Essential Conceits of Pathfinder / D&D / Roleplaying

[thejeff]

Alex Martin wrote:

Getting back to the original topic of the thread:

1) The PCs are "destined" to defeat the great evil/horde/god-head, etc. It's never that NPC farmer or henchman who you happen to be protecting or escorting around.

2) Nobody is ever in it "just for the money" anymore. They may start out Han Solo's smuggler, but almost always get dragged into the rebellion. (One of the things about 1st edition/OSRIC style games is that intro usually started with players being "hired" to investigate and defeat whatever it was - no grand backstory.) Kingmaker may have been the exception to that premise on the Pathfinder AP's, but I suspect that's the sandbox quality to it.

I'm not sure I'd say that 1E games usually started with the PCs being hired. Modules usually did, but that's mostly because it's an easy hook that makes it easy to fit into the middle of a campaign. And it's still pretty true for Paizo's modules.

APs can provide better hooks because they can assume you're starting the game there. 1st level modules can do the same.

For the first point, that ties into the first point from the OP - the PCs are special. Because they're the protagonists.

[Steve Geddes]

Anzyr wrote:

Let me clarify one thing real quick that I think everyone on the "anti-fudging" side agrees with:

Fudging is fine as you as long you inform your players you will be doing it and they agree to it. It is not badwrongfun to do so.

However, what I think is badwrongfun (because it is objectively so) is fudging without informing your players you will be doing so and without their consent.

The idea of fudging when running a game for people who don't enjoy that is clearly as silly as declaring fudging "cheating" despite the rules of the game advocating it.

My main point of contention (as usual) is people declaring "what I like" as "correct". You may be right that those saying "fudging is cheating and wrong" were actually intending that to be read as "Fudging is wrong if the players don't want the DM to do it. And its cheating if everyone agrees (contrary to the suggestions in the rule book) that the DM will never adjust die rolls and then the DM adjusts die rolls anyhow".

If that's the case, I agree. I didn't get that out of "play another system", "go write a novel", "DMs that fudge are liars and cheats", "fudging is a houserule" and so forth, but perhaps I read to much into the unqualified nature of those statements. Given the statements on fudging in the rules, I can't see how it can be deemed anything other than a legitimate tool open to the DM. That doesn't mean it's right for every table, but where's the rules statement that one should "let the dice fall where they may".

I don't like fudging of any sort (even tactic adjusting, unexpected reinforcements or the lack of such) as a player. That doesn't mean a DM who fudges to keep my PC alive is cheating - they're presumably just misunderstanding what's fun for me.

[Mudfoot]

The game I played at 15 (when I started) was just embarrassing in retrospect. I shudder to think what it would have been like at 13.

[Alex Martin]

When I mentioned point one, I was thinking more along the lines of a general idea that you can change that conceit. What KODT with it's main players in their strip was an example. They had the henchman go after the "artifact" thinking it was trapped and he wound up being king of a major nation while they got their butts kicked out of the kingdom.

Granted, that was done more for humor's sake, but Paizo did something similar with Jade Regent. It isn't that you can't have the PCs play a major role, but the point is that it's still a clichéd conceit if you are sticking it in every time around.

As for the point two, I was really thinking in terms of TSR's modules mainly (and by extension, many of the OSRIC clones that have come out these days). They did modify this conceit when they took many of the series and made them into "mega-modules" to fit a more story-telling quality.

[Arturus Caeldhon]

Regarding fudging...the majority of DMs I know use a fudged roll/stats to either Increase Drama or Save the Story. A fudged roll can put the players in more danger, and increase the dramatic content of the encounter. A fudged roll can also save a PC from a stupid death, so the story can continue without the interruption of replacing the character. This is good, because you are telling a story, not playing a board game.

Which also relates to the unique snowflake concept. To me, playing D&D is more like reading a book that is being written in real time. It is different than, say, an improv show. An improv show is about what's happening in the moment. The best part of D&D is building on the story of this character you're playing. It is also different from playing a board game, because you're really not competing for anything but the best story you can tell.

If that story is about a group of 5 people that really don't matter or do anything interesting or novel, ever - and one of them dies every couple of days and is replaced by another stranger they randomly met...that's boring. No D&D game is like that. So just by the very nature of your group meeting at this table and spending the time developing this story, your characters are important and story-worthy. They are somehow unique and important, because otherwise why the hell are you telling a story about them?

[Aubrey the Malformed]

I think that puts it very nicely.

One of the things players like is when a plot or storyline revolves around their PC. Clearly, then, a random death is disruptive to that sort of thing. That's just not a lot of fun. If PCs are simply fungible, it's pretty hard to really care that much about the outcomes for those PCs. A heroic death at the climax of their storyline is something else, but never actually getting there because the PC gets run over by a wagon isn't fun for anyone.

But for some people, man v dice is part of the fun, and they like the notion of a level playing field or don't feel they have "won" fairly if the DM's been nudging the outcome. I think that's fine. It's an issue of playstyle, not cheating. But if I think players will have more fun with one thing or another, I'll occasionally fudge.

