| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread has been derailed, but I would also like separate sidebars for flavor part of class race write-ups. Of course I realize that racial feats have to be infused with Paizo's idea of what certain race is, but would like to keep the Golarion specifics of races and classes to be separate (sidebars even make it easier for me not to just skip the writing)
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a lot of things we have seen the last few years are sort of feeling out the waters for the this new edition. I am betting that is a major reason why Book of the Damned, Adventurer's Guide, Ultimate Wilderness, etc are Golarion infused. Clearly sales were not hurt to any significant degree, otherwise they wouldn't be going forward with the Golarion infusion
Book of the Damned and Adventurer's Guide are not great examples, as they contain WAAAAAAAAY MOOOOOORE Golarion lore than the Playtest Rulebook.
We'll probably do a blog about this in the coming weeks, but I sort of regret the use of the word "infused" in the marketing speak for the playtest, as it's probably more appropriate to say "Golarion dusted."
The upshot is that the Playtest Rulebook will reflect Golarion as the "platonic" version of the world in the same way that the AD&D 1e DMG sort of defaulted to Greyhawk. There weren't multi-page treatises on the history of various kingdoms or whatnot, but when you read about Vecna or the "cult of the Ebon Flame" or something in a throw-away reference in a magic item, you could assume they were talking about something you could find in the World of Greyhawk.
Likewise, I think it'd be fair to assume that the core deities will get more than a line on a chart to give people something to dig their teeth into, roleplaying-wise.
Also we'll be talking about Forlorn elves and the Bleaching in the elf and gnome descriptions, for example, but we won't be going into detail on affairs in Kyonin or explain what's up with why the gnome god Thamir Gixx has the same last name as the Lord Mayor of Absalom.
We'll see how it goes, but if this is one of your primary concerns about the playtest rules, I think you should prepare yourself to be relieved.
Snip
This is great to hear.
That said, if your red line is "I don't want goblins to bite people or use torches," you're probably not going to be 100% pleased, either. :)
My hope is that it'll only be as much of a problem as dwarven/elven/gnome/half-orc weapon proficiencies are in 1e, that's annoying but I was able to houserule it away without too much trouble.
But I can't judge that until we get the info so I am just going to wait and see.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty confident that no one will be 100% pleased. That's the nature of the beast, I'm afraid.
YOU DON'T KNOW ME MAYBE I'M EASY TO PLEASE!!! Ahem sorry.
(Tis joke!)
100% may be impossible, but 99% is still a pretty big number :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also we'll be talking about Forlorn elves and the Bleaching in the elf and gnome descriptions, for example, but we won't be going into detail on affairs in Kyonin or explain what's up with why the gnome god Thamir Gixx has the same last name as the Lord Mayor of Absalom.
But you should at least explain why Thamir Gixx became GNOME god ;)
I actually feel that adding a bit of Golarion-flavour to the Core Rulebook would actually be beneficial to get away from some of the more common fantasy tropes for character creation and their respective races.
I've seen enough stoic dwarves, that have been raised isolated from other races and are now exploring other cultures reluctantly.
So I think adding flexible elements to ancestries, like floating stat bonuses and ancestory feats, coupled with examples from Golarion like "Desert Dwarrves of Osirion are nomadic and therefore used to contact with other cultures,...", could lead us away from monocultures and common tropes, and maybe to more player agency when they come up with their PCs.
But maybe that's more wishful thinking on my part...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also we'll be talking about Forlorn elves and the Bleaching in the elf and gnome descriptions, for example, but we won't be going into detail on affairs in Kyonin or explain what's up with why the gnome god Thamir Gixx has the same last name as the Lord Mayor of Absalom.But you should at least explain why Thamir Gixx became GNOME god ;)
Reincarnation is a hell of a thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dwarves
General Description (similar to the current CRB which is relatively generic fantasy)
Dwarves are a stoic but stern race, ensconced in cities carved from the hearts of mountains...In Golarion Section
In Golarion dwarves live in the nation of [blank] and do [blank] to [blank] for [blank] [blanks] a [blank]... **I don't actually know what dwarves do in Golarion
Nobody does! Unfortunately support for dwarves has been quite anemic. Typically in Golarion a region doesn't get focused on until it gets an Adventure Path and we just never got an Adventure Path on dwarves (did for giants though! How could the Giant AP not concentrate on dwarves? Rabble rabble rabble. PS I never played Paizos Attack on the Giants AP so it could have detailed knowledge of dwarves).
