I didn't say anything about a majority of people. The majority of people wouldn't even be able to tell you what Bioware is.
You said, "I daresay a company could have actually caused cancer in a significant number of victims, and still wouldn't have beaten Bioware in the Worst Company in America poll." That implies a majority somewhere. Unless you're polling only crazy gamers with no perspective, I don't think you'd ever get a majority of folks who think Bioware is worse than a company that actually kills people.
Quote:
In aggregate? Probably. But there are enough people with extreme enough reactions that it has led us to what we have now: a gaming community that I am ashamed to be a part of. It's not even the really crazy death-threat-flingers that I care about. It's the people who tolerate them, or passively/subtly encourage that kind of behavior. Why do we, as a community, present the image that we consider these kinds of reactions acceptable, and not what they are: crazy?
Since I don't see anyone here saying that threatening bodily harm on someone over a game is okay, I'm not sure what you're referring to. Furthermore, there's a sizable gap between, "I am upset about this game and would like a fix/apology from those responsible," and, "I think it's okay that some lunatic wants to b eat up the writing team because of the end of a video game." For the most part, the folks on this thread are vocally upset but hardly violent and evil. It's quite possible to be very upset with Bioware as a company while not condoning people who take things far too far.
Now if you can find me some examples on this thread of folks saying that it's okay for the writers to be threatened with harm or that they're worse than people who cause cancer, maybe I'll change my tune. But until that happens, there's a pretty big divide between posting your displeasure on a message board and wanting somebody to actually suffer for bad writing.
Let me ask you this: Why are you trying to minimize or justify the community's collective reaction?
I'm not. I'm just disputing your over-the-top assertion that a majority of people hate Bioware more than companies that literally cause cancer. While there are a few nuts out there that make folks look bad, that's way off base. The companies that do literally cause cancer have faced a lot more hatred than Bioware will ever deal with.
No sarcasm, and yep, that was pretty much my whole point. I mean, I daresay a company could have actually caused cancer in a significant number of victims, and still wouldn't have beaten Bioware in the Worst Company in America poll. Literally killing people would probably cause less outrage than an undesirable ending to a video game.
That's pretty over the top. I haven't heard anything about gamers trying to get Bioware to pay out millions of dollars in fines, including supporting an ad campaign designed specifically to stop people from using their products. I also don't see people trying to throw Bioware employees in jail as many have suggested with tobacco or firearms companies.
The interesting question is what will happen next. fast forward a few years and do you think we'll see Piazo buy the D&D licences and release PF2 as the next D&D?
As much as this idea keeps coming up on message boards, I don't see it as realistic. Hasbro can still make a lot of money off of the D&D license without having a tabletop RPG in print. Even if they wanted to sell it, I'd bet that their asking price would be more than Paizo would find profitable.
I do think an OGL would be a big boost to D&D. There are some things WotC does well and some things they don't. Having an OGL helps to cover the bases of things they don't handle well, such as adventures.
On the other hand, it seems doubtful that the big third parties would go back to D&D now. Paizo is almost certainly not going to pull time away from Pathfinder to work on a competing system, Goodman Games has their new Dungeons Crawl Classics line, and Green Ronin has several successful properties of their own as well. Maybe some new companies would step up and fill the niche that those guys used to fill during 3rd edition, but the ship may have sailed there.
I'm not entirely sure that 5e will be as rules-lite as the first playtest makes it seem. Just about any version of D&D can be rules-lite when you strip it down to three levels, four classes, and four races. Let's see what the game looks like when you've got everything in play.
As to gaining me as a customer, while the playtest is a step in the right direction (as it makes me believe that this edition of D&D is going to be my style of game), I think the supplementary material will make a huge difference. I'm playing Pathfinder not so much because of the rules, but because everything around those rules does such a nice job of getting my imagination going. Adventures and setting material haven't traditionally been WotC's strong point. Having some sort of OGL would be a good way of allowing other companies to pick up the slack, but I think that boat may have sailed.
While a mega-dungeon doesn't really tickle my fancy, I'd love to see a Darklands campaign in the vein of the AD&D adventure Night Below, where PCs have to explore the different cultures and creatures in the Darklands while striking alliances with some and slaying others.