[Bluenose]

TarkXT wrote:

Rynjin wrote:

TarkXT wrote:

A statement like "I'd rather the GM follow rules by the letter than let my character live." Expressly states a disinterest in playing a characters story out and your stance to stand by the rules rather than by your tablemates.

Ah, yes, I am "disinterested" in my character and his story because when his story has reached its end (because when you die, you have no more story, unless someone resurrects you) I am satisfied with that.

Of course.

And I'm a bad person for not finding it good GMing to play favorites. "Oh, but Kevin put so much work into writing a novella instead of a character, I can't POSSIBLY let him die!"

People die. Sometimes people die when their stories aren't complete. Sometimes people die despite the fact that they had a long, storied history before the story even starts.

A good backstory (or a long backstory, since you made no mention of its quality) should not give a character immunity to death. All sorts of media would be awfully boring were that the case.

It's not playing favorites to play to others idea of fun.

I can choose to make both of you happy some of the time or one of you happy all the time. You prefer the objectiveness of statistics, Kevin prefers his heroic fantasy.

I prefer a game entertaining for everyone at the table.

It's probably easier to do that with a game which isn't so wedded to binary states as Pathfinder. There are groups I play with where some people really hate the idea that their character can fail and others hate the idea that they can't; systems with more nuance about pass/fail situations suit that bunch much better. And I'll note that fudging dice rolls isn't something that happens just in life-or-death situations, sometimes it's about the ability to continue the adventure or being forced to stop and that can quite easily be far more a cause of frustration than a character dying.

[Irontruth]

As a GM I consider these really good guiding principles (take from Dungeon world, another game I very much enjoy).

Always Say
When you are the GM you say these things:
•What the rules demand
•What the adventure demands
•What honesty demands*
•What the principles demand

*When the rules say I am to give out information (like a Knowledge check), I give out that information. It is not my job to hold back, present half-truths or conceal information when a player makes a successful roll. NPC's might certainly lie or conceal, but that's different.

Agenda
The GM’s agenda is what they sit down at the table to do:
•Make the world fantastic
•Fill the characters’ lives with adventure
•Play to find out what happens

That last one is important. I don't plan a story. I plan events that will push the characters to action. The results of those actions will tell a story, that I am there to discover just as much as my players. I don't know the future, but I might have some good guesses.

Principles
•Draw maps, leave blanks*
•Address the characters, not the players
•Embrace the fantastic
•Give every monster life
•Name every person
•Ask questions and use the answers
•Be a fan of the characters**
•Think Dangerous
•Begin and end with the fiction
•Think offscreen, too

*I take this literally and figuratively. I leave open space on the map for things that occur to me at the time. Or I ask questions about what they find and put it there. Sometimes it's more figurative, where I don't have every aspect of the plot decided, so I use their ideas that they discuss at the table. When something makes sense to them, I put it in the game, because it makes it seem more real to them. It also means that I get to share in that sense of discovery, which keeps things fresh and interesting for me as the GM.

**This is one of my favorites. I think of it like a well written character in a TV show/movie/book. I cry when they cry. I laugh when they laugh. I shout for joy when they overcome obstacles. It doesn't mean I'm there to coddle the characters. To achieve greatness, you must overcome great adversity. I'm there to challenge them, but I am not there to be their adversary. I want their danger to feel real, which means sometimes they die, but it just means that when they don't die, it's that much sweeter too.

[Insapateh]

Fudging has its pros and its cons.

In my first ever game, my introduction to roleplaying as it were, I had to roll a stealth check about an hour into the session.

Taking bonuses, penalties, etc into account, I rolled the grand total of -3. The GM ruled that my scale mail clad dwarf cleric managed to run full tilt into a cave wall and draw almost every creature in the cave complex to the entrance, where we were. This was fun.

Failing a roll can be fun. And nobody on this thread advocating fudging is sayingthat there should never be a chance for failure.

A few sessions later, I managed to fail every single roll I made that night.

Skill checks - failed
Attack Rolls - failed
CMB rolls - failed
Saves - failed
Everything - failed

That wasn't fun. I felt like I might as well have left the room and spent the night doing something else. I couldn't even distract opponents because let's face it: What reasonably intelligent enemy is going to go for the idiot drooling in the corner, still trying to untangle his warhammer from his belt when there are credible threats in the room? Sure, I might have slowed a monster hunting for food down as they went for the weakest member of the group, but not for long and we didn't face any due to the exigencies of the situation. That wasn't fun.

If it had been my second session ever, or my first, I can see myself deciding that this game wasn't for me. I have limited free time and I need what I do with it to be enjoyable, not a perpetual uphill slog.

An individual failure does not make a game less fun, but having no effect on an event that requires a significant, read minimum 12 hour, time commitment on my part (we even game at my place and the room needs to be set up before hand every time) is definitely less fun.

I've never read a thread on these boards, or others, where somebody says 'My best gaming experience was not rolling above a 2 for a whole session. Best four hours of my life!'

Now I fudge and you'd better believe I do. If I notice a player getting frustrated over a lack of ability to affect the game, but that player is still trying to engage, you bet your sweet bippy I'll fluff a will save from an enemy, or allow a hit, or something.

If the player still has the mental fortitude (probably a high will DC) to attempt something cool on a night when the dice are against them, you'd better believe that I'm at least going to fudge for a partial success.

