Magic is reliable and about as well-understood as algebra or art history. That is, most people have some familiarity with the basics (or at least know it when they see it), might even Use what little they know, without necessarily having an in-depth expertise of the subject.In what setting/world/campaign what-have-you, does that refer to, for you?I also prefer this style of magic (though I usually liken it more to a slightly obscure harder science like Physics, or to Computer Science...computer science is probably best since most people know some of the results and how to use things but little of the underlying principles).
I find it entirely consistent with Golarion as presented.
Coincidentally, physics and computer science were my original examples, but thought Art History was more broadly understood. Almost everyone can identity the statue of David. The number of people that can identify the historical era in which it was made, the circumstances surrounding its commision, and some of the politics involved in its display, is probably a lot smaller.
I dont have time to poke at all of the point, but there is just one point that i saw a few peopel mention on:
The point about magic marts, and how you as a GM makes drops more appropiate... if anything that is in my mind equally bad. Wandering the pygmy pyramids of ancient pasts and here we have a hat of [your stat] and its in [your size] and its in [condition] and its perfect for [your level].
Gotta be a better way for this than to ruin economies or gain the blessing of the loot gods?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gotta be a better way for this than to ruin economies or gain the blessing of the loot gods?
Actually, with the PF2 crafting system neither is necessary. You can just have settlements have a max level of Crafter (say, a small town has a max level of 5th-7th, a major city more like 17th) and then you can commission any item of that level in 5-6 days, less for lower level ones...it's 5 to 6 days to give the creator a profit margin over the four day minimum, and the minimum is lower for lower level items.
You still need some system for 'commonly available' items, but it can actually be pretty restrictive since commissions are really doable.
So PF2 has actually already fixed this in any game with even a bit of downtime (and PF2 seems to be encouraging some downtime), just by shortening how long item creation takes without changing the price point (so rare or expensive items will, in setting, almost always only be made on commission).
Huh... didn't think of that.
That could neatly tie in with the item level restrictions that might be necessary if you could change the economy to a more linear system.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think they need to consider consistency of feeling.
If the narrative description in a book (such as any of the Pathfinder Tales) would change because of a rules change, that is probably a bad thing.
Potions used to be reliable in Golarian. The new system makes it so a perfectly crafted potion can fail to work. There is no basis for this in all of the things that were produced for PF1.
Wealth by Level (WBL) isn't in my mind a part of the narrative. It is an artificial abstraction to help a GM determine when a party has more or less power from their equipment than is expected. The Automatic Bonus Progression table from Pathfinder Unchained does more to help a GM balance equipment than WBL. There are game systems that don't even need this because of differences in the underlying assumptions.
The fine details of how the game mechanics can change as long as what a character can accomplish stays mostly consistent. I don't care what the skill is called which a character uses to jump across a pit. I do want people with the proper training to be able to leap that pit.
I think they need to consider consistency of feeling.
If the narrative description in a book (such as any of the Pathfinder Tales) would change because of a rules change, that is probably a bad thing.
Potions used to be reliable in Golarian. The new system makes it so a perfectly crafted potion can fail to work. There is no basis for this in all of the things that were produced for PF1.
I haven't read any Pathfinder Tales, but how often would characters really chug so many potions in a day to have resonance be an actual issue? Honest question, because I really don't know, but if it's not often, then does it really change the narrative?
|
|
I haven't read any Pathfinder Tales, but how often would characters really chug so many potions in a day to have resonance be an actual issue? Honest question, because I really don't know, but if it's not often, then does it really change the narrative?I think they need to consider consistency of feeling.
If the narrative description in a book (such as any of the Pathfinder Tales) would change because of a rules change, that is probably a bad thing.
Potions used to be reliable in Golarian. The new system makes it so a perfectly crafted potion can fail to work. There is no basis for this in all of the things that were produced for PF1.
It's pretty close to never. Pathfinder Tales characters don't adhere to the PC standards very closely (though they adhere to the world standards quite well), often having more like NPC level WBL, meaning a potion is a bigger deal.
It's pretty close to never. Pathfinder Tales characters don't adhere to the PC standards very closely (though they adhere to the world standards quite well), often having more like NPC level WBL, meaning a potion is a bigger deal.I haven't read any Pathfinder Tales, but how often would characters really chug so many potions in a day to have resonance be an actual issue? Honest question, because I really don't know, but if it's not often, then does it really change the narrative?I think they need to consider consistency of feeling.
If the narrative description in a book (such as any of the Pathfinder Tales) would change because of a rules change, that is probably a bad thing.
Potions used to be reliable in Golarian. The new system makes it so a perfectly crafted potion can fail to work. There is no basis for this in all of the things that were produced for PF1.
