Well, we're all just making up definitions... there's no bureau of magic setting definitions that I'm aware of. ...
Sir, I am with the Bureau Magical Definitions Enforcement Arm. We do not appreciate you attempt to denigrate our contribution to a just and consistent society. Talk such as that can disturb the peace and lead to unpredictable consequences. I will have to ask you to come with us.
..
.
We would really rather you did not come peacefully.
If we're using commoners as the base, a gold piece is worth about $100.00. Also a thorp according to the rules would have 1d4 minor magical items. Minor magical items being low level scrolls or simple potions, someone seems to be confusing some rules somewhere... There are definitely more than 4 1st level spells. Of the 1d4 items, you only have about a 15% chance of each of those items being a 1st level scroll, much less the one you want or need.The number and types of magic items available in a community depend upon its size. Each community has a base value associated with it (see Table: Available Magic Items). There is a 75% chance that any item of that value or lower can be found for sale with little effort in that community. In addition, the community has a number of other items for sale. These items are randomly determined and are broken down by category (minor, medium, or major). After determining the number of items available in each category, refer to Table: Random Magic Item Generation to determine the type of each item (potion, scroll, ring, weapon, etc.) before moving on to the individual charts to determine the exact item. Reroll any items that fall below the community's base value.There is a 75% chance of any magic item costing less than 50gp to be readily available for purchase in a thorp. There is then an additional 1d4 minor magic items randomly determined also available.
This boils down to there being almost 500 scrolls and potions being available for a small thorp of 20 people.
Wow, how did I miss that? Yeah, with that many scrolls sitting around it's a wonder that every thorp doesn't have a wizard school. The mental acrobatics required to ignore the economic and social ramifications... It's been quite a while since I've perused through the rules like that. I mean if you consider the purchase limit, it's kind of crazy that they don't just trade magic items for magic items. They're practically flooded in it, and it's not like they're using it for the poor twerps in their thorp, otherwise they wouldn't be so poor and pathetic. Also the amount of banditry that would occur with a well off magic shop in the middle of nowhere, why doesn't the thorp overtake the magic shop and make their settlement better off?
It's pretty clear that it's for the player's convenience, but it just doesn't jive very well with the settings that we're actually presented. Though I've never seen a group abuse that rule, though I've never played in or ran a game where we rolled to see what magic items were available. The group in general just kind of assumes that the settlement that is screwed when goblins attack probably don't have a massive arsenal of low level magic locked away in a shack.
I can just see it now, 3 families of farmers (6 adults and their 6 kids), the mayor, a handful of hunters (3 or 4), a blacksmith (with wife and kid), and Gandalf the merchant.
Seriously, anyone able to protect their magical merchandise would be able to protect their thorp.
New campaign; play as villains who release goblin armies on villages; loot the magic shops that go down with the town.
Well if the stated wealth by community regarding thorps are accurate, at least regarding Golarion, if not everything Pathfinder official, I'm glad to say that I'm not using Golarion nor Pathfinder official rules in that regard, as 500+ possible scrolls/potions and/or as many GP that the posts indicate is certainly not true for any setting I run. To me a typical thorp resident probably has never seen a gold piece in their entire life, let alone a magic item, from anyone in their community.
I constantly get reminded that Pathfinder expectations aren't based on anything like historical reality, though that may be true for your games - all my RPG games have some relativity to historical reality. You have to consider that even if we agree that magic isn't real, many peoples and cultures of the past believed it was - so any fantasy game I play has at least a toe-hold on real world aspects, especially of wealth by community. With Commoners and Experts as the expected encounter in most thorps (even to me), adepts are rarely found in a thorp in any of my worlds. So the availability of scrolls, potions and magic items are only available in urban settings, not thorps - at least in my games. This is true even in my mid/high magic games.
My group generally goes with you have a 75% chance to find the first 1d4 items you're looking for (in that thorp). So, you come across a thorp. Gm rolls 1d4. You ask to buy a potion of cure light, scroll of magic missile, and a scroll of mage armor. He rolls percentile, and you find the potion and the mage armor, but no magic missile. Then he'll roll another 1d4 for random items if someone wants to go looking in peoples attics for things stashed away that no one really knows how to use.
