Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
1. I would prefer the story closer to the book. The digital adaption story is all nice and good, but I think of two reasons here:
a) different NPCs have a huge impact on how the story unfolds - I doubt Aravashnial can exist alongside Cameliia xD
b) After so many hours on the digital game, I cannot imagine anyone just wants to replay the game or stick close to the frame when the book approach can give fresh insights and experiences
2. Same for mythic paths. Some things can be simplified, but I would feel like something is missing out. Since you know that digital adaption barely show anything compared to what Mythic Adventures has to offer.
3. Always original. There are definitely always good written NPCs out there which becomes even better when played by a player. But as a true role player it is hard to give up the idea of playing something original, unless you join a session/group temporarily.
4. I know normally you can set up downtimes easily between sessions. But in the digital age it had become much much harder to manage that. Mainly because people tend to end a session early, leaving in worst case an encounter unresolved, not enough time for talking the details about downtime. The large scale TTRPG thingy is all nice and fine ~ more or less ~ when you can and like to play stuff like Warhammer. Otherwise I am not fond of it. When I do play a role play game I want to be able to focus on that. Plus it is rather hard to fuse both stuff so you can give the characters a heroic battlefield moment while at the same time rolling numbers for army squads and battalions.
I would totally size it down in something like "win two out of three encounters to resolve the result of this army battle". Whether digital game or analog: I personally would be not interested in rolling the dice for actual army battles.
Speaking of books: as I am aware most WotR players got access to the AP via the key they got with the game, did they not?
And I can say (without spoilers) that the game is quite different. Obviously putting in NPC's instead of other players does that. But also the very nature of mythic is different in PNP. You cannot just be a lich for example, you don't get the insane spellbooks and stuff. That said mythic is incredibly strong and makes up for it.
In relation to your questions:
1, If you run the AP, you should follow the book, not the video game. It will be quite hard to make it backward compatible, and the book is roughly balanced (as much as a mythic AP can be).
2, If you can make a balanced version of Owlcat's mythic paths I would 100% love to see it. I just don't see it happening because it will either make the OG ones useless (no spells etc), or so toned down that there really isn't any point to them. Imo the original mythic paths have so much variety and difference, even if multiple players take the same path!
3, Who wants to play an NPC =P the best bit about pathfinder is the humungous variety you can play.
4, Downtime is an interesting one, as in most TTRPG's you don't get a lot of it. I don't remember us actually having any running through it. Sure there are times we need to rest and stuff, but you don't need to worry about making relics or doing army things, as the PNP version focuses a lot more on your party as opposed to the crusade as a whole.
That's my two cents on the matter anyway :)
As for the questions,
1. I suppose by the books, though I find this to be a hard question to answer. Depending on how flexible and how RP-heavy (or just shenanigan-heavy) the group ends up being, it could end up going off the rails of either game or books regardless.
2. I want to say by the Pathfinder system, but... man, Owlcat made the mythic paths so good. Honestly, I think I'd really prefer the homebrew in this case, especially if ends up something like "everyone has their own mythic path and kinda has their own B plot", like in the game? Could be fun and give opportunities for side quests/personal story beats.
3. Original, no doubt. Making my own character and playing them off is most of the fun!
4. Uhhm. I'm not familiar with the large-scale battle rules in Pathfinder. I've played Kingmaker, but my group never got far enough for that to be a thing. Personally I don't think I'd have much interest in it, but it's not a dealbreaker for me. I'm open to being surprised. I do like what was recommended up in the first response, though- having a few key fights in the midst of an army battle, and the outcome of those decides how the overall battle goes, or something like that. As for downtime, I don't see why not. I don't know if I'd want it to be too much (I just have a personal vendetta against crafter wizards. >_>) but some downtime between big moments is always cool.
I suppose if I were to turn this around though, I'd be curious to ask what kind of DMing style you might be planning on shooting for? Whether focusing on combat or roleplay or trying to blend the two. Personally I'm a super heavy RPer, so if you're looking for a more "fight the monsters and move on" style of play I guess I should probably pass.
1. If running a module, I prefer a healthy amount of homebrew material so there are surprises for the party
2. Homebrew, why not use best of both
3. Original
4. A few large scale battles could be fun
For instance, I like what Owlcat did with Areelu's character versus the way that she is presented in the AP and probably will have significant changes to her.
