|
I had to waive the various money costs baked into the start of The Enemy Within campaign because it's not built with the assumption that the PCs will be as dirt-poor as the system makes them.
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 02:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 09:04 |
|
|
hyphz posted:Game is dumb Arivia posted:No you are dumb If the path just gives the musician 1d4 chase points and then dumps the players and their target in the empty air just kind of looking at each other then that's not a properly structured chase challenge and hyphz ran it pretty much as well as he could. A properly structured chase would have obstacles like "he flies through the cathedral (4 chase points)" and "rowdy quidditch spectators fill the district (4 points). Hyphz' description sounds like the AP writer half-assing their chase to "Have the players say some stuff and after 1d4 of their things succeed they catch him and a proper fight starts." In that case the only glaring mistake Hyoz made was this: hyphz posted:Other things it also does not tell us: how far the PCs chariot moves per turn, whether it needs to be steered, how difficult it is to turn, how any damage has impact upon chase points, etc. This becomes relevant when the Gunslinger, who has a weapon with a 150' range band, starts shooting at him and the book gives no way to resolve the distance and no way to calculate the effect of the damage on the chase. Splicer fucked around with this message at 03:20 on Feb 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 03:04
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Maybe you could take this to the Pathfinder thread and explain how to do this right? idk I think a post or 3 in the general chat thread about "Hey I wanted something crunchy and tactical, an AP kinda pulled a switcharoo and I was stuck adlibbing" is fine here. Like if the general guideline is now "You can't discuss anything in the chat thread if it's got another thread" I don't really see the point of the chat thread. If this goes on for 2 or 3 pages of ultra specific in the weeds stuff about if the rules in page xx of the DMG combined with what was specifically presented in the AP should have been enough to interface with the information presented in the AP on page yy, then yeah, you'd be 100% right. A general vent about something not giving a table the experience they want and someone else pushing back about how it should have is totally what this thread should be imo. That said, Arivia is being way too aggro about it, and not gonna win anyone over to their point that way. Like even if the PF2 DMG explicitly says "chases are a seperate abstract minigame here's the rules" this reads like a table problem anyone could have. Players often come up with solutions that could seemingly bypass the system as presented. From there it's up to the table to navigate how to address that, it sounds like everyone did and had fun -even if it forced the GM to adlib in ways they don't enjoy. This isn't a "I want to run this, but what if my players try to force combat early and I have no answer for why they can't?" or "my table is actively antagonistic towards me and/or a game that fundamentally was not designed for how we want to play."
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 03:15
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Reading the chase rules, the adventure path should have presented obstacles that both the players and the musician needed to get past. Arivia confirm/deny? Again assuming I'm reading this correctly by default the musician would pass them automatically at a "fair" rate while the players would pass them as fast as they can make the DCs. Yes, I think your interpretation is correct. Again, I haven’t looked at the AP in question (my guess is that it’s Agents of Edgewatch chapter 2 since that’s city-based) but the chase subsystem rules do say to give the person being chased a head start so that’s the 1d4 chase points the wizard starts with is my informed guess. Chase points are generally 1s with some 2s, not 3s or 4s. Also, it should be noted that the chase rules are explicitly in a section and explicitly written to say “you are doing a chase and it uses these mechanics”, Pathfinder 2e really isn’t a system that’s meant to support people going off the existing mechanics at all. The chase rules help the GM arbitrate if someone argues another idea for overcoming a chase obstacle, not taking pot shots at the other party. The other party generally isn’t even supposed to be there. So either the AP itself is doing something very weird with the rules, or hyphz is doing something very weird with the rules. Considering the pattern, I went to the second due to Occam’s Razor. You can say I went too hard, but it certainly wasn’t unwarranted considering who was posting. E: the reason i keep mentioning scope is because that’s a huge part of Pathfinder 2e makes doing crunchy stuff in different contexts possible, and is explicitly discussed in the lead up to the chase rules (it’s the first section of the chapter). So when the rules say “we’re doing the chase subsystem now, you overcome obstacles like this and the conclusion is when this happens” it really is jettisoning everything else for that time. It’s a very tightly focused game-y game, and that’s what makes it work well. Arivia fucked around with this message at 03:24 on Feb 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 03:21
|
|
|
The important question is whether you played this during the chase: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OBs6S1lW_Q Coolness Averted posted:idk I think a post or 3 in the general chat thread about "Hey I wanted something crunchy and tactical, an AP kinda pulled a switcharoo and I was stuck adlibbing" is fine here. Like if the general guideline is now "You can't discuss anything in the chat thread if it's got another thread" I don't really see the point of the chat thread. Is it also allowed to suggest things in the chat thread, or what? Did I give anybody orders? Did somebody give me a mod star while I wasn't looking? Absurd Alhazred fucked around with this message at 03:27 on Feb 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 03:25
