| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As the title. I don't play in Golarion. On a scale of the 1E core rulebook, to Starfinder's baked-in setting, how hard will it be to use these rules for something outside Golarion? Will I have to rename a bunch of items and archetypes? Or can I still expect mechanics to be fairly setting agnostic? Will I have to pay for a chapter on a campaign setting that I'm not going to use?
If you dont like Solarions flavour for your game...the conversion is removing Solarions from your game.
Golarion has always tried to model lots of different genres as nations. Where D&D had Ravenloft or Gamma World as settings of Gothic horror or post apocalyptic wierdness, Paizo had Ustlav and Numeria as nations in (ostensibly) the same world.
For that reason I think a Golarion specific rulebook would almost have to be pretty indistinguishable from a setting neutral one. If the rulebook can support Ustlav it can support your Ravenloft game. If it can support Osirion it can support your Assassin's Creed Eygpt game. Etc... Yeah, there might be sections you don't use (maybe throw out the guns section if your world doesn't have them), but Golarion is so broad a setting that it should still be usable for most any action/adventure theme.
Yeah, I have no concerns about whether or not it will be possible to play in other settings, just want to know how much work it will take. "Work" here kinda implies some great effort though, maybe I should have asked "how annoying will it be taking Golarion out of the core rules?". Will names like Ustalav and Osirion be name-dropped in mechanics focused sections? Will there be a big "campaign setting" chapter that, for my purposes, would just be eating up pages that I'd rather have spent on crunch?
I agree. Inclusion of setting in rules works my last nerve. I've never seen a published setting that I liked nearly as well as my own.
Golarion has always tried to model lots of different genres as nations. Where D&D had Ravenloft or Gamma World as settings of Gothic horror or post apocalyptic wierdness, Paizo had Ustlav and Numeria as nations in (ostensibly) the same world.
For that reason I think a Golarion specific rulebook would almost have to be pretty indistinguishable from a setting neutral one. If the rulebook can support Ustlav it can support your Ravenloft game. If it can support Osirion it can support your Assassin's Creed Eygpt game. Etc... Yeah, there might be sections you don't use (maybe throw out the guns section if your world doesn't have them), but Golarion is so broad a setting that it should still be usable for most any action/adventure theme.
Looks at my extraplanar manapunk setting with no alignment....
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You folks realise that Golarion was the assumed setting in 1e right?
Pathfinder elves are from space, half-orcs are adaptable, alchemists and gunslingers exist. Monsters in the bestiaries assumes Golarion as well, goblins have pumpkin heads, psychopomps usher the dead. The twenty deities in the CRB are all Golarion deities.
3.5 assumed you were playing in Greyhawk.
Alchemists are going to be Core in 2nd edition, they’re assumed to be part of Golarion from the jump.
People complaining they can’t homebrew if the CRB assumes the Golarion setting have already been picking and choosing and swapping and changing Golarion content for years.
True. However, Half-orcs and paladins have been in every edition since (I believe, I wasn't around when 2nd edition was alive and kicking) 3e was out. It wasn't necessarily more of a setting thing than it was a archetypal thing.
They are in every edition, but not in every setting.
Dark Sun does not have Paladins, for example. Dragonlance does not have orcs. A home world might have none. And they would need to remove them from the core, just like Dark Sun and Dragonlance do, and just like anyone who do not have Solarians background in their settings would need to do too.
Probably comparable to Starfinder, perhaps a bit less given that PF is inherently a bit more generic.
But since it's so easy to strip the setting out of Starfinder that shouldn't be a problem for PF2 either.
If it's a race or a class that's tied into Golarion and I don't like it, I can snip it it out. If I don't like the flavor text around something I can change it. As noted, this is something most of us have been doing for years.
What I worry about is that certain *mechanics* might be tied into Golarion in some manner we can't currently foresee. When you start excising or altering mechanics that have been designed to fit together in a certain way and in a specific setting, you change things downstream, pretty much always, and it's usually very difficult, or even impossible, to understand those knock-on effects before you tinker.
