What do I want from Pathfinder 2.0?
Well...
Remove WBL and Expected gear. Basically R.I.P. christmas tree effect. Possibly eliminate all items that grant flat bonuses, i.e. no more stat belts/bands/+weapons/+armor or shield.
Mathhammer the whole system from the ground up. CMB vs CMD saves VS DC's Attack VS AC all need redone.
Rewrite the combat rules, eliminating the idea of Reality or "making sense". Write it solely as a game and use specific game terms none of this attack action vs attack as an action nonsense or wield vs wield.
Rewrite the magic chapter and spells to lower overall power level and remove "Gotcha" spells such as Simulacrum, Create Undead, and Planar Binding.
Rewrite skills to be worth something and to be something a character can be based around.
Rewrite weapons and armor so that there are valid weapon choices beyond 1 or 2 per category and more than one best armor choice.
Condense and enhance feats so having more is a good thing rather than "Yeah I can trade for another Rage power/Exploit."
After rewriting all of this mathhammer again.
And just to be clear do all of this with the focus on creating a readable, understandable, and internally consistent rule-set, not a setting. All of this should be done based on what makes the game work not on "reality" or "this book was cool" or "I don't/do like that."
This is how you get Martial ~= Casters
I have said this before and I know I am in the minority. I am not trying to attack anyone or be insulting, but the fact is that my group already no longer purchases Paizo products due to disagreeing with the current thrust of published material and errata.
One thing I would add to this is, Yes, Please keep the some form of the OGL and Third party publishers. 3rd party is the only real reason my group still plays Pathfinder or buys Pathfinder content.
And just to be clear do all of this with the focus on creating a readable, understandable, and internally consistent rule-set, not a setting. All of this should be done based on what makes the game work not on "reality" or "this book was cool" or "I don't/do like that."
This is how you get Martial ~= Casters
That would have to be very careful. I want to play a game that allows me to experience the world through a characters eyes.
I think 4E's biggest problem was that it wanted a consistent balanced game first, and all other considerations second. I find that the more tight/balanced a game is, the less options there are for characters. The most flexible game I know has balance imposed by GM, not system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think 4E's biggest problem was that it wanted a consistent balanced game first, and all other considerations second.
4e isn't balanced though. It doesn't particularly try to be balanced and honestly in many ways it's significantly less balanced than systems like Pathfinder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think 4E's biggest problem was that it wanted a consistent balanced game first, and all other considerations second.4e isn't balanced though. It doesn't particularly try to be balanced and honestly in many ways it's significantly less balanced than systems like Pathfinder.
/raise eyebrow ???
|
For someone to say 4E is less blanced than PF tells me that person never played 4E let alone read the books imo. One of the main criticisms of 4E that it was "too balanced" that the characters felt too cookie cutter. 4E tried to make sure that everyone at the table contrbuted equally. Even if it meant that the power level between classes was for lack of a better word equal to me at least.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
4e specifically balanced an average version of each class against each other much better than previous editions of D&D. It did, however, have its fair share of cheesy options (e.g. Battleragers) and a clever build is going to outperform an average one significantly anyway.
The problem with 4e regarding balance, from where I sit, is that it wore "this is balanced now" on its sleeve to a degree that often felt overly limiting, this was particularly grating when confronted with one of those exceptional/game-breaking builds.
But that's not to say that Pathfinder 2nd edition shouldn't go a long way to try to balance the various classes against each other. I don't think this necessarily needs a draconian approach.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For someone to say 4E is less blanced than PF tells me that person never played 4E let alone read the books imo.
Quite the opposite, actually. "4e is balanced" is something I see perpetuated largely by people who've never played 4e more than once, if at all.
The fact is that the bad classes in 4e are borderline unplayable. Classes like the bladesinger and hunter and assassin literally cannot fulfill their own intended role in the game. Even looking at the more basic classes, there's simply nothing of value the cleric contributes to the game when contrasted with better classes in its role like the warlord.