Or... more like Unchained Automatic Bonus Progression wealth? Unless the author specifically writes them to have magic weapon after magic armor after magic cloak of game-math-correcting, most Tales characters MIGHT have A magic item.
|
|
Or... more like Unchained Automatic Bonus Progression wealth? Unless the author specifically writes them to have magic weapon after magic armor after magic cloak of game-math-correcting, most Tales characters MIGHT have A magic item.
This is also a generally valid interpretation (though I'd argue almost all have one magic item, and several have more like three or so...the full 'Big 6' verges on the nonexistent, though). The difference between NPC wealth and Automatic Bonus Progression is mostly semantic when you can't see their actual stats.
I would like to see Pathfinder magic work this way. Sadly without spell creation rules it doesn't really for me as I would expect someone having near mastery of the "language" of magic to be able to create new spells, but the rules don't really cover that.
That's fair. Wish and Miracle come close to doing what you'd like to see, and 3.5 Epic spellcasting also hit those notes (as did incantations), but PF doesn't really do much along those lines.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to see Pathfinder magic work this way. Sadly without spell creation rules it doesn't really for me as I would expect someone having near mastery of the "language" of magic to be able to create new spells, but the rules don't really cover that.That's fair. Wish and Miracle come close to doing what you'd like to see, and 3.5 Epic spellcasting also hit those notes (as did incantations), but PF doesn't really do much along those lines.
And when P1E did have spell creation rules (Word-casting), they never got support outside of their debut book (UM).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A. Treasure found in a dungeon should have meaning beyond a resale value.
In Night of Frozen Shadows in my Jade Regent campaign party member Ebony Blossom (Female human ninja 6) finally battled the second-in-command of the Frozen Shadows Omoyani (Female human monk 4/ninja 4) one-on-one while the rest of the party dealt with Omoyani's companions. Ebony Blossom had been hired by Omoyani during the subterfuge episodes of the module, for Omoyani had recognized her as a ninja and wanted to test whether she was worthy of the Frozen Shadows. Thus, they knew each other well. It was a classic battle of two martial artists with great respect for each other.
After the battle, Ebony Blossom claimed Omoyani's enchanted dagger Deadly Kiss (price 10,302gp, CL 6th) and used that +1 dagger for the rest of the campaign. (Its main enchantment aided poison use.)
She also claimed all the poisons stocked by the Frozen Shadows. Good poisons are hard to find.
B. Gold should be a valued resource at all levels of play, and spending it on things other than personal power should not unduly disrupt the game, and there should be things to spend it on beyond personal power.
The gambling hall owner in Torch died during my Iron Gods campaign. By the 3rd module, The Choking Tower, the gambling hall was up for sale. I checked the hall against the building costs in Ultimate Campaign and set a price. The party bought the place and converted it into a concert and dance hall. The party skald liked to hold concerts. Later, they also set up two more businesses in Torch from scratch.
C. Wizards should have something magical to do all the time
Isn't that the purpose of cantrips? School powers help, too.
D. There should be unique items that can't be found for sale or craft at all levels of play.
Deadly Kiss was one of six module-specific magic items listed on pp. 60-61 of Night of Frozen Shadows. In theory, five of them could be recreated by a sufficiently skilled magic-item crafter; in practice, no-one would have thought of doing so.
Another of the six items was so unique that they sold it to a museum rather than a magic-item merchant. It was a cruel item of no use to them.
E. If you have acquired a magic item for a purpose ahead of time, you should be able to use it for that purpose when the time comes.
I cannot prevent my players from derailing the campaign long enough for anyone to plan ahead for a use of a specific magic item.
I tried once. In Iron Gods, I let the party salvage a small spaceship buried in Scrapwall, despite the module and common sense saying that the spaceship was irreparable. A vision had told them the story of the crash and how Unity could control the spaceship unless an Inhibitor memory facet was plugged into the control panel (minor Lords of Rust spoiler). I figured that the first time they flew the spaceship within 10 miles of Silver Mount, Unity would take control of the spaceship and they would have to quickly plug the Inhibitor memory facet back in.
Instead, the party entered Starfall, the city built around Silver Mount, incognito with their spaceship parked 100 miles away. When they left Starfall in a hurry, two members teleported to the spaceship and flew back to pick up the others. That is when I sprung the trap that I had set up 3 modules before and Unity took control. But Boffin, the party gadgeteer who usually carried the Inhibitor memory facet, had left it with Val, who was not on the spaceship.
Instead, Boffin used her technological Disable Device skills to rewire the control panel on the fly to cut off Unity's control. That was more awesome. Then they landed the spaceship, picked up the rest of the party, and restored the controls to the original form so that Unity could take over again. And that was how the party ended up invited into Silver Mount instead of having to fight their way in. That was unexpected. The players used my misfired trap to advance their own agenda.
That campaign also had a fighter who wanted to use high-tech grenades (5d6 damage within a 20-foot-radius spread). The rest of the party did not trust his judgment and expected a lot of friendly-fire damage. They vetoed the grenades.