When the Pathfinder RPG first got released, we saw a mini adventure path in the form of three modules. Maybe doing something like that but on the high-level end would appease some fans clamoring for a high-level adventure path.
Back then modules were monthly, try as I might they wont go back to that, instead moving the companion line to monthly which infuriates me. They seem to think the pfs scenarios fill the niche. I bailed on pfs in season because the adventure quality was awful and formulaic.
Point is the bi-monthly module schedule line means we will not see linked modules again.
If I remember correctly, the Price of Immortality modules were released when the modules line was on a bimonthly schedule. Crypt of the Everflame released in August, then we didn't see Masks of the Living God until January (with Carrion Hill released in between). Then City of Golden Death wasn't released until May.
When the Pathfinder RPG first got released, we saw a mini adventure path in the form of three modules. Maybe doing something like that but on the high-level end would appease some fans clamoring for a high-level adventure path.
...and that, ladies and gentlemen, is why I prefer point buy.
Because of a hypothetical situation in which odds are something like 1 to 100,000,000,000,000 against?
Personally, I make the most deluded man alive. A guy who thinks he's capable of anything, who thinks he's the most brilliant mind in the land, and who believes that all the ladies and most of the guys want him. Whenever he is bested in anything, I have him come up with some reason why the other guy cheated. In battle, I probably have him act cowardly but come in at the end to deliver coup de graces and claim some glory.
And I give him a sick puppy to take care of. So maybe the GM will take pity on me and not kill off the character, because if he dies, who will take care of the puppy?
Rather than have Zaiobe attack the PCs immediately following Kikonu's death, I had her reach out to telepathically to the rogue and offer an alliance against the rest of the group. The rogue successfully bluffed her into thinking the team-up was legit, but then told the rest of the group what was coming. However, the ambush is set up to coincide with the fight against the half-fiend in the basement, as the PCs have been having an easy time of things and are getting cocky.
It remains to be seen what will happen, but the combination of the half-fiend and Zaiobe might be too much for the group to handle, even if they know what's coming.
I haven't included any immortal NPCs yet. If I had a PC capable of achieving immortality in a game I ran, I'd totally take it, largely because I tend to jump my campaign forward at random intervals - in the 15 or so years I've been running my campaign setting, over 150 years of game time has passed.
If these are pure monster books, then why is it we have yet to see new material for monsters in these in a long time. I am hoping to see new feats for giants in this, or spells or weapons or something crunchy. Something us DMs can surprise PCs with and that makes giants filled with more variety.
The early Revisited books, like Dragons Revisited and Classic Monster Revisited, actually had new feats for either the monsters within or even for monsters with similar stats (like the same creature type or subtype, special attack, etc.)
I remember you, James, in another thread about how you wish there were more monster-friendly material. WotC did this with Savage Species and a few sprinklings of monster-friendly feats, prestige classes, spells, etc. spread thin in other books.
Why isn't Paizo devoting a few more pages to this line to throw in new monster feats, prestige classes, spells, etc.? It's the perfect spot to do it. It's not like these lines aren't popular. I feel the last several Revisiteds lost a great chance to add more material for monsters.
Unless I'm imagining things, I think just about every Revisited book has included monster feats, variants, and so on in their entries.
I had Zaiobe confront the PCs after they had rested up following a trip into Brinewall. They saw her flying toward them, but I made a point of telling them that her bow was not readied. She landed a bit away from them, put her hands out to show she was unarmed, then pointed to one of the PCs and held her hand out as if offering a handshake.
It didn't hurt that this was after the kami possessing Ameiko had started chattering, so the players were able to put together the clues to figure out that Zaiobe was there as potential help.
It also didn't hurt that my general GMing tendency is to start encounters where fighting is the only option with, "roll for initiative," so anytime I don't immediately jump to initiative rolls it's a big hint to the players that there's some talking to be done.
When it comes to setting bloat, the big example is the Forgotten Realms, but I'm not so sure that it was a problem of too much lore so much as it was a problem of too many big events.
