|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Your complaint is basically saying "I don't like this book because it builds before introducing the villain instead of starting with the villain blowing up the building and revealing his presence. It's like saying "The start of "The Lord of the Rings" is boring because Tolkien didn't start with Galadriel narrating to everyone about the Last Alliance of Men and Elves and the Ring of Power."
In any case, there is absolutely no question whatsoever that some APs/adventures provide better motivations than others. (And, IMO, the best APs are the ones that do this better than the others. The worst are the bait-and-switch adventures; i.e. the extreme end of providing poor motivation. See Second Darkness.)
AFAIC, Peter Stewart analyzed this AP (so far) perfectly. The motivation is poor and it didn't have to be.
Likewise it makes SENSE for the first two tombs to NOT be directly related to the final plot because first you have 1st level adventurers who could die quite easily and thus negate any reason for the players to be involved, second you allow the players to build up treasure in preparation for future levels, and third the real world doesn't work like stories.
I reject these as nothing more than invalid excuses that the better APs avoid anyways. I understand YMMV.
Andrew Turner wrote:
OWN computer? In their own room? Likely not until at least 16. Maybe later.
Not internet connected? Maybe earlier. But probably not. They don't need one of their very own - they can use one of the myriad available computers (in open and accessible areas) around the house.
(Or so I say now, when my little girl is just 2. My comment is subject to change based on constant evaluation.)
Whenever I talk to anyone about the game, I deliberately avoid calling it anything other than D&D. I believe that deploying that kind of language perpetuates the mentality of edition wars and community polarity around them.
Huh. That's quite the belief. Not sure if it's shared very widely.
I'll be sticking with 5e/Next, thanks. Differentiation provides clarity and clarity is good.
(Yes, btw if you're interested, I am playing the new D&D)
I would never have guessed.
James Jacobs wrote:
Maybe so, but it was a strange metaphor since nobody in this whole thread suggested that editing was comparable to putting someone's life in danger (well, other than possibly yourself).
The original comparison that was made was more than fair.
Time is an investment. My friends and I have precious little time as it is - we have it nicely set up to meet once every 2 weeks and play in our long-running campaign that we enjoy, using a system that fits this campaign perfectly - a system that we really like and know well.
And as others have said - to what end? We're not interested in learning a new system (in fact, that's the LAST thing any of us want to do, it's the antithesis of fun), we're already having loads of fun playing something that is suited very well for us... with a new system, could we have "more" fun? What is "more"? It is measurable, or even relevant or material? (Very likely not.)
Why not try it? Why would we even bother, given the above? Time is a real investment... and it's a HUGE one.
(I find your "don't really understand" pretty strange, when it's pretty obvious AFAIC - I don't think you've thought about it as hard as you should have.)
I agree with tbug. Only one NPC has mythic abilities, the PCs aren't told that the NPC's abilities are mythic, and it's very easy to re-stat the NPC without the mythic abilities. I definitely wouldn't avoid this plug-in based on one easily-avoided use of the mythic rules.
Okay, that also is really good to know. These, especially:- only one NPC has mythic abilities
- the PCs aren't told that the NPC's abilities are mythic
(and if mythic abilities are kept FAR AWAY from the PCs), then I can easily work with that.
Good thread - these are really helpful for me to make 3rd-party purchasing decisions (since the adventure-type plug-ins are what I'm interested in from Legendary Games... especially for Skull & Shackles - even if I think they've gone a little nutty with the mythic stuff, which I consider to be bad rules overall).
My point remains: Boycotting WotC over 4E (if that is in fact what is happening here) seems like boycotting Ford because you didn't like the 2008 F150. People certainly do that sort of thing -- I'm just not sure how rational it is.
If we're going to use silly analogies to try to declare things being irrational, let's at least attempt to get a little bit closer:
It would be more like "boycotting" Ford because you didn't like a single vehicle from the company between 2008 and 2013. The 2008 Ford F150 (the 2008 Monster Manual?) is just one drop in the bucket.
You may be surprised then, it seems, that people have dropped companies (including car manufacturers) for a lot less. I also doubt anyone here is in a position to determine if that's "rational" or not.
Avoiding mythic like the plague, and now wondering if I should buy the plug-in (which I was otherwise interested in before).
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
If you're experiencing your favorite setting via organized play, you don't have the luxury of ignoring what you don't like, but at the same time...your favorite setting has the greater luxury of supporting organized events, right?.
Not if the organized events include the majority of what you don't like.
What would possibly make you think that organized events is valuable in and of itself? (I.e. what makes you think it's a "greater" luxury?)
I also think this product suffers from "all level maps must fit on a flip-map." That seems like unnecessarily restrictive. Flip-maps are nice when their generic locations, but the dungeon ones are less useful.
I was afraid that might have been the case, after reading the details about this product. Can't say I'm surprised.
