The Campaign Builder's Guild

Quote from: SteerpikeMake magic more dangerous and/or difficult and time-consuming to use at higher levels by building in a threat of madness, magical mishaps, or complicated rituals into spellcasting. This isn't so much as straight up nerf of spellcasters as it makes casters risky, unreliable, and expensive.

Well, given that Pathfinder's spells as written are generally safe, reliable, and cheap, this pretty much is a nerf. Of course, that's not inherently bad. My main issue is making sure it's done in a way that makes it still fun to play a spell casters, and doesn't just disempower the players and make it more frustrating and stupid to be a caster. I'm against any sort of arbitrary random mishaps, fuck-you effects, or the like.

That said, the idea of "risky magic" is a fun and compelling one. Dresden Fate does this with evocation, Asura actually works this way, too: every prana power (i.e., spell) has a cost in "Dissonance," which reflects the amount that the universe pushes back when you try to do something that violates natural laws. There are a few ways to pay this cost, but the most direct and most commonly used is to simply sacrifice hit points or mind points, in effect, you have to take damage to your health or your sanity in order to be able to accomplish magical effects. There's a risk there, because you're now weaker, but it's also something that is fairly deterministic, so players are able to take calculated risks. It makes the use of prana powers potentially capable of causing harm or madness, and thus somewhat dangerous to use, without seeming too arbitrary.

Quote from: SteerpikeChange DMing style to favour non-casters, by creating scenarios and encouraging a style of play that puts pressure on the limited spell slots of casters. This makes casters "overpowered" for the first part of a day, but as their spells dwindle so does their utility. Survival horror scenarios where characters must survive onslaughts of monsters come to mind here. Strongly discourage a style of play where resting safely and frequently is a trivial, cheap, and reliable option. Create a world where casters hold their spell slots dear while fighters, who can chop stuff all day, never run out of oomph.

I doubt if this would work very well. As far as I can tell, the addition of unlimited cantrips and various utility powers are designed so that spellcasters always have something to do, rather than the oldschool D&D model of having to shoot a crossbow or run and hide after using up your one spell slot for the day. Modern spellcasters don't have to budget their spell slots quite so meticulously. That's not to say that resource management shouldn't be part of the game for classes with limited resources, but I also think that the way you're suggesting to do it harkens back too much to a way of play that was mostly left behind because a lot of people found it annoying and not that much fun. The penalty for failing to allocate your resources should be having to fall back on something weaker... but not uselessness.

Relying too much on spell slots as a limiting factor also runs into big problems when considering a "limited selection of at will invocations" casting model like the Warlock uses, weird encounter-based classes like the Factotum, and anything with faster recovery of abilities like the classes from Path of War. These classes will still outshine pure mundanes, unless they get arbitrarily nerfed somehow. I'll also point out that a fighter is still going to be indirectly affected by this, because, after all, he runs out of oomph just as soon as he runs out of hit points, which, since he's on the front lines, are going to be taxed much more severely-- and it's probably the cleric's limited spell slots that are going to heal him up.

Quote from: SteerpikeMake magic-users distrusted and persecuted in-setting to discourage rampant magic use in civilized society. Known casters quickly become targets for witch-hunters, get kicked out of towns, lynched/burnt at the stake, and otherwise shunned. This inhibits magic use in "civilized" areas and thus affords non-casters greater opportunity to shine.

This also just excludes casters from the game when the party is in town. What fun is that? While the rest of the party is shopping, the wizard gets to... wait around outside doing nothing? Fight an arbitrary fuck-you encounter singlehanded, maybe?

Also, without big changes to the general effectiveness and usefulness of magic, that is, without big changes to the actual spells are being cast, doing too much of this just makes people seem like paranoid luddites. And, I mean, maybe there are some paranoid luddites out there, but the whole population being paranoid luddites who are afraid of magic when magic is so useful seems sort of silly.

I think my biggest problem with fixes like these are that they don't so much directly nerf spellcasters in a specific way that improves game balance, but, rather, they seem more to exist to punish a player for deciding to play a caster. That's a style of play I cannot and do not get behind.

The supposed balance of "casters do great things a limited amount of time" and "martials do mediocre things at will" has never really worked.  If a DM doesn't take advantage of the difference by pushing the caster beyond his resources, then the "disadvantage" of a caster means nothing and they are strictly better than their mundane companions.  If the DM does take advantage and forces a caster beyond his resources, the result is usually either that the caster's player is essentially left out of the game, or that the other players, not being stupid, voluntarily withdraw themselves from further action until their caster is ready to contribute again.

PoW "works" by essentially giving up the fight and making martials into per-encounter spellcasters.  The other way to give up, of course, would be to do the opposite and make casters into martials by letting them cast all the time but nerfing magic's effects into the ground.  The latter bothers people who want less high-flying supernatural craziness in their martials, and the latter bothers... well, most people, I'd assume.

