Status of Golarion in New Edition?


General Discussion

51 to 100 of 116 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Is there going to be a new setting book for PF2?


Qstor wrote:
Is there going to be a new setting book for PF2?

I read somewhere that is going to be more narrowly focused on a specific area or areas rather than a gazetteer of every Inner Sea country like the ISWG.

Perhaps someone can find who said that and what they said exactly. I'm pretty sure it was one of the managers, but I may not be recounting what he said correctly.


There will be a new setting book. Whether they plan to create it yet or not, there will be one sooner or later. There always is.


John Lynch 106 wrote:
There will be a new setting book. Whether they plan to create it yet or not, there will be one sooner or later. There always is.

Usually when there's new editions, particularly when it comes to flavor and setting stuff, publishers assiduously avoid printing the exact same books again, but will provide basically the same information in a book on a different topic when appropriate.

So we'll probably get "what's up with Cheliax" in a splatbook, but it's unlikely to be "Inner Sea World Guide 2.0" We could do a book about Taldor and all the lands which were formerly part of its empire (which would give us Cheliax, Galt, Molthune, Nirmathas, Lastwall, Andoran, and Isger, extending to Varisia, Ravounel, and Nidal if we consider "places which were once part of Cheliax" too.)


I feel that a brand new campaign setting would be refreshing.

The mountain of books I already have on Golarion would give Encyclopedia Britannica a run for its money!

I'm not saying they should abandon it entirely, as there are some fascinating aspects that have not been explored.
But at the same time rehashing much of the same stuff over and over again does get a bit stale.

Yes, splitting your customer base with multiple campaign settings is one issue, but boring you customer base is another.
I really enjoyed Golarion for the first 6 yrs but then switched off and started looking elsewhere for something new and fresh (the same applied to FR before that).

It would probably be good for the developers as well, since they must feel a bit hemmed in by the confines of the current setting after all this time. And developer enthusiasm breeds player enthusiasm.

What do other people think?


I feel like there are enough unresolved plots on Golarion that abandoning the setting for a new one would be disappointing. A lot of the setting material in 1st edition was setting the stage for that stuff, so when they finally decide to do, say, an AP that gets to the bottom of what sinister forces are driving Galt's endless revolution, it won't take too long to catch people up.

Like, the time to do a new setting is when you've run out of stories you want to tell in the old one. I'm reasonably confident Paizo has not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ya Golarion has a long way to go before it reaches Old World of Darkness levels of everything set and done. Plus it’s also a good example because the New World of Darkness intentionally left out canon plots to avoid the train wreck they’d written themselves into the 1st time. But sadly, despite a few of the New World games being pretty solid people don’t seem to like it as much for lack of depth. I guess what I’m saying is that there is a balance to be made and that I think Golarion is managing it for the time being.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Raylyeh wrote:
Ya Golarion has a long way to go before it reaches Old World of Darkness levels of everything set and done. Plus it’s also a good example because the New World of Darkness intentionally left out canon plots to avoid the train wreck they’d written themselves into the 1st time. But sadly, despite a few of the New World games being pretty solid people don’t seem to like it as much for lack of depth. I guess what I’m saying is that there is a balance to be made and that I think Golarion is managing it for the time being.

Also New New World of Darkness is going back to Old World of Darkness.

[out of context: The reasons for disliking New World of Darkness from my groups were purely the story and setting. The smoother mechanics were great, the change of "magic is what you believe and can come in all forms" to "magic is from Atlantis."


Jeven wrote:

I feel that a brand new campaign setting would be refreshing.

The mountain of books I already have on Golarion would give Encyclopedia Britannica a run for its money!

I'm not saying they should abandon it entirely, as there are some fascinating aspects that have not been explored.
But at the same time rehashing much of the same stuff over and over again does get a bit stale.

Yes, splitting your customer base with multiple campaign settings is one issue, but boring you customer base is another.
I really enjoyed Golarion for the first 6 yrs but then switched off and started looking elsewhere for something new and fresh (the same applied to FR before that).

It would probably be good for the developers as well, since they must feel a bit hemmed in by the confines of the current setting after all this time. And developer enthusiasm breeds player enthusiasm.

What do other people think?

What you are talking about tends to happen to all settings and it is hard to know when to develop a new settings and just stick with what you have and continue on.

In general (depending on the setting) most groups I have found like to see a change every 4-8 years. But I have also seen groups that their motto is "no change ever" or "I do not want to learn anything new".

But one of the things that caused a lot of excitement from various people I know was new setting info because of Star Finder.
MDC


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jeven wrote:

I feel that a brand new campaign setting would be refreshing.

The mountain of books I already have on Golarion would give Encyclopedia Britannica a run for its money!

I'm not saying they should abandon it entirely, as there are some fascinating aspects that have not been explored.
But at the same time rehashing much of the same stuff over and over again does get a bit stale.

Yes, splitting your customer base with multiple campaign settings is one issue, but boring you customer base is another.
I really enjoyed Golarion for the first 6 yrs but then switched off and started looking elsewhere for something new and fresh (the same applied to FR before that).

It would probably be good for the developers as well, since they must feel a bit hemmed in by the confines of the current setting after all this time. And developer enthusiasm breeds player enthusiasm.

What do other people think?

Golarion has the advantage that for a different setting, you can just move to a different region. Want horror? Go to Ustalav, no need for Ravenloft. Want Arabian Nights? Go to Qadira, no need for Al-Qadim. Dark fairy tales? Irrisen. etc. The setting has multiple sub-settings within it.