F. The Magic Mart should be limited
My players like crafting their own magic items. My wife explained that crafting a magic item rather than buying it made it feel like the character's own abilities. Buying it did not give the same feeling of accomplishment. In The Hungry Storm, the section of Jade Regent where the players cross the northern ice cap, I added rules for scavenging magical reagents for crafting magic items far away from any kind of store. They loved those rules, because it made the magic items seem even more their own work. For Iron Gods, I adapted the rules to allow scavenging technological parts from crafting high-tech items without a technology lab.
I also permit catalog shopping in my campaigns, which is probably even worse than a Magic Mart. If the PCs are in a city and player points to an item in Ultimate Equipment that he wants to buy, I do not roleplay the shopping. Shopping is boring. The character loses a few hours and spends the money and gains the item. We don't care whether he found it in a magic mart, in a wizard's shop, or in a private collection--unless I decide for plot reasons that I want that PC to meet a particular merchant or wizard for a quest hook.
Are there any bits of game flavor that you see as fundamental?
The whole purpose of tabletop roleplaying games is about players making choices for their characters and seeing the consequences of those choices. Thus, yes, if an character acquires a feat or magic item, I owe it to the player to offer circumstances where he or she can try out that item. And perhaps learn that it sucks.
I also owe it to a character to give an opportunity to learn the consequences of not picking up an obvious feat or magic item. No magic weapon at high levels? Meet an incorporeal poltergeist. Now learn from that and acquire a magic weapon before you meet the much stronger incorporeal undead in the next module.
Responding straight to the op,
Flavor is indeed a key component to making a game fun. However, this does not mean that even a scrap of flavor needs to be in the rules used.
Seriously, tying flavor to mechanics just leads to people focusing too much on RAW instead of the gm and narrative, which to me is missing the entire point of sitting down to play.
The system is not the game, it is a tool to make understanding and discussing the game narrative easier, as well as adding a bit of tension and the emotional turmoil of risk to the game. Mechanics do not need flavor to do it's job in any way.
The advantage of adding flavor is two-fold. It makes it easier for unskilled gms to run a game, and makes it easier to build characters for "lego" players (as I call them).
Thus,
"What flavor do you feel must be preserved (if any), even at the cost of added complexity or sacrificing balance?"
My answer, no flavor needs to bd preserved.
However, in my opinion, if balance is a consideration at all, then you are not roleplaying, but rather playing a combat with a bit of story, or perhaps flipping between rp and non-rp (the latter of which shouldn't be using the same rules for both).
There is a trait that needs to be preserved at the possible expense of comlexity and most certainly destroys mechanical balance, and that is the system's ability to be easily bent to whatever flavor the gm wants while remaining easy to bend and play with.
To me, a gm shoukd be able to come across any situation nof defined in the rules already and go "we will handle it by doinb X" and have it make sense both in fitting witn the rest of the system and in terms of fitting well with the narrative milieu.
What most don't like admitting, is that mechanical balance and narrative milieu will never work well together. There is no such thing as a system that us mechanically balanced and that also fits perfectly in the narrative milieu. They are incompatible.
So incompatible, that the majority of players actually think only in terms of one or the other, never both.
Let me ne clear, narrative milieu is not story. It is what makes sense in the fictional world.
If you have campaign about playing foosball, and you have the ability to once per game have an easier time catching the ball, you literally can not describe how nor why it works without also providing a context for how that ability can be stopped, altered, or shoukd be allowed more than once a game, a.k.a. defining what the ability is in the fictional world also opens it to countless non-mechanical consequences that have mechanical effects. If you define this ability as coming from technological gloves, then they can be stolen or broken, denying that player the ability making them unbalanced. The gloves, as tech devices, have a power source, so swap the power source out during a huddle, and the gloves are no longer limited to once per game.
And it just goes on and on.
If you want to play a game, go play a board game. If you want to rp, then drop this stupid pretense of a game. They are fundementally incompatible. That is why all these newer rpgs are looking more and more like mmos, because their designers think like a game and can't see past that.
...then drop this stupid pretense of a game.
Interesting point of view, also about as meaningless as most of your game theories.
One wonders why you are still here. Seriously, why waste your time with a game you obviously have no respect for, and telling people that the game they enjoy isn't a real game - all your going to do is alienate them.
It isn't a game, anymore than a choose-your-own-path book. The difference is that the story is being written on the spot for you, it's multiplayer if you want, and you are limited not by rules of a system but instead by the narrative milieu.
A game is about proving your skill, yours, as in you the player proving yourself better or worse than the next guy.
That is not what an rpg is, regardless of what we call it.
Besides, I still like playing combat minis from time to time, and still need others to play with.
And not everyone thinks as little of me as you do, I just suck at explaining things.