Another reason why I don't do flip-map products. Good to know that what I suspected is true.
I've never understood the hate for the SW prequels.
Hey - it's great that you liked the prequels. I'm sure lots of people do.
But... are you really sure you don't 'understand' the hate/dislike of the prequels? Really? I find that somewhat hard to believe.
Because I'll be honest here - it's really not that hard to at least understand the dislike for the prequels, even if you don't share it.
baron arem heshvaun wrote:
Indeed. And true.
I've solved that particular problem for myself. GRRM (or any other author) does not get a single red cent of mine until he/she/they finish whatever series they're working on.
Hey, Gaiman/GRRM - I'm not your "biitch", either. See my money? Not for you.
How do you deal with race in your games if at all?
We don't. At least, not consciously, anyways. Skin color is of no bearing to anything.
(We don't homebrew - we've played in our FR-based multiverse for years and years, so we don't need to worry about "where black people come from".)
I think the Flash looks really good and shows promise. The real question I have is whether or not Warner Bros/DC Comics will really manage to do some connections between their properties in the way Marvel has done (at least in terms of Iron Man/Captain America/Thor/Avengers/Agents of SHIELD). It would be great if at least some of the new movies had links to Arrow and The Flash.
I suspect not. I think DC still considers the TV shows to be 'poor-man's versions' of their properties. As much as Arrow has been doing pretty good things for DC, it's still mired on the second-rate CW, and is filled with bad CW tropes - something AoS got to avoid entirely (and is superior for it).
Fake Healer wrote:
So you watch a movie and then wait for people to make opinions for you? / If you need a committee to help you form an opinion
That's not what he said, or even implied - and it's pretty much impossible to even come to that conclusion unless you're being willfully obtuse... or purposefully insulting.
What's wrong with you?
Suppose it explains how he doesn't "get" the dislike. (Even though it's really not that hard to understand.)
Marc Radle wrote:
The new Star Trek movies weren't fiascos by any definition of the word. The were actually highly entertaining and extremely successful - might want to look 'fiasco' up in the dictionary ...
I just did... and got a picture of "ST: Into Darkness". Yeah, I said it.
wicked cool wrote:
Isnt the kinect (assuming you need it for the tv voice feature?) one of the main features of the xbox1?
Are the exclusives that much of a selling point?
No, unless you really like Halo and/or Gears of War. (Then: Yes.) Historically, the Xbox has never had the number and variety of exclusives as its competitors. It likely never will.
Doesnt the PS4 have better graphics etc and based on my needs the exclusive games that came out in 2013-14 for the PS3 were better than xbox360?
Yes. This will very likely continue into the foreseeable future, if history is any indicator.
I had a good chuckle at the announcement.
Nice to see they're actually figuring out what consumers want, but it was amusing how totally adamant they were about Kinect coming with the Xbone and how it was an integral part of the Xbone experience.
Yeah... not so much (that every intelligent person already knew). This will easily be the lead-selling SKU.
Dungeon Master Zack wrote:
"Clear lower levels"? You don't clear levels in a true megadungeon. My interest is quickly evaporating...
Has a "true megadungeon" ever really been published, though?
People are trying to say "Undermountain" and "Rappan Athuk", but those can be cleared (well, not Skullport in Undermountain, but everything else can be "cleared"). The rooms are all there, mapped and detailed to be tromped through, with enough time.
(Undermountain might qualify, if for the only reason is that, as published, the vast VAST majority of rooms are simply empty and requires work from the DM (who can just put different things in the same rooms over and over and over)... which devalues the 'published' part.)
I get that, from what I've heard, some people believe that "true megadungeons" are those with their own ecologies and constantly-changing rooms and regions, with nothing ever remaining static. I'm good with that definition... but that goes back to my original doubt that any "true megadungeon", based on that definition, has ever been published. (And if they have - WHERE ARE THEY?! I must have them! I have the above mentioned products that have actually been published - that would only be UMT, RA, and WLD, for the record - the others have NOT been published in any remotely-close-to-complete way.)
I was actually joking.
Lighten up, Francis. (Oh and: "take that snark" + Gorbacz = amusing.)
While it's entirely nostalgia speaking, that show rocked on toast when I was very very young and my Dad introduced me to it... (as terrible as history will likely remember this series)
Lord Fyre wrote:
Indeed. Yet my preference is still for both of 'em to be ganked.
I really hope they keep Ward as a villain instead of giving him some sort of personal epiphany that he should be a good guy and switch sides. He is so much more interesting as a morally tortured villain.
If these are the only two options, then I TOTALLY agree.
My preference, though, is that they off him ASAP.
I highly doubt they'll kill off FitzSimmons. One of them maybe, but I have a hard time believing they'll even do that.
Agree. That's not happening.
I'm worried that they'll kill off Tripp in favor of turning Ward back into a Good Guy.