Quote from: sparkletwistWell, given that Pathfinder's spells as written are generally safe, reliable, and cheap, this pretty much is a nerf. Of course, that's not inherently bad. My main issue is making sure it's done in a way that makes it still fun to play a spell casters, and doesn't just disempower the players and make it more frustrating and stupid to be a caster. I'm against any sort of arbitrary random mishaps, fuck-you effects, or the like.

Sure, I mean in a sense of course, it's definitely limiting the power of casters and so is a nerf, but without necessarily reducing the number of spells they can cast or how much damage they do or whatnot. Basically I think Pathfinder RAW's assumptions around magic are kinda boring, and, moreover, their boringness (i.e. reliability, cheapness) contribute to the overpoweredness of casters.

I can understand that some people don't like mishaps and random effects, but some people do - it's a taste thing, I'd argue. I think they have to be handled relatively carefully, but the randomnenss of them can be a source of fun and delight. I've seen a lot of eyes light up when a wild magic effect occurs. I don't think a 1st level spell should have a chance of destroying the caster or anything.

The Asura style system is definitely one way to do it that would involve less randomness.

Quote from: sparkletwistI doubt if this would work very well. As far as I can tell, the addition of unlimited cantrips and various utility powers are designed so that spellcasters always have something to do, rather than the oldschool D&D model of having to shoot a crossbow or run and hide after using up your one spell slot for the day.

I guess, but I don't think the cantrips/utility powers are really what make casters overpowered.

Quote from: sparkletwistThat's not to say that resource management shouldn't be part of the game for classes with limited resources, but I also think that the way you're suggesting to do it harkens back too much to a way of play that was mostly left behind because a lot of people found it annoying and not that much fun.

I'd frankly kinda dispute that it's really been left behind. In a lot of ways 5E hearkens back to old school gaming, which has been making a steadily growing comeback for a number of years (Lamentations of the Flame Princess, retroclones, the OSR, lots of DIY D&D stuff). If anything the assumptions of 3rd and 4th edition where the characters are hyper-powerful and have fewer limitations on resources are kinda waning now, at least for some.

You're quite right to note that the changes I'm suggesting make Pathfinder more "old school" and limit character power. I'd argue this is not remotely the same as disempowering players.

Quote from: sparkletwistThe penalty for failing to allocate your resources should be having to fall back on something weaker... but not uselessness.

Isn't that what the cantrips and utility powers are for though?

Quote from: sparkletwistRelying too much on spell slots as a limiting factor also runs into big problems when considering a "limited selection of at will invocations" casting model like the Warlock uses, weird encounter-based classes like the Factotum, and anything with faster recovery of abilities like the classes from Path of War. These classes will still outshine pure mundanes, unless they get arbitrarily nerfed somehow.

Oh yeah, I just wouldn't use those at all.

Quote from: sparkletwistThis also just excludes casters from the game when the party is in town. What fun is that? While the rest of the party is shopping, the wizard gets to... wait around outside doing nothing? Fight an arbitrary fuck-you encounter singlehanded, maybe?

No no - the caster can still do stuff in town. They just have to be careful about it when that stuff is magic - like taking care to avoid witnesses, intimidating people, being careful with the law, using magic sparingly, using disguises. They can shop for some of the same stuff as other players (i.e. non magical gear), but that takes, what, 5 minutes maybe of game time, unless the DM makes you go to every artisan individually and roleplay every haggle?

Quote from: sparkletwistAlso, without big changes to the general effectiveness and usefulness of magic, that is, without big changes to the actual spells are being cast, doing too much of this just makes people seem like paranoid luddites. And, I mean, maybe there are some paranoid luddites out there, but the whole population being paranoid luddites who are afraid of magic when magic is so useful seems sort of silly.

It depends in part on how common magic is. In the version of Pathfinder I'm envisioning it'd be rarer, and because of the dangers that might go along with it (see suggestion 1) definitely wouldn't always seem useful.

Basically I'm arguing that one way to "fix" magic in Pathfinder is to fundamentally change a lot of the assumptions around its commonness, safeness, and how it's regarded. I definitely don't think this sort of setting is the only interesting one. In my current game pretty much everyone and their dog is a wizard; we're in 5th edition though, where there are barely any mundane classes and even the fighter has an arcane archetype.

Quote from: sparkletwistI think my biggest problem with fixes like these are that they don't so much directly nerf spellcasters in a specific way that improves game balance, but, rather, they seem more to exist to punish a player for deciding to play a caster. That's a style of play I cannot and do not get behind.

I'm increasingly convinced that any account of game balance is very difficult to measure without context like how long characters typically have between rests, what types and difficulties of monsters are encountered, how common treasure is (and how much of it is magic), and what kind of obstacles a DM dumps on players; I also just plain old dislike the idea that combat efficacy should be the key component of balance.