Here's my writeup on dwarves copied and pasted from the SRD with an infusion of Golarion lore
Dwarves are a stoic but stern race, ensconced in the cities of the Five Kings Mountains, carved from the hearts of mountains and fiercely determined to repel the depredations of their historical enemy: orcs and goblins. More than any other race, the dwarves have acquired a reputation as dour and humorless craftsmen of the earth. It could be said that dwarven history shapes the dark disposition of many dwarves, for they dwelt in the lightless domain of the Darklands until a prophet led them to the surface in a Quest for the Sky, which saw the surface would inundated with the orcis hordes whom they had driven up to the surface before them.
Physical Description: Dwarves are a short and stocky race, and stand about a foot shorter than most humans, with wide, compact bodies that account for their burly appearance. Male and female dwarves pride themselves on the length of their hair, and men often decorate their beards with a variety of clasps and intricate braids. A clean-shaven male dwarf is a sure sign of madness, or worse—no one familiar with their race trusts a beardless dwarf.
Society: The great distances between their sky citadels account for many of the cultural differences that exist within dwarven society. Despite these schisms, dwarves throughout the world are characterized by their love of stonework, their passion for stone- and metal-based craftsmanship and architecture, and a fierce hatred of orcs, and goblinoids.
Relations: Dwarves and orcs have long dwelt in proximity, long before either race ever reached the surface world. Dwarves generally distrust and shun half-orcs. They find halflings, elves, and gnomes to be too frail, flighty, or "pretty" to be worthy of proper respect. It is with humans that dwarves share the strongest link, for humans' industrious nature and hearty appetites come closest to matching those of the dwarven ideal.
Alignment and Religion: Dwarves are driven by honor and tradition, and while they are often satirized as standoffish, they have a strong sense of friendship and justice, and those who win their trust understand that, while they work hard, they play even harder—especially when good ale is involved. Most dwarves are lawful good and pay homage to the dwarven deities of whom Torag is the chief deity.
Adventurers: Although dwarven adventurers are rare compared to humans, they can be found in most regions of the world. Dwarves often leave the confines of their sky citadels to seek glory for their clans, to find wealth with which to enrich the fortress-homes of their birth, or to reclaim fallen dwarven citadels from their ancestral enemies. Dwarven warfare is often characterized by tunnel fighting and melee combat, and as such most dwarves tend toward classes such as fighters and barbarians.
How does that work for people? Is the Golarion flavour too infused? Or is that a good amount?
I am expecting the core rulebook to be fairly generic outside of a setting chapter (and I'm hoping the setting chapter is as small as possible to be honest. Give brief examples for a GM if necessary, although I'd prefer that in a new GMG personally). What I do expect is for generic dwarves to be present but replace the existing generic sentences with Golarion specific sentences, but still very generic overall. So instead of "dwarves hate orcs, goblins and giants" you would instead get "dwarves hate historically hated orcs and goblins".
The only race I'm really worried about with Golarion flavour is goblins. Most of the races are fairly generic with subtle twists thrown onto them (e.g. Elves are from space, but otherwise they're identical to elves. Dwarves had a quest for the sky, but otherwise are generic dwarves. Halflings... well they're halflings. Gnomes are fey which also follows on in how the default 4e gnomes were). But Golarion goblins are just so distinctive that if the mechanics follow the Golarion flavour too closely they'll be nigh unusable in most other settings.
Not sure, I'd probably just stop reading after the first sentence talks about "Five Kings Mountains" and Mono-Culture enemies make it obvious it's not going to be useful for me.
I'd just ignore everything written there and skip to the ancestries mechanics. It's the mechanics parts that I want to be able to use without using the golarion interpretation of an ancestries culture.
Yeah I think as long as their is options that just feel dwarfy and not JUST Golarion cultural dwarfy I will be fine.
Is that what you did with the Pathfinder 1e CRB? because with the exception of "Five Kings Mountain", insertion of the word "historical" and deletion of the word "Giants" that first sentence is a cut and paste from the 1e CRB
Is that what you did with the Pathfinder 1e CRB? because with the exception of "Five Kings Mountain", insertion of the word "historical" and deletion of the word "Giants" that first sentence is a cut and paste from the 1e CRB
Yep I ignored the 1e flavour as well, since it's too mono-culture and doesn't make sense for my games at all.
Fair enough. The degree of Golarion infusing the flavour (as opposed to mechanics) isn't really relevant to you. I'd be interested in what those who care about it think of my example.