I've also never seen any couterpoint to the fact (brought up more than once in this and every other thread on these boards about fudging) that fudging is in fact RAW. It's listed in the CRB as an option available to DMs. If you fudge, you certainly don't need to tell your players. You're only following RAW.

If you don't fudge, you're the deviant and need to 'fess up :P

[Muad'Dib]

Hi, my name is Muad'Dib and I'm a deviant.

[Insapateh]

Muad'Dib wrote:

Hi, my name is Muad'Dib and I'm a deviant.

All: "Hi Muad'Dib!"

But tongue removed from cheek for a second; the CRB does explicitly list fudging as an option for DMs. It's right there in black and... sort-of-beige.

Page 402, bottom of the first column and top of the second.

So while a person can say that they don't like fudging. They can't say that the DM is cheating since there is a word perfect allowance for it in the rules.

I haven't seen any of the posts deleted from this thread, but I have to say it seems that there is a lot more absolutism from the anti-fudging side than there is from the pro.

I've never sdeen a pro-fudger say anything more than know your audience, read the room and only use it when appropriate. I've rarely seen an anti-fudger do anything but denounce the practice utterly.

This probably irks me more than the argument itself. The fact that only one side seems prepared to make concessions.

Then again, maybe it's just that I see the side that I'm on as more persecuted, human nature and all that.

[Steve Geddes]

Insapateh wrote:

I've rarely seen an anti-fudger do anything but denounce the practice utterly.

This probably irks me more than the argument itself. The fact that only one side seems prepared to make concessions.

Anzyr's post earlier seemed to garner several favorites from the "anti-fudging" crowd. His point was that those identifying fudging as cheating were speaking to the case where the players either didnt want it to happen or hadnt been consulted. As such it's not that absolutist (other than declaring one position to be somehow "default" if things havent been discussed - I dont really agree with that, but I think whether to fudge or not should be discussed pre-game anyhow, so it's a moot point).

Like you, I was responding to what I thought was an absolutist stance - which was apparently not intended. As I understand it now, everybody actually agrees - fudging is okay if the people at the table think it's okay and it's not okay if the people at the table think it isnt. (There might be minor disagreement as to what to do if you havent talked about it - but the answer "talk about it" will probably suit everyone too).

EDIT: Having said that, I had a fair number of my posts from yesterday removed. I didnt think Ashiel and I were getting particularly heated - but in my experience, the guy saying "How come all my posts were deleted? There wasnt anything bad there!" is generally the guy who doesnt understand what's going on in the thread. :p

[Insapateh]

Steve Geddes wrote:

Insapateh wrote:

I've rarely seen an anti-fudger do anything but denounce the practice utterly.

This probably irks me more than the argument itself. The fact that only one side seems prepared to make concessions.

Anzyr's post earlier seemed to garner several favorites from the "anti-fudging" crowd. His point was that those identifying fudging as cheating were speaking to the case where the players either didnt want it to happen or hadnt been consulted. As such it's not that absolutist (other than declaring one position to be somehow "default" if things havent been discussed - I dont really agree with that, but I think whether to fudge or not should be discussed pre-game anyhow, so it's a moot point).

Like you, I was responding to what I thought was an absolutist stance - which was apparently not intended. As I understand it now, everybody actually agrees - fudging is okay if the people at the table think it's okay and it's not okay if the people at the table think it isnt. (There might be minor disagreement as to what to do if you havent talked about it - but the answer "talk about it" will probably suit everyone too).

EDIT: Having said that, I had a fair number of my posts from yesterday removed. I didnt think Ashiel and I were getting particularly heated - but in my experience, the guy saying "How come all my posts were deleted? There wasnt anything bad there!" is generally the guy who doesnt understand what's going on in the thread. :p

Fair call on Anzyr's post being less absolutist, I did say rarely, but in discussions like these, rarely can often be a weasel word used to make the other side seem less reasonable while still allowing one to cover one's behind. I do think though that even the attitude that it needs to be discussed before a game comes back to 'know your table'.

I'm curently GMing for the first time and my party are two former, and probably future, GMs of mine and my wife (conflict of what now?) and one more guy who's played under both previous GMs before and GMed for them himself.

I haven't asked any of the players how they feel about fudging, but I do know how they feel about the old Gygaxism that a GM rolls dice for the sound they make.

That's enough for me. Like everything in life, the key to fudging successfully is being judicious with its use.

Some people think that isn't possible, others disagree.

EDIT: I think my wireless keyboard is running low on battery, not all button presses are making it through.

[KutuluKultist]

This is the game:

Players each controlling one character fight monsters controlled by the DM on maps. After 4-6 such fights, the characters level up an fight harder monsters. Equipment is just part of levelling up and not really gear in the common sense sense of the word.

This determines the unavoidable structure of a Pathfinder game, it's very skeleton. Around this structure, a story is told, a piece of fiction, often merely simulating player choice, which is supposed to make all the fighting have some meaning and give some explanation to what's happening.

But this story is bound to follow the basic structure of the game. E.g. you cannot begin with fighting dragons or demons, you being by fighting orcs and goblins [...]. Even the most improvised and artfully told story in Pathfinder will have to follow this blueprint.