On the flip side, there's very little a GM can do to keep a well optimized ranger or sorcerer or fighter from simply ruining the game outside simply banning their stronger options or agreeing with the players to keep things sane. Otherwise it's fairly trivial for them to just run over basically any encounter, often times pretty much by themselves.
Pathfinder has balance issues, but you can still build a fighter that can fight effectively and you can still play around wizards and clerics, the same can't really be said about 4e.
Death to setting neutrality.
Major abstractions to the gutter.
Révolution!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But that's not to say that Pathfinder 2nd edition shouldn't go a long way to try to balance the various classes against each other. I don't think this necessarily needs a draconian approach.
Yeah the draconian approach was what I was referring to. The other thing, for me at least - was the 3rd edition was sort of "simulationist" - the rules tended to try an explain how things worked in world. Given there were lots of failures and edge cases, but that seemed to be part of the intent. What I feel there (whether or not I explain it well) it why 3.x was my favorite D&D, and Pathfinder is my number 2 system (behind HERO).
4E was "THIS IS A GAME". More than anything I didn't like that at all. 5E I could handle style wise, but it is way to limited in options and mechanical depth for me.
I don't want to see any hypothetical Pathfinder 2.0 to go either of those paths. To much a game, or too simple.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the flip side, there's very little a GM can do to keep a well optimized ranger or sorcerer or fighter from simply ruining the game outside simply banning their stronger options or agreeing with the players to keep things sane. Otherwise it's fairly trivial for them to just run over basically any encounter, often times pretty much by themselves.
Wait what the hell could a sorcerer do outside of one thing that they eventually just stated is against the rules?
The problem with 4e regarding balance, from where I sit, is that it wore "this is balanced now" on its sleeve to a degree that often felt overly limiting, this was particularly grating when confronted with one of those exceptional/game-breaking builds.
Wasn't a lot of the game breaking stuff outside of the action economy issue from a system that if you ever read it said it will snap the game into tiny little pieces for better or worst?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a 4e DM, I find the '4e isn't balanced' claim highly amusing.
But this is getting off-topic and edition-warry, so I'm going to point out that this topic'd be more appropriate for a different sub-forum and thread.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A few thing's I'd personally like to see:
Spells, almost across the board having more effective minimum results and less devastating maximum results. This would decrease the need to focus so heavily on a single caster stat for most Arcane Casters as maxing DCs just wouldn't be as important.
This also makes a lot of sense to me from a fluff PoV. If pressed, I can think of a genre example or two of magic that has a chance to simply not work once cast -- many Potterverse spells are projectiles that must physically connect with a target to take effect, for example -- but when I think of magic, I think of spells that simply work once cast.
Save-negates spells are a way to balance powerful spell effects for the sake of the game, and I'm kool with making concessions for the sake of gameplay. But this is one of those instances where I think D&D tradition is a blunt instrument. Save-fail effects don't need to be the game-altering things that some of them are, and there are better ways to balance powerful effects than "You're either totally screwed or 100% okay."
I agree, and another aspect I think this would bring would be to make target's failing there save more like a Critical hit in a sense. A less common thing that's pretty cool when it does happen. I'd also think, depending on how it's handled, it might also significantly curb a lot of the staple "must have" spells, (Glitterdust, Grease, Sleep, Black Tentacles, etc. . .) making them still useful, but the encounter-ending effects would be less dependable, but amazing when it happens.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think 4E's biggest problem was that it wanted a consistent balanced game first, and all other considerations second.4e isn't balanced though. It doesn't particularly try to be balanced and honestly in many ways it's significantly less balanced than systems like Pathfinder.
I think it really depends on what exactly you mean by or expect from "balanced". What most people generally mean is that one halfway decently optimized option was just as viable as any other halfway decently optimized option. It generally did this by outright removing 99% of the options that really allowed for "optimization", or by instead making them the exact same thing except with flavor saying they did something different.