Currently Pathfinder effectively punishes non-casters. Instead of buffing non-casters, all I'm arguing is that casters could be dragged down to the same level (in fun and  challenging ways that make magic more interesting), so that everyone is lowly and underpowered in their own way. I often really enjoy this style of play both as a player and as a DM - what we might call the Call of Cthulhu model. Certainly not everyone's cup of tea but I don't think it's inherently less viable or fun than everyone playing superheroes.

Quote from: SteerpikeI'd frankly kinda dispute that it's really been left behind. In a lot of ways 5E hearkens back to old school gaming, which has been making a steadily growing comeback for a number of years (Lamentations of the Flame Princess, retroclones, the OSR, lots of DIY D&D stuff). If anything the assumptions of 3rd and 4th edition where the characters are hyper-powerful and have fewer limitations on resources are kinda waning now, at least for some.

I don't particularly agree with any of that, and I'd point to the success of Fate and its ilk, but that is probably a fairly big tangent. On the topic of 5th edition, I'll just say that it includes Inspiration, which is the first time that a narrativist-style meta-mechanic (albeit a rather halfhearted one) has been included in the core of D&D.

Quote from: SteerpikeYou're quite right to note that the changes I'm suggesting make Pathfinder more "old school" and limit character power. I'd argue this is not remotely the same as disempowering players.

I'm not against reining in the power of casters a bit. I mean, more limited classes like the Warlock and the Path of War classes aren't capable of nearly as much overpowered craziness as Vanican prepared casters, so I think it's sort of weird and counterproductive that they are the first thing you'd throw out, but anyway. As far as I can tell your idea is to change magic from something deterministic and just works (that is, the player gets to make a decision about using a power and then use that power) to a system where the player decides to maybe use magic and then random bad things might happen depending on the dice roll for some casting skill check or whatever the DM decides. That decreases the amount of agency the player has in basically arbitrary ways, and, yes, that is disempowering, in a way that simply reducing the power of spells or the diversity of spells or the number of spell slots or taking a calculated risk related to one's hit points is not.

Quote from: SteerpikeNo no - the caster can still do stuff in town. They just have to be careful about it when that stuff is magic - like taking care to avoid witnesses, intimidating people, being careful with the law, using magic sparingly, using disguises. They can shop for some of the same stuff as other players (i.e. non magical gear), but that takes, what, 5 minutes maybe of game time, unless the DM makes you go to every artisan individually and roleplay every haggle?

Well, it's going to take longer if the wizard's player has to go through all the trouble of carefully sneaking around, using disguises, probably casting defensive spells secretly, or whatever, especially given how paranoid and meticulous wizard players tend to be. Maybe this kind of thing would be fun to some people, but it might also get tedious and end up being less fun to the rest of the group who is all sitting around while the wizard figures out how they're going to get into town so they can buy material components to replace the ones they used up... and yes, in nerfed-magic-world of course we're probably going to start tracking material components, because that's another way to put some limits on casters. Not really a very good way, but it's something that could be done, I guess.

Quote from: SteerpikeI also just plain old dislike the idea that combat efficacy should be the key component of balance.

I do too, to be honest, but this is Pathfinder we're talking about, so it's probably going to be the metric we're stuck with. Pathfinder gives roleplaying very little mechanical relevance. Not quite as bad as 4th edition, but what is? Nonetheless, Pathfinder has no real way to mechanically codify character qualities akin to Fate's aspects, its social mechanics are primitive and barely functional, and a lot of the mechanics for doing interesting things crafting and alchemy and such seem mostly based around making items to get more combat power.

Quote from: SteerpikeCurrently Pathfinder effectively punishes non-casters.

It's certainly true that non-casters have less options on the table. However, they have those options, and nobody's messing with them. It may be a lack of an enticement, given that those options are less, but I wouldn't call it a punishment. There aren't brutal critical miss tables, or meticulously tracking how much they can fight until they get tired out, or ardently pacifist towns where anyone carrying a sword is treated like dirt, or whatever else is specifically designed to specifically punish them for using their class features.

Quote from: SteerpikeInstead of buffing non-casters, all I'm arguing is that casters could be dragged down to the same level (in fun and  challenging ways that make magic more interesting), so that everyone is lowly and underpowered in their own way. I often really enjoy this style of play both as a player and as a DM - what we might call the Call of Cthulhu model. Certainly not everyone's cup of tea but I don't think it's inherently less viable or fun than everyone playing superheroes.

In the realm of Pathfinder, I think this sort of game is inherently less viable. Pathfinder games tend to be about problem-solving and overcoming challenges, and characters that are incapable of actually solving the problems and overcoming the challenges in front of them are not particularly viable. I mean, if we're talking about the sort of game where failure leads to interesting new things and "winning" is often basically getting away from the terrifying monster before it eats you, that's another thing, but Pathfinder isn't that game, and nerfing casters won't make it that game. It'll just make it a game where players get stuck a lot and die a lot. If you find that sort of thing fun, fine. I don't.

