|
Interest in Carrion Crown or Mummy's Mask. As for rules: 20 PB; Paizo races only - 0HD or otherwise; Evil alignments allowed (if only LE); the 99% thing; no third party stuff - too much to keep track of; unchained stuff; generally only Paizo stuff for my vote.
Congrats on trying your hand at GMing, it's a big responsibility that should never be taken lightly, but it can still be very rewarding. Will be looking back at this to see where it heads.
|
|
Interest as follows: Carrion Crown, all Paizo, no 3pp, no gestalt, Unchained background skills, fine with Evil alignments as long as they aren't 100% disruptive.
Don't care about PP, higher point buys allow for more Feats options at earlier levels and more power obvioisly, which is fun, but lower makes for more interesting decisions in my opinion and scarier combat which can also be fun.
I would love Carrion Crown or Mummy's Mask. I would greatly prefer gestalt (though that would require heavy modification of powerlevel from from you), but would love it either way. I generally prefer a high pointbuy 25 or 30. I would prefer it if path of war was allowed, but it would again require adjustment of powerlevel and it's a huge amount of material, potentially overwhelming for you, so it might be better to go without any 3rd party at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You will find plenty of players for whatever AP you decide to run so it is way more important that you select both the AP you want to run was well as its rules.
Interested in Carrion crown, no gestalt, would love to have some 3pp stuff available, Path of War in particular. Any PB of 20 and upward is nice.
In for Carrion Crown. Gestalt is great.
|
|
Interested in Mummy's Mask and Carrion Crown, in this order. For the rules, this are my preference:
• All Paizo 0HD Races -> Really prefer core races to avoid the party looking like a zoo.
• 3rd party races (maybe) -> No.
• Race Builder (race points to be determinated) -> No.
• Template(s) -> No.
• 15 PB, 20 PB, 25 PB, 30+ PB... -> 20 PB.
• Evil Alignment -> 50/50. Dangerous
• 99% of Paizo Classes and Archetypes -> Ok.
• 3rd Party Classes and Archetypes (maybe) -> No.
• Gestalt -> Please No.
• Unchained's Background skills (maybe with some modifications) -> Yes.
• Most of Paizo Traits and Feats -> Yes.
• 3rd Party Traits and Feats (again, maybe) -> No.
• Most Paizo Spells -> Yes.
• (maybe) 3rd Party Spells (Big Maybe) -> No.
Since you does not have much experience as a DM, I strongly suggest you to avoid 3rd party stuff as well as Race Builder, Template, Evil Alignment and, specially, Gestalt. All of this might be difficult to keep track of all the rules and imbalances that could ruin a game.
I'd be interested in Mummy's Mask.
Core races
99% Paizo
No 3PP anything (there are enough character options as it is, imo)
No gestalt (simply because I am already in a gestalt game, but I'm not completely against it)
Unchained classes/background skills
No evil
The higher the PB/rolls the better (because I am a terrible roller)
Finally, I am a very big fan of these feat tax rules and suggest them in every game where the GM is open to using alternate rules.
I was going to dot and run through the list of questions. Then I read Sir Longears answers, he must be a super genius because he answered all the topics similar or exactly like I would have. The only difference would be the race question. I would have said I prefer core and a few featured races depending on the setting, but would consider all featured or uncommon. However the stranger the race the better the reason/backstory should be.
Let me echo a couple of the seasoned players; keep it simple first time around, trying to do too much and burning out makes it no fun for anyone. Having said that, run the game you want to run, there will be plenty of applicants. When you do decide what your doing, give a designated period of time to select your party. Don't do first-come first-play. Do Look at players present and previous game play and then select the party that you think would be fun to GM.
Good Luck, Insane KillMaster, we always appreciate a GM willing to run a game. I look forward to seeing what game you choose.
I also agree with Sir Longears except I prefer no evil.
I'd like Mummy's Mask, but not gestalt; gestalt seems superfluous, unless you wanna go all crazy and throw in mythic and templates while you're at it for pure insanity, but that kind of game is hard to take seriously.
Also, some 0-HD races are more broken than others - Drow Noble, I'm looking at you.
I would submit this character for whichever AP. I don't know anything about the APs, so I hold no preference.