And mind you, this blueprint is utterly ridiculous and purely there for abstract reasons of rules and gaming tradition.

[Rynjin]

KutuluKultist wrote:

But this story is bound to follow the basic structure of the game. E.g. you cannot begin with fighting dragons or demons, you being by fighting orcs and goblins [...]. Even the most improvised and artfully told story in Pathfinder will have to follow this blueprint.

And mind you, this blueprint is utterly ridiculous and purely there for abstract reasons of rules and gaming tradition.

The only way you can possibly believe this is if you both insist on starting a game at level 1 every time, and never bother to crack open the bestiary and look at all those Demons and Dragons a low level character can face.

[Aubrey the Malformed]

Yeah, 'cos there's absolutely tons on CR 1 demons and dragons...

[TarkXT]

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:

Yeah, 'cos there's absolutely tons on CR 1 demons and dragons...

No, but tons of less than CR1 cultists, servants, and pets.

And plenty of CR2-5 demons and devils.

Dragons are trickier but it would be rather disingenuous to headline dragons as a strong enemy if you start plopping down big varieties that can be effectively murdered at low level.

Now if you want to start a game where you regularly take on giant god-dragons in epic duels in the clouds with not but your orichalcum daiklave and the will of the gods Exalted is definitely your speed.

Honestly I think the structure is true if you play strictly by the concept that you have to defeat enemies through combat.

I've actually been pondering the idea of a Kaiju focused campaign that starts at level 1.

Sometimes simply surviving the encounter is enough.

[Insapateh]

I have to agree with Tark and Rynjin on this one. there are a huge amount of options fo low CR enemies available to a DM.

So much so that repetition can have no real reason other than stylistic choice (which I definitely make use of).

[Aubrey the Malformed]

TarkXT wrote:

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:

Yeah, 'cos there's absolutely tons on CR 1 demons and dragons...

No, but tons of less than CR1 cultists, servants, and pets.

And plenty of CR2-5 demons and devils.

Dragons are trickier but it would be rather disingenuous to headline dragons as a strong enemy if you start plopping down big varieties that can be effectively murdered at low level.

Now if you want to start a game where you regularly take on giant god-dragons in epic duels in the clouds with not but your orichalcum daiklave and the will of the gods Exalted is definitely your speed.

Honestly I think the structure is true if you play strictly by the concept that you have to defeat enemies through combat.

I've actually been pondering the idea of a Kaiju focused campaign that starts at level 1.

Sometimes simply surviving the encounter is enough.

Hmmm... Well, a cultist or a pet isn't a demon or devil. Rynjin wasn't talking about themes, he was saying specifically about demons and devils and dragons in the Bestiaries. And sure there are lemures and imps and stuff, but even they are a significant challenge to a low level party and you hardly want to fight just imps for two or three levels (given your lack of choice otherwise). And simply saying, "Ah, well, you can fight cultists and so on" kind-of proves KutuluKultist's point, rather than the opposite - they aren't demons or devils, they are stand-ins until you get high enough level. Also you basically admit that dragons aren't really low level, unless you want to fight wyrmlings, and no one much does (who gets off on killing babies?).

[snickersimba]

Uh, you know that there is a low level dragon, the wyveran? Its a PC race that is a dragon, they have no racial hit dice and instead have class levels.

They get +2 wisdom +2 dexterity and a -2 intelligence. Check the fourth bestiary for them. They are awesome.

They can fly too.

[Insapateh]

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:

A fairly well-reasoned response

Hmm. Yeah, fair enough. I see what you mean and now don't know who I agree with.

[Digitalelf]

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:

unless you want to fight wyrmlings, and no one much does (who gets off on killing babies?).

A wrymling black dragon (for example) may be a "baby", but it's a baby that has a CR of 3, a natural AC of 13, 4 - 96 hit points, and has a breath weapon capable of doing 2 - 12 points of acid damage.

Vary capable of killing off 1st level characters unlucky enough to encounter one...

In fact:

The 3.5 edition module "Scourge of the Howling Horde" had a tribe of goblins ruled over by a wyrmling black dragon as the BBEG.

[Aubrey the Malformed]

Oh, I know. A low level party could easily get killed fighting a wyrmling (also making it a not so suitable monster, depending) but it's hardly the stuff of legend.

"I slew the dragon! It was at least as high as my knee!"

The first 3e adventure, the Sunken Citadel, had a while dragon wyrmling too.

[Aubrey the Malformed]

snickersimba wrote:

Uh, you know that there is a low level dragon, the wyveran? Its a PC race that is a dragon, they have no racial hit dice and instead have class levels.

They get +2 wisdom +2 dexterity and a -2 intelligence. Check the fourth bestiary for them. They are awesome.

They can fly too.

Well, they are really a character race. I don't think anyone reckons killing a lizardman is the same as killing a dragon.

[wraithstrike]

TarkXT wrote:

"I'm so glad you let the character we spent months developing a story over die to a statistical anomaly in a nameless random encounter so I can spend the next 4 hours playing WoW while the group wastes time and resources getting me back." ~Said no player ever.

You must have missed my several post where I have had players that I knew would get mad if they were given help, and others that did not like not getting help.