There where exceptions, of course. One of the most broken abilities was a Cleric ability gained very early on (3rd I think) that almost made them unkillable. Some sort of consecrated healing circle effect that basically only go away if (played smartly) where not outright downed in a one-shot hit.
Another way to consider it is that all of the classes where sort of played, at least in a sense, similar to Monopoly pieces. They had different flavor, but, and this is very generally speaking, they basically did the same thing. At least in comparison to most other similar themed games.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now people's mention of HERO and GURPS makes me hungry for an unholy hybrid of Pathfinder with Mutants & Masterminds . . . .
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm surprised there are people who want setting neutrality removed.... not everyone uses Pathfinder to play in Golarion...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
*raises hand*
Agreed. Big fan of the neutrality.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm surprised there are people who want setting neutrality removed.... not everyone uses Pathfinder to play in Golarion...
Nor do they need to, but most groups pick and chose what they want to include whether they play Golarion or not... I personally hate one set of rules for the core book... and another set of rules for 90% of the content from the same company.
When TSR had Spelljammer, Birthright, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance and others floating around... Neutrality made a lot more sense. Pathfinder has Pathfinder... and that's it. The Core Rule book says Pathfinder... the setting books say Pathfinder... but to have debates about whether Paladins need gods or how far removed a cleric can be from his gods alighment... gets frustrating.
If they really wanted Neutrality, the CRB lines should be called Pathfinder and the setting line should be called Golarion, or Inner Seas 'a Pathfinder setting' or something that actually differentiates it.
Honestly, I was playing for about 3 years on the forums here before I ever heard they INTENDED to have the rules be considered 'neutral'.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well considering Golarion has houserules that RPG-line doesn't possess (like not allowing cleric's of concepts and that all undead are evil outside of unique figures and ghosts) and that there is RPG-line content that doesn't exist in Golarion like the many optional rules. The clerics of concepts was actually something that James Jacobs specifically wanted removed from the CRB because it doesn't work that way in Golarion, but it was decided that it should stay (presumably for backwards compatibility).
Until recently, the RPG-line was more rules neutral than 3.5e was, with it only mentioning the deities (which is mainly so groups don't have to spend ages making up a pantheon to play if they just have the RPG-line). It doesn't even have the word golarion in it.
So I don't consider RPG-line to be Golarion. I don't think I should have to wade through fluff I will never read about a setting I don't care for, when one of the big benefits of Pathfinder is that you can make your own world with it rather easily.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The "clerics have to worship a specific god, and everybody needs to be a follower of one and only one god" is my #1 least favorite thing about Golarion as a setting. So if "an end to setting neutrality" means "no more clerics of mathematics" then count me against it.
Any sort of rule that eliminates entire concepts for reasons of fluff is a bad rule from where I sit.
But if they did make PF2.0 Golarion specific, I would just proceed to ignore all those setting rules like I do now and have for every edition of D&D and its ilk. But the less arbitrary metaphysics I have to handwave away because I don't want it to work that way in my game, the better.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I'm really not a fan of James Jacobs's setting work. Sacrilege, I know. :P
I mostly use Pathfinder for Ravenloft, Greyhawk, and homebrew worlds. I'd be bummed out if Pathfinder basically became the Golarion RPG. That might be the straw that broke this intrigued-by-5E camel's back.
Well considering Golarion has houserules that RPG-line doesn't possess (like not allowing cleric's of concepts and that all undead are evil outside of unique figures and ghosts) and that there is RPG-line content that doesn't exist in Golarion like the many optional rules. The clerics of concepts was actually something that James Jacobs specifically wanted removed from the CRB because it doesn't work that way in Golarion, but it was decided that it should stay.
Until recently, the RPG-line was more rules neutral than 3.5e was, with it only mentioning the deities (which is mainly so groups don't have to spend ages making up a pantheon to play if they just have the RPG-line). It doesn't even have the word golarion in it.