If we're using commoners as the base, a gold piece is worth about $100.00. Also a thorp according to the rules would have 1d4 minor magical items. Minor magical items being low level scrolls or simple potions, someone seems to be confusing some rules somewhere... There are definitely more than 4 1st level spells. Of the 1d4 items, you only have about a 15% chance of each of those items being a 1st level scroll, much less the one you want or need.The number and types of magic items available in a community depend upon its size. Each community has a base value associated with it (see Table: Available Magic Items). There is a 75% chance that any item of that value or lower can be found for sale with little effort in that community. In addition, the community has a number of other items for sale. These items are randomly determined and are broken down by category (minor, medium, or major). After determining the number of items available in each category, refer to Table: Random Magic Item Generation to determine the type of each item (potion, scroll, ring, weapon, etc.) before moving on to the individual charts to determine the exact item. Reroll any items that fall below the community's base value.There is a 75% chance of any magic item costing less than 50gp to be readily available for purchase in a thorp. There is then an additional 1d4 minor magic items randomly determined also available.
This boils down to there being almost 500 scrolls and potions being available for a small thorp of 20 people.
I tend to assume it's actually more of a schrodinger thing. Rather than 75% of all cheap magic items in the world being there, it's a 75% chance that one of the few undefined magic items in the small little town happens to be the one that you need.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I tend to assume it's actually more of a schrodinger thing. Rather than 75% of all cheap magic items in the world being there, it's a 75% chance that one of the few undefined magic items in the small little town happens to be the one that you need.There is a 75% chance of any magic item costing less than 50gp to be readily available for purchase in a thorp. There is then an additional 1d4 minor magic items randomly determined also available.
This boils down to there being almost 500 scrolls and potions being available for a small thorp of 20 people.
I think there's a guy with a sack full of scrolls who follows adventuring parties around from village to village hoping they'll buy something.
A community that relies on conjured water will train up as many low level adepts and clerics as possible. Half of the population has at least 11 wisdom. If all of them are pushed towards the church in their youth in fishing for vocations a lot more will make cleric or adept than in a less faith reliant society and most of those will hit at least second level.
That's a Very High Magic setting where just about anyone who wants to can become a spellcaster. Giving the lack of adepts in the average Pathfinder adventure - the ones I've looked at tend to have one cleric per settlement (and about five per evil temple) - I think I've been operating in worlds where divine casting is a calling and not something you can just learn in school.
That particular rule - the 75% thing - makes absolutely no sense to me. Personally I would "house rule" to eliminate it.Tippyverse is Bob Marley Magic.
And Pathfinder is at least moderately High Magic. I seem to recall that there's a 75% chance of finding every first level scroll in a town of 10 people. The price limits are fairly high on the low end and fairly low on the high end (nothing above +3 weapons without town modifiers).
Fortunately, it's not a rule. It's a guideline in the GameMastery guide offered as part of a method to streamline settlements without having to manually place every building, shop, and home. The guidelines themselves acknowledge that building everything by hand is the best way to handle settlement creation but that many GMs might not have the time to devote to doing so.
I tend to assume it's actually more of a schrodinger thing. Rather than 75% of all cheap magic items in the world being there, it's a 75% chance that one of the few undefined magic items in the small little town happens to be the one that you need.
It's also a make-the-game-playable thing, and it goes well beyond magic items. In a realistic world, an even slightly unusual weapon like a scimitar would be unavailable in small towns across the world, and even a common gear like swords or chainmail would probably be unavailable in villages. This makes a rust monster something truly terrifying, because if it eats your guisarme, you are never ever getting one again unless you head to a big city, and your trip specialist is with WP: guisarme just became borderline unplayable.
Similarly, you can't find armor sized for your halfling barbarian.
Once again, realism ends up hurting the martials more than the casters, but we must at all costs keep people from being able to (re)equip themselves with anything other than bread and water.
But, obviously, realism must triumph. If you wanted something fun, you should be playing a game or something like that.
Fortunately, it's not a rule. It's a guideline in the GameMastery guide offered as part of a method to streamline settlements without having to manually place every building, shop, and home. The guidelines themselves acknowledge that building everything by hand is the best way to handle settlement creation but that many GMs might not have the time to devote to doing so.
Being primarily a fantasy cartographer, its probably needless to say, I can't see creating a settlement without placing every building, and even creating at least a partial gazetteer for most of those buildings. I don't always create every NPC belonging to those buildings, but most often create the most significant NPCs.
I have the GMG, but only because Paizo sent it to me free as reference material for the work I did in creating the map and gazetteer for the City of Kasai for Jade Regent AP when I did a commission for that. While I did some reading in the GMG, I apparently didn't read enough to know about the 75% thing. And as stated, that guideline is something that doesn't, nor would ever exist in my worlds.