If the Realms hadn't been constantly changing, I could see people having a lot less hate for that setting. While there would still be the massive amount of lore from Ed Greenwood and company, folks would still have been able to pick up the core setting and get up to speed. Instead, stuff like the Time of Troubles, the Tuigan invasion, the death of Azoun, the resurrection of Bhaal, et cetera, et cetera really emphasized that if you weren't buying the books you didn't know the setting. Basically, the Realms forced people into buying the lore by constantly updating the setting, and then folks who wanted to stay up to date wound up getting intimidated by the massive amount of lore. In theory, at least.
By comparison, Golarion is a huge setting with a lot of detail, but it's easy to ignore the bulk to the detail if you feel like it. You can get the campaign setting book and then ignore everything else and work just fine. Sure, some people might nitpick lore details, but overall if somebody says, "We're playing in Golarion," there's a common ground among everybody at the table - you don't have to specify which event has happened and so on.
I'm completely guessing, but I would bet there would be no problem with designing an adventure path in the toolset and running it for yourself and friends. Putting it up on Neverwinter Vault, on the other hand, is kind of like offering the adventure for free via a torrent, and that might be where the line is drawn.
How many Pathfinder gamers would leave Pathfinder because a new, shiny edition of 5E comes out?
This would be the main reason I think WotC is setting itself up to fail with their attempt to please everybody.
4th edition, by all reports, is a good game - not my thing, but good overall. Pathfinder is also a good game. The two games fill different niches and do it well.
While I and many others are keeping an eye on 5th edition, it has a huge hurdle to overcome in that it not only has to be a good game, but it has to be better than Pathfinder to get my money. I am simply not going to pay money for two games that fill the same niche.
With Captain Marvel (NOT @#$%^! SHAZAM), DC has bungled him pretty consistently for a couple decades now. I love the character, but I kind wish DC would keep their hands off of him and just reprint old stories. It's painful how badly the current creators miss the point of that character.
I definitely agree that the bad guys will all be monsters. I like the idea of an evil wizard with a pet dragon, but I'll need to find a race other than human for him. Maybe a drow? Those also have a connection to Norse mythology, though I'm not sure how close the Pathfinder drow is to the mythical dark elves.
As far as selling points go, I've received the email telling me that it's on, so it looks like I'm past the selling points and more into the actual preparation now. Working the math of the dice and probabilities into the game is a good idea. Too bad I'm not going with rolling for ability scores, because then I could bring out the old bell curve chart.
As for keeping things in the open, I almost never use a GM screen anyway, so that should be no problem.
-Using the elite array for ability scores.
-Having the PCs all be human unless they specifically ask to be something else.
-Using the four basic classes and the skills/feat lists from the Beginner Box.
-Using most of the Beginner Box rules to avoid having to spend time on stuff like attacks of opportunity.
-Ignoring PC death entirely. If you hit 0hp, you're unconscious. If everyone loses consciousness, something bad happens. I'd rather not risk killing a character and then have to spend time rolling up new PCs.
-Giving a level up every session or ever second session. Advancement will be fast, but I think leveling is a big draw for gamers.
I'm hoping to use the first day as a tutorial but also have the kids learn through an adventure. The evil wizard and his salt mines from my example come from my favorite intro adventure, "Escape from Zanzer's Dungeon" in the 1991 D&D boxed set. You start as some poor guy kidnapped by the wizard, then meet a bully in your cell. He's smuggled in some dice, so you learn the basics of dice probabilities, then you roll your ability scores when the bully tries to steal your gruel. Going on, you learn the basics of combat and select your class.
I'd like to go for something like that, possibly even using some of the Zanzer's Dungeon scenario. Since Pathfinder has skills where that iteration of D&D didn't, I can replace some of the combat with skill-based tutorials.
I'd like each session to run as a one-hour mini session, but also to have each adventure flow into the next one. So in session one the PCs might escape the evil wizard's dungeon, but in session two it turns out that the escape tunnel led into the lair of his pet dragon. Ideally, this will basically be a fast-paced mini adventure path.
It looks like this summer I will have a chance to teach a one-week course at a local elementary school called Pathfinder Fantasy Adventures. As the name suggests, it will basically be me running one-hour mini-sessions of Pathfinder with the goal of teaching problem-solving skills, strengthening basic math abilities, and exercising the imagination. This isn't just me trying to find an excuse to play more Pathfinder - I actually think there is educational merit in role-playing games.