I have no idea if this will be the case or not. If the fluff of the game is tied to Golarion but the mechanics are agnostic, all well and good. If the mechanics are tied to Golarion, then it's not good at all.
You folks realise that Golarion was the assumed setting in 1e right?
Pathfinder elves are from space, half-orcs are adaptable, alchemists and gunslingers exist. Monsters in the bestiaries assumes Golarion as well, goblins have pumpkin heads, psychopomps usher the dead. The twenty deities in the CRB are all Golarion deities.
3.5 assumed you were playing in Greyhawk.
Alchemists are going to be Core in 2nd edition, they’re assumed to be part of Golarion from the jump.
People complaining they can’t homebrew if the CRB assumes the Golarion setting have already been picking and choosing and swapping and changing Golarion content for years.
The CRB assumes a Golarion-esque setting, but it doesn't go so far as to use any Golarion-specific names for things (with the exception of deity names), or include any chapters on the Golarion campaign setting. That's about where I start to take issue with it. Not a huge issue, mind you, but I'm a long time Pathfinder player and I'd like to know if PF2.0 is gonna keep things that have been important to me, namely, a primarily setting agnostic CRB.
If it's a race or a class that's tied into Golarion and I don't like it, I can snip it it out. If I don't like the flavor text around something I can change it. As noted, this is something most of us have been doing for years.
What I worry about is that certain *mechanics* might be tied into Golarion in some manner we can't currently foresee. When you start excising or altering mechanics that have been designed to fit together in a certain way and in a specific setting, you change things downstream, pretty much always, and it's usually very difficult, or even impossible, to understand those knock-on effects before you tinker.
I have no idea if this will be the case or not. If the fluff of the game is tied to Golarion but the mechanics are agnostic, all well and good. If the mechanics are tied to Golarion, then it's not good at all.
100% Agreed!
Isn't "well our Solarians are different- here's how" sort of the core appeal of custom settings?
Like re-skinning a class, spell, organization, deity, etc. to work in your game is the easy part. All you have to do is decide what you like and what you don't.
The CRB assumes a Golarion-esque setting, but it doesn't go so far as to use any Golarion-specific names for things (with the exception of deity names), or include any chapters on the Golarion campaign setting. That's about where I start to take issue with it. Not a huge issue, mind you, but I'm a long time Pathfinder player and I'd like to know if PF2.0 is gonna keep things that have been important to me, namely, a primarily setting agnostic CRB.
I'll definitely agree with you on preferring a setting agnostic rulebook, but as long as they don't put in a chapter about the setting *eyes Starfinder unhappily* I'll be fine with it. The Core Rules of PF are large enough that losing that much of a rulebook would make me... unhappy.
I'll definitely agree with you on preferring a setting agnostic rulebook, but as long as they don't put in a chapter about the setting *eyes Starfinder unhappily* I'll be fine with it. The Core Rules of PF are large enough that losing that much of a rulebook would make me... unhappy.
Yeah, I'd be alright with it if it's just a sprinkling. It's not ideal, but obviously I'm not Paizo's only customer, and my desires aren't everyone's. Hell, I don't care if everything after the CRB has a campaign setting chapter, I just really want the core rules, the heart of the game, to be as setting-neutral as possible. I'm not sure if I would have picked up Pathfinder if I saw that the game was written with the assumption I was playing in their world.
You folks realise that Golarion was the assumed setting in 1e right?
Pathfinder elves are from space, half-orcs are adaptable, alchemists and gunslingers exist. Monsters in the bestiaries assumes Golarion as well, goblins have pumpkin heads, psychopomps usher the dead. The twenty deities in the CRB are all Golarion deities.
3.5 assumed you were playing in Greyhawk.
Alchemists are going to be Core in 2nd edition, they’re assumed to be part of Golarion from the jump.
People complaining they can’t homebrew if the CRB assumes the Golarion setting have already been picking and choosing and swapping and changing Golarion content for years.