2+: As for my own spin, that dovetails into Mythic Paths. Generally, I like the concept behind Owlcat's paths but I think there's some things that could be done better for a PnP game. I'd prefer to mostly stick with the rules from Mythic Adventures but I'm also a little disappointed with the execution of trials and mythic paths within the Wrath of the Righteous AP.
I think what I'd like to do is use Paizo mechanics with a focus on flavor and B-plots similar to how Owlcat presents them. I'd like each players' source of Mythic Power and/or Mythic Potential to be discussed beforehand and become an integral part of the story. Maybe to start, take inspiration from the WotR Player's Guide and craft unique background traits that lead into a mythic path.
I'm not hugely keen on adding major homebrew mechanics projects for myself, to be honest, but I think that PnP offers a much more customizable experience than any pre-written story.
4: I asked this question to feel out whether people were interested in having more large-scale combat and downtime in the AP after it was such a focus in the game. I think the answer is mostly no.
In my own games at home, I love the idea of structured downtime but struggle to implement it in a way that I find satisfying. Granted, I have been playing mostly DnD 5e and maybe PF1e's more... rigorous... rules canon would offer a better experience. Sounds like that's something that needs to be explored more.
On the topic of mass combat, it does seem like people aren't enthusiastically interested. I've had a concept that I've been toying with for a while to make them more interesting and its close to the idea of "key encounters" that was posited (or maybe it's exactly the same, haha). Essentially, you'd fight one "Emblematic Encounter" which would represent the typical fight that plays out hundreds of times across a battlefield. For instance, say an army of 200 hundred human fighters encounters an army of 450 dretches. In that case, I'd run an encounter where 4 human fighters, controlled by the PCs, fights off against 9 dretches. The end result of this encounter is then multiplied by 50 to see what happens to the two armies on a macro scale. I have a couple of nuances and mechanics in my head but that's the essence of the idea.
What do people think of those things?
Now, on to specific questions:
I'm certainly excited by the prospect! And I do hope for a good deal of community engagement. I know I can't make a home for everyone at a table but I was hoping that other people might decide to run games as well!
I didn't know that people received the AP with digital purchase, I've just had it for years but never played it. That does make me want to put more of my own twists and homebrew in, to keep the temptation to read ahead from being as valuable.
One thing that I've always admired about Owlcat is their ability to take what is essentially 6 different stories with 6 different authors written at the same time trying to guess what between 0-5 of the other authors are doing with a shared pool of characters and forge it into a more cohesive narrative. In WotR, as in KM, this most visibly comes in the form of seeding major antagonists earlier in the story and replacing minor villains with recurrences of other characters. Granted, that's probably also motivated by not needing to make new assets but I like the effect that it has...
Which is really all a big tangent on me agreeing with you that, yes, the game and the books are very different, haha!
I talked a bit about my planned approach to Mythic Paths above but I just want to say that I don't really think I could make a balanced version of Owlcat's mythic paths on my own... although... Maybe it would be as simple as reskinning existing mythic paths. Like, Angel is a Mythic Archetype of Champion, Heirophant or Guardian with a variant selection of Mythic Features and one-three unique traits... Even if that was the scope of the work, I'd prefer to do that on a case-by-case basis for the players rather than having to gate starting the game behind a huge homebrew undertaking.
Hello! To be honest, I've played more DnD 5e than PF1e at this point in my life but I started on 3.PF and just always struggled to find a group that wanted to play those older systems.
I'm not really directly recruiting yet so no need to worry about open space, 0 / 0 slots have currently been filled!
As for my GM style, I feel like saying that "I like a blend of combat and roleplay" is what pretty much everyone answers. While it's true for me, I feel like it doesn't really give that much information. So, I'll supplement. I love stories about growth, friendship, love, struggle, tragedy and triumph and I play TTRPGs to cooperatively tell one of those stories.
I'm a former theater kid, part-time law student and all-around nerd. I love RP. I love the crunch of combat. I love the wonder of exploration. I love blending them and giving each space to shine on their own.
So... I hope that answers your question?
Oh yeah! I also worry that it will be harder to remember characters that aren't Owlcat inclusions or make my own meaningful interpretations that aren't clones of one iteration or another. However, that's the fine line that I'm excited to walk!