Quote from: sparkletwistI don't particularly agree with any of that, and I'd point to the success of Fate and its ilk, but that is probably a fairly big tangent. On the topic of 5th edition, I'll just say that it includes Inspiration, which is the first time that a narrativist-style meta-mechanic (albeit a rather halfhearted one) has been included in the core of D&D.

Basically I think 5th captures two trends in gaming: one, a move towards an older school style of play, and the other based around seering the game more as a story which the players co-create. At some sense these are in tension, but 5th deliberately presents itself as customizable and semi-modular for that reason.

Quote from: sparkletwistAs far as I can tell your idea is to change magic from something deterministic and just works (that is, the player gets to make a decision about using a power and then use that power) to a system where the player decides to maybe use magic and then random bad things might happen depending on the dice roll for some casting skill check or whatever the DM decides. That decreases the amount of agency the player has in basically arbitrary ways, and, yes, that is disempowering, in a way that simply reducing the power of spells or the diversity of spells or the number of spell slots or taking a calculated risk related to one's hit points is not.

It's disempowering in the sense that it reins in the scope of things a character can safely do. If you'd count that as disempowerment then I'd agree. I draw a very strong distinction between disempowering players and disempowering characters. I'd argue that making magic unpredictable doesn't take away player choice, what it does is add a new dimension of risk, just as there's a dimension of risk to a fighter charging into a group of ogres or a rogue trying to navigate a trapped corridor. I tend to find balancing risk to be the heart of suspense in roleplaying games, and love the nail-biting feeling of something possibly working or not.

Mishaps are only one possibility though. I think the Asura-style health/sanity drain is a great alternative for those who don't like as much unpredictability. It forces tactical decision making in a really cool way.

[quote-sparkletwist]Well, it's going to take longer if the wizard's player has to go through all the trouble of carefully sneaking around, using disguises, probably casting defensive spells secretly, or whatever, especially given how paranoid and meticulous wizard players tend to be.[/quote]

Eh, I dunno if I really buy this. How many defensive spells do you need to cast to buy a new horse? Can't the mage just not use magic for 5 minutes while the party does all of their shopping? The sneaking and disguises and such I'm thinking more in terms of town adventuring and plots, so to speak, not mundane town chores.

Quote from: sparkletwistI do too, to be honest, but this is Pathfinder we're talking about, so it's probably going to be the metric we're stuck with. Pathfinder gives roleplaying very little mechanical relevance. Not quite as bad as 4th edition, but what is? Nonetheless, Pathfinder has no real way to mechanically codify character qualities akin to Fate's aspects, its social mechanics are primitive and barely functional, and a lot of the mechanics for doing interesting things crafting and alchemy and such seem mostly based around making items to get more combat power.

I do see what you mean here. You're probably right from a pure mechanical/mathematical perspective.

Quote from: sparkletwistIt's certainly true that non-casters have less options on the table. However, they have those options, and nobody's messing with them. It may be a lack of an enticement, given that those options are less, but I wouldn't call it a punishment.

I'm just seeing dying in the thick of combat - or being hit with whatever weird ability a monster has - as being punishment: there's more inherent risk built into the fighter's job, where he gets hit by all manner of horrifying attacks and spells just for being in the front line, than for the mage solidly plugging away spells from the back. Sure the mage can be a target, but it's the fighter's job to be the butt-monkey in a lot of cases.

Quote from: sparkletwistIn the realm of Pathfinder, I think this sort of game is inherently less viable. Pathfinder games tend to be about problem-solving and overcoming challenges, and characters that are incapable of actually solving the problems and overcoming the challenges in front of them are not particularly viable. I mean, if we're talking about the sort of game where failure leads to interesting new things and "winning" is often basically getting away from the terrifying monster before it eats you, that's another thing, but Pathfinder isn't that game, and nerfing casters won't make it that game. It'll just make it a game where players get stuck a lot and die a lot. If you find that sort of thing fun, fine. I don't.

I think this is taking it to a bit of reductio ad absurdum. To clarify, I'm not actually suggesting that Pathfinder should be made into CoC or something like it. But I do think it could be a more fun if it took a few cues from games where the assumed power of characters relative to the challenges they face is lower or more uneven. This isn't to say the characters are incapable of solving problems or overcoming challenges or that all the assumptions of the game get totally chucked out or that playing a caster be made a total misery.

Basically, buffing non-casters in various ways to make them catch up to casters takes the game in the other direction, towards a super-heroic game where everyone is special and hyper-competent at their chosen specialty. This is one of the things I like least about the 3rd/4th/Pathfinder generation of D&D. It might fix the problem of caster/non-caster disparity but at the cost of emphasizing something I like least about the game. You're quite right to point out that it's baked into Pathfinder's core assumptions, I'm just arguing those assumptions aren't sacrosanct, and can also be part of the tweaking process.

