World Creation

WD, I agree with you to a certain extent. However, for me, the age issue isn't that big of a deal and is something that I could work around. I'm sure you've read all the discussions/arguments on both sides of the issue so I won't get into it here. What it comes down to for me is that I would like to stay as true to core as possible. The change you propose is small but is something out of the normal that every character approval person is going to have to remember is different from the Core Rulebook. For that reason alone I would vote against changing the lifespan of elves.

FitD,
1) I don't think Pathfinder could be described as Low Magic by any means except perhaps in a few specific countries. I think the default for most of the world is High Magic and I think the rules most support that playstyle. I would venture to suggest that most people here would prefer a High Magic PF to a Low Magic PF. Maybe that's my own bias. If I'm wrong I'm sure others will speak up.

2) All of the suggestions so far have been for Earth-based rather than generic D&D setting. So far I've seen suggestions of a mercantile city based off Venice (Venza, City of Glass), a germanic feudal state (the Landadel Baronies), an African continent (Udwanga, I think it was called), an Egyptian-styled civilization (Nekmeth?) and an area of 'horselords'.

The big question for me would be how is this all going to fit together? I'll repeat my belief that we should have one central city as the beginning for the Living World and expand outward from there.

3) I enjoy humor but have little to no interest in a 'comedy' setting. Having said that, I think that it is really up to the DM and players but if a DM is proposing a comedy adventure it needs to be clear up-front that it is going to be played for laughs.

1) Really? I get the opposite. Well, lots of magic, but it all still seems magical. I mean Magic vs. Faerunian "everyone is level 20" styles; or Broad Magic Eberron. I see magic as the sort of thing people know about, but don't necessarily see every day. Or at least that most of the world, like the Bestiary, is scaled for a 'heroic tier" setting.
I mean, maybe it's not as drastic as Conan. I personally would peg it as having enough for a group of adventurers, with some specific sites that have more magic per capita than others.

2) I second the central city. One with select and specific portals to select and specific places. Like, for example, one from said city to Venza. Another that goes to Hightower in the Landadel Baronies. Still another to Nekmeth, specifically the pearl Obelisk, which is in the middle of the Market district.
You could go by boat, and frankly skipping some travel time isn't a big deal. One sentence and Bam, you're in Nekmeth. wow, you got a tan, and figured out how to cast Augery and Jump.

3) Sounds good to me. L4W is masterfully done, anyway, and already on the boards.
That said, having a light-hearted adventure with fun NPCs is okay; just not goofy adventures that would "bring down the neighbourhood" by naming key NPCs "Lord Muffinmouth, King of Mithril Hall", or some such.

update on 1) specifically, it seems to me like fairy tales: you have your elves, but the peasants who interact with them aren't used to this stuff. Or they are, and the world is magical, but it still "feels" like a normal world.

Where do we draw the line for the supernatural? I mean, suspension of disbelief? Do Tieflings mask themselves until they pull away the veil to a round of gasps? Or do they show up at a bar, and people say "oh, a tiefling. Get the tiefling-spray."

Originally Posted by Fireinthedust

update on 1) specifically, it seems to me like fairy tales: you have your elves, but the peasants who interact with them aren't used to this stuff. Or they are, and the world is magical, but it still "feels" like a normal world.

Ok, I see your point on this. IME it get ignored, though. My elf pc walks into town and it's business as usual with the locals; no one gawks and points or turns away and shooes the children inside. People aren't running for stakes and lighter fluid whenever they see a tiefling.

Originally Posted by Fireinthedust

2) I second the central city. One with select and specific portals to select and specific places. Like, for example, one from said city to Venza. Another that goes to Hightower in the Landadel Baronies. Still another to Nekmeth, specifically the pearl Obelisk, which is in the middle of the Market district.
You could go by boat, and frankly skipping some travel time isn't a big deal. One sentence and Bam, you're in Nekmeth. wow, you got a tan, and figured out how to cast Augery and Jump.

