| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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
If that were true the Core Rules would mention things like elves being aliens, the Bleaching, and be using Golarion planes. And half-orcs in the CRB have the same flavour as generic 3.5e, so I'm not sure why you're mentioning them at all.
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.
Looks at the tonnes of cool flavourful archetypes throughout the RPG-line and third-party which didn't require Golarion to exist.. Yeah no. Setting-Neutral does not equal bland. It means not limiting your mechanics to a specific setting.
Paizo is innately limiting the type of content they are willing to produce with the dissolution of their setting from the rules. They can't just make a book showing off a cool different cosmology idea because Golarion has a specific cosmology, they can't make content about clerics of a philosophy because clerics can't get power from anything which isn't a god, they can't put in a nation of Good Undead because the creative director wants Undead in his setting to be in the style of a horror movie.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like Golarian, but I don't mind a dusting as Eric suggests, but ultimately I don't think I‘ll be playing pathfinder 2e anyway so it‘s kind of moot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In case you use d20PFSRD too much, the majority of the options in Pathfinder are lore-infused. Most feats, pretty much all traits, archetypes, a bunch of spells, 90% of Prestige classes... You just never noticed until now that it's been brought up. It's that easy to strip it out.
Can probably keep doing the same thing as always and will keep not noticing.
Yes, I love Golarion and am picky about using those rules in their proper context.
I completely don't understand why anyone would play Pathfinder as opposed to one of the dozen other d20 OGL-based Fantasy RPG systems if they were so virulently opposed to the Golarion setting. <shrug>
And I am also firmly in the "finding the term fluff" annoying camp.
My games aren't about a group of numbers and associated die rolls. My games are about a group of adventurers with lives and personalities and cares and concerns engaging in a story.
Without "fluff," there is no storytelling, and for me, that means there is no game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I completely don't understand why anyone would play Pathfinder as opposed to one of the dozen other d20 OGL-based Fantasy RPG systems if they were so virulently opposed to the Golarion setting. <shrug>
And I am also firmly in the "finding the term fluff" annoying camp.
My games aren't about a group of numbers and associated die rolls. My games are about a group of adventurers with lives and personalities and cares and concerns engaging in a story.
Without "fluff," there is no storytelling, and for me, that means there is no game.
The rules system. I don't particularly like Golarion. I don't hate it, but I'd much rather play in a world I created myself. In fact, part of why I play is that I need the creative outlet, and I really enjoy making settings. But I also like the rules and options that Pathfinder provides.
That said, I have no problem with PF2E's new direction, whether Golarion is infused or dusted. Re-implementing flavor has been easy (and enjoyable) in the past, and I doubt it will be difficult now. I also agree with:
You just never noticed until now that it's been brought up. It's that easy to strip it out.
Can probably keep doing the same thing as always and will keep not noticing.
Yes, I love Golarion and am picky about using those rules in their proper context.
If I am going to use Golarion flavor, I want to use it right. Which can be stressful, because there is SO much content to sift through. In my setting, I can improvise much easier, and I don't need to worry about using an option the way it was intended.
I completely don't understand why anyone would play Pathfinder as opposed to one of the dozen other d20 OGL-based Fantasy RPG systems if they were so virulently opposed to the Golarion setting. <shrug>
And I am also firmly in the "finding the term fluff" annoying camp.
My games aren't about a group of numbers and associated die rolls. My games are about a group of adventurers with lives and personalities and cares and concerns engaging in a story.
Without "fluff," there is no storytelling, and for me, that means there is no game.
The rules system. I don't particularly like Golarion. I don't hate it, but I'd much rather play in a world I created myself. In fact, part of why I play is that I need the creative outlet, and I really enjoy making settings. But I also like the rules and options that Pathfinder provides.
That said, I have no problem with PF2E's new direction, whether Golarion is infused or dusted. Re-implementing flavor has been easy (and enjoyable) in the past, and I doubt it will be difficult now. I also agree with:
If I am going to use Golarion flavor, I want to use it right. Which can be stressful, because there is SO much content to sift through. In my setting, I can improvise much easier, and I don't need to worry about using an option the way it was intended.You just never noticed until now that it's been brought up. It's that easy to strip it out.
