| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think another factor to consider is: What kinds of stories does Paizo want to tell?
Which objectively has an answer: the sorts of stories created by the Pathfinder rule system. They have always been very upfront about this point. They were upfront about it back when they decided not to convert their materials to 4e. They were upfront about it when they decided to make Starfinder Science Fantasy rather than hard Sci-Fi. And they are upfront about it now, as they get ready to make some sweeping changes to the system.
Paizo wants to be able to tell both high level stories and low level stories, which is probably still possible with the sort of divide BPorter advocates for. What is more difficult is transitioning between the two. I don't think you can split the level experience in half between books and not have the seams show in some really unattractive ways.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If anything, they've really neglected the high levels. Now, there may be legit reasons for that due to problems with PF1e, but that's a reason to fix those problems, not spend even less time on the high levels.This was also part of the basis for my question. Presumably, high level content is "neglected" because it sells less well. The goal of any business is to sell more, not less.
Again, this is an example, not an expectation that Paizo will do this!
If, for example, if the preferred play experience in terms of story is Levels 1-10, wouldn't it make more sense from strictly a business standpoint to extend that over levels 1-20 so that the full gamut of the game is accessed/played at a more consistent level? And provide "legendary/anime/demigod" style content in a separate supplement(s)? That way, from a business standpoint, you are expending resources more in line with the sales/profits you will derive from the expenditure of resources (development, print runs, etc.).
I think this would be better for the consumer but likely worse for Paizo commercially. It’s similar to suggesting the APs get broken up - one line of adventures, one of monsters, one of backmatter articles. That way, the customer can pick-and-choose which bits of the AP they want.
This would be great for us, but almost certainly result in a significant hit to profits. Those who wanted it all would now have to spend more, some would opt out of the monsters, some the backmatter and some the adventures. The way thing are currently set up (as a pseudo-magazine, really) we are all buying stuff we don’t want from time to time, but overall we’re getting enough of what we want to make it worth it. Doing it this way allows a more diverse product, since those fringe topics get covered collectively (whereas there’d never be the market to produce them otherwise). Occasionally we’re buying stuff we don’t really want so others get their pet area expanded. But we also get our particular niche interest explored from time to time - despite it not being economically viable as a standalone product.
I think this same concept applies to the CRB. Broadening the scope of the game does mean some of us buy bits we’ll probably not use, but breaking it up too much means we’ll only get the real, bare bones stuff that’s guaranteed to sell widely. By accepting the high level play material, you’re also getting...<insert whatever part of the game you like which is unpopular>
They have a balance to strike - too broad and the game may lose coherence, too narrow and it might not satisfy/attract sufficient numbers of hardcore, high-spending fans. But it’s useful to remember that when you pay for something niche you don’t like you’re also paying for that one, peculiar little subsystem that you love.
I feel like the game is designed first for low level characters, and then extrapolated into high level characters. Hence the 'bigger numbers' and stacking abilities and feats.
Imagine if instead the game started at the level of the Justice League, and those were supposed to be your average character. 'Normal people' would have astonishingly simple statblocks, because no one expects them to do cool stuff.
For instance, right now in PF1 you can maybe get the ability at high level to grapple a guy and throw him at someone else. It takes, like, 5 or 6 feats, and you probably want to grab a few magic items so your CMB will be high enough to pull it off, and against some enemies it simply won't work because they're too big, even if they're the right CR.
However, the game could easily be designed so that anyone who has an enemy grappled could throw them, simply by making a ranged attack, no feat required. Have two attacks? Grab a guy and throw him. Playing a wizard? Use your mind to grab a guy and throw him. Bard with a whip? Sure, choke that dragon and fling it across the battlefield into a stone column that shatters and starts to collapse the dungeon.
That's believable if your baseline for PCs is superheroes, but that's unrealistic if you want to model everyday joes delving into a dungeon.
I'm not sure there's a good way to straddle the river.