Fortunately, it's not a rule. It's a guideline in the GameMastery guide offered as part of a method to streamline settlements without having to manually place every building, shop, and home. The guidelines themselves acknowledge that building everything by hand is the best way to handle settlement creation but that many GMs might not have the time to devote to doing so.That particular rule - the 75% thing - makes absolutely no sense to me. Personally I would "house rule" to eliminate it.Tippyverse is Bob Marley Magic.
And Pathfinder is at least moderately High Magic. I seem to recall that there's a 75% chance of finding every first level scroll in a town of 10 people. The price limits are fairly high on the low end and fairly low on the high end (nothing above +3 weapons without town modifiers).
The section I quoted are actually in the core book. Its the GMG which defines a thorp as <20 people.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think there's a guy with a sack full of scrolls who follows adventuring parties around from village to village hoping they'll buy something.
Actually, there's this little hobbit/leprechaun thing that follows you around with a big sack of potions slung across his back. Occasionally, the little freak appears at the left edge of the screen, and you've got to...like...kick him and punch him and whack him with your sword and stuff as fast as you can before he exits stage right. For every blow you land, he drops a potion. Thing of beauty. High magic for the win.
|
To be fair, that 75% thing doesn't need to be rolled. The DM is free to pick which 75% of the places you visit actually have the items you want.
I will also note that the 10 people need to live in a town, but a town may contain many more 10 people that don't live there.
And of the d4, no rules regarding how cursed they are have presented.
I did get a barbarian PC to the point where a poisonous cloak would be very unlikely to ever poison the barbarian due to such high CON...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think there's a guy with a sack full of scrolls who follows adventuring parties around from village to village hoping they'll buy something.Actually, there's this little hobbit/leprechaun thing that follows you around with a big sack of potions slung across his back. Occasionally, the little freak appears at the left edge of the screen, and you've got to...like...kick him and punch him and whack him with your sword and stuff as fast as you can before he exits stage right. For every blow you land, he drops a potion. Thing of beauty. High magic for the win.
Ahh golden axe. Fantastic!
I tend to assume it's actually more of a schrodinger thing. Rather than 75% of all cheap magic items in the world being there, it's a 75% chance that one of the few undefined magic items in the small little town happens to be the one that you need.
It's also a make-the-game-playable thing, and it goes well beyond magic items. In a realistic world, an even slightly unusual weapon like a scimitar would be unavailable in small towns across the world, and even a common gear like swords or chainmail would probably be unavailable in villages. This makes a rust monster something truly terrifying, because if it eats your guisarme, you are never ever getting one again unless you head to a big city, and your trip specialist is with WP: guisarme just became borderline unplayable.
Similarly, you can't find armor sized for your halfling barbarian.
Once again, realism ends up hurting the martials more than the casters, but we must at all costs keep people from being able to (re)equip themselves with anything other than bread and water.
But, obviously, realism must triumph. If you wanted something fun, you should be playing a game or something like that.
Truth. It's like people think this is supposed to be a fun game instead of "Realistic Fantasy Simulator 2015."
Truth. It's like people think this is supposed to be a fun game instead of "Realistic Fantasy Simulator 2015."
Why is it that "Realistic Fantasy Simulator 2015" = this would not be fun to play. I don't get this notion at all. Perhaps trying to make PF equivalent to that isn't the preferred game, but why would it be "unfun" if it were? I don't see standard PF as the only fun way to play it.
Truth. It's like people think this is supposed to be a fun game instead of "Realistic Fantasy Simulator 2015."Why is it that "Realistic Fantasy Simulator 2015" = this would not be fun to play. I don't get this notion at all. Perhaps trying to make PF equivalent to that isn't the preferred game, but why would it be "unfun" if it were? I don't see standard PF as the only fun way to play it.
Realistic simulator wouldn't be fun because of the amount of houserules that would have to be applied to get rules for everything. Basically, pathfinder is not a "realistic" game, and so making it one changes the character of the game to a point of not being recognizable as pathfinder any more.
Realistic simulator wouldn't be fun because of the amount of houserules that would have to be applied to get rules for everything. Basically, pathfinder is not a "realistic" game, and so making it one changes the character of the game to a point of not being recognizable as pathfinder any more.Truth. It's like people think this is supposed to be a fun game instead of "Realistic Fantasy Simulator 2015."Why is it that "Realistic Fantasy Simulator 2015" = this would not be fun to play. I don't get this notion at all. Perhaps trying to make PF equivalent to that isn't the preferred game, but why would it be "unfun" if it were? I don't see standard PF as the only fun way to play it.