Can probably keep doing the same thing as always and will keep not noticing.
Yes, I love Golarion and am picky about using those rules in their proper context.
Sure, use them how you want, just saying I'm picky about it on my games.
Was just an example to show that people have already been doing it for 10 years.
Here's a specific one:
Did you know Dervish Dance is specific to militant worshipers of Sarenrae? That feat is from the Inner Sea World guide, the biggest Lore book out there for PF! Have you been using it without this knowledge since forever ago? Probably yes. Just keep doing the same, for goblins or whatever.
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.
No. I'm hopeful we won't. But I meant in the event we do.
No. I'm hopeful we won't. But I meant in the event we do.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.
Starfinder had a a chapter or so just on the setting, but Starfinder didn't have a setting book at all in place prior to its publication. It would be kind of silly to have a chapter of the core-rulebook laying out the Inner Sea when there are entire hardcovers dedicated to the subject, most of which should still work with the setting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In case you use d20PFSRD too much, the majority of the options in Pathfinder are lore-infused. Most feats, pretty much all traits, archetypes, a bunch of spells, 90% of Prestige classes... You just never noticed until now that it's been brought up. It's that easy to strip it out.
As a person who uses the PDFs, no. I just only read pre-Adventurers Guide RPG-line books which has very little golarion lore at all (just the Gods before Occult Adventures started to add Golarion specific things in like the Boneyard).
I completely don't understand why anyone would play Pathfinder as opposed to one of the dozen other d20 OGL-based Fantasy RPG systems if they were so virulently opposed to the Golarion setting. <shrug>
Simple, Pathfinder had better mechanics and high quality third-party support than the other d20 OGL-based fantasy systems.
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.
I quite agree, and the thing is that WotC has also moved to a (mostly) one-setting approach to their game: i.e., Forgotten Realms. It is their most famous IP, and though they have alluded to other settings and provided token support (e.g., Ravenloft, possibly the new Mordenkainen book), most of their IPs and flavor text tends to be about Forgotten Realms. As an Eberron, Dark Sun, and Greyhawk fan, I'm not thrilled by this, but I can at least see where their decisions are coming from.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When it comes to creating my own setting as a team with my players, I find Dungeon World to be the best option (or at least use DW's system for whatever mechanics I want to play with). Whenever a player chooses something associated with their character, they decide how it works in the world.
Player: "I want to be a Halfling."
DM: "Ok, tell me about halflings in this world."
And then the player and the DM collaborate on how halflings work in the world (which can then be carried on game after game if you like). The player could want halflings to be a typical D&D one, or they could say, "Halflings in this world are expert mounted archers who ride giant Badgers, and they even have a knightly order called the Order of the Unyielding Badger.
It's quite fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For those who say they don't want Golarion in their Pathfinder, just one question:
What setting do you think is the basis for all of the existing options in Pathfinder?
If the answer is anything except "Golarion," you would be incorrect, because everything that is canon Pathfinder involves Golarion and its setting. There's no Eberron or Forgotten Realms, where all of you "BACK IN MY DAY" folks are nostalgic for. It's Golarion, and that's it, as it should be. PF2 is meant to break away from the conventional D&D games and build a name for itself, not be just another sequel. If I wanted that sort of gaming, I'd be with all of the immature brats of Call of Duty.
So if you're upset that there is Golarion in your Pathfinder, then I suggest you either A. Find a new system to enjoy, or B. Go back to playing your old systems and settings, since it appears nostalgia > change for you.
The idea that Golarion isn't supposed to largely influence the design and mechanical choices of the game is both unrealistic and also counterintuitive to the reasons why Golarion, as a fantasy world, even exists; to give life and breadth to the game system. I mean, it's why goblins are enjoyed so much that they are an icon of Paizo, even more than their own logo!