|
|
|
Arivia posted:Yes, I think your interpretation is correct. Again, I haven’t looked at the AP in question (my guess is that it’s Agents of Edgewatch chapter 2 since that’s city-based) but the chase subsystem rules do say to give the person being chased a head start so that’s the 1d4 chase points the wizard starts with is my informed guess. Chase points are generally 1s with some 2s, not 3s or 4s. https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=1210 Hyphz, those pointless encounters, were they possibly obstacles for the chase? As in they were supposed to have to deal with them as the dude was running away?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 03:32
|
|
|
Splicer posted:I'm going off the rules here: The other section I’m mentioning is available if you click on “chapter 3: subsystems” on that page.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 03:39
|
|
|
Terrible Opinions posted:Do the chase rules have any explanation for what happens when a PC says "I shoot at him" or determining when the PCs can do so? Chariot dude: I make a roll to go faster (rolls charioting) success! GM: You're catching up! Marksperson: I try to shoot him! (rolls ranged attack) success! GM: He sees you pull out your gun and starts banking and weaving, slowing him down! Winged PC: I brace and jump off the chariot for speed then barrel straight toward him! (rolls acrobatism) crit success! GM: He turns to fight, summoning a music dragon! Roll initiative! e: though again according to the rules I linked it seems like it should have been obstacles they were trying to overcome rather than directly competing for More Chase Points. Maybe the AP was treating him running away itself as an obstacle worth 1d4 points? Splicer fucked around with this message at 04:05 on Feb 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 03:57
|
|
|
i remember that with 4e the skill challenge rules as written were really dull, but they popped nicely when you ran it more apocalypse world style, with each success being a positive story development, and failure being a negative one. Chase rules sound sort of similar, and if you're looking for a mathematical precision it won't be that fun. Still reckon the description of the chase sounds like perfectly solid DMing though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 04:29
|
|
|
Found the most cursed TTRPG race. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 04:38
|
|
|
Oh no, Frodo hosed a dog...
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 04:39
|
|
|
Plutonis posted:Found the most cursed TTRPG race. See trying to make Halflings more interesting without going full Hobbit with them by turning them into animal people is something I've seen a lot of over the years, but that is not the way to go about it
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 04:56
|
|
|
Plutonis posted:Found the most cursed TTRPG race. I don’t know what the gently caress this is from (looks like d20pfsrd maybe?) but blink dogs are normally of human intelligence and good alignment (therefore sentient and consenting) so it’s really no worse than many other crossbreeds in D&D IF that story is the true one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 05:00
|
|
|
Arivia posted:I don’t know what the gently caress this is from (looks like d20pfsrd maybe?) but blink dogs are normally of human intelligence and good alignment (therefore sentient and consenting) so it’s really no worse than many other crossbreeds in D&D IF that story is the true one. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 05:21
|
|
|
Don't even blink dogs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 05:24
|
|
|
Love your fey, but don't love your fey.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 05:26
|
|
|
“I built those gates with me own two hands. But do they call me O’Grady the Smith? Noooo. But you gently caress one blink dog…”
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 05:27
|
|
|
Let's just keep questions like that behind the line, like the origin of the Minotaur, shall we?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 05:31
|
|
|
Yeah, a race of teleporting corgi people is cute and cool, a race descended from people who took skill focus: dogfucker less so
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 05:34
|
|
|
Does P2E have combat even remotely as interesting as 4e's?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 05:50
|
|
|
While I thank folks for the positive comments the issue is more the deadlock. It feels like there is no point playing and running a crunchy system if it fails to actually be crunchy in what should be a really interesting scene. On the other hand, lighter systems seem to leave everything completely hanging. So I’m stuck doing a bunch of math and spreadsheets in prep, then winging it anyway. Just seems backwards. Oh, and the AP is Ruby Phoenix. It uses the chase sequence twice and in every case the obstacles aren’t “there’s something in the way you must physically bypass to proceed” but “the way is open but hard to navigate” which the author apparently didn’t notice means that there is no in-world barrier between the “nodes” and thus they can interact by - for example - shooting each other. Edit: yes, PF2e is up with 4e for combat provided you can avoid the broken combinations.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 05:53
|
|
|
Arivia posted:I don’t know what the gently caress this is from (looks like d20pfsrd maybe?) but blink dogs are normally of human intelligence and good alignment (therefore sentient and consenting) so it’s really no worse than many other crossbreeds in D&D IF that story is the true one. First is from Bastards and Bloodlines, a demented d20 guidebook. Second is from the PFSRD.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 06:08
|
|
|
Plutonis posted:First is from Bastards and Bloodlines Hashem protect me,  there's a writeup!