Yeah, I find the sheer amount of rules bloat involved in making the game "realistic" rapidly becomes problematic. Not to mention that in my (anecdotal and limited) experience, most people trying to make the game realistic do it through fairly arbitrary and slapdash rules that often don't actually make the game any more realistic anyway.
While I never said I'd want to play a realistic fantasy simulator game, per se - I'm thinking that what I'd need in such a game versus what you'd expect are probably two different things. And to state that to make Pathfinder into such a game, would undoubtably require so many changes that it wouldn't really be Pathfinder anymore, but as I stated further up thread - who cares, except the people playing that game? Why is it wrong to play a heavily houseruled game for any purpose?
I'm not a simulationist gamer anyway, but if someone was and created playable add-ons to change PF to their liking, wouldn't it be OK at least to that person's game? I see no reason to ever keep a Pathfinder game purely Pathfinder.
I've been looking at both the Tech rules from Paizo, and EN Publishing Santiago setting to create a home game set in a hard sci-fi setting. I see that I'd have to create rules for space travel and ship to ship combat in 3D space since there is nothing I can convert within PF rules to do that. If the game works well, I might publish those add-on rules and perhaps create a full module set in such.
Similarly I've also been considering building a Deadlands-ish, magical Old West setting centering around the gunslinger and gun wielding archetypes for other classes (including a Shootist magus archetype, I've already created).
Both those ideas are quite different from standard Pathfinder, and would really not require too many add-on rules to accomplish, though indeed some would be necessary. I see nothing wrong with playing a Pathfinder game that strays far from the typical. And I don't see a necessity to learn and play a different ruleset to accomplish either. Pathfinder "adjusted" would work just fine in my thinking.
Also, this thread is getting me thinking of a possible low magic PF game where there are no PC casters at all, not even half-casters, but allowing only martials using a stash of "magic items or an artifact" found that was created before the "fall of magic" to serve as the only magic available to them without the possibility of purchasing/creating new magic items (since nobody in the world is a caster). I'd like to see how such a game goes, at least for a one-shot or a short campaign.
While I never said I'd want to play a realistic fantasy simulator game, per se - I'm thinking that what I'd need in such a game versus what you'd expect are probably two different things. And to state that to make Pathfinder into such a game, would undoubtably require so many changes that it wouldn't really be Pathfinder anymore, but as I stated further up thread - who cares, except the people playing that game? Why is it wrong to play a heavily houseruled game for any purpose?I'm not a simulationist gamer anyway, but if someone was and created playable add-ons to change PF to their liking, wouldn't it be OK at least to that person's game? I see no reason to ever keep a Pathfinder game purely Pathfinder.
I'd say you hit it on the head.
I've been looking at both the Tech rules from Paizo, and EN Publishing Santiago setting to create a home game set in a hard sci-fi setting. I see that I'd have to create rules for space travel and ship to ship combat in 3D space since there is nothing I can convert within PF rules to do that. If the game works well, I might publish those add-on rules and perhaps create a full module set in such.Similarly I've also been considering building a Deadlands-ish, magical Old West setting centering around the gunslinger and gun wielding archetypes for other classes (including a Shootist magus archetype, I've already created).
Both those ideas are quite different from standard Pathfinder, and would really not require too many add-on rules to accomplish, though indeed some would be necessary. I see nothing wrong with playing a Pathfinder game that strays far from the typical. And I don't see a necessity to learn and play a different ruleset to accomplish either. Pathfinder "adjusted" would work just fine in my thinking.
Interesting. I'm not interested in the Gunslinger for my regular game, but I thought it might be fun for a "gunpowder and magic" 17th century type game. Or a pirate themed 18th century type game. My "go to" game for science fiction is either Traveller or Stars Without Number, but a science fiction version of PF / 3.x could be fun.
Also, this thread is getting me thinking of a possible low magic PF game where there are no PC casters at all, not even half-casters, but allowing only martials using a stash of "magic items or an artifact" found that was created before the "fall of magic" to serve as the only magic...
And somebody will probably tell you you're "wrong" and expound on why it can't / shouldn't be done...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Truth. It's like people think this is supposed to be a fun game instead of "Realistic Fantasy Simulator 2015."