So I don't consider RPG-line to be Golarion. I don't think I should have to wade through fluff I will never read about a setting I don't care for, when one of the big benefits of Pathfinder is that you can make your own world with it rather easily.
yet, the pictures are of specific Golarion characters, the little stories between the chapters are all golarion. If you aren't told specifically, that the lines are separate... it's not something that is obvious.
Especially since, (and I could have my timeline mixed up here...) Pathfinder was a setting before it was a rulebook. Rise of the Runelords and curse of the Crimson throne and even the original Pathfinder Setting book were all released using using the 3.5 rules... so then to release ANOTHER core rules, using Pathfinder characters... but make it setting neutral??
That's just jumping through hoops. I would much prefer the RPG line to be like JJ was suggesting, Clerics of Concepts are out, Undead are always evil. Adding in that wonderful concept of 'Rule Zero' means that regardless of what is written there, the Home world players are going to use what they want.. and the APs and setting stuff for the people playing in Paizo's world will actually match up with the world it was written for.
There's something overwhelming about handing a new player that giant beast of a rulebook... then finding out that some of it doesn't apply to the AP they're playing that weekend.
I'm not saying that the core book has to deal exclusively with golarion specific prestige classes or that the core should also introduce all the countries or associations or anything... but the rules for the RPG line and the Golarion line should still match up. The APs can still ignore the alternate rules like Words of power and Armor as DR.
Really that line is so fine already, that it wouldn't even be a big deal. There aren't any big obvious things like the Grey/High elves vs. Sun/Moon elves in Forgotten Realms that SCREAM 'this book isn't setting specific.'
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Doesn't putting setting specific stuff in a rulebook just add to the logistical problem of actually reading through the thing?
If it were up to me, the core rulebook would have absolutely nothing about setting except for art and interstitial stories (which need to be set somewhere.) But I think that "information about the various countries and deities" is something you could just put in another book, and it would make "working your way through the rules" less daunting.
And you make the rules for the "RPG line" and the "Golarion line" match up by having the less restrictive version of every rule (so clerics and undead can work however the GM wants them to work, and they don't even have to overrule the text, they can just say "okay, here's how this works.")
Grounding the game in a specific setting says much more about "here's how things have to be" than a ruleset really should. If anything, the more a setting is integral to playing the game, the more ambiguous you ought to be about how everything works in the world, lest you restrict creative freedom for no good reason.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Doesn't putting setting specific stuff in a rulebook just add to the logistical problem of actually reading through the thing?
For me, rules are much easier to read if they're tied closely to a campaign world. I struggle to read the RPG line since I find it very dry. I can appreciate the alternate view, though.
The only thing I find really odd is those rule books with a strong flavor element not being grounded in golarion (I'm thinking books like the villain codex). It almost seems like a waste of creative effort to me - by being not-golarion it feels like it's explicitly non canonical, making it less useful to those using golarion. For those not using golarion it's irrelevant - it's flavor you're either going to use, rejig or ignore irrespective of whether it's set in absalom or "a metropolis".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Doesn't putting setting specific stuff in a rulebook just add to the logistical problem of actually reading through the thing?For me, rules are much easier to read if they're tied closely to a campaign world. I struggle to read the RPG line since I find it very dry. I can appreciate the alternate view, though.
Agreed! Especially the races. They are where I notice the most. Everything is so vague and generic that you really don't get a feel for the races. I just made a Grippli that I had a terrible time nailing down a backstory, since there was next to nothing written about there personalities, culture, habitat... or anything. Just a short section on mechanics and couple racial feats.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The "clerics have to worship a specific god, and everybody needs to be a follower of one and only one god" is my #1 least favorite thing about Golarion as a setting. So if "an end to setting neutrality" means "no more clerics of mathematics" then count me against it.
Any sort of rule that eliminates entire concepts for reasons of fluff is a bad rule from where I sit.
But if they did make PF2.0 Golarion specific, I would just proceed to ignore all those setting rules like I do now and have for every edition of D&D and its ilk. But the less arbitrary metaphysics I have to handwave away because I don't want it to work that way in my game, the better.
