Christopher LaHaise's page

I really don't understand those people who complain about guns in a fantasy setting. Fantasy means 'magic' and such exists in the setting, it doesn't mean 'middle ages but without technology'. Steampunk is fantasy, and there's guns. There's 'urban fantasy' which is set in a more modern period. There's historical fantasy.

Gunpowder and the advance of technology happens, even in 'fantasy' settings. Worlds evolve, and there should be nothing wrong with introducing gunpowder or any other advancements in society that we've seen.

Hell, if you're going with 'middle ages', hit some history books or the web, and look at what kind of technology existed in different parts of the world - you'll be surprised at what you can find.

The one thing that gets me is this: Why is the Shadowdancer the only thing in Pathfinder which can suffer XP / level loss? This makes no sense, considering that Pathfinder strives to ensure everyone, at all times, remains the same level.

I can see a temporary negative level perhaps (a month, maybe?) but a permanent level loss seems a bit much.

When to 'cheat'. That's certainly a matter of opinion, since my idea usual opinion is 'don't'. Even as a GM.

In a nutshell, to keep costs down. All of the artwork in the book is either stock art or Creative Commons/GNU. We didn't commission any original artwork for the book, instead relying on freely available (and cheap!)stock art and the CC/GNU to fill out the project.

You don't have to tell me. For the game I'm publishing, I easily shelled out $500+ just on artists alone. We're doing a softcover print run, and the cost for artists, layout, and then the print job will push us close to five grand or more, just for the 500 books. So, yeah, I can see wanting to shave off some costs by hitting the CC/GNU. I'd actually considered doing the same to get some pictures for my game, but what I needed is pretty specific, and I wasn't sure I could find it in the time frame I needed.

Anyway, mistakes happen.

It's not the type of product I'm interested in, but I'd hate to see it derailed because of a misunderstanding.

It's this kind of level-headedness that gives me faith in the human race at times. :)

Uh-huh. I smell hasty backpedaling here.

I don't. I'm actually willing to accept this, since he's been willing to talk to Shawntae (who I know). This can easily be an honest mistake, and I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until I get more information. Innocent until proven guilty, you know.

Which is exactly why I've not blasted the guys doing this game. :)

Being a friend of at least two of the artists (and having just recently paid one of them to do artwork for my game) who have artwork in the book, I just heard about this myself. It sounds like it was an honest mistake (some fan posting the artist's work elsewhere without proper permissions and notations), so I'm not about to blast you for that.

The concept behind the book sounds interesting -- I may actually get it for my friend's Pathfinder game once this whole issue is settled, but my big question is: if you liked the artwork so much, why didn't you hire the artists to do art specifically for your book?

So, finished Easy with all the magic types, I'm finished Cleric on normal, and going through Necromancer on Normal. Oh, the swearing my wife heard when I was playing the Cleric though... that was incredibly frustrating!

I noticed that when you win a card, you automatically have that card assigned to your next game. And you keep that card, I think, until you've won a game with it in your pool. I might be wrong however, but I noticed that I wasn't getting my Fire Elemental when I was going up against myself... again, and again, and again, and...

I had Duels of the Planeswalkers (and the other expansions for the Magic computer game), and while Sealed Deck was interesting, I was more of a deck-builder. I loved designing decks, handing them to the computer, then playing against them with other self-designed decks, trying different themes and strategies. (Oh, how I wish that game line was still supported!)

Different people, different preferences... I can respect that. :)

I've gone through everything in the campaign mode on Easy, and I've developed a number of strategies, but I won't be able to really say much about them until I'm in Normal mode. We'll see. :) Besides that, I still stand by my review (4/5 stars), and still think this is a good time-killing game.

I keep hoping something will unlock if I go far enough. ;)

Hi, I am one of the designers of Spectromancer and wanted to post a few words on this game.

I would also like to mention, since it is a topic in this thread and one on other forums I have been involved with - there is no deck construction. I like deck construction (I am kind of obligated to), but I also like games that don't have deck construction - like Sealed deck Magic, or Bridge. In these games players must sometimes play out of their comfort zone to do well - they must figure out how to use what they have been given to the fullest.

Wow. :) Nice to finally get a chance to talk to you. I'm honoured.