And there are a lot of areas that just haven't been covered much. And that's just in the core region. They can publish more info on areas outside of the Inner Sea too for a broader look. Southern Garund and Casmaron seem like logical places to go to expand the map. And Vudra sounds ripe for a more complete coverage as a sub-setting. And then you can get further afield and cover Arcadia, and maybe go back to Tien, there's a lot there to look at too.


. . . And in later years, you can go back to Golarion, in the far future, after it has been moved. In Starfinder time, Golarion is cut off from all (or almost all) of its old deities, marooned in some weird dimension where nobody can seem to find what happened to the rest of the universe or even to Golarion's old solar system, and now in orbit around some angry orange bloated dying star that is slowly roasting its water away, and crushed under the heels of psionic tyrants . . . .

Paizo Employee

3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like there are enough unresolved plots on Golarion that abandoning the setting for a new one would be disappointing. A lot of the setting material in 1st edition was setting the stage for that stuff, so when they finally decide to do, say, an AP that gets to the bottom of what sinister forces are driving Galt's endless revolution, it won't take too long to catch people up.

Like, the time to do a new setting is when you've run out of stories you want to tell in the old one. I'm reasonably confident Paizo has not.

For those who've been around long enough to follow the industry, new settings are also often very bad for a game or company as they can lead to splitting the fan base. TSR about put themselves out of business by over-producing campaign settings, D&D 3.x mostly drilled down to Forgotten Realms (with Greyhawk tenuously existing as the base setting and the organized play world) until they added Eberron to boost interest with a more modern and steampunk-adjacent setting. 4E pretty much dropped Greyhawk entirely in favor of making the Forgotten Realms the base setting and org play setting, though they did start pushing out revivals like Dark Sun later into the game's lifespan to see if they couldn't revive the franchise.

There's probably a lot of benefit to a setting like Golarion for a company like Paizo; instead of needing to release books for Ravenloft, books for Dark Sun, Forgotten Realms, Eberron, etc. they can just release books for the part of their world that matches up thematically. If they want horror-themed stuff they can do Ustalav, if they want techno-fantasy in a predominantly fantasy environment they can do a book for Numeria, so on and so forth. That way the fans who like the game for the horror aspects and the fans who like steampunky freedom fighters can all still sit down and play the same together, and books that are of interest to one should also have some interest for the other, which is particularly relevant for organized play. There's a lot of value in supporting a broad base setting over a larger number of niche settings.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Jeven wrote:
Since Paizo probably haven't written the new campaign setting, perhaps they might consider incorporating a few AP-failures, to create some really unexpected changes.

Or just have a few more evil adventure paths this time around. The success of an evil adventure path should be comparable in its effects to the failure of a more standard one.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Man, I hope there aren't any more "evil" APs (Hell's Vengeance was just unpleasant) but more APs where it's just as valid to be evil as anything else (Strange Aeons, Skull and Shackles, and Reign of Winter come to mind) would be fine.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Jeven wrote:


Since Paizo probably haven't written the new campaign setting, perhaps they might consider incorporating a few AP-failures, to create some really unexpected changes.

You might be surprised on multiple fronts here.

More specifically, and without making any particular claims, while its unlikely we'd assume many significant failures on the part of the PCs (I probably wouldn't take it too well if Karzoug somehow won despite the heroic and ingenious efforts of my party, for example) there's a lot of ways the world can be changed by a party who successfully completes an AP but misses a few notes along the way.

There's a few things we've already announced, like the fact that the Worldwound was successfully closed during Wrath of the Righteous, but there's a whole lot still to be discovered, and even areas you think you know really well might have changed in unexpected ways. For example, there are a pretty ridiculous number of aged rulers at the end of their lifespans, and I wouldn't expect all of them to survive when we update the setting with the last decade's worth of information.

Even if we went with a "The PCs always win every AP" approach, there would still be areas where an interesting interpretation of that could open up all kinds of possibilities. If you've played through War for the Crown, go check page 67 of The Six-Legend Soul. There's at least three distinct paths the story could take even on a "perfect" completion, all of which could have cascading effects.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like there are enough unresolved plots on Golarion that abandoning the setting for a new one would be disappointing. A lot of the setting material in 1st edition was setting the stage for that stuff, so when they finally decide to do, say, an AP that gets to the bottom of what sinister forces are driving Galt's endless revolution, it won't take too long to catch people up.

Like, the time to do a new setting is when you've run out of stories you want to tell in the old one. I'm reasonably confident Paizo has not.

For those who've been around long enough to follow the industry, new settings are also often very bad for a game or company as they can lead to splitting the fan base. TSR about put themselves out of business by over-producing campaign settings, D&D 3.x mostly drilled down to Forgotten Realms (with Greyhawk tenuously existing as the base setting and the organized play world) until they added Eberron to boost interest with a more modern and steampunk-adjacent setting. 4E pretty much dropped Greyhawk entirely in favor of making the Forgotten Realms the base setting and org play setting, though they did start pushing out revivals like Dark Sun later into the game's lifespan to see if they couldn't revive the franchise.

There's probably a lot of benefit to a setting like Golarion for a company like Paizo; instead of needing to release books for Ravenloft, books for Dark Sun, Forgotten Realms, Eberron, etc. they can just release books for the part of their world that matches up thematically. If they want horror-themed stuff they can do Ustalav, if they want techno-fantasy in a predominantly fantasy environment they can do a book for Numeria, so on and so forth. That way the fans who like the game for the horror aspects and the fans who like steampunky freedom fighters can all still sit down and play the same together, and books that are of interest to one should also have some interest for the other, which is particularly relevant for organized play....