RPG rules no not exist in a vaccuum. They exist within a vibrant and living world. I would expect the PF2.0 core rulebook to be more than "Golarion dusted" as Erik Mona tells us because all the races, feats, ancestries, equipment, classes, spells and all the other doo-dads only exist because the base setting of Golarion exists.
Rulesets that go out of their way to be "setting-agnostic" or "generic" are really missing out on something. It's like they're purposefully cutting off their own left hand in a misplaced effort to give their right hand greater weight.
Can you use the PF2.0 core rulebook in a non-Golarion setting? Sure! You just need to change most or all of the proper names and retcon anything linking rules with setting-specific elements like gods, domains, planes, sources of magic, spells, styles of weapons and armor, culturally-linked ancestry details and feats... and... whoa! That list is starting to look longer than June 6th.
I'll be very happy to see the PF2.0 core rulebook liberally "Golarion dusted" because that's what'll give it depth and meaning. Cutting out the lore under the pretext that is is merely "fluff" would be a real shame. And it has been confirmed that we're going to get "Golarion dusted".
Excellent!
Fair enough. The degree of Golarion infusing the flavour (as opposed to mechanics) isn't really relevant to you. I'd be interested in what those who care about it think of my example.
I like it for a few reasons.
1) It gives enough lore that anyone playing in Golarion has a small semblence of dwarves history and will be able to share in that history with anyone else.
2) It's easy to remove and replace for another setting.
3) It gives an idea of how much a GM should replace for their other settings, so they're own players' have a bit of history to share in. Kind of a, "please put in at least this amount."
I understand that people want to be able to quickly remove the setting flavor, but a complete lack of it bothers me; it makes the rules feel devoid of life.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
First a disclaimer. I view Golarion as the worst published setting I have ever had the displeasure to be exposed to. That is just to paint the POV I am coming to this issue.
You can have as much fluff about golarion there as you want and it won't bother me apart from the wasted wordcount for my purposes. But the second that fluff touches the crunch in any shape or form, I have an issue. If I have to spend more than an hour once with the system to take out that fluff, well I am not going to buy a product that makes it harder for me than is needed.
Regarding the OP, yes that would be ideal, hell create a spesific tag for it.
Geeze, I've spent more time that that just making a character. Pouring through the rules to make them match my own setting seems like a lot of fun, because each rule that is altered is yet another way for me to explore the new lands I'm creating and helps me better understand the world the characters will live in. And as a bonus, it would create some setting infused mechanics for my players to better understand the setting.
Every question on the setting, including, "does this rule fit, and if so, where? What if we alter the flavor to say something else?" helps expand the setting I'm creating. And especially so if my players join in on the fun and we can all build a world together.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
First a disclaimer. I view Golarion as the worst published setting I have ever had the displeasure to be exposed to. That is just to paint the POV I am coming to this issue.
Wow! It's hard to imagine this degree of Golarion hate. I thought that degree of emotion would be reserved for post-spellplague Forgotten Realms.
Both settings' main drawback is trying to be all things for all people, with such a heterogeneous hodge-podge of cultures stacked cheek by jowl.
I'll admit to a hankering for the City-State of the Invincible Overlord and the Wilderlands of High Fantasy, but those days are gone. Golarian seems objectively no worse than any other RPG world.
I just close my eyes on the bits that offend my grognard sensibilities. Like firearms and androids. <g> There. All better!
I like it for a few reasons....
That's what I expect we'll see in the playtest rules (except possibly goblins because of how distinctive Golarion goblins are). Especially with Erik's clarification of a "dusting" rather than an infusion (I hadn't actually seen that post before making my own).
I am expecting the core rulebook to be fairly generic outside of a setting chapter (and I'm hoping the setting chapter is as small as possible to be honest.
Is it confirmed that we ARE getting a setting chapter in the CRB? I haven't actually seen that anywhere.
I think a lot of things we have seen the last few years are sort of feeling out the waters for the this new edition. I am betting that is a major reason why Book of the Damned, Adventurer's Guide, Ultimate Wilderness, etc are Golarion infused. Clearly sales were not hurt to any significant degree, otherwise they wouldn't be going forward with the Golarion infusionBook of the Damned and Adventurer's Guide are not great examples, as they contain WAAAAAAAAY MOOOOOORE Golarion lore than the Playtest Rulebook.
We'll probably do a blog about this in the coming weeks, but I sort of regret the use of the word "infused" in the marketing speak for the playtest, as it's probably more appropriate to say "Golarion dusted."