Elves aren't from space in the RPG-line, and the line as options like Philosophy clerics which are literally stated to be impossible in golarion. I was annoyed that they put in Golarion fluff for goblins in... especially since it makes no sense for a race which is just as intelligent as dwarves, humans, halflings, etc. Fey weren't even extraplanar in nature until after Paizo started to shove in Golarion fluff last year.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like even if the rules say explicitly "no philosophy clerics", if you're doing a homebrew setting all you need to decide is "Actually, I want philosophy clerics" and change the rule. It takes no time and you can refer to similar games that did it that way for inspiration.
So I don't see what the problem is.
I feel like even if the rules say explicitly "no philosophy clerics", if you're doing a homebrew setting all you need to decide is "Actually, I want philosophy clerics" and change the rule. It takes no time and you can refer to similar games that did it that way for inspiration.
So I don't see what the problem is.
Instead of having to deal with mechanics I don't like that get included because of Golarion, it's faster for me to just use a system which isn't tied to a setting.
Instead of having to deal with mechanics I don't like that get included because of Golarion, it's faster for me to just use a system which isn't tied to a setting.
This exactly. There are plenty of good systems out there that are perfectly setting-agnostic. Using one of those means I don't have to adapt myself to Golarion assumptions or risk some unforeseen mechanical difficulty by stripping something out that some other thing depends on.
|
I was annoyed that they put in Golarion fluff for goblins in... especially since it makes no sense for a race which is just as intelligent as dwarves, humans, halflings, etc.
I'm quite happy for a player to run their goblin as a sane, well-balanced individual, who can cooperate with a party of other races, because their Int scores say they can.
It's only when they come together in groups of other goblins, that their self-harming, destructive, pyromaniac natures rise to the fore, as a form of group hysteria.
This also allows a goblin PC to take part in scenarios involving evil goblin tribes, as he can view them with revulsion or pity, while they see him as a traitor who's gone soft and civilised, like a 'house pet'.
I'm a little confused. Are you asking for an utterly setting agnostic book that is pure rules with no flavor text? No one does that, not even D&D 4e or 5e do that. Heck, even stuff like "etherealness" or the particular monsters listed for a "summon monster" spell assume certain things about cosmology or what you have going in a setting.
As someone who always runs homebrew settings myself, I think it makes a lot of sense for the game to have some default flavor. It helps provide some context to classes and abilities. It especially helps out those GMs (and they are LEGION) who either don't have time to come up with their own world, or ARE doing their own world but benefit from examples. I know that I certainly benefited as a younger GM from the example of the TSR settings of second edition. Having a sample pantheon and codes of conduct for their followers helps frame the creative endeavors of people spinning up their own stuff. Even just from a readability standpoint, lading some flavor text into a 500 page book can make a huge difference in it being readable and fun vs being a dry textbook.
Looking at Starfinder, you realize they couldn't use Jedi right? Those are copyrighted. But they still wanted to do a kind of mystic warrior because that's a huge expectation of space opera, and they didn't want to just do "the Magus but in SPESS." Nothing about it is particularly setting tied, it's just flavorful light / dark / gravity abilities, no more setting locked than anything else. The technomancer was clearly inspired by the wizards in D20 Urban Arcana but that doesn't have to be the case in your setting; in mine I left the rules for their spells the same but just said that they are actually inventions the character is tinkering with. Simple flavor shift and done. I don't begrudge them providing a sample setting even though I don't use it, because I can poach ideas from it, and because I recognize they can't actually use copyrighted settings X Y or Z.
A lot of people just want to pick up and play. That's not you or me, we like the work of making a setting AND we are both fortunate enough to have the time to do so. But all those people without that time or that inclination? They should be able to play the game with the core rulebook for the game and not have to wait more months and spend more money for a later book. That's really what it comes down to. And I'm sure there's plenty of stuff you can poach from their setting fluff, that's what the rest of us do. :)