| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hi, hello, and how are you! Wherever you are, and whatever you’re up to, I do hope you’re having a nice day.
In the second edition of Pathfinder, it’s heavily implied that the protagonists are expected to become greater and more powerful heroes (or villains!) as they progress in their story: I don’t think anyone will object to that. At the highest levels, some might disappear in plain sight, decode terminology in a way that no language is a barrier to you, literally scare someone to death, and etc.
To contextualize everyone on the discussion, my first experience with this edition was playing Age of Ashes. I played it with a Wizard, it was great fun, etc. But I remember taking particular notice at how the GM tended to describe things. At the first levels, no heads were chopped, no eyes were hit by an arrow. In fact, a critical hit by our determined fighter translated to him “merely” piercing an enemy’s stomach with his greatsword. Any time my mousey wizard casted spells, she would awkwardly rip off a page off her grimoire and throw in the air as she recited the spell, only for an arcane symbol on the page to shine bright and for the spell to be casted from there.
Yet, as we leveled up, things changed. I think it was around level ten more or less that things started to get more fantastical. Suddenly, our fighter would leap against a big enemy, and his might was such that the floor below him would crumble. When my wizard casted Chain Lightning for the first time, an arcane circle made of electricity formed in front of her as she recited her verbal components, the light around it dimming momentarily as sparks flew around the room: The lightning discharging from the arcane circle itself with a thunderous noise, dissolving it as well as it shot towards my targets.
Honestly, I didn’t quite pick up the GM’s descriptions until very recently: Instead, I unconsciously adopted his same style and just noticed it yesterday, after a session with another group ended, where I am the GM. My players faced a firewyrm, and while I do let my own players usually describe some of their kills, sometimes I take over. For a long time, the monk player has been finishing his targets off by ora ora ora-ing them, and that’s fine, but they just hit level 8 before this fight and I decided to describe it with the typical scene where the giant worm swallows the hero and then the hero kills it from its insides and then emerges victorious on its blood(or hardened lava, in this case). After the game, this player said it was a very cool moment and he, as a GM, had never described something so fantastical.
So, with all of that in mind, here is the discussion: Do you, as a GM, make a point of describing things progressively more, as this player of mine put it, “fantastical”? Would any of you say that there’s a danger there, with expectations clashing with mechanics? After all, theoretically, any incredible feat is codified in a permissive way, so it wouldn’t be too crazy to say that feats like that are exceptions rather than reinforcements. *and by “feat” in this instance I mean it as something that a person does, not the mechanical term feat.
And, if that is the case, would you like to see more fantastical (mechanical) feats like that? I just took a look at the skill feats list and I there actually isn’t many high-level skill feats, though they all seem to cater to that direction.
What about you, players? Would you as a player like having your actions described with such a growth, or do you rather keep yourself tied to a more grounded experience?
And now, to both: When, would you say, that this difference of description should occur, if at all? When should protagonists start to feel less more schmucks and more like adventurers, and then more like heroes?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I keep meaning to, but sometimes its hard to remember to scale the descriptions, I sometimes err on the side of giving them descriptions too fantastical at low level to progress properly for higher level.
My games tend to be less fantastical, but I do try and make particularly awesome foes seem like it. Average fights are average fights. I dont like to over emphasize combat in my games.
Now places and NPCs I tend to get real into. I try to bring cities and dungeons and such to as much life as possible. Also, I give personalities to everyone the PCs meet. This is where I like to spend my GM time and energy.
I'm not entirely sold on the idea of skill feats to begin with. Though, I have zero problem with Paizo adding more high level shenanigans for the folks who want them.
Ultimately, I prefer to stay between level 1-10-ish so this progression is far less pronounced for my group.
I tend to let my players describe their attacks - after we've confirmed hits and they've rolled damage, of course - while I describe what the die rolls for the monsters look like. I want my players invested in their character and try to do what I can do to get them in character for the few hours I have them at my table. I find that giving them a little more freedom to narrate their actions does this but I don't mind stepping in when they draw a blank.