Basically it depends on the player. Personally I would rather die in combat, than be given a freebie. Is dying "fun"? No. However if you save my character as far as I am concerned I actually did die, and the deception makes it less fun than actually having to make a new character, so the "said no player ever" remark is not really true.

[wraithstrike]

Rynjin wrote:

If your BBEG is getting stomped, have him escape (or try to). There's nothing wrong with your boss using the class features and items you gave him to GTFO, heal up, and come back ready to choke a m#+~$+%*~%~% to death next time. Dimension Door away to another room, heal up, buff, sumon some monsters, whatever. Disintegrate a hole into the next room and run as fast as your little wizardy legs can carry you.

Likewise, if your encounter is beating the hell out of the PCs, and you don't want someone (or more than one) to die, have them get stupid, reckless, use less than optimal tactics. I'd dare to say that has MORE of an effect than changing the outcome of some die rolls anyway.

I have done both of these. My wizard-lich was getting his butt kicked, and about to go down fast due to a lucky crit.

I DD'd him out of dodge. Had him buff up cast invis and walk right back in to the room behind the party. Then he rolled a nat 1 on an attempt to paralyze someone. <----Yeah the dice gods were not kind to me that day.

Another time I had a caster kicking ass. Well actually he was a creature with caster levels. He came down(from flying) and started to taunt the party. He even started to beat up the front liners in melee<---The dice gods were with me on this day.

The party finally got smart and debuffed him, but me making him be over confident gave them enough time to switch strategies. He was actually played up as an over confident jerk before the fight started so it was not out of character for him to gloat.

[wraithstrike]

TarkXT wrote:

A statement like "I'd rather the GM follow rules by the letter than let my character live." Expressly states a disinterest in playing a characters story out and your stance to stand by the rules rather than by your tablemates.

TarkXT don't do that. Don't be like the other posters and pretend you can read minds.

It has nothing to do with standing against the tablemates. The chance at failure is part of the attraction. Now you will probably say a character dying weakens the party, and it can to an extent, but as the GM you can always lessen the future encounters until the new member is in the party. Also when players die they can always make a new character, assuming they don't want a rez, something the party can use. Now for those who bring random character X to the game, that may or may not work depending on the playstyle of the group, and is another conversation.
Going back to the idea of being rez'd--> That can be another adventure in an of itself, but it does not have to be. As an example one of our party members died, but we were not in a place to get a rez. So the player made a new character, and the GM slightly altered the story so that the killed PC's soul had been stolen by the next BBEG. This allowed for the player to play, while we moved the quest forward. <skips a lot of needless info> .... We get to the destination, and the old PC is returned to life, and new PC continues on his merry way.

The party is not hampered, and this was a boss we would have met anyway, so there was no need for a side-trek.

[wraithstrike]

dwayne germaine wrote:

I like how everyone who is vehemently opposed to GMs fudging rolls convieniently ignore that the rules actually give the GM explicit permission to do it.

This is not one large group. There are several subgroups.

One thinks it is badwrongfun and you are a terrible GM.

The other end is that it is within the GM's rights, but they would not prefer it. They want the dice to lie where they lie.

Some just believe the GM should be up front about it.

I am sure there are others I did not list.

So which group are you speaking to?

[wraithstrike]

TarkXT wrote:

Death without follow up is just boring

To you. Being this much of an absolutist is just as bad as someone who says a GM is wrong for fudging, even if the group enjoys it.

[wraithstrike]

This topic has come up time and time again. Someone asked what if you have the "don't help me camp", and the "I want to succeed camp" at the same table. The answer basically amounted to use the hero point system. Those who want to live can use the hero points. The rest can take the free feat that is offered as an alternative.

What happens when someone runs out of hero points, but still wants to live?

Well that is when you have to make a decision as a GM, and the best answer will vary by table.

[snickersimba]

technically, they aren't lizardmen, they are classified as dragons. So yeah, low level dragons DO exist. They just happen to be a hybrid of wyverns and kolbolds.

[RDM42]

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:

Yeah, 'cos there's absolutely tons on CR 1 demons and dragons...

Kobolds make for a low level leadin to dragons.

[RDM42]

Also, because monster class levels are totally a thing, you can keep facing the same types of opponents you did at low levels at pretty much any levels. If you wanted them to, kobolds could totally be a feature of your campaign levels one through twenty. Class levels, mythic tiers, many, many ways to make it happen.

[Aubrey the Malformed]

RDM42 wrote:

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:

Yeah, 'cos there's absolutely tons on CR 1 demons and dragons...

Kobolds make for a low level leadin to dragons.

Again, proving KutuluKultist's point.

[RDM42]

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:

RDM42 wrote:

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:

Yeah, 'cos there's absolutely tons on CR 1 demons and dragons...

Kobolds make for a low level leadin to dragons.

Again, proving KutuluKultist's point.

Not really. You really think you need to face the exact same thing one through twenty? Why is it important to be full, normal dragons every level?

[thejeff]

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:

RDM42 wrote:

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:

Yeah, 'cos there's absolutely tons on CR 1 demons and dragons...

Kobolds make for a low level leadin to dragons.