Quote from: SteerpikeI'd argue that making magic unpredictable doesn't take away player choice, what it does is add a new dimension of risk

Adding new risk in this way is taking away player choice. Something that was formerly a choice solely in the hands of the player-- do I use this spell or not?-- now can have interference from the dice or the DM-- do I use this spell or not and will I be able to? Doing this may or may not be acceptable to you, but it's hard to argue that it isn't what is going on.

Quote from: SteerpikeEh, I dunno if I really buy this. How many defensive spells do you need to cast to buy a new horse? Can't the mage just not use magic for 5 minutes while the party does all of their shopping?

You said "known casters," and I took that to mean that people who were known to be able to perform magic were at risk at any point. I thought the unpredictability of it and always having to be on your guard was a big part of the idea.

Quote from: SteerpikeI'm just seeing dying in the thick of combat - or being hit with whatever weird ability a monster has - as being punishment: there's more inherent risk built into the fighter's job, where he gets hit by all manner of horrifying attacks and spells just for being in the front line, than for the mage solidly plugging away spells from the back. Sure the mage can be a target, but it's the fighter's job to be the butt-monkey in a lot of cases.

You know, you're right about this, but part of the problem there is the current disparity between fighters and casters. The fighter doesn't have the array of defensive spells that a caster does-- he'll probably get buffed before the fight, but that's not the same as having them at his disposal. He's probably not going to be invisible, or have mirror image up, or be able to teleport, or whatever other tricks that casters routinely throw around. The amount of crowd control available to fighters is also much less, so he kind of has to wade into the thick of it and get beat on rather than being able to throw down a black tentacles or create pit or whatever.

My solution is to give some of these fancy abilities to non-casters, too. Your solution seems to be to bring non-casters down to the same level... so they get beat on and have to be the butt-monkeys, too? Maybe that ties into...

Quote from: SteerpikeI do think it could be a more fun if it took a few cues from games where the assumed power of characters relative to the challenges they face is lower or more uneven.

... and maybe that's true. However, for that to work, Pathfinder would need a functional social system, a stealth system that didn't break in half as soon as it hit anything resembling a corner case, and chase mechanics that aren't contrived and stupid. So that talking, sneaking, and running away were actually viable options to avoid combat, rather than afterthoughts that don't really impact the fact that you're still assuredly going to be getting into (and hopefully winning) fights against level-appropriate opposition. Pathfinder doesn't really have those things, so it's the wrong game to use when trying to focus on those things.

Quote from: SteerpikeBasically, buffing non-casters in various ways to make them catch up to casters takes the game in the other direction, towards a super-heroic game where everyone is special and hyper-competent at their chosen specialty. This is one of the things I like least about the 3rd/4th/Pathfinder generation of D&D. It might fix the problem of caster/non-caster disparity but at the cost of emphasizing something I like least about the game. You're quite right to point out that it's baked into Pathfinder's core assumptions, I'm just arguing those assumptions aren't sacrosanct, and can also be part of the tweaking process.

As I've said several times, I'm not opposed to some reasonable nerfs for casters. I certainly agree that those assumptions aren't sacrosanct-- at least within the limitations of the system, as explained above-- and some sort of "meeting in the middle" could definitely work, especially since Hoers is going for more of a low fantasy feel anyway. I would just like whatever happens to happen in a (mostly) deterministic way that feels like a reasonable restriction on a powerful class in order to rebalance the game and/or fit a genre, rather than just giving the character the same amount of power as ever and then throwing in a bunch of bad effects that more or less just punish the player for trying to use it.

I've been reading the conversation and, along with my dislike for various other embedded system problems and my previous thoughts on homebrew systems, I think creating my own is something I'm ultimately going to try. I'll take concepts and ideas from Pathfinder, GURPS and Fate where appropriate, but what I really think I need is a system that gives characters three point pools - HP, Stamina, and Mana. This will most likely take me a very long time to put together, but I don't see any other way to be satisfied with a system to the level where I won't get annoyed two months down the road and have to retcon a game to accommodate a sudden additional houserule.

I'm thinking something with the standard six ability scores. In my old attempt at thinking through a classless system that has taken some inspiration from Dark Souls, the six stats were divided into three "passive" (Endurance, Wisdom, Mana) and three "active" (Strength, Dexterity, Charisma) stats (the division of which I think I have forgotten the purpose of). Stamina and Mana determined the size of the action pool and the spell pool, respectively, as well as how fast it'd replenish itself. Alternatively, they could only affect how long the pools replenish, while your character level would then determine HP, stamina, and mana points in addition to all of the other things that'd come with it (skill points, talents, etc.). If characters are getting mana points regardless of whether or not they're casters, though, then I think the stat has to provide something extra - it might be a hybrid magic/luck pool or something. A third way to do it would be to just strike out the mana pool as a core stat, relegating it to something you get from putting points into a skill or set of sub-skills.

