| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Gambit |
Posted - 31 Aug 2011 : 07:58:24
Over on the Paizo forums someone started a thread titled "What about Golarion bugs you?", and I chimed in with my opinion which I will share with my fellow scribes here. Let me preface this by saying there are many things I do like about the world, including the various nations each with a different feel, the broken prophecies, the Test of the Starstone, being a few. I am interested to hear what the rest of you think, if you agree or disagree with me and why.
Here was my post:
1: Too Humanocentric. Its like they lined up the 12 human ethnicities with the elves, dwarves, halfings, etc and said "Ok everyone who is going to be a major player in our new setting step forward....not so fast demihumans". Each of the demihuman races feel pretty generic, and by generic I dont mean cliched or stereotyped, I mean very little about them feels flavorful enough to make you latch on and care, and they are pushed so far into the background you almost forget they are there.
Say what you will about FR elves, but they are connected and integrated into the world in a way that makes you develop a feeling for them (whether it is love or hate) with their rich history which leads all the way up to their current day, still relevant in the grand scheme, culture. Not to mention dwarves are more interesting in FR, as well as the halflings (have their own nation), gnomes are the only race that is slightly better off than there alternate world kin (though nowhere near as cool as Dragonlance gnomes imo). FR Humans didnt take a back seat to these races and are no slouches either, having a few little ole empires, such as Imaskari and Netheril, and much of the modern day power. In conclusion, all I really feel for most of the Golarion demihumans is...apathy.
2: The Gods. Its not that there arent enough (although only 20 that get real facetime does seem a little low), but many of them seem just really dull, lacking in personality, overarching goals (for some), and connection to one another, and by connection I dont mean coming from the same lineage or being related, but actively working machinations against one another (both personally and through their churches). And not just between good and evil (though certainly plenty of that should exist), but things like how Helm and Mystra flat out do not like each other, or Bane and Cyric constantly vying for power over the Zhentarim, or everyone being pissed at Lathander for the Dawn Cataclysm when he tried to remake things as he thought they should be.
Sure a few examples like this exist in Golarion, such as Sarenrae and Rovagug, but that feels so far in the past that it has little effect in the current game world. Im not saying Pathfinder should have anything as convoluted as a Time of Troubles, but some modern day interaction and intrigue between the deities would definitely be a good thing. Oh, my one giant exception to this would be Cayden Cailean, whoever created him and his backstory deserves and beer and a hug (not to mention an ENnie).
3: Personalities. One thing that has always drawn me to a game world has been the living breathing characters who inhabit it. Khelben, Halastar, Raistlin, Sturm, Elaith, Jarlaxle, all theses names and more, they infuse the world with (no pun intended) character...and flavor, more flavor than just describing a nation can give, Golarion has none of these. Now, I am aware other setting like FR and DL have had decades to write novels and stories featuring these NPC's, but Golarions been out for what 4 years now, and not one legitimate contender has emerged. It wouldn't even necessarily have to be novels, include some key NPC's (complete with full backstorys and descriptions, not just small blurbs and then stats) in some of the sourcebooks and then have them keep popping up and voila.
However, do not misconstrue my complaint here, I'm not saying I want a world with a plethora of high level NPC's there to "steal the PC's thunder" (a complaint about FR that I never really got, and has never come up once in our FR campaigns). Hell, Elaith "the Serpent" Craulnober is one of my all time favorite NPC's and his official stats have him at like 12th level, so not every cool game world personality needs to be earth-shakingly powerful. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Marc |
Posted - 08 Sep 2011 : 07:05:40
Athas had the pyreen, Planescape I don't think so. Most worlds are humanocentric also cause humans is the only race you can roleplay in truth. Even a human from Kara-Tur has an alien way of thinking, or often happens that the PC's have too modern beliefs. I doubt Droaam or Many Arrows would last long. |
| Shemmy |
Posted - 08 Sep 2011 : 06:48:48
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
We are the only organism (aside from cancer) that destroys its own environment.
It's not an exclusive club. Pretty much any organism will attempt to exploit its environment and reproduce as much as possible, with only a lack of resources and predation being limitations on this. In the lack of such, population crest and subsequent collapse are what control their numbers.
For instance deer populations after the removal of predation by wolves in the US. The ravage forest underbrush, reproduce like crazy, and then they starve to death in massive numbers. Ultimately they can kill forests by eating saplings and disturbing the flora balance in a major way (this is a looming problem for redwood forests).