I agree in part. By that I mean in the way past mid 80's through mid 90's (often) the setting core set was good but the expansion material suffered. But also some niche settings as you have stated do not have the breadth to survive long on their own. Yes they are fun for a side trip of fun but often they do not have the depth necessary to play continually every week for 2 years. I do agree that there are exceptions to the last statement but if you try and look at data from how people play the game vs a segment (home games in San Diego, Con game, etc) you get an entirely different picture of what people want from their material.

For my self (in the 80's and early 90's) I can say that often we would shift to other game settings (dark Sun, Raven Loft, CoC w D&D, or other games) before going back to a home setting.
Why? well it was more like picking up a new book series (example Dark Sun campaign setting) and then going back to an ongoing book series (going back to Forgotten Realms) a more traditional setting.

I am trying not to throw stones but the thought that Dark Sun setting would save a system in early to mid 2000's should be a red flag on someones decision process. The gamer population of the time, or now just does not enjoy this type of setting for a long term game (again over all and not taking in small pockets of support).

MDC


Michael Sayre wrote:
Jeven wrote:


Since Paizo probably haven't written the new campaign setting, perhaps they might consider incorporating a few AP-failures, to create some really unexpected changes.

You might be surprised on multiple fronts here.

More specifically, and without making any particular claims, while its unlikely we'd assume many significant failures on the part of the PCs (I probably wouldn't take it too well if Karzoug somehow won despite the heroic and ingenious efforts of my party, for example) there's a lot of ways the world can be changed by a party who successfully completes an AP but misses a few notes along the way.

There's a few things we've already announced, like the fact that the Worldwound was successfully closed during Wrath of the Righteous, but there's a whole lot still to be discovered, and even areas you think you know really well might have changed in unexpected ways. For example, there are a pretty ridiculous number of aged rulers at the end of their lifespans, and I wouldn't expect all of them to survive when we update the setting with the last decade's worth of information.

Even if we went with a "The PCs always win every AP" approach, there would still be areas where an interesting interpretation of that could open up all kinds of possibilities. If you've played through War for the Crown, go check page 67 of The Six-Legend Soul. There's at least three distinct paths the story could take even on a "perfect" completion, all of which could have cascading effects.

One thing I have heard quite a few people talk about is if (somehow) Paizo could include in some way the results of an AP in the one going world.

For Example:
One AP would be chosen and org play and home groups would have a specific time frame to submit their results and have that info affect the world going forward.
Time Frame? Well I do not know how long it takes a standard org group or home group to complete a AP but if it could be done in a year and a half then a half year to work the change into the setting.
Then at the time the official change is introduced the next "change" AP is introduced.

Why? Well it provides some forward motion to the setting over all.

MDC


I feel like it's possible (and desirable) to have goings on in the world (even bad ones) that don't have anything to do with stuff people have done during APs. I don't know if there's really anything to be gained from "Irrisen needs a new ruler since the PCs killed the last one" that we don't get from "Taldor needs a new ruler because Paizo killed the last one."

But I'd prefer "the events of an same-edition AP are taken into account of a future AP" to be restricted to ones that are direct sequels to other APs, since we sometimes play these things significantly after they are released.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Assuming that the PCs won all the APs seems reasonable to me, and actually results in fairly minimal setting changes (several regions have new rulers, and the Worldwound is closed...that's most of it, the other APs involve stopping things happening). For those with 'multiple ending' type stuff (like who winds up ruling Korvosa in CotCT, or Irrisen in ROW), they'll probably go with whichever ending seems most likely, but play it lightly enough that individual GMs can change things relatively easily.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
But I'd prefer "the events of an same-edition AP are taken into account of a future AP" to be restricted to ones that are direct sequels to other APs, since we sometimes play these things significantly after they are released.

I imagine this is what they'll do in PF2 just as they did in PF1. The only change is that the PF1 APs will be made canonical for PF2, which seems reasonable enough (I mean, they're not gonna be played all that much in PF2).


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Assuming that the PCs won all the APs seems reasonable to me, and actually results in fairly minimal setting changes (several regions have new rulers, and the Worldwound is closed...that's most of it, the other APs involve stopping things happening). For those with 'multiple ending' type stuff (like who winds up ruling Korvosa in CotCT, or Irrisen in ROW), they'll probably go with whichever ending seems most likely, but play it lightly enough that individual GMs can change things relatively easily.

Yeah a lot of them are just "The world didn't blow up." Kingmaker is going to be a tricky one. They're not going to be able to touch that region of the Riverlands other than say "A new kingdom showed up in what was called the Stolen Lands." The type of kingdom, the rulers etc are all unknown. Alternately they can rule that the new kingdom has failed and been replaced by something, but that's kind of unsatisfying for anyone who ran that. The Worldwound can also be a bit tricky. Sure it's still a blasted waste with demons running loose, but there is the fact of the PCs being Level 20 Mythic 10, living legends, who are likely in control of an outpost with some demon-protection. I wouldn't underestimate the ability for these 20/10 badasses to pacify a good deal of land. And again, the makeup of the heroes of Drezen is going to be something that can't really be touched.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

I’m pretty sure I read somewhere that they’ll be explicitly assuming all APs have happened (and been “won”). I don’t have a link though, but I seem to remember some discussion about needing to fill in some little gaps (of the “who rules Korvosa?” variety) that will inevitably clash with many homegames’ canon.


Michael Sayre wrote:
Doomsday Dawn actually starts before Rise of the Runelords and ends approximately now-ish in Golarion's timeline, which mirrors real-world time in its progression (one year real world generally equates to one year's passage of time in Golarion). The new campaign will pick up basically right where the current one ends, incorporating the last decade's worth of adventure paths and Pathfinder Society scenarios into the current state of things. There's going to be relatively little that happens "off screen", though there are probably a few transitive states that will need to be resolved (we have a lot of 90-year-old humans who've been 90 for long enough they probably shouldn't still be around when the new campaign kicks off).