Fair enough, and I can understand where you're coming from - but for some of my friends (and admittedly, myself), deck-construction is a big part of the draw for us. Perhaps, somewhere down the line, Spectromancer could have 'constructive' play, and the normal 'sealed' play, giving people an opportunity to try the game in either style, as per their preferences.

I've tried 'normal' difficulty, and... gah, that's actually pretty hard with the normal style of play. Going up against the archmage in duel mode is frighteningly hard, and while I do like a challenge, I don't like the 'odds' that spring up when I'm trying to play. I like a sense that my tactics and the decisions I made going in play a lot more into my chances of victory than a random draw and what I can do with what I have.

Don't get me wrong, I've been able to beat my opponents with cards which I'd normally overlook, but I notice that I've got a few 'standard' tactics that I use (phoenix + fire 10+ being a staple, or meditating to speed up to getting elementals, then buffing said elementals).

In campaign mode, deck construction isn't a big factor until the middle/end game, when there's enough variety that the cards you're accustomed to start to 'disappear', replaced with other cards you've collected. That is where the frustration sets in -- I'll get Armageddon in Fire - when I have no interest in it. Or my Air Elemental vanishes to be replaced with that 'nuke one creature' spell. Yes, these spells are nifty, but the benefits from the elementals interests me much more (increased mana gain is awesome).

I can see stepping away from Magic (and such) by limiting the randomness and deck design, but that intellectual aspect of the game was a big draw for it, and the play was just icing on that cake. Admittedly, Spectromancer doesn't have a huge amount of cards for design, but there's enough to make personal styles of play, I think. Some people like the 'big boom' of Fire, while others like the increase damage / mana gain of the elementals, orcs, and minotaurs (as an example). Personal tastes, I guess.

Still. Nice game, and I think it was worth the money I put into it. Once my friends can get over (we're in a bus strike right now, zero transportation in this city... :p), I'm looking forward to showing them the game and playing hot-seat to actually play against one another.

Kudos. :)

Oh, one last thing while I remember it: Those undead dudes should probably not sacrifice their jar first turn. Really. They shouldn't do it at all. ;) I was really shocked when it happened, and was like 'err, sure, give me the easy win'. ;)

Okay, I've tried online duelling, and I've even tried the one-on-one against the AI. I'm definitely going to have to back my earlier assessment, which is to say: random cards doesn't work. I've gone into a few games, staring at my cards, and not finding any synergy (such as, for example, a complete lack of 'heal creature' or 'heal self' cards).

Seriously, the idea behind the game works, but the randomness of what you get to use doesn't. If a used card 'vanished' to be replaced by another card of that element type, that might be something, because then you could cycle to get what you want (hell, even toss in a 'dump card', which could be used once per turn to replace it with something else), but I still prefer the idea of 'build your own', which allows you to select what cards you'll be using in a duel.

I didn't even bother with the demo, I picked up the full version just from what little I heard about it. I generally trust Paizo's judgment in this kind of thing, and Richard Garfield didn't go wrong when he first made Magic.

I posted my review (4/5) for it, and my only quibble is the randomness of what you get to use for any given duel. If this game allowed 'deck building', I'd have given it a 5/5. I'd have been pleased as punch if you were given the option of making a 'deck' of 4 cards for each Element, and could go into each duel with that 'deck'. Once you get a new card you like, swap out an old one for a new one.

I see cards I use consistently, and a few I ignore completely because they don't fit my style of play. Keeping this completely random makes some encounters in Campaign mode especially annoying, and you have to 'shuffle' to get a combination you can use. That, I think, detracts from the game.

Online play, I think, would fall into the same boat (admittedly, I've not tried this yet). Player versus Player becomes a combination of skill, and a huge bit of luck when it comes to the draw. Did you get cards which play off each other well? Did you get things which actually hinder each other?

So far, I'm okay with the game, but I'll like it much more if a future version allows 'deck design'. Beyond that (okay, I admit, there's also a few typo and gender-pronoun mix-ups in campaign mode), good game.

Death to 4.0, wheres the roleplaying, why wouldnt we all just go out an play warcraft! keep supporting the new 3.5-3.75 no need to invest in another wizard money hungry scheme

Uh-huh.

The role-playing is what the players and game master make of it. In fact, from what I've seen, players actually get XP for role-playing through social scenes and non-combat scenes. About time, actually.