Algae blooms are similar, and just about any species will success itself into oblivion at the expense of its environment, given the right conditions. Humanity is not very special in the grand scheme of things, we're just capable of more abstract musing on the ramifications of our own hyper success, and hopefully able to prevent any eventual collapse.
*steps off the biologist soapbox* |
| Markustay |
Posted - 08 Sep 2011 : 05:46:48
Yeah, I get that, but D&D (and by extension FR) has way too many races, IMHO. A few might be able to get along, but eventually you would have a 'World War' situation with everyone taking sides. Some fantasy settings - including the one I am working on - build off that premise; that THE war happened in the recent past (Eberron and Iron Kingdoms both have this). Even the LotR lead to that (although that 'final war' was circumvented somewhat).
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
A more subtle argument for supporting many sophonts in the Realms is that it is a magic-rich world. It seems to me that magic fundamentally opposes or reverses entropy: or, to say it another way, the natural tendency of magic is for simple things to automatically form themselves into intelligent and complex constructs. Countless forms of life spontaneously emerge (the presence of life is expected) in our entropic world whenever conditions are right ... I postulate that countless magic-using (and therefore intelligent) forms of life might also be expected to emerge in a magically negentropic world whenever conditions are right.
Magic as some form of 'Chaos radiation'? Interesting... I think Marvel Comics uses something akin to that.
Magical Radiation (Faerzress?) as a mutation agents works. In my setting, I will be using bloodlines extensively, with every supernatural trait traceable back to something else. I use something called morphic blood (derived from my one, extremely varied, aberration race) to account for cross-breedability: not everything can crossbreed, but nearly all races have members with some of that morphic blood, to allow for rule-breaking 'halfies' (which is a very useful tool for the DM who wants to keep things reigned in). Think of it as the Yuan-ti breeding programs taken to epic levels.
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
The presence of half-elves, half-dwarves (and by extension, possibly half-gnomes and half-halflings), half-orcs, half-giants, dragonborn, genasi, tieflings, aasimar, and pretty much anything else which is sentient and can procreate with humans ... it makes me wonder if in the distant future the Realms will be populated by a single sophont species, a sort of homo signum uniformis which includes trace DNA from every possible progenitor species. Not broken rough-hewn chimeric throwbacks like mongrelmen, but instead the result of gradual interbreeding across thousands of thousands of generations.
I think Athas/Dark Sun had a race like that (sorry, no sources to look that up), and I believe there were also Spelljammer and Planescape variants as well. A race with traits from all other races (although on Athas, supposedly all races derived from Halflings, which is very weird, but Dark Sun was always a setting that stepped way out of the box). |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 07 Sep 2011 : 21:31:35
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
In fantasy, normally, races enter the picture (even in the distant past) at different points; why would an intelligent species that is dominant ALLOW another intelligent species to 'horn in on' their pie?
That's the rub: in most fantasy settings, you don't have that happen -- you have a small group over here, and then another group comes in over there and expands to over here. It's not like elves are controlling every square foot of a large expanse and then allow themselves to be overrun by humans, it's that the elves control this specific area, humans move into a nearby area, and then expand. By the time humans and elves bump into each other, there's too many humans for the elves to do anything about. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 07 Sep 2011 : 21:25:49
A world with one race divided into 100 different nations, tribes, religions, ethnicities, and cultures all competing for the same resources seems equally unrealistic and unsustainable, and yet it's exactly what we have. Surely given time a few peoples must emerge as dominant and eliminate or absorb most of the others? Yet no matter how much time passes on our world the number of peoples inhabiting it just seems to keep diversifying and inflating.
I don't see much of an issue with multiple races either, although I do feel that D&D typically has far too many to seem at all natural. True, the Realms sidesteps the issue somewhat by claiming many races (and deities) on Toril originated in the Feywild or outer planes or Spelljamming worlds or Oerth or Earth or wherever.
A more subtle argument for supporting many sophonts in the Realms is that it is a magic-rich world. It seems to me that magic fundamentally opposes or reverses entropy: or, to say it another way, the natural tendency of magic is for simple things to automatically form themselves into intelligent and complex constructs. Countless forms of life spontaneously emerge (the presence of life is expected) in our entropic world whenever conditions are right ... I postulate that countless magic-using (and therefore intelligent) forms of life might also be expected to emerge in a magically negentropic world whenever conditions are right.