Generally equates, but because AD 2016 was a leap year, while 4716 AR wasn't, we're technically a day behind. Really, this just means that on this past Monday, the year numbers were actually 2701 off, not 2700.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Yeah a lot of them are just "The world didn't blow up." Kingmaker is going to be a tricky one. They're not going to be able to touch that region of the Riverlands other than say "A new kingdom showed up in what was called the Stolen Lands." The type of kingdom, the rulers etc are all unknown. Alternately they can rule that the new kingdom has failed and been replaced by something, but that's kind of unsatisfying for anyone who ran that.

The River Kingdoms have always been about half 'INSERT GM MADE KINGDOM HERE' adding a small additional region of that doesn't strike me as overly disruptive.

Doktor Weasel wrote:
The Worldwound can also be a bit tricky. Sure it's still a blasted waste with demons running loose, but there is the fact of the PCs being Level 20 Mythic 10, living legends, who are likely in control of an outpost with some demon-protection. I wouldn't underestimate the ability for these 20/10 badasses to pacify a good deal of land. And again, the makeup of the heroes of Drezen is going to be something that can't really be touched.

The official setting pretty much has to go with the 'The Heroes of Drezen vanished shortly after their victory, divinations indicate to go fight greater threats on planes other than this one.' or something like that. Less because PC groups will be different from each other, and more because a 20th level/10th Tier PC can just casually kill most of the setting's villains (and all their bodyguards) personally with something like an afternoon's work (Abrogail Thrune and Razimir are both almost certainly dead if you still have those folks around, for example), disrupting the setting beyond it's ability to recover. Really, of the Evil nations, only Geb and maybe Nidal with the direct intervention of Zon-Kuthon (which seems like the only possible direct divine intervention likely to occur) can still be functionally the same even a year or two after the WotR PCs start trying to fix things.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
For those with 'multiple ending' type stuff (like who winds up ruling Korvosa in CotCT, or Irrisen in ROW), they'll probably go with whichever ending seems most likely, but play it lightly enough that individual GMs can change things relatively easily.

I figure that you can just throw in a sidebar in the introductory chapter of the AP like "If you played Skull and Shackles with your group, and someone else ended up as the Hurricane King or Queen, feel free to replace [whoever] with that character."


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Yeah a lot of them are just "The world didn't blow up." Kingmaker is going to be a tricky one. They're not going to be able to touch that region of the Riverlands other than say "A new kingdom showed up in what was called the Stolen Lands." The type of kingdom, the rulers etc are all unknown. Alternately they can rule that the new kingdom has failed and been replaced by something, but that's kind of unsatisfying for anyone who ran that.

The River Kingdoms have always been about half 'INSERT GM MADE KINGDOM HERE' adding a small additional region of that doesn't strike me as overly disruptive.

Doktor Weasel wrote:
The Worldwound can also be a bit tricky. Sure it's still a blasted waste with demons running loose, but there is the fact of the PCs being Level 20 Mythic 10, living legends, who are likely in control of an outpost with some demon-protection. I wouldn't underestimate the ability for these 20/10 badasses to pacify a good deal of land. And again, the makeup of the heroes of Drezen is going to be something that can't really be touched.
The official setting pretty much has to go with the 'The Heroes of Drezen vanished shortly after their victory, divinations indicate to go fight greater threats on planes other than this one.' or something like that. Less because PC groups will be different from each other, and more because a 20th level/10th Tier PC can just casually kill most of the setting's villains (and all their bodyguards) personally with something like an afternoon's work (Abrogail Thrune and Razimir are both almost certainly dead if you still have those folks around, for example), disrupting the setting beyond it's ability to recover. Really, of the Evil nations, only Geb and maybe Nidal with the direct intervention of Zon-Kuthon (which seems like the only possible direct divine intervention likely to occur) can still be functionally the same even a year or two after the WotR PCs start trying to fix things.

Yeah, the disruptive power is pretty huge. Since my group's main continuity is being defined by our WotR campaign, we've had to come up with ways to keep that from happening. The solution we've settled upon is that after a certain amount of Mythic Tiers, a character is locked to a particular region and can only use their mythic power there. There's also a limit to just how much in the way of mythic shenanigans you can do before you basically have to ascend to demi-godhood and be bound by the non-interference rules of other gods. Because yeah, with that level of power, it becomes trivial to go out and destroy the setting by whacking almost every big-bad around.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Man, I hope there aren't any more "evil" APs (Hell's Vengeance was just unpleasant) but more APs where it's just as valid to be evil as anything else (Strange Aeons, Skull and Shackles, and Reign of Winter come to mind) would be fine.

Alternatively, we could have an AP where the goals of the PCs are contrary to what most of the world wants, even if they are not explicitly evil. For example, Hell's Vengeance would have had to be designed very differently if it dropped the assumption of the PCs being evil, but the overall "successful" outcome of House Thrune remaining in power could be retained. In this case, the secondary goal of the PCs would be to defend Cheliax well enough that House Thrune does not resort to the evil tactics they used in the actual adventure path.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Yeah, the disruptive power is pretty huge. Since my group's main continuity is being defined by our WotR campaign, we've had to come up with ways to keep that from happening. The solution we've settled upon is that after a certain amount of Mythic Tiers, a character is locked to a particular region and can only use their mythic power there. There's also a limit to just how much in the way of mythic shenanigans you can do before you basically have to ascend to demi-godhood and be bound by the non-interference rules of other gods. Because yeah, with that level of power, it becomes trivial to go out and destroy the setting by whacking almost every big-bad around.