I'm looking for ideas from anybody in terms of running the course. The class will consist of 5th and 6th graders, and the plan is currently to run a streamlined version of Pathfinder not because they wouldn't get the full rules but because I want to be able to save time. I expect to use some flip mats and counters for visual aids, and I'll probably be giving each student their own set of dice to keep after the course.
The big thing I'm hoping to do is focus more on problem-solving than on combat. There will definitely be combat, but I want to de-emphasize that where possible to avoid any potential problems with parents getting upset about their kids pretending to do violent things at school.
Has anyone seen something similar to this done before? If so, any suggestions on how to plan?
For those interested, here is the pitch I used for the course outline:
Long Description:
The Pathfinder role-playing game is a game in which players pretend to take the role of fantasy heroes similar to the protagonists from J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings novels or J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series. The players must work together to overcome monsters, traps, and obstacles on their way to a final goal. Typical goals include the recovery of a lost treasure, the rescue of a princess, and similar staples of fantasy literature.
In an educational environment, Pathfinder can teach children the importance of creativity and teamwork while exercising their imaginations and igniting an interest in both history and literature. The game is heavily rooted in many different mythologies, with creatures such as gorgons from Greek mythology, the chupacabra from Central American myth, and even literary creations such as the jabberwocky from Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There.
Additionally, the game uses several different kinds of polyhedral dice to determine the outcome of various actions. Players will need to learn about probability and statistics in order to figure out which actions have the best chance of success. Combining creativity, literary references, historical context, and mathematical skills, Pathfinder is an excellent educational tool.
Proposed Classroom Model: Four to six students will be placed in a group, where they will be walked through the basics of designing a hero for the coming adventure and introduced to the concept of role-playing. One instructor will serve as the “Game Master,” a referee-like individual who prepares the story, adjudicates actions, and explains the rules of the game when necessary. The students will then be presented with the story, which will involve an opening conflict, several obstacles, and a conclusion where they receive rewards for their successes. Several adventures can be linked together into a “campaign,” during which the students will be able to develop their imaginary heroes in different ways.
Sample Scenario: The heroes wake up in a dungeon after having been kidnapped by an evil wizard. The wizard plans on forcing them to work in his salt mines as slaves. Joining together, the heroes will have to trick their jailer into letting them out of their cell, sneak past the wizard's pet monsters, and ultimately defeat the evil wizard himself in order to earn their freedom. They cannot pass these tests individually – they will need to work together as a group and use their different skills in order to escape.
Educational Value: The Pathfinder role-playing game provides three tiers of educational value:
1) The game enforces the importance of teamwork, cooperation, and group problem solving,
2) The scenarios are rooted in classic literature and ancient mythology, providing many opportunities for further reading,
3) The game's mechanics rely on arithmetic and statistics, allowing those who take the time to learn about the math behind the game to gain an advantage.
Most importantly, the Pathfinder role-playing game allows students to have fun and be creative. They win or lose as a group, and as long as everybody has fun while learning, everybody wins.
As a fan of Paizo, it's somewhat comforting to know that the company endured those hard times and came out stronger. Lots of companies in this industry tend to fall apart at that kind of adversity.
As somebody who has come close to a breakdown of my own recently over money troubles, it's also good to know that such hurdles can be overcome.
The "Dungeon Bastard" series on YouTube is a pretty funny little series with more D&D references than you can shake a 10-foot pole at. And a recent episode is basically a surprise Beginner Box commercial: Voila.
I have never played Mass Effect, though it is on my "to play" list down the line. I've vaguely familiar with the series because it is one of my best friend's few links to sanity and because I've kept an eye on Bioware's games since Baldur's Gate II. And I've got to say, the ending and reactions to it are an interesting trainwreck to watch. It doesn't make me not want to play the games - it just intrigues me.
My initial reaction to hearing about the ending is that it's not worse than the ending to Neverwinter Nights 2, although I'm not totally sure that's true anymore. As bad as the Neverwinter Nights 2 ending is, it doesn't invalidate anything else in the game, and it ties up most of the loose ends. If you ignore one part of that ending, you get a pretty decent finish. You also get to complete the actual plot through gameplay. And there's the bonus that even with the ending, the story's continuation, Mask of the Betrayer, is one of the best RPG stories out there.