[Edit]
Incidentally, more recent studies suggest that homo neanderthalsis wasn't the victim of genocide at the hands of our ancestors, even though they do share an overlap spanning much of Europe and roughly 15,000-25,000 years of prehistory. Comparisons between neanderthal and modern human genomes show that many human populations contain neanderthal DNA, and computerized facial reconstructions show that they weren't as different or monstrous as we used to think.. Homo neanderthalsis is now grouped within the archaic homo sapiens family taxon (by the geneticists, anyways), which is to say that they're one of several species we now understand collectively evolved into modern homo sapiens sapiens.
The presence of half-elves, half-dwarves (and by extension, possibly half-gnomes and half-halflings), half-orcs, half-giants, dragonborn, genasi, tieflings, aasimar, and pretty much anything else which is sentient and can procreate with humans ... it makes me wonder if in the distant future the Realms will be populated by a single sophont species, a sort of homo signum uniformis which includes trace DNA from every possible progenitor species. Not broken rough-hewn chimeric throwbacks like mongrelmen, but instead the result of gradual interbreeding across thousands of thousands of generations. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 07 Sep 2011 : 20:38:33
In Scify, it's not an issue - In most instances the world was colonized by multiple races at the same time. Cooperation becomes a must, otherwise you wind-up with a 'Risk Game' situation: everything allying against whoever is doing the best. A 'King of the Hill' situation, if you will.
In fantasy, normally, races enter the picture (even in the distant past) at different points; why would an intelligent species that is dominant ALLOW another intelligent species to 'horn in on' their pie?
Now, the humans coming late in the game works, because we (supposedly) breed faster, and adapt quicker. The older races had no time to adapt to us. I can pretty-much guarantee if humans established themselves first, the others would have been wiped-out.
Just ask a Neanderthal...... oh... wait..... 
H0mosapien is covetous by nature. Think about our society today, and try to picture us trying to share THIS world with others - they would have killed us off, or died trying. We are the only organism (aside from cancer) that destroys its own environment.
I know, sorry, getting too RW here. 
I just think fantasy humans are much nobler (on average) then real ones.
And this line of thought gave me a great idea for short Scify story... {insert chin-rubbing smiley} |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 07 Sep 2011 : 19:07:25
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
A world with over 100 intelligent species ALL competing for the same resources isn't really viable; it may work in fantasy, but thats all it is - pure fantasy. Something has got to give, which is why great desiners/world builders almost always have most of the sentient races in decline.
I fail to see the issue. So long as no single race is dominant within a specific area, there's room for competition. Golarion -- like most fantasy worlds -- either has one race dominant in a specific area, and thus controlling the local resources, or it has some balance between races with neither side controlling the resources. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 07 Sep 2011 : 18:40:55
There are always exceptions. I try not to use terms like "only' and "no exceptions", and I changed 'never' to 'rarely' in my above post, but note I left an "only" in there further on - my apologies.
There are some excellent examples of worlds where humans aren't dominate, but they aren't anywhere near being the norm. And amongst those, humans are either 'on the rise' or 'on the decline' (VERY rare, that one).
A world with over 100 intelligent species ALL competing for the same resources isn't really viable; it may work in fantasy, but thats all it is - pure fantasy. Something has got to give, which is why great desiners/world builders almost always have most of the sentient races in decline.
I suppose it is possible to have a world with the few 'core races' ALL on the decline, working against some 'great evil', be it monolithic, or something non-sentient like a disease, infestation (vampiric?), or natural (a new Ice Age, etc). I can't think of any examples of that off-hand, except for a project over on the world-builing boards at WotC.
Whenever I hear folk complain about their favorite fantasy races being 'background', I think back to the first time I read LotR...
"Yes Sam, that's an Elf"
A Hobbit - a fantasy creature itself - amazed at seeing an Elf. You can have your own opinions about Tolkien, but the man did define the genre, and he based it all on folklore, so it was already well-established that 'the others' (magical folk, monsters, etc) were in decline. When an author steps outside of that comfort zone, he had better be a master of his trade, because our preconceptions color our opinions of the work.
And it is our own arrogance, as human beings, to naturally insist we are in '1st place', since we have nothing RW to compare it to; we do not interact with other sentients, or creatures more powerful then us (as a race). Having others in that top spot scratches at our core being and makes us uncomfortable, which is why I said the author had better be damn good to make us enjoy it anyway.