Seriously, are you actually paying attention to the information coming out for 4E, or are you just jumping on the Wizard-Bashing bandwagon.

I hope 4E works well for WotC, just like I hope Pathfinder works well for Paizo. I don't think either company deserves to get slammed.

Now, Games Workshop, on the other hand... but then I have a legitimate beef with them.

Thank you very much, as a role-player and DM of 14 years I was NOT excited about 4th edition. My 500+ dollar library of 3.5 manuals would have been a waste of my money. As for the pathfinder rpg it looks like it could be the best tabletop rpg release since 3.0.

Thanks again.

Out of curiosity, as I've been a GM for 20 years -- what about your 1E or 2E books? I could, in theory, say the same thing about my 1E World of Darkness books, or my 1E Shadowrun books, or my 3E Call of Cthulhu books.

Simply put, it makes sense for the company to upgrade their games when times and playing styles change. There were concepts I liked about earlier versions of all these games, but the next generation cleaned up a number of things I didn't like.

1E D&D: Elves, Dwarves, and Halflings are a 'Class', not a 'Race'.

1E AD&D: Demi-Humans are a race. However, there are no 'Skills' par se (until way, way later when Proficiencies came out), Multi-Classing exists only for demi-humans, and humans can 'dual class'. Monsters can not have a Class at all, and races are limited in what levels they can take in certain Classes. Anyone in a Class is pretty much the same as anyone else in a Class.

2E AD&D: Skills exist as Non-Weapon Proficiencies. The 'Complete X Books' come out, allowing you to use 'Kits' to perform minor tweaks to the Classes. Specialized Mages exist, and Rogue Abilities can be assigned and strengthened individually, rather than having them all creep up at a snail's pace. Attribute requirements for Race and Class removed. Level limits for Class by Race removed.

3E: 'Kits' become Prestige Classes. Rogue Abilities moved to Skills for the most part. Skills fully integrated into the game. Monsters can now have Classes and progress.

Of course, making a character in 3.5 takes bloody forever, and involves an inordinate amount of number crunching. From what I've seen of Pathfinder, they've tried to limit some of that, and 4E is doing the same thing.

Personally, if it takes more than 5 minutes to make a character or an NPC, there's something seriously wrong.

I'm sure that 4E will be a decent game, but truth is they need to take the D&D title off of the product. This is no longer D&D, but more akin to EVERQUEST, WORLD OF WARCRAFT, or any other fantasy MMORPG out there with limited scope and forced roles. Why does a paladin have to be a Divine Defender? Why do I need to fall into a role at all? I feel that these clique-like roles are going to be more limiting to the development of good role-play than character alignments ever were.

I'm going to have to disagree with you. WotC can call anything they wish 'D&D', and it would be in their right to. The difference between 3.5 D&D and pre-1st Edition is astounding, and I know people who used to play 1E who refuse to play 3.5E because 'it isn't Dungeons and Dragons'. I'm looking forward to 4E, because it has a lot less book-keeping than 3.5 does.

That being said, I've been going through the Pathfinder RPG, and I'm finding it quite interesting. I'm a touch disappointed that a few of the things my 3.5 character had doesn't quite fit into Pathfinder (yet), but hopefully it will come in time. (Like, for example, Tieflings, or players using Book of Nine Swords)

As a charter subscriber, I have continued to be entranced and amazed by the Pathfinder line. These are STORIES! This is what Role-playing is about!

The Pathfinder line is pretty cool, yes. I will agree with you here. As to what role-playing is about? Different people have different needs. For me, a deep story is of little interest. I'm more interested in world exploration, seeing what exists and deciding how I want to interact with it.

= David

I'm looking forward to seeing where this goes, and also interested in the 4E conversion someone will undoubtedly do. Heck, if they release a 4E version of Pathfinder to go side-by-side with 3.5, I'll probably get it.

I just have to try this now.
Snork.
Ha! Snorks are immune!

Currently, the only companion product we've announced is Kill Doctor Lucky... And His Little Dog, Too, an expansion which includes the dog variant rules from the special edition plus a couple of other variants using the dog.

What's the odds we'll see Craigdarroch? I loved the expansion -- being Canadian -- and would like to see the larger board. The spite tokens were a nice touch, I must say, and the scotty dog's fun to use.