Maybe they could do something as simple as having, I dunno, 5 tiers of power (1st-3rd, 4th-8th, 9th-14th, 15th-20th, 21+). If an enemy is of a lower tier, halve their damage. (Two tiers drops it to 1 damage.) If higher, double it. (Two higher is 5x times higher.) But otherwise don't increase numbers as you level; just keep things flat.
So a 1st level fighter does 1d8 with a longsword, and a 10th level one does the same, and they both have 20 hit points and AC 18. If they hit each other, the new guy causes a scratch, while the elite warrior probably just bisects his opponent.
Likewise, combat maneuvers might have tiers. As your level goes up, you can do more stuff. If you have the feat Improved whatever, you can act as if you're a tier higher for that maneuver.
So 'Grapple' has rank 1, which is what it does now for everyone. Rank 2 lets you grapple without provoking. Rank 3, use a person as a body shield. Rank 4 treats you as one size category larger and lets you sustain a grab without needing an action, so you can potentially grab two people. Rank 5 lets you use grabbed creatures as weapons, and ignore size restrictions. Rank 6 (basically only for epic monsters focused on grappling) lets you, I dunno, grapple ghosts.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the game is designed first for low level characters, and then extrapolated into high level characters. Hence the 'bigger numbers' and stacking abilities and feats.
Imagine if instead the game started at the level of the Justice League, and those were supposed to be your average character. 'Normal people' would have astonishingly simple statblocks, because no one expects them to do cool stuff.
For instance, right now in PF1 you can maybe get the ability at high level to grapple a guy and throw him at someone else. It takes, like, 5 or 6 feats, and you probably want to grab a few magic items so your CMB will be high enough to pull it off, and against some enemies it simply won't work because they're too big, even if they're the right CR.
However, the game could easily be designed so that anyone who has an enemy grappled could throw them, simply by making a ranged attack, no feat required. Have two attacks? Grab a guy and throw him. Playing a wizard? Use your mind to grab a guy and throw him. Bard with a whip? Sure, choke that dragon and fling it across the battlefield into a stone column that shatters and starts to collapse the dungeon.
That's believable if your baseline for PCs is superheroes, but that's unrealistic if you want to model everyday joes delving into a dungeon.
I'm not sure there's a good way to straddle the river.
Maybe they could do something as simple as having, I dunno, 5 tiers of power (1st-3rd, 4th-8th, 9th-14th, 15th-20th, 21+). If an enemy is of a lower tier, halve their damage. (Two tiers drops it to 1 damage.) If higher, double it. (Two higher is 5x times higher.) But otherwise don't increase numbers as you level; just keep things flat.
So a 1st level fighter does 1d8 with a longsword, and a 10th level one does the same, and they both have 20 hit points and AC 18. If they hit each other, the new guy causes a scratch, while the elite warrior probably just bisects his opponent.
Likewise, combat maneuvers might have tiers. As your level...
A lot what you are suggesting seems like it is kind of being implemented into the system already. We have 5 tiers in the proficiency mod, and the levels you can access those seem to make pretty distinct game play tiers. And the new +10 crit mechanic means attacking enemies in a lower tier does massively more damage on average.
Yes, but the PF2 math means that at higher levels, your brain will take a few extra moments to process all the numbers, which over the course of a whole combat adds up.
If the window of 'me vs an appropriate CR enemy' used the same math at all levels, and what changed was the scope of actions, that might feel weird at first, but it'd play faster.
Of course, then you're scrapping the whole core of d20/PF, and a ton of other mechanics. In a 'tier' system, rather than having specific spells at different levels, you'd have, I dunno, spell schools. You'd learn a school, and be able to do stuff in that school, which would automatically improve as you level.
A level 1 fire wizard would shoot 1d6 damage in a bolt, and at level 4 it might be a 1d6 burst, and at level 9 a 1d6 explosion, and at 15th level a 1d6 damage storm that rolls across the landscape.