In a Galaxy FULL of strange and powerful creatures, Luke Skywalker was HUMAN - George Lucas was smart enough to realize nothing less would work. 'The Force' could have chosen any race, and many Jedi masters were non-human, but the audience was human so Luke needed to be.
That's just how it is.
Anything else is a niche-setting with limited appeal, in this age of mass-market RPGs, campaigns have to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
Golarion does it's job and does it well - it's not supposed to be FR, but it does emulate the Realm's initial release. If it stepped any further outside-the-box, it might not have been as successful as it is - gamers can run with any part of it and make it what they want. |
| Daviot |
Posted - 07 Sep 2011 : 05:00:00
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Who knows? Maybe one day the Orcs will take-over when the humans are declining. 
What came to mind after reading this was the lore I've read for Guild Wars 2, courtesy of a certain world-builder named Jeff Grubb. Wherein, humans are on the decline, in comparison to the other playable races, having been downsized to a single major kingdom in the setting's primary continent. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 06 Sep 2011 : 23:35:57
I like a lot of Golarion, but it isn't perfect (what world is? We all have our own tastes).
My biggest issue is with the very squarish look of the map - a bit too unrealistic for me (which is a damn shame, because one of the few things I disliked about FR's map was the very flat western coast). On the other hand, it could have been worse.... a LOT worse...
Otherwise, I agree 99.9% with Quale's sentiments in both his posts. Golarion was designed with FR's problem in-mind, and some of the generic-ness can be blamed on Paizo's wanting to skirt-around FR's biggest headaches (Godly portfolios, Mary-Sueish uber-NPCs, etc).
Its designed from the ground-up to be a RPG world, which means the PCs should shine the brightest. Ed's world was designed to tell stories in, originally, and TSR/WotC ran with that (and perhaps, over did it).
I can't point at anything in particular I dislike - I'm fond of a humanocentric world. IMO, I think that is what Ed intended or FR all along (the Elven retreat, low birth rate amongst dwarves, Gnomes being "the hidden folk", etc). I think nearly all High Fantasy worlds take that route (all of which can be traced back to Tolkien, and his own retreating Elves, and scarce dwarves). Only in RPGs - and wargames like Warhammer - do non-humans stand on equal footing with humans. Its part of the High Fantasy trope. It's a rather artificial arrangement for game-balance purposes, when you think about it. In nature, two creatures cannot occupy the same niche for long; not without one moving elsewhere, or adapting its behavior to not overlap the other creatures.
Who knows? Maybe one day the Orcs will take-over when the humans are declining.
A world can be a VERY good story, or a very good RPG setting, but it can rarely be both. Think about most of the great novel-series you've read (some of which later became RPG settings) - how important is YOUR character, with the likes of Aragorn, Merlin, Richard Rahl, Paul Atreides, Luke Skywalker, etc... walking around? Is there even any point in playing in WoT with Rand A'Thor throwing his... errr... weight around? (not to mention the other 700 or so characters in that series). This is the problem that pre-4e FR kept running into.
Paizo choose to solve this dilemma one way (small NPCs), and WotC another (nuking just about everyone over level one). I don't think either is the perfect solution - a setting should have a couple of memorable characters (albeit NOT god-like, or you ruin it as an RPG setting, IMHO).
I think Paizo's method is very similar to Eberron, which is a shame, because I read a single Eberron novel and found it boring. For a world to work as a novel setting, you need those larger-then-life characters.
This thread made me realize I have to go over to Paizo and re-download all the pdf's I bought from them (mostly old FR stuff, but a few PF items as well). I am going to have to re-fresh my memory before I can make any specific comments about parts of Golarion.
I will say this - everything has its place, and although I am no big fan of Cthulhu-stuff, if a setting is built with that Lovecraftian undertone in-mind, then I have no problem with it.
I had more there, but it was turning border-line rant, so I'll just leave off with this: Square pegs don't belong in round holes. |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 06 Sep 2011 : 19:00:51
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Wizards can misfire and explode, too.