Even Eberron and Forgotten Realms started out as a setting in which older versions of D&D were largely (if not entirely) based upon. But I never saw threads of "TOO MUCH EBERRON/FORGOTTEN REALMS IN MY D&D, PLEASE REVISE!" (Largely because of the internet merely coming of age at the time, but even then, I'm sure there were people who still played it when the internet was more prevalent and could voice their complaints.) So the idea that Golarion is a bad influence on the game can make identical arguments with the above fantasy settings.
In addition, whether anyone who played PF1 wanted to admit it or not, they were basically playing their Pathfinder with Golarion elements, no matter how homebrewed they made the game, since ultimately, their version had some form of basis off of the original, which was in Golarion. Meaning any arguments of "PF1 was largely setting neutral" are both silly and debunked due to then having an origination to PF1, whose originations are Golarion.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@bookrat: I know that style of game can be quite fun for a lot of people, I know during 5e's playtest there was a strong push amongst some of the play testers for more narrative and free form support like that. However that is a style of game I find deeply unsatisfying and would not enjoy.
When it comes to creating my own setting as a team with my players, I find Dungeon World to be the best option (or at least use DW's system for whatever mechanics I want to play with). Whenever a player chooses something associated with their character, they decide how it works in the world.
Player: "I want to be a Halfling."
DM: "Ok, tell me about halflings in this world."And then the player and the DM collaborate on how halflings work in the world (which can then be carried on game after game if you like). The player could want halflings to be a typical D&D one, or they could say, "Halflings in this world are expert mounted archers who ride giant Badgers, and they even have a knightly order called the Order of the Unyielding Badger.
It's quite fun.
That sounds really fun! I am definitely going to have to try that. I think it'd be a great way to get players invested in the world before the game even starts. I've also looked at using the game Microscope to create a shared setting built by the group as a whole.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@bookrat: I know that style of game can be quite fun for a lot of people, I know during 5e's playtest there was a strong push amongst some of the play testers for more narrative and free form support like that. However that is a style of game I find deeply unsatisfying and would not enjoy.
The idea isn't necessarily to use DW's mechanics, but rather the system of designing a world in a collaborative manner.
From there, if I were using that system with PF2, I would create a list of halfling ancestry feats that revovle around archery, riding, badgers, and knightly stuff, rather than throwing rocks, agriculture, and theivery (or whatever haflings are good at in Golarion). Or rather, I'd request that task to be taken up by the player as I continue to develop more of the world.
And then each of the players would develop portions of the world to make it come alive, and everyone would have some intrinsic knowledge of the world they're playing in that is directly related to the PC they have.
From there, if I were using that system with PF2, I would create a list of halfling ancestry feats that revovle around archery, riding, badgers, and knightly stuff, rather than throwing rocks, agriculture, and theivery (or whatever haflings are good at in Golarion).
Definitely not manual labor!
The thing with Golarion-dusted... In the end, I just want to create my own setting and use it in my tables. PF2 doesn't need to be completely setting-neutral, it just shouldn't make this harder than it needs (like I've seen with a lot of other systems).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In case you use d20PFSRD too much, the majority of the options in Pathfinder are lore-infused. Most feats, pretty much all traits, archetypes, a bunch of spells, 90% of Prestige classes... You just never noticed until now that it's been brought up. It's that easy to strip it out.
Can probably keep doing the same thing as always and will keep not noticing.
THIS. SO MUCH THIS. Since I started running APs instead of homebrew I have learned to use Archive of Nethys over the PFSRD to make sure I have the actual flavor down pat. And since Paizo isn't changing their licensing policy, I'm sure the d20PFSRD will provide you with what you are looking for.
I also question the idea that the new system will be any harder to strip flavor from than the old system. How is "goblins like fire" any worse than "dwarves hate goblins and orcs" or "elves learned how to use longbows and rapiers" or "gnomes are better with illusions." PF1 had alternate racial traits so not every dwarf, elf, or gnome has to have those qualities. But not every PF2 goblin has to take "Burn! Burn!"