Non-damaging stuff would get more complicated, though.
|
No, your logic is flawed. If every part of the game world is mapped out with very advanced countries then there is little room for classic dungeon crawls or monster threats to originate from. For example, what prevents the Knights of Solamnia from rushing out to meet a threat that the PC's are supposed to handle? What prevents the Great Kingdom from overrunning its neighbors? Fantasy settings have to throw in temporary Deus Ex Machina to overcome their own poor world design (I.E. A cataclysm, The Over King is completely insane, A circle of Eight ridiculously overpowered magic users, a secret do-gooder organization such as the Harpers, etc.). A brief attempt during 4E was made with their Points of Light backdrop to make PC's special by making civilization feel weak and threatened.
The idea isn't that you cannot have rich adventures. The idea is that at high level your characters with the possible exception of the wizard do not stand out enough to effect things on a global stage. Take the Forgotten Realms as an example. Your 15th level fighter may own his own keep and command 250-500 troops. That is nothing compared to the resources of a nation such as Cormyr or Amn, let alone Hillsfar or the Zhentarim network.
The followups to my adventure path campaigns show that that does not happen.
My Rise of the Runelords campaign went to 20th level. Varisia now has a new island in the sea south of Riddleport, because the party brought the Runeforge demiplane back to Golarion. That is a significant change, and some 20th-level movers and shakers from other nations might visit. Nevertheless, it does nothing that affects any other adventure path, not even Crimson Throne, Second Darkness, nor Shattered Star, which are also set in Varisia. RotR did affect Jade Regent, but those two campaigns began in the same small town with an overlap of NPCs.
I moved my Jade Regent campaign a few years earlier on the Golarion timeline so that it began before the end of my recently finished Rise...
Of course the follow ups to your campaign prove that didn't happen. You are the DM. That's like me saying those things always happen in my games when I DM.
|
|
Not at all, I may be going to Japan this year, I plan on some growth, independence and adventure. I don't have to go to an alien planet for that.No, your logic is flawed.Well, that's obviously not true, as you can have growth and independence in the real world, now; one can have great adventures in a familiar world as much as an unfamiliar one.2) Too much of the game world is known.
There is no fear of the unknown and players can read upon on established game settings. This also does not allow room for the PC's to grow. This has always been a fault of D&D since the TSR early days where settings like Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms & Dragon Lance have long established nations that do not allow for much in the way of independence.
1) Enjoy Japan if you go. My friend really had a good time when he went with his wife.
2) I never said you cannot have great adventures in a well developed world. I said it is much harder for you to really stand out in a well developed world than a world that gradually unfolds. For example, in WOTC/TRS's Forgotten Realms there are luminaries such as Elminster and Drizzt who even if they were modeled after actual rules are head and shoulders above PC's and can often make PC actions seem trivial. Its much better to not have the world completely mapped out because you don't have to account for where all the monsters come from and you are free to be much more flexible with your campaign then if every player at your table knows exactly what each nation/city/town/hamlet contains
I think I already have it. Limit proficiency to Expert (or maybe Master, I need to see what that all entails), Only spells of level 3 or lower, slots stay they same for all classes you just prepare heightened spells. And limit items to Level 6. Wouldn't necessarily need to limit level, but you could choose to.Like the OP I don't like high level play - our solution is to play P6, as it is great for the gritty kind of games that we like:-)
I wonder if there'll be a P62ED? And how hard it would be to create ...
Yes, something like that. I like low level play, but I know that me and my group is probably in the minority.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course the follow ups to your campaign prove that didn't happen. You are the DM. That's like me saying those things always happen in my games when I DM.No, your logic is flawed. If every part of the game world is mapped out with very advanced countries then there is little room for classic dungeon crawls or monster threats to originate from. ...The followups to my adventure path campaigns show that that does not happen. ...
I am sorry. I misunderstood your point. You were talking of logic, and as a mathematician I take a formal view of logic. One counterexample disproves logic.
The original point had been:
I feel that high level play tends to fail for three reasons. ...
2) Too much of the game world is known.
There is no fear of the unknown and players can read upon on established game settings. This also does not allow room for the PC's to grow. This has always been a fault of D&D since the TSR early days where settings like Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms & Dragon Lance have long established nations that do not allow for much in the way of independence. Yes, it would be nice to go back to early D&D roots, establish a keep and attract followers but what is the point when you cannot field armies close to what established nations can produce?