=) |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 06 Sep 2011 : 18:51:40
Wizards can misfire and explode, too. |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 06 Sep 2011 : 17:50:12
And early firearms (i.e. those available in the Inner Sea World Guide and Ultimate Combat) have up to a 10% change to misfire and become broken (i.e. if you roll and 1 or 2 when firing them, depending on the firearm). If a gun with the broken condition misfires, then it explodes. Those not proficient with a firearm who fire it have a up to 30% (roll 1-6) chance to misfire. If the gun is broken and the character is not proficient, there up to a 50% chance of misfiring. I think that definitely helps keep firearms balanced. |
| Marc |
Posted - 06 Sep 2011 : 16:39:32
Guns are only common in the city of Alkenstar in the Mana Wastes, which is a wild magic land. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 06 Sep 2011 : 06:10:34
I don't see pistols, rifles, grenades, bombs, and cannons being at all imbalanced. Not in a world populated by competent spellcasters. I'm assuming gunpowder in Golarian is costly and possibly rare; you can't just add a ton of it to your grocery list without paying dearly. I'm also assuming that firearms in that setting are still comparable to crossbows, handcrafted, expensive, and overall about equally useful in combat. I've yet to see a party of PCs get rid of their trusty bows and wands in favour of primitive firearms.
It seems to me that if a new Golarian character can start with two pistols then the pistols are probably a little sucky; besides, the DM can (and should) simply change details like that if he considers them imbalanced.
From what I've read, the all-human focus of Golarian is not especially popular but has generally worked out well. |
| Old Man Harpell |
Posted - 05 Sep 2011 : 19:21:01
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Guns were introduced to the Realms in the 2E FRA. Predated by Thayvian Bombards in 1E. Predated by countless SnarfQuest-styled imports from our world, from Gamma World, from Boot Hill, from Greyhawk's "Blackmoor" world, and elsewhere (some official; most homebrewed). The fact is that firearms - alongside their attendant rules - have snuck into D&D since its inception and their presence has been noted in every D&D edition.
I'll admit I have only cursory knowledge of the Golarian setting, it may (or may not) suffer from the above listed faults, I honestly don't know. But I think it's safe enough to claim firearms haven't managed to break D&D yet, so their introduction into another D&D setting is hardly surprising or disruptive.
You'd have a hard time trying to convince me that Gygax or Greenwood played 1E for years yet never dropped some sort of gunpowder-using weapon into the party's treasure pile. Every DM of olde had devised house rules for things like gunpowder (and anti-paladins) which he'd dangle as a mystery in front of his players. I've seen campaigns die, I've seen campaign settings die (usually from neglect or senility); but I've never seen one burn and blow up from too much gunpowder.
True. I should have clarified that it was Third Edition that said "Here, you are X archtype, so you have the option of starting out with a couple of pistols and a powder horn."
Not the first time a D&D character type has started out with guns, certainly - I particularly like the way that Red Steel (for the Mystara setting) handled the issue of firearms. The point was, guns are just another spice in the weapons offering. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 05 Sep 2011 : 10:22:53
Guns were introduced to the Realms in the 2E FRA. Predated by Thayvian Bombards in 1E. Predated by countless SnarfQuest-styled imports from our world, from Gamma World, from Boot Hill, from Greyhawk's "Blackmoor" world, and elsewhere (some official; most homebrewed). The fact is that firearms - alongside their attendant rules - have snuck into D&D since its inception and their presence has been noted in every D&D edition.
I'll admit I have only cursory knowledge of the Golarian setting, it may (or may not) suffer from the above listed faults, I honestly don't know. But I think it's safe enough to claim firearms haven't managed to break D&D yet, so their introduction into another D&D setting is hardly surprising or disruptive.
You'd have a hard time trying to convince me that Gygax or Greenwood played 1E for years yet never dropped some sort of gunpowder-using weapon into the party's treasure pile. Every DM of olde had devised house rules for things like gunpowder (and anti-paladins) which he'd dangle as a mystery in front of his players. I've seen campaigns die, I've seen campaign settings die (usually from neglect or senility); but I've never seen one burn and blow up from too much gunpowder. |
| Old Man Harpell |
Posted - 05 Sep 2011 : 07:19:19
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Quale
Well the first egyptologists were not 19th century, it started during the last dynasties, then the Greeks, Romans, Arabs etc. So I don't see why not
It's still too much of a knockoff for me... Golarion has other ancient civilizations, where's the Azlantologists or the Shoryologists?
Maybe they're saving them for the Fourth Edition of Golarion? <ducks and skitters away>.