This might be worth pursuing, taking some tips from the GURPs way of casting spells, but apply it to both pools (spend more to make your usage more effective). The trick for this, I think, is to determine what the options are for extra stamina expenditure, although the pools don't necessarily have to work the same way at all - stamina in my mind seems to be a balancing act between reserving enough points to block/parry/dodge incoming attacks and effects while also spending enough to affect your opponent (and in different scenarios, focusing solely on one of these two core options may be the best strategy); mana on the other hand would essentially be a way of "metamagic customization" for some basic spell effects, again sort of the same way GURPS does their spell effects - only with more variety. Either way, a part of the mechanic would have to be that casting too much too frequently, and/or exceeding some calculated limit of "per-spell/action" expenditure would do harm to the character (more minor "overloading" would probably just slow down the recharge for a bit, while more severe expenditures - while providing lots of power - would exhaust or harm the character in some way).

In such a system, there are no true spell levels - it's just a matter of what base effects you know, although you might still consider your 'spell level' to be whatever amount you can spend at once on a casting without any backlash. I feel like it would also tie well with two themeing aspects of Haveneast specifically: 1) that most casters are not pure casters (always my intent, but not a reality with Pathfinder), and 2) that spellcasting is routinely accompanied by the use of different foci to hasten and simplify the casting of different kinds of spells (e.g. masks reducing the health costs of necromancy spells, and increasing the intensity of weather spells).

Still thinking about this. Do you guys have any thoughts on this? I know I've discussed it with various people to different degrees in the past.

Quote from: HoersDo you guys have any thoughts on this?

Designing your own system is hard. I know, because I've done it. You end up reinventing a lot of wheels. I don't want to be too discouraging, but I will say that if you can get what you want by hacking something existing you might save quite a bit of time, even if the hacks are significant. I could've probably saved a bit of time and frustration developing Asura if I thought of it from the beginning as a pretty comprehensive Fate hack (which is more or less what it turned into) rather than starting with a clean slate that I then had to figure out how to fill in.

Quote from: HoersI won't get annoyed two months down the road

If you're trying to design your own system, you will be annoyed two months down the road anyway, because there are always false starts and mechanics that you reconsider.  :dead:

Quote from: sparkletwistAdding new risk in this way is taking away player choice. Something that was formerly a choice solely in the hands of the player-- do I use this spell or not?-- now can have interference from the dice or the DM-- do I use this spell or not and will I be able to? Doing this may or may not be acceptable to you, but it's hard to argue that it isn't what is going on.

I suppose one way of thinking about is that it takes away one choice the player had, then replaces it with a new choice with new risks and a new range of consequences. It statistically decreases player control over the world, but not the total number of possible choices players can make.

I still contend this is just a new choice with different parameters, so the total number of choices doesn't change. The possible range of results changes, but even regular standard issue spells don't always succeed.

Anecdotally, my players love this stuff. Last night I was running Death Frost Doom and a player rolled up a Magic-User with the summon spell, a 1st level spell which can have some crazily unpredictable results. Check it out on page 134 here. For one random example, this can happen if a summoning spell goes awry:

"Instead  of  summoning  a  creature, a  portal  was  opened  to  a  dimension of infinite liquid. Whether this liquid  is  something  mundane  like water or something more exotic is up to the Referee. The sea level will begin to rise immediately, worldwide, at a rate of 10' per Turn until the water reaches a level 50' higher than the caster was when the spell was cast. Once it reaches this level, it will drain away at a rate of 1d10 feet per day."

The spell can literally unleash a Biblical flood. Casting this spell was the highlight of the night, something the player kept carefully in their back pocket for a long time till it was absolutely needed. I'm not claiming that this sort of mechanic is objectively superior or something; I'm claiming it's purely a matter of taste. De gustibus non est disputandum.

Quote from: sparkletwistYou said "known casters," and I took that to mean that people who were known to be able to perform magic were at risk at any point. I thought the unpredictability of it and always having to be on your guard was a big part of the idea.

I'd still imagine there are some instances - like buying trail rations - where the caster can still expect some degree of anonymity.

Quote from: sparkletwistHowever, for that to work, Pathfinder would need a functional social system, a stealth system that didn't break in half as soon as it hit anything resembling a corner case, and chase mechanics that aren't contrived and stupid. So that talking, sneaking, and running away were actually viable options to avoid combat, rather than afterthoughts that don't really impact the fact that you're still assuredly going to be getting into (and hopefully winning) fights against level-appropriate opposition. Pathfinder doesn't really have those things, so it's the wrong game to use when trying to focus on those things.

This is definitely one of those things where you prefer a more crunchy/mechanics-intensive system than I for various things.