At best, "goblins like fire" is maybe less generic fantasy based, but it is just as much of an assumption as "dwarves hate goblins and orcs." What do you do with the Hatred bonus if goblins and orcs have always had peaceful relations with dwarves and a PC probably won't fight any in this setting?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find the idea of "generic fantasy" to ultimately be like unicorns. Not actually existing. There are always assumptions and charecterizations, whether it is treating Elves like Tolkien elves or orcs like D&D. The 'generic fantasy's is pretty much either charecterizations by either Tolkien and Gygax. I'd rather Pathfinder set forth their own ideas than be beholden to those two.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Semantics aside, I'm not morally opposed to Golarion being infused, but I'd want setting agnostic players like myself to have the ability to invoke the rules content in a way that's easily recognizable but still adheres to OGL guidelines. The main issue I had over the course of my tenure with PF1 stemmed from rules content not having consistent names and thus the references often conflicted. D20PFSRD has this issue. Adventurer's Guide sought to solve this, and while I was pleased with the result, I was not pleased with how hard it was to find the setting agnostic content.
I'm fine with Golarion being assumed, as I'm sure on the logistical end of the rules team it means everything can now be under a single umbrella for consistent rulings. I just want officially endorsed setting agnostic names to make life easier for myself and others that don't necessarily use Golarion.
It'll make life easier for everyone, without needing to really change the game plan, business wise. Word count may be a factor, but I'd rather have the setting agnostic names listed with the ip, rather than having to sift though indices and put on my detective hat to figure out what content I'm really looking at.
Semantics aside, I'm not morally opposed to Golarion being infused, but I'd want setting agnostic players like myself to have the ability to invoke the rules content in a way that's easily recognizable but still adheres to OGL guidelines. The main issue I had over the course of my tenure with PF1 stemmed from rules content not having consistent names and thus the references often conflicted. D20PFSRD has this issue. Adventurer's Guide sought to solve this, and while I was pleased with the result, I was not pleased with how hard it was to find the setting agnostic content.
I'm fine with Golarion being assumed, as I'm sure on the logistical end of the rules team it means everything can now be under a single umbrella for consistent rulings. I just want officially endorsed setting agnostic names to make life easier for myself and others that don't necessarily use Golarion.
It'll make life easier for everyone, without needing to really change the game plan, business wise. Word count may be a factor, but I'd rather have the setting agnostic names listed with the ip, rather than having to sift though indices and put on my detective hat to figure out what content I'm really looking at.
That's not an outrageous request, although I'm not sure if it's in Paizo's interests as a business to make life easier on people not buying their products.
BUT! COUNTERPOINT! Paizo has a reeeeally spotty track record at using generic names. Brawler is now a class, an archetype for fighters, and a rage power for barbarians. And we have lots of things way too close, like Barroom Brawler or Greater Brawler. There are other examples of that, too.
Semantics aside, I'm not morally opposed to Golarion being infused, but I'd want setting agnostic players like myself to have the ability to invoke the rules content in a way that's easily recognizable but still adheres to OGL guidelines. The main issue I had over the course of my tenure with PF1 stemmed from rules content not having consistent names and thus the references often conflicted. D20PFSRD has this issue. Adventurer's Guide sought to solve this, and while I was pleased with the result, I was not pleased with how hard it was to find the setting agnostic content.
I'm fine with Golarion being assumed, as I'm sure on the logistical end of the rules team it means everything can now be under a single umbrella for consistent rulings. I just want officially endorsed setting agnostic names to make life easier for myself and others that don't necessarily use Golarion.
It'll make life easier for everyone, without needing to really change the game plan, business wise. Word count may be a factor, but I'd rather have the setting agnostic names listed with the ip, rather than having to sift though indices and put on my detective hat to figure out what content I'm really looking at.
That's not an outrageous request, although I'm not sure if it's in Paizo's interests as a business to make life easier on people not buying their products.
BUT! COUNTERPOINT! Paizo has a reeeeally spotty track record at using generic names. Brawler is now a class, an archetype for fighters, and a rage power for barbarians. And we have lots of things way too close, like Barroom Brawler or Greater Brawler. There are other examples of that, too.