I mostly agree with longears save for a few points,
Race obviously, I rarely play standard races, they feel boring and standard, you see them everywhere and what do we say happens when everyone is special? No one is special, same with races, everyone is elf, dwarf, etc, thus it feels as boring as a white wall. In addition to the current character Zizi (the masterless familiar), I also have a werefox halfling, an awakened tiger, and a dozen races of my own design (though many can't be made with race maker for stupid reasons, such as missing certain magic item slots, etc)
I much prefer gestalt as I generally find it hard to craft my desired characters in single class. I near always multiclass, which leaves my class abilities at half what they should be, and while that isn't bad at first, it gets bad quickly and progressively gets worse as levels increase.
As for third party, I am in the middle. There is some great stuff that fits well, such as learned sorcery, the battle sorcerer from 3.5, and spheres of power, but there is some stuff that just shouldn't be mixed with standard play options. Really, I don't even lump 3rd party stuff into a single group.
I'm interested in any of the three APs. As for the rest of it, I pretty much agree with Sir Longears.
Yeah, I should echo Longears as well (though I don't mind some of the less outrageous featured races, like aasimar or full orc).
I'm with Longears myself. I would love to play in a Carrion Crown campaign myself as well.
I think all three of those AP's have great themes. My personal opinion is Iron Gods > Carrion Crown > Mummies Mask.
All Paizo 0HD Races. -> probably ok if some players play core to avoid the zoo effect
3rd party races (maybe). -> I'd say no
Race Builder (race points to be determinated). -> This never seems to end well
Template(s). -> Same here, unless you picked a template and gave it to everyone
15 PB, 20 PB, 25 PB, 30+ PB... -> 15,20, and 25 all are good
Evil Alignment. -> not unless there's a reason for the party to stick together
99% of Paizo Classes and Archetypes. -> there's not much broken and most people know the rules.
3rd Party Classes and Archetypes (maybe). -> I'd do this on an exception basis
Gestalt. -> I think it can be cool, but you have to re-write the AP for the higher power level
Unchained's Background skills (maybe with some modifications). -> I like it
Most of Paizo Traits and Feats. -> again, everyone knows the rules
3rd Party Traits and Feats (again, maybe). -> exception basis
Most Paizo Spells. -> again, everyone knows the rules
(maybe) 3rd Party Spells (Big Maybe). -> probably no
Gonna back up Sir Longears pretty much completely though I don't mind gestalt.
I would have an interest in Carrion Crown
All Paizo 0HD Races -> Sure, but let's keep it to Core + Featured Races
3rd party races (maybe) -> No.
Race Builder (race points to be determinated) -> No.
Template(s) -> No.
15 PB, 20 PB, 25 PB, 30+ PB... -> 20 PB
Evil Alignment -> Been there, done that, not interested with people I don't 100% know. Even then, very dangerous.
99% of Paizo Classes and Archetypes -> Sure
3rd Party Classes and Archetypes (maybe) -> No
Gestalt -> Don't know anything about. Not really all that hot to learn a new rules subset.
Unchained's Background skills (maybe with some modifications) -> Maybe
Most of Paizo Traits and Feats -> Yes
3rd Party Traits and Feats (again, maybe) -> No
Most Paizo Spells -> Yes
(maybe) 3rd Party Spells (Big Maybe) -> Absolutely not.
I am amenable to all three, but Iron Gods would be most preferred.
All 0HD races should be fine, depending on which setting ends up being used. Anything besides Core should probably be on a case by case basis. I'd rather not use 3rd party races; Paizo has a sizeable selection already, and anything else would likely clash with established lore. Ditto for the race builder.
Templates are fun, but I'd rather not use them. They work a lot better on monsters, and are designed that way for a reason.
I generally prefer 20 point buy. It's enough for even MAD classes to work with.
Evil alignment should be fine, as long as there is some kind of unifying purpose, and the unspoken understanding that the party isn't just going to butcher each other.
Again, I'm fine with anything Paizo. 3rd party stuff should be on a case-by-case basis.
Unchained is pretty good. I wholeheartedly recommend using background skills, as it allows classes with few skill ranks to take some flavorful skill options.
Wouldn't mind playing Carrion Crown. I'm playing the other two currently.
Not a big fan of evil characters, as it is very dependent on the players.
