Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
A question about Paizo/PF adventure design
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="The-Magic-Sword" data-source="post: 8140603" data-attributes="member: 6801252"><p>Honestly, I just looked over my posts expecting to see some obvious thing jump out to me that was rude. I can't really find what you're alluding to. I'm a bit wary of accepting it out of hand because I've noticed some posters use rudeness to broadly denounce disagreement they can't otherwise counter. I'm not thinking of you when I say that, but just in general, I'm aware of it's status as a useful tactic. I'm also not a 'brand ambassador' I prefer to be more real than that, and no one pays me to promote Pathfinder-- I am a person, just like you, or Zapp, or Retreater, who is reading what you are saying, and is trying to clear up the misunderstandings that I see. I'd be glad if people used the content of my posts to enjoy the game, but I can't force them to see the wisdom in the things I say, and sometimes nothing helps but having your position broken down for you, I have had to learn to value it when someone does it to me.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm not seeing why not? When those systems don't care about balance, it means that the GM places the challenges throughout their dungeon with the expectation that players don't have to be able to fight their way through everything directly. In other words, its not much different than if I ignore pathfinder's encounter guidelines and drop what happens to be deadly or beyond encounters here and there. If we were playing one of those games, and you were GMing, you'd drop whatever monsters felt right, and if they were more than I could handle, I'd die trying to fight them head on. You'd have to improvise (and use simulationist rules) as I tried various plans to survive and overcome-- which is also how you'd have to run a game that doesn't care about balance in this game. if you want to create an encounter of orcs thats obviously way more than a party can take on, but want to place a portcullis that can be dropped to divide it into manageable chunks, nothing stops you.</p><p></p><p>Nothing about the game precludes that play style, and its probably easier than 4e to run that way, since the game has more of the simulation mechanics you need to run the 'alternate plans' we'd use. You're working a little up hill, but it ain't too bad for a game that didn't explicitly have OSR style play as a design goal. Those games all have a reputation of lethality for a reason after all.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="The-Magic-Sword, post: 8140603, member: 6801252"] Honestly, I just looked over my posts expecting to see some obvious thing jump out to me that was rude. I can't really find what you're alluding to. I'm a bit wary of accepting it out of hand because I've noticed some posters use rudeness to broadly denounce disagreement they can't otherwise counter. I'm not thinking of you when I say that, but just in general, I'm aware of it's status as a useful tactic. I'm also not a 'brand ambassador' I prefer to be more real than that, and no one pays me to promote Pathfinder-- I am a person, just like you, or Zapp, or Retreater, who is reading what you are saying, and is trying to clear up the misunderstandings that I see. I'd be glad if people used the content of my posts to enjoy the game, but I can't force them to see the wisdom in the things I say, and sometimes nothing helps but having your position broken down for you, I have had to learn to value it when someone does it to me. I'm not seeing why not? When those systems don't care about balance, it means that the GM places the challenges throughout their dungeon with the expectation that players don't have to be able to fight their way through everything directly. In other words, its not much different than if I ignore pathfinder's encounter guidelines and drop what happens to be deadly or beyond encounters here and there. If we were playing one of those games, and you were GMing, you'd drop whatever monsters felt right, and if they were more than I could handle, I'd die trying to fight them head on. You'd have to improvise (and use simulationist rules) as I tried various plans to survive and overcome-- which is also how you'd have to run a game that doesn't care about balance in this game. if you want to create an encounter of orcs thats obviously way more than a party can take on, but want to place a portcullis that can be dropped to divide it into manageable chunks, nothing stops you. Nothing about the game precludes that play style, and its probably easier than 4e to run that way, since the game has more of the simulation mechanics you need to run the 'alternate plans' we'd use. You're working a little up hill, but it ain't too bad for a game that didn't explicitly have OSR style play as a design goal. Those games all have a reputation of lethality for a reason after all. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
A question about Paizo/PF adventure design
Top