The very phrase "level-appropriate opposition" sort of makes my skin crawl a bit.

EDIT: I should add that I've played Pathfinder for years, and my characters have all successfully talked, sneaked, and fled at one point or another, and not merely as a last resort. I've run multiple heist missions in Pathfinder, court sessions and political debates in Pathfinder, chases in Pathfinder. I didn't always use every bit of Pathfinder RAW but rather used the broad skeleton of the system - ability checks, skill checks, saving throws -to run things. These instances were not disasters at all - indeed they were some of the most fun I've ever had playing Pathfinder. I'm not convinced at all that adding intensely crunchy subsystems for talking or running would have greatly improved the experiences for me and my players (though I can see why it would work for some groups). I've also run lots of Pathfinder where challenges were not always level-appropriate, and these sessions also did not descend into misery. Often I find myself, when running Pathfinder, ignoring some of its more intricate rules-systems, or stripping it down (this is doubtless why I've come to prefer 5th, and various retroclones of 1st/2nd edition D&D). I frequently need to rely on my judgment as a DM to make calls on the fly; I've found that games which embrace this element of roleplaying rather than providing a rule for everything are more enjoyable for me and my players. My approach to improve Pathfinder would mostly be to strip out stuff rather than add things in. Incidentally a lot of the editions of D&D I'm describing don't have big, crunchy systems for stealth, talking, or running either, but they also are far less dependent on level-appropriate encounters and don't assume combat is the central task.

I'll gladly admit that Pathfinder is not a perfect system for lots of things. I'm not claiming to fix it, just suggesting ways it would be more fun for me. That would include contesting some of its core assumptions, like the centrality of level-appropriate combat, or the way magic is handled.

Quote from: sparkletwistI would just like whatever happens to happen in a (mostly) deterministic way that feels like a reasonable restriction on a powerful class in order to rebalance the game and/or fit a genre, rather than just giving the character the same amount of power as ever and then throwing in a bunch of bad effects that more or less just punish the player for trying to use it.

That's fine, I just think this is a matter of taste. Which is totally okay - we don't have the same preferences all the time. You wouldn't enjoy the game I'm describing. But I don't think your critique rests in anything other than taste - there's nothing "objectively" wrong with the approach I'm describing.

Quote from: sparkletwistMy solution is to give some of these fancy abilities to non-casters, too. Your solution seems to be to bring non-casters down to the same level... so they get beat on and have to be the butt-monkeys, too?

Yep!  :grin:

Quote from: SteerpikeThe spell can literally unleash a Biblical flood. Casting this spell was the highlight of the night, something the player kept carefully in their back pocket for a long time till it was absolutely needed. I'm not claiming that this sort of mechanic is objectively superior or something; I'm claiming it's purely a matter of taste.

I mean, yeah, it's subjective. However, I will say the closest thing to "objectively bad" in a general discussion about game mechanics is probably "what percentage of games would simply not work at all with this mechanic?" When we're talking about a first level spell that can, at the whims of the dice, utterly derail the entire adventure, possibly cause a TPK, and wreck the entire campaign and setting... that percentage is probably going to be rather large.

Quote from: SteerpikeThe very phrase "level-appropriate opposition" sort of makes my skin crawl a bit.

For what it's worth, I agree with you. I specifically was using that phrase to highlight the limited nature of the Pathfinder system.

Quote from: SteerpikeThis is definitely one of those things where you prefer a more crunchy/mechanics-intensive system than I for various things.

Actually, no, I don't. I like systems like Fate that work more like you're describing, where outcomes are governed more by broad dice rolls that give the GM guidance for how to make up semi-arbitrary outcomes. And that can work for Pathfinder, too! However, the fact that it works to do it that way does not change the fact that Pathfinder includes rules in its book for using the Diplomacy skill and those rules are terrible and often produce nonsensical outcomes. If it included a functional system, the group could choose whether to use the crunchy system or wing it with quick dice rolls like you and I prefer. Since it does not include a functional system, there's no choice-- you have to wing it. Or write your own.

Quote from: sparkletwist

Quote from: SteerpikeThis is definitely one of those things where you prefer a more crunchy/mechanics-intensive system than I for various things.

Actually, no, I don't. I like systems like Fate that work more like you're describing, where outcomes are governed more by broad dice rolls that give the GM guidance for how to make up semi-arbitrary outcomes. And that can work for Pathfinder, too! However, the fact that it works to do it that way does not change the fact that Pathfinder includes rules in its book for using the Diplomacy skill and those rules are terrible and often produce nonsensical outcomes. If it included a functional system, the group could choose whether to use the crunchy system or wing it with quick dice rolls like you and I prefer. Since it does not include a functional system, there's no choice-- you have to wing it. Or write your own.