In any case, I don't mean to imply a lack of respect. I'm just tired of it.
Imagine if you had a jaguar and everyone called it a beetle. Woukdn't you get tired of that after a while? Especially if it impacted where you could go and what you coukd do?
That {a game} is not what an rpg is, regardless of what we call it.
2.
an activity that one engages in for amusement.
I think RPGs are very much a game, the dictionary agrees with me. Many games are competative, but not all of them are. Doesn't make it any less a game.
Imagine if you had a jaguar and everyone called it a beetle. Woukdn't you get tired of that after a while? Especially if it impacted where you could go and what you coukd do?
If everyone is calling it a beetle, I'd be taking a long hard look at my own identification of that creature and my definition of it. If you are using a different definition to everyone else it's going to make life harder.
I don't think little of you. You are obviously smart and have given this a lot of thought (maybe too much). You know way more about game history and story structure than I do for example. My problem is that your apparent belief that there is a way the game was intended to be played and that the way you play the game is the right way comes across as contempt for the game as it is now and the people who play it ("lego" players doesn't come across as particularly respectful, nor that flavour is only there for unskilled GMS).
[willy wonka] So everyone says your Jag is a beetle? Tell me again how you are right and everyone else is wrong...[/willy wonka]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I for one find GMDLH's post reasonably interesting. I don't fully understand it, I think I get the gist of it, and I'm not sure I agree with all of it, but parts of it are seductively and tantalisingly evocative of...something that rings true. I like it. As an idea. About games.
I for one find GMDLH's post reasonably interesting. I don't fully understand it, I think I get the gist of it, and I'm not sure I agree with all of it, but parts of it are seductively and tantalisingly evocative of...something that rings true. I like it. As an idea. About games.
I agree. If they stay focused on how they play without commenting on how others are play and work on making their explanations ... more accessible? ... there is definitely something interesting buried there.
I for one find GMDLH's post reasonably interesting. I don't fully understand it, I think I get the gist of it, and I'm not sure I agree with all of it, but parts of it are seductively and tantalisingly evocative of...something that rings true. I like it. As an idea. About games.I agree. If they stay focused on how they play without commenting on how others are play and work on making their explanations ... more accessible? ... there is definitely something interesting buried there.
And his comments are similar to some of my thoughts (though I wouldn't reject the word "game" to describe D&D/Pathfinder and most other RPGs). In a competitive game, rules and their fair implementation are critical.
In a RPG, rules are a means to the end of the collaborative creation and telling of story. If/when the rules get in the way of telling the story, then they can and should be adjusted, either in advance or on the fly. I know that in some circles, this is seen as "GM cheating," but to be honest, I see that phrase as a bit of an oxymoron.
I for one find GMDLH's post reasonably interesting. I don't fully understand it, I think I get the gist of it, and I'm not sure I agree with all of it, but parts of it are seductively and tantalisingly evocative of...something that rings true. I like it. As an idea. About games.I agree. If they stay focused on how they play without commenting on how others are play and work on making their explanations ... more accessible? ... there is definitely something interesting buried there.And his comments are similar to some of my thoughts (though I wouldn't reject the word "game" to describe D&D/Pathfinder and most other RPGs). In a competitive game, rules and their fair implementation are critical.
In a RPG, rules are a means to the end of the collaborative creation and telling of story. If/when the rules get in the way of telling the story, then they can and should be adjusted, either in advance or on the fly. I know that in some circles, this is seen as "GM cheating," but to be honest, I see that phrase as a bit of an oxymoron.
I've been on the receiving end of far too many bad, unfair and/or arbitrary decisions to be quite as sanguine about the premise that rules should be cast aside when they are inconvenient. I have rarely (to the point that I can't recall a single instance) come across a situation where abandoning the rules would have assisted or improved role-playing.
Now lack of rules covering a situation and the need to improvise is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.
I would consider PF to be a game. Something to be played and enjoyed because of it. If/when the story gets in the way of good gameplay, then it can and should be adjusted, either in advance or on the fly.
Not sure I FULLY agree with this, but I'll admit I lean towards this interpretation. Sometimes letting the dice fall where they lay and going from there results in a more interesting story than you could have come up with on your own, because even you, the DM, are surprised by it.
I would consider PF to be a game. Something to be played and enjoyed because of it. If/when the story gets in the way of good gameplay, then it can and should be adjusted, either in advance or on the fly.Not sure I FULLY agree with this, but I'll admit I lean towards this interpretation. Sometimes letting the dice fall where they lay and going from there results in a more interesting story than you could have come up with on your own, because even you, the DM, are surprised by it.
Also a bit of a response to dragonhunterq - this is a good and interesting point. To my mind, it's important not to be a control junkie when GMing and also to always remember that the GM and players are collaborators in the creation of their story, not opponents.