Gestalt is predicated on you reworking encounters drastically. It can very much go haywire power wise, so I would be careful. You probably want to avoid people who tweak it for maximum gain. It's a matter of how much work you want to put in both vetting characters as well as adjusting encounters. Though truth be told, APs are really written for 15 point buy, non optimized characters, so in almost every case you do have to adjust things.
If normal, 20 buy is fine, if gestalt, you probably want 25.
Don't like 3rd party stuff as I rarely find it to be well balanced.
Main concern one has, the more stuff is added, is how those things can interact in synergistic ways which blow up the power curve.
I would love Iron Gods, or Carrion Crown. I'm a fan or 20 or 25 point-buy, but I generally don't like to use 3rd party races or classes much. If people were really clamoring for some of the better known 3rd party stuff like Dreamscarred press I'm be okay with that, but I'm not a huge psionics fan.
Evil alignment is fine, just not Stupid Evil. As for Unchained, I'm a big fan of Background Skills, as well as Wound Thresholds and Automatic Bonus Progression. I'm fine without the last two, but I love Background Skills to death. I also am not much a fan of templates. Gestalt is cool, but I'm utterly indifferent on it. I'll apply to Iron Gods or Carrion Crown if it's gestalt or not.
Out of curiosity, how many players do you think you will run? This affects the action economy and can have certain implications when it comes to dungeon architecture, so it's a bit more of an important factor than point buy, IMHO.
Given the way people vanish from PBP games, I'm starting to have a mind of starting multiple tables of my next game, and the consolidating as people vanish as they are wont to do (usually without even a word why).
What's the point of "melee, skill, arcane, divine," ?
I never understood that, not even after GMing games for years.
Premade adventures are usually made with those in mind, not sure why.
They have to try to balance for a generic party, and that's about as generic as you can get. Of course it doesn't necessarily work, but what else can they do?
I'd like to make a case for a five member party; having been part of one for a couple years now, we've found that it makes for a fairly rigid party structure, with certain roles needing to be covered and thus leaving little room for creativity in some regards. With five members , say healing could be split two ways with no loss of effectiveness, and that's just one example.
Carrion Crown as undead could be really cool, depending on how the backstory is spun. 20 or 25 PB, though I would not shake a hand at 30 PB. Templates and Gestalt are also a blast, but don't throw too much into one pot. I would say allow undead, templates, or gestalt, but not all three - it will just devolve into a mess. Remember, you want to give players a great game while in a system you can manage.
So, what are you thinking?
Premade adventures are usually made with those in mind, not sure why.What's the point of "melee, skill, arcane, divine," ?
I never understood that, not even after GMing games for years.
The idea is to give each member their share of the spotlight that they don't have to share with anyone else. I'm a fan of making sure most things are covered, but not to have to stick strictly with the pre-defined roles. Skill monkey can easily be dropped if the other members cover most needed things, divine can be dropped as long as there's someone capable of healing (which includes pretty much any caster in an evil campaign due to infernal healing). Neither arcane not melee are strictly needed for anything (you can easily get by with just ranged and divine characters), but those are usually the most popular roles so shouldn't be hard to fill anyway. Just a magus as the only melee or the only arcane could work just fine though. Not going by the roles does leave the burden to the GM make sure there aren't any huge gaps in the skill sets though (though a sorcerer, negative channeling focused cleric, bard and brawler could easily end up with no one with any wis/int/dex skills nor anyone able to tank in melee nor even healing). In the end, just go with what you are comfortable with, if that means slotting people into roles, then so be it.
I'm going to echo a previous poster about recommendations for what style of game to run. No matter what you choose people will want to join, so just chose what you think will be the most fun.
It seems like the vast majority are pretty solid in the chargen rules they are interested in, so I guess the big question is which AP to move forward with. Have you come to a decision regarding that? I think I'd probably bow out if you choose CC (I've heard it's a tad cheesy, anyone care to comment on that?), but I'd certainly apply to IG or MM.
Premade adventures are usually made with those in mind, not sure why.What's the point of "melee, skill, arcane, divine," ?
I never understood that, not even after GMing games for years.