Bolding mine, and I 100% agree with the statement. It really is a giant middle finger that I can't play the Monk I want to play without having to brace myself for a whole lot of unnecessary strife. And it would probably still be there in a hypothetical PF 2.0, so they really might as well not bother.
I'm surprised there are people who want setting neutrality removed.... not everyone uses Pathfinder to play in Golarion...
Understandable.
I stuck with Pathfinder rules because there are aspects of Golarion that I find interesting and we play games to explore those aspects. Or because 3.0 DnD is such a old sock by now everyone feels comfortable using it.And for everything else, there is probably a different ruleset for it. And a different world. Different style completely.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The differences between setting and setting neutral seems to be really super minor, to the point that in the CRB I don't I think it mostly refers to whether clerics have to worship a diety. There is probably a bit more in the other rule books, but most of that I think is more in line with optional systems that haven't received a whole lot of support.
Really the only core RPG line book I have read where setting neutrality hurt was the recent Villain Codex. The bad guys groups ended up being kind of flavorless because they couldn't include any setting material or specific names.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And for everything else, there is probably a different ruleset for it. And a different world. Different style completely.
Except if I wanted to play a completely different style of game, I'd already be playing that. I just don't want to have to trudge through pages of useless text referring to places I won't ever give a damn about, in a game that your specifically meant to have ease in making your own settings for.
Really the only core RPG line book I have read where setting neutrality hurt was the recent Villain Codex. The bad guys groups ended up being kind of flavorless because they couldn't include any setting material or specific names.
The whole point is being able to drop the organizations into any campaign, any AP, any time you just need ideas for an arc. I'd be a lot more limited if it was "here is super specific organization in gibberish land with motivations requiring knowledge of the current political situation of gibberish land and it's neighbours or unknown god number 36". If you like the setting and are familiar with it, text like that is fine... otherwise... it's just such a big waste of time picking away all the text.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well considering Golarion has houserules that RPG-line doesn't possess (like not allowing cleric's of concepts and that all undead are evil outside of unique figures and ghosts) and that there is RPG-line content that doesn't exist in Golarion like the many optional rules. The clerics of concepts was actually something that James Jacobs specifically wanted removed from the CRB because it doesn't work that way in Golarion, but it was decided that it should stay (presumably for backwards compatibility).
Until recently, the RPG-line was more rules neutral than 3.5e was, with it only mentioning the deities (which is mainly so groups don't have to spend ages making up a pantheon to play if they just have the RPG-line). It doesn't even have the word golarion in it.
So I don't consider RPG-line to be Golarion. I don't think I should have to wade through fluff I will never read about a setting I don't care for, when one of the big benefits of Pathfinder is that you can make your own world with it rather easily.
Actually, I seem to remember the Alchemist having design decisions made because of the fact that all undead are evil. For the longest of time I was wondering why the hell that class all but in name can become undead.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, I seem to remember the Alchemist having design decisions made because of the fact that all undead are evil. For the longest of time I was wondering why the hell that class all but in name can become undead.
All undead being evil has only been stated in Golarion content, while using the Bestiaries rules has it that undead are able to change their alignment as easily as an orc or elf. Until the bestiary is overridden (like how aligned spells were hilariously clarified to be aligned acts in Ultimate Intrigue), undead all being evil is only true in golarion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And for everything else, there is probably a different ruleset for it. And a different world. Different style completely.Except if I wanted to play a completely different style of game, I'd already be playing that. I just don't want to have to trudge through pages of useless text referring to places I won't ever give a damn about, in a game that your specifically meant to have ease in making your own settings for.
I would not call DnD in general something "specifically meant to have ease in making your own settings for."
Unless you modify everything from the scratch.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would not call DnD in general something "specifically meant to have ease in making your own settings for."
Unless you modify everything from the scratch.
You probably should tell that to the various Dungeon Masters Guides and the Gamesmastery Guide then, since they suggest a rather different story.
I mean, without the campaign setting books I've "somehow" still been playing... Almost as if the rules still work if you don't play golarion....