For what it's worth, I'm leaning towards Sparkletwist's side in this chaotic spell effects debate. You really can't strategize around, or mitigate against such a broad range of randomness, so it does take away options and tactics in favor of gambling. I mean there's value in that, and would make for fun situations, but it's not something that you can really trust if you see what I'm saying

So are there any systems that cater towards social role-play and diplomacy? I've been toying around the idea of an E3 game as an experiment. Basically you cap off at level 3 so the game takes on a gritty low power feel where you have to use you're resources and skills wisely. I think this would be fun to try in a city setting sometime. But if there was a system that catered towards such low level ideals in the first place, I'm curious.

Quote from: sparkletwistActually, no, I don't. I like systems like Fate that work more like you're describing, where outcomes are governed more by broad dice rolls that give the GM guidance for how to make up semi-arbitrary outcomes. And that can work for Pathfinder, too! However, the fact that it works to do it that way does not change the fact that Pathfinder includes rules in its book for using the Diplomacy skill and those rules are terrible and often produce nonsensical outcomes. If it included a functional system, the group could choose whether to use the crunchy system or wing it with quick dice rolls like you and I prefer. Since it does not include a functional system, there's no choice-- you have to wing it. Or write your own.

That makes sense. I think we still probably have differing attitudes about how to handle social situations in games, but I'll totally agree that Pathfinder's RAW handle them badly. Hacking Pathfinder's social rules to make them functional would be a worthy goal in and of itself.

For what it's worth I think your approach to balancing casters leans in much more to Pathfinder's philosophy, which probably makes for better game design overall, if we're assuming that someone playing Pathfinder is essentially sympathetic to its philosophy. My approach here is definitely against Pathfinder's grain, and would probably be messier and uglier in theory and practice. I still think it might be more fun to those disenchanted with some aspects of Pathfinder who are still playing it, but admittedly this could be a niche group.

Quote from: sparkletwistHowever, I will say the closest thing to "objectively bad" in a general discussion about game mechanics is probably "what percentage of games would simply not work at all with this mechanic?" When we're talking about a first level spell that can, at the whims of the dice, utterly derail the entire adventure, possibly cause a TPK, and wreck the entire campaign and setting... that percentage is probably going to be rather large.

Heh. I'd argue that TPKs and massive plot derailments and campaign-shifting events that wreck the setting are absolutely baked into LotFP's approach to roleplaying just as level-appropriate encounters, challenge ratings, and cookie cutter magic items are baked into Pathfinder. It's a feature, not a bug - the mechanic can't be called "bad" when it's fulfilling a key part of the game's ethos. A LotFP session where a PC doesn't die brutally or get horribly mutated is a dull one indeed. It's as much a system for one-shots as it is for long campaigns, which are possible but definitely perilous.

Quote from: SteerpikeI'd argue that TPKs and massive plot derailments and campaign-shifting events that wreck the setting are absolutely baked into LotFP's approach to roleplaying just as level-appropriate encounters, challenge ratings, and cookie cutter magic items are baked into Pathfinder. It's a feature, not a bug - the mechanic can't be called "bad" when it's fulfilling a key part of the game's ethos.

That's why I called it the "closest thing." I understand that these things are not bad for LotFP games, but they'd be bad for quite a large number of other games. Since the discussion was about importing these mechanics into Pathfinder, I was looking at them in the broader sense (how useful are they in general?) rather than just specifically in the game they came from.

To be a bit silly about it, pervasive disgusting juvenile toilet humor is absolutely baked into FATAL's approach to roleplaying. It's still something you'd probably want to leave out of just about every other game.

Quote from: sparkletwistThat's why I called it the "closest thing." I understand that these things are not bad for LotFP games, but they'd be bad for quite a large number of other games.

Gotcha, yeah, I agree. Mostly. I think more games would benefit from embracing some of the wildness characteristic of LotFP - not to the point of the Summon spell, perhaps.

Quote from: sparkletwistSince the discussion was about importing these mechanics into Pathfinder, I was looking at them in the broader sense (how useful are they in general?) rather than just specifically in the game they came from.

That makes sense. I wouldn't ever go as far as LotFP does if I were hacking Pathfinder's spell system, I was more just using the Summon spell as an example of crazy, random magical effects that players can enjoy - but it's definitely too extreme for Pathfinder, even a rebellious Pathfinder straining against its core assumptions.

Quote from: LoAFor what it's worth, I'm leaning towards Sparkletwist's side in this chaotic spell effects debate. You really can't strategize around, or mitigate against such a broad range of randomness, so it does take away options and tactics in favor of gambling. I mean there's value in that, and would make for fun situations, but it's not something that you can really trust if you see what I'm saying

I can see this point. I'd argue that all strategy essentially comes down to managing risks and incomplete information; the potential for a random spell effect just adds greater risk to spells.

That said, really, I think there's lots of other ways to make spells more dangerous/draining than adding random effects to them, and those approaches are valid too.