The idea is to give each member their share of the spotlight that they don't have to share with anyone else. I'm a fan of making sure most things are covered, but not to have to stick strictly with the pre-defined roles. Skill monkey can easily be dropped if the other members cover most needed things, divine can be dropped as long as there's someone capable of healing (which includes pretty much any caster in an evil campaign due to infernal healing). Neither arcane not melee are strictly needed for anything (you can easily get by with just ranged and divine characters), but those are usually the most popular roles so shouldn't be hard to fill anyway. Just a magus as the only melee or the only arcane could work just fine though. Not going by the roles does leave the burden to the GM make sure there aren't any huge gaps in the skill sets though (though a sorcerer, negative channeling focused cleric, bard and brawler could easily end up with no one with any wis/int/dex skills nor anyone able to tank in melee nor even healing). In the end, just go with what you are comfortable with, if that means slotting people into roles, then so be it.
I'm going to echo a previous poster about recommendations for what style of game to run. No matter what you choose people will want to join, so just chose what you think will be the most fun.
Sounds a bit silly to me, particularly the whole "avoid gaps in the skill sets" part. Personally, when I GM, I love gaps in the skill sets, as they are excellent points to add puzzles, tension, and roleplaying opportunities.
Not entirely clear on what is otherwise expected of a player filling in a role though. I recently had a GM get somewhat upset because my arcane character wasn't arcane enough or something like that, then again, that entire game was less centered on roleplaying, and more an adventure game with some RP tossed in between.
In any case, thanks for the answer.
|
|
Sounds a bit silly to me, particularly the whole "avoid gaps in the skill sets" part. Personally, when I GM, I love gaps in the skill sets, as they are excellent points to add puzzles, tension, and roleplaying opportunities.Not entirely clear on what is otherwise expected of a player filling in a role though. I recently had a GM get somewhat upset because my arcane character wasn't arcane enough...
I don't disagree with you, quite the opposite, I'm also fond of just taking what everyone wants to role/roll up and figuring out how to overcome 'skill gaps' but I don't think it's all that strange for a new or inexperienced GM to want the traditional bases covered. You don't always have to throw yourself into a steep learning curve.
Mummy's Mask, with Iron Gods in 2nd.
All Paizo 0HD Races.
3rd party races (maybe).
Race Builder (race points to be determinated).
Template(s).
15 PB, 20 PB, 25 PB, 30+ PB...
Evil Alignment.
99% of Paizo Classes and Archetypes.
3rd Party Classes and Archetypes (maybe).
Gestalt.
Unchained's Background skills (maybe with some modifications).
Most of Paizo Traits and Feats.
3rd Party Traits and Feats (again, maybe).
Most Paizo Spells.
(maybe) 3rd Party Spells (Big Maybe).
I don't disagree with you, quite the opposite, I'm also fond of just taking what everyone wants to role/roll up and figuring out how to overcome 'skill gaps' but I don't think it's all that strange for a new or inexperienced GM to want the traditional bases covered. You don't always have to throw yourself into a steep learning curve.
Sounds a bit silly to me, particularly the whole "avoid gaps in the skill sets" part. Personally, when I GM, I love gaps in the skill sets, as they are excellent points to add puzzles, tension, and roleplaying opportunities.Not entirely clear on what is otherwise expected of a player filling in a role though. I recently had a GM get somewhat upset because my arcane character wasn't arcane enough...
I say new GMs should be tossed in the deep end the first few times (preferably with an experienced GM as a mentor or advisor). Even if they fail, they will see and learn alot, then they can go the shallow end to actually get practice at GMing (if they lack a good mentor/advisor). I think too many start at the shallow end and never leave, probably because they never get a real idea of what the deep end could be like. Lack of great GM rolemodels doesn't help.
Aside from that personal opinion, I have very little understanding of these roles, so even if asked to cover one, it is hard to know whether I actually cover the role, particularly if I'm trying to also make a full character and not just a simple gimmick.
Like the unhappy GM I mentioned who had certain expectations of what I would do because I was playing an arcane caster. That entire group though was treating it more like a boardgame with RP tacked on top, rather than a game focused on the RP. For example, another player asked me to identify a couple potions. I missed the request, so he brought it up IC, so I came up with an IC response and reason for not doing it, then had the others get a bit frustrated because I didn't have my character drop everything and do it, regardless of the fact that our characters were strangers, and my character didn't place a lot of value on potions and saw them as cheap knock-offs rather than "valuable items that change the tide of battle."
The viewpoint is just too different I guess, particularly when no one clearly defines the expectations.