I definitely think that there are place in Owlcat's game that are beautifully fleshed out and others that feel like pale shadows of what Paizo intended them to be. Specifically, I love how Owlcat's Worldwound feels like a vast and lived in place but was disappointed with their treatment of Alushinyrra and the Midnight Isles.
It might have also been nice to see Drezen (and maybe even Iz) handled like Kenabres was and give it a lot more focus and potential for exploration.
Currently, I've read closely through the first book and half of the second and skimmed the other five. They make a big deal out of mass combat in the Player's Guide but, now that you mention it, I didn't really see it anywhere other than Book 2... huh.
Personally, I'd like to try out the Emblematic Battle system that I rambled about above and, if it's satisfying, include it as a larger part. Of course, that's entirely dependent on the opinions of a party.
Question: What's the general opinion on alignment? Paizo's Wrath of the Righteous is definitely intended for good characters or neutral/evil characters that the players intend to be redeemed while Owlcat's Wrath of the Righteous has strong options for characters of all alignments. Which do people feel is more suited for a PnP campaign or is there a third way that should be followed?
The OG AP is definitely aimed towards good characters. But you can run through with a more neutral party too. Like it aims to redeem, and that certainly makes parts easier as you have more allies, but you can just amble through with the aim to close the worldwound and not really caring about others.
This was actually a lot of fun for our group, and it shows that the campaign starts before session 1. We ended up with 2 champions (warpriest and fighter), 1 marshal (slayer) and 1 heirophant (pet based inquisitor - i forget as they left the group after act 3 for personal reasons). The cool little side quests for each path were neat and it added some extra camraderie into the group.
I see why Owlcat added evil / crazy type paths but I liked the original.
Also I only went up to Mythic 2. Was more than enough.
A bit off maybe: But playing characters from Mendev in PnP added the extra fun off: On the road to Drezen stop by your Aunty Susan to deliver the peach preserves your mom put in your backpack.
And I’d rather play an original character than any of the companions. :)
Probably the best thing to do! Taking what works best from both is how you can get the best final product, as far as I can figure. That, and a healthy dose of homebrewing story elements.
I actually had an idea I wanted to jump off of with this. I was thinking, what if each player had two characters? One that would be the actual party member, and another that would be basically like a "general" that could be used for said "emblematic encounters" for the army battles. That way we'd have characters of our own to experience the front lines of the war while the party does the hero stuff.
It impresses me how little I know of the PnP mythic rules. Yeah, I think I'm gonna stay out of this. Whatever works for you, personally I just want to hang onto the flavor and potentially the B plots of each mythic path like the game had, and it sounds like you're interested in that too, so even if that just means reskinning what already exists a bit, I'm cool with it.
It does answer my question, and to be honest, it's exactly what I wanted to hear. XD I definitely think I'd be pretty excited to get in on this! I know at the moment 0/0 slots exist to be filled, but if enough people end up in here I expect you might have to start picking and choosing a party, so I'm not gonna assume I'll end up in the final roster.
It's cool that you've played a lot of 5e, it's a pretty fun system too! Depending on how you feel about having a backseat DM and how foggy you are on the rules, I could always try to help with that. I don't know every rule or mechanic (I've admitted to several blind spots in this thread alone. XD) but I know, er... far too many of them, frankly.
I believe every single alignment should be accepted. No hampering creativity! Though of course, there's the obvious thing to be said- you have to make a character that would have reason to, and can, work well in a team environment. It's a party-based game after all. I have nothing against people that want to play an evil character, but it needs to either be a smart evil, or an evil that can be reigned in (Regongar from KM is an example that floats to mind. He's a thug that tries to attack people for no reason sometimes, but he backs off if you tell him no). That, and regardless of alignment your character's motivation should probably have something to do with fighting demons/sealing the worldwound, or at the very least, not something that would directly contradict the crusade's interests.
Its well known in Pathfinder I circles that the Mythic rules were not playtested at the higher levels for various reasons and the Paizo Designers who wrote this had a real sore spot for this snaffu and people kinda hounded them on it when the Mythic rule book came out as well as the AP.
Mythic was NEVER touched again in a product again for PF I except for a few monsters given a feat or two........ YIKES
In the end about 95% of all the Pen & Paper games out there did not even come close to finishing the game. Some who did just RPed their way through it as there was really no point in running the combat encounters sadly by module 4 and on
Best advise I would give is use that non mythic Mythic rule where you get extra stat bumps to level ups and forego for the most part the mythic rules/ Can't quite remember the name as I'd have to find and dig out my old copies of the AP and mythic rules.