This is correct, which again leads me to thinking that having precedent from the get go on naming conventions can help avoid that exact issue before it ever becomes one.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, the very first game in this hobby was full of things like "Bigby's Crushing Fist" and "Mordekainen's Faithful Hound" and "Leomund's Tiny Hut". So I don't think things like "Aroden's Spellsword" or "Serren's Swift Girding" or "Apsu's Shining Scales" are really worth avoiding.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, the very first game in this hobby was full of things like "Bigby's Crushing Fist" and "Mordekainen's Faithful Hound" and "Leomund's Tiny Hut". So I don't think things like "Aroden's Spellsword" or "Serren's Swift Girding" or "Apsu's Shining Scales" are really worth avoiding.
Sure, it's easy enough when it's a simple matter of eliminating an adjective, but there are plenty of feats/traits that have more intrinsic language that a simple exclusion of the dirty words from Golarion would render them grammatically flawed to the point that they become nonsensical.
As an example, take the Breath of the Mantis God, which is agnostically named Breath of the Assassin.
Sometimes you gotta replace a word or two, and if naming conventions can get to a point as a general rule of thumb to where we can have both, then I think we can both be happy.
I do not mind the [definitely not fluff] parts of the content, but I don't want it to supersede the rules content. Luckily Erik has alleviated this worry of mine.
Consistent game terminology might be something we should push for, so that the rules are coherent, since we had plenty of rules content issues that Paizo had to spend money on billable hours on just explaining to people that certain things functioned in similar ways because the literary voice being used was intentionally informal. It may make for less stagnant reading experiences, but when the book itself is more or less meant to be read in selective modular chunks (being a rule book) it really doesn't help much. It's not a novel.
So yeah, deriving the problem we had in PF1 with naming conventions and game language, we can have a much better and easier to understand product in our hands. From what we can read about with regards to the different classifications on proficiency and the different rules behind feats, this seems to be a logical path forward imo.
That's not an outrageous request, although I'm not sure if it's in Paizo's interests as a business to make life easier on people not buying their products.
As to this line, ideally we would open the gate to have both kinds of players buying these products. By enabling both play styles, they expand the reach of their demographic and can target both groups with the same product, thus improving the sales and health of the game. I used to work in advertising and I can attest to this strategy being an important one when you need better numbers on the business side of things.
In case you use d20PFSRD too much, the majority of the options in Pathfinder are lore-infused. Most feats, pretty much all traits, archetypes, a bunch of spells, 90% of Prestige classes... You just never noticed until now that it's been brought up. It's that easy to strip it out.
Can probably keep doing the same thing as always and will keep not noticing.
THIS. SO MUCH THIS. Since I started running APs instead of homebrew I have learned to use Archive of Nethys over the PFSRD to make sure I have the actual flavor down pat. And since Paizo isn't changing their licensing policy, I'm sure the d20PFSRD will provide you with what you are looking for.
I also question the idea that the new system will be any harder to strip flavor from than the old system. How is "goblins like fire" any worse than "dwarves hate goblins and orcs" or "elves learned how to use longbows and rapiers" or "gnomes are better with illusions." PF1 had alternate racial traits so not every dwarf, elf, or gnome has to have those qualities. But not every PF2 goblin has to take "Burn! Burn!"
At best, "goblins like fire" is maybe less generic fantasy based, but it is just as much of an assumption as "dwarves hate goblins and orcs." What do you do with the Hatred bonus if goblins and orcs have always had peaceful relations with dwarves and a PC probably won't fight any in this setting?
Just want to revisit this post in light of the latest blog. It sounds like a lot of basic racial qualities are being moved to the ancestry feats, which if anything should make it easier to avoid Golarion specific flavor. Also, because ancestry feats are chosen over time, there's room for the specific individual to grow in accordance to your campaign setting.
But either way, it is easy to alter the flavor of an ancestry feat (or PF1 racial trait) to something that THIS SPECIFIC PERSON has, or that's been passed down the Armstrong family line for generations.
In case you use d20PFSRD too much, the majority of the options in Pathfinder are lore-infused. Most feats, pretty much all traits, archetypes, a bunch of spells, 90% of Prestige classes... You just never noticed until now that it's been brought up. It's that easy to strip it out.