You don't have to modify everything from scratch, you don't have to modify anything but the gods names.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really the only core RPG line book I have read where setting neutrality hurt was the recent Villain Codex. The bad guys groups ended up being kind of flavorless because they couldn't include any setting material or specific names.The whole point is being able to drop the organizations into any campaign, any AP, any time you just need ideas for an arc. I'd be a lot more limited if it was "here is super specific organization in gibberish land with motivations requiring knowledge of the current political situation of gibberish land and it's neighbours or unknown god number 36". If you like the setting and are familiar with it, text like that is fine... otherwise... it's just such a big waste of time picking away all the text.
Would you find it significantly harder to reflavor "the corrupt guard of Westcrown, old capital of cheliax" than "corrupt guard of a city or large town"?
It seems to me that "generic flavor" is just as much work to wade through and choose to either keep, discard or amend as "golarion flavor" is. I don't see any extra burden on those who don't use golarion, since it seems to me ignoring flavor is much less effort than creating it.
As far as "pure" rule books go, I can understand people who might prefer flavor and mechanics to be segregated as much as possible. However, I don't see the point of insisting on "generic flavor material" to me that just sounds like a request for blandness.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
since it seems to me ignoring flavor is much less effort than creating it.
For me, it's exactly the opposite. I can fill negative creative space easily on the fly, but if I'm taking things out to replace them with what I want I have to be careful about what's important and is anything here contradictory.
It's much easier to just create "God of the sun" for a game I'm running than to read a dozen pages about the sun god in some other setting and then use that to make my own sun god.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would you find it significantly harder to reflavor "the corrupt guard of Westcrown, old capital of cheliax" than "corrupt guard of a city or large town"?
Yes... One I don't even have to reflavour.... Reflavouring "the corrupt guard of gibber, the old capital of gibberish land" more work than not reflavouring at all. With one I have to check "Does this character fit what I'm dumping him into, because they might have put in stuff that only makes sense in their campaign setting like using a setting specific feat or archetype or using a weapon of their god", the other I can just use anywhere no problem don't have to tinker around and warp things to fit what I need.
Also, which is more useful when it comes to organizations for a book like Villain Codex "This is the thieves guild of enqfoj and here is tonnes of specifics about how they interact with the specific people of enqfloj." or "This is a detailed thieves guild you can use in basically any city of golarion or your own"... One can only be used in one spot... the other in billions of spots...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
since it seems to me ignoring flavor is much less effort than creating it.For me, it's exactly the opposite. I can fill negative creative space easily on the fly, but if I'm taking things out to replace them with what I want I have to be careful about what's important and is anything here contradictory.
It's much easier to just create "God of the sun" for a game I'm running than to read a dozen pages about the sun god in some other setting and then use that to make my own sun god.
I guess I don't see why it's harder to create "Sarenrae" for your game than it is to create "God of the Sun". Or why you would choose to read up on the sun god in a setting you're not using just because it was referenced in a rulebook. (Have you done that with the golarion gods in the CRB? I would have presumed the non-golarion gamers would just take them as examples to be replaced by their own pantheon - not look through all the deity lore to decide whether to keep them or not).
I was imagining those who don't use Golarion would just read "Corrupt guard of <Westcrown>, in <Cheliax>" as "corrupt guard of <big city> in <kingdom>". It's not necessary to go look up Golarion lore to see what Cheliax actually is as far as I can see - whether the organisation fits your world is not reliant on the flavor of Cheliax and whether it's a monarchy, a dictatorship, a theocracy or anything else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes... One I don't even have to reflavour.... Reflavouring "the corrupt guard of gibber, the old capital of gibberish land" more work than not reflavouring at all.
Would you find it significantly harder to reflavor "the corrupt guard of Westcrown, old capital of cheliax" than "corrupt guard of a city or large town"?
Don't you? I wouldn't use "Corrupt guard of a city" as is - I'd have to at least identify which city it is and consider how it related to other organisations/factions/etcetera. But in fact I'd do considerably more work than that for an organisation with any level of campaign focus.