It would be nice to get to play it all at some point as it is a very good AP, just the Mythic part really screwed it up.
Let me know if ya get a game going bud as I run and play a LOT of games on Roll20 myself, mostly Pathfinder 2nd edition and Starfinder :)
Cheers
Tom
1. Would you prefer to see a story that cleaves more closely to that presented in Owlcat's game or the original source books? What changes would you make in either?
Original, if only because I've played through Owlcat's, and it would leave room for surprises. I would like to see adjustments to major spoilers (particularly who turns out to be possessed/traitor), provided these don't require rewriting the whole module...
2. Would you prefer to see Mythic paths implemented according to the PFRPG rules or a homebrew interpretation of Owlcat's interpretation?
I don't feel particularly strongly about this one; either would be fine, but if I had to choose, I'd pick PFRPG. My experience with homebrewed content to that degree is that it commonly steers towards the GM's biases. This may be the exception, but if I had to guess without knowing, I'd go with something standardized.
3. Would you be interested in playing as one of the NPCs/Companions presented in WotR or would you prefer an original character?
OC. I have zero interest in playing someone else's character past a one-shot, and I don't need a PF one-shot. (Note: This one is a deal-breaker for me)
I'm not sure how I'd feel about someone else playing Camelia if I were a paladin; if that were a potential issue, I'd play something else.
4. What is your level of interest in Downtime and Large Scale Combat in TTRPGs? How would you like these story elements handled?
When I played Skull & Shackles, the party let me be "admiral". I had fun that session, but I'm not sure others did (it also had very few fleet battles; I think 1-2 to learn it, and then a final battle). My largest concern on these isn't if I'll have fun, but if others will.
If it's as time-intensive as S&S, then I think it'd be more fun if we each had our own army and settled the large scale combat between sessions; so we each send our armies out to different locations, John does his on week 1, I do mine on week 2, Paul on week 3, Ringo on week 4, etc. Maybe the 2nd time around, Ringo's rebuilding his army, so we skip him? Anyway, that way one person isn't dominating the table. Not sure if this is worth the GM's time, just a thought I had.
If I did, I haven't seen it; that said, I haven't looked for it. I thought I only got the Steam download.
Edit: For some reason, I didn't realize this thread was a day old, so not sure if there's still room. Also, just read Higgy's post about large scale combat being much more minimal, so ignore my proposal in #4.
Owlcat's version is almost a universal improvement.
1: I intend to base the story of the game off of Paizo's AP moreso than Owlcat's game but will take inspiration from both. I will also be changing elements to make sure that people who are familiar with both canons will still have surprises in store and for the story to make sense as a cohesive whole.
2: I intend for Mythic Paths to function mechanically according to Paizo's rules but would like to see a lore-implementation closer to Owlcat's game. I want to discuss the source/origin of each player's mythic power and/or potential with that player before the game and integrate their ascension as B plots throughout the story.
I've only used Mythic rules at very low levels and have never run a game with higher tiers available. From feedback here, it seems that they cause problems. I'm willing to invite those problems into my life, however, under the expectation that, if things get too crazy, rebalancing will be done.
3: Players will be playing OCs.
4: Still up in the air. I have a couple of ideas for making this a more engaging part of the PnP experience but nothing is set in stone and I'm still very much open for suggestions.
5: I'm intending to limit characters to only Good or Neutral alignments.
On availability: I intend to run this game for 3-5 people, of which one has been chosen from people I personally know who play this game. When I'm actively soliciting players, I'll probably start a new thread on this forum.
I will respond to specific posts later today. I've just been busy for the past day and a half. I wanted to post this so people don't think that I've disappeared.
In regard to this, up to Mythic 5 is fairly OK. You get some powers and good stuff and is enjoyable. 6-8 is a little busted as you get the highest tier abilities, great for those that want to push game boundaries. 9/10 (if you get this far) is broken. Your characters become functionally immortal, by coming back to life, or only being killed by crits from artifacts (if it takes them to 0).
I don't know where the AP ends, or at what mythic. But for my group (in the middle of Act 4) I think are Mythic 4, or 5? It's been a while.