I like the central city idea; I just don't believe it needs to be a separate city. I was also thinking that each gate could transport to every other gate as long as the appropriate ritual was used. As much as I hate to say it, kinda like Stargate. Plus, I was also thinking that a gate would only really be necessary for very distant regions. If Venza was near the Landadel Baronies there wouldn't need to be a gate between the two. You are right about travel time and we could just as easily do away with the whole 'gate' concept. It wouldn't offend me any.

1.) Let's stay on the same level as Golarion. The rules assume as much and we should avoid messing to much. Only where it is necessary (perhaps reducing teleporting magic). About PC's, one of the iconic chracters is a rather strange looking gnome druid with a beast. And an evil elf with an imp. But there is no detailed prejudice.

2.) A bit like Pf, real cultures, but fantasized.

3.) Never realized L4W was humor... I have two 4th and one 1st level character there, and it wasn't silly so far...

----

Perhaps the City of Gates, a "district" to those all other big cities develop a gate to, for some unknown reason. A planar crossroad. (Like Cardiff

The change you propose is small but is something out of the normal that every character approval person is going to have to remember is different from the Core Rulebook. For that reason alone I would vote against changing the lifespan of elves.

But the PRD even suggest all this for elves:

Physical Description: Although generally taller than humans, elves possess a graceful, fragile physique that is accentuated by their long, pointed ears. Their eyes are wide and almond-shaped, and filled with large, vibrantly colored pupils. While elven clothing often plays off the beauty of the natural world, those elves that live in cities tend to bedeck themselves in the latest fashion.


Society: Many elves feel a bond with nature and strive to live in harmony with the natural world. Most, however, find manipulating earth and stone to be distasteful, and prefer instead to indulge in the finer arts, with their inborn patience making them particularly suited to wizardry.


Relations: Elves are prone to dismissing other races, writing them off as rash and impulsive, yet they are excellent judges of character. An elf might not want a dwarf neighbor, but would be the first to acknowledge that dwarf's skill at smithing. They regard gnomes as strange (and sometimes dangerous) curiosities, and halflings with a measure of pity, for these small folk seem to the elves to be adrift, without a traditional home. Elves are fascinated with humans, as evidenced by the number of half-elves in the world, even if they usually disown such offspring. They regard half-orcs with distrust and suspicion.


Alignment and Religion: Elves are emotional and capricious, yet value kindness and beauty. Most elves are chaotic good.



Adventurers: Many elves embark on adventures out of a desire to explore the world, leaving their secluded forest realms to reclaim forgotten elven magic or search out lost kingdoms established millennia ago by their forefathers. For those raised among humans, the ephemeral and unfettered life of an adventurer holds natural appeal. Elves generally eschew melee because of their frailty, preferring instead to pursue classes such as wizards and rangers.

Have we also use this? If not, why the vital statistics, which aren't even listed in the race section?

Originally Posted by glasseye

I like the central city idea; I just don't believe it needs to be a separate city. I was also thinking that each gate could transport to every other gate as long as the appropriate ritual was used. As much as I hate to say it, kinda like Stargate.

so a gate would have to be discovered and then the location/ address/a key would have to be deturmined and then aboe to be used?

Wow. If a gate was to be found in a wilderness area, then a Kingmaker scenario could be played.

I have to say that I really dislike the 'City of Gates' idea. I feel it would totally destroy the concept of a mercantile city. After all, what kind of advantage could they possibly have if everyone can pop to the City of Gates and do trading there? I think it would become less about the world and more about the City of Gates.

Originally Posted by Walking Dad

Have we also use this? If not, why the vital statistics, which aren't even listed in the race section?

I'm not sure I understand the point you are making. The text you quoted is the general tendency for the race as a whole. Characters deviate from the general tendency in the interest of creating interesting characters. I don't see that as the same thing as changing the age chart at all.

We have a lot of good ideas out there right now. I think it's possible to eventually include a large number of them but I truly feel that to get the feel of a living world we need a central location that everyone begins adventuring in. If our characters are scattered all over the world how are they ever going to encounter one another?

I don't care what the beginning region is like. If you all want we can start in an egyptian-style metropolis with horselords roaming the savanahs and a vast jungle of lost cities not too far away. It doesn't matter but I think we need one main region that we can expand as LPF becomes more stable. Trying to do too much in the beginning is a sure way for LPF to fail.