Again, proving KutuluKultist's point.

The more important part of Rynjin's response, which has been lost in debate about weak demons and dragons was "The only way you can possibly believe this is if you both insist on starting a game at level 1 every time."

It's a convention, but hardly a necessary one. I've played plenty of games that started at higher levels. Some short adventures and even some longer campaigns. There's no reason every game has to start at low levels. Nor, especially with things like E6 variants do even long games have to escalate in power.

In fact, the extreme power curve seen in PF isn't that common in RPGs. Mostly in direct D&D descendants and variants. Most systems have some form of experience and character growth, but many span a far smaller range of power. Or at least expect to within a single campaign. For example, you can play superhero games at the Daredevil street level or the Avengers cosmic level, but you'll rarely start with Daredevil and play him until he's Thor.

[thejeff]

RDM42 wrote:

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:

RDM42 wrote:

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:

Yeah, 'cos there's absolutely tons on CR 1 demons and dragons...

Kobolds make for a low level leadin to dragons.

Again, proving KutuluKultist's point.

Not really. You really think you need to face the exact same thing one through twenty? Why is it important to be full, normal dragons every level?

I've long had in the back of my mind a game in which the PCs wound up fighting dragons at every level. Starting with a wyrmling, of course, and working their way up.

Never really had more of a plot or anything behind it than that, which is partly why I never did anything with it, but I thought it would be a cool gimmick.

They're so often used as high level uber-villains that I liked the idea of them being pretty common and a threat at all levels. I think I came up with it after a couple of campaigns I played in featured very powerful, but very rare dragons.

[Tacticslion]

In my own game that I'm still tinkering with after years of thought, dragons were literally one of two paths that kobolds could take beyond their "wyrmling" stage: dragon, or lizardfolk.

(The obvious question is, "Why would anyone ever choose to become a lizardfolk?" and the answer is "Because they weren't - and proably couldn't be - sorcerers and hence couldn't qualify for the Dragon Disciple PrC required to become dragons." The term "lizardfolk" would probably be replaced by something else, and it's likely they'd all be therianthropes anyway, but it's an idea I've always really liked.)

EDIT: for the curious, I've been tinkering with this idea since 3rd, when the Dragon Disciple PrC effectively granted you the Half-Dragon template (and had suggestions on how to "epic level" turn into a "real" dragon). In PF, it would likely be deeply tied to an increased duration form of the dragon set of spells, until eventually said kobold simply ascended into becoming a "true" dragon with their old therianthropic animal form and a alter self spell-like ability to return to their pre-dragon days, as needed. This could be tied into the difference between the colors (chromatic v. metallic) and their outlooks, as they are, quite literally, made (by their own labors) instead of "born" and the chromatics generally don't care about their old lives (hence lacking Change Shape), while the metallics care about their previous existance (hence keeping Change Shape). It also handily eliminates the "baby dragon" dilemma.

[Aubrey the Malformed]

thejeff wrote:

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:

RDM42 wrote:

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:

Yeah, 'cos there's absolutely tons on CR 1 demons and dragons...

Kobolds make for a low level leadin to dragons.

Again, proving KutuluKultist's point.

The more important part of Rynjin's response, which has been lost in debate about weak demons and dragons was "The only way you can possibly believe this is if you both insist on starting a game at level 1 every time."

It's a convention, but hardly a necessary one. I've played plenty of games that started at higher levels. Some short adventures and even some longer campaigns. There's no reason every game has to start at low levels. Nor, especially with things like E6 variants do even long games have to escalate in power.

In fact, the extreme power curve seen in PF isn't that common in RPGs. Mostly in direct D&D descendants and variants. Most systems have some form of experience and character growth, but many span a far smaller range of power. Or at least expect to within a single campaign. For example, you can play superhero games at the Daredevil street level or the Avengers cosmic level, but you'll rarely start with Daredevil and play him until he's Thor.

That's true of course. But then again, that also doesn't invalidate KutuluKultist's point either.

[thejeff]

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:

thejeff wrote:

The more important part of Rynjin's response, which has been lost in debate about weak demons and dragons was "The only way you can possibly believe this is if you both insist on starting a game at level 1 every time."

It's a convention, but hardly a necessary one. I've played plenty of games that started at higher levels. Some short adventures and even some longer campaigns. There's no reason every game has to start at low levels. Nor, especially with things like E6 variants do even long games have to escalate in power.

That's true of course. But then again, that also doesn't invalidate KutuluKultist's point either.

It kind of does invalidate

Quote:

But this story is bound to follow the basic structure of the game. E.g. you cannot begin with fighting dragons or demons, you being by fighting orcs and goblins [...]. Even the most improvised and artfully told story in Pathfinder will have to follow this blueprint.

You can in fact, just tell a story about fighting demons and dragons.

Ignoring the orcs and goblins stage entirely.

[Aubrey the Malformed]

RDM42 wrote:

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:

RDM42 wrote:

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:

Yeah, 'cos there's absolutely tons on CR 1 demons and dragons...

Kobolds make for a low level leadin to dragons.

Again, proving KutuluKultist's point.

Not really. You really think you need to face the exact same thing one through twenty? Why is it important to be full, normal dragons every level?