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 06:16
|
|
|
S.J. posted:Does P2E have combat even remotely as interesting as 4e's? It's no 4e imo but it is pretty fun and the balance is ok and the encounter creation rules make sense
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 06:17
|
|
|
hyphz posted:While I thank folks for the positive comments the issue is more the deadlock. It feels like there is no point playing and running a crunchy system if it fails to actually be crunchy in what should be a really interesting scene. On the other hand, lighter systems seem to leave everything completely hanging. So I’m stuck doing a bunch of math and spreadsheets in prep, then winging it anyway. Just seems backwards. I mean, unfortunately there just isn't a system or level of crunch that can completely obfuscate the need for GM improvisation for the simple reason that no RPG system can account for the vast array of situational actions and decisions players can make and, even if such a thing were possible I don't think any human could actively memorize that many mechanics to such a degree that they could properly respond to every player action without slowing the game down to a crawl. Ultimately a lot of the work GMing in a crunchier system is about reacting to situations as they arise in play and trying to find ways to bend or structure the game's existing mechanics to fit the needs of the table. From what you said, I think you did that fairly well and, now that you've improvised your way through a curveball situation you have a strategy to pull out if a similar situation comes up again in play. hyphz posted:Oh, and the AP is Ruby Phoenix. It uses the chase sequence twice and in every case the obstacles aren’t “there’s something in the way you must physically bypass to proceed” but “the way is open but hard to navigate” which the author apparently didn’t notice means that there is no in-world barrier between the “nodes” and thus they can interact by - for example - shooting each other. It sounds kind of like the problem you're experiencing is at least partially caused by treating the nodes as fixed points on a route rather than as an abstraction to representing the relative distance between target and pursuer. I am not super familiar with PF2e's mechanics, so I can't speak much in the way of specifics, but from what others have posted in this thread it sounds like its chase mechanic is a more broad-view abstraction and that actions taken within the chase, whether it be attacking or trying to catch up with the target, are to be adjudicated within the framework of the chase mechanics much like how you did. The system itself remains fairly crunchy in this case (Again, at least by the sounds of it) but the connection between mechanics and narrative actions is more abstracted than it would be in combat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 06:17
|
|
|
The most boring ancestry origin in an RPG is "a more human looking race and inhuman race got horny together" A setting that 100% leaned into every ancestry/race is from weird crossbreeding could be fun though. Have huge cultural arguments about whether it was folly that orcs and elves paired to make humans, or for that matter just which weirdo god stuck their dick in a volcano to make the magma-kin.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 06:39
|
|
|
The other major problem with Pathfinder and other d20 modules I've seen in the past that have a wide scope of character class choices is that they cannot and often do not anticipate weird edge cases or even things like "nonstandard D&D classes that aren't third party but are official classes". Like, fundamentally, what does a party in any of these games look like, what's the team composition? Depends on the plot hooks, the size of the party, people who have a roleplaying angle, who's trying to be a munchkin and more. Even if you look at 4e, for example, which has the clear roles of Controller, Defender, Striker and Leader, having one of each can be a wildly different experience because each class that fills the niche has a secondary roll and a Striker Paladin is different from a Striker Swordmage and a Leader Warlord is different from a Leader Ardent. Pathfinder modules generally are built around anticipating the core classes like "Fighter" or "Thief" or "Sorcerer" and not the confusingly-named base classes like Gunslinger (ranged touch attacks on demand are fun), Summoner (two characters with a shitload of ways to break a game because you're controlling two characters at once, one who is fighty and one who can cast spells) and Cavaliers (who are not broken per-se but run into the tonal and mechanical problem of "I am on my horse all the god drat time no matter where we are") and this can lead to friction because the modules frankly aren't made to be flexible. You gotta just roll with what happens and I'll be real: it sucks if it doesn't work out like it should according to the module but all rules are meant to be broken and discarded for the purposes of fun and doing hot girl poo poo on a moment's notice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 06:46
|
|
|
No game is ever gonna be crunchy enough to have the impact ratings of dragons made of air pressure vs. the tensile strength of flying chariot handrails. Like even if you were running Phoenix Command you'd probably still need a bunch of supplements, some theoretical folklorists, and a houserule. You did just fine, and now the next step is to sort of face that the level of crunch you're expecting is sort of at the range of expecting a well-trained dog to build a car. Like you can get a lot of functional work and fun out of a well trained dog, but there's reasonable limits. Edit: Oh and also start working on talking to your players about story structure mid story. Like if they're about to ruin the ending by killing the enemy wizard before the cool stuff happens, you can always say like "Hey, in the interest of keeping this story interesting, let's not kill him before the cool stuff happens." Though I appreciate that may be difficult due to your continued residency in rear end in a top hat City, City of Assholes. theironjef fucked around with this message at 07:06 on Feb 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 06:47