Mass Effect 3 doesn't seem to have as big a lame cop-out as Neverwinter Nights 2, but it does seem to screw with the story more and doesn't have the benefit of a nifty expansion pack coming out down the line to fix things. On the bright side, it does seem that some of the damage can be mitigated if Bioware puts some effort into their extended edition. One thing that I think they probably could do that would appease a lot of fans is to add an epilogue of some sort that shows the long-term effects of the choices you've made. Storytelling-wise, I think a narrator telling you how so and so ended up is a bit cheesy, but it's a good way to really drive home the impact players had on the setting.
All of this is just random musings on my part. I'm thankfully disconnected from the trainwreck, and by the time I get to playing Mass Effect I expect that there will be an ultimate edition or something that includes an attempted fix at the ending. The reactions to this ending, though, are endlessly fascinating, and I'm as intrigued to watch this unfold as I am sorry to the fans who feel like the rug has been pulled out from under them.
I would think it would help Pathfinder if anything. It would mean that D&D players would have reason to pick up Paizo products. Sure, if there's a lot of D&D products that do the same stuff Pathfinder does, it might be a problem, but it seems to me that WotC is focused more on rules while Paizo seems to put a lot more effort into flavor and adventures.
I hope that 5th edition does well for them, but my reaction to their early announcement is that they're setting themselves up for failure with their stated goals. They seem to want to make something that will please everyone, and I can say right now that won't happen.
I would hazard a guess that the references to toy shops and policemen have ended up on the cutting floor. If you doubt it's there, read the book. :-)
And don't forget the origin of the game of golf!
I just want the "That's what Bilbo Baggins hates" song in there. And I hope they manage to keep my favorite Tolkien line of all time: "Also, eagles aren't forks!"
Crimson Jester wrote:
I have but any version of the hobbit from the second printing on has such references removed.
Probably banished from the text along with the original ending of the riddle contest, which had Gollum being a real sport about the riddle contest and intending to peacefully give Bilbo his precious on the way out.
I have actually heard from a couple of different sources that the second movie will actually be an "in-between" story that bridges the gap between The Hobbit and LOTR. Nothing official, but a lot of the movie mags are reporting this.
I've heard this, and I hope it's not true. I just don't see why a fill-in story is needed. I guess maybe if somebody got hold of Tolkien's notes regarding his original plans for a Hobbit sequel (I think it was something along the lines of Bilbo going broke and needing to go adventuring again), it might be interesting, but otherwise I'd rather just keep it to The Hobbit plus The Lord of the Rings.
I can't agree. Yes, having the whole second movie take place after Smaug's death would indeed require expansion. Too much of it. The second movie would risk getting boring.
I think it would depend on the pacing. There was a good amount of time between Smaug's death and the eventual battle, and there was a lot of character conflict between Bilbo and the dwarves during that time. It would be tough to get right, but that's why these guys get paid millions.
Quote:
I think the climax of the first movie should be Bilbo fighting the spiders. Then the movie could end with the elves taking the dwarves prisoner, thus providing a cliffhanger for the second movie.
When it comes to feature films, I generally dislike cliffhangers. I don't like paying for a movie ticket and then not having an ending. I don't mind a sequel, but I'd rather have the movie I'm watching end satisfactorily enough that I don't walk away feeling like I paid for a steak dinner and was only given an appetizer.
Anyone wants to guess what they are gonna change compared to the books? My money is on how Smaug gets killed (oh and spoilers ... I guess).
Well since they are splitting it into 2 movies, good chance we won't know how he gets killed until The Hobbit: There and back again opens on Dec. 13, 2013.
If I was going to remake The Hobbit in two movies, I think I'd probably end the film with Smaug's death, then have the second movie be the buildup to the Battle of the Five Armies, ending with the battle and then Bilbo's journey back home. That would require a lot of expansion in terms of taking events that were glossed over in a few sentences and fleshing them out into longer scenes, but I think that would be the necessary way to do it. Having Smaug and the Battle of the Five Armies in the same movie seems to me like it would be repeating one of the mistakes of Return of the King - the audience would assume the movie was over, be getting ready to get up and go home, only to find out that the film still has another 30-60 minutes in it.
Among the many, many problems that the United States faces, I find it quite a shame that people associate Fox News with political conservatism. That's the equivalent of associating the Westboro Baptist Church with Christianity.