It isn't. The point is basically Rynjin's suggestion that you can find a dragon and demon at every level, when he was trying to refute the notion that you have to face lower level mook-mopnsters as you go up levels. "Just crack open the Bestiaries and ye shall find" - except you don't. From a plotting and variety perspective, of course you wouldn't - it would be boring. But at low levels, there is also not much choice either. I'm DMing Wrath of the Righteous, the guys are first level, and they haven't been near any demons, nor will they for quite a while.

To be honest, it's not that big a deal. I made a sarcastic comment, got challenged, and it went from there.

[Aubrey the Malformed]

thejeff wrote:

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:

thejeff wrote:

The more important part of Rynjin's response, which has been lost in debate about weak demons and dragons was "The only way you can possibly believe this is if you both insist on starting a game at level 1 every time."

It's a convention, but hardly a necessary one. I've played plenty of games that started at higher levels. Some short adventures and even some longer campaigns. There's no reason every game has to start at low levels. Nor, especially with things like E6 variants do even long games have to escalate in power.

That's true of course. But then again, that also doesn't invalidate KutuluKultist's point either.

It kind of does invalidate

Quote:

But this story is bound to follow the basic structure of the game. E.g. you cannot begin with fighting dragons or demons, you being by fighting orcs and goblins [...]. Even the most improvised and artfully told story in Pathfinder will have to follow this blueprint.

You can in fact, just tell a story about fighting demons and dragons.

Ignoring the orcs and goblins stage entirely.

If you want to hand-wave levels, that's fine - it's an easy way to short-circuit the basic problem that has been pointed out, but doesn't actually make it go away. It is long established in the game. But Rynjin's point was also that you can find suitable dragon and demon adversaries at all levels, and it's you can't really because they don't really happen at CR 1. They really begin to proliferate only at CR 5+. If I wanted to do an adventure where the adversaries were demons or dragons for 1st level adventurers it would probably boring (lemurs all the way) (or is it lemures?) or just lethal.

[Terquem]

I think the real question on everybody's mind is

"Why are wagons so inherently unstable?"

[Luthorne]

Yeah, there are lots of low CR critters you could throw at people that aren't goblins or orcs, depending on the tale you want to tell. As for dragons and demons...

Dragons

Pseudodragons are CR 1
Faerie Dragons are CR 2
Nycar are CR 2
Shadow drakes are CR 2
Tatzlwyrms are CR 2
Kyranas are CR 3
River drakes are CR 3
Tidepool dragons are CR 3

Of course, many of these fall into the 'too small to feel like you're a badass for killing' category if your players are picky, and some you're relatively unlikely to fight (such as the pseododragon and the faerie dragon), but tatzlwyrms, kyranas, and river drakes are all Medium size. Of course, it would quite possibly be a tough fight for level 1 characters, but isn't that what a dragon should be? Additionally, you can always mock up a dragon with the half-dragon template on an appropriately low CR creature, though that will also probably result in a tough beast for the PCs to face...

Demons

Larvae are CR 1
Cambions are CR 2
Dretchs are CR 2
Quasits are CR 2
Abrikandilus are CR 3
Vermleks are CR 3

So there are a few options - thanks to Wrath of the Righteous in particular - even if you wouldn't want to swarm your PCs with most of them, but use them sparingly. I'd also note that the half-fiend template on an appropriately low CR creature (or even a humanoid) at low levels can create an appropriately demonic foe or foes, perhaps revealed to be the children of a more powerful demon to fight further on down the road, and there's also a demonic vermin template in the Worldwound book, or even just the regular fiendish creature template...sure, it may seem boring, but a lot's just in the presentation...red glowing eyes, slavering fangs, strange and disturbing mutations...

Some other low CR creatures I prefer over goblins and orcs...

Spoiler:

Arachnid Robots: When the aliens invade or the long-dormant spaceship awakens, these little guys from the Numeria Campaign Setting book will likely be the first out, looking around to carry back information to their alien or technomage masters...and their plasma torches will be a nasty surprise to people depending on their armor. A few mannequin robots from the same book probably won't be far behind, either...

Beheaded: I think there's lots of potential for beheaded, particularly for a mythological or fantastical travelogue sort of game...but there are certainly other alternatives. Perhaps the remnants of a mass execution, whether the headsman's axe or a setting reminiscent of the French revolution with a guillotine, a setting where the god of death condemns those who have performed deeds they have deem 'anathema' to have their heads rise from the grave, mindlessly screaming until destruction, fleeing their inescapable fate upon the winds, or a strange island whose inhabitants believe that they must free the heads of the dead after death so that their bodies may enter the afterlife without a mouth to get them into trouble...and Crawling Hands can fill a similar role, though I don't find them quite as interesting as Beheaded. Isitoq are pretty fun too, though...

ChonChon: But, still, beheaded are ultimately non-intelligent creatures, and if you prefer an intelligent flying head to throw at your enemies, these creatures from the Jade Regeant Adventure Path (Tide of Honor in particular) can make for an exotic low level enemy to toss at the PCs. Just watch out...sometimes they gather in swarms...