Why is it that "Realistic Fantasy Simulator 2015" = this would not be fun to play. I don't get this notion at all. Perhaps trying to make PF equivalent to that isn't the preferred game, but why would it be "unfun" if it were? I don't see standard PF as the only fun way to play it.
Realistic simulator wouldn't be fun because of the amount of houserules that would have to be applied to get rules for everything. Basically, pathfinder is not a "realistic" game, and so making it one changes the character of the game to a point of not being recognizable as pathfinder any more.
Yeah, I find the sheer amount of rules bloat involved in making the game "realistic" rapidly becomes problematic. Not to mention that in my (anecdotal and limited) experience, most people trying to make the game realistic do it through fairly arbitrary and slapdash rules that often don't actually make the game any more realistic anyway.
Rules bloat? Looking at a couple of shelves of 3.x and PF stuff... I wouldn't say anything added to that is "bloat". Rules "different" maybe... and that's OK. Given the variety of d20 based games variations that have branched off of the tree (including PF) I'm not sure why anyone worries about bloat. Game systems get stretched in different directions to accommodate different ideas and themes. If they get stretched too far from the base, "ding" new game. Not a problem really.
Rules bloat? Looking at a couple of shelves of 3.x and PF stuff... I wouldn't say anything added to that is "bloat". Rules "different" maybe... and that's OK. Given the variety of d20 based games variations that have branched off of the tree (including PF) I'm not sure why anyone worries about bloat. Game systems get stretched in different directions to accommodate different ideas and themes. If they get stretched too far from the base, "ding" new game. Not a problem really.
I think we're working off different definitions of rules bloat. What I meant was that pushing the realism angle too hard can quickly lead to a system that bogs down in its own rules, to the point where you get stuff like twenty pages of modifiers on the attack roll because every single factor must be accounted for to achieve maximum realism.
"You missed because you took a -1 to hit due to the cold weather being bad for your sword's leather grip."
"But what about the +1 bonus I got for eating a good breakfast?"
I think we're working on different definitions of realism angles - minutia is not reality, minutia is insignificant. Smart rules are simple, even if there are lots of rules. If I were interesting in developing a more realistic fantasy rules set, minutia wouldn't even be a part.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know I personally never make rules for _realism_. I do make rules for _believability_, though, and it seems they are often confused.
I think we're working on different definitions of realism angles - minutia is not reality, minutia is insignificant. Smart rules are simple, even if there are lots of rules. If I were interesting in developing a more realistic fantasy rules set, minutia wouldn't even be a part.
I suppose realism tends to be a bit of a tainted term for me, since many of the times it's come up in tabletop games I played in, it's been in the form of the GM/a player suggesting arbitrary restrictions or house rules to try and enforce "realism."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
When people use the term "realism" they are actually referring to verisimilitude, which is essentially the ability to keep the players immersed in the universe of the game. Players care less about realism, and more about consistency.
Too many rules that need to be applied during play will also shatter that illusion and break verisimilitude as well. How can you be immersed in the world if you have to stop every 5 minutes to make sure the rules are right?
Obviously, for different people it's different points. Which is why it's extremely important to find a group that you have at somewhat a similar mindset with. If I ask a player what he says to the guard to bluff his way in, that's because my group is the kind that wants some sort of verisimilitude. The player doesn't have to act, be charismatic, know tons of lore, or make complex formulae to succeed; they just need to have some image in their head of what they are doing. In the same vein, I make magic scarce where people wouldn't have it, but available where there is lots.
Low Magic just helps makes the game feel immersive, something a lot of GMs and players want to go for. Figuring out how to limit without adding in obtrusive or game breaking houserules is difficult but possible. The game actually works pretty well for low magic at low levels, it's only at higher levels that it starts bleeding through.
"realism" is a tricky objective.
On one side, there's the "but dragons!" argument that says that the universe in which the characters evolve is fantastic and by definition not a realist one to start with. Accepting that this world isn't like our world is essential to fantasy storytelling.
On the other side we, as players, are humans and therefore imagine things as we experience them. In real life, fire burns thus fire deals damage even in this fantasy world. These references are just as essential to storytelling, even if we can conceive that some creatures don't feel pain or aren't damaged by flames.
So dragons can fly despite their size, but gravity still exists and it still pulls down (well, most of the times anyways).
As Gaber said above, suspension of disbelief goes only so far and some believability is required. Finding the perfect balance between fantasy and realism is kind a Holy Grail quest; you must accept that you will never find it, it will be different for every group, you may find that your ideals are different in two years from now. It doesn't make the quest less noble however.