I'm skeptical of the game's chances of success as well as my chances of buying and playing it. However, I also never would have guessed that the Pathfinder RPG could have reached the level of success it's at, so I'm willing to bet that the folks behind this know their business better than I do.
I'd personally prefer a Baldur's Gate-style of single player game, maybe even based on one of the existing adventure paths, but it seems that such games aren't as popular or profitable as they used to be.
I hope the game is successful, as it would mean a lot of new recognition of the Pathfinder brand and setting. If it keeps to the level of quality that Paizo has become known for, then I'm sure it will be a lot of fun. I'm also thankful that you guys started another company for this endeavor, so if it does fall apart it won't have as much of a direct effect on the well-being of the RPG line.
My campaign notes usually have a character listed at level 1 commoner if they're adolescent or younger, level 3 for a typical NPC who's been around for a while doing his thing, and level 5 for the tough, experienced guys who have seen their fair share of hardship.
The rules standardization that Sean talked about in his rant serves to make the GM beholden to the rules as much as the players. There is now an expectation on the part of the players that the GM not just run the game well, but also run it correctly. This means following the letter of the rules. So, if I want to exclude something like AOOs from my game, it needs to be officially excluded somehow.
My games usually have a one-page list of house rules that make mention of rules I'm not using (encumbrance, critical hit confirmation rolls, etc.). Outside of sometimes explaining to a curious player why I made that change, it's never been a problem. I imagine that stripping out attacks of opportunity would be similarly easy, although maybe I have more easygoing players than most.
I'd rather Pathfinder remain one game rather than splitting the line into Pathfinder and Pathfinder Lite.
I would like to see the current version of Pathfinder simplified and clarified at some point. Hopefully, the feedback about what worked and what didn't work with the Beginner Box will be taken into consideration when it comes time to do a 2nd edition of Pathfinder. Not that I'm clamoring for a new edition, but I'm sure that someone at Paizo is taking notes, and I hope the feedback from the Beginner Box (not just immediate feedback, but stuff that comes up after 2-3 years of various audiences playing) will all get taken into consideration down the road.
To be completely fair, WotC's playtest of 4E might have been, at the time, the biggest beta/playtest of a gaming system ever. If not, it certainly ranks up there. I know a lot of people who were asked to playtest it and I'm sure I would have as well if I wasn't at the end of a few year period of being burned out on gaming.
(Granted, it doesn't seem like the feedback of the people I know made much of a dent, and I don't know if that's because they were outliers or because WotC decided they weren't going to start again from scratch.)
Pathfinder's later wide-open beta, it wasn't, true, but in its time it was a pretty substantial playtest.
Oh, I'm certainly not bashing WotC for the way they playtested 4th edition D&D. I knew about as much about 4th edition as I did 3rd edition prior to it coming out. I'm just saying that in a hypothetical Pathfinder 2e, the tendency of Paizo to do an open playtest is a huge advantage because it allows people to get a more complete idea of what the system will look like.
I dunno about a TON more areas. WotC's guiding principle seemed to be that if someone had an idea that could be expressed in a complete sentence or more, they would pump out a 256 pg book on the subject. Pathfinder seems to be a bit more selective.
I believe either James Jacobs or Eric Mona posted a wishlist of things they'd like to do books on in the future, and while not huge it was sizable enough to carry the game for a few more years as long as they remain with the model of two rulebooks plus a monster book per year, give or take. And should any new supplements prove popular, they could easily spawn more expansions. Should an epic-level book sell well, for instance, there's no reason to believe that there wouldn't be some followup.
Quote:
And let's tell the truth and shame the devil...UM and UC aren't anywhere near as good as the APG.
I agree with this, but I also don't think that Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat were bad, either. I think it's more a case of the Advanced Player's Guide being truly excellent and hard to top. But in terms of rulebook stuff, there's also items like the GameMastery Guide, which was very useful and well-done and whose format could be cribbed from for further books. Not everything needs to be extremely rules-intensive like the three player's option books.