UGH. That would be absolutely awful. Ward's actions in just a short time have been nothing short of stunningly reprehensible, and I could never watch him in a "good guy" role in any way, shape, or form. That would, in fact, probably damage the entire show for me. (It's hard enough for me to watch Root on the good guys' side in Person of Interest...)
I think Garret is more likely to die just because Bill Paxton is probably expensive.
I find this an interesting comment. To me, you're essentially doing what you'd like them not to do: hold something hostage. Your statement seems to be "if you don't do it this way, then not only will I not buy it I'll actively try to get others not to as well."
Just as a brief aside:
In a consumption-based economy driven by consumers (which is what "we" are all in), the above statement is impossible (i.e. in such an economic system, consumers simply can't "hold something hostage". Alternately, if someone insists on defining such a thing in such a way, then doing so is right and proper. That's how consumers actually work, and how they should work).
Bill Webb wrote:
Which, admittedly, I do kind of like...
Yeah, that's what it indeed sounded like as well (and LCoB is a great first exposure) - and I'm definitely not a NG/FGG newbie, what with owning a mint/near-mint physical copy of every NG adventure ever created and most FGG items.
I think, though, I'll be saving my money for Sword of Air, which Bill has brutally teased throughout the NG years. (I didn't back that because I'm not much of a Kickstarter person and I have less interest in the Lost Lands stuff compared to the actual adventure itself - I put everything in my long-running campaign universe... and I want to see what the finished product looks like!)
I... don't know how to feel about the DM's actions (as outlined by the OP).
If the suggestion is that the DM simply can't modify monsters, then I definitely am shaking my head at that. Modifying monsters is a time-honored tradition, and even Paizo themselves do it with some of their gooftastic rules and changes (their mini-slap-dash-templates, like the "fear" creature thingy in City of Golden Death, etc. And if someone is suggesting that it's fine for Paizo to do that sort of thing but not DMs, well, that's wildly hypocritical. (And if the suggestion is instead to never do that sort of thing, ever - "Bestiary or GTFO", then that's just sort of sad.)
The shrieking about a high Str check is also a bit amusing for me. There are multiple example of Break DCs, for instance, being in the mid-to-high 20's. So howling about at Str 10 character failing on a "natural 20" illicits not much more than an amused chuckle and "meh" from me.
With all that said, though, I have great discomfort with the strange changing of holding one's breath rule. That's taking away a clear and unambiguous character strength... I'm not okay with that.
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
Even back in the Dungeon and Dragon mags days, Dragon (rules and options focused) outsold Dungeon (adventures and DM focused) significantly because generally only one person in a group would pick up Dungeon whereas (assuming they purchased either), multiple people where more inclined to pick up Dragon.
From what I remember, this is also untrue (in the latter days of Paizo's control). Dungeon was outselling Dragon near the end, and Paizo was trying to revamp Dragon in different ways to improve it.
(With that said, I'd love to hear from those who actually were there and know the real numbers, and let me know if my memory is crap!)
** spoiler omitted **
Me neither, but for me, the main reason(s) I didn't back was because:
1) I already own an original hardcover LCoB (in mint condition), and
2) I stuck with 3.5 instead of PF.
All I really lost out on was Level 4B (the wilderness encounters elicit a shrug from me - I'm here for the lost city!), and stretch goals were needed for those.
The simple fact is that only a portion of paizo's customer base will buy pure setting material. Most of those are GMs. Players (which in general outnumber gms) want things to use for their characters. Option books sell better. Period.
Turns out this is false. And this line of thinking is years out of date. (Yikes!)
The AP line is the flagship line at Paizo, and started ramping up even in the Dungeon magazine era.
Your post is old WotC thinking - long since debunked.
Of course "bloat" is coming back. To snerk at 3.5 and then turn around and laud Pathfinder is inexplicable, delusional, and hypocritical, AFAIC.
(I make no comments on whether the "bloat" is good or bad - only on the comparative reaction between 3.5 and PF. I also make no comment on the issue of power creep.)
Moving back onto topic do you guys see this having an impact on our community?
Not measurably, no.
Would you watch it
Absolutely not. Watching people play board games (or RPGs) could not possibly be more boring.
and could see people being introduce into rpgs through a show like this?
I am constantly amazed at the loony things people out there on the internet get amused by, so I have little doubt that some people would be introduced into RPGs by this. But, not measurably, IMO.
In any case, I would never donate to such a thing (not that they need me - they already passed their mark) as I have zero interest in "promoting" the hobby or industry (that's business' jobs, not consumers).
Glad other people will find it interesting, though.
And they actually had the common decency to make at least some type of actual ending for Almost Human.
While I doubt GOTHAM will last any more than that, if they do the same thing in GOTHAM as they did for Almost Human, I'll take it. (Not so much if they end it on a lame cliffhanger, which I'm so over these days, anyways.)