|
|
|
Plutonis posted:Found the most cursed TTRPG race. "Friend, Edward"
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 06:49
|
|
|
Dog is man's best friend, and halfling's more than just-a-friend.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 06:57
|
|
|
Hostile V posted:The other major problem with Pathfinder and other d20 modules I've seen in the past that have a wide scope of character class choices is that they cannot and often do not anticipate weird edge cases or even things like "nonstandard D&D classes that aren't third party but are official classes". Like, fundamentally, what does a party in any of these games look like, what's the team composition? Depends on the plot hooks, the size of the party, people who have a roleplaying angle, who's trying to be a munchkin and more. Even if you look at 4e, for example, which has the clear roles of Controller, Defender, Striker and Leader, having one of each can be a wildly different experience because each class that fills the niche has a secondary roll and a Striker Paladin is different from a Striker Swordmage and a Leader Warlord is different from a Leader Ardent. Pathfinder modules generally are built around anticipating the core classes like "Fighter" or "Thief" or "Sorcerer" and not the confusingly-named base classes like Gunslinger (ranged touch attacks on demand are fun), Summoner (two characters with a shitload of ways to break a game because you're controlling two characters at once, one who is fighty and one who can cast spells) and Cavaliers (who are not broken per-se but run into the tonal and mechanical problem of "I am on my horse all the god drat time no matter where we are") and this can lead to friction because the modules frankly aren't made to be flexible. You gotta just roll with what happens and I'll be real: it sucks if it doesn't work out like it should according to the module but all rules are meant to be broken and discarded for the purposes of fun and doing hot girl poo poo on a moment's notice. I’m guessing you already know this, but Paizo covers for this very well by providing player’s guides for their adventure paths that tell groups what they need to build for, sometimes have unique mechanical content to make sure things work well (like the Trap Finder trait), and explicitly tell you what classes work for the AP and which ones don’t. Arivia fucked around with this message at 07:25 on Feb 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 07:05
|
|
|
ninjoatse.cx posted:Dog is man's best friend, and halfling's more than just-a-friend.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 07:09
|
|
|
FMguru posted:Man's best friend-with-benefits. It’s silly and fun to make fun of, but off the top of my head half-fiends, half-celestials, and half-dragons have been a thing for decades in D&D’s core rulebooks. Hell, I think they rewrote the narrative in 5e but there’s a 3e FR monster class (so an explicit PC option) for a glabrezu-drow priestess pairing. I would much rather take a consensual happy relationship between a halfling and a blink dog over “half-orcs are always the product of rape” which I’m sure has been said multiple times over D&D’s history.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 07:22
|
|
|
Arivia posted:It’s silly and fun to make fun of, but off the top of my head half-fiends, half-celestials, and half-dragons have been a thing for decades in D&D’s core rulebooks. Hell, I think they rewrote the narrative in 5e but there’s a 3e FR monster class (so an explicit PC option) for a glabrezu-drow priestess pairing. I would much rather take a consensual happy relationship between a halfling and a blink dog over “half-orcs are always the product of rape” which I’m sure has been said multiple times over D&D’s history. Fiends, celestials, and dragons are all either already humanoid or capable of assuming humanoid shape. That said this is a total can of worms, isn't it. 5e says their average intelligence is 10. Which means they're as smart as the average halfling, so at least you get to sort of (SORT OF) dodge the consent question. But then that just leaves all the poo poo about how they're difficult but possible to train, and when trained they make fiercely loyal pets. Which... well that's creepy when you consider the intelligence, isn't it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 07:35
|
|
|
Perhaps we could just agree that loving dogs of any kind is bad and leave it at that. I don't think this is a statement that terribly needs a "but!" at the end of it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 07:41
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:Perhaps we could just agree that loving dogs of any kind is bad and leave it at that. Maybe this is just the circle of hell we belong on for being the forum that came up with Skill Focus: loving the Dog in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 07:45
|
|
|
theironjef posted:Maybe this is just the circle of hell we belong on for being the forum that came up with Skill Focus: loving the Dog in the first place. I'm glad that even though I skipped that gag while writing my post, someone else remembered it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 07:57
|
|
|
Arivia, you're a silly goose, but dog-loving defense is a new one from you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 08:10
|
|
|
sasha_d3ath posted:Arivia, you're a silly goose, but dog-loving defense is a new one from you. If your take away from me saying a fantasy backstory involving two consenting sentient creatures is better than horrible always orc rape is that I support dog loving that’s your problem.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 08:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 09:04 |
|
|
Run a Book of Erotic Fantasy game and get it out of your system, you pervs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2022 08:55
|
|