This is a great solution in a home game, but directly contrary to some explicit world lore, and thus cannot be used by Paizo, sadly. Baba Yaga rather explicitly is Mythic everywhere and has carefully avoided becoming a deity to avoid getting hit with noninterference restrictions, just for example.

So yeah, the PCs from WotR need to no longer be in the picture.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

4 people marked this as a favorite.

The APs also aren't the only venues of lore moving forward. The novels, modules, and Pathfinder Society scenarios are also all canon and have moved the story forward in various ways. I would expect, for example, that since the society freed Ranginori, the good elemental lord of air, that he'll be free in the new canon and that will have cascading effects on the other elemental lords since they're now out of balance. Similarly, the Assault on Absalom special involved a significant number of things happening in Absalom, like the manumission of every slave who joined the fight to defend the city, so I'd expect a lot of things that used to be true about Absalom to have changed for the new edition thanks to a decade of growth and adventurers running around.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Our WotR PCs (as well as the PCs from our other parties since all our APs take place in a continuous timeline) are handled in a couple of ways:

1. The Worldwound might be closed, but there are still a lot of demons running around and reclamation work to do, which will take up their time for the foreseeable future. (Other parties, likewise, are busy doing other stuff.)

2. Even with magical assistance, you can't actually be everywhere at once, and even mythic PCs might not hear about the latest New Bad thing that's going on in a different country, in addition to having other things to do.

3. The general principle that intervening in a foreign land to take out their ruler, rearrange their society, etc. often causes more problems than it solves, even if the intentions are theoretically benevolent. Take Cheliax. Mythic PCs COULD overthrow Thrune...and then what? Presumably they have other things to do besides make sure Cheliax doesn't slip into civil war again. They could install someone they like better, but that comes with its own issues. The infernal allies of Thrune will no doubt be displeased, which could also turn bloody. Unless the mythic PCs are just going to straight-up take over Cheliax (and world conquest doesn't seem like something good-aligned characters should be interested in), someone else will have to step in at some point, but if Mythic Party's done all the work, there might not be anyone else capable of doing so.

Anyway, that's my rationale for "why doesn't X party solve this problem?" It is a little hand-wavy in some regards, but it works for us.


It's probably for the best if the WotR group is just off plane or off planet doing something really important.

For most AP-finishing groups "can't be bothered" is a reasonable justification for why they don't solve all the rest of the problems but level 20/mythic 10 characters are nigh-on gods without intervention restrictions. At the end of that AP you have 4+ people on each par with Baba Yaga running around.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like it's possible (and desirable) to have goings on in the world (even bad ones) that don't have anything to do with stuff people have done during APs. I don't know if there's really anything to be gained from "Irrisen needs a new ruler since the PCs killed the last one" that we don't get from "Taldor needs a new ruler because Paizo killed the last one."

But I'd prefer "the events of an same-edition AP are taken into account of a future AP" to be restricted to ones that are direct sequels to other APs, since we sometimes play these things significantly after they are released.

World Going On Around the PC's:

Yes things should go on around the PC's that they do not touch or interact with.
This provides ideas for the GM to run other home adventures or other paid adventures.

Linked AP's:
I can say yes here also as it makes sense to do that.

Fan "I Have Skin in the Game" Idea:
Generally if your fans have "skin in the game" they feel more excited and involved in the setting and system.
The problem that I did not mention before are Trolls and Sunshine Trolls who can skew actual data.

Play "These Things Significantly After Release":
Can you expand on this a bit? Because I think I know what you are saying but I do not want to try and read your mind.
Also with any decision you often limit somethings while expanding on others. So you have to always weigh what there is to gain vs what there is to lose.

MDC


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Yeah, the disruptive power is pretty huge. Since my group's main continuity is being defined by our WotR campaign, we've had to come up with ways to keep that from happening. The solution we've settled upon is that after a certain amount of Mythic Tiers, a character is locked to a particular region and can only use their mythic power there. There's also a limit to just how much in the way of mythic shenanigans you can do before you basically have to ascend to demi-godhood and be bound by the non-interference rules of other gods. Because yeah, with that level of power, it becomes trivial to go out and destroy the setting by whacking almost every big-bad around.

This is a great solution in a home game, but directly contrary to some explicit world lore, and thus cannot be used by Paizo, sadly. Baba Yaga rather explicitly is Mythic everywhere and has carefully avoided becoming a deity to avoid getting hit with noninterference restrictions, just for example.

So yeah, the PCs from WotR need to no longer be in the picture.

smile

Is not Baba Yaga mother-interfearing or interfearance?
end smile
MDC


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Michael Sayre wrote:
The APs also aren't the only venues of lore moving forward. The novels, modules, and Pathfinder Society scenarios are also all canon and have moved the story forward in various ways. I would expect, for example, that since the society freed Ranginori, the good elemental lord of air, that he'll be free in the new canon and that will have cascading effects on the other elemental lords since they're now out of balance. Similarly, the Assault on Absalom special involved a significant number of things happening in Absalom, like the manumission of every slave who joined the fight to defend the city, so I'd expect a lot of things that used to be true about Absalom to have changed for the new edition thanks to a decade of growth and adventurers running around.

This does sound good.

But I also know of some GM's who have bought (they has told me and others but I do not know which) adventures that were not constructed to the high standards I would expect from Piazo.
It is those adventures that have reminded us of issues some of us experienced back in the late 80's and 90's with AD&D.
So a lot of us hope that with any changes to PF also tighten up on the story side of some of the adventures also.
Example of Issues I have be told of or seen:
Note: I know adventure writing is hard work and is often not compensated as it should be.
Secret Hidden Tunnel to get into castle: Party finds only person in village that has info.
Getting Past Army to other location: Multiple instances of sneaking past groups using various contrived means.
Ignoring Environmental effects of Sound Travelling: many
Contrived explanations for various things: ie everyone loves a circus so dress up as entertainers to get by obstacle X is a classic.
Treating Encounters like a play or book: This is a tough one to explain as encounter's and chapters in book or scenes in play share some things in common. But players do not often exactly follow the paths that the author sets out for them like they would in a play, movie, book or TV show. Example in each of those last things actors or characters are supposed to be in X place at Y time to interact or not interact with person, place or things Z. So all actions are defined and supposed to run like a program would run on a computer.