Low Magic just helps makes the game feel immersive, something a lot of GMs and players want to go for.
I'd say Low-magic allows for a certain type of immersion. DMs and players are able to feel immersed in their standard high magic fantasy Pathfinder games. Some themes are more difficult to convey in high-magic; therefore low-magic has its place.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think there's a guy with a sack full of scrolls who follows adventuring parties around from village to village hoping they'll buy something.
I want to get back to this. I think that'd make an AWESOME side plot in an actual campaign.
PC's start off level 1. First time they go hunting for magic items they find this human with a handy haversack full of potions and scrolls. He asks them to buy, they do or don't, end scene.
Next time they go looking, he's there. If the players actively try to avoid him on their next shopping trip, his "twin brother" shows up with a mustache. This goes on, through the whole game.
This vendor just ALWAYS happens to be around the PCs, no matter how remote their location. He also has JUST the right scroll or potion they need, whenever they need it. In the end the GM can use this guy to represent whatever they want:
Light world: the little guy was a solar/planetar/whatever agent of the gods sent to help the heroes on their journey
Dark world: this is a demon in disguise, slowly getting them to trust and depend on his wares so that, when the chips are finally down he has the ONE thing that will save the day, but it'll cost the soul of an innocent to buy it
Fun world: he's literally a rip-off of some video game trope, like the peg leg boy or the elf-guy from G A or whatever
Sorry for hijacking the thread.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Low Magic just helps makes the game feel immersive, something a lot of GMs and players want to go for.I'd say Low-magic allows for a certain type of immersion. DMs and players are able to feel immersed in their standard high magic fantasy Pathfinder games. Some themes are more difficult to convey in high-magic; therefore low-magic has its place.
Yeah, I should correct that, low-magic helps makes the game feel more immersive in the types of setting that many GMs run.
Now if you're running a setting where cities are floating on in the sky on rocks, lords get resurrected every time an assassin tries to make an attempt on their lives, and wizards run taxi services, then low-magic makes no sense (or you're playing in a sci-fi setting ;p).
Yeah, I should correct that, low-magic helps makes the game feel more immersive in the types of setting that many GMs run.Low Magic just helps makes the game feel immersive, something a lot of GMs and players want to go for.I'd say Low-magic allows for a certain type of immersion. DMs and players are able to feel immersed in their standard high magic fantasy Pathfinder games. Some themes are more difficult to convey in high-magic; therefore low-magic has its place.
Truth. Most people coming into Pathfinder with no previous D&D/PF experience are probably going to be coming in expecting something more along the lines of Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones in terms of magic.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unless you are coming to Pathfinder from D&D you are almost certainly going to be expecting a fantasy world of much lower magic than what is presented by Pathfinder.
When people use the term "realism" they are actually referring to verisimilitude, which is essentially the ability to keep the players immersed in the universe of the game. Players care less about realism, and more about consistency.
That's definitely where I stand on the issue. Heck, that's part of why I tend to be wary of any "realism" rules. In my (limited, personal) experience attempts to impose too much realism on the game often end up feeling very arbitrary and inconsistent because there's no clear dividing line between what can get handwaved as part of the fantasy experience and what must be "realistic."
Unless you are coming to Pathfinder from D&D you are almost certainly going to be expecting a fantasy world of much lower magic than what is presented by Pathfinder.
Someone who's previously played Skyrim or World of Warcraft will probably already associate fantasy games with realms where magic is everywhere.
Unless you are coming to Pathfinder from D&D you are almost certainly going to be expecting a fantasy world of much lower magic than what is presented by Pathfinder.
You must not read the same books I do.
|
Truth. It's like people think this is supposed to be a fun game instead of "Realistic Fantasy Simulator 2015."Why is it that "Realistic Fantasy Simulator 2015" = this would not be fun to play. I don't get this notion at all. Perhaps trying to make PF equivalent to that isn't the preferred game, but why would it be "unfun" if it were? I don't see standard PF as the only fun way to play it.
Because, to me, having my character be permanently crippled in the first fight is boring. Dying from infection a week later is boring. Starving to death because the famine struck is boring. Getting killed by the plague is boring. My sword breaking and being unable to get a new one because the only blacksmith in 50 miles only makes practical things like nails and horseshoes and plowshares is boring. In general, the more realistic a game gets the more boring it gets. I prefer that the BS be hand-waived away so I can get to the fun bits.