I don't find many of the villain codex groups useful as is - they're good inspiration the way I use them, but they're not useful in terms of taking them out and plunking them into a world ready-to-go.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, which is more useful when it comes to organizations for a book like Villain Codex "This is the thieves guild of enqfoj and here is tonnes of specifics about how they interact with the specific people of enqfloj." or "This is a detailed thieves guild you can use in basically any city of golarion or your own"... One can only be used in one spot... the other in billions of spots...
The former is much more useful to me. I can take it and use it in one spot as is or I can rework it for billions of spots.
The latter I can rework for billions plus one spots and can't use it as is at all.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Doesn't putting setting specific stuff in a rulebook just add to the logistical problem of actually reading through the thing?
To me it's the exact opposite. I hate reading through rulesbooks because they do generally nothing to inspire me and (in my mind) are just boring.
This changes at the moment you add fluff to it. Suddenly it becomes interesting and it actually makes it more useful to me, when I want to adapt it to another setting. That's also why I find the Player Companions generally much more useful than the rulesbooks themselves.
I'm also with Steve in that I find it much easier to reflavor things than to add flavor to something that hadn't any flavor to start with.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If "Bill, the corrupt guard of [place]" doesn't actually have any connection to [place] then there's no benefit to gain by filling in the blank. If Bill does have a connection to that specific setting, then I need to know something about that setting to make sense of Bill. If I'm reading about Bill and have no real understanding about the ancient kingdom of Wossname, I'm going to assume I need to read up on Wossname to make sense of Bill.
Alternatively, I'll read "Bill, the corrupt guard of Wossname" realize I neither know nor care about Wossname, and just skip that section and hope to find something that's actually of use to me.
It's possible that something like "Villain's Codex" should not have been a setting neutral book, but that's a whole different kettle of fish than to say the core rules shouldn't be. But even for a game set in Golarion, for a book that simply presents a bunch of different antagonists and antagonist organizations, isn't it better to have these antagonists be things you can drop into your game no matter where it's set?
It's possible that something like "Villain's Codex" should not have been a setting neutral book, but that's a whole different kettle of fish than to say the core rules shouldn't be.
It certainly is. My point was only with regard to books like that.
For the CRB and other rulebooks, I personally wish they were steeped in setting lore (Shadowrun was one of my favorite RPGs to read due to the interconnectedness of their exposition of lore and mechanics. Similarly traveller, Earthdawn, the various WoD books...). Nonetheless, I can understand people who'd rather have a very clear distinction.
My only real puzzlement was when it comes to books like the villain codex - where there is flavor material necessarily included due to the concept of the book. "Generic flavor" seems almost oxymoronic to me (not quite, but almost). I appreciate the different perspectives though - I didn't mean to imply there was a way things "should" be done.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't you?
No. As I said.... with one I need to search through stuff to see if it would even work in my game, the other I don't. The one not tied to a specific city, I can just chuck in anywhere.
I wouldn't use "Corrupt guard of a city" as is - I'd have to at least identify which city it is and consider how it related to other organisations/factions/etcetera.
And it being limited to a single city helps that beyond just the specific city it mentioned and the specific organizations it mentions?
But in fact I'd do considerably more work than that for an organisation with any level of campaign focus.
In my experience, if an organisation actually has a proper level of campaign focus it's generally better to stat up the encounters and NPC's yourself because these stats don't know the level of your group, they don't know when you'll want to use them, they are there for you to chuck in for an arc maybe or just cherry pick statblocks when you need it.
I don't find many of the villain codex groups useful as is - they're good inspiration the way I use them, but they're not useful in terms of taking them out and plunking them into a world ready-to-go.
Even if it had golarion specific text, you'd probably still need to make modifications before it's "ready-to-go" then, since every table is different, every table is going to have slightly different interpretations of things, and every table is going to come in contact with these organizations in different ways and different events.