My scenarios were in Paizo adventure paths; therefore, any GM can buy those adventure paths and have adventures where the exploration of Golarion has not solved the problems before the party deals with them. The Paizo writers know how to make this plausible. We have an entire planet to deal with; surely in any given year Golarion has at least one overlooked hotbed of trouble.
As for advanced nations, the technology of Golarion is 16th century at best, not counting the magic, and the governments are usually as primitive as the technology. The modern world believes in humanitarian aid, but the 16th century was more about conquest and exploitation. And even in the 21st century, international intervention takes months to implement. An adventuring party going against something like the 21st century Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) would have time for a real adventure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a bit late to the party, but I'm gonna throw in my 2cp. My upfront disclaimers: I buy a lot of Paizo product, I participate in the playtests, I play a lot of PFS (here's a sample of some characters), I GM a lot, I've played a few other systems, and I've co-authored a system.
Part of the problem with PF1 high end content demand is the fact that everybody knew walking into the system that high end mechanics were borked. Like, seriously borked. So why play that, right? Why would you want to set yourself up for that? That, in turn, affects the sales and design choices.
The problem with that situation, though, is that you have customers like me, who wants to go to high levels and spend a lot of money on product. I'll even go on record as saying that if there's not fairly robust support for high end content, I'm probably not going to retain interest in PF2. It doesn't have to be there right away, but I have virtually no interest in the 1-5 area of play, where PF1 has historically felt like "I don't have the ability to do anything interesting."
Low level stuff is great for simple mechanics and relatable stories. Not my area of interest, though, which means not where I want to spend my money.
I think this would be better for the consumer but likely worse for Paizo commercially. It’s similar to suggesting the APs get broken up - one line of adventures, one of monsters, one of backmatter articles. That way, the customer can pick-and-choose which bits of the AP they want.
This would be great for us, but almost certainly result in a significant hit to profits. Those who wanted it all would now have to spend more, some would opt out of the monsters, some the backmatter and some the adventures. The way thing are currently set up (as a pseudo-magazine, really) we are all buying stuff we don’t want from time to time, but overall we’re getting enough of what we want to make it worth it. Doing it this way allows a more diverse product, since those fringe topics get covered collectively (whereas there’d never be the market to produce them otherwise). Occasionally we’re buying stuff we don’t really want so others get their pet area...
Well, we know that's not quite true, because what you're saying is effectively what happened with Pathfinder. Remember, the AP was the combined replacement for both Dragon and Dungeon magazines, and originally had all the content. And, really, still does have quite a variety. But they've since introduced totally separate lines with different focus, including one for each of the aspects you outline in the quote post (we have a several lines of just adventures, a beastiary every couple of years, Pathfinder Campaign Setting and Pathfinder Companion lines for the two types of backmatter articles), as well as continuing to introduce an AP installment every month.
But, regardless, while your post was almost totally wrong ( :P ), your logic on not splitting things up with regards to 1-20 play remains sound. The reason we have a CRB that combines the old Players Handbook and Dungeon Master Guide was to make it easier to have one point of reference for play. Since they plan on producing 1-20 APs, it make sense to provide the framework to run those games in one product.
I, like others, hope they diversify the product offerings and start and end APs at different points, but the initial intent is 1-20.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love three volume modules, so I’m really excited about three volume APs! My issue with six volume APs is that the attention of the Paizo devleopers tends to wander away from the plot, and I feel like I lose track of the story over the long haul. Three volume modules have been a lot more focused vehicles for me as a GM — it’s just a great story length for me, and allows for closure. I’m looking forward to the first three volume AP of Starfinder. I’m really looking forward to seeing more of the experiment, especially if they do adventures that feed into different levels so that you can string the shorter APs and modules together.
Hmm
They have added new product lines as the demand fluctuates (note that the separate modules line has atrophied and the campaign setting line decline whilst the player companions with a larger target market continues strong).
They haven’t split the APs into three tightly focussed product lines. Doing so would be good for us and commercially disastrous....