Can probably keep doing the same thing as always and will keep not noticing.
THIS. SO MUCH THIS. Since I started running APs instead of homebrew I have learned to use Archive of Nethys over the PFSRD to make sure I have the actual flavor down pat. And since Paizo isn't changing their licensing policy, I'm sure the d20PFSRD will provide you with what you are looking for.
I also question the idea that the new system will be any harder to strip flavor from than the old system. How is "goblins like fire" any worse than "dwarves hate goblins and orcs" or "elves learned how to use longbows and rapiers" or "gnomes are better with illusions." PF1 had alternate racial traits so not every dwarf, elf, or gnome has to have those qualities. But not every PF2 goblin has to take "Burn! Burn!"
At best, "goblins like fire" is maybe less generic fantasy based, but it is just as much of an assumption as "dwarves hate goblins and orcs." What do you do with the Hatred bonus if goblins and orcs have always had peaceful relations with dwarves and a PC probably won't fight any in this setting?
Just want to revisit this post in light of the latest blog. It sounds like a lot of basic racial qualities are being moved to the ancestry feats, which if anything should make it easier to avoid Golarion specific flavor. Also, because ancestry feats are chosen over time, there's room for the specific individual to grow in accordance to your campaign setting.
But either way, it is easy to alter the flavor of an ancestry feat (or PF1 racial trait) to something that THIS SPECIFIC PERSON has, or that's been passed down the Armstrong family line for generations.
Golarion races are "biologically" pretty baseline for fantasy. This means you should be able to retain all the "heritage" ancestry feats, which leaves you to get creative on the cultural ones only.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like from the Elf/Dwarf preview, it seems like one's heritage gives them only-
Hit points
Base movement
Size
Attribute adjustments
Any special vision (e.g. Darkvision)
and nothing else. Absolutely everything else about "being a Dwarf" or "being a Gnome" is encapsulated in "what Ancestry feats are available to Dwarves." So the solution to "well, my Dwarves don't work metal and love all things" is to just not allow the "hates orcs" and "good at smithing" feats and replace them with something else more thematically appropriate that is mechanically about the same utility.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Part of why I'm so keen on Golarion being easily detached from the rules is that Golarian is such a schizophrenic salad bowl mishmash of a setting, with no coherent flavor or reason to it. You have the French Revolution, ancient Egypt, American Old West, ye olde stereotypical medieval West European kingdoms, ancient India, and on and on and on all within a couple weeks travel of each other. The cosmology is a far more confusing version of old D&D's planes, with less discernible ties to the main setting, mashed up with Lovecraft. I can't even call the flavor grounded in early 20th century pulp fiction either because even that isn't consistent.
There are too many cooks with their hand in this broth. There is no overarching setting flavor. There are no clear design goals. It's a bad setting that just so happens to host very well written adventures, and a ruleset I like better than 4E and 5E.
That's why I want everything Golarion delineated into clearly marked sidebars or subsections. At the very least that serves multiple purposes. It makes Golarion stuff easy to strip out of the game. It also provides brand new GMs with examples of where flavor can be added to various rules crunch elements... not very good examples, unfortunately, but better than nothing.
Part of why I'm so keen on Golarion being easily detached from the rules is that Golarian is such a schizophrenic salad bowl mishmash of a setting, with no coherent flavor or reason to it. You have the French Revolution, ancient Egypt, American Old West, ye olde stereotypical medieval West European kingdoms, ancient India, and on and on and on all within a couple weeks travel of each other. The cosmology is a far more confusing version of old D&D's planes, with less discernible ties to the main setting, mashed up with Lovecraft. I can't even call the flavor grounded in early 20th century pulp fiction either because even that isn't consistent.
There are too many cooks with their hand in this broth. There is no overarching setting flavor. There are no clear design goals. It's a bad setting that just so happens to host very well written adventures, and a ruleset I like better than 4E and 5E.
That's why I want everything Golarion delineated into clearly marked sidebars or subsections. At the very least that serves multiple purposes. It makes Golarion stuff easy to strip out of the game. It also provides brand new GMs with examples of where flavor can be added to various rules crunch elements... not very good examples, unfortunately, but better than nothing.