To me it's the exact opposite. I hate reading through rulesbooks because they do generally nothing to inspire me and (in my mind) are just boring.
This changes at the moment you add fluff to it. Suddenly it becomes interesting and it actually makes it more useful to me, when I want to adapt it to another setting. That's also why I find the Player Companions generally much more useful than the rulesbooks themselves.
Wait... do you guys think setting neutrality = no flavour/fluff?
Wait... do you guys think setting neutrality = no flavour/fluff?
No. I think it means that there is no flavor material derived from some, specific campaign setting.
Beyond those references to the gods, I think the villain codex and CRB are both setting neutral. The former has flavor material, the latter doesn't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No. I think it means that there is no flavor material derived from some, specific campaign setting.
Beyond those references to the gods, I think the villain codex and CRB are both setting neutral. The former has flavor material, the latter doesn't.
Yeah (though I disagree that the CRB lacks flavour material).
My view is that flavour doesn't need to be setting specific to be inspiring or interesting, occult adventures/horror adventures/villain codex and all the bestiaries have tonnes of cool flavour that isn't tied to golarion.
I wouldn't use "Corrupt guard of a city" as is - I'd have to at least identify which city it is and consider how it related to other organisations/factions/etcetera.And it being limited to a single city helps that beyond just the specific city it mentioned and the specific organizations it mentions?
I don't understand the question.
If it were limited to a specific place, I'd be interested in using it and would be happy to drop it in to a campaign. By presenting something generic, I have a seed of an idea, but not something ready to go.
Limiting it to a specific city doesn't help "beyond just the specific city" but neither does taking a generic one and putting it in Westcrown (or wherever).
But in fact I'd do considerably more work than that for an organisation with any level of campaign focus.In my experience, if an organisation actually has a proper level of campaign focus it's generally better to stat up the encounters and NPC's yourself because these stats don't know the level of your group, they don't know when you'll want to use them, they are there for you to chuck in for an arc maybe or just cherry pick statblocks when you need it.
I don't find many of the villain codex groups useful as is - they're good inspiration the way I use them, but they're not useful in terms of taking them out and plunking them into a world ready-to-go.Even if it had golarion specific text, you'd probably still need to make modifications before it's "ready-to-go" then, since every table is different, every table is going to have slightly different interpretations of things, and every table is going to come in contact with these organizations in different ways and different events.
I run APs, modules, campaign set pieces, etcetera as-is with no modifications to take our group's makeup and abilities into account.
As such, we generally TPK around levels 7/8 in Pathfinder (since we're not very good at the game) but that approach suits our group's tastes. One guy, in particular, has an idiosyncratic view of what RAW is - he considers it almost cheating for the DM to modify an encounter in a module.
No. I think it means that there is no flavor material derived from some, specific campaign setting.
Beyond those references to the gods, I think the villain codex and CRB are both setting neutral. The former has flavor material, the latter doesn't.
Yeah (though I disagree that the CRB lacks flavour material).
My view is that flavour doesn't need to be setting specific to be inspiring or interesting, occult adventures/horror adventures/villain codex and all the bestiaries have tonnes of cool flavour that isn't tied to golarion.
I had a feeling there'd be CRB flavor - I just couldn't think of any off the top of my head. Spell descriptions, feats, class abilities, no doubt.
I think those other books have cool flavor too. I don't consider it usable though. More inspirational material - a starting point rather than a finished bit of lore. I clearly use such things very differently than you (but of course I use golarion so that's significant).
|
|
Wait... do you guys think setting neutrality = no flavour/fluff?
to me it's more that setting neutrality = bland, boring stuff.
And I've yet to see a rulebook that proves me otherwise.
Alternatively, I'll read "Bill, the corrupt guard of Wossname" realize I neither know nor care about Wossname, and just skip that section and hope to find something that's actually of use to me.
The thing is, to me those setting connections create images and it's those images I work with. I don't need to spend money just to get "Bill, the corrupt guard". That I can do by myself.