That's fair. And the strongest evidence that you're right is that they've been putting out the APs with little change in format for a decade. If anyone could split it up, it would be them, because they used to run the two separate magazines. So clearly they side with you on this.
|
I love three volume modules, so I’m really excited about three volume APs! My issue with six volume APs is that the attention of the Paizo devleopers tends to wander away from the plot, and I feel like I lose track of the story over the long haul. Three volume modules have been a lot more focused vehicles for me as a GM — it’s just a great story length for me, and allows for closure. I’m looking forward to the first three volume AP of Starfinder. I’m really looking forward to seeing more of the experiment, especially if they do adventures that feed into different levels so that you can string the shorter APs and modules together.
Hmm
This is so true. Part of the issue is having 6 different authors working at different times. I know there is a roadmap, but the focus is almost always incoherent over all 6 volumes, in my experience.
One of the other benefits of a three volume AP is breaking up the adventure. I know my players are usually ready to call it quits after about 3 chapters. We may want to eventually return to that story and characters, but we are ready for a break after so many months of the same characters and story. It's starting to feel like a chore powering through the last half of an AP.
Maybe an unintended side effect could be better author planning and cohesion by reducing the overall length of a plot?
|
|
Of course the follow ups to your campaign prove that didn't happen. You are the DM. That's like me saying those things always happen in my games when I DM.No, your logic is flawed. If every part of the game world is mapped out with very advanced countries then there is little room for classic dungeon crawls or monster threats to originate from. ...The followups to my adventure path campaigns show that that does not happen. ...I am sorry. I misunderstood your point. You were talking of logic, and as a mathematician I take a formal view of logic. One counterexample disproves logic.
The original point had been:
I feel that high level play tends to fail for three reasons. ...
2) Too much of the game world is known.
There is no fear of the unknown and players can read upon on established game settings. This also does not allow room for the PC's to grow. This has always been a fault of D&D since the TSR early days where settings like Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms & Dragon Lance have long established nations that do not allow for much in the way of independence. Yes, it would be nice to go back to early D&D roots, establish a keep and attract followers but what is the point when you cannot field armies close to what established nations can produce?My scenarios were in Paizo adventure paths; therefore, any GM can buy those adventure paths and have adventures where the exploration of Golarion has not solved the problems before the party deals with them. The Paizo writers know how to make this plausible. We have an entire planet to deal with; surely in any given year Golarion has at least one overlooked hotbed of trouble.
As for advanced nations, the technology of Golarion is 16th century at best, not counting the magic, and the governments are usually as primitive as the technology. The modern world believes in humanitarian aid, but the 16th century was more about conquest and...
I am not talking about international aid or adventure path scenarios. I am discussing the ability of PC's to effect their environment in world shaking ways. It seems that many world I am familiar with are set up along the line of 20th century nations where each area has a country that has a particular strong sphere of influence that it can project over a rather large area and the few places that do not have this scope tend to be inaccessible or hostile to growth of standard PC's races which makes settlements by PC's into castles or cities unlikely or severely disadvantaged. I want to found my own tribe or build my own nation. It is very difficult to do so in most established campaign worlds due to everything being mapped out and the powers in the regions where adventures are taking place tend to be well established. Now if world where designed in which cultures may be dominate but nations are not such as being compared to ancient times in our own world then I could see adventures taking place and PC's having the ability to make a significant impact in their world.
|
|
I never said you cannot have great adventures in a well developed world. I said it is much harder for you to really stand out in a well developed world than a world that gradually unfolds. For example, in WOTC/TRS's Forgotten Realms there are luminaries such as Elminster and Drizzt who even if they were modeled after actual rules are head and shoulders above PC's and can often make PC actions seem trivial. Its much better to not have the world completely mapped out because you don't have to account for where all the monsters come from and you are free to be much more flexible with your campaign then if every player at your table knows exactly what each nation/city/town/hamlet containsThat is one of the most common complaints I hear from people that are not into published settings, I just don't agree. If I run a FR campaign, you are not going to be hearing about Elminster taking care of business off screen, and Drizzt dropping by to save your heiny; as for mapped out, there are always areas, locales, NPCs, etc, etc, with with to challenge, surprise and entertain the PCs. The 2nd Ed AD&D Historical Reference series had D&D adventures on semi-historical Earth, and that is just fine.