KaeYoss wrote:
I think that when PFRPG 2e comes along, it will be like a new edition:
Given the history of the game, a new edition doesn't necessarily mean incompatibility. oD&D, basic D&D, and both editions of AD&D are all pretty compatible with one another. 3rd and 4th edition are the two outliers in that area, but I don't think it's a given that a new edition of Pathfinder would want to go that way and rebuild the system from the ground up. Sure, certain items would have to change dramatically (such as the Stealth rules, which are already being tweaked), but the system as it stands now is solid. There are areas where options can be added and clunky rules can be streamlined, of course, but no areas that I see that scream out a desperate need for an overhaul.
Of course, if Paizo for some reason decides that they want to part ways with the OGL and do their own thing, then I could see the game changing dramatically. But barring a situation like that, I think they would be better served by providing revision rather than an overhaul. Pathfinder doesn't have the same brand recognition as D&D, and I don't think it would weather a dramatic change to the rules as well as 4th edition did.
]I don't think they'll do another "revision"-type edition that only does fine-tuning. I'd say that if they go and make a new edition, they'll go the whole nine yards and make the fixes they think the game needs, even if the rules aren't compatible any more. [/QUOTE wrote:
I guess my question would be: where does the game really need a big overhaul? I can see combat needing some work, but the basics of class structure, the skill system, et cetera all feel pretty solid to me. Sure, I'm not a game designer and maybe lack an imagination when it comes to changing rules around, but unless there is a real need to tear apart the rules and start over, I don't see why a future Pathfinder edition would need to jettison a large chunk of what is already there.
Back to the actual topic of the thread, if you're right and a new Pathfinder edition would be a dramatic change, that would probably mean a longer development time and more time with the current edition. And given Paizo's trend of doing open playtests with their rules, we wouldn't be left guessing about potential changes nearly as much as we were in the buildup to 4th edition D&D.
I think magic items are one of those areas where storytelling and gameplay get into a bit of a conflict. From a storytelling aspect, yes I prefer magic items being rare. From a gameplay standpoint, my players like getting magic items almost as much as they like XP, and I tend to give out items as a reward (although something like a robe of useful items is preferable to an amulet of natural armor in most cases).
I also don't think that magic should necessarily be rare by default. Yeah, I like games where high-level mages are rare and magic items aren't commonly sold in stores. At the same time, I like the ability for a local mason to hire a mid-level wizard to help him build a structure or for a farmer to have a magic plow that has been passed down for generations. I like reminders that the setting is magic and that people know magic exists, even if it's not commonplace.
All that said, I will agree that the rules should not automatically figure magic items into the equation in order to grant some flexibility for those who have different preferences. I think Pathfinder takes a step in the right direction by providing brief guidelines for low- and high-magic games and suggesting that challenges be adjusted appropriately, although more specific guidelines would always be welcome.
Unless the design goals change, I imagine that any new edition of Pathfinder would have backwards compatibility as one of the goals of the system. I imagine playing 1st edition rules with these theoretical second edition modules would be about as easy as playing 3.5 rules with current modules - some conversion issues, but overall pretty easy to handle.
Of course, the hypotheticals don't really matter since there's no reason to believe a new edition is on the immediate horizon. Pathfinder has a slower release of rules than D&D, meaning that there's still a ton of area to expand for the next few years. Moreover, it would be pretty foolish of Paizo to be releasing a high-quality basic set if they had secret plans for a new edition in the foreseeable future.
Superman was stupid, overly wordy, and proof that a penciller, even a great one like George Perez, probably shouldn't be writing comic books.
In all fairness, Perez did much of the scripting for the post-Crisis Wonder Woman, and his work is generally considered a high point for that character.
Of course, that was almost 30 years ago and involving a character who badly needed a revamp. Whether Perez still has that magic is debatable, and the need for Superman to get rebooted is open to much debate.
That's the original outline for what was to be the NWN campaign. Development times and legal difficulties with Interplay at the time cut thigns short and forced some changes. Personally, I think the original outline sounds better than what we got.
Yes, of course. It's a decent module with some fun moments and decent NPCs. The ending is a bit wonky and there's a character whose name sounds like "Man Titties," but it's still worth $10.
Visually, the character models look much better in NWN2 (Aleron - I've got to disagree with you: elves looked anorexic and had unrealistic... er... proportions... in NWN 1; also the phenotypes were kind of rediculous)
The girth slider that was added in as part of a patch helps the anorexic elves thing a bit. Not much, but a bit.