Daviot: The introduction of guns happened in FR 3rd Edition - and they really didn't make much of an impact at all. Nelanther pirates and a couple of other regional areas even granted them at first level - I never had any problems with them.
And Lovecraftian elements, if done correctly, can actually add variety to any world. Having the Spawn of Cthulhu pop up consistently takes away a lot of the point, but something based along the lines of The Shadow Over Innsmouth would be quite appropriate. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 04 Sep 2011 : 14:57:23
quote:
Originally posted by Quale
Well the first egyptologists were not 19th century, it started during the last dynasties, then the Greeks, Romans, Arabs etc. So I don't see why not
It's still too much of a knockoff for me... Golarion has other ancient civilizations, where's the Azlantologists or the Shoryologists? |
| Quale |
Posted - 04 Sep 2011 : 12:44:13
Well the first egyptologists were not 19th century, it started during the last dynasties, then the Greeks, Romans, Arabs etc. So I don't see why not |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 02 Sep 2011 : 18:09:21
quote:
Originally posted by Shemmy
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
My biggest issues with Golarion are with some of the obviously Earth-inspired nations, particularly Osirion.
I like Osirion, but I'm possibly biased on that. ;)
I guess I should clarify a bit... I kinda like Osirion, but at the same time, it's obviously an Egypt knockoff. I should have preferred a little more separating it from its inspiration -- and in particular, not having Osirionologists. That one element does more to bother me than anything else. |
| Abenabin Gimblescrew |
Posted - 02 Sep 2011 : 17:53:14
I have to kind of agree with Daviot here. I think it is a tad presumptuous to expect a generic setting to fit every need you want, but not have RW references to RW cultures. Even FR references our cultures' accomplishments and attach them to either nations, religions, and personalities of some of the Realms characters. The Horde attacking the whole Realms as one noticeable reference inspired by our history to the Mongolian horde.
As for the Cthulu stuff...well a lot of people seem to be into it these days. Personally, I'm kind of tired of the all powerful alien intelligence with god like power that claim to be gods and are incapable of being killed too. It's fun for a flash pan session on Halloween, but I think it should be very little influence in any D&D campaign. That is just my personal preference though I'm sure others would disagree. To me it sounds like this is a very small part of the setting and is just there as a plot device if you do decide to mess with it or you can just say they're rare or nonexistent.
My major issue with Eberron was all the mary-sue power groups. It was like Shadowrun but without the cool technology and history behind it. You had Demons and Devils doing their thing. You had the Dragon Below Cults doing their thing. You had the Dragons doing their thing and then you had some Inspired doing theirs. Then to top it off you had the nations having their own agendas as well as the 'neutral' Dragonmark houses. I'm all for having a living, breathing world, but I just can't help that it was trying too hard to live up to Forgotten Realms' and Dragonlance's in depth worlds that had years of work put into them. Don't get me wrong the setting was interesting, but them trivializing heroes so they made very little impact was not my cup a tea.
A setting in my opinion should embrace both the hard working PCs that level to high levels or even epic levels such as FR and yet still make low level character feel like they contribute like Eberron. Perhaps someday such a setting can be developed for the general public. Until such time it will just have to be the endeavor for the GMs to achieve it with the generic settings or their own homebrews.  |
| Daviot |
Posted - 02 Sep 2011 : 02:37:27
Let us give an ode and a toast to the FanDumb, that unpleasable ogre.
I've been active on the Paizo forums, mainly to read up on things to assist my own GMing, and this sort of thing is the endless flame warring underbelly of the forums, one that thankfully, doesn't really occur here among the generally-more-erudite and polite scribes. 
Before we jump on the "X sucks because Y" bandwagon, it might help to understand the background on which Golarion was made and the goals Paizo set forth for the setting:
•Lisa Stevens did the numbers on TSR's monetary losses, and found that publishing costs aside, multiple settings had had the effect of splitting the fanbase, so Paizo wanted to focus on one setting.
•Golarion was designed as a Fantasy Kitchen Sink, but one relatively compartmentalized, to allow nearly any sub-genre of fantasy or style of game.
•20 core/major deities, non-meddling*, and absolutely unstattable/invulernable to mortals. Demigods/archdevils/demon lords (and their nascent equivalents) can grant spells, but are killable, albeit low-epic.
•Humanocentric, for better or worse.
•A generally Renaissance-sneaking-into-Enlightenment technological level.
