NPC codex, but after that we get into the territory where there is so much rules bloat that it frightens off new costumers.
I think half a decade is more or less what we still can hope for with the current edition. And after ten years I think enough time has passed anyway to overhaul the rules. Hopefully with enough feedback to not leave the Monk and Rogue behind a second time, give alternatives to the christmas tree effect and overhaul the magic item crafting system ( pet peeves of mine ). ;)
|
|
But that's the point. Move it far ahead to allow a new setting in the same world, but let any players who want to go back to (or keep) the classic Medieval European/African/Asian Fantasy to do so in the "Classic" era.And which of these eras is going to be supported in the playe companion, pathfinder setting, pathfinder modules, and pathfinder adventure path product lines? some people would not be interested in this new, 19th centurty feel you suggest, and Paizo might lose some customers.This may surprise you, but many RPG companies can and do work on more than one game/setting. Hell, some even do multiple systems.
Sarcasm aside, the obvious answer is to do it for both.
And they don't make quite as much money as Paizo does. Let's focus on Adventure Paths to show you how trying to juggle two timelines could hurt Paizo BIG TIME:
So, two timelines, two APs per year. Does Paizo alternate between creating APs for steampunk Golarion and medival Golarion? If they do, and Bob The Customer only want the medival setting, Bob is now paying to Paizo HALF of what he used to when all APs were in his prefered time frame. So, potentialy, a LOT of customers prefer one of the settings over the other, meaning Paizo products will compete with themselves, cutting back the sales. Or maybe Paizo decides only every 4th AP is set in steakmpunk Golarion. Then, steampunk Golarion is not as well supported, and evety orher steampunk product sells LESS, because it's not as useful.
No, splitting the timeline just dosen't work. it's literaly throwing money away and Paizo is first and foremost a company, a place where people have jobs they use to finance themselves. They are not to be expected to make terrible buisness descisions.
And the fact that other companies DID attempt to sell several games at once? different companies, different games, different situations. Paizo is based on selling numerous adventures and support content for thier games, while other companies sell less books, and use an entirely different buisness module. Paizo's buisness does not mash well with several seperate systems.
Don't you think the brains behind Paizo will perhaps be able to think of a third alternative?
Notwithstanding the fact that at three rulebooks per year (including bestiaries and NPC galleries and with potential collations down the track) it's going to be quite some time before they've run out of potentially interesting books.
There's a finite amount of stuff they can do which holds the costumers interest. We are already at "campaign fluff" ( Ultimate Campaign ) and "epic rules" ( Mythic Adventures ), and things like "the equipment book" have already been done by now. There's probably room for another round of new classes, feats, magic items and one NPC codex, but after that we get into the territory where there is so much rules bloat that it frightens off new costumers.
I think half a decade is more or less what we still can hope for with the current edition. And after ten years I think enough time has passed anyway to overhaul the rules. Hopefully with enough feedback to not leave the Monk and Rogue behind a second time, give alternatives to the christmas tree effect and overhaul the magic item crafting system ( pet peeves of mine ). ;)
I have similar tastes to you (in fact, more extreme - I'd be quite happy if they never released another rulebook). However, there are many people who love the rulebook line and who no doubt can see another half dozen or so 'must haves' on the horizon - given the seeming popularity of bestiaries, the likely NPC Codex 2 and the so far untapped possibility of a spell compendium, collations of feats, etcetera/etcetera I think there's many more years of possible releases.
However, my main point was "We make a new edition or we fire half the staff" is probably a false dichotomy. The Paizo thinkers-in-residence may well be able to come up with other options.
Well, every other development team of all the other major RPGs has not managed to do so. I like the people at Paizo, but I don't think they are inherently smarter than every other RPG developer in the history of the hobby.
Their model is different though. "Major RPG" is a subjective thing, obviously, but I don't think the above dichotomy holds for those publishers focussing more on flavour material over rules.
Can you think of another major RPG with a release schedule of only three rule books per year? I think that slow drip feed approach makes it much easier for the community to assimilate the additional rules. The commercial dependence on rules bloat is no doubt significantly altered as well.
Their other lines also print rules and fill out a lot of the flavor which were major late releases for, say, WotC. Dragon book? Done. Undead book? Done. Both as softcovers. So they are actually cutting down on the time they have until they run out of material.
But no matter what you say about "slow drip", eventually that IV will run dry. Then it's time to hang up a new one.
Well maybe. We'll see, I guess.
I really don't see the rule bloat to the degree that other people have argued. Three books a year is not a lot, and the number of new classes introduced since the APG is pretty minimal. I do suspect we will sometime get a new edition, although I don't foresee it as a major overhaul or huge reboot of the rulebook line. And I don't think we will see a new setting until the plot well in the adventure path lines dries up.
Not to mention that of said rule book, one tends to be a bestiary which doesn't really add to rules at all. So it's actually two rulebooks a year when you think about it.
I think back in 2010 when the APG came out, it was the only rulesbook, as the other hardcovers were the Bestiary 2 and the Inner Sea World Guide. 2011 was Ultimate Magic and Combat with the Bestiary 3, and last year was the Advanced Race Guide, Ultimate Equipment, and the NPC Codex. So that's two rulebooks the last two years, with a third as a compilation for monsters and NPCs. This year, we have Ultimate Campaign and Mythic Adventures, and they the possibility of another Bestiary/NPC Codex.