MDC

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Meraki wrote:

Our WotR PCs (as well as the PCs from our other parties since all our APs take place in a continuous timeline) are handled in a couple of ways:

1. The Worldwound might be closed, but there are still a lot of demons running around and reclamation work to do, which will take up their time for the foreseeable future. (Other parties, likewise, are busy doing other stuff.)

This is true of other parties, yes. It is not true of the party from WotR. They are Mythic Tier 10. That's the equivalent, officially of CR 25. Unofficially, as compared to non-mythic things, it works out to more like CR 30. They can probably effect things on a country wide scale with individual spells.

Fighting demons in the Worldwound post-shutdown is not a meaningful activity for such characters, it's pest control. The equivalent of a 20th level character killing goblins or owlbears. It is neither an efficient use of their time unless using stuff to kill hundreds of them at a time, and if doing that it takes very little time to do.

Reclaiming the land is slightly more effort intensive...but only slightly. We're talking full on godly powers here. If there's a Wizard or Cleric in the group they can probably rebuild a city in a week. It's just not a time intensive project for them. Sure, they might spend a couple of months on this...but it's been years since the Worldwound closed by the time PF2 rolls around.

Meraki wrote:
2. Even with magical assistance, you can't actually be everywhere at once, and even mythic PCs might not hear about the latest New Bad thing that's going on in a different country, in addition to having other things to do.

Sure. That explains them not actively interfering with APs featuring new threats. It doesn't explain why well-known Evil rulers still have countries.

Meraki wrote:
3. The general principle that intervening in a foreign land to take out their ruler, rearrange their society, etc. often causes more problems than it solves, even if the intentions are theoretically benevolent. Take Cheliax. Mythic PCs COULD overthrow Thrune...and then what? Presumably they have other things to do besides make sure Cheliax doesn't slip into civil war again. They could install someone they like better, but that comes with its own issues. The infernal allies of Thrune will no doubt be displeased, which could also turn bloody. Unless the mythic PCs are just going to straight-up take over Cheliax (and world conquest doesn't seem like something good-aligned characters should be interested in), someone else will have to step in at some point, but if Mythic Party's done all the work, there might not be anyone else capable of doing so.

Okay, first, I never said that this would turn out well, I said they could do it...and that being PCs (well, former PCs anyway) they probably would. Them killing Abrogail Thrune changes the setting just as much whether the result is Utopia or civil war.

And actually, for a Paladin of Iomedae (perhaps the single most likely WotR PC), while world conquest is counterindicated, conquering Cheliax and taking it away from Hell is debatably a divine imperative.

Also, with Diplomacy and Intimidate both in the +50s (a perfectly reasonable option for such characters) you can pretty easily conquer a government set up a replacement government, get people on side one way or another, and then leave to do this elsewhere. You can also casually set up means of communication for them to call you in to teleport back and spot-solve particular problems (and you can, using 9th level mythic spells, solve most problems in a few hours at most). You can probably do this once every couple of months, and can certainly do it at least once a year. And, again, it's been several years since the close of the Worldwound.

Meraki wrote:
Anyway, that's my rationale for "why doesn't X party solve this problem?" It is a little hand-wavy in some regards, but it works for us.

I really don't think that rationale works to provide a legitimately consistent setting. If you're all on board with suspending disbelief it can work for one specific group, but it fails my own standards by violating my suspension of disbelief...and many people have way higher standards in that regard than I.

Liberty's Edge

Hold on, I'm confused....

I get the idea that the Planet is a "living thing" but I didn't think it qualified under "Targets one living creature touched per three levels" from the Target Description.

I do suppose most PCs would be considered Adjacent to the ground at any given moment but...


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Meraki wrote:

Our WotR PCs (as well as the PCs from our other parties since all our APs take place in a continuous timeline) are handled in a couple of ways:

1. The Worldwound might be closed, but there are still a lot of demons running around and reclamation work to do, which will take up their time for the foreseeable future. (Other parties, likewise, are busy doing other stuff.)

This is true of other parties, yes. It is not true of the party from WotR. They are Mythic Tier 10. That's the equivalent, officially of CR 25. Unofficially, as compared to non-mythic things, it works out to more like CR 30. They can probably effect things on a country wide scale with individual spells.

{. . .}

This and other things posted above sound like excellent arguments for running Wrath of the Righteous as non-Mythic. This has been noted elsewhere as being a good idea for the sake of running that AP itself . . . .


UnArcaneElection wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Meraki wrote:

Our WotR PCs (as well as the PCs from our other parties since all our APs take place in a continuous timeline) are handled in a couple of ways:

1. The Worldwound might be closed, but there are still a lot of demons running around and reclamation work to do, which will take up their time for the foreseeable future. (Other parties, likewise, are busy doing other stuff.)

This is true of other parties, yes. It is not true of the party from WotR. They are Mythic Tier 10. That's the equivalent, officially of CR 25. Unofficially, as compared to non-mythic things, it works out to more like CR 30. They can probably effect things on a country wide scale with individual spells.

{. . .}

This and other things posted above sound like excellent arguments for running Wrath of the Righteous as non-Mythic. This has been noted elsewhere as being a good idea for the sake of running that AP itself . . . .