Let's try to start this in a medivieal europe setting. I think the first adventures will set the tone of the whole world later.

City of Gates: well, I don't like the Stargate idea. I think a central city is useful for our purposes simply because all adventures can start there, plus get wherever they need to go. Boats can do that as well, obviously, but then we have more transitive isles.
Having things need to go through the gate city as a hub rather than one of many locations is good for the game.

A single gate to a single setting, as a rule for the game, maybe? Like, if I do my Gothic Horror setting, I'd have a single gate in one of the baronies. Count Darulac's castle overlooks the particular gate. Now, the other baronies don't have access to it, and in fact he may want a hefty toll from any adventurers who come through there. Other baronies may be merchant-run, and work outside of Darulac's controlling confines. Bam, Venza is important.
Not only that, but the geist of the various settings is maintained because the City of Gates plays a less-huge part in all this. I don't need it to be like Planescape's Sigil just to get things done. In fact, there could be reasons that only player characters/adventurers get to go through various gates, like the Adventurer's guild has a deal with the gatekeepers, if you will.
And there would be gatekeepers: can you seriously imagine that the Pentagon wouldn't clamp down on a gate of any kind? Or Moscow? Or Beijing? Realistically, it's too good. Venza, for example, might not want to lose their strangle-hold on trade.
Or maybe the gates have a limited number of uses each per time period, or else the link wears out and collapses (with horrific consequences). This way it's not a through-way for general traffic and travel. Pay a hefty fee and the adventurers can go through; or a merchant caravan with important goods (ie: spices for the king, or an artifact of some sort).

If the setting does become about the city, it wouldn't be more than Sharn or Sigil was about those settings, or Waterdeep. It would be a city-based game.

What about these gates being one way except for the gate in this central merchant city? It being some king of crossroads everyone must stop at before going to the place there are traveling to.

Back in the times when the empire was truly unified a citizen could travel from one place to another in a step. But the great war brought all this to a halt as an enemy of the empire used great magic to destroy the Great Archway in the captial city as the emperor was sending troops to war. The Great Archway was connected to all gates in all cities and each was broken until just resently when the City of Glass built a new Great Archway. Other cities had "fixed their own gates but had no "exit" gate until now.

Just a way to get bth a City of Gates and a Merchant City all in one.

-HM

Honestly I think we should scrap the gate idea entirely.

I don't know gates, circle stones, teleportation circles, or whatever help with that nasty part of pbp where you travel to an adventure taking say four days by horse then spend a couple days adventuring then four days back and in the "tavern thread it is the same day or day after you left.

The Archway ideal coule explain why the empire was at war and what the great explosion was "If I can't have it no one will!!"

-HM

I don't think an Empire would have people in different cities able to move around. I think they'd all have to go through the city. Think Rome: you've got a group of wealthy aristocrats, all of whom would love power. One of them is the Emperor, who has the money to either build a network so the various cities can ignore Rome (his base of power), or they must depend on Rome and the Emperor's control.

Obviously, the gates of an empire would lead only to the city and back. Any other routes would invite insurrection.
Emperors are not nice people; they're good emperors, which means they've conquered other people and turned them into subjects. This isn't Camelot.


@Glasseye: what are the alternatives you propose? Remember, we want everyone starting in one place (ideally) for both exploration and central-location adventures.
I'm good for ships, or really good roads. I just think portals are fun.

Originally Posted by fireinthedust

@Glasseye: what are the alternatives you propose? Remember, we want everyone starting in one place (ideally) for both exploration and central-location adventures.
I'm good for ships, or really good roads. I just think portals are fun.

I do remember that we want everyone starting in one place. If fact, I've stated that over and over and especially whenever someone has proposed something wildly away from the 'norm'. I also think portals are fun. It's why I proposed the idea in the first place. I've said it before but I'll say it again: I believe a Sigil-clone 'City of Gates' would really detract from any other adventuring city locale. What point Venza if we have the City of Gates that's got better connections?