Ectoplasmic Creature: A good way to kick off a horror game, these guys can be tough if you don't have a slashing weapon, but they're not actively incorporeal, while still providing the fun of lurching through a wall. Not a powerful template, so applying it to low CR entities (such as the demonstrated human) results in interesting creatures that probably won't wipe the party.

Giant Flea: You may not think much of fleas, but a flea the size of a small dog is a much scarier proposition, especially when they can get up in your grill from 120 ft. away and are bent on draining you of all your blood. Could be fun in a jungle or cave system filled with giant-sized creatures to welcome the PCs, or perhaps you'd like to begin a kaiju or behemoth campaign by fighting the creature's fleas, shaken or scratched off its back (possibly idly destroying a local monument or castle in the process).

Gremlins: Excellent low-level fey to throw at the party, ranging from CR 1/3 to 2, they make a good way to start off a fey adventure...though I generally recommend skipping pugwampi unless you want to risk players throwing their dice at you, or jumping out the window. But they've definitely got a different, more supernatural flavor to them than goblins or orcs. I'd bundle mites and tooth fairies under the same category, too...small but inimical fey for a nice, supernatural, but low-level enemy.

Leshy: CR 1/3 to 3, these guys aren't always going to be enemies, but if you want to set up a nature versus civilization sort of theme for your game, it's usually easy enough to arrange, and you might manage to negotiate with them...or just wonder...were those trees there last night?

Sagari: Like a ChonChon, these guys are a sign that your players are heading into strange, mysterious, and frankly bizarre things. Having sagari show up in your forests or perhaps attacking a nearby town could be the sign of truly alien workings in the world, perhaps stretching forth from the underdark, from other unworldly dimensions (such as the Far Planes or the Dimension of Dreams), or even from space itself...

Skeletons and Zombies: Not the most interesting of enemies, but they're certainly classical for starting off an undead-focused campaign...though I personally prefer beheaded or ectoplasmic creatures. Still, sometimes a classic monster isn't a bad thing.

Stirge: Fear the giant magical mosquitos!

Vegepygmies: Small but fierce plant people, I think vegepygmies are excellent in their natural cave habitats, but also work well in jungles, particularly ones with lots of dark areas beneath the pervasive canopies for the fungus that creates them to grow.

Zhen Worms: Also crawling out from the Numeria Campaign Setting book, these alien worms can easily be reflavored to become things from the underdark rather than aliens if you prefer. Their protective mucus makes them harder to kill at low levels.

[Tacticslion]

EDIT: ninja'd!

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:

But Rynjin's point was also that you can find suitable dragon and demon adversaries at all levels, and it's you can't really because they don't really happen at CR 1. They really begin to proliferate only at CR 5+. If I wanted to do an adventure where the adversaries were demons or dragons for 1st level adventurers it would probably boring (lemurs all the way) (or is it lemures?) or just lethal.

Actually quasits. Probably with the young simple template. (Lemures are devils). ;D

Also, abyssal larva are CR 1, and a "young" dretch demon would also be a CR 1. For CR 3 creatures, you've got Abrikandilu, demon of Corruption, and Vermlek, and, if you include 3rd party, Lesser Ooze demons, Mallor, Pestilenzi, and Skitterdark. That I know of. It goes on from there, and class levels and templates add quite a variety to otherwise "samey" low-level encounters. None of this is to say that you should run an all-demon campaign or that it would require absolutely no work, but rather that you could if you wanted to. True dragons also appear on the CR 3 charts as wyrmlings (allowing, via templates, them to be reduced to CR 1), while dragon-creatures appear on the CR 2 list, and you could create a CR 1 with the half-dragon template applied to a 1/4 CR creature (like a kobold).

But "lemures all the way down" is both hilarious and terrifying.

[snickersimba]

you forgot the devils, the nuperilos and the ilk, I think you folk need to start reading the monster index on the archives of nethys, sort by CR and enjoy.

[Aubrey the Malformed]

@Luthorne

Yeah, but there's dragons, and then there's Dragons. Chromatic and metallic - all the rest are pale imitations, or just vaguely scaly things. Dragon-slayers probably aren't really going for river drakes.

But I take your point in general - I knew there was "stuff" at the lower levels but it's not really very inspiring, or really that much. And a lot of it is specific demon-bloat for WotR. I actually think goblins and orcs are probably more fun, and a lot more versatile. But we've probably beaten this one to death now.

[AngryNerdRageDemon]

Me. I am. I am the inescapable part, the essential conceit, if you will of Pathfinder, D&D, and Roleplaying. Me. FOREVER.

[Tacticslion]

Eh, don't listen to that guy. That guy sucks.

[thejeff]

Despite the amusing sidebar about what dragons and demons exist at low levels, I suspect the actual point wasn't so much "orcs and goblins" specifically and "dragons and demons" specifically", but more that was more a poetic way of saying you have to start out fighting weak things and work your way up to fighting powerful things. The existence of high level orcs and wyrmling dragons doesn't really change the basic point.

And despite my earlier quibble about not actually having to do that, since you don't really have to start at 1st level and play to high levels, I do agree that's at least a basic conceit of the game. Of all the versions of D&D and similar games, but not of RPGs in general. The "zero to hero to demigod" thing is not nearly so prevalent outside D&D.