I fully enjoyed the AP. My character from that is one of my favorites I've run. And the mythic shenanigans were cool. But yeah, it can get out of control very quickly. And I don't think they fully understood the power of mythic when that AP was written. Things like Beyond Morality became universal across our group, and stops a lot of nasty effects cold. Giving that to any of the enemies would completely counter the paladin's Smite Evil ability on them as well. A lot of other mythic abilities are pretty crazy. Getting Foe Biter on a Legendary weapon (along with other tricks) resulted in our bow wielding paladin of Erasil killing off a massive Mythic Linorm by himself in one round. I think that was around 1000 points of damage. Not all mythic characters are total killing machines, but they do have some serious power. It was our two archers (the Paladin and a kasatha bow-nomad ranger, paladin was the artillery while the ranger was the machine-gun) who were taking all the spotlight. But the ability to pop off extra spells for the spellcasters was also quite a boost.

So yeah, running it non-mythic isn't a terrible idea. It really depends on if you want to go absolutely over-the-top or not. I certainly don't regret having played it with full mythic. And it could be a nice change of pace to do if everyone is down for that.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Usually when there's new editions, particularly when it comes to flavor and setting stuff, publishers assiduously avoid printing the exact same books again

At the start, yes. But sooner or later they go back to that well and republish the overarching setting book. After all, we got the Pathfinder Chronicles: Campaign Setting book when Golarion was a 3.5e setting. By your logic we would never have gotten Inner Sea World Guide, except of course we did. Just as Pathfinder 2nd edition will eventually get a campaign setting book with a new name. Paizo might not intend to publish it at this time, but history tells us that sooner or later they will.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
John Lynch 106 wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Usually when there's new editions, particularly when it comes to flavor and setting stuff, publishers assiduously avoid printing the exact same books again
At the start, yes. But sooner or later they go back to that well and republish the overarching setting book. After all, we got the Pathfinder Chronicles: Campaign Setting book when Golarion was a 3.5e setting. By your logic we would never have gotten Inner Sea World Guide, except of course we did. Just as Pathfinder 2nd edition will eventually get a campaign setting book with a new name. Paizo might not intend to publish it at this time, but history tells us that sooner or later they will.

It's been 4 years of D&D 5e and apart from a thin book about Sword Coast, the game didn't get a Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting book, despite the fact that every previous edition of the game did.

Alas, history is sometimes a crap teacher.


Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

Play "These Things Significantly After Release":

Can you expand on this a bit? Because I think I know what you are saying but I do not want to try and read your mind.

I mean like, we probably never would have considered playing Shattered Star if Return of the Runelords wasn't a sequel to it. But since it is, we'll probably get to it before starting Return of the Runelords. If something comes out that is really exciting it will jump to the front of the queue but if a lot of subsequent APs were based on "what happened in Serpent's Skull or Jade Regent" I would be at a loss since I've never played those.

We did do council of thieves in 2017 because we thought it might tie into Hell's Rebels, though.


Themetricsystem wrote:

Hold on, I'm confused....

I get the idea that the Planet is a "living thing" but I didn't think it qualified under "Targets one living creature touched per three levels" from the Target Description.

I do suppose most PCs would be considered Adjacent to the ground at any given moment but...

I remember this from back in the 80's and various games and how rules were written and not thought of when interacting with descriptive or narrative text.

MDC


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

Play "These Things Significantly After Release":

Can you expand on this a bit? Because I think I know what you are saying but I do not want to try and read your mind.

I mean like, we probably never would have considered playing Shattered Star if Return of the Runelords wasn't a sequel to it. But since it is, we'll probably get to it before starting Return of the Runelords. If something comes out that is really exciting it will jump to the front of the queue but if a lot of subsequent APs were based on "what happened in Serpent's Skull or Jade Regent" I would be at a loss since I've never played those.

We did do council of thieves in 2017 because we thought it might tie into Hell's Rebels, though.

Thanks, I understand now what you are saying.

Yes that is or can be an issue with living settings and is something that has to be managed on the dev end.
Like I said I could see 1 AP being "living" over 1 1/2 years and then a 1/2 a year to work those changes into the world and AP's and modules after that taking that new info into account.
You can also change the time frame from 1 1/2 + 1/2 years to 2 1/2 + 1/2 years to provide more of a window for play.

The main idea is "how to get more people groups involved in the settings and keep them involved?". Will the living setting idea work? In the past (I think it was called the living city project or soemthing back in the 90's) I think it was tried but the things you need were not in place (the internet). And I seem to remember that there was comments about organization of "how things were done" that some people thought were troublesome.

MDC


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
John Lynch 106 wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Usually when there's new editions, particularly when it comes to flavor and setting stuff, publishers assiduously avoid printing the exact same books again
At the start, yes. But sooner or later they go back to that well and republish the overarching setting book. After all, we got the Pathfinder Chronicles: Campaign Setting book when Golarion was a 3.5e setting. By your logic we would never have gotten Inner Sea World Guide, except of course we did. Just as Pathfinder 2nd edition will eventually get a campaign setting book with a new name. Paizo might not intend to publish it at this time, but history tells us that sooner or later they will.

I think that series of ever-revised campaign setting books was an artefact of them solving a different problem (the campaign book evolution didn't start with the Campaign Setting, the Gazetteer was first - also for 3.5, so it wasn't solely motivated by edition changes). Back then, Paizo didn't have the capital (I believe staff hours was the main limitation) to do a full on campaign book right from the get go but realised it was pretty necessary to sketch out where their new AP line was happening. To achieve that, they released a small one, then a larger one and then the ISWG.