The upshot is that the Playtest Rulebook will reflect Golarion as the "platonic" version of the world in the same way that the AD&D 1e DMG sort of defaulted to Greyhawk. There weren't multi-page treatises on the history of various kingdoms or whatnot, but when you read about Vecna or the "cult of the Ebon Flame" or something in a throw-away reference in a magic item, you could assume they were talking about something you could find in the World of Greyhawk.
Likewise, I think it'd be fair to assume that the core deities will get more than a line on a chart to give people something to dig their teeth into, roleplaying-wise.
Also we'll be talking about Forlorn elves and the Bleaching in the elf and gnome descriptions, for example, but we won't be going into detail on affairs in Kyonin or explain what's up with why the gnome god Thamir Gixx has the same last name as the Lord Mayor of Absalom.
We'll see how it goes, but if this is one of your primary concerns about the playtest rules, I think you should prepare yourself to be relieved.
I figured just from the potential size of the core rulebook that it would be far lighter on in-setting flavor than the first two books I mentioned. I was more making the point that, for a few years now, we have had a decent amount of Golarion lore in rulebooks. I know there are a vocal few people who hate it, but it seems like not to be adversely affecting the company.
Honestly, even the existing core rulebook for 1E has plenty of Golarion specific content. Gnomes, half-orcs, etc all have certain basic default assumptions in there mechanics and flavor, and then you have all the Golarion gods and their domains. If the current rulebook exceeds your tolerance for lore, I think you are likely a far outlier when it comes to your tolerance
Regardless of whether one calls setting-specific lore and details "junk" or "fluff", I admire the dedication of a DM like Wultram who cares enough about his own setting to want to post-edit a wide swath of game content in order to enrich this homebuilt setting.
Nevertheless, I argue that his plea for setting-neutral rules is misguided. The setting informs and provides a foundation for individual game rules and, even if you dislike a given setting, it's better to be able to see the cultural elements attached to specific rule elements than to pretend they don't exist.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's plenty of generic RPGs out there which are designed to be generic, being more customizable and built you can accommodate your setting rather than accommodating the setting to the rules.
Pathfinder really isn't one. Pathfinder has been equated with Golarion since the beginning, as the world predated the rules. What makes Paizo different is Golarion. They are the Golarion company.
With the OGL, anyone can publish a revised version of the Pathfinder ruleset. Or further balanced and modified 3e/d20 game. What Paizo brings to the table is their world.
Doubling down on Golarion makes sense. Pathfinder should be the Golarion game that you can strip the flavour from and make generic, and not the generic RPG where they're adding flavour in afterwards.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, there's plenty of generic fantasy RPGs out there. Starting with 5e.
The pattern I see is that Paizo is trying to highlight the features that make Pathfinder stand apart from 5e. Hence the goblins, hence the Golarionisation of the core line. Besides, since you don't really own the rules *and* your brand recognition isn't quite near D&D, it makes sense to build up on elements which are actually yours and you have full control over them.
For an average gamer (average ... not us hyper-invested maniacs) the difference between baseline of PF1 and 5e is almost unnoticable. 6 attributes? Check. The same core classes and ancestires? Check. Setting-neutral core books? Mhmmm. So, what do we pick, ah let's go with the more famous one, I mean Critical Role can't be wrong on this one since they started with PF and then moved to 5e.
Sure, there is a fine line to be walked here, because many people play Pathfinder for sake of mechanics and use their own setting ... but perhaps Paizo has data that shows setting-neutral people migrating towards 5e and PF customer base becoming is increasingly Golarion-focused.
Yeah, there's plenty of generic fantasy RPGs out there. Starting with 5e.
See, I'd argue that even an RPG that claims it is setting-neutral, isn't really as generic as it tries to be.
- What types and styles of armor and weapons does it put forward? Those are historically and culturally linked.- What sources does it posit for arcane, divine and nature magic - and any other sorts of magic it cares to introduce? Those decisions have implications for the design of the setting.
- What races and classes do players choose when creating their characters? That says a lot about what the world is like.
In many ways, trying to be "generic" or setting-neutral is simply adopting the blandest, most hackneyed, most stereotyped setting you can imagine, or rather that you needn't imagine since it involves whacking off most of your imagination with a dull hacksaw blade.
Embracing a rich and varied world setting is just the opposite. So I'm all for as much of a "Golarion dusting" as the guys at Paizo can possibly give us.