And elves in D&D/Pathfinder are anorexic anyway. Especially in Pathfinder, when they can be 6' or taller but under 120 lbs. The only way I can justify elven proportions in D&D and Pathfinder without having them all look super skinny is to theorize that their bone structure is bird-like and less dense than other humanoids.
Quote:
Both the OCs were slow and grinding (though NWN2 got better as it went along)
NWN2 could really have used the ability to skip the first act like NWN1 had. If people could start the game after Old Owl Well, then there would be fewer complaints about the campaign.
Quote:
NWN's expansions Shadows of Undrentide and Hordes of the Underdark were actually a significant an improvement over the OC, as was Mask (I never played Storms of Zehir).
Storm of Zehir is different. If you want a story-heavy campaign with lots of NPC interaction, it's a bad campaign for that. If you prefer less dialogue and more explanation, it's decent. It's also got some good toolset innovations.
Ossian Studios put out a semi-official addition, Mask of the Betrayer, which was also pretty good but which seems to no longer be for sale.
Quote:
(ALSO: MotB should have had options to continue the romance from the OC, blast it all!
I've heard that MotB wasn't originally intended to be a sequel to the original campaign, but was eventually forced to be a sequel because of the lackluster ending of its predecessor.
Quote:
Also, the OC for NWN2 should have had more romance options... I mean, why would a CN gnome illusionist just as crazy as Grobnar NOT go for the gnome, but the LG human paladin instead? Or why would Neeska be off the menu? Bah! Fantasy racism! :P :D)
If you read some subtext into your dialogue with Neeshka, I think it actually plays as a better romance than Elanee's. Neverwinter Vault also has a ton of fan-created romance mods out there to satisfy just about anybody.
Basically, what Im seeing in this is 'My work is too important to reboot, but yours isnt.'
I think it has more to do with the sales numbers of Green Lantern and Batman, which are DC's cash cows. They probably don't want to tinker too much with the few books they have that are regularly topping the sales charts.
Dunno if 5th edition D&D is anywhere close or not, but I would hope for the sake of those who like 4th edition D&D that it is an evolution of that system and not an attempt to recapture the old guard.
One of the nice things about the current market is that there are two big fantasy RPGs that each have their merits but appeal to different audiences (although I'm sure there's a good amount of crossover appeal as well). And at this point, even if a new edition of D&D went back to the style and gameplay feel of 3rd edition, it wouldn't be enough to lure me away from Pathfinder unless it was significantly better. Even if Paizo suddenly lost their marbles and created a 2nd edition of Pathfinder that was totally abysmal in terms of quality, I wouldn't automatically hop back to D&D, because all the old Pathfinder stuff is still there and playable.
I went from basic D&D to 2nd edition AD&D because I saw the latter as an improvement. I went from AD&D to 3rd edition D&D because the latter was an improvement. When 4th edition came out, I saw that it wasn't for me and whiled away my time with 3rd edition under Pathfinder came along and was a marked improvement. I'm not going to jump to a new edition of anything unless it's a lot better than what I'm playing right now or unless it fills a new niche. Given that, I'd actually be more likely to try out a 5th edition D&D if it continued being a significantly different experience rather than if it tried to muscle in on what is now Pathfinder's territory.
Whatever is going on at WotC or Paizo, I hope each one continues doing their thing. Let 3rd edition be the fork in the road, and let's see where each path takes the two top RPGs in the industry.
The problem with the Joker could easily be managed by either having him avoid capture more often (escaping when his plans have been foiled or getting an uncertain death scene) or by toning down his crimes. It used to be that the Joker, while dangerous and maniacal, didn't have to murder hundreds of people every time he got out. After The Killing Joke and The Dark Knight Returns, DC fell into a routine where they had to try to have the Joker one-up his last crime every outing, which makes him no longer shocking but really just grotesque.
An even bigger problem with the joker is that everybody around him becomes immediately less competent just to make him look good. He's the closest thing to a Mary Sue that I've ever seen a villain be, and it's obnoxious. Batman gets dumber, flocks of innocent people line up to let him murder them without resistance, and the DC justice system fails to realize anything remotely resembling the definition of not guilt by way of insanity.
Posts