My alternative to the City of Gates idea is the one I originally posted: extremely rare gates. One gate that links the starting area to Nekmeth so that Walking Dad's egyptian-styled country could be included. Anything close wouldn't need a gate for travel. In that scenario, the starting area becomes important because it is the only good way to get back and forth between this continent and that. Throw in multiple gates and a hub city and you've effectively reduced it to a backwater among backwaters.

I suppose my other alternative would be no gates and characters get to places the old fashioned way.

How about if gates are an artifact of Empire magic? (Has this been proposed? There's so much floating around in my head I can't remember.)

Most of them exploded as a result of the cataclysmic magics unleashed during that war, and the arcane energies from those explosions both reshaped the world and caused the 'Changestorms.' This gives rationale for the long lived races not to have advantage from remembering the Empire - the world has changed too much - and explains the rarity of the gates.

There is a gate in Venza and a gate in Nekmeth. Turns out the gate in Venza is a 'Master Gate,' one that can be keyed to travel to any other gate. None of the other gates will be Masters - they can only connect with the gate in Venza.

Folks who create new regions can decide if there's to be a gate there - but only one per region, and it cannot be a 'Master.' There's no obligation to have one. If Venza has the only Master gate it would be the natural hub of commerce/trade/art/etc. Make Venza limited in local natural resources - transportation is its resource (OK, glass as well). Other regions can trade directly with each other, but with increasing distance between them it becomes much more practical to use Venza as the location to carry on that trade.

Venza is the 'starting location' for adventures.

I'm gonna quit now before I get so long winded I start talking myself in circles.

Cam the gate idea not for the exploration of unknown continents? And because we wanted to nerf teleportation to explore new continents?

These are still viable causes for gates.

That's one of the appeals of the 'most gates were destroyed' idea. They're rare. Rather than saying one per region we could put a minimum distance between - and there would still not have to be one everywhere there was an opportunity. If no gate can be closer than, say, 1000 miles (could be more, just pulled that one from my hat) from any other gate that still leaves a LOT of area to explore. Especially if the gates have to be discovered/activated in the first place.

Another idea that just popped into my head - what if the gates require a talisman to operate? Talisman's are one shot, and only the 'Gate-Keeper's Guild' in Venza knows how to make them. Since they control the manufacture, they also control the pricing.

This mechanic would serve to limit the use of the gates and encourage low level parties to go exploring, while allowing higher level parties - with more cash to buy one of the very expensive talismans for each time they want to use a gate - to travel farther afield.

1) Gates get us from the main city to other specific locations; not from location to location (so some groups can go through the Gate City, sure, but we should use it as a hub. More adventure potential.)

2) Limited Gates: One from main city to each zone; each zone could be a continent, so the gates would be from "Rome" to each "Province" of the old Empire. Each zone is vast enough that it's like one gate from Asia to Europe, one from Australia to Europe, one from Africa to Europe, one from South America to Europe, etc. No more (that we're aware of) on each continent/zone.

This way we can reach every single zone, but we're not in Planescape. Also, Venza becomes important in its zone, because everyone wants to trade with it. That said, we're talking about a roughly Medieval/Classical economy, not Industrialized. Crops are probably mostly local, with only masterwork/magical/rare trade, and diplomacy, going through "Rome". Venza is an economic powerhouse, but "Florant" on the same continent/zone could easily be just as if not more powerful due to its circumstances: Venza is nice for trade, but the goods and military power of "Florant" mean I'll go there.

Also: if my zone's Gate is in a ruined elven city people'd by Undead and their Necromancer Dragon overlord, I'm not going there unless I have to.


Which brings me to my next point:

3) Limited Zones: Old World/New World is alright, but let's try something more. Let's have a collection of continents, or parts of larger continents, each with a single gate. We should have them be vast, with many countries; not all of them explored/detailed. However, each of them should have a theme or an identity.

Example: Venza. Obviously we have a Venice-style merchant city. What if it was the hub for trade with the rest of the world (which Venice was with its ships), but the rest of the zone is italian/Renaissance-themed?

Another: Sub-Saharan Africa. One city might be like the Erudites from Everquest/Norath. Others might be more tribal-oriented.