Because, to me, having my character be permanently crippled in the first fight is boring. Dying from infection a week later is boring. Starving to death because the famine struck is boring. Getting killed by the plague is boring. My sword breaking and being unable to get a new one because the only blacksmith in 50 miles only makes practical things like nails and horseshoes and plowshares is boring. In general, the more realistic a game gets the more boring it gets. I prefer that the BS be hand-waived away so I can get to the fun bits.
You seem easily bored.
The point is that "realistic fantasy simulator" is still fantasy, what you're suggesting in your post is something closer to reality and no magic at all, nobody else is suggesting that, except you. I think you've mistaken this thread for something completely different, maybe you need to read the entire thread again to get on the same page as the rest of us before posting something completely unreasonable again.
I consider all Healing magic short of a full Heal as low magic, as well as Cure Poison and Disease. Bringing the dead back to life is medium to high magic, so that wouldn't be available in a low magic setting. Unless one was playing a no magic fully historical game, nothing in your post would happen in a low magic game. And in my opinion a blacksmith would be found in almost every thorp, village and larger community. Unless communities are 50 miles apart finding a blacksmith in even a fully realistic setting would be easy-peasy. They might not be able to create masterwork weapons, but fixing a sword wouldn't be as problematic as you suggest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unless you are coming to Pathfinder from D&D you are almost certainly going to be expecting a fantasy world of much lower magic than what is presented by Pathfinder.Someone who's previously played Skyrim or World of Warcraft will probably already associate fantasy games with realms where magic is everywhere.
Pathfinder isn't just a game where magic is everywhere. It's a game where the magic that's everywhere, and the magic is absurdly powerful and completely unbound by almost any type of risk to the caster.
Skyrim completely lacks an equivalent to Necromancy (in terms of debuffing a target), Divination (done by individual mages), Enchantment (in terms of dominate/geass/bestow curse), or proper illusions (silent image, ghost sound). Things as common in Pathfinder like flight, polymorphing, long range teleportation, and relatively safe outsider binding, are nonexistent in Skyrim. It does have better/more efficient evocation and healing magic equivalents, though.
It's also a magic system that requires a caster focuses their study on a single (or a select few) schools of magic in order to gain the most benefit from them. A D&D or PF wizard could spend 19 levels never using any kind of enchantment spell, and then pick up dominate monster at level 20.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Setting preference is pretty irrelevant.
A skilled GM running a story they are into leads to enthused players and a good time.
The key part being a skilled GM. High magic, low magic, or anything in-between can be very entertaining if the GM understands he/she is not just the master of the story, but the master of the Game.
A lot of the debates back and forth seem to more indicate the skill of the GM running your game than anything inherent to the setting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unless you are coming to Pathfinder from D&D you are almost certainly going to be expecting a fantasy world of much lower magic than what is presented by Pathfinder.You must not read the same books I do.
Probably not. Pathfinder has always been my high mark for magic in a game before getting into systems that are basically magical teampunk (magipunk? magitech?), or where the fiction assumes that every protagonist is a caster in some regards.
Unless you are coming to Pathfinder from D&D you are almost certainly going to be expecting a fantasy world of much lower magic than what is presented by Pathfinder.
Or Exalted.
Or, Changeling, and some Mage: the Ascension games.
|
|
You seem easily bored.
When people waste my time with pedantry, it tends to bore me.
The point is that "realistic fantasy simulator" is still fantasy, what you're suggesting in your post is something closer to reality and no magic at all, nobody else is suggesting that, except you. I think you've mistaken this thread for something completely different, maybe you need to read the entire thread again to get on the same page as the rest of us before posting something completely unreasonable again.
I've been at the tabletop thing long enough to recognize code-words like "realism". Rarely, it means verisimilitude, which means your probably in store for a pretty enjoyable, engrossing game. More often than not, though, it means "get ready for the GM to waste your time".
I consider all Healing magic short of a full Heal as low magic, as well as Cure Poison and Disease. Bringing the dead back to life is medium to high magic, so that wouldn't be available in a low magic setting. Unless one was playing a no magic fully historical game, nothing in your post would happen in a low magic game. And in my opinion a blacksmith would be found in almost every thorp, village and larger community. Unless communities are 50 miles apart finding a blacksmith in even a fully realistic setting would be easy-peasy. They might not be able to create masterwork weapons, but fixing a sword wouldn't be as problematic as you suggest.
