Pros and cons of 2e: macro vs micro design.

[Thomas5251212]

The Raven Black wrote:

Thomas5251212 wrote:

Malk_Content wrote:

Sanityfaerie wrote:

Garretmander wrote:

And that higher level macro play is better suited to campaign specific encounters, story lines, items, rituals, etc. It's very ill suited to being something any old caster can start doing with their default class features in their downtime at level 13 or so.

Well... the actual issue is when the casters get it with downtime and their default class features, and the martials don't. Back in AD&D, fighters were busy building castles and developing retinues while wizards were pursuing their version of macro play. One of the big problems on that side was that they carved it off the one side and left it on the other.

That's part of what I'd like to see in something like this, really. You'll have druids becoming One With The Forest. You'll have necromancers turning themselves info undead. If you want real balance, you need some way for the various martial classes to get into the macro play side of things while still being the martials that they are. My fighter wants a keep. My swashbuckler wants to start a dueling school.

I think the problem I that unless something is inherently magical, I don't really need specific mechanics. Your Swashbuckler already can start a duelling school.

But the game is going to give you zero help in what he needs to do to do that, and what the benefits of it will be. That means chances are a player is diving into it blind, and just as likely to be disappointed.

TBH Talk to your GM and build things together so that you're both happy with it is all the help needed.

Far better IMO than hitting the GM on the head with a big Paizo book (figuratively) until they surrender.

I'm usually the GM. And I'd rather not have to build subsystem on my own, or completely pull something arbitrary, thanks.

[Thomas5251212]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Physicskid42 wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

TBH Talk to your GM and build things together so that you're both happy with it is all the help needed.

Far better IMO than hitting the GM on the head with a big Paizo book (figuratively) until they surrender.

But a robust rules system could at least be a jumping off point. I just don’t get this mentality where the mere existence of a rule will lead to adversarial Dm ing . After all the artifact gift rules are in the gm guide and there isn’t a big problem of players demanding a specific artifact. Even if they did a Dm could incorporate into play. I think there is a middle ground between the gm just hand waiving everything and the gm being held hostage. After all the whole “rulings not rules” thing is a big part of the problems with 5e

Wow. Did you miss on the whole "rules lawyer" era where DMs had to deal with players forcing them to follow a ruling in a game that made the game trivial? This is especially true in PFS where they tend to follow the rules as much as possible.

I'd rather Paizo err on the side of balance, then let DMs adjust to their table and preferences if they can handle it.

I'm kind of not buying that "There are systems to getting to big hands-on influence on a campaign level" automatically translates into "The game will automatically be out of balance." That's more a sign of bad design, rather than a subsystem existing in the first place.

[Verdyn]

The Raven Black wrote:

I read it more as a problem with magic shops where PCs could buy whatever item they needed to overoptimize even if it made no sense within the GM's setting.

Step 1: Invest into leadership to get a follower to serve as your party's exclusive item crafter.

Step 2: Place them within a created (or discovered via obscenely high knowledge check) pocket dimension that has accelerated time and abundant crafting materials.

Step 3: Turn all surplus items into raw power.

Who needs item shop except as a convenience.

[The Raven Black]

Thomas5251212 wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Thomas5251212 wrote:

Malk_Content wrote:

Sanityfaerie wrote:

Garretmander wrote:

And that higher level macro play is better suited to campaign specific encounters, story lines, items, rituals, etc. It's very ill suited to being something any old caster can start doing with their default class features in their downtime at level 13 or so.

Well... the actual issue is when the casters get it with downtime and their default class features, and the martials don't. Back in AD&D, fighters were busy building castles and developing retinues while wizards were pursuing their version of macro play. One of the big problems on that side was that they carved it off the one side and left it on the other.

That's part of what I'd like to see in something like this, really. You'll have druids becoming One With The Forest. You'll have necromancers turning themselves info undead. If you want real balance, you need some way for the various martial classes to get into the macro play side of things while still being the martials that they are. My fighter wants a keep. My swashbuckler wants to start a dueling school.

I think the problem I that unless something is inherently magical, I don't really need specific mechanics. Your Swashbuckler already can start a duelling school.

But the game is going to give you zero help in what he needs to do to do that, and what the benefits of it will be. That means chances are a player is diving into it blind, and just as likely to be disappointed.

TBH Talk to your GM and build things together so that you're both happy with it is all the help needed.

Far better IMO than hitting the GM on the head with a big Paizo book (figuratively) until they surrender.

I'm usually the GM. And I'd rather not have to build subsystem on my own, or completely pull something arbitrary, thanks.

I understand this completely. I just believe the number of people who would spend money to get a well-designed rules book adressing the macro-level to be rather small compared to how much it would cost Paizo to create such a book.

[Sanityfaerie]

The Raven Black wrote:

I understand this completely. I just believe the number of people who would spend money to get a well-designed rules book adressing the macro-level to be rather small compared to how much it would cost Paizo to create such a book.

...and my assertion is that for the people who want the macro-level stuff, it wouldn't have to be Paizo levels of well-designed. Giving an 80% solution on balance, a nice big pile of relatively loose rules, and some tips on how to handle things if it's getting out of whack, and you're set. The GMs who simply can't handle any more workload at all won't be going macro rules anyway (since it inherently involves Doing Things to the setting, and thus accounting for those setting changes, and thus additional work and for those who are able to handle a bit, it'll be 80% of the way there, plus some useful suggestions if it starts going off the rails one way or the other. Possibly offer high-power, medium-power, and low-power versions of each. Being a 3pp makes it a lot easier to turn the thing into a bunch of well-written and evocative suggestions, rather than having to nail down How It Works more solidly than that.

[Guntermench]

Paizo already provides a basis on which GMs can build, other than structure prices. The subsystems in the GMG, while not in depth, provide a decent skeleton for GMs to flesh out to meet the needs and desires of their players. This is a thing that's going to, and should, vary table to table so having fairly loose subsystems you can stack together makes sense to me.

Player wants to run a guild? Leadership can help a little with the structure of that. Player wants the guild to influence the city they're in? You can use the Reputation subsystem and apply it to the guild as a whole instead. Player has a specific goal, or multiple goals, for the guild to achieve? Victory Points have you covered for a wide variety of things.