It does not matter if you take Elminster behind the scene and remove him from play. How can a PC amass enough loot to found a kingdom that would rival Thay, Cormyr or Amn let alone powerful city states like Hillsfar or Waterdeep? PC's are but bit players in such a huge and well developed world. In Forgotten Realms you are more akin to an Ewok then Luke Skywalker
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Uh... Building your own nation is literally the plot of Official Paizo Adventure Path Kingmaker.
I think the problem might be less with developed settings and more with your lack of imagination.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For the original question, the way I see it Paizo wants the CRB of any edition to be the only book you absolutely need in order to run a game at any level. I personally think that model works best, as it gives players everything they need in one book. I would personally not be opposed to a set of shorter companion books for low-, medium-, and high-level play though. They could include advice for running games at those levels along with new monsters, feats, and spells meant for those levels. That'd be neat.
On the campaign length thing, I've GMd for one campaign that hit 20, three that hit 9-10, one that hit Level 6, and a number that fizzled out before Level 5. I've also played in a few - one that hit 10, one that hit 8, and one that only lasted 2 sessions. I'm currently in a fast-paced one set to end at 18 and we're already at 10. In my experience, most games that end early do so more for scheduling purposes or player burnout than anything else. It's not that high-level play is unbalanced - though that is undisputably an issue - but more that scheduling games that long reliably while also keeping players invested is just hard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am not talking about international aid or adventure path scenarios. I am discussing the ability of PC's to effect their environment in world shaking ways. It seems that many world I am familiar with are set up along the line of 20th century nations where each area has a country that has a particular strong sphere of influence that it can project over a rather large area and the few places that do not have this scope tend to be inaccessible or hostile to growth of standard PC's races which makes settlements by PC's into castles or cities unlikely or severely disadvantaged. I want to found my own tribe or build my own nation. It is very difficult to do so in most established campaign worlds due to everything being mapped out and the powers in the regions where adventures are taking place tend to be well established. Now if world where designed in which cultures may be dominate but nations are not such as being compared to ancient times in our own world then I could see adventures taking place and PC's having the ability to make a significant impact in their world.
I played Dungeons & Dragons in the Greyhawk setting, but my character never developed a sense of how the nations were organized. The setting I am most familiar with is Golarion. Paizo has set up most nations in Golarion as themes. Varisia is adventure land filled with old ruins. Cheliax is the crumbling empire with a corrupt government. Galt is a perpetual French revolution. The Land of the Linnorm Kings is Viking land. Minkai is mythic Japan. Orision is mythic Egypt. Ustalav is a vampire-filled gothic horror. Numeria is post-apocalyptic science fiction, except the apocalypse was a crashed alien fleet rather than local history. The River Kingdoms are nascent nations and bandit lands prime for carving out personal kingdoms. Do you find this setting stifling?
Nothing on Earth is a blank slate, though Europeans often ignored the history of the areas they colonized. Likewise, nothing on Golarion is a blank slate. Player characters build on what is already there.
It does not matter if you take Elminster behind the scene and remove him from play. How can a PC amass enough loot to found a kingdom that would rival Thay, Cormyr or Amn let alone powerful city states like Hillsfar or Waterdeep? PC's are but bit players in such a huge and well developed world. In Forgotten Realms you are more akin to an Ewok then Luke Skywalker
I recently finished an Iron Gods campaign and the PCs are changing the nation of Numeria. Iron Gods has mixed themes of religion and technology, but the players decide through their characters' actions which themes become important. My players focussed on technology: they wanted to advance it publicly by building workshops and teaching apprentices, but the previous authority, the Technic League, enforced a monopoly by secrecy and oppression.