Your definition if "low magic" is pretty high on magic, I must say. Mostly when I think of low magic I think of worlds like Conan, Thieves World, or Iron Heroes. Those are pretty good world/systems and worth playing. Your definition of "low magic" seems to mean "past level 10, you're cut off at the knees" and sounds boring.
Unless you are coming to Pathfinder from D&D you are almost certainly going to be expecting a fantasy world of much lower magic than what is presented by Pathfinder.Someone who's previously played Skyrim or World of Warcraft will probably already associate fantasy games with realms where magic is everywhere.
While magic is _common_ in those games, it's generally (note:generally) of a much more limited scope. Skyrim is definately low-magic compared to Pathfinder, where the magic of the PC tops out to mid-level evocations and low-level everything else (though healing of non-fatal wounds is more efficient).
In WoW, there have been very powerful casters, up to the level of high-level pathfinder casters, but they're about a half-dozen legendary characters, and the magic the PC's wield is very limited in much the same way as in Skyrim.
I can think of precious few computer games where the player control a mortal character with power similar to that in Pathfinder. In certain games you play a god with similar power, but very few mortals. The only exception I can think of off the top of my head is Dominions where under specific circumstances a mortal could reach that magical power, though generally they need direct demigodly intervention for it to happen.
So you say. In the PF game products you've worked on how much verbiage is devoted to the issues of:
Mundane famine?
Weapon mending?
Armor mending?
Rope twining?
Curing non-magical diseases?I'll bet none. Because that kind of stuff is boring in a 3.PF kind of game.
The game mechanics, PC classes, monsters, and everything else assumes a considerable presence of magic.
I never suggested that I would. Does BlackOuroboros speak for me now? I was responding to his ravings which might apply to a NO MAGIC GAME which is not what this thread is about. All my previous posts in this thread regarded a low magic setting, which none of those issues would have anything to do with. So no, none of the products I work on is for a no magic setting.
In a low magic setting, there would be no need to accomodate mundane famine, weapon mending, rope twining, cure disease because there are spells available in a low magic setting that would fix those problems. (Again those problems are what BlackOuroboros suggested. I didn't suggest any of that.)
Please don't mix my responses to one post as applying to all my posts or the games I play - none of which had to do with any of that.
I would not play a no magic setting ever - I'm not into historical gaming. Some people are, but I find that of little interest to me.
Someone up-thread said:Dungeons as literally underground mazes of multiple chambers are something we've thrown out of our games, beings so unrealistic and non-existing comparing to real world places - at our table they don't make sense, so we don't use them.And if everyone is on the same page I'll bet it works great. But then are you playing PF? No, not really.
If you want to know how any game is to be played just look at the modules/APs and that pretty well spells it out for you.
Well since I did some work on Jade Regent AP, nothing I did had anything to do with a dungeon rather all of it was urban regarding the City of Kasai.
All the Kaidan setting of Japanese horror (PFRPG) products I've worked on and is published, had nothing to do with dungeons either. There is a one-shot that features a dungeon, but that work was done by Jonathan McAnulty, not me.
Also, as I've mentioned twice now in this thread. A properly done low magic setting would indeed NOT be Pathfinder anymore, but then why does it matter? Why does any home game need to be purely Pathfinder? While I'd certainly play a low magic setting, I really have no interest in designing a published low magic setting, and at the same time agree that it wouldn't be Pathfinder anymore.
Just because I have some points to make regarding low magic, doesn't mean its my preferred method of play. I would go as far as saying, low magic is anomalous to the majority of games I play. I'm not saying its for me, I'm just defending the idea that a low magic game is playable, at the same time most likely not Pathfinder anymore.
Play it any other way and be prepared for problems. If your kind of fun is finding unexpected problems through insufficiently thought out and poorly play-tested rules changes, then use 3.PF for a low magic campaign 'cause you'll have loads of fun.
Honestly all the variant games I've run have been fun. I actually play-test any rule variants I might create, and spend a good amount of time sufficiently thinking through any variant I create. Where do you get the idea that my games are insufficiently thought out, or poorly play-tested rules changes? My games are the opposite of that.
Please don't mix my response to BlackOuroboros as having anything to do with any games I play. I say again, the issues in BlackOuroboros's post would regard a no magic setting, which I'm not interested in playing and doesn't even belong in this thread of low magic, because low magic would make those issues easily "go away" through spells available in a low magic PF game.
Suggesting there's a link is you not reading all my responses in this thread.