•Quite a few Earth-style influences, with the goal of being letting people new to the setting get a mental grasp on the general flavor of a country.
*More distant than the Realms, but certainly known to exist unlike Eberron, Dark Sun, etc.
And even then, there's a lot complaining going on about:
—A magic-wild/dead nation focused on technology that has guns? RUINED FOREVER.
—A nation with a crashed starship for Barrier Peaks-style science-fantasy? RUINED FOREVER.
—Allowances for Lovecraftian things and plots? ALSO RUINED FOREVER.
To say nothing about the optimization-obssessed flame wars that Nerd Rage across the forums.
But beyond that, Golarion isn't the Realms, and wasn't built for the same reasons the Realms was. Frankly, I love both, because they scratch different itches. And much like the folks who lambasted the Realms because they operated on the mistaken assumption that Elminster and high-level NPCs would magically solve all problems, we shouldn't be so quick to finger-point back. To paraphrase Ed, storytelling is a human need, and for any given campaign setting, take what you like, ignore or change what you don't, make it your own, and smile and move on. |
| Shemmy |
Posted - 01 Sep 2011 : 07:05:56
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
My biggest issues with Golarion are with some of the obviously Earth-inspired nations, particularly Osirion.
I like Osirion, but I'm possibly biased on that. ;) |
| sfdragon |
Posted - 01 Sep 2011 : 05:02:14
Golarion is Golarion.
The Realms have been around for a long time.
Golarion, not so long.
its seeming to do well... mind you I hate the lovecraft things too, even in dnd( flayers).
as for the human centric.... yeah that blows, not everyone wants to be a human... |
| The Sage |
Posted - 01 Sep 2011 : 02:00:13
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
Osirion and the other nations don't bother me as much, simply because they tend to keep them separate from the other nations. Much like 2E Realms, Kara-Tur, Al-Qadim and Maztica were considered separate enough that you could have some crossover, but if you didn't want any of them in your home campaign, it wasn't that big of a deal.
Pretty much agreed.
Though, I do like reading about these other nations, simply because I like to discover what the unique fantasy twist is for them, that divorces their culture, somewhat, from the similar real-world cultures they were derived from. |
| Gouf |
Posted - 31 Aug 2011 : 22:40:41
1. A world with few or no demi-humans bores me. I rarely play human characters. In our currant campaign there is only 1 human character out of a party of 7. At the same time, I like to limit it to the 1e/2e races that are well developed and established in FR.
2. The gods seem ok. But it's hard to compete with established pantheons.
3. Well developed NPC's and settings add much flavor to an otherwise bland world. It seems to be lacking much of this at this point. |
| Fingal |
Posted - 31 Aug 2011 : 22:19:29
It's a setting that has yet to grip me in any real way. Don't get me wrong: a lot of the material is great; it's well written and brilliantly put together. my big gripe with it is that it is another setting where we have, you know, Stone age-y type Mammoth hunting barbarian cultures a few hundred miles from nations that seem based on late 19th century central Europe which are a few hundred miles from Egypt analogues etc, etc. It feels like they've tried to dump a whole lot of fantasy tropes in there but haven't stopped to think whether they hang together well. I realize some of this is probably not entirely fair. Although I have the campaign guide I haven't read it in over a year so some of my memories may be a bit sketchy.
I actually agree with the previous posters about the fantasy cultural salad-bowl approach to the multitude of demi-humans but this is an old dislike of mine that seem prevalent throughout a whole lot of RGP settings (the realms included, in fact.) I have noticed that in my own homebrew stuff the number of non human races and 'monsters' is much, much reduced.
Planescape remains my one exception to all of this. Planescape is ace I like it positively team with as many strange critters as possible. Sigil just wouldn't be the same..:) |
| Quale |
Posted - 31 Aug 2011 : 22:14:23
The Earth-inspired nations is the reason why I had any interest in Golarion at all. Osirion like Mulhorand needs more details, but there's more potential in them pure fantasy realms like Molthune. The problem is that every country is special and you don't feel they border and influence other countries, similar to Ravenloft.
|
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 31 Aug 2011 : 21:32:51
Osirion and the other nations don't bother me as much, simply because they tend to keep them separate from the other nations. Much like 2E Realms, Kara-Tur, Al-Qadim and Maztica were considered separate enough that you could have some crossover, but if you didn't want any of them in your home campaign, it wasn't that big of a deal. |
|
|