The PCs won. They will bring an industrial revolution. They have the science, they have access to Androffan history, they have warehouses of Androffan technology, they own workshops and businesses, and they have two flying spaceships. The map will change. Numeria will no longer be a post-apocalyptic setting. If I play an adventure path set near Numeria, I will either have to set it in the near future before the change spreads or I will add the technological revolution. And centuries later, in Starfinder, the goddess Casandalee of the Triune will say, "It started with a dwarf smith, a half-elf adventurer, a human caravan guard, a strix singer, and a human girl whose father was a wizard."
Well, that's obviously not true, as you can have growth and independence in the real world, now; one can have great adventures in a familiar world as much as an unfamiliar one.2) Too much of the game world is known.
There is no fear of the unknown and players can read upon on established game settings. This also does not allow room for the PC's to grow. This has always been a fault of D&D since the TSR early days where settings like Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms & Dragon Lance have long established nations that do not allow for much in the way of independence.No, your logic is flawed. If every part of the game world is mapped out with very advanced countries then there is little room for classic dungeon crawls or monster threats to originate from. For example, what prevents the Knights of Solamnia from rushing out to meet a threat that the PC's are supposed to handle? What prevents the Great Kingdom from overrunning its neighbors? Fantasy settings have to throw in temporary Deus Ex Machina to overcome their own poor world design (I.E. A cataclysm, The Over King is completely insane, A circle of Eight ridiculously overpowered magic users, a secret do-gooder organization such as the Harpers, etc.). A brief attempt during 4E was made with their Points of Light backdrop to make PC's special by making civilization feel weak and threatened.
The idea isn't that you cannot have rich adventures. The idea is that at high level your characters with the possible exception of the wizard do not stand out enough to effect things on a global stage. Take the Forgotten Realms as an example. Your 15th level fighter may own his own keep and command 250-500 troops. That is nothing compared to the resources of a nation such as Cormyr or Amn, let alone Hillsfar or the Zhentarim network.
My level 17th fighter in AD&D2e in Forgotten Realms was the king of a City State of Chessenta. I had a full fledged army, and conquered some neighbour city states.
However, that needs a brave GM who is not affraid to break the stablished lore based on what happens in the game, and most GMs are not willing to do that. GMs do not let you to conquer Taldor, just in case Paizo creates an AP later that happens in Taldor and needs some key NPCs still in power.
I think the solution is to encapsulate each AP as a group. Just because players killed Ameiko in their own version of Rise of Runelords does not mean other group in a different timeline can't play Jade of Regents.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
About the OP, my point has already been said in the thread by other posters, mostly.
The thing is, yes, there is a loss of interest and sales in high level play, because the math is broken, and the game because clunky. But there is a correlation there. If they can fix the problems, those high level plays would sell better, which I suppose makes financial sense for Paizo.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Almost all of the points in the OP won't apply to 2.0 because the math and the classes are all getting completely overhauled.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd love it if Paizo went a similar route to the BECMI model...but similar to what they started with PF1e.
Levels 1-5 would be the Beginner Box levels. These levels are for those starting out.
The next 10 levels (6-15) would be the core Pathfinder levels. These would be a little more complex.
It would be for the above two boxes combined that the APs would actually be written for.
The third box would be the Mastery box and be for levels 16-20. It would be strictly for High Level campaigns. I expect it would not sell as well, but it would be there for those who wanted it.
The last would be the Mythic Box and have the Mythic rules. I expect this would sell the worst of all 4, but be there for completeness.
Thus you would have a BCMM (rather than a BECMI).
They would have the option to write an AP all the way up to 20th if they wanted, but as the Core experience ended at 15th level, most APs would only get up to somewhere between 13th and 15th level at their end.
As for WHY I don't see high level play as much as low level play...
Most of the time when we start a new game or group we want to start out at first level.
In the interim of adventuring, characters and groups die, the players move on, OR we just want to start a new adventure or new game with a new bunch of characters.
This invariably means we stop with whatever characters we had before and start with new level 1 characters.
This means the level we probably play the most would be level 1, followed by level 2, followed by level 3...etc...etc...etc.
The Higher the level, the less it gets seen and played.
By default, the least levels we play at are the higher levels.