I think they will almost certainly release a new campaign book (there are a number of canonical changes in the PF1->PF2 shift - rulers being replaced in particular, but additionally stuff like the worldwound closing and who-knows-what happening to Absalom in the final AP is going to make the ISWG noticeably out-of-date.

My guess would be they'll follow their trend of reprinting but also expanding - so I hope it will be a worldguide and include an updated Inner Sea plus bring in some of the other regions which have been fleshed out since ISWG was released.


Normally when a book sells out, they will update it with errata. I wonder if something similar might happen when the ISWG sells out, except instead of "rules errata" it's "stuff that has changed since the last one.

Alternatively we could do a "book of what's changed" or "a book of what's changed plus an ISWG style treatment of some points of interest outside of the Inner Sea region."

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Michael Sayre wrote:
The APs also aren't the only venues of lore moving forward. The novels, modules, and Pathfinder Society scenarios are also all canon and have moved the story forward in various ways. I would expect, for example, that since the society freed Ranginori, the good elemental lord of air, that he'll be free in the new canon and that will have cascading effects on the other elemental lords since they're now out of balance. Similarly, the Assault on Absalom special involved a significant number of things happening in Absalom, like the manumission of every slave who joined the fight to defend the city, so I'd expect a lot of things that used to be true about Absalom to have changed for the new edition thanks to a decade of growth and adventurers running around.

Where does that leave folks like me who missed the boat on Pathfinder Society scenarios? I'm trying to come up with a comprehensive headcanon of the entire setting using my own PCs and now I can't play PFS scenarios without using the Iconics or trying to convince people to play with me through them for no PFS credit, which I imagine most would view as a waste of time. I feel like a section of the canon's now closed off to me short of writing Pathfinder fanfiction, and that feels like cheating since I didn't actually PLAY through the scenarios.


Mark Carlson 255 wrote:
The main idea is "how to get more people groups involved in the settings and keep them involved?". Will the living setting idea work? In the past (I think it was called the living city project or soemthing back in the 90's) I think it was tried but the things you need were not in place (the internet). And I seem to remember that there was comments about organization of "how things were done" that some people thought were troublesome.

Living City was an RPGA organized play system for AD&D based around the city of Raven's Bluff in the Forgotten Realms. It was pretty much exclusively run as events at things like conventions and tournaments, so the communication issues weren't as bad as you imply.

Living City also ran for about 15 years, so I think it qualifies for a bit more than just "tried".

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
Michael Sayre wrote:
The APs also aren't the only venues of lore moving forward. The novels, modules, and Pathfinder Society scenarios are also all canon and have moved the story forward in various ways. I would expect, for example, that since the society freed Ranginori, the good elemental lord of air, that he'll be free in the new canon and that will have cascading effects on the other elemental lords since they're now out of balance. Similarly, the Assault on Absalom special involved a significant number of things happening in Absalom, like the manumission of every slave who joined the fight to defend the city, so I'd expect a lot of things that used to be true about Absalom to have changed for the new edition thanks to a decade of growth and adventurers running around.
Where does that leave folks like me who missed the boat on Pathfinder Society scenarios? I'm trying to come up with a comprehensive headcanon of the entire setting using my own PCs and now I can't play PFS scenarios without using the Iconics or trying to convince people to play with me through them for no PFS credit, which I imagine most would view as a waste of time. I feel like a section of the canon's now closed off to me short of writing Pathfinder fanfiction, and that feels like cheating since I didn't actually PLAY through the scenarios.

You can just buy the PFS scenarios and read them.

Oh, except those which you can't buy without having enough GM stars. Welp, I guess, it's time to accept the mind-shattering reality that your headcanon will never be complete.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:

You can just buy the PFS scenarios and read them.

Oh, except those which you can't buy without having enough GM stars. Welp, I guess, it's time to accept the mind-shattering reality that your headcanon will never be complete.

That...that's intensely upsetting. Playing in a Campaign Setting is like coloring in a coloring book. Without a solid understanding of the lines (the canon), I run the risk of coloring outside the lines, resulting in the final picture (the narrative crafted through play) being sloppy and amateurish.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, "no one person understands everything about the setting" is a good reason to talk to people who might have different gaps in their understanding so you can answer their questions and they can answer yours.

Also, gaps in your knowledge that are unrelated to the specific game you're running are fine. If I'm going to run a game about Taldane duelists, I should read about Taldor and the Aldori as much as I can. Whatever I don't know about Iobara, the Negative Energy Plane, Arcadia, and Geb is unlikely to come up in that story.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

You can just buy the PFS scenarios and read them.

Oh, except those which you can't buy without having enough GM stars. Welp, I guess, it's time to accept the mind-shattering reality that your headcanon will never be complete.

That...that's intensely upsetting. Playing in a Campaign Setting is like coloring in a coloring book. Without a solid understanding of the lines (the canon), I run the risk of coloring outside the lines, resulting in the final picture (the narrative crafted through play) being sloppy and amateurish.

What if the canon is sloppy and amateurish? And what if the canon contradicts itself? Because it's been both on occasions.

You need to knock yourself out of your self-imposed expectations (unless it's somebody else demanding you follow the canon 120%, in which case you should tell them to knock it off). Also, you need some serious boost of self-confidence and realization that your own stories and ideas can fill the blanks in canon just as well as Paizo authors would do. I believe that James already explained that to you in his thread - canon is out there for you to use and interpret it creatively, not to follow it slavishly to a letter while shaking in fear that there might be out there a bit of setting info which you missed.

James Jacobs won't barge through your door and pulverize you for altering Golarion or for not following Paizo's books to the letter. No, seriously, he won't.

51 to 100 of 116 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Status of Golarion in New Edition? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.