Love it for the same reason! Goal was that you can have any adventure or character you can think of, just like the game rules! Options options options! And, I mean, it's based on the Real World, which also has all of those things together...
Love it for the same reason! Goal was that you can have any adventure or character you can think of, just like the game rules! Options options options! And, I mean, it's based on the Real World, which also has all of those things together...Part of why I'm so keen on Golarion being easily detached from the rules is that Golarian is such a schizophrenic salad bowl mishmash of a setting, with no coherent flavor or reason to it. You have the French Revolution, ancient Egypt, American Old West, ye olde stereotypical medieval West European kingdoms, ancient India, and on and on and on all within a couple weeks travel of each other. The cosmology is a far more confusing version of old D&D's planes, with less discernible ties to the main setting, mashed up with Lovecraft. I can't even call the flavor grounded in early 20th century pulp fiction either because even that isn't consistent.
There are too many cooks with their hand in this broth. There is no overarching setting flavor. There are no clear design goals. It's a bad setting that just so happens to host very well written adventures, and a ruleset I like better than 4E and 5E.
That's why I want everything Golarion delineated into clearly marked sidebars or subsections. At the very least that serves multiple purposes. It makes Golarion stuff easy to strip out of the game. It also provides brand new GMs with examples of where flavor can be added to various rules crunch elements... not very good examples, unfortunately, but better than nothing.
In the real world, those things were all separated by thousands of miles and also often thousands of years. Here, they're all in range by boat or horse in a couple weeks, coexisting. They're so close in physical and temporal space that there should be far more cultural bleed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also question the idea that the new system will be any harder to strip flavor from than the old system. How is "goblins like fire" any worse than "dwarves hate goblins and orcs" or "elves learned how to use longbows and rapiers" or "gnomes are better with illusions." PF1 had alternate racial traits so not every dwarf, elf, or gnome has to have those qualities. But not every PF2 goblin has to take "Burn! Burn!"
At best, "goblins like fire" is maybe less generic fantasy based, but it is just as much of an assumption as "dwarves hate goblins and orcs." What do you do with the Hatred bonus if goblins and orcs have always had peaceful relations with dwarves and a PC probably won't fight any in this setting?
This is the primary reason why Dwarves, Elves, Gnomes, and Half-Orcs are banned in nearly all of my campaigns.
This is the primary reason why Dwarves, Elves, Gnomes, and Half-Orcs are banned in nearly all of my campaigns.I also question the idea that the new system will be any harder to strip flavor from than the old system. How is "goblins like fire" any worse than "dwarves hate goblins and orcs" or "elves learned how to use longbows and rapiers" or "gnomes are better with illusions." PF1 had alternate racial traits so not every dwarf, elf, or gnome has to have those qualities. But not every PF2 goblin has to take "Burn! Burn!"
At best, "goblins like fire" is maybe less generic fantasy based, but it is just as much of an assumption as "dwarves hate goblins and orcs." What do you do with the Hatred bonus if goblins and orcs have always had peaceful relations with dwarves and a PC probably won't fight any in this setting?
But what about half-elves? ;)
This is the primary reason why Dwarves, Elves, Gnomes, and Half-Orcs are banned in nearly all of my campaigns.
But what about half-elves? ;)
Allowed "most" of the time actually.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is the primary reason why Dwarves, Elves, Gnomes, and Half-Orcs are banned in nearly all of my campaigns.I also question the idea that the new system will be any harder to strip flavor from than the old system. How is "goblins like fire" any worse than "dwarves hate goblins and orcs" or "elves learned how to use longbows and rapiers" or "gnomes are better with illusions." PF1 had alternate racial traits so not every dwarf, elf, or gnome has to have those qualities. But not every PF2 goblin has to take "Burn! Burn!"
At best, "goblins like fire" is maybe less generic fantasy based, but it is just as much of an assumption as "dwarves hate goblins and orcs." What do you do with the Hatred bonus if goblins and orcs have always had peaceful relations with dwarves and a PC probably won't fight any in this setting?
