Did you look at Ghostwalk? What did you think?

[megamania]

Marked What is Ghostwalk.

I know what it is but do not have the book and none of my players have it. Hard to comment on it if one has not seen or used it before.

 

[RichGreen]

Hi,

I liked it, but never got to use the setting or the ghost rules in any of my games. I did use quite a few of the monsters and some of the magic items though.

Cheers


Richard

 

[cougent]

I liked the setting but never got it introduced into my game.

 

[glass]

I liked it alot, just never found the time to use it very extensively in any of my games, sadly.

Ditto. For all the reason in the OP.


glass.

 

[Laman Stahros]

The main problem I had with the setting that came with Ghostwalk was that once you became a ghost, you were pretty much stuck there in Manifest. I have thought about removing that restriction, but just never got around to doing it.

 

[GAAAHHH]

I liked everything about it, except...

I didn't like the mechanics and flavor of the "ghost" class.

I didn't like the rules for mixing living and dead party members.

I didn't like the afterlife in the setting.

I didn't like most of the monsters.

I didn't like the city of Manifest.

I didn't like the idea that character death is a minor inconvenience (or something that gives cool powers).

I think that just about covers it.

 

[DragonLancer]

I read through it at my FLGS and decided that while it was a nice idea it wasn't my taste and I can't see that changing.

 

[jdrakeh]

I really liked the concept, though the setting was so-so by my estimation -- in truth, I liked the FFE Dungeonworld setting much better for an 'afterlife' of sorts. That said, the FEE stuff was a rules nightmare. I guess my ideal product would have been the FFE setting with a cleaned up version of the Ghostwalk rules for 3.5. I do have a side project spawned by a since black-holed ENWorld thread that I still haven't got around to publishing. It might as well be a 'Ghostwalk in twenty pages' FWIW.

 

[Odhanan]

Any more input?

I think the main reason why it fared poorly in the setting poll is twofold: 1/ the notion that a player could play his character after death rubs some gamers the wrong way and 2/ Ghostwalk went out just when 3.5 appeared - everyone focussed on 3.5 and ignored 3.0 products of the time, including Ghostwalk.

I think that Ghostwalk is perfectly usable with Manifest. Elsewhere, it asks from the DM to read carefully the sourcebook and understand the intents behind elements like Manifest's Ward, Manifestation vs. Incorporeality vs. Ethereality, the Calling, Ghost-touch items, and so on. If you understand such things, create your own items or locations that recreate the effect of the Manifest Ward in some key emplacements in your campaign, then it's going to be great. If you just throw Eidolons in without thinking much about it, some players who like to "play the rules" might have a field day.

 

[Yair]

The concept of playing characters once they are dead, if done right, is interesting. I don't think the way Ghostwalk approached things was this right idea, though, so I voted as not liking either - I don't like playing characters after they are dead in the Ghostwalk way. I don't like having a big city of undead, having different types of ghosts, having such a set and unique cosmology, and so on.

The game I like for this is Infernum - where the players essentially play characters in hell. I could very well see starting a game there with the players' dead souls as the PCs, perhaps aided by a trapped mortal or angel, wandering wizard, canniving demon, or so on. Although the cosmology is more specific it is based on Dante's hell so it makes far moer sense for me, and fallen angels, condemned souls etc. make much more intuitive sense.