If you ban most of the races in the core rule book, I kinda think Paizo just isn't going to be catering to you and never was. Or at the very least, it sounds like you could probably throw out the race/ancestry sections and just do your own thing. I guess Ancestry sounds somewhat more flexible and organic than race was, so it may reduce the mono-culture a bit. But it doesn't sound like you think race should have ever been tied to mechanics in the first place?
It seems like Pathfinder and the game it was based off has always had a certain baseline of assumptions built into it, and I don't think that will change. I'm not exactly sure why you used PF1 in the first place or are interested in PF2. And I don't get where you draw the line in terms of "too much flavor." Do wizards not study books? Do sorcerers not get power from bloodlines? Are druids not attuned to the natural world? No hate though! You said you have run a lot of games so you must have figured out a way to make all this work for you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you ban most of the races in the core rule book, I kinda think Paizo just isn't going to be catering to you and never was.
I only banned them because of their dumb "Mono-culture" mechanics. Thing is, most races in pathfinder 1e Don't have tonnes in-built cultural flavour shoved into their mechanics. I was hoping 2e Core would have learned from the fact they already have shown they can regularly not have mono-culture races.
It's very easy to just not use the races which are mono-culture style, and use the other races of Pathfinder.
But it doesn't sound like you think race should have ever been tied to mechanics in the first place?
I'm fine with races having mechanics, I dislike races having specific and limited cultures attached to them.
I'm not exactly sure why you used PF1 in the first place or are interested in PF2.
"Simple, Pathfinder had better mechanics and high quality third-party support than the other d20 OGL-based fantasy systems."
You don't need to be in love with the Golarion setting to like Pathfinder.
And I don't get where you draw the line in terms of "too much flavor." Do wizards not study books? Do sorcerers not get power from bloodlines? Are druids not attuned to the natural world? No hate though! You said you have run a lot of games so you must have figured out a way to make all this work for you.
Druids are actually one of the only classes I have a flavour problem with because of their mechanics imply that there has to be a secret druid language and the odd restrictions like not being able to wear metal.
I'm fine with flavour. But I dislike things like "All dwarves magically know how to use x weapon even if it's a stone-age tech tribe of dwarves" or "You can't be a druid unless your part of a secret society despite it being a core class and that nature is a thing in tonnes of cultures".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree strongly! There should be less Golarion in 2E, not more. I especially don't want Golarion as a core mechanic, e.g. ancestral heritages or some such.
Making Golarion part of the mechanics would force homebrewers to extract/replace those aspects that are Golarion. We would have to replace whole ancestral mechanics, item names, etc. which is a real pain.
I hope they handle Golarion like they handled gods in 1E, they are there for optional flavor but have no bearing on the mechanics of the game.
The Core book should be a very blank slate. Sell other books with lore, but keep the Core books free of Paizo lore.
Bardarok, thank you very much for posting this, I was about to post about it myself. I think it's extremely important.
This kind of thinking is a little boggling. Golarion is paizo's baby, that's the product they are selling, the setting and what's in it. If they take that away, it's just selling the balancing of their new system. We can get elf stats anywhere, but Paizo is the one selling us their setting.
Homebrew should always be based around "I take the thing from the original setting and convert it to mine." Or you could always just play Monte Cooks Cypher system which is all about content that doesn't belong to any one setting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, looking at Milo's concerns, the Ancestry system might actually be easier than if they just straight up continued using old Pathfinder races. Potentially, a lot of Golarion world flavor would be in ancestry feats. Disallowing feats versus whole races seems easier, and hopefully enough third party folks are going to come in add feats reflective of their own settings, some of which you can sub in.
I mean, looking at Milo's concerns, the Ancestry system might actually be easier than if they just straight up continued using old Pathfinder races. Potentially, a lot of Golarion world flavor would be in ancestry feats. Disallowing feats versus whole races seems easier, and hopefully enough third party folks are going to come in add feats reflective of their own settings, some of which you can sub in.
This is very true when it comes to the Core Races, not so much the other races in the game. The big question will be whether or not I will